Ok, let’s start off by saying that I am very happy that this just has a number 2 at the end of it. I am getting fed up with sequels having to have weird unnecessary sub-titles to cover up the fact that they have made so many unnecessary additions to a franchise. Paddington was a 2014 family film that adapted the famous children’s books authored by Michael Bond. That film came out in 2014 at just the right time, so as a result, it exploded and was a massive Box Office success.
Now, obviously a sequel is almost inevitable from that. I was hoping that if a sequel was commissioned it would actually go back to what made the children’s books so memorable. That’s not to say I disliked the first Paddington film, far from it, I actually think it’s a pretty decent well made family film, it kind of reminds me of a lot of the live action family films I went to see when I was small. Not many films like these are made anymore. That being said, however, this really feels like a movie I would have seen when I was small, there is nothing really new or innovative in it. But it’s a nice sweet film.
The sequel has Paul King return to direct and he also shares a co-writing credit with Simon Farnaby who has a credit writing for Horrible Histories. Paul King on the other hand, well he hadn’t done much theatrical work prior to the first Paddington. His previous credits include the Mighty Boosh and the Matt Lucas and David Walliams comedy, Come Fly With Me, it will not surprise you that this humour is significantly toned down for these films. But, Paddington is pretty much of a British Institution now, and unlike many of the works of fiction which I feel get rather overblown in how British they are, I think Paddington has a decent message for a young audience that I think is as relevant now as it was back then. So, how does its sequel turn out.
Paddington 2 takes place a few years after the events of the first film. Paddington Brown, (played by Ben Whishaw) wishes to get a priceless antique pop-up book of London landmarks to give to his aunt Lucy, (played by Imelda Staunton) for her 100th birthday. However, the book is stolen from the antique shop by out of work Broadway actor Phoenix Buchanan (played by Hugh Grant) and Paddington has got the blame and he gets locked up. However, the Brown’s, (played by Hugh Bonnevile, Sally Hawkins, Madeleine Harris and Samuel Joslin) along with their live-in cook, Mrs Bird, (played by Julie Walters), start investigating into Phoenix in order to clear Paddington’s name. However, whilst inside, Paddington tries to make the best of his situation and befriends a friendly cook, named Knuckles McGinty, (played by Brendan Gleeson) and teaches him is aunt’s favourite Marmalade recipe in order to provide the prisoners with better food.
Yes, there is one thing you can say about this film over the previous one,
there is a lot more happening this time around. In fact, there is a large portion in the middle of the film where the A plot is almost put on hold entirely to focus on the B plot. Granted, the balance between the two isn’t quite in the right favour, however, the film is called Paddington, so it was probably a better idea to focus on the parts that he would be more featured in. This film is very much a case of “playing it safe”. Everything about this film feels like it was playing it safe, it didn’t want to take a risk.
The film is almost identical to the first film, to the actual extent that Hugh Grant is so over the top that he almost feels like a gender swap from Nicole Kidman’s character. While we are on the subject of Nicole Kidman’s character, she gets community service (spoilers by the way for the first film at this point), in a petting Zoo for multiple accounts of attempted murder, but Paddington is accused of stealing an antique pop-up book, and that’s worth ten years in prison!!! Sorry, how does the logic of this world work? I know Paddington is set in an over the top world, but LOGIC guys!! Why does a Paddington film need a bad guy? Ok, I get it for the first film, it’s kind of necessary, you are putting a character that is rather out of public consciousness for quite some time into a more modern world and you need to test the waters to see if the character works well. So doing a by the numbers adventure story works in that regard. The first film was a massive success and I hoped that would mean we get a more slice of lifestyle story for this sequel in a similar way to the recent M&S Christmas advert. However, the sequel seems to be so afraid of breaking the mould of the previous one but it’s almost got plot beat for plot beat very similar. There are various moments where it veers off and does its own thing and you will never mistake the two for twins, but it is somewhat noticeable. Also, the most awful example of this was when the film repeated the gag where the security guard fancying clearly a bloke in drag, this time being Hugh Grant dressed as a nun, who by the way got a job in St Pauls Cathedral between films, don’t know how that happened and I wouldn’t have minded if they had actually done something different with the gag, but it’s the exact same gag and it wasn’t even that funny the first time! Now I get it’s a very silly film, I quite like a decent silly film, but the gag needed to be just a bit more and the whole film just needed to take a few more risks to earn points with me.
I also found it weird, this depiction of prison. They go in with this whole “soft at heart” thing and I actually liked it being a message about rehabilitating criminals rather than just locking them up, but it does make you feel weird to think that a couple of these guys might be actual murderers. Yes, try watching the film now with that in your head. I don’t think it’s as bad as when they had the Minions in prison, that one felt like a very counter-productive idea.
Apart from the Brown’s, there’s not that many returning characters. Matt Lucas’s cab driver is nowhere to be seen for example, though many are brought back. The Brown’s are a good cast of characters and it at least feels like their development from the first film has actually stuck, which is more than I can say for Mr Curry, who once again is played by Peter Capaldi, who feels like he has gone completely backwards and purely exists to repeat the same admirable message of “don’t be prejudice against immigrants” the first film had, except in this film, it is hammered in so much that it just doesn’t feel real anymore, in fact it feels rather forced. As a result, it just becomes more annoying because it feels so heavy handed almost as if it’s just to P… off Nigel Farage for saying that he hadn’t seen the first film when it came out. Granted, anything that P….. off that loon is fine by me, but that’s aside from the point.
Ok, what do I like about this film, quite a bit actually. The location shoots are pretty good and the once again the film has a nice charm to it which kind of makes up for a lot of the rougher edges that take you out of the film. The location shots done in Camden Market are fantastic, if you as familiar with this market as I am, the choreography of the chase scene will not make as much sense to you, but I can’t deny it was a very well shot scene.
Also, the cast is fantastic. While most of them don’t get much to do and are borderline extended cameo’s if not cameo’s outright, they do a very good job and are likeable characters. The most prominent new addition to the cast being Brendan Gleeson as Knuckles, the prison cook, who is probably my favourite part of the entire film. Brendan Gleeson is clearly having a ball playing this character and he actually works very well with Ben Whishaw, I have to commend Gleeson for his performance in this film considering he had to act obviously with the CG model in a lot of one on one scenes and he does it very well and it does feel like they are genuinely interacting off each other, something the Alvin and the Chipmunks films and the terrible Smurf films could learn from. Ok, let’s face it, nothing could fix those films! While I have mentioned a few of them the cameo’s also include Jessica Hynes, Ben Miller, Sanjeev Bhaskar as residents of the street as well as some very small cameo’s from the likes of Joanna Lumley and the IT Crowds, Richard Ayoade, whose dry sense of humour really adds to the film during his brief cameo, even if I felt it was a bit of a weird moment. While we are talking about the cast, Hugh Grant playing a pompous British West End actor, gee, I wonder where they got the idea from for that casting! All sarcasm aside, I actually think that Hugh Grant is another one of the best parts of this film. Rather like Nicole Kidman in the first film, his over the top nature really works to the films advantage. I think a lot of the suggestion that his is a “one note actor” has been greatly exaggerated as in his later career he seems to be really pushing the boat out, as noted by both this and the film that he should have received an Oscar nomination for, Florence Foster Jenkins. Seriously, watch Florence Foster Jenkins, it is a fantastic film. Returning cast members that I did really enjoy, Capaldi gives a decent performance if his part is badly written and Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins are still pretty good, plus the child actor is a lot of fun. Julie Walters is given a lot more to do in this film, which is a bonus and I was a huge fan of Jim Broadbent, who has been given and extended role this time around. Though, again, he still is kind of an extended cameo. You may also be surprised to hear that Michael Gambon is back for this film if you are aware of the first one, though, that being said, it’s really for a prologue at the beginning of the film, which feels unnecessary and actually feels like it was a deleted scene from the first one.
The effects are still pretty good. Paddington still feels like he is actually there, which a lot of these CGI kids creations seem to think they don’t have to put effort into and once again, in danger of repeating myself, like the awful Alvin and Chipmunks films and the two awful live action Smurf movies.
The cinematography is also fantastic once again, once again, using and lot of the effects to make the world seem like a dull house, which I greatly appreciated. Plus the costume department did a fantastic job on this film, I have to commend that aspect of it too.
Paddington 2 feels like it is playing it rather safe, but I kind of appreciated it for its charm and its very well acted cast. While I felt there was a lot to be desired by the fact that this felt like too much of a carbon copy as a film, I still think if you liked the first one you will like this one. It at least has a couple of things to stand out from the first one and while it may be a silly film at least it never veers off from the rules of its world. If you have got kids, this ones worth a watch, though I personally felt the first film was better. I also think you won’t be noticing how similar the two films are if it’s been a while since you have seen the first Paddington film, since I re-watched the first film the day before I saw it so it was very fresh in my memory.
Well, that’s it for another review and you’ve got to look forward to next week, as next week I am going to be back with my thoughts on one of the biggest releases of the year, DC’s latest film Justice League.
Thanks a lot for reading my review. I hope you have enjoyed reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it and please don’t suck, please don’t suck, I really don’t want Justice League to suck.
What can I say about Murder on the Orient Express that hasn’t already been said, it is one of the very definitions of a classic murder mystery. Agatha Christie’s has gone down in history as being basically the inventor the classic murder mystery. Hell, you go to any murder mystery party, there is always an element of her work in there, along with the late, great Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Murder on the Orient Express is by far her most popular work, further featuring the stories of Belgian detective Hercule Poirot and has been adapted countless times. I have seen many adaptations of Murder on the Orient Express, though from what I can gather, most people think the definitive version is the 1974 version, which I have also heard from unaccredited sources is also the most accurate to the original novel. Now I have always made it clear that I don’t think a good adaptation is the one that is the most accurate since knowing when to make changes is often the better one. For example, The Godfather is based on a book, but half of the book is entirely missing from the film and yet the film doesn’t suffer for one instant, since most of it was basically padding. That film was two and a half hours long and yet half the book is cut, though when you hear some of the things that were cut, you would be glad they were cut. Though I should also mention for anyone who was going to bring it up, I am aware that much of those elements were recycled for The Godfather Part 2.
Murder on the Orient Express is not a particularly long book, so it suits a feature length adaptation quite well, with this version coming in at one hour fifty-four minutes. Now I wasn’t particularly impressed by the idea of doing another version of Murder on the Orient Express until I heard it was being directed by Kenneth Branagh. Now Kenneth Branagh has directed many amazing films and he brings a certain theatricality to his directorial works which can be best seen in his adaptions like Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, as well as his Shakespearian adaptations like the 1996 version of Hamlet and 2000 version of Loves Laboured Lost and even turns up in subtle ways like in the first Thor movie or more recently the film he directed prior to this, the live action remake of Cinderella. I also found out that he would be starring in a lead role. However, Branagh would not be writing the film, the writing duties went to Michael Green, who is not a writer you have probably heard of, but trust me, after this year, I think you should pay some attention to him. While he may have started out as a TV writer for shows like Smallville and Heros, and he does a few stinkers in his collection, including being one of the writers for the failed 2011 Green Lantern movie, this year he seems to be on a bit of the role. He was one of the writers for the screenplay of Logan, which anyone who has read my review of that one will know I thought it was fantastic. He wrote Alien Covenant, which while I felt it had its issues was at least one of the more competently produced Alien sequels and let’s not forget that he wrote one of my favourite Sci Fi films of the year so far, Blade Runner 2049, which I thought was fantastic, as well as writing several shorts for Blade Runner that better established the world. Seriously, that is all this year, I don’t know what that many has in his coffee, but I want some. With all that team in place, as well as an announced all-star cast, how does this version stand up compared to others.
Let me start by saying that despite the fact that I am going on the assumption that most people have seen Murder on the Orient Express, I won’t be giving away any spoilers for those who haven’t seen the film. This will purely be coming from the perspective of someone who hasn’t seen it and will see the film for the first time. With that in mind, let’s get a brief plot synopsis.
Detective Hercule Poirot (played by Kenneth Branagh) aims to take the Orient Express to make a meeting he has in France on time. While on the train he receives news from a man called Edward Ratchett that the mob is after him and he requires protection. However, Ratchett, (played by Johnny Depp) is murdered on one of the nights. The suspects include his assistant Hector MacQueen, (played by Josh Gad), the lone traveller, Miss Mary Debenham, (played by Daisy Ridley), the travelling Doctor, Doctor Arbuthnot (played by Leslie Odom Jr), the missionary Pilar Estravados, (played by Penelope Cruz), Edward Henry Masterman, (played by Derek Jacobi), Caroline Hubbard, (played by Michelle Pfeiffer), the Princess Dragamiroff, (played by Judi Dench), her assistant Hildegarde Schmidt, (played by Olivia Colman) and a traveller named Gerhard Hardman, (played by Willem Dafoe). Poirot vows to investigate before they reach their destination after a certain amount of collusion into doing so, but with everyone seeming to have something to hide, it might be harder than he thought.
Ok, how do I put this, if you are a fan of Agatha Christie’s work, you know what to expect coming into this, in fact I actually think this would make a good double feature if you watched alongside a Dr Who episode that she was a character in. The story to a certain extent in this version feels rather expanded. Certain smaller parts that were underplayed in other productions feel like they have been stretched out but yet other parts that we are more familiar with feel rather condensed. Now, while personally I don’t mind this, from an adaptation point of view, it might surprise you how much these little differences kind of add up if you are very familiar with the story, be it having read the book, or like me seeing several productions of it. Kenneth Branagh certainly puts his finger print on this version, however, I would hardly say this is a massive ego trip for him despite the fact that he has also cast himself in the lead role. In fact I actually found it amazing how good his direction is considering how much he has to do in each scene and considering that everyone at all times needs to know what everyone knows at what particular time and what particular relevance it is, is a testament to his directing because it seems to flow very well. Now if you are familiar with Murder on the Orient Express, there are no real changes when it comes to the solution, it’s the same twist, nothing has changed, which on the one hand works, but I have always felt like, when people say this is the original plot twist, I never felt that Murder on the Orient Express’s twist works entirely, in fact it feels rather convoluted, but that’s a problem with the source material and the adaptors had to go in with it. For what it is though, I think they do it quite well. If you went in to this not knowing who the murderer is it would keep you guessing. When we find out more about the victims past, it opens up the avenue to who the potential murderer is and each character potentially feels like they could be the final solution, in fact, it feels very similar to the Cluedo murder in that sense, though you won’t be getting a different answer depending on what cinema you go to! Granted, tone wise, it kind of has a tonal shift. It starts out rather camp at the beginning, like a classis murder mystery night. However, it does shift to a serious tone, not forgetting the nature of the crime that has taken place. Now, while technically this is a tonal shift, it’s actually handled rather smoothly and it’s more a slow progression rather than a massive mood whiplash halfway through the film.
So, what did I think of the movie then, well overall I actually enjoyed the story. Granted I have seen it many times, but this version of the Orient Express is going to stand out in my head. There is nothing much new here, in terms of the plot, it’s the same as what you got before. Branagh does attempt to modernise it but in a sense, he exposes the cracks in how dated the source material king of is. The modernised tone does not mesh brilliantly given how the finale plays out. I would love to explain it, but, it’s just say there is a reason why I think this should have been more closer to say, something like Law and Order. But that’s my point, most of my problems with this film are to do with the source material, not the film itself, so I don’t want to blame the film makers in that sense, because these are a lot of things they couldn’t really have changed without making the story unrecognisable. Any changes with this one is hardly the same as half the changes that were made to Children of the Corn for example, the 80’s version at least.
So, what are my thoughts in terms of the film and what the film makers were in complete control with. In terms of the characterisation, I think they did very well, most of the characters do a brilliant job, but that’s down to a fantastic all-star cast, they were all giving off excellent performances. While Branagh’s Belgian accent is rather dodgy at times, he does give a fantastic performance as Poirot, though it does have a hint of Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock to it. One of the performances I believe will go under appreciated is Olivia Colman, who does an excellent performance and her name has not been advertised enough in the production, in fact I was impressed how well she performs in German in one particular scene. Judi Dench is fantastic in her part and of course Willem Dafoe is always on form. Michelle Pfeifer is in the film as well and she delivers a decent performance. Actress Penelope Cruz is fantastic as well as character actors like Richard Clifford and even performances from more younger members of the cast including Star Wars Daisy Ridley, who I think is becoming an absolute talent to watch out for, as well as Leslie Odom Jr and Josh Gad, who I think, given that I have not really been a fan of his work in recent memory, I am seriously a fan of his performance in this film. I know I have been against the guy in my past review, saying I am not much of a fan of his, mainly when I reviewed the Angry Birds movie and put the Wedding Ringer in my worst films of 2015 list, but this year he has really won me back. While I may have absolutely hated the Beauty and the Beast live action remake, his performance as Lefou was one of the bright spots of that film and this one proved he can do a decent comical yet serious performance and what I am amazed at is that he is not full comic relief, he has a slight camp performance that fits in well with the story. I should also mention that Johnny Depp actually gives one of his most engaging performances in recent memory. His one of the few performances in recent memory where I haven’t had to ask “are you ok make”?
The cast is one of the things that really makes the film, but the true star of this film is both the cinematography and the sets. The sets on this film are staggeringly good. Kenneth Branagh’s team has lovingly recreated the Orient Express from scratch to film this movie and the use of practical effects has been fantastic. Plus, the cinematography is just amazing, this is one of the best looking films of 2017. However, some of them almost are a bit too good, what I mean by that is because these practical effects and these sets are so well done, when we swap to the digital effects, they look horrendous.
Did the film make a screw-up in a sense, well kind of. The film does feel rather over-long and there are certain points where you think something could have been cut. Also I do know certain things from the book that have been left out that I think will annoy book readers, and don’t make a lot of sense to leave out.
Overall though, I really enjoyed this one. 2017’s Murder on the Orient Express is definitely one for people that are familiar with the story, it had a lot of interesting ideas, a lot of interesting thoughts, it’s a decent adaptation with some very good character actors and some brilliantly designed sets and cinematography, both of which should get Oscar nominations. It does feel a bit overly long and the attempts to modernise it in a sense do show some of the cracks in how dated the source material kind of it and there were certain aspects of the finale that I didn’t enjoy. However, you can certainly do far worse. This was a genuinely enjoyable movie that I would recommend people see. If you have never seen any versions or read the book, this is not a bad introduction to Murder on the Orient Express. Check it out. I would also recommend you see it while it is still in the cinema’s since it is the best way to take advantage of that brilliant cinematography and the effects.
I was going to do a mini-review of Pokemon I Choose You, which I did see, however, that is going to be the subject of the next Anime Amigos Vlog so I have chosen not to do it, so sorry, no mini-review this week.
Next week I will be back to give my review of the sequel to one of the big hits from 2015, Paddington 2.
Thanks a lot for reading my review. I hope you have enjoyed reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it, and when Paddington 2 comes out, could everyone send the link of the review to Nigel Farage, just to p… him off, come on, it would be funny!!
Another year, another series of MCU films. I have been reviewing the films for quite a few years on this site now and in that time I have now reviewed seven films from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and with at least two more years to go of this phase, it doesn’t appear to be dying out any time soon and that is not to change the fact that Marvel is currently working on a fourth phase, which has already confirmed a Spiderman sequel in the works as well as Guardians of the Galaxy 3.
Thor Ragnerok arrives at an interesting time, it’s the last of the films featuring the original Avengers characters to reach a trilogy, excluding the Incredible Hulk since that film did so poorly, that they never bothered to make any sequels to that character. It also marks another interesting point for the MCU since the Thor series is the only one of the films that has not had the director return to reprise their directorship across the franchise. James Dunn has done both of the Guardians of the Galaxy, the Rooster brothers did the latter of the two Captain America films and John Favaro did the first two Iron Man films, but Thor, well it seems like they keep shifting directors, though the reasons why is probably because none of the films are really held in that high a regard. Yes as much as no one can imagine the Avengers without Thor, some of his films haven’t done too well, even among Marvel fans.
The first film was directed by Kenneth Branagh and is often considered one of the weaker films of the first phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but I personally don’t mind it, I think it’s a decent film, it’s a good introduction to Thor’s character and his world and it introduced him into the MCU pretty well. Granted, there is not enough time of actual Thor in the film, but for what it’s worth, it’s actually quite good. Less could be said for its sequel, Thor 2 Dark World, directed by Terminator Genesis director, Alan Taylor, who presumably got the job after his credentials on Game of Thrones. Dark World often topped a lot of the weakest MCU films list, but I wouldn’t say it’s the weakest, personally I think the weakest MCU film is The Incredibly Hulk, simply because, unlike Thor Dark World, it’s almost entirely unforgettable and unnecessary, but I have to admit that the Dark World is an ultimate missed opportunity especially considering that it had the potential there and a stellar cast including Christopher Eccleston, however, I freely admit it’s not one of the better MCU films, but I certainly think you could do worse in a Summer Blockbuster, as proven by the fact that Alan Taylor went on to direct Terminator Genesis and the less said about that awful sequel, the better, if you want to know more, read my reviewof it.
Ragnerok was announced very early on in the phase three announcements as a real lead in for the upcoming Avengers Infinity War and was later announced that actor and director Taika Waititi would be directing the film. Now Taika Waititi might not have made a lot of films that you have actually seen, but he is a pretty decent director, having directed films like What We Do In Shadows, several episodes of the In Betweeners and a film last year called Hunt for the Wilderpeeople starring Sam Neil which I really enjoyed and would recommend, which would certainly explain the largely New Zealand cast in this film.
Thor Ragnerok though has a challenge, considering it has to conclude what has being considered one of the more interesting yet not entirely beloved series of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and to an extent set up Infinity War, which has been hyped to an absurd degree and after this there is only one more film to go with the upcoming release of the Black Panther movie. How does Thor Ragnerok conclude the four films though?
Oh, by the way, there may be brief spoiler warnings for the mid credit scene of Doctor Strange, so if you haven’t seen that movie and haven’t seen the mid credit scene then I should warn you in advance, oh and spoiler warning for end of Thor Dark World, I can’t talk about this film without mentioning about what happened at the end of that film.
Taking place after Thor, (played by Chris Hemsworth) has rather unsuccessfully traversed the Galaxy in search of some more of the infinity stones following his vision in Avengers Age of Ultron, Thor and his attempt to stop the cataclysmic events of myth and legend, Ragnerok has defeated Surtur (played by Clancy Brown). However, he returns to find that Asgard isn’t exactly how he left it and Odin, (played by Anthony Hopkins) has been replaced by his still alive brother, Loki, (played by Tom Hiddleston). After discovering it, the two travel to Earth or mid-guard as they call it, to strike him down only to find that Odin is at the end of his life and with the end of his life gone, there is nothing to stop their older sister Hela, the God of War, (played by Cate Blanchett) from escaping with the goal of taking over Asgard. With Thor and Loki out, having had Thor’s hammer destroyed, Thor is stranded in another realm that is ruled by the Grandmaster,(played by Jeff Goldblum) in order to compete in the combatant arena. However, his first opponent is the champion, The Hulk, played by Mark Ruffalo. Thor aims to recruit a team in order to take Asgard back from his sister.
Yes, describing the plot of this film is a mouthful. Normally with the MCU films I don’t have to go into incredibly detail, but there is so much going on in Thor Ragnerok I had to extend it out a bit more. Now granted, it’s not as if Thor Ragnerok is a very complicated film, it’s actually two very linear plots that are more jumbled together. The first plot is really around the potential fall of Asgard as well as Hela taking over and the other plot is about Thor creating the rise-up against the Grandmaster. Ok, so the Grandmaster, how do I put this. So, really, this film has two villains, the Grandmaster and Hela and they are both competing for screen time. The films biggest problem is that the primary plot is actually not given enough time. Hela could have actually been one of the most interesting MCU villains to date, she is quite an interesting character, especially considering I do have some knowledge of the character, since I did read her solo series when Marvel released its Marvel 2.0 series, having her be reintroduced in several other series prior to this. People that watch this movie may be staggered to find out that in the comic she is actually a member of Guardians of the Galaxy, yes that is one of the interesting points about making her the villain of this film, at this point in the comics, she is a lot more of an anti-hero, but then again Marvel and DC seem to do this with any villain that gets even remotely popular. Just look at what Marvel is doing with Venom at the minute and what DC has been doing with Harley Quinn.
Loki not really a villain this time around, he is more just there really, I mean he does have a more pro-active role, but his role of being a villain is almost entirely gone now, this is what happens when you make villains too popular, they stop being villains! Granted it works in some cases, the Terminator films are proof of that, but they at least never forget to give Loki his mischievous side, he is the trickster god after all. Though, forget your regular cast of the Thor films, the majority of them are gone. Natalie Portman decided not to come back to the film so Jade Foster has been written out of the plot, though mind you what she could have done with this plot is unknown. Alan Scarsgard is entirely absent from the film despite the fact he had a prominent role in both the prior Thor films and both the prior Avengers films and in fact, most of the warriors three are gone, Idris Elba’s Heimdall is the only one that returns, granted he was the one who was most popular, but this has now finally eliminated the possibility of having a film with Thor teams up with the Warriors 3. Eric Rodrigues is going to be p….. when he does his honest review of this.
The new cast is pretty good. We have a Valkyrie who is played by Tessa Thompson who has been in two films that I have really liked including Dear White People and the Rocky sequel Creed and once again, she does a fantastic performance, seriously, Tessa Thompson is an actress you really want to watch out for. Her character is a bit generic, but I quite like her. I kind of hope she is turning up again in Infinity War. The Marvel cameo’s though aren’t exactly limited at this point, as usual, it’s an MCU film and with their large Universe now they seem to like to put cameos in with whoever is around, as I mentioned, the mid credit scene played a factor in this, so expect to see Benedict Cumberbatch’s Dr Strange early on in the film, though don’t expect much out of it as he doesn’t really do much in the entire time, despite the fact that the mid credit scene teased the idea of Dr Strange playing a much more active role. And, of course, there is Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk, who by this point is becoming one of my favourite parts of the MCU. It’s actually quite good to see Ruffalo back in the role considering that Hulk has been entirely absent since Age of Ultron, having disappeared after events of that film, though not much explanation is given as to why he is in one of the nine realms now. Initially he is kind of there to make a load of Hulk references, especially with the way his armour is designed, but I really like him in this movie, in fact the bromance between him and Thor is excellent once again and the two play off each other very well.
Now, all of my comments make it sound like I actually don’t like this film. Far from it, I actually think this is the best Thor film to date. It has a sized plot, it has the most amount of Thor on screen doing what he does best and has a decent character arc for its hero. I do wish the villains were better, though Jeff Goldblum’s Granmaster is pretty good, even though it’s just Jeff Goldblum being Jeff Goldblum, so you know exactly what you are getting for your money. It’s a very dam decent film which I really got into.
The story obviously has it’s niggles here and there, but it tells a very consistent story and if you’re used to the MCU films, at least you know what you are getting. While Hela may not have enough screen time to be a dominating villain, at least Cate Blanchett does a decent job with this character. So while DC may have beaten Marvel to making a good female Superhero film, I am surprised people are not talking more about the fact that between this and Sigourney Weaver in the Defenders, this year’s Marvel has given the first two female villains in the MCU, though I must be honest, considering how many Thor films we have had I am surprised Amorra the Enchantress hasn’t been in any of these movies. Surtur also feels like a bit of a missed opportunity. This character was built up big time in the Marvel Animated series Avengers, Earth’s Mightiest Heros and was even teased to be the main villain of the third season of the show which would also depict the battle of the Ragnerok, basically, this guy was teased to be an Avengers villain, though he works pretty well as a Thor villain. Incidentally that show never got a third season because any time Marvel has a successful animated series, they seem to want to replace it with one that is bad! Which made even less sense in that case considering there were several plot threads that hadn’t been tied up. The problem with Surtur in this film is that he is basically there to be in an early battle and doesn’t really show up again for most of the movie, what a let down! Let me say, other than Grandmaster, there were other new characters I liked. As I say, I liked Grandmaster. I liked Topaz who is played by Rachel House of Hunt for the Wilderpeople fame, plus I kind of like Skurge who is played by Karl Urban. I am obviously not going to complain that Chris Hemsworth got tired of wearing the wig and chose to play Thor with a haircut, but I would be disingenuous if I didn’t say that felt a little bit lazy. But I did manage to care about the characters and I really enjoyed this one. Despite the fact that they are not on screen long, the villains are much better than the last film and the plot and setting is much better than the last film and has a very likeable supporting cast. I would even mention director, Taika Waititi motion capped performance as Korg who is freakin hilarious.
If you are going in for a good Summer Blockbuster, this is a good one to do, it is definitely going to hold the tide over until Star Wars. If you enjoy the MCU films, this one works pretty well, it is a very good popcorn film in terms of it’s plot.
Now for the performances. Chris Hemsworth, once again, is fantastic in the title role and Tom Hiddleston just loves playing Loki and you can see it on screen. Jeff Goldblum, well, its Jeff Goldblum, no more needed to say about that. Carl Urban delivers a fantastic performance, though it took me a while to realise it was him under the bald wig. Mark Ruffalo has retained being my favourite actor to play the Hulk so far. Anthony Hopkins certainly does a better job her than he did in Transformers, though he still hasn’t earnt my forgives for saying that Michael Bey is a genius! There will be repercussions for that Hopkins, I don’t care if you played Hannibal Lecter.
As for the new cast standouts. Tessa Thompson is fantastic as usual in her role and Taika Waititi and Rachel House deliver excellent performances. Benedict Cumberbatch seems to be growing into his role as Dr Strange in his brief cameo and well, that’s about it for the cast. It’s another decent one and I don’t think you will be missing any of the previous film’s cast too much, though I certainly would have liked them to have more mention than they did have.
As for the effects, well they are pretty dam good. I actually liked the motion capture for Surtur and for some of the other characters and of course the Hulk motion capture is fantastic. The effects are pretty standard. You are used to them by this point. So not much more to say on that one. The Marvel films look good and the fight scenes are actually fantastic in this one, these are some of the best fight scenes in Thor so far, the MCU films have really great action scenes and this one does not fail to disappoint, though I think the Led Zeppelin immigrant song is a bit over used, though that being said, that’s only because I am wondering why they have not used the song Twilight of the Thundergod in any of these films!!
I saw the film in 3D and if you have the chance, I think you should see it in 3D. While many of the shots are rather gimmicky for the format, they do actually work. Though I was very surprised to find out this was a post conversion to 3D considering that those films tend to avoid shots deliberately for the 3D effect, which is why they often don’t work as well, but it’s a dam good post conversion. Don’t get me wrong, you are not missing out if you see the 2D version, but this film fortunately avoids setting its scenes in dark environments, which serverley hinders 3D.
Thor Ragnarok is my favourite of the Thor films so far and I think it is a pretty good film. It has a consistent running plot, if a bit jumbled and some really good character arcs. I haven’t been able to go into detail on them for avoiding spoilers, but let’s just say, with those character arcs, is what makes this the best of the Thor films in my opinion. The sets are good, the fight scenes are good, I wish the villains though were a bit better, though Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster hams it up big style and sells the film. It’s one I can highly recommend, especially if you have enjoyed the MCU up to this point and you have seen the previous two Thor films. I also appreciated the fact that the film did not spend too much time building up Infinity War and decided to be its own thing, which is when the Marvel Universe is at its best. So, that’s why I think this film works out well and is worth your time. While I don’t think it’s the best MCU film this year, I do think it’s proven to be a very good year since I think Spiderman the Homecoming was the best of the three films released. Give it a watch, it’s definitely worth it, oh and stick around for the credits, because there is both a mid-credit and post-credit scene. The first is a set up for Avengers Infinity War and the second one concludes a plot line from within the film, they are both worth sticking around for.
One mini-review this week. I know it’s a long time since I have done one, apologies, it’s down to a lot of the Vlog work I have been doing. But, I had to see this film, it’s Jigwaw.
Jigsaw: Now, when it comes to Jigsaw, I am a fan of the Saw films, so I am coming from that perspective. Jigsaw was a very big surprise to me since the Saw films were rather definitively concluded by the end of the final chapter, and I must be honest, I didn’t want any more films, mainly because the Final Chapter is one of the weakest films of the lot. Jigsaw is also a pretty decent Saw film, if you like the Saw films. If you don’t like them, this isn’t going to do anything for you and if you didn’t like the way the Saw films went, how can I put this, I don’t think you will like this one. It certainly does not exactly go back to what made the first film really good, but I would say it is on a level with Saws 4 and 6, as in, pretty good, not great. It’s certainly better than Saw 5 and 7. The biggest problem with this film, predictable! This film is very, very predictable if you are aware of the Saw films up to this point, though most times in Saw films I don’t see the twist coming, but by this point I am so used to them, I actually called it very far in advance, especially considering that they hammer in the lines of dialogue that you are expected to pay attention to and they recycle plot twists that they have used in previous films. The film ends with a set up for possible future films though at this stage I am not sure I want to see any more, but I will go and see a 9th film if that’s made. While I am on the subject, why is it with films are dropping their number titles, even Fast and Furious is doing this, being called the Fate of the Furious. It’s like these films are ashamed they have made so many of these. Hey guys, if you are not going to keep the numbering system because it confuses us and leads us into a false sense of security, maybe its proof that you have tired out the franchise and are making too many of these!! A prime example of this is the fact that if I ever complain about which of the Transformers films I think is worst, no one knows which film I am on about because the titles are so confusing. Now Saw is doing if, for christs sake, go back to the numbers, it was easier, just call it Saw 9 if you make it!!!
Well, that’s it for this week.
If you liked our review of Thor and you want to see a more in depth detailed review or see a different kind of review, then check out mine and Ren’s Vlog review of the film and we also do a spoiler and a non-spoiler review, so take your pick. Yes, we will make one this time, unlike Kingsman where we ran into difficulties.
Time to move on, next week I review another Agatha Christie adaptation of her most popular work. It’s the Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express.
Thanks a lot for reading my review. I hope you have enjoyed reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it, oh, and yes, I forgot to mention, none of Thor’s catchphrases have been in any of these movies, what a wasted opportunity!
Ok, when I put the film society on hiatus to do the London Film Festival, this is not the movie I expected to be reviewing when I got back. I was aware of the movie since I saw it being heavily advertised in the London Underground whilst I was there, but I didn’t have the intention of reviewing the film since, well, it didn’t really look like my thing.
Films like this are nothing new. We have created works that are becoming more myth and legend than iconic in our culture, it makes sense that most of the big creations of the 20th Century would have films surrounding their creation. After all, we have done it with classic ideas with films like Shakespeare in Love and Amadeus. More recently we have had films about the making of classic films like Hitchcock and Trombeau and stories for the creation of famous books is also nothing new either, with films like Finding Neville and even Disney creations have had the treatment done to it with the film Saving Mr Banks. Now one of the things I always felt all these films have in common, with possibly the exception of Finding Neville and Shakespeare in Love, is that I don’t feel like they added and extra dimension to the story. Especially when you take films like Hitchcock and Saving Mr Banks, nothing is really told there that someone like myself, who has a lot of knowledge of the subject wouldn’t already know. Granted I am in a position where I obsess over this stuff so I am one of the rare exceptions of people that would be in the position to know about the creations of Psycho and Mary Poppins and a general audience might be fascinated about finally coming to grips with the stories behind those creations, but I get a sense that these films were aimed at film buffs and people with a knowledge of the subject, so as a result, it doesn’t really add much to them. In the cases of both Hitchcock and Saving Mr Banks, they can often be rather fabricated.
Goodbye Christopher Robin is an unusual one for me as I was never really a big fan if Winnie the Pooh, the books were never read to me as a child, I never really watched any of the movies or the TV series. I remember them occasionally being on the Disney channel every so often, but I never watched much of the Disney channel, especially after they went much more into a teen butt market as opposed to the creative animation they did with shows like Ducktails, Darkwing Duck, Recess etc etc etc. something I am thankful they have moved back to.
Nevertheless, this film was actually requested by a friend of mine and since I didn’t have anything else to go on, since there were quite a few films that were up for my potential viewing, I decided to throw caution to the wind and go and see it.
The film is directed by Simon Curtis, whose only feature film directing job prior to this that I can find is 2015’s Woman in Gold, a decent film about an interesting true story, but doesn’t quite stick out all that much, despite that it has a brilliant performance from Helen Mirren. If you like good stories about World War 2 that aren’t really about the conflict, but more about the effect on the person on the street, I would say it is worth a watch, but be warned, the modern day segments are a bit boring, and Ryan Reynolds looks like he is a bit out of his depth in this role, though I commend him for trying. So, how did I find this film in the end, would this offer me anything really, that those other films had?
Ok, Goodbye Christopher Robin is kind of the film you are expecting, and then it’s not. Telling the story, taking place just after World War 1, writer Alan Milne, (played by Domhnall Gleeson) is struggling to settle back into life back in England following his time at Battle of the Somme and witnessing the deaths of many people. He is basically suffering from what we now would describe as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Him and his wife Daphne, (played by Margot Robbie) have a son who they named Christopher Robin, (played by Will Tilston). However, he struggles with writing in London society since the environment has a lot of triggers that bring on his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so they decide to move to the countryside in Sussex. Still struggling to write, and with their child’s nanny having left for London to look after her mother, he finds inspiration through playing with his son in the woods with his collection of Teddy bears, which later inspire him to create the story of Winnie the Pooh. However, the book is a little too successful and as a result, things spiral out of control for Christopher Robin.
Ok, Goodbye Christopher Robin, first and foremost does give me what I wanted from this film because unlike the other films, it actually has a critical eye on its lead subject. Plus, it gives me a lot of knowledge on the writing of one of the most famous books ever written that I wouldn’t have otherwise known. Now many famous writers did serve in both World Wars, in fact J R Tolkien was also in the Battle of the Somme and Stan Lee served in the second World War, and now I realise I want to see a Stan Lee biopic. The film tells the story of how he initially moved to the countryside to write anti-war material since he wishes for conflict like the first World War to never happen again. It then moves into something very interesting. We witness how a single thing can act as a healing process and the books themselves are just a bi-product of that healing process.
Now it’s not surprising that this film was created, in fact it recently came about that Winnie the Pooh was voted one of the most beloved children’s books ever written and I think the reason that the film gets away with doing as much as it does is the that this isn’t a Disney production. It’s a Fox Searchlight Production, which greatly surprised me as well considering I was certain that Disney still held the rights to the characters from Winnie the Pooh, correct me if I am wrong on that one. Mind you, even if they do, if Disney do still hold the rights and they haven’t done anything with the characters, you are hardly going to notice, however, they haven’t even been in any of the Kingdom Hearts games recently.
Now the first half of the film is very well done, we get and interesting look into the affect that the first World War had on many of the survivors that came home and it almost holds a commentary on the first World War similar to that of Back Adder Goes Forth, which will earn you brownie points from me considering that that is one of my all time favourite sit coms. In fact, I actually think you could play this after the finale of that season and they would tie in very well together, since the nature of that finale shows the devastation of the first World War whereas this film shows the process of the healing from that war. It’s nice to see all the inspirations behind the creations, from the various teddy bears that were given to him to the door placed on the tree to represent the owls home and we also see the process of Alan’s war buddy who drew all the drawings. There is even a reference to where the bears name came from, after a bear that was in London Zoo being named Winnie to represent that he had come from Winipeg. You really get a sense of where this book came from and the truly heart felt nature behind it, of what it did for a family.
Then we get to the second half of the movie, and we really see the affect it truly had, then it really becomes Christopher’s movie. We see the distress over the public ownership of his childhood, how people now view him as a fictional character that is theirs to own and we see the toll it took on him and the relationship with his parents and how they weren’t as supportive when they needed to be. This the point where the film really struck me and elevated it for me. It also helps that there are some very good performances in this film that really sell it. It’s interesting seeing Christophers relationship with all these various character and how they are either there for him or not. We get the sense of abandonment from his parents but we also get his carer, Olive, played by Kelly Macdonald, who is one of the more interesting parts of the film and in case you are wondering, she wass Diane in Trainspotting and she played Helena Raven Claw in Harry Potter. I actually mention that I thought she was a very good actress in a bad role when I reviewed Swallows and Amazons last year, however, she delivers a much better performance in this film in a character that really needs to stand out. I should go on and on about the other things I liked in the second half of this film, but that would be to spoil most of its best moments, but needless to say, as I mentioned, the film is a lot more critical of A A Milne and the success of that book and how it transitioned. I will say though, in A A Milne’s defence, there was probably no way he could have anticipated the success Winnie the Pooh would have had. But that being said, the film however, has an ending that I felt was appropriate for the film that came before it and I felt it did a decent job overall, this is actually one of the more interesting bio pics in recent memory.
Needless to say, if you are a fan of Winnie the Pooh stories, you owe it to yourself to go and see this film, though it may also make you have a different perspective on those books having seen the creation of them.
Now, this film does have its problems, I will stress, it is not perfect. For example, there are a lot of moments where it feels the film is dragging on one note and the progression feels like it is slowing down, though, those are mostly in the first half of the film, something that I have noticed also within Woman in Gold, thankfully I think it was a lot more prominent in that film than in this one. As a result, this film feels really long. This film comes in at 1hr 47min, but this definitely felt like at least a 2hr 10min film, and not in a good way!! I think that many people may criticise this film and say that Margot Robbie’s character is too unlikeable, however, I felt that was one of things I really liked about the film, she is not really a bad person, she is more a product of the times. Also, I would not be surprised if people who are fans of the book might be put off by the critical nature the film has on the books success or the Winnie the Pooh franchise as a whole, a franchise that was so popular, that the character was briefly banned in a village in Poland because they believed he was gay. I am not joking, that is genuinely true, look it up! The film does show how the right kind of fiction at the right time can do a lot of good for a lot of people.
As for the performances, well, there are some very good performances. While I initially felt his performance wasn’t anything amazing he really blew me away with his performance in the second half of the film compared to the first half and I will say it is definitely proving that I think the quality of child actors has gone up in recent memory. Margot Robbie, well she gives a very good performance and gives a good English accent all things considered, it’s certainly better than her accent in Legend of Tarzan, I think she has been working on that pretty well. Kelly Macdonald gives one of the best performances of the entire film and is proving to me that she is a must watch actress, but I am astounded by how much I enjoyed the performance of Domhnall Gleeson, who really thrown himself into this role and I’m really looking forward to talking about him again when I review Star Wars The Last Jedi in a couple of months.
Goodbye Christopher Robin is what I would like to describe as a very good biopic that actually has something very interesting to say about its subject and shines a light on a subject that we think we know, but has a lot more to it than we first thought. I certainly felt the second half of the film was better than the first, but that is not to say that the first half of the film had a lot of merit to it. If you are going into this thinking you are just getting the story of the creation of Winnie the Pooh, don’t, you are getting a lot more than that, though be aware, as I have mentioned throughout this review, the film is very critical at times of A A Milne, but not to an extent where they make him out to be a complete monster, which would have destroyed the film. The performances are excellent, the cinematography is actually very good as well as the editing and I felt the film had some brilliant storytelling, as as result, I found it thoroughly enjoyable.
This has been on of the biggest surprises of the year for me. I went in planning for this film to be another Saving Mr Banks, with a rather dull middle class feel, but it actually gives a very interesting movie and I could see this playing well at Christmas. I also think the film would make an excellent double feature with a box set binge of Black Adder Goes Forth or as a double feature with the actual animated Winnie the Pooh film. If you are a fan of Winnie the Pooh, or read the books, this is a must see film and if you are at all curious, I would say, give it a go.
Well, that’s my job done for today.
As expected, no mini-reviews as this was the only film I had time to see after coming back from the London Film Festival. However, you can start to expect some more mini-reviews in the coming weeks as more and more films get released in the build up to Christmas and I certainly have quite a few things I want to see. Don’t worry though, I have made a rule that I am not planning to review any Christmas fims for the sight, unless it is an adaptation of A Christmas Carol, which is one of my favourite books and I actually feel like it would be interesting to contribute something.
In keeping with the Halloween spirit we have going on right now, you can expect a mini-review in the coming weeks of Jigsaw, since I am a big fan of the Saw franchise and I will definitely be seeing that film. But next week it is back to the MCU where I will be reviewing Four Ragna Rock. I will also be linking into a Calvin and Ren review Vlog, which will be split into two parts, one non spoiler reiew and our spoiler review. So, if you don’t like me tap dancing around my thoughts on specific aspects of the film, you can check out that one where we will be commenting completely about our thoughts on the film.
Thanks a lot for reading my review. I hope you have enjoyed reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it, and I am serious, I want the Stan Lee biopic. Marvel studios, make it happen!!
Calvin, Ren & Katie Review: The Florida Project #LFF2017
It’s the first disagreement we had on a film we’ve reviewed in our time at the London Film Festival and we make a bet on the oscar nominations which will happen in January.
We continue our time at the London Film Festival with our review of the world’s first oil painted animated feature film, covering the life and death of Vincent Van Gogh.
The London Film Festival Vlogs continue with our review of the biopic detailing the famous match between Billie Jean King and Bobbie Riggs… by two people who don’t watch Tennis.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
“PADDINGTON 2”
