I’ve been very sceptical of all these Disney live action remakes. I didn’t hate 2017s “Beauty and the Beast”, it was more that it was unnecessary; why should I have to sit through a shot for shot remake of something that didn’t even try to bring a new or interesting take to the story?

That was my attitude going in to see “Aladdin”, and I was so wrong. This was sensational; and Guy Ritchie has managed to balance the nostalgia of the original film and incorporating a new modern twist in the best possible way.

For me, the real reason that the original Disney film has become so revered is because of Robin Williams’ performance as the Genie. Compared to the others of the 90s, the story was never really as strong and as lead characters, Aladdin was bland and Jasmine always bordered on bratty and spoiled. The music wasn’t as memorable as the other Disney films, and the legacy of Aladdin has by and large been carried on by Williams.

This is where the 2019 remake excels; the screenwriters have invested time into fleshing out the characters of Aladdin (Mena Massoud) and Jasmine (Naomi Scott) and making sure they have proper and real chemistry. Massoud as Aladdin is funny and likeable and Scott was so striking that for me she was actually the best performance in the film. The script is genuinely funny and I was actually laughing quite a bit before the Genie even made his first appearance (Ritchie makes good use of the magic carpet and Abu the monkey for comic relief). The decision to give Jasmine more autonomy served the story beautifully and the inclusion of her own song (a rousing number written by Alan Menkin from the original and the composers from La La Land), actually turned out to be one of the best numbers in the film.

Visually, this is a beautiful film; the use of colour was incredible, and the costume design, set pieces and the dance sequences were mesmerising and actually far more impressive than the original. The “Whole New World” sequence was every bit as spectacular as I remember the former being and the other numbers I actually think were improvements.

Now, Will Smith as the Genie. I’m just not a huge fan of the guy; I think he’s been a pain ever since the late 1990s. Nobody could do what Robin Williams did as the Genie and it was always going to be a losing battle trying to recreate the performance. That being said, I think he actually did a great job. He never tries to emulate Williams, which was a wise move and instead makes the Genie his own. I laughed a lot at the Genie’s jokes and I think that incorporating Smith’s hip hop background into songs like “Friend Like Me” was good fun.

The only places I think the film faltered a little were in the characters that just don’t translate well from animation to live action, which isn’t necessarily the fault of the filmmakers. Marwan Kenzari as Jafar was an interesting take, but I missed the twisted and evil face of the cartoon, likewise Navid Negahban as the Sultan is nowhere near as endearing as the cute little bundle of fun in the 1992 film.

This is how a remake should be done. The characters and elements of the original that were lacking have been improved upon and the aspects that were better left alone were treated with respect. I was so wonderfully surprised by this movie, and am happy that I was a little less sceptical leaving the cinema than I was when I walked in.

By Jock Lehman

This is actually a real shame.

There are two ways in which this could have been a success; the filmmakers could have used the world and created a film that was accessible and fun for all audiences despite their knowledge of Pokemon (which I think it tried to do), or they could have given the millions of Pokemon fans out there a proper tribute with the world and characters they know and love. This film fails on both fronts and it was frustrating to watch, because it shouldn’t have been too difficult to just do a fun, live action remake with plots and characters that are already  so well established.

I genuinely don’t understand why this movie couldn’t have just been Ash and Pikachu catching Pokémon and being mucked around by Team Rocket. It would have been fun to see the real life counterparts of familiar characters and their Pokémon and the filmmakers could have utilised the family friendly tone of the series while maybe sliding in some more adult jokes in there too.

Pokémon Detective Pikachu is set in a world where humans and Pokémon live side by side, and 21 year old Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) has just been told of the death of his estranged father. Upon arriving in Ryme City, Tim meets a Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds) at his father’s apartment who has no recollection of his past and the two of them set off to find Tim’s father and along the way uncover a conspiracy that threatens both humans and Pokémon alike.

The world itself is believable and accessible. Apparently the makers of this film spent months and months on the design of the Pokémon, creating working skeletons and devising simulations to make sure that the eyes of each creature could blink properly and wouldn’t dry out in the real world. That’s all fine, and the creatures all look realistic and sound how you’d expect them to sound, but that isn’t what makes an entertaining film. The script was horrendous, the plot was weak and I was surprised at how under-utilised the Pokémon actually were. There was literally one Pokémon battle and it was interrupted within half a minute, and I could feel the 6 year old Jocko somewhere in the back of my brain wanting to throw his shoe at the screen.

Ryan Reynolds as Pikachu saves this movie. I laughed quite a few times, but in a strange way it somehow didn’t seem right for a Pokémon movie. Pikachu was funny, but if the film had been executed as it should have been, then he wouldn’t have needed to be funny at all. Reynolds is the saving grace of the film, but he feels out of place in the same way that Eddie Murphy would feel out of place in a Narnia film. I might still laugh at Eddie Murphy being Eddie Murphy, but his style of comedy shouldn’t be whacked in anywhere.

However, the rest of Pokémon Detective Pikachu is a train-wreck so I was glad that Reynolds was a part of it so that there was at least something that I could enjoy about the whole experience. Justice Smith was irritating as the lead, I didn’t like the emphasis on the family drama and Tim’s estrangement from his Dad, and the twist of Howard Clifford (Bill Nighy) being the real villain was glaringly obvious from a mile away.

This was disappointing, because I do think there’s a lot of potential in this property and I wouldn’t mind for them to have another crack.

All you want from a movie about cute little animals with superpowers is a bit of fun, and this was far from it.

By Jock Lehman.

I miss rom-coms.

Of course Long Shot is completely implausible and far-fetched, but that’s all part of the fun. Rom-coms are fairy tales; it’s laughable in real life that a prostitute and a business tycoon would end up together, but it’s a form of escapism that audiences absolutely adore and Pretty Woman is still considered one of the all time greats.

The premise of Long Shot is as corny and silly as it comes; Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) is a New York journalist with a dislike for corruption and big corporations who runs into his high school crush Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) who is now Secretary of State. She is impressed with his writing and decides to hire him as a writer to help inject some humour into her speeches during a worldwide tour prior to announcing her candidacy for presidency.

I was a little nervous about this; on paper the idea of Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen together is absurd and it had been quite a while since Notting Hill so I wasn’t sure if it would work. She is as glamorous and breathtakingly beautiful as he is schlubby and awkward, and Theron isn’t necessarily known for her comedic roles either so I more or less expected Long Shot to be Knocked Up all over again. But it’s not; Theron is so likeable and warm and funny that she keeps up with Rogan effortlessly. I hope she starts taking more of these roles; Rogen and Theron somehow work together and I bought into the fantasy and wanted them to live happily ever after.

The premise isn’t really the important thing here; any rom com with a bad script and leads with no chemistry can turn disastrous very quickly. Luckily the makers of Long Shot understand this; the two leads are endearing and have an effortless appeal together. The quirky supporting characters have fun moments as well, especially Charlotte’s sassy advisor (June Diane Raphael) and Fred’s fast talking best friend (O’Shea Jackson Jr) who have some of the funniest lines in the movie.

The best parts of the film are where Theron and Rogen are able to riff off each other, and there are a few scenes that are thrown in to perhaps change it up a bit, but for me were inconsistent in tone and kind of annoying. The one that comes to mind just now is where Charlotte is required to conduct a hostage negotiation while still high on ecstasy from a night out with Fred. This sequence made me cringe so badly; the jokes were flat and the schtick of a drunk or high official somehow saving the day because they’ve lost their inhibitions has never really worked for me anyway.

Luckily there are only a handful of these scenes throughout; for the most part, the comedy was clever and fresh and comes mainly from the banter between the two immensely likeable leads rather than stand alone gags. Though I think my favourite scene in the movie, or in any movie for the last little while actually, is where Fred and Charlotte are attending a black tie dinner, and take a moment to dance in a side room to “It must have been love” by Roxette. They’re goofy and endearing and in a moment any doubt about the plausibility of the two of them flies out the window.

Long Shot is far from perfect, but for me this is everything you could want in a classic rom com; I laughed a lot, I teared up a couple of times and I left the cinema feeling warm and fuzzy in a way that those Richard Curtis or Judd Apatow movies used to. I hope the classic rom-com is making a comeback; Long Shot may not be one of the best, but it sure is a great reminder of why so many people love them.

By Jock Lehman

This is a freaking movie, in every sense of the word, with spectacle and humour and emotion and when the audience started applauding as the end credits rolled, I felt like I had been part of a collective experience and I felt part of the magic that made people dress up to go to the movies back in the 30s. And I’m not even a Marvel fan.

This was a huge achievement, and it could have gone so badly wrong. The filmmakers had to somehow service every hero in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, satisfy the fans who know the characters and comics inside out, make it appealing for those who haven’t got a working knowledge of it all, deliver upon certain expectations while subverting others, balance comic relief with proper emotional payoffs, provide impressive action sequences and CGI and still make the whole thing somehow human.

Probably don’t read anything further if you haven’t seen it yet, I don’t want to ruin anything. Like I said before, I’m not a huge Marvel fan. I’ve seen a handful of the movies, I reckon they’re good fun but I didn’t know all the backstory to everything leading up to Avengers Endgame. Would I have enjoyed the film more if I had? Potentially, there are definite moments throughout which I think went right over my head but I don’t think it would have changed the experience all that much.

Avengers Endgame picks up after Avengers: Infinity War. In a nutshell, super villain Thanos has collected all the “Infinity Stones” which control the universe, snapped his fingers and half the beings in existence have gone up in smoke to bring balance to the galaxy. A whole bunch of Marvel heroes have been smoked away, including Black Panther, Dr Strange, Scarlet Witch, Star-Lord, and Spiderman. The remaining heroes understandably want to seek out Thanos, use the stones to unsmoke everybody and kill the baddie. And this is what I anticipated the whole movie was going to be based around.

When Captain America, Thor, Hulk, War Machine, Black Widow and Rocket track down Thanos (who has become Amish or something and is busy enjoying the country lifestyle), and he tells them that the stones have been destroyed, Thor chops his head off in anger and I was genuinely surprised. In the first ten minutes the film had already subverted  expectations of where the audience (well me at least) thought it was going and I was genuinely excited.

The film then jumps to five years since the remaining Avengers confronted Thanos and the world is grey and sad. Antman returns from being trapped in quantum limbo, Ironman figures out how to travel through time and the rest of the film is basically the Avengers travelling back in time to retrieve each of the Infinity Stones, bring back the “vanished” and defeat Thanos.

Even though on paper the plot device of time travel seems cliche and unimaginative, for me it was the perfect way of going about it. What it allowed the filmmakers to do, and this I imagine would have been a real treat for the die hard fans, was explore worlds and characters from previous films that simply didn’t exist anymore on the MCU timeline. It allowed for some fun, caper-esque moments as the heroes try and sneak around without being seen (the pairing of Rocket and Fat Thor together was genius) and some genuinely poignant moments as well (notably when Tony Stark speaks with his own father back in the 1960s).

What was incredible about the film was that at 3 hours and one minute, it didn’t feel long to me; it was so action packed and the pacing worked so well that I barely even registered that two hours had flown by. The only time when things felt a little slow for me was the scene between Black Widow and Hawkeye as they fight over who is going to sacrifice themselves for the Soul Stone.

Out of all the characters, these two for me are by far the dullest and I didn’t see the merit in having one, pretty average Avenger die when Tony Stark was due to die at the end and deliver the requisite big wallop of emotion. I found Black Widow’s death more of a distraction than anything else and a strange thing to have done in the middle of the film.

The final act though, was as epic and exciting as it possibly could have been. The battle itself was freaking awesome and on an unbelievable scale. Again, I have no real connection with any of the Marvel characters, but even I got a little teary when all the “vanished” heroes appeared again. It was inevitable that these characters were all going to be brought back at some point so it wasn’t necessarily surprising, but holy dooly what a moment. The music swelled and they all appeared in their cool superhero poses and I was grinning from ear to ear. Even the shot of all the women superheroes advancing towards Thanos, though without a hint of subtlety, was exciting. There’s a time for subtlety in film; the final act of a superhero film which encompasses over ten years and 23 films is not one of them.

The death of Tony Stark to me was an appropriate one; it’s argued often that the original Iron Man (2008) reignited superhero films, not just for Marvel, but for Hollywood. The Infinity Saga started with Tony Stark and it finished with Tony Stark, and there’s a nice sense of completion there. The funeral sequence was nicely handled, and the shot of all the Avengers standing in black was a nice way of acknowledging them all in the one moment.

For me, that’s where it should have ended. The final little moments with Captain America going back in time to live his life as a regular man were nice I suppose, but I found it strange that they decided to single out one specific Avenger for the film to end upon. I understand that they needed to wrap up his storyline, but surely that could have come before Tony Stark’s funeral so that the saga would end with all the Avengers together? To go from such a surging moment to the final shot of the film being Steve Austin dancing with his girlfriend seemed a strange tonal choice to me.

But that’s a small quibble. For a movie with such huge expectations piled upon it, with such an incredible amount to somehow cram into the one film and with so much propensity for it to have collapsed in on itself, this was a real achievement, and even now when I think about that final act, I get tingles.

Proper movie magic.

By Jock Lehman

I should be giving this movie 5 stars. Of the 94 minute run time, The Kindergarten Teacher had me hook line and sinker probably for the first 80 minutes. I haven’t had an experience like that at the cinema in a long time; it was so beautifully done and Maggie Gyllenhaal gives an unbelievably vulnerable and captivating performance. And then the final act comes in. The final 15 minutes are such a jarring and unwelcome divergence from the rest of the film that it soured the whole experience for me. Looking back on it now, I can still appreciate that for the most part, this movie was powerful and provocative and Gyllenhaal is incredible, but that’s what makes the ending such a disappointment. 

Sara Colangelo’s “The Kindergarten Teacher” tells the story of Lisa Spenelli (Gyllenhaal), a teacher with a nice husband, good kids and comfortable house but who yearns to be something more, something beyond the ordinary. She’s recently started an adult education poetry class, where she is told that her poetry is derivative and uninspired. Back in her kindergarten, she notices a little boy Jimmy (an adorable Parker Sevak), pacing and seemingly speaking to himself. Except he’s not speaking to himself, he’s reciting poetry far beyond his years. Lisa recognises how advanced his poems are, and begins to recite them in her weekly poetry class as her own. Instantly she is recognised by her teacher and the other students as a real talent, and she laps it up. Lisa develops an interest in Jimmy and his talent, writing down his poems whenever she can, mentoring him and taking him to poetry slams without his parents’ permission. Although Lisa tries to convince herself that she is acting in Jimmy’s best interest, Gyllenhaal’s portrayal flirts between kindheartedness and self fuelled obsession.

Gyllenhaal somehow portrays Lisa so that her interest in Jimmy is not really about Jimmy at all, it comes from Lisa’s desire to be close to something genuinely talented and extraordinary. She yearns to be unique herself and is terrified that she will never be able to reach anything beyond the ugliness of mediocrity. But she is ordinary, she’s not remotely talented, and despite her best efforts to convince herself otherwise, she knows it. There are moments when she hugs Jimmy, and there’s nothing sexual or even typically perverted about it, she is just enthralled and thankful to be a part of something that is bigger and better than the regular humdrum beats of the world.

This story is fairly simplistic, and in the hands of a lesser actress, I think would have gone by largely unnoticed. Gyllenhaal in this role is so damn good. For me, she is so strikingly beautiful that perhaps it could be unreasonable to think of her as a school teacher, but the expression behind those eyes is so exhausted and defeated that it somehow works. Lisa is inherently flawed and falls victim to her own arrogance and selfishness, she doesn’t truly care for Jimmy at all, even if she has managed to delude herself to the contrary.

Where this film falls flat is in the bizarre decision of the filmmakers to suddenly throw all subtlety and nuance through the window and turn Lisa into a one dimensional psychopath. It was frustrating and almost baffling to watch, it felt like a separate short film that had been thatched onto the end. More than anything else it felt lazy, literally as if the screenwriter couldn’t think of how to finish the film and decided to throw in a cheap thriller element to it instead. It’s based off the 2014 Israeli film of the same name, so perhaps it’s a problem with the source material more than anything, I’m not sure. But for me, there was nothing organic or even necessary about it, the script abandoned everything that made the film appealing and I left genuinely annoyed.

There is a beautiful moment at the very end where Jimmy says “I have a poem”, like Lisa had taught him to, but nobody listens to him. Had the film finished fifteen minutes earlier, with the little boy’s confused face saying that exact thing, I think this would have been one of the strongest films of the year. As it is now, the film is still impressive, but, perhaps like Lisa herself, falls short of being extraordinary.

By Jock Lehman

I cringed my way through most of this movie. I know I’m definitely not the target audience; there were some teenagers in my cinema and they were having an unreal time. For me, the schtick of subverting the typical superhero into a cheeky smart ass only works if the script is actually funny. Deadpool works because the script works. Shazam tries so hard to do the same thing, and there’s nothing more offputting than a film that’s trying so hard but failing to be funny and edgy.

Shazam tells the story of Billy Batson, (Ashter Angel), an orphan who has run away from every foster home that ever took him in because he’s been searching for his lost mother. He gets allocated to a foster home with four other kids and is roomed up with fast talking Freddie (played by Jack Dylan Grazer from It). When Billy is chosen by a wizard to save the world from a villain who wants to set the 7 deadly sins upon the world, he is bestowed with powers, and can transform into a fully grown, buff superhero whenever he yells “Shazam”. Billy must then save the world from the bad guy and learn the meaning of family along the way.

On paper, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with this, it’s pretty stock standard superhero origin stuff and plays along all the typical beats and plot points you’d expect without actually exceeding in any of it. The problem is that the film thinks it’s subverting the superhero genre with the comedic tone, and relies on that to carry the entire thing. Unfortunately, the comedy feels forced and apart from being largely unfunny, this film was a mess.

The villain for instance, Dr Zirvana (Mark Strong) has succumbed to evil because his Dad and brother didn’t like him when he was a kid and because he wasn’t chosen as “pure of heart” by the wizard. He has been embodied by the deadly sins, which take the form of seven stupid and lazily designed gargoyles. It’s never really explained what the seven deadly sins and Dr Zirvana are hoping to achieve, presumably something about the end of the world, but as an audience member I didn’t care since he was so freaking boring.

I know this is a superhero movie and it’s not fun to be too finicky about inconsistencies, but there was one thing that really bothered me. The personalities between Billy as a kid and when he turns into Shazam are completely different. Teenage Billy is jaded, suspicious and vulnerable while Shazam is juvenile and abnoxious and after a while I found Shazam irritating to watch and was relieved when he turned back into Billy. Zachary Levi is believable as a teenager in a grown man’s body, just not as Billy in a grown man’s body.

To give the movie some credit, there are some funny moments, particularly when Dr Zirvana is giving his standard end of the world monologue but Shazam is too far away to hear him. Jack Dylan Grazer as Freddie is better than the material he’s given, which is a shame because I think he’s got real presence and sensational comic timing, but he does manage to score a few good laughs along the way. I thought the montages of Shazam learning his powers were fun and some of the action sequences are done well.

Apart from that, I really don’t get why everybody is frothing this film so much. It was an average superhero movie at best and for me the comedy, despite how obviously they’re trying to make it work, borders on painful. The kids and teenagers in my cinema had a lot of fun, which is undoubtedly the target audience, but there are so many great kids movies that can appeal to adults as well, and for me, this one didn’t even come close.

By Jock Lehman

I read Stephen King’s “Pet Semetary” a few months ago once I saw the trailer for the new film adaptation. I knew the basic plot lines of the story; it’s been parodied countless times (there’s a good South Park one which is pretty funny). Stephen King is good at creating suspense, but as I was reading I kept thinking that the story itself just wasn’t very interesting.

That’s the issue with the film; as an adaptation it’s not horrendous and it handles the basics of the horror genre competently. It’s made some pretty drastic plot changes which will probably annoy some people but I actually think served as improvements to the book. Ultimately though, for me the story itself is just kind of boring and there’s only so much that can be done.

Pet Semetary tells the story of Dr Louis Creer and his family who move from the big city to a quieter, rural area. The land on their new property goes all the way back to a cemetery where kids for years had buried their pets. When the family cat dies, the father Louis (Jason Clarke), is taken by the weird neighbour Jud Crandall (Jon Lithgow) to bury the cat up even beyond the pet cemetery. Needless to say, the cat comes back to life, but is mean and scratches now where he never used to. Eventually when Louis’ daughter Ellie is killed by a truck, he buries her up there and she comes back as an evil demon and by the end the entire family has been killed and brought back to life.

For me, it’s just not a very exciting premise, and the movie does it’s best with what it has to work with. The tone and setting of the film is in keeping with King’s novel, the performances are okay and there is some good suspense built throughout, but mainly through the old “what’s waiting round the corner” routine. The script is fairly contrived and is mainly used for plot progression but then again that’s similar to King’s style in the novel as well.

What both the book and the film try and explore, albeit to a superficial level, is the universal fear of death. Which is an interesting concept, and would have helped escalate the film above the mediocrity of the plot had it been explored in more depth. The resurrected people are portrayed as unnatural and inhuman, but there is little explanation for why exactly that is. The role of Victor Pascow, the student who passes away in Louis’ doctor’s office, has been reduced to only a couple of brief appearances and in so doing, excludes some much needed exposition regarding the origins of the graveyard.

As for the changes from the novel, I didn’t mind that the older daughter dies rather than the two year old little boy. Jete Laurence as Ellie is actually the stand out performance, (she’s freaking terrifying), and it wouldn’t have worked as well had they tried to make it work with the baby instead. I also quite liked the inclusion of the animal masks and the suggestion of a cultish aspect to the ritual of the local kids.

One thing the novel did better than the film is establish the friendship between Jud and Louis. In the novel, Jud decides to bring back the cat because he and Louis had enjoyed countless beers together and Louis had treated Jud’s wife when she had a heart attack. In the film Jud does this after seemingly meeting Louis twice, and it seems clumsy.

Some films based off Stephen King’s properties are undoubtedly iconic; Misery is unreal, I loved the most recent It and The Shining is terrifying. Pet Semetary as a story to me doesn’t even come close, so as a film, it’s unfortunately just very average.

By Jock Lehman

After I saw Jordan Peele’s Us, I thought about the movies I’ve reviewed so far; of the nine, six were based on real life people or events and one was based off a comic book property from the sixties. This year, some of the most anticipated movies to be released are the dozen live action remakes of animated Disney movies. Us is not only beautifully executed as a film, but it is breathtakingly original and inspired, and in an industry that seems to be relying more and more on nostalgia and well established fan bases, it was exciting to see a filmmaker take a risk. And for it to work so damn well.

The movie itself tells the story of a family who is confronted by their dopplegangers while on holiday at the beach. The mother figure of the family (Lupita Nyong’o), has been traumatised from a confrontation by her own doppleganger as a child, and seeks to protect her family while at the same time come to terms with what happened. Plot wise that’s all I’ll say; this movie is an incredibly original concept and the plot is half the fun so I don’t want to spoil it for anyone.

One of the biggest advantages that Jordan Peele has in directing horror films is his experience in comedy. The family is relatable and real and there are some genuinely funny moments. This approach has two benefits; the audience actually cares if the protagonists are hurt or scared, but also, the moments of comedy in between the scares lulls the audience back into sensations of familiarity and safety, so that the next scares are thrilling and terrifying all over again. Also what an unreal film for an actor to be a part of to showcase their range! I really hope Lupita Nyong’o is recognised for her performance in this, her depiction of the doppleganger Adelaide is horrifying and captivating yet somehow eerily graceful.

A lot of horror movies try to emulate the greats like The Shining or Jaws or The Exorcist, assuming that what makes them iconic is the jump scares. It’s not, and it’s evident in how shit the sequels usually are. Those movies have suspenseful screenplays, solid performances, and importantly, incredible musical scores and Us knocks all of these out of the park. The entire theatre and I were on the edge of our seats when those violins started shrieking in “Us”.

The best horror classics also have some kind of iconic imagery, whether it be the twins or the blood coming out of the elevator in “The Shining”, the Michael Meyers mask in “Halloween” or the image of the smiling Pennywise in “It”. Already the snapshot of the doppleganger family in their red jumpsuits and the shears or the image of the wide eyed Lupita Nyong’o bloodstained and carrying the fire poker could be considered in that same calibre.

There were some aspects of the plot which I think could have been simplified or done away with completely to avoid over complicating a story which already has a lot to keep track of, but that is a very slight misstep in an otherwise seriously impressive film.

Overall, what an achievement. Jordan Peele is definitely establishing himself as one of the best directors in Hollywood, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the horror genre began to shift because of his influence. Us is innovative, brutal, terrifying, thoroughly entertaining and I hope will make enough of an impact in the film industry for studios to take risks on more original properties. I can’t help but think what we’re missing out on.

By Jock Lehman

This was not an enjoyable experience.

I made the mistake of going to see Hotel Mumbai with my girlfriend for date night after dinner last Saturday. I didn’t know much about the movie going in, but this is definitely not a date night kind of film. We were both a couple of wines deep and were sobbing our eyes out for pretty much the entire thing. That in itself doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad movie. I don’t think there are many people who would say they “enjoyed” Schindler’s List or Sophie’s Choice. Importantly though, just because Hotel Mumbai elicits an emotional response doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a great movie either.

The film tells the true story of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and focusses on the siege of the Taj Mahal and the experiences of certain (fictional) staff and guests. It follows the attack from the perspectives of a hotel waiter (Dev Patel), a wealthy American couple (Armie Hammer and Nazanin Boniadi), their Australian nanny (Tilda Cobham-Hervey), a Russian businessman (Jason Isaacs) and the five terrorists themselves.

A lot of the emotional impact that comes from this film is found in the brutal and unapologetic showcasing of the terrorists wantonly shooting innocent guests and staff. That’s undoubtedly the intention of the director; to create as real and authentic a portrayal of the events of 2008 as possible and for the audience to feel the horror as if they were there themselves and there are moments of definite tension and pace. The only problem with this approach is that, despite the visceral brutality and violence of the film, Hotel Mumbai follows almost exactly the same plot lines and structures as any other Hollywood hostage film, whether it be Die Hard, Air Force One or White House Down. In many ways, given the subject matter, I think this was an inappropriate way to go about it.

The difference is that that those movies are action packed popcorn movies designed to entertain. This is far too graphic and violent and real to be considered in that same genre, so what results is a confusing experience where the audience is torn between going along with the thriller action aspects of the plot and being horrified at the brutal and terrifying reality that it’s portraying.

To give the film some credit, there is some subtle and clever juxtaposition between the menial problems faced by the characters prior to the attack (the overcharging of a meal, whether or not the baby is hot enough to call the doctor), and being suddenly thrust into a situation where they could instead be shot at any moment. The film also makes a nice point of how in such situations, life and death can come down to the tiniest and seemingly insignificant decisions. One particularly poignant moment is where Dev Patel’s character Arjun sees the dead body of the waiter who had been shot while serving the party that Arjun himself had repeatedly requested to serve at the beginning of their shift.

The characters as a whole aren’t developed well. In particular, the romance between David (Armie Hammer) and Zahra (Nazanin Boniadi) is irritating and sappy, unnecessarily shifting the tone from one of brutal realism to cliche Hollywood flashbacks.

Annoyingly, the perspectives of the terrorists themselves are scarcely touched upon. This is a shame, since some of the most interesting and insightful moments of the film feature the motivations and internal dilemmas of the gunmen. For instance, the men have no qualms about shooting innocent civilians in the name of Allah, but are morally and spiritually unable to reach into a dead girl’s bra to find her ID. I think it would have done the film well to explore this sort of thing a little more.

Despite its real life, horrifying source material and it’s best intentions, the only real difference between Hotel Mumbai and the other action blockbusters I mentioned earlier is the excessive violence which at times borders on manipulation. I was horrified and I cried, but blatantly dousing the audience with graphic violence isn’t in itself good filmmaking. This isn’t a terrible film, but it’s certainly not as deep and profound as it thinks it is either.

By Jock Lehman

This is a tricky one.

As a superhero movie, Captain Marvel is a goodie; there are cool action scenes, the leading heroine is engaging, the banter is fun and the scope of some of the space scenes are seriously impressive. The dialogue is a little strained at times and there are some minor plot inconsistencies, but overall, it’s a comic book movie and those sorts of things can be forgiven. But there is a blatant and obvious agenda promoted throughout this movie and for me it did so to the detriment of the end product.

Before I get railed as a sexist, I get vexed with the blatant pushing of any agenda in a movie. A film has every right to deal with underlying themes of female empowerment and there are some incredible movies that do just that. The thing is, those movies, like Whale Rider, Erin Brockovich for example, are effective because their themes are integrated organically in the characters, plot and ultimately reach their audiences through the power of the story, rather than movies that try to do that through annoying sub text, self indulgence and clunky one liners. What’s frustrating about this movie is that it somehow does both!

Brie Larson stars as Vers, an ambitious “Kree” soldier (Kree is another planet I’m pretty sure) who has recurring flashbacks of a life that she doesn’t identify with or understand, and when a mission goes wrong and she crashes down to Earth in the year 1995, she sets off to piece it all together and discovers that she is actually Carol Danvers, an air force pilot. The fact that this was set in the 1990s was a clever move, and allows for a sense of nostalgia and some fun 90s references that scored easy laughs with my cinema. Samuel L. Jackson reprises his role as SHIELD agent Nick Fury, and brings the needed comedy to the buddy adventure, because as talented as Larson is, she’s not a great comedic actress. It’s not too dark or gritty, there are some cool shape shifting aliens, Samuel L Jackson is Samuel L Jackson, Larson has some impressive combat scenes and there’s a fun 90s soundtrack.

They almost nailed it.

But they don’t, and here is why I think that is.

Audiences don’t like being treated like idiots. We’re perfectly capable of watching the lead actress fly around, ju jitsu the bad guys, shoot energy balls out of her fists, pilot jets and defeat the baddies and figure out that she’s a strong woman by ourselves. The fact that director Anna Boden deliberately and unapologetically has to beat us over the head with stupid one liners and metaphors with no hint of subtlety suggests instead that the audience is either too stupid or too sexist to come to their own conclusions.

When Danvers falls through the roof of a Blockbuster video and blasts the head off of an Arnold Schwarzenegger “True Lies” cardboard cutout while Jamie Lee Curtis’ head is left perfectly intact, I winced and a woman sitting behind me in the cinema audibly groaned. There are constant and cringeworthy flashbacks of Carol as a little girl being pushed down by boys, Carol being laughed at by chauvinist males in airforce training and Carol as a young pilot being taunted by her male associates, (“There’s a reason it’s called a cockpit”).

Towards the end of the film when she discovers the strength to unlock her true inner power, the flashbacks appear again, this time instead showing her getting back up each time. Did Carol Danvers go through her own personal struggles and triumphs and experiences as an individual? We don’t know, because the film tells us that the only adversities that we as an audience should care about are those that Carol experiences as a woman.

Captain Marvel is a good, fun superhero movie and Brie Larson is a commanding and commendable lead. I didn’t think that because she was a woman or because of the metaphors and subtext throughout the film, I thought it because she was a commanding and commendable lead.

That should be enough.

By Jock Lehman