Month: June 2019

Starring: Himesh Patel (EastEnders), Lily James (Baby Driver), Kate McKinnon (Ghostbusters), Ed Sheeran (Games of Thrones), Joel Fry (Paddington 2)

Director: Danny Boyle (127 Hours)

Writer: Richard Curtis (Notting Hill)

Runtime: 1 hour 56 minutes

Release Date: 28^th June (US, UK)

A movie directed by Danny Boyle, written by Richard Curtis, and featuring the music of The Beatles? If this film were any more British, you’d probably have to crown it king or something. Those credentials would be enough to sell many film fans sight unseen, but Yesterday’s premise of a musician who is the only one in the world who remembers the legendary Liverpudlian band that makes this team-up that much more special. Unfortunately, whilst there are individual elements of Yesterday that shine, the final product is a cinematic trifle with conflicting flavours.

Yesterday wastes no time in getting to its killer hook, but it’s in so much of a rush it forgets to satisfactorily establish its main players. It’s plainly obvious from even the opening scenes that the film has been heavily trimmed in the edit, with transitions between beats often feeling abrupt, along entire scenes and even characters featured in the marketing being nowhere to be seen. The individual pieces are fine enough, but it doesn’t help make the story flow in a natural and satisfactory way. Additionally, once you take away its unique selling point, this is a little more than a standard rags-to-riches music industry story. In a landscape currently overcrowded with films like Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocketman to name a few, there’s little other than its cute fantastical twist to set it apart.

Luckily, what the film lacks in storytelling it makes up for with humour and heart. There’s thankfully no attempt to explain how or why The Beatles (and several other mainstays of pop culture) have been suddenly wiped from existence, and it’s a gag that manages to keep evolving every time it about to get stale. It also takes its fair share of jabs at the music industry and British culture in general, some of which are expected whilst others are hilarious gag marathons. When the film decides to get sentimental, there’s a lot of the usual tugs at heartstrings Curtis is known for, and as tired as they are they’re still surprisingly effective. However, there is one reveal towards the end that I expect will floor certain people, which I won’t dare spoil here.

If nothing else, Yesterday should serve as a starmaking turn for lead Himesh Patel, who shines in the lead role of Jack Malik. His befuddled British everyman charm brings to mind the best parts of early Hugh Grant, but he gives them a modern cynical edge that works equally for both comedy and drama. Lily James is as charming as ever and has fantastic chemistry with Patel, though her character feels a little underwritten at points and their romance often comes off as contrived. Kate McKinnon also feels neglected as conniving manager Debra Hammer, delivering a performance that neither lets her be her usual unhinged self nor shows us a new dramatic side; she’s just the expected asshole music exec with little requirement for McKinnon’s idiosyncratic talents. Surprisingly, the two most enjoyable performances come from Joel Fry as Malik’s dimwitted roadie Rocky, and Ed Sheeran playing himself. Sheeran is by no means a great actor, but his reserved and matter-of fact performance often delivers quietly comedic gold, and his willingness to lampoon his own persona and career adds a needed layer of self-deprecation.

From a filmmaking perspective, Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis are actually very different when you think about it. Whilst Boyle loves to experiment with genre and technique, rarely delivering an expected product, Curtis is usually quite happy with the basics whilst letting the writing and actors take focus. These two styles sometimes blend brilliantly in Yesterday, whilst at other points they fail to mesh. There’s a lot of visual flair like gaudy scene transitions and constantly varying lighting and colour grading, which often clashes with the conventional content of most scenes and lacks motivation. For example: when Malik and Rocky first meet in the story, there’s a quick scene establishing their friendship whilst walking through a music festival. So far, so basic. But for some reason, this basic character exposition scene has been entirely shot at an extreme Dutch angle for no real reason. Nothing said is eerie or odd, nothing fantastic is going on screen. It’s just two guys walking and talking about their lives. Why does this scene need to be shot this way, other than to show off?

Now for a movie featuring extensive covers of classic Beatles tracks, you’d hope the filmmakers would do something really special with the material. The result is respectful and occasionally daring, but is mostly pretty unremarkable. There’s a few tracks that have been modernised in a cool way, but otherwise they don’t sound that distinct from any average bloke strumming them on their own guitar. None of them particularly ruin the song, but very few manage to stand out either, and for a movie about music that’s a big letdown. The film doesn’t do a great job of weaving them into the narrative either, settling to do either the expected (playing “Back to the USSR” when they go to Russia, for example) or just throwing in a song somewhere because it’s recognisable. The plot does make the point that Malik doesn’t fully understand the context of many of the songs, but it’s hardly an excuse to just throw songs in without proper motivation.

Yesterday shows so much potential to be fun and joyous when moments are taken in isolation, but as a whole the experience is jumbled hodgepodge. The humour is spot-on, the actors give it their all, and even if the covers aren’t spectacular it’s still The Beatles, but it just never adds up to something greater than the sum of its parts. Ultimately, the film feels like yet another victim of post-production meddling, yet from the final product it’s actually hard to pinpoint what was the source of the disruption. If I had to guess, I’d say it comes to down to Boyle and Curtis’ styles not meshing, and I think the film might have ended up feeling more cohesive if it fully belonged to one filmmaker or the other. If the premise has you sold or you’re a Boyle/Curtis completionist, I can’t say you’ll have a bad time. For everyone else, maybe it’s best to just let it be, at least until the home release.

FINAL VERDICT: 6.5/10

Starring: Aubrey Plaza (Safety Not Guaranteed), Gabriel Bateman (Lights Out), Brian Tyree Henry (Widows), Tim Matheson (The West Wing), Mark Hamill (Star Wars: The Last Jedi)

Director: Lars Klevberg (Polaroid)

Writer: Tyler Burton Smith (Quantum Break)

Runtime: 1 hour 30 minutes

Release Date: 21^st June (US, UK)

The original Child’s Play and the Chucky series as a whole is a fascinating little piece of horror history, representing one of the weirdest and more idiosyncratic franchises the genre has ever produced. Evolving from a simple but well-executed killer doll story into a sprawling saga that varies wildly in tone, those movies are still going strong to this day still under the wing of creator Don Mancini, with not only more sequels but a television series and a potential crossover with A Nightmare on Elm Street actively in the works. However, because Mancini doesn’t actually own the rights to the original film, the folks over at MGM have been able to remake it themselves without even his express permission; I’ll let you guess how he feels about that. That lack of respect from the outset is an immediate demerit for this new incarnation, so it has a real uphill battle in proving it has a right to exist. But despite itself, Child’s Play ends up being a solid little horror/comedy on its own terms, delivering more of an alternative take on the original rather than an attempt to supplant it.

Junking the supernatural premise of the original film in favour of a technophobia-fuelled angle, the film at least deserves some credit for not just being a beat-for-beat rehash of the original, whilst still having just enough threads of the original remaining to not feel completely removed. Though the new approach robs the film of some of its unique identity, it certainly hasn’t lost the tongue-in-cheek value of the original and is in many ways more overtly comedic (at least when compared to the first film). If you’ve seen any film about technology gone wrong, you won’t be particularly surprised by where Child’s Play goes, but it certainly has fun getting there and makes some witty observations about humanity at present on the way. There is some weak plotting in spots, with the whole “morally-detached tech company in control of everything” aspect feeling a bit staid, and the prologue detailing Chucky’s new origin is especially lame and meaningless; it would have been far better off giving a simpler, more matter-of-fact explanation. But getting past that, there’s a sick sense of childlike glee underneath it all as it dishes out gory kills and twisted jokes, which makes it more than clear that the filmmakers are rightly not taking this too seriously. Let me put it this way for the horror buffs out there: at one point, the characters watch The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. If you know that movie’s tone, you should know what to expect from the new Child’s Play.

When it comes to iconic slasher movie villains, Chucky may not be one of the most famous but he is easily one of the more distinctive, and a lot of that is rightly owed to Brad Dourif’s performance as the character. Unlike many of his peers who rely on stature and an iconic look, Chucky is a personality-driven killer in the vein of Freddy Krueger, and finding someone else to fill those shoes effectively is incredibly difficult. Thankfully, Mark Hamill is more than up to the task of making Chucky his own. Rather than an outright monster from the start, this Chucky’s descent into serial killing is more gradual and comes from a place of irreconcilable computer logic and misplaced ethics rather than simple psychopathy. Hamill’s performance is just as simultaneously scary and funny as Dourif’s, but in more of a deadpan childlike way. Rather than the shock of a foul-mouthed voice coming from an innocent toy, Hamill’s has more the eeriness of a toy saying increasingly messed-up things in a credulous manner. It’s a performance that stands up to the original whilst being its own thing, though I do question where exactly they can take this Chucky that could rival the wild evolution the original has gone through should they keep this incarnation going.

On the human end, Gabriel Bateman makes for a relatable and compelling update of Andy Barclay. Rather than an innocent 6-year-old, this Andy is a socially awkward teen whose bond with Chucky is far more nuanced and deeply fraught, and Bateman does a good job of escalating his performance from adolescent apathy to a frenzied pitch of anxiety. This version of Andy is also hearing-impaired, which at first seems like an interesting touch but unfortunately the plot doesn’t take much advantage of this. Aubrey Plaza plays to her deadpan strengths but also manages to put in some genuine profundity as Karen Barclay, and she makes the mother-son relationship with Bateman feel really sweet and unique especially given the minute age difference. Brian Tyree Henry adds some nice comedic flourishes as Detective Norris, whilst Beatrice Kitsos and Ty Consiglio are also a lot of fun as Andy’s newfound friends Falyn and Pugg.

It’s easy to generalise that all remakes these days end up gutting the more taboo elements of their source material, but this Child’s Play is not only gorier than the original but also has far more devious sense of humour. The film takes a fair bit of influence from the Saw franchise, with Chucky’s antics relying more on manipulating technology than just running around with a knife, which leads to some fun kills that’ll make you laugh and squirm in equal measure. It’s a shame there aren’t enough of them, especially in the promising climax that doesn’t go nearly as batsh*t as it clearly wants to. The new design for Chucky is a little off, making him feel like a store brand knock-off of himself, but the practical animatronics used to create him are impressive enough to overcome it. Bear McCreary’s score is also suitably moody, though there is an annoying reliance on horror music clichés and riffs; after he so ably avoided falling back on this in his score for Godzilla: King of the Monsters, that’s quite disappointing.

When you stack the two films against each other, both versions of Child’s Play are about as good as each other. This is thankfully a remake that isn’t just trying to copy its inspiration, and actually uses the premise to communicate new ideas. At the same time, even though it brings many fresh concepts to the franchise, many of those aren’t wholly original in and of themselves. More than anything, the new Child’s Play is essentially Joe Dante’s Small Soldiers with an R rating and a more vicious comedic edge, but that’s not necessarily a mark against it. The original film never hid the fact it was a homage to the cheesy horror films of the 1950s (that film and its sequels frequently pay direct tribute to Ed Wood movies after all), and so in turn it only makes sense for this film to emulate the spirit of the genre films of the 1980s. If you go into Child’s Play knowing that, you are probably going to have a good time. It’s hardly the most necessary remake, and I do fear how it will affect the future of Mancini’s still-ongoing series, but taken on its own terms it delivers a faithful throwback horror experience.

FINAL VERDICT: 7/10

Starring: Tom Hanks (Saving Mr. Banks), Tim Allen (The Santa Clause), Annie Potts (Ghostbusters), Joan Cusack (School of Rock), Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride), John Ratzenberger (Cheers), Tony Hale (Arrested Development), Keegan-Michael Key (The Predator), Jordan Peele (Keanu), Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Christina Hendricks (Drive)

Director: Josh Cooley (Riley’s First Date?)

Writers: Stephany Folsom (Star Wars Resistance) and Andrew Stanton (WALL-E)

Runtime: 1 hour 40 minutes 

Release Date: 21^st June (US, UK)

From the moment Toy Story 4 was announced, the reaction was predictable and absolutely justified. After Toy Story 3 had so perfectly tied up the series in a perfect bow, it seemed like saying anything more would just be unnecessary. Pixar’s run of sequels since the third entry has also been spotty, ranging from fun but inferior to serviceable to…Cars 2, so I’m not at all surprised by the backlash; no one wants to ruin a perfect streak. However, having now finally seen it, I’d say that the scepticism of many fans may end up playing to the film’s favour, because Toy Story 4 defies expectations yet again to prove it has more than enough reasons to exist.

After a brief but heart-wrenching prologue, the film picks up not long after the events of Toy Story 3 and once again finds Woody in the middle of another philosophical conundrum. There are certainly past themes echoed throughout the film, ruminating again on the role of toys to humans and whether they can serve a different purpose, but despite this Toy Story 4 never feels like a rehash. The plot structure will be relatively familiar to long-time fans, with the usual constant ticking clock and ever-present threat of being lost or destroyed, yet it keeps things moving so briskly and introduces you to so many adorable new characters and contemplative ideas that it’s hard to care. In true series fashion, it puts the emotional stakes above everything else, and absolutely finds new ways to make audiences cry. Though it admittedly doesn’t quite have that same sense of greater existential crisis and nostalgic finality as its direct predecessor, it wisely instead aims to drive a smaller, character-focused point home. To go too into the specifics would ruin the impact, so I’ll put it more esoterically: if Toy Story 3 was the cinematic equivalent to tearfully saying goodbye to your childhood, Toy Story 4 is like finally putting your life into perspective and realising what you actually want to do with it. That’s a lesson adults should be learning just as much as kids.

If I can muster any significant criticism for this movie, it’s that a lot of the returning supporting characters don’t get much to do; most of them don’t even leave the home point at the end of the first act. If you were hoping for a lot of screen time from the likes of Jessie or Rex or anyone not named Woody or Buzz, you may be somewhat disappointed, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter. Toy Story 4’s narrative demands a more focused perspective, specifically on Woody, and presents him with his most significant character development since Toy Story 2. His arc directly questions everything he’s fought for over the series, and its resolution absolutely feels earned over not just this film but also the franchise as a whole. Tom Hanks has never been better as the character, with even his noticeably gruffer, aged voice feeling like a poetic reminder of Woody’s storied life. Tim Allen’s Buzz is afforded less depth, with his subplot feeling a little antithetical to some of his previous growth, but it ultimately makes sense on a thematic level if not necessarily on a logistical one. Bo Peep’s return after her absence in the third instalment has been the driving force behind the film’s existence since its announcement, and the filmmakers have done a fantastic job of revitalising her character for the modern era. Reshaped as a kid-friendly nod to the likes of Sarah Connor and Imperator Furiosa, she’s a perfect encapsulation of the film’s messages about reinvention and letting go, and Annie Potts certainly strikes the right balance between delivering a spunky new attitude and the Bo Peep we all remember.

In regards to new characters, Toy Story 4 offers plenty of them that are sure to become fan favourites. Forky is the most prominent, and Tony Hale’s panicked performance perfectly sells a character that could have easily become annoying. The film thankfully lampshades the question about how and why he comes to life, and his relationship with both Woody and the mere concept of free will is constantly amusing and heart-warming. Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele are basically let loose as themselves playing Ducky & Bunny to deliver consistent laughs, Keanu Reeves is a deadpan delight as the Evel Knievel-inspired Duke Kaboom, and even smaller characters like Ally Maki’s Giggle McDimples or Carl Weathers’ Combat Carl get ample moments to shine. Christina Hendricks’ Gabby Gabby is perhaps not as well developed or menacing as prior series antagonists, but she’s easily the most endearing and again precisely compliments the film’s ideas; if I were to nitpick, I’d just say she needed a little more screen time in the second act and she’d be right up there with Stinky Pete and Lotso.

Watching the Toy Story films is like seeing an encapsulation of the evolution of computer animation, chronicling the beginnings of the form right up to the pinnacle of what is possible in the present day. Toy Story 4 is gorgeous from start to finish, and it’s both a nostalgic delight and a reminder of how far we’ve come to see this world realised in such vibrant detail. The concept of a CG film based around toys was chosen because the plastic textures and exaggerated proportions of toys were easier to animate back in 1995, and now with modern advancements the amount of detail ever-present now makes it feel like we were watching the old movies through a layer of Vaseline. It wouldn’t be a Toy Story movie without Randy Newman music, and he once again delivers a jovial but emotionally fraught score, and the film’s accompanying song “The Ballad of the Lonesome Cowboy” is a simple country ditty that packs a lot of hidden punch and feels like an appropriate antithesis to the classic “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”.

Put aside the pessimism for a moment and embrace your inner child, because Toy Story 4 will make your heart melt all over again. Though on the surface it may seem like another trip back to the well, it is acutely aware of its own age and doesn’t try to retcon anything that hasn’t already been perfectly resolved. If more sequels (and, to a greater extent, any film riding the coattails of an established property) took the same level of care in crafting themes as Toy Story 4, we’d be complaining about franchise fatigue far less. In a summer full of sequels and remakes that have underwhelmed critically and/or commercially, it’s a reassuring sign that such a venerable series can still be excellent in this climate, and just goes to prove a point: it’s never that audiences are simply done with a story or a character or a world or a genre. People just want good movies, and if you have good ideas and put consistent effort into them, you can make a good movie out of anything and keep making them until you’ve said everything you need to.

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10!

 

Starring: Chris Hemsworth (Rush), Tessa Thompson (Creed), Liam Neeson (Taken), Rebecca Ferguson (Mission: Impossible – Fallout), Kumail Nanjiani (The Big Sick), Rafe Spall (The Ritual), Emma Thompson (Love Actually) 

Director: F. Gary Gray (Straight Outta Compton)

Writers: Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (Iron Man)

Runtime: 1 hour 58 minutes

Release Date: 14^th June (US, UK)

The original Men in Black is one of those near-perfect blockbusters that still hasn’t been matched in over two decades, delivering all the spectacle you expect from top-tier Hollywood but having a unique identity and premise that quickly cemented it as a pop culture mainstay. The two sequels, however, did little more than try to recapture the magic of the original, with Men in Black II being a mess of lazy ideas and incompetent plotting, whilst Men in Black 3 was a marked improvement but fairly forgettable. For a franchise with infinite galaxies of possibilities, it felt remarkably shy to try new things, so a fresh perspective was probably the best way to go. Enter Men in Black: International, a spin-off/soft reboot that seeks to majorly switch up the formula and bring the franchise to a new generation. The final result is a fun ride while it lasts and easily the best entry since the original but, though it at least tries to do some new tricks, ultimately it is yet another disposable sequel.

With just one returning cast member and only the slightest wink to the explits of Agents J and K, International finally breaks away from the standard MIB set-up and instead throws our newly-introduced agents into a globetrotting mystery and gives the series a welcome tonal shake-up. It very much takes for granted you already know the rules of the world and jumps right in, allowing it to spend ample time introducing its own twists on the mythology, and in the age of reboots that’s a relieving approach. However, there are still a lot of the bad hallmarks of the prior films here, along with plenty of clichés borrowed from other buddy cop franchises. What mostly works about International is its characters and the interpersonal dynamics between them, but the pacing moves too fast at points for this to be given room to breathe. The film is also structurally a mess, especially the first act (like, why do we start in a flash back to three years ago, then flashback to twenty years ago, and then finally get to modern day?), almost as if the film is in a rush to get to the action. There are a few compelling mysteries within the narrative, but none of them pay off particularly surprisingly and get little time to sink in before the incredibly rushed third act. What International offers in theory is strong, and the plot itself does serve as competent connective tissue for the film’s many set pieces, but everything of substance feels a little undercooked.

Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson made for a great pair in Thor: Ragnarok, so it only makes sense for Hollywood to find them another vehicle to further explore their playful chemistry. Whilst the actors’ natural comedic chemistry is absolutely still in force here, the roles of Agents H and M simply aren’t as strong as their prior sci-fi characters. Hemsworth is basically playing his character from Ghostbusters again, once again nailing the oblivious doofus persona, but even though his general incompetence is a key factor to the plot it never feels justified enough. Thompson fairs a lot better, giving a similar streetwise edge to Will Smith’s J but with a modern feminine edge, and her backstory and motivation make her an immediately compelling POV character. The relationship between H and M is an immediate breath of fresh air after three instalments of the now-stale J and K dynamic, but though it hints at some greater connection down the line their bonding doesn’t feel anywhere near as tight; they do learn from their experiences together, but their arcs feel far from satisfyingly tied up.

The supporting cast is something of a disappointment too. Liam Neeson does what Liam Neeson does best as MIB London head honcho High T, but the opportunity for him to do something truly different is briefly promising then pulled away. Rebecca Ferguson feels tragically underused as an intergalactic arms dealer, whilst Rafe Spall makes the most of a clichéd role as H’s bitter rival Agent C. As the only returning cast member (not counting brief cameos from supporting alien characters), Emma Thompson’s role as Agent O is brief mainly serves to bookend the film; then again, she probably ends up with more screen time here than she had in Men in Black 3. The film’s real stand-out instead proves to be Kumail Nanjiani as the diminutive sidekick Pawny who, whilst serving little plot relevance, is a welcome comic relief presence who always has something funny to say. However, if the character sticks around for a sequel, I’d hope they don’t overuse him.

As much as the original Men in Black was remember for its humour and characters, the world it built was the real showstopper and much of that imaginative design is what kept the later sequels at least visually fascinating. Unfortunately, the lack of director Barry Sonnenfeld and creature designer Rick Baker is blatantly obvious from a visual perspective. Though F. Gary Gray has a firm grasp on the action, delivering slick set pieces with plenty of laughs interjected in between the spectacle, his eye simply lacks the quirkiness that gave MIB its unique identity. The aliens this time around are almost entirely CGI creations, losing the tangibility of the practical effects that made the world feel that much more real. On top of that, the designs often feel too cartoony and even lazy; for instance, all that makes Rebecca Ferguson’s character an alien is an extra arm and a wacky hairdo. Danny Elfman returns to do the score with the assistance of Chris Bacon, bringing back the recognisable themes along with new eerie tunes that fit right in line with the classics, but where’s the tie-in rap song for this movie? I mean, not even Pitbull this time? C’mon, Tessa, couldn’t you have roped in your buddy Janelle Monae to throw a track together or something?

Men in Black: International is that exact kind of blockbuster that’s fun while you’re watching it, but quickly shows its flaws once you actually think about it. There’s a lot that does work here, mainly thanks to the efforts of its capable lead duo and their boatload of natural chemistry, but in the hands of any other team this could have easily been a disaster. Nevertheless, this is certainly the right direction for the Men in Black franchise to go in, but it still hasn’t quite learned to let go of its laurels yet. Next time around, I want to see a return to the dark weirdness of the first film blown up on a larger scale, taking the series in even bolder new directions and creating something wholly unlike its predecessors. The likelihood of that actually happening is slim to none given the track record, but one can hope, right?

FINAL VERDICT: 6/10

Starring: Elizabeth Banks (Pitch Perfect), David Denman (Power Rangers), Jackson A. Dunn (Shameless), Matt Jones (Breaking Bad), Meredith Hagner (The Oath)

Director: David Yarovesky (The Hive)

Writers: Brian Gunn & Mark Gunn (Journey 2: The Mysterious Island)

Runtime: 1 hour 30 minutes

Release Date: 24^th May (US), 19^th June (UK)

With the glut of superhero movies constantly in coversation these days (and as much as I personally love most of them), a subversive new take is always welcome to shake up the status quo. Of all the recent examples, Brightburn is easily the most brazen by directly taking one of the genre’s most iconic characters and turning the concept on its head. The premise has a lot of potential, but unfortunately the final product doesn’t take that initial idea much further.

From the way the film has been marketed, it’d be easy to think that Brightburn is a direct commentary on grimdark superhero stories (Man of Steel in particular) and plays with those tropes by taking them to their most ridiculous extreme. However, though perhaps that was the intention, the final product makes little to no attempt at any level of deconstruction and is merely content to just take all the beats of the Superman mythos and flip the switches to “evil”. It all feels a little too “been there, done that”, when more potentially interesting concepts are present in the storytelling but go frustratingly underexplored. There’s flashes where the film that want to be topical, whilst in others it wants to be something of a black comedy, but in the end it lacks much of an identity beyond the hallmarks it borrows. It is just superhero origin tropes mixed with slasher movie tropes, and even then they don’t always work together. I mean, it’s ridiculous enough when Michael Myers takes his sweet time before killing someone, but when your slasher villain is faster than a speeding bullet yet still can’t kill anyone efficiently, the rule of cool quickly runs dry. Once it gets to the meat of its premise, Brightburn just doesn’t really have anywhere to go but the beaten path, and by its conclusion it doesn’t really know what to do but shrug and half-heartedly set up a sequel. If the film had a little more ambition, there are so many great ways it could have escalated into something truly unique. As is, it’s hardly much better than the dark reboots it supposedly satirises.

The lacklustre energy also ends up permeating the film’s performances, with a cast who all do a fine enough job but don’t exactly stand out either. Elizabeth Banks fares best as mother Tori Bayer, mainly because she has the most to work with, but the writing still never quite takes the character in a coherent direction. Tori feels kind of stuck in second gear until the third act, and her motivations for remaining in denial lack much nuance other than “he’s my son” when there’s so many complex avenues they could have explored. David Denman as father Kyle ends up basically being an audience proxy, saying the obvious if in a somewhat abrasive way, but his anger feels warranted given the frustrating lack on momentum in the plot’s structure. Ultimately, where the film’s success or failure ultimately lies is with Jackson A. Dunn as the corrupted alien child himself Brandon, and his performance wavers wildly in quality. Dunn is great when he has to play innocent, avoiding the usual trope of the perpetually creepy kid, which does help lend credence to his parents’ inability to see what’s up earlier on. However, when Dunn does let his inner psycho fly, it’s disappointingly flat and falls right back into trope territory.

From an aesthetic level, Brightburn clearly can’t keep up with its big budget inspirations but it does a serviceable job with what little it has. The film really does go for it with the gore, delivering some unique slasher movie kills that should have you squirming, but then there’s also plenty of effects that look effectively amateurish; I won’t say much more, but the final kill has compositing that would look fake by the standards of Richard Donner’s Superman. Everything else about the movie from the cinematography to even parts of the score is clearly trying to crib from the Christopher Nolan aesthetic, and though the imitation is solid it doesn’t do much with it.

Brightburn has a solid pitch: Man of Steel meets The Omen. Unfortunately, it’s a concept that ends up making for a much better trailer than a feature film. If you’ve seen any of the marketing, you’ve basically already seen the movie in your head, and what you haven’t seen will probably just bore or frustrate you. Brightburn never does anything particularly awful, and it think within it somewhere lies a much better movie if it had the guts to be more political or morbid, but as is I can’t call it anything other than a disappointment. If you really want your dark Superman action, I’d suggest just picking up some Elseworlds comics instead.

FINAL VERDICT: 5/10

Starring: Emma Thompson (Nanny McPhee), Mindy Kaling (Inside Out), John Lithgow (Shrek), Hugh Dancy (Hannibal), Reid Scott (Venom), Denis O’Hare (American Horror Story), Ike Barinholtz (Blockers), Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone)

Director: Nisha Ganatra (Chutney Popcorn)

Writer: Mindy Kaling (The Mindy Project)

Runtime: 1 hour 42 minutes

Release Date: 7^th June (US, UK)

Given how much the late night talk show has been revitalised in recent years with the advent of online video, it’s shocking it has taken Hollywood this long to make a modern comedy set within that world. After all, there’s nothing more tantalising for a comedian to write than a movie about the nature of comedy. But with Late Night, the filmmakers have gone beyond merely dramatising the ins and outs of putting on a show and made something of a landmark to the current state of media; an encapsulation of everything both great and terrible about it, and a clear vision of how we can make it better.

Late Night hits a lot of the expected beats of the workplace comedy: the fresh-faced newstart comes in, the veterans are dubious of them, they make their early mistakes but learn the ropes, they bring fresh ideas to the table, and eventually gain the trust of their new colleagues. However, getting past the formulaic structure, it’s clear that the filmmakers are using the familiar platform as a building block to share topical ideas. There’s the usual suspects like workplace diversity and innovating beyond the “way we’ve always done it”, but there’s also some biting commentary on avoiding controversial topics, patronising to your audience, and possibly the most deftly handled dramatisation of a #metoo moment since the movement went mainstream. Late Night is plenty fun enough in its early moments as it brings a fresh and vibrant energy to a well-established formula, but it truly soars when it breaks into those nuanced topics in its second half, creating a story that will equally inspire new creatives making their first steps and veterans wondering how they’ve lost their way.

Emma Thompson is one of our most darling acting treasures, but certainly not the first face that comes to mind when casting a veteran talk show host. Nevertheless, Thompson owns the role right from her first scene and convinces you she’s been doing this on television for decades. Katherine Newbury certainly has a shade of Miranda Priestly to her with her biting wit and emotional sequestering, but she brings her own sense of tenderness and insecurity to the role that makes her feel absolutely authentic. It’s too easy to portray a celebrity as someone above common concerns, but Thompson not only humanizes Newbury but also makes her a viable stand-in for any maturing woman in denial of their flaws beyond just TV personalities. Mindy Kaling’s bright and eager demeanour makes her a perfect compliment to Thompson’s reluctant anger, but she’s far from just the magic diversity hire who helps the out-of-touch grump learn how to get down with the kids. She too goes through her own struggles that make her a better person and earn the respect of her colleagues, but equally stays true to her convictions and brings to attention everything holding back our entertainment from being more than mindless.

The supporting cast is fantastic across the board, particularly a sobering performance from John Lithgow as Thompson’s long-suffering husband and Ike Barinholtz in a perfect encapsulation of the frat boy mean-spirited comedian. The other members of the writers’ room often feel a bit indistinguishable from each other, which is admittedly part of the point the film is making about homogenous and unproductive staff environments, but special mention must go out to Paul Walter Hauser for yet another fantastic portrayal of an below-average white guy unaware of his own lack of intelligence; seriously, after I, Tonya and BlacKkKlansman, he’s basically cornered the market on these roles.

Late Night is absolutely the workplace comedy we need in 2019, bringing to light not only the pervading problems in our entertainment but in society at large. Thompson and Kaling make for a fantastic pair in comedic chemistry, and I’d happily watch anything else these two do together. This year is quickly proving to be a great year for progressive and intersectional comedies, and Late Night proves this is a trend that deserves to keep on trending.

FINAL VERDICT: 8.5/10

Starring: James McAvoy (Split), Michael Fassbender (12 Years a Slave), Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games), Nicholas Hoult (Mad Max: Fury Road), Sophie Turner (Game of Thrones), Tye Sheridan (Ready Player One), Alexandra Shipp (Love, Simon), Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road), Evan Peters (American Horror Story), Jessica Chastain (Molly’s Game)

Writer/Director: Simon Kinberg (X-Men: Days of Future Past)

Runtime: 1 hour 54 minutes

Release Date: 5^th June (UK), 7^th June (US)

And so this is how the X-Men franchise comes to an end. After helping usher in the dawn of the modern superhero movie, the franchise has represented some of the best and worst the genre has had to offer, expanding and revolutionising in some entries whilst feeling like an outdated relic in others. With the property now officially back in the hands of Disney as part of their quest to create a monopoly on pop culture, 20^th Century Fox has exhaled their last gasp of air (not counting the long-delayed The New Mutants) in the form of Dark Phoenix. What was at one point meant to be a new beginning for the franchise must now serve as its conclusion, and the final result is an absolute train wreck. It pains me to say it, but I think it’s true: X-Men: Dark Phoenix might just be the worst film in the franchise to date. Yes, worse than the one where Wolverine has his memory erased by amnesia bullets.

Picking up yet another decade after the prior instalment Apocalypse, Dark Phoenix was from the beginning made as something of a reprieve for the mishandling of “The Dark Phoenix Saga” in The Last Stand (a film co-written by this entry’s writer/director, so that’s totally reassuring). With this attempt, the filmmakers have learnt that this epic and beloved storyline from the comics deserves a film to itself, and not as a disparate subplot in an otherwise unrelated plot. Unfortunately, that’s about the only thing they’ve learnt. The screenplay is an utter shambles on every level, with its impatient pace and structural instability quickly allowing the story to unwittingly fall foul to every mistake The Last Stand made and more. There’s barely a moment to breathe from the word go as we are bounded from one plot point to another and characters disgorge horrendous dialogue. Most spoken words are just plain exposition, and any sense of character introspection takes the form of them just blurting out how they feel about themselves and others.

Barring a throwaway subplot about the progressing-but-precarious state of human-mutant relations (which seems to jump from “mutants are now superheroes and give speeches at the White House” to “let’s round them up at gunpoint and lock them in concentration camps” and back in less than a day), it doesn’t even thematically feel like an X-Men film anymore. If you removed the recognisable characters and iconography, this would just be a below-average alien invasion movie, and its slapdash attempt to cap off the franchise (on top of just being a rip-off of The Dark Knight Rises) feels cheap and unearned when the story it tells relates in no way to the themes and characters it began with. There are many adjectives one could use to describe Dark Phoenix, but the easiest and most damaging is that it’s boring, and I should not be saying that about the movie where a team of superpowered civil rights metaphors fights their friend possessed by a cosmic entity and a swarm of bullet-absorbing extraterrestrials.

The X-Men have always thrived in character-driven narratives, with their storylines centring their disparate personalities and interpersonal relationships no matter how outlandish or grandiose. That’s why “The Dark Phoenix Saga” in the comics was so effective in how it busted a hole in the team’s heart, and the lack of that character focus is why now both of its adaptations have fallen so short. Apocalypse did a subpar job of introducing the revamped X-Men line-up and the film does practically nothing to develop them or the remaining players from First Class. Sophie Turner is saddled with even less to work with than Famke Jannsen’s Jean Grey, and though she gives it her all in her performance the material is lacking on every level. We as an audience have barely gotten to know this version of Jean before her transformation into Dark Phoenix, and once again the shift lacks impact when she’s already been established as a troubled loner struggling with her powers as opposed to the comics’ more startling leap of “timid girl next door” to “vengeful intergalactic fire goddess”. But at least Turner has some character dynamics to play with, as the rest of the core team are nothing more than cardboard cut-outs here. Despite his relationship with Jean, Tye Sheridan’s Cyclops is given very little to do, whilst Alexandra Shipp’s Storm and Kodi Smit-McPhee’s Nightcrawler are basically just roster fillers. Even Quicksilver is shoved off to the sideline for most of the film with little fanfare (probably because they realised his powers make him a living deus ex machina), which is a shame considering Evan Peters is the only cast member who still looks like he’s having any fun.

When it comes to the returning cast, James McAvoy is given the most precedence in his final turn as Charles Xavier, but even he seems tired at this point. His character seems to have taken a sudden turn between instalments, capitulating to government requests and refusing to acknowledge his mistakes, and it not only lacks solid motivation but it feels totally out of step for the character; it gives him an arc, but an incredibly contrived one. Michael Fassbender doesn’t enter the picture until about halfway through as Magneto as he goes through yet another “I’ve reformed my ways but find myself pulled back into the conflict for revenge” plotline. Fassbender is as good as ever but he just doesn’t have much to do, barely even sharing much screen time with Xavier. Nicholas Hoult is kind of just there as Beast when he’s not acting totally out of character, whilst once more Jennifer Lawrence looks she’d rather be anywhere else than playing Mystique again. The only new major character is Jessica Chastain as the film’s villain Vuk, and the fact I couldn’t remember the character’s name until the credits should tell you all you need to know. Chastain’s talents feel utterly wasted as this bland and underdeveloped antagonist, with her and her fellow alien invaders lacking anything distinctive in their design or motivation; they’re basically just the Romulans from JJ Abrams’ Star Trek combined with tired Invasion of the Body Snatchers tropes. And people said Apocalypse was a forgettable and clichéd villain!

Longtime writer/producer of the series Simon Kinberg makes his feature directorial debut with Dark Phoenix, and his lack of experience behind the camera is blatantly evident. Everything about the direction in this film, down to even the basic blocking of scenes, is passable at best or amateurish at worst. There is a severe lack of action sequences throughout, and all of them in the first two acts are poorly choreographed and severely lacking in imagination, blinking by so fast and with little fanfare that they barely serve as a respite from the endless plodding exposition. Proceedings then take a sudden turn for the mean-spirited in the third act’s climactic train sequence (which was entirely and obviously cobbled together in reshoots by the second unit director), which is just a cavalcade of nonsensical CGI carnage so uncharacteristically violent that it makes Man of Steel look happy-go-lucky. On top of that, everything else about the film’s aesthetics is just plain awful. The cinematography is workmanlike and has a horribly oversaturated colour palette, the visual effects are mostly just an underwhelming cavalcade of outdated particle effects, the production design completely fails to capture the 1990s setting like the previous entries did for their decades, Hans Zimmer’s score is so indistinctive that it could have been composed by any number of his protégés and imitators, and the Frank Quitely-inspired X-Men costumes look so unappealing on camera that they’ll make you beg for the return of the old black leather uniforms.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix is an unmitigated disaster of a final entry to a tumultuous franchise that somehow laps The Last Stand’s dire attempt at the storyline. There isn’t a single element in this film that is salvageable, and the only reason it isn’t getting a lower score is because it isn’t actively offensive. In a year so full of long-running franchises coming to momentous conclusions, this 19-year-old saga that helped revolutionise superheroes on film and gave us some of the finest examples of the genre here receives the cinematic equivalent of a pauper’s funeral; an unceremonious, barebones affair that can’t pay proper tribute to a series so full of good memories. Once they’ve scraped away the aforementioned leftovers that is The New Mutants, I think it’s best that Marvel let the students of Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters mourn for a while before being reborn inside their cinematic universe. And who knows? Maybe, one day after the dust settles, we will get a good version of “The Dark Phoenix Saga” on screen. Third time’s the charm, right?

FINAL VERDICT: 2/10