fenrisfil, Author at Screen Wolf

Update and AI Generated Movie Posters

Posted on August 25, 2022December 3, 2022 by fenrisfil

Well, it’s been a while since I’ve made a post, but in my defence I’ve been preoccupied with two things. First of all I’m working on a HUGE Blade Runner article (Which I may have to break down into chapters or something as it’s already 5000 words). I’m almost done with it, but before I could finish I discovered AI generated art and then basically lost an entire month.

The AI in question is Midjourney and so to keep you entertained for a bit here are a few fake movie posters I created with the AI. Mostly done in a Mondo style (Which apparently means lots of red).

Spaceballs 2 – The Search For More Money

The Environmentalist – A horror film about a psycho that kills people for having a large carbon footprint

There’s a story behind each of these, but that is for another time. This is only a fraction of what I’ve been wasting the AI’s processing power with. You can see how this is distracting. Anyway, the Blade Runner article will be with you within a week, so keep an eye out.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

Posted on June 26, 2022December 24, 2022 by fenrisfil

Whenever Hollywood resurrects an 80’s franchise for a modern movie or TV show it’s only natural to be pessimistic. After all usually these are either a soulless ploys to cash in on 80’s nostalgia, a nefarious attempt to “fix” perceived problems of the past buy burying beloved heroes of a past generation or, often, both. More often than not the person that returns the franchise to the screens isn’t even a fan of the original and has just taken the opportunity to tell their own unrelated story with a handy franchise package that guarantees a built in audience. The idea of them actually doing something for the fans (and I don’t mean the kind of fan service where they stop the plot every five minutes to jangle some familiar keys at the audience) is almost unheard of…. Almost.

Getting Nostalgia Right.

In recent years we’ve been lucky enough to see The Karate Kid and Ghostbusters actually get it right. Both admittedly on the second attempt (With the previous one being ill advised remakes) and both substantially reduced in scale from the previous return. Top Gun however has never been remade or attempted a return. It returns now on a $170m budget and with the promise of non-CGI stunts and effects. Most importantly it returns with Tom Cruise, one of the few actors that still guarantee a solid box office performance. Could the movie see Cruise soar to new heights or will he crash and burn?

Same Band, New Members.

Joining Cruise as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, is a mostly new cast, though his love interest in the film Penny (Played by Jennifer Connelly) has a history with Maverick (She was name dropped in the original but never seen) and hot shot pilot “Rooster” (Played by Miles Teller) is the son of “Goose” from the previous movie (The character was in that film, but as a child). One other character that does return is Val Kilmer’s “Iceman”, who has a vastly reduced role due to the actors physical condition which is effectively worked into the plot. The on screen meeting between the two is an emotional moment for both fans of the original film and the actor and I have to give credit to Cruise how apparently insisted on getting Kilmer involved.

Not returning (For obvious reasons) is Tony Scott as director, instead he is replaced by Joseph Kosinski, Who previously directed the underrated Cruise sci-fi “Oblivion” along with TRON: Legacy which while perhaps not a great movie did have the best use of 3D I’ve ever seen in a commercial movie (Utilising it much like Wizard of Oz used colour). In interviews it is clear Kosinski was a huge fan of the original film and it seems he and Cruise were united in their plan to make as faithful a sequel as possible.

The Need For Speed.

Our movie starts with Maverick now a test pilot at the head of a project for a new supersonic plane. The project is in danger of being shut down by a Rear Admiral (Played by Ed Harris) that simply doesn’t see the worth in the technology or in human pilots. His rant seems a bit out of place when talking about a project focused on speed, but it was never really about that, it was about the main theme of the movie and Top Gun before it. The value of the pilot. The Rear Admiral talks about Drones as technology making pilots redundant and this really sets the film out to prove a point against this.

Back In The Saddle.

Since I don’t want to drop plot spoilers here I’ll skip forward to Mavericks return to the top Gun program. This time around he is an instructor and has to prepare a number of previous graduates for what appears to be a suicide mission. Maverick wants to not only succeed but also to bring his pilots back from the mission. His bosses however just want the mission to succeed and are not especially happy with his techniques. However, Maverick has a guardian angel in the top brass in the shape of Iceman, now an Admiral and his old nemesis knows Pete is the only man for this job. Sadly though Iceman is not a well man and can’t protect his friend forever.

Being The Best Of The Best.

Naturally by the end of the movie the training is over and it is time to take on the “suicide” mission. This provides a good number of thrills and brings all the characters stories, whether little or large to their logical conclusions. But the focus of this film is of course Maverick and his story arc is both satisfying and makes a lot of sense from where he ended in Top Gun. A lot of that story revolves Pete’s relationship with Gooses son Bradley (a.k.a. Rooster), a relationship strained by a promise Marverick made to his mother and haunted by what happened to his father. But on top of this, it is also about Pete finding his place in the world and proving that there is still a place for being the best of the best.

Repeated Beats.

Ultimately the plot is all fairly straight forward but incredibly well done. We see a lot of beats repeated from the original movie, but with key changes. For example (very minor spoiler) in the original Maverick is embarrassed to find Charlie, a woman he made a pass at the night before is his instructor. But in this movie it is Maverick that turns up as the instructor and the entire set of trainees that have egg on their face. This is an example of the kind of references to come. Suffice to say if it was in the original it is references in some form here, but it is done in a way that seems fresh and organic.

The Faceless Enemy.

One of the most notable repeated beats is the anonymity of the movies villains. In the original film most viewers (myself included) just assumed they were Russians, but they were never actually named. In early drafts (Of Top Gun) they were North Korean, but their plane markings suggest China while the location of their activity (The Indian Ocean) made either of those unlikely. The pilots had darkened visors but you could see faces underneath and they appeared Caucasians. The planes they flew were given a fictional name, but that name (Mig28) certainly suggested a Russian manufacture.

Mixed Messages.

In this movie however they are careful not to drop any hints at all (At least not that I spotted). No geographical location is named, the visors are completely black, the new planes are just called “Fifth Generation” fighters (Though in actuality they are Russian manufactured Sukhoi SU-57 Felon’s) and the enemy has access to US and Russian manufactured planes (Including the iconic F14 Tomcat from the first film). On top of this, the briefing given to Maverick early on really stands out in how they avoid any specifics. This makes it all a lot more noticeable than it was in the first film.

We Are All Drones.

Originally I considered this a flaw, but drawing attention to it may be intentional and I am reminded about the earlier set up where Ed Harris is talking about Pilots being a liability and that they will eventually be replaced with drones. So I can’t help but wonder if the enemies here are meant to be symbolic of drone technology. So far I’ve not seen anyone admit to that, so perhaps they did just do not quite as good a job as Tony Scott in the original. But it is a bit of symbolism that works for me regardless of if intentional. What is clear though is that, like in the original, the anonymous villains help keep the focus firmly on heroes personal journey.

The Next Generation.

Of course Maverick isn’t alone out there, he is joined by an entirely new cast of young elite pilots. Most of their roles are small, but easily fit into the same kind of social interactions as their counterparts in the first film. While Rooster has his part to play in Mavericks story, he has his own nemesis amongst the pilots in “Hangman”, only this time around Rooster is the by the book pilot and Hangman is the hot head. That makes for an interesting dynamic in the team that contrasts with the previous one. While Hangman is unpredictable and Rooster by the book, Hangman is no Maverick. His callsign is because he leaves his wingman while he seeks personal glory, something 80’s hero Maverick would never do. Rooster meanwhile is a lot more passionate than Iceman, despite being by the book.

Teambuilding 101.

The rest of the pilots have their own personalities but don’t really get much development. To be fair, the same can be said about the majority of pilots in the original film. If there was an intention here to spin off the new characters into a film without Maverick in I would say the movie doesn’t really achieve that, but I don’t think that was ever on the cards. Top Gun was always a vehicle for Tom Cruise, it’s not really something you can pass the torch on. That said, these guys (and Gal) are fine and were they to do a movie without Maverick I’d give it a chance.

For The Fans.

In the US theatrical release the film actually starts with Tom Cruise thanking the fans and informing them the movie is for them. It’s a shame the UK release dropped this as it’s a very nice touch as not only does it nicely summarize their approach to the movie, those words will be a relief to a generation of movie goers that are constantly being told things are not for them. This is definitely one for the fans, but since it shares so much in common with the original and since Cruise is still a current star, it does give a good in to a new generation. Though in my experience it is Gen X that is going to this movie in droves and given the movies huge success that should be a lesson for Hollywood.

Graduation.

Overall, great performances from the key cast members, a tight plot, believable action and of course the nostalgia make this a feast of entertainment for the fans of the original. If the movie has flaws they are flaws shared with the original and if those didn’t bother you, neither will this. While the film repeats a lot of the beats of the first, it also provides natural character development for Maverick after the events of Top Gun and mixes things up just enough to keep things fresh. It’s a balance that most franchise returns don’t manage. This is in my top 3 of the year so far.

The Northman (2022)

Posted on June 16, 2022December 24, 2022 by fenrisfil

So this is one I have been looking forward to for a long time. Those that know me, know that I have a keen interesting in Norse Mythology, legends, stories and history. I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on the topic but I probably know more than most viewers of this film do and I know enough to be picky about accuracy with the genre (For example I never got on with the TV show “Vikings”). So I greeted the news of this movies production with both excitement and trepidation. T

he trailer however looked fantastic and the movies director, Richard Eggers has a reputation for painstaking historical accuracy, so I ended up cautiously optimistic. I am happy to say the movie far surpassed my expectations.

Outrageous Fortune.

Interestingly this movie probably only happened due to a chance meeting between Eggers and Icelandic singer Bjork of all people. To some that may seem strange, but the singer was always very passionate about her homeland and it’s history so I’m not surprised that some of that enthusiasm rubbed off on Eggers.

The key player though is actually Bjork’s long time musical collaborator Sigurjón Birgir Sigurðsson (Aka “Sjón”), who was introduced to Eggers via Bjork. It seems the two hit it off and Sjón ended up co-writer of the movie. The final piece of the puzzle was actor Alexander Skarsgård who had himself been seeking a viking themed project for a while, so when he met up with Eggers to discuss possibly working together the discussion quickly turned to making a Viking Epic.

Though This Be Madness, Yet There Is Method In’t.

Fans of Shakespeare may find the plot of the film familiar since it’s source is the legend of Amleth as written by Saxo Grammaticus, the same source as Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. However while the stories may share a similar synopsis they are very different in execution. The goal here was to create a film that reflected the tone of the Icelandic Sagas and in my opinion the succeeded in that goal. It’s worth noting though that it isn’t the kind of story telling modern audiences are used to and as such a lot of the mainstream movie goers may find this not to their pallett.

Joining Skarsgård’s “Amleth” is Anya Taylor-Joy as “Olga” an enslaved Slavic Sorceress. Anya had worked with Eggers previously on The Witch and is definitely a name to watch in the future (Indeed she has been cast as the new “Furiosa” for the Mad Max spin off of the same name). Claes Bang, who played Dracula in the BBC’s 2020 adaptation of that story take on the role as primary antagonist “Fjölnir”, Amleth’s treacherous uncle. Nicole Kidman plays Amleth’s mother “Gudrún” and with supporting roles are Ethan Hawke (as Amleth’s father) and Willem Dafoe (as a Heimir the Fool). Dafoe, is obviously a favourite of Eggers and rightly so (and is earmarked to play Count Orlock is Eggers proposed Nosferatu remake, a role he is perfectly suited for having already sort of played the character in “Shadow of the Vampire”).

One May Smile, And Smile, And Be A Villain.

For those unfamiliar with Norse legends the movie may seem dark and more than a little subversive. But those that are familiar know exactly what to expect. Much like with one of my other passions Film Noir, there is a major thread of fatalism within these epic tales and the characters tend to be deeply flawed. These stories are not the traditional heroes journey instead each one is more of a tragedy.

There are stories such as “Njáls saga” that tells of multi-generational blood fueds in which ultimately no one wins. Then there is Egil’s saga about a family who would often be so consumed with rage they would kill their own allies and are often portrayed as cruel and selfish. The expectations of a saga are that things will end badly, that destiny is unavoidable and that life is unrelentingly cruel. The Northman delivers this in spades.

There Is Nothing Either Good Or Bad But Thinking Makes It So.

Amleth is a character driven almost entirely by his sense of an inescapable fate, one which he only briefly tries to flee from but ultimately fails. The betrayal he suffers early in the movie has more to it than it first seems and the depth of that betrayal goes further than expected. In his journey to vengeance he loses everything but his desire for vengeance… at least for the most part. He does find some redemption through his relationship with Olga and ultimately tries to make things right for at least someone if not for himself and those tied in to his vengeance.

Like many of the saga’s this story isn’t about glorifying violence but instead an examination of the darker side of human nature, the cruelty of the age in which it was set and the complexity of the people that had to live in that time. This was a very conscious decision from Sjon and Eggers and it’s one that improves the film but may potentially put off viewers unfamiliar with this kind of storytelling. Then again earlier seasons of Game of Thrones weren’t that different to this, but that series was a soap opera by comparison. Here you don’t always know the motivations behind a betrayal. There’s no long walks in a garden discussing it. It just happens.

For Who Would Bear The Whips And Scorns Of Time.

The authenticity doesn’t end with the story though. Eggers is somewhat obsessed with accuracy and that paid off well with his previous two movies “The Witch” and “The Lighthouse”. The amount of effort that went into finding the perfect locations and building accurate sets perhaps go some way to explain this films high budget. Carvings built in India and sent over form the basis of temples, entire towns built out of northing to convert coastal Ireland into the land of the Rus in Eastern Europe and of course the variosu sets in Iceland itself.

The rain in Ireland was relentless but this was only to the benefit of this production. Mud was everywhere and some of the most impressive sets were built only to burn to the ground. No expense was spared and it shows in the end result. This is a beautiful looking movie and when the journey moves to Iceland it does a great job of selling the unique marvel of that countries landscapes. Where Ice and Fire walk hand in hand and you can believe the giants of Niflheim and Muspelheim could arrive at any time to crush mankind.

To Thine Own Self Be True.

Speaking of Norse mythology, it is worth noting that Eggers masterfully works the mystical into the gritty realism of the movie. The director seems to enjoy presenting a fantasy but in such a way that you know it is in the perception of his characters and not necessarily something physically happening. This is most notable with Amleths battle with the Draugr (Undead) that guards the sword of the same name. We see the scene twice, one baring more fantastical elements and the other more realistic.

We also see Olga through Amleths eyes as a great Valkyrie ready to take him to Vallhalla. Perhaps the best element though is one where the myth crosses most into the real world and that is in the path of the Berserkers and Ulfhednar. Amleth seems to be a hybrid of the two and he and his fellow warriors channel their rage making them ferocious and unstoppable in battle. This is done brilliantly and believably, showing the rituals and concoction they use to go into rage before battle.

To Sleep, Perchance To Dream.

As for the acting, the boy playing young Amleth and a few of the minor roles were unconvincing in places, but it didn’t take anything from the movie and the kid was compelling enough when he needed to be. All the major parts however were performed convincingly. Skarsgård puts in a career best performance here and it really was the role he was destined for. I also want to give special credit to Bang and Kidman, both excelled in their roles. Kidman’s part doesn’t really come into it’s own until late in the movie, but when it reaches that point her performance was explosive. Bang meanwhile managed to really humanize the movies the movies primary antagonist.

Avante Garde composers Sebastian Gainsborough (A.K.A. “Vessel”) and Robin Carolan (of Tri Angle Records) provide an effectively ominous soundtrack that fits thematically providing a constant dark tension while also reminding us of the Norse setting. At at it’s weakest it sounds like Skyrim (Which is itself a pretty good soundtrack) at it’s best it’s up there with the soundtracks of the top fantasy/historic epics. It may not be in the running for the best soundtrack ever but it is definitely a positive for this movie.

What Dreams May Come.

Overall this is a superb movie. Eggers obsession with authenticity gels well with Sjón’s deep knowledge and SkaaSkarsgård’s passion. You simply won’t find a more authentic representation of the sagas. This is what the writers of those sagas would have pictured them as. You can almost smell the blood and feel the heat of the fires. It is beautiful, brutal and passionate.

Sadly though between the movies very high budget and what seems like generally poor distribution and marketing the movie is almost certainly going to end up a major bomb. I can only hope that it earns the respect it deserves retrospectively, like such past financial failures as “Blade Runner” and “The Thing” (Also two of my favourite movies). This movie won’t be for everyone, but for me it’s a 8.5/10.

The Batman (2022)

Posted on April 29, 2022July 25, 2023 by fenrisfil

The latest offering from Warner/DC in the Superhero genre is 2022’s “The Batman”, a movie that seems to have been a long time in the coming and that was probably greenlit by a very different team than is now in charge at Warner. The original intention for the movie was to be a vehicle for Ben Affleck’s Batman but this changed fairly early on and the idea became to launch a Batman shared universe separate from the DCEU. Already a very questionable idea, however if any DC hero can bare the weight of their own shared universe it is Batman. The question is though, does this film provide a good launching point for it? Let’s dig in.

In Bloom.

Matt Reeves directs the movie, having replaced Affleck during pre-production and is an old hand at coming on on other peoples franchises. His work includes directing JJ Abrams brainchild “Cloverfield” (2008), then in 2010 making the American remake of 2008’s “Let The Right One In”, title simply “Let Me In”. Following that he took up the reigns of the Planet of the Apes reboot series from Rupert Wyatt, making the two weaker films of the trilogy. Now he has replaced Ben affleck helming this franchise and it seems unlikely much remains of the original concept for the movie with Reeves taking the opportunity to tell his kind of Batman story. The characters role as a “The Worlds Greatest Detective” would appear to be the focus of this version, with Reeves taking influence from Film Noir and stories such as “The Long Halloween”. Perhaps unsurprisingly there would also be a push to make this the darkest and grittiest Batman yet.

Scentless Apprentice.

Robert Pattinson plays the title character, a casting choice that would prove highly divisive amongst Batman fans, perhaps unfairly due to his role in the “Twilight” film series. Pattinson is a pretty good actor, so for me it was all going to depend on the script. What did surprise me with the casting through was the sheer number of Batman characters that seemed to be involved in the film. Zoey Kravitz took the role of Catwoman, Colin Farrell was cast as The Penguin and John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. There was even talk of some Joker casting. But it was Paul Dano as The Riddler that would be the main villain of the story. The rogues would be joined by Andy Serkis as Alfred and Jeffrey Wright as Gordon. My concern was the story was starting to look unnecessarily cluttered but there were certainly a few names in there that had my interest.

Something in the Way.

A few things immediately come to mind while watching “The Batman”. The cinematography is actually pretty good and the darker grittier vision of Gotham this time does take a very Noir like form. It almost is a shame it is in colour. The soundtrack however is far less impressive. In interviews promoting the film Reeves talked about how he took influence for Batman from Kurt Cobain and his music. This seemed odd at the time, but in practice it becomes a sort of sonic worshipping of one particular Nirvana song: “Something in the Way”. A strange choice given it is effectively a song about being homeless and sleeping under a bridge and not really something I would attribute to a Billionaire superhero. But the piece is not just something played once, but the entire core of the soundtrack as the two chords the build that song are used throughout and unfortunately make most of the sound track reminiscent of “The Imperial March” from Star Wars. The only sections of music that don’t appear to be built around Nirvana are the recurring performances of “Ava Maria”, which also becomes somewhat tedious over time.

Like many modern movies the themes are far from subtle and designed to smack the viewer across the face in the most on the nose ways possible. Character development is spelled out in dialogue instead of demonstrated through action, with Batman declaring himself as “Vengeance” early on but then in a voice over in the final act deciding he needs to be more than vengeance moving forward. The voice over would be fine had I felt that Batman actually went through an emotional journey to get to that conclusion.

Heart-Shaped Box.

Part of the problem with this set up is it relied on Batman not having learned the lessons of his own origin story. Bruce would have had an entire emotional journey between the death of his parents and becoming Batman and this movie is set in his second year in the role. This is all very similar to what the Sony/Disney did to MCU Spider-Man, skipping showing the characters origin but also skipping that core character development that comes with it (In the case of Spider-Man, it was the impact of Uncle Ben’s death). For Batman it is that journey from orphaned child to the physical and mental peak of humanity. A journey that was shown to us so perfectly in Nolan’s “Batman Begins” (2005). Instead here we have a character that has the physical capabilities of Batman, but pairs that psychological makeup of a freshy orphaned child.

Bruce Wayne, as we know him, is largely absent here too and when he does show up he comes across like a depressed teenager. The suggestion seems to be that he is yet to learn to wear that mask in public, but this brings with it the issue of it being obvious who Batman is. A situation not helped by a plot constantly teases the idea that his secret is going to be revealed. Of course it’s not like superhero movies of old haven’t had questionable secret identity issues (like the Clark Kent glasses situation), but this is like deciding to do Clarke Kent without the glasses and still expecting the audience to buy no one has figured it out.

Negative Creep.

A major part of “The Batman” is the focus on Batman as a detective., an aspect of Batman that while not absent in past on screen incarnations was not specifically the focus. On paper this was an interesting change and one I was looking forward to seeing. Sadly though, this too ended up being a negative because ultimately this Batman is frankly terrible at it. He is a step behind, not just the Riddler but often everyone else as well. One of Batman’s accolades/titles is “The World’s Greatest Detective”. If you want Batman to be at all true to his comic roots his skills should be more like a Sherlock Holmes than a generic FBI Agent from a random TV procedurals. True, the Riddler is perhaps the best foil for him as a detective , but their battle of the wits should be more akin to Holmes and Moriarty and this was not even close. Batman was an embarrassment in this department and pretty much failed at every turn. It is really more the illusion of detective work than actual detective work. Batman does have a nice gadget in his surveillance contact lenses, but that doesn’t make up for his inability to figure out the central riddle.

Come As You Are.

So that’s Batman covered, what about everyone else? Well much as I feared when I saw all the cast the movie is unnecessarily bloated. It’s true you can have multiple Batman villains in a movie and have it work, The Nolan trilogy demonstrated that, but to varying degrees of success. It’s interesting to note that the longest of the Nolan movies is also the weakest and the one that utilised it’s three rogues the least successfully. Here both Penguin and Catwoman were unnecessary to the story being told and both added significantly to the movies run time. Selina does play a role in the main story, but it’s not a role that actually required or even benefited from being that character specifically, it could just as easily have been any other female character, even a wholly original one. Her role in the story has nothing to do with her skills as a thief or in combat, both of which are basically there without explanation (Much like Batman’s). They don’t even really deal with the cat gimmick outside of showing she has a few strays (Which she shows very little actual affection for). The cats don’t feel part of Selina’s personality and are just sort of there. As for Zoey Kravitz herself, she is okay in the role but hardly ground breaking.

Pennyroyal Tea.

The Penguin is a real mixed bag. Colin Farrell is superb in the role and the make up work to change him into the notorious character is incredibly well done. However, Oswald’s role in the story is even less relevant than Selina and his entire story arc could have been dropped with the only impact being they would probably have had to change one of the riddles. Given that riddle was the worst one and the one that made Batman look incompetent as a detective, that would not have been a bad thing. I would estimate that between the Oswald and Selina arcs you have about 20-40 unnecessary minutes trimmed from the story in a way that would have tightened up and improved the rest of the plot. Because of this I’m going to have to mark both down as a failure. However, seeing more of this Penguin in the future would be a good thing.

Big Cheese.

The third character from the rogues gallery is gangster boss Carmine Falcone and this is a character that actually should have had more of a focus on him. Not only is he important to the plot, he is played superbly by John Turturro and the underuse of the character does a lot to diminish the impact of a number of reveals later on in the film. The character would have been a perfect enemy for this grittier neo-noir type Batman in his second year of operation in the role, but when you clutter the movie up with Penguin and Catwoman Falcone ends up largely just in the background.

Drain You.

The final and most important member of the rogues gallery is the primary antagonist of the film, The Riddler. Played well by Paul Dano, but the character somewhat falls apart in the final act. As I mentioned earlier, The Riddler is the ideal foil for Batman as a detective, however just as this Batman is not an especially smart detective, neither is the Riddler especially smart as an antagonist and once the veil is lifted on his motivation he really comes across as quite a pathetic, naive character. Not that a pathetic character can’t be a villain but it does lead the end of the film to somewhat fizzle out (despite the attempt at a big set piece action ending). Overall though, I’m marking this one down as a positive.

Serve the Servants.

On the other side of the playing field you have Jeffrey Wright as James Gordon and Andy Serkis as Alfred. Both somewhat fell flat for me as the plot seemed to assume the characters relationship with the lead without really showing it on screen. Neither reallys seemed to have much chemistry with Pattinson and the Gordon/Batman scenes were some of the weakest of the movie due to the pair apparently trying to out mumble/whisper each other. Andy Serkis’ role in the movie felt small, like they didn’t really want to deal with the fact Batman has such a close ally and confidant, especially one that is also his butler. These are sadly both negatives.

Lithium.

Overall, there is some hope for the franchise going forward. Pattinson wasn’t terrible and nothing was broken beyond repair by this movie. Indeed some characters such as Penguin I absolutely look forward to seeing more of. However, they do need to learn from their mistakes if they want to build a worthwhile trilogy (or longer series). The next movie needs to be more focused and they need to vastly improve the character work and stop trying to push current day politics onto a character created in the 30’s that is meant to be timeless.

Milk It.

On a personal note I have to say I am tired of “Darker, gritier” batman movies. The Nolan trilogy was for me as dark and gritty as Batman should get. This movie pushes things so much further in that direction that to me it feels more like an “Elseworld” Batman (i.e. a one off novelty) than something trying to be comic true. That would be fine, but it’s also not quite unique enough to push that novelty. As you will know from this blog, I love Film Noir, so you’d think a Neo-Noir Batman would be right up my alley. Sadly though while the movie attempts to push that vibe, it feels artificial, like yet another attempt at a Noir that fails to understand the genre in the first place. A full on elseworlds Noir Batman, perhaps even in black and white could certainly be interesting, but I doubt Warner would ever greenlight something that radical.

Stay Away.

I would actually much rather see a Batman movie embrace the characters gothic side again like Tim Burton’s movies did 30 years. Indeed if we’re talking about doing an “Elseworld” Batman I would love to see a “Gaslight” universe set in victorian times that not only gave us Jack The Ripper, but also re-imagined some of the rogues gallery in a more gothic style and perhaps even had a bit of Batman Vs Dracula in the mix (I’m talking over several films or a series here). Maybe that’s just me, but I’d find that more interesting than yet another darker and grittier version. Of course they could also just try and put the character and the stories from the comic actually on the screen without interpretation and re-imagining. I know, crazy idea right?

Morbius (2022)

Posted on April 15, 2022April 29, 2022 by fenrisfil

For tonight’s feature I viewed Sony’s new release from their “Venomverse” universe, “Morbius” (2022). This marks Sony’s first addition to the Venomverse and as such the movie the finally turns that world from a playground for Symbiotes into a true shared universe. Not that this has any cross over material outside of a throw away line and an awkward post credit scene, but it is an important milestone for Sony and one you’d think would be important to them. Then again they made so much money off Spider-Man maybe they no longer care.

Blood, Sweat, Tears and more Blood.

The movie is helmed by director Daniel Espinosa, who obviously has some horror experience from making the Alien-esque “life” (2017) and I assume this is why he was picked for the movie. The movies writers, Matt Sazama and Burke Sharpless have a string of genre movies to their name but it’s worth noting their highest IMDB score is for Dracula Untold (A movie I did enjoy) which hits the heady heights of 6.2/10. The rest of their movies are in the fives and that probably explains a lot about this one.

Jared Leto stars as the eponymous Doctor Michael Morbius and is joined by Matt Smith’s Milo/Lucien, Adria Arjona as Martine Bancroft and Jared Harris as Dr. Emil Nicholas. There are also a number of minor roles that appear to have been reduced to bare bones in the edit room including Tyrese Gibson as a race swapped Simon Stroud, who in the comics is actually a superhero himself but apparently his entire arc was cut, reducing the role to just a chasing FBI agent that seems a little more competent than his colleagues. Apparently there were whole scenes featuring his cyborg arm, but neither those nor the arm itself made the theatrical release. Still, he has more presence than Michael Keaton’s Adrian Toomes who appears to have had his entire role reduced from something worthy of inclusion in the trailer, to just a confusing mid credits cameo.

Vampire Interrupted.

Speaking of Keaton, let’s address the elephant in the room. This movie was originally due to be released in July 2020, but with Covid delaying things both Sony and Disney shuffled their Marvel deck and this had a knock on effect to a lot of the movies and the continuity between them. There was also a new deal signed between Sony and Disney in relation to Spider-Man’s on screen presence. Through all this there ended up being a need for extensive reshoots and a key change to the movie that removed all references to anything MCU, until the mid credits. At this point I think Morbius ended up a gutted husk of the movie that Espinosa originally intended, though it is hard to tell. What is clear is that Keaton definitely had a bigger role as the scene from the first trailer is completely absent. Also absent is the Spider-Man “Murderer” graffiti that was present in the trailer. Apparently this was added by the studio without the directors knowledge.

Best of Enemies?

One can speculate on what was meant to be, but ultimately we can only deal with what is. So let’s dig into that. The first thing to note is this film feels very small. There are effectively only four characters with any importance to the story and Jared Harris is used sparsely. Adria Arjona has a bit more of a role but even that feels like it is missing some key character moments. The movie instead focuses on Smith and Leto. In itself that’s not a bad move but if you are going to focus so heavily on a pair of friends that become enemies there should really be more of an emotional connection between them. Instead while both actors do their best for their role ultimately every decision either character makes is entirely done to drive the plot. None of it feels particularly natural. There’s very little emotional ambivalence and when they inevitably face off it doesn’t really feel like two life long friends that have gone past the point of no return.

Living Vampire or Dying Franchise?

The plot is itself simple and largely predictable. There is no more to it than what you would read in a synopsis. I would say there is nothing more to the movie than you see in the trailer, but actually there is more in the trailer! This is a bare bones story that has promise and had they found an angle to focus on or expand it could actually have been good. But alas, there is no such angle. The movie just ploughs through a series of events from start to end with almost no character growth, world building or plot complexities (outside of some obvious “twists”).

Ultimately what is there is absolutely fine. The actors performances were solid, the action sequences mostly work, there are a few cool visuals and there are no overbearing politics or modern clichés that made me especially dislike it The problem is there just isn’t much to the film at all. One day maybe there will be an Espinosa cut or at least some kind of explanation about why the end result appears so different to what was promised in that first trailer. That should make for an interesting story, in the meantime though this movie does not.

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

Posted on March 17, 2022April 15, 2022 by fenrisfil

For tonight’s horror viewings I have “House on Haunted Hill”. Directed by William Castle and written by Robb White. The pair would later make the infamous gimmick horrors “The Tingler” and “13 Ghosts” that tried to encourage audience participation in the movies. Castle would also be the man behind getting Rosemary’s Baby made into a film, though he didn’t direct it (Which was a requirement of getting the rights, likely to avoid “Tingler” like gimmicks). The movie was remade in 1999, to minimal acclaim though that movie did spawn a sequel.

The Set up

In this movie though, Vincent Price stars as Frederick Loren an eccentric millionaire that has challenged five people to spend the night in a haunted house for the prize of $10,000 if they survive (about $100k in today’s money). They are joined in the house by Frederick and his cynical unhappy wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart). Our five strangers are the heroic Lance Schroeder (Richard Long), the level headed Dr. Trent (Alan Marshall), the neurotic Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig), journalist Ruth Bridges (Julie Mitchum) and the houses traumatized owner Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook Jr.).

The door are to be locked at midnight trapping whomever is inside until morning. Things begin with a few frights and a lot of cynicism and it becomes clear that it may not be the ghosts that people need to be afraid of in this house (I mean they are locked in a house with Vincent Price, what do you expect). The only guest that really believes in the ghosts is Pritchard, who was traumatized by staying there previously (and the often underrated Elisha does an excellent job here of selling the supernatural aspects to the audience in the face of everyone else’s cynicism). Nora though is certainly afraid and is the victim of a campaign of terror. The truth is though she is not the real focus, but merely a pawn in a cunning plan.

The Execution

So this movie is really more of a macabre murder mystery than an actual haunted house movie and as such it’s worth noting that it isn’t at all scary. The haunting aspects are basically just goofy, Carolyn Craig sells her terror well enough but I doubt even in the day the audience really believed the ghosts were the problem. As a murder mystery it’s not the most complicated but it is definitely satisfactory and has some good twists. Vincent Price is of course a joy to watch in this kind of role and he plays it about half way between his serious roles and his more over the top ones (Such as the classic Dr.Phibes). The music and sound design is very 1950’s and so feels dated but fitting for the kind of movie it is and I loved the use of the Theremin.

Overall, this movie lacks rewatchability and frankly is not scary, however largely thanks to Vincent Price it is still entertaining in a campy sort of way.

Nightmare Alley: 1947 Vs 2021

Posted on February 22, 2022May 10, 2022 by fenrisfil

I’m going to do something a little different with this review and review and compare two movies. Both adaptations of the same source material, “Nightmare Alley” by William Lindsay Gresham, published in 1946. The first movie was adapted from the story one year later in 1947; Directed by Edmund Goulding and starring Tyrone Power as “Stanton Carlisle” it is considered a Film Noir classic (Hence why it seemed fitting to review both given my passion for Film Noir). The second movie is the latest from visionary filmmaker Guillermo del Toro and features an all star cast including Bradley Cooper (as “Carlisle”), Cate Blanchett (As Dr. Lilith Ritter), Willem DaFoe and Ron Perlman (the last two in minor roles).

Remake or new take on the same source?

Though Del Toro initially claimed his movie is not a remake of the Film Noir, the ending of the movie and the inclusion of a key line added for the 1947 movie suggests otherwise. It seems the truth is Del Toro’s movie falls somewhere between the source and it’s first adaptation. That said, as far as I can tell (Having not read the novel itself) the first movie was pretty close to the source material already so it is hard to tell where Del Toro is following the novel and where he is following the Noir. One notable difference though is that the 1947 movie adds some story to the end (which was not present in the book) while the 2021 film adds a little to the start. The bulk of the story is however the same.

Framing changes everything.

What makes the new versions distinct however (aside from being in colour of course) is some framing of the events and the personalities. In the 1947 version Tyrone Power’s “Carlisle” is competent and confident throughout. He is a clever man always on the lookout for angles. Ultimately he goes one scheme too far and becomes a victim to his own hubris. But he’s not totally irredeemable. In this version he sidesteps the fate laid out for him in the novel but ends up instead repeating the fate of the toxic relationship between his two Mentalist mentors in his early days at the carnival. So the ending is bitter sweet.

The Life and Times of Stanton Carlisle

Cooper’s Carlisle though has a much darker soul, while not without some positive qualities (For instance showing some empathy towards the Carnivals “Geek”) he has a bitter and violent side to him. Unlike Power’s version he is not a natural grifter swayed into darkness, instead the film lets us know he already has a taint on his soul, a dark act that follows him around and perhaps a hatred in his heart. This Carlisle learns the grift directly from the Carnies and with Cooper I always felt he was lying as much to himself as those he deceived.

The most notable difference between the two is how they act when things fall apart. Power’s character has become dislikable and yet I still felt some sympathy for him. He is ultimately destroyed by his two great strengths, his confidence and ability to read people. The former lead him to ignore the latter when it involved those closest to him. Cooper’s version while also a victim of his own hubris, reveals his true colours the moment things fell apart and at that point I knew his fate was sealed. It is difficult to decide which of those approaches I prefer.

For the majority of the film I would have to give it to Tyrone Power, whose performance was intense and believable, however I always felt the last act of the film where things fell apart seemed out of place for someone as together as Power’s Carlisle. Bradley Cooper’s version while I had difficulty buying his progress to the top, his fall felt both real and inevitable. The line taken from the earlier movie that has Carlisle acknowledge his own destiny seems all the more fitting in Del Toro’s movie because of this.

The Primordial She-Demon

As far as the supporting cast goes, the main other player in this story is the psychoanalyst Dr. Lilith Ritter, played by Helen Walker in the earlier movie and Cate Blanchett in Del Toro’s movie. She’s not actually in most of the movie, but her role is pivotal. In the battle of these actresses Blanchett easily wins. I always found the characters betrayal somewhat out of place in the earlier movie, sure she gets to profit financially but as a high paid psychoanalyst I felt like she should have had more to her motivation. But much like with Cooper’s Carlisle, Blanchett’s Ritter is as a far darker version of the character, bitter and twisted and holding a personal grudge against Carlisle for publicly showing her up when they first met (Even though she was trying to show him up).

She doesn’t even care about the money, she just wants to see Carlisle destroyed. What comes into question is did she plan for Carlisle’s scheme to fail all along or would this betrayal have happened further down the line anyway. It is hard to say, but either way Blanchett’s Dr. Ritter is a sociopath. It’s worth noting that as the character escapes punishment, the Motion Picture Production Code that was in play in 1974 would probably have prevented the character being portrayed in quite such a negative light for the earlier movie. Even as her role as a Noir Femme Fatale she is pushing those boundaries. It is clearly no coincidence that her name is “Lilith” (Which for those that don’t know is the name of the primordial she-demon and first wife to Adam, effectively the original Femme Fatale). Maybe it’s a little on the nose, but she earns the name for sure.

The Burden of a Good Woman

The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. Molly, Carlisle’s primary love interest has more of an elevated role in the Film Noir than Del Toro’s movie. She is the “Good Woman” character that was pretty common in the 1940’s and used in Film Noir to contrast with the Femme Fatale. She is loyal, dependable and good at heart. Because of this she is often the voice of conscience to Carlisle. It is ultimately her good nature and principles that leads to Stanton’s fall but also provides the opportunity for redemption. Ultimately the biggest failure of the grifter was to predict the actions of a good woman. While she plays essentially the same role in Del Toro’s movie she feels somewhat removed from the story until she is required to throw a spanner in the works. It seems in this darker world a “Good woman” would seem a bit too out of place, plus the trope isn’t a popular one with modern writers. So the end result is she is just kind of there.

Carnival of Lost Souls

Conversely however the other Carnies are a lot more fleshed out in Del Toro’s vision and rather unsurprisingly Willem DaFoe puts in a top notch performance to his role as Carnie boss Clem Hoatley. The Mentalist couple, Zena and Pete, that take Carlisle under their wing in the Carnival seem a lot more fleshed out too, but then Stanton has a lot more to learn about the trade in the 2021 version so they had to be. Not that they were ignored in the 1947 version, indeed their relationship provides the template for where Stanton and Molly’s ends up and because of this Pete is depicted as far more of a washed up hasbeen, with little indication to his past glories. Last of all Molly’s romantic partner at the start of the movie is significantly different between films with it being a Strong Man in the original (and not a great performance) and the carnivals Dwarf in the modern version. I couldn’t say which is closer to the novel though (If you know, feel free to tell me in the comments). The Dwarf however is backed up by Ron Perlman’s Bruno so Carlisle still get’s punched for his indiscretions.

Speaking of the Carnival, one of the most notable differences between versions is what the movies chose to show and what they chose to imply. The most obvious thing here being the carnivals “Geek”, which to those unfamiliar with the use of the work in this context, a carnival “Geek Show” features an apparently crazy man that chases around live chickens and eventually bites their heads off. The 1947 version shows only the audience reaction to this, but never shows it. Del Toro however directly depicts it. Of course they likely couldn’t show that in 1947, but still the implied spectacle was always pretty effective in film noir so that makes the approach a difficult comparison.

The Final Verdict

It’s not just the Geek that is given a more graphic spin, Del Toro also adds in a disturbing mutated baby in a jar (shown above) that also provides the film it’s final shot. None of this is really a surprise from Del Toro who always embraced the visually macabre. Of course Film Noir has its own visual style and Nightmare Alley is no exception, though it is not the best cinematography of the era. But then the 2021 version is not Del Toro’s best visual work either (Which is probably still “Pan’s Labyrinth”). Ultimately though I do have to give this one to the newer movie. One of the key elements of Film Noir is fatalism and it is actually the later movie that truly embodies that more than the first. The truth is the story here is a dark and twisted tale about not just human nature but about the dark side of the entertainment industry and it is fitting that the newer movie is so brutal in its approach. In my opinion however, this is not a great story in itself and so both versions surpassed the limitations of the source material to provide something truly entertaining.

Nightmare Alley (1947)

Nightmare Alley (2021)

The Spiral Staircase (1946)

Posted on February 10, 2022October 11, 2024 by fenrisfil

From director Robert Siodmak, whose work includes the excellent Film Noir’s “The Killers” and “Phantom Lady” this is 1946’s “The Spiral Staircase”, a serial killer movie, where the killer stalks and kills women with various afflictions, though most of it takes place in an old house on a stormy night so multiple tick boxes here.

The movie technically stars Dorothy McGuire as the Mute Helen, but despite being the protagonist, because she is mute the dialogue is all taken by other actors. Helen became a mute after witnessing her parents die in a fire when she was younger and has not spoken a word since. The supporting cast includes Kent Smith as Dr. Parry, George Brent as Professor Warren, Gordon Oliver as Steve Warren and Ethel Barrymore as the bed ridden Mrs. Warren.

The Twisted Path.

In the hands of a less capable director and with a less capable lead this would have been a very mediocre movie. The plot is unremarkable and most of the actors are likewise. However, Siodmak with his heavy influence from German Expressionism brings a fantastic eye to the camera and provides some beautiful imagery, mostly involving the use of shadows, rain and of course the Spiral Staircase itself along with some great glimpses of the killers eye (an eye provided by Siodmak himself) and an interesting daydream sequence.

Also raising the quality of the movie is McGuire and given she isn’t allowed to speak any dialogue has to convey to the audience all her emotions purely through her movements and expressions. Of course this movie is only 17 years after the end of the silent film era so perhaps this was less impressive in the day, but none the less she played her role perfectly. The killer however, once revealed wasn’t particularly imposing, which is a real shame because I know Siodmak can give us a great killer as the one in his “Phantom Lady” was actually very intimidating and had some great dialogue.

The Ever Decreasing Circles.

The music is typical of what you’d hear in the period in a Film Noir, but this is blended with a nice bit of Theremin. It works well enough but doesn’t really add anything. The problem with this film is simply that as a horror it’s not really scary or unsettling. I feel sympathy for Helen’s plight as a mute but that’s it really. The killer isn’t revealed until quite late on and while we see glimpses it doesn’t really build any terror. Really this plays more like a Film Noir, which also makes the visuals seem less unique as those techniques are all over that genre. Ultimately this isn’t Siodmak’s best work but it has it’s moments none the less.

Happy New Year

Posted on January 1, 2022January 1, 2022 by fenrisfil

Just wanted to wish you all a Happy New Year. I hope 2022 is a better year for us all and I also hope Hollywood learns the right lessons for 2021’s movies. We can but hope. I’ve got a lot more reviews coming for you in the new year and will try and get other parts of the site working. The plan is to do some Youtube content in the new year, so it is time to up my game.

2021 Year in Review – Part 3 : The Top Ten

Posted on December 31, 2021January 1, 2022 by fenrisfil

So as 2021 draws to a close I want to leave the year on a positive note by listing off my ten favourite films of the year. These are all personal favourites and as such this is an entirely subjective list. So let’s kick it off from ten to one:

10. Willy’s Wonderland

So let’s start with my favourite cult movie of the year. This is a fun, low budget horror staring Nicholas Cage in a roll that you would probably never think he would be right for… but the thing with Nick Cage is those often turn out to be his best roles. This is no exception as he brings a sort of overly calm autism to the silent, deadly protagonist. Not a word passes his lips for the entire movie as he turns the tables on his wood be executors, the possessed animatronic monstrosities at “Willy’s Wonderland”, a family entertainment centre. That base concept is not in itself original, basically being a “Five Nights at Freddy’s” movie and also similar to the “Banana Splits” movie that came out 2019 that fused the Five Nights concept onto a previously non-horror franchise. What makes this movie unique though is Nicholas Cages character, who proves more dangerous than the evil that has possessed the place. I would love to see more of this mute drifter in a sequel. No need to bring back the animatronics though.

On a side note apparently a Five Nights at Freddy’s film is in the works. One wonders how many more rip offs it will have before they actually get the movie out.

9. Venom: Let There Be Carnage

If you have read my review this one you will know I consider it a long way from perfect and yet in it’s simplicity it does manage to entertain. Eddie Brock returns in this film and he and Venom are struggling to find equilibrium in their relationship. But they must learn to get on in a hurry to deal with the threat of the Carnage Symbiote that spawned from Venom and has bonded with serial killer Cletus Cassidy. The final conflict is a solid action spectacle, while the rest of the movie is effectively a buddy cop comedy. It is short and does little different to the original movie but the fact is if you enjoyed that one, you will likely enjoy this.

8. Wrath of Man

While this is very much as Jason Statham film, it is one of his better ones. It’s also classic Guy Ritchie, but it has to be said it isn’t the best for either star or director. It’s just a solid action/thriller that delivers pretty much everything you would expect from the pair. Statham plays “H”, a cold mysterious character that clearly has some kind of hidden agenda working at armoured cash truck company responsible for delivering hundreds of millions of dollars around Los Angeles each week. In classic Guy Ritchie fashion the story intertwines criminal masterminds with each other to see who comes out on top. One of the things I always appreciate with Ritchie is his villains usually aren’t incompetent and so the protagonists need to be either very smart or very lucky to get the upper hand.

7. Pig

Yes it turns out Nicholas Cage made two of my favourite movies this yeah, who could guess? This is a really interesting story that never really goes where you would expect it. This is a story of one man’s attempt to find his prize truffle hunting pig after it is stolen by a pair of drug addicts on behalf of a mysterious third party. On it’s surface it looks like this will be a John Wick type story only with a Pig replacing John’s Dog. That’s not the case, or at least if it is it’s only true if John instead of being a highly skilled master assassin was instead a highly skilled master chef. While the movie presents a bit of action it is really a much more personal story and once again Cage presents one of the more interesting characters of the year. This is one of those films where an mysterious eccentric ends up teaching others life lessons, but it’s more than that as the eccentric himself has his own journey to go on. I highly recommend this unusual movie.

6. Free Guy

This was a movie that from the first trailer I could tell two things: It would be incredibly stupid and; It would be incredibly fun. The final product delivered exactly what the trailer promised. Not much in this movie makes sense when you think about it for more than five minutes, but it really doesn’t matter because the movie packs in so much pure unadulterated fun that you can forgive pretty much any other failing. Ryan Reynolds of course is someone that plays variations of the same character (himself) in every movie, but this is him at the maximum level of Ryan Reynolds you are likely to find him outside of a Deadpool movie. On top of that the movie itself provides a lot of fun for anyone that has ever played Grand Theft Auto or it’s sequels/rip-offs and a good number of other references in between, including some that clearly must have been added after a certain studio purchased another studio as those rights wouldn’t have been available before. Ultimately it great time for anyone that doesn’t exclusively watch Oscar nominated dramas.

5. The Suicide Squad

James Gunn provided one of the most heart felt and fun movies of the year. Yes the plot is complete nonsense, yes Harley Quinn was the weak link this time around, but the other characters were on point both in personality and interaction. Indeed this movie had some of the best character work of the entire year, which is pretty impressive for one of the silliest movies of the year. Then again that is exactly what Gunn does. Say what you like about the man personally, but as a director of comic book movies he is perhaps the perfect director combining the kind of character interaction and banter that Joss Whedon is known for with the knowledge, love and dedication to the source material of someone like Sam Raimi.

I think it always says something about a movie when a character you didn’t think you would like ends up your favourite and that is absolutely the case for me with The Suicide Squad and “Ratcatcher 2”. But she’s not alone, Idris Elba proved his “Bloodsport” to be far superior to Will Smith’s “Deadshot” while John Cena’s deadpan comedic delivery proved perfect for such a ludicrous character as Peacemaker and it seems was so impressive in the role he now has a spin off in the works. The humour won’t land for everyone but as I said it is also a movie full of heart and I think most people will appreciate the character work.

4. Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Of course if we are talking heart, there was no movie this year that displayed more of it than Ghostbusters: Afterlife and having already shared my full review I won’t go into too much detail here. This was a resurrection of a franchise that many people thought dead, a love letter to the original movie and perhaps most importantly an apology to all the fans that were insulted and belittled after the disastrous 2016 movie by the shill media, actors on that film and even the director himself. It made that apology though while not compromising their mission to make Ghostbusters as accessible a franchise as possible, providing a diverse cast and a female lead that everyone (except those still making excuses for “Answer the Call”) can actually get behind.

The story keeps itself simple and on the surface appears merely a rehash of the original movie, but underneath that it is actually a very personal story where the main character is Egon Spengler. Quite a feat considering that character dies early in the movie and Harold Ramis, his actor died years ago before this movie even began production. Eventually the movie provides the reunion of the original team that everyone was waiting for and gives them a final moment to shine and remind the fans why the original was so good in the first place. If you feel nothing after the end of this movie, I worry for you.

3. Dune

I had a lot of doubts going in as to whether Denis Villeneuve and 2021 could deliver a good Dune movie. I knew it would look fantastic, but after seeing “Blade Runner 2049” I had my doubts on the rest o fit. That movie failed to do justice to the characters, story or themes of the original movie, though it did certainly look the part. I did recognise however that unlike with 2049, Villeneuve would be grounded here by the quality and extent of the source material. Fans of Frank Herbert’s classic science fiction series have been waiting a long time for someone to do justice to that series on screen, The first attempt was David Lynch’s 1984 movie that proved heavily divisive amongst Dune fans and the audience in general. For my part I quite liked it, though it was also my first introduction to the franchise having not read the novels. This was followed in the 90’s by a couple of low budget TV shows on Sci-Fi that were actually pretty good too, but suffered from bad 90’s CGI and have dated horrendously.

This new take on the story finds itself in a approach that takes the best from the previous two. Like the TV series, it doesn’t rush to tell the story and of course this is why the movie barely covers a third of that first book, but like the previous movie the acting is top notch and the movie looks and sounds great. I will provide a full review of this in the new year but for now the important thing to note is the movie is epic and compelling, despite the slow pace and long running time. It doesn’t feel like a movie that has taken two and a half hours to tell a third of a story, and while the movies sudden end (and cheesy closing line) leave you fully aware of how little of the story has been told, it also leaves you eagerly anticipating the stories continuation. Definitely a job well done.

2. Spider-Man: No Way Home

If you’ve read my review of “Spider-Man: No Way Home” probably the only thing that shocks you here is that it is not at number one. Yes I absolutely loved this movie, but it’s not perfect and it is ultimately yet another franchise movie, indeed it is two franchise movies the MCU and Spider-Man, the two biggest franchises in the superhero business. It’s success was always guaranteed, though few predicted it would be as successful as it has been. It’s also not a movie free from flaws, but let’s not focus on the negatives here. The truth is this is another redemption story and not just the story of one redemption but multiple ones. It redeems villains, it redeems heroes and redeems entire sub-franchises. By the end of the movie Tom Holland’s Peter Parker is closer to the comic book version than he has ever been and through this I came to realise that this entire trilogy of movies has actually been an origin story. I’m still not sure if that is good or bad, but it certainly leaves a sense of satisfaction.

Like the Infinity Saga before it, this is more than just a movie, it is a huge cinematic event and the culmination of 8 movies and three separate franchises. It does something that has never been done before in the history of cinema and it does it in a way that will leave most people very happy indeed. The only problem is this is something that only really works once. It may have breathed life into a flagging MCU but now they need to course correct with the rest of the franchise.

1. Nobody

What do you get if you take the writers of the best current action franchise, “John Wick”, pair him with the director of breakout cult classic and first person action movie “Hardcore Henry” and ask them to provide an action movie debut to Bob Odenkirk (Of Breaking Bad fame)? Well, what you get is my movie of the year and one of the best action movies I’ve seen for years. Throw in a touch of RZA and Christopher Lloyd as a bonus and you have a real classic on your hands. This is a masterpiece of an action movie, hiding it’s explosive nature under the surface much as it’s protagonist hides his own past and capabilities under the guise of a family man with a boring job. The action sets off from a chain of events beginning with a badly planned home invasion of Odenkirk’s house, which leads to a confrontation with strangers on the subway and the wrath of a local mob boss.

The movie achieves a rare thing and works both on the level of a tense thriller and when it fully ramps up the action outperforms some of the most outrageous over the top action films of recent years. The pacing of the story is perfect easing you in to the gradual increases in intensity and unlike many modern action films you can actually follow every bit of action clearly. It is like the best 80’s action hero meets the best 90’s action stunts and applies the polish of the best 2000’s action CGI fest. If you’ve not seen this one yet you owe it to yourself to check it out and unlike most of the top picks this year, this is an original movie and not part of any pre-established franchise. Top marks all round.

So that is my top movies of this year. I hope you enjoyed my choices, feel free to agree, disagree or share your own in the comments. Happy New Year to you all and see you in 2022.