Bridge of Spies Movie Review

Bridge of Spies is a cold war spy thriller directed by Steven Spielberg starring Tom Hanks, and for those 2 reasons alone I went into this movie with reasonably high expectations. It tells the story of Jim Donovan, played by Tom Hanks, a skilled insurance lawyer who is tasked to defend a captured Soviet spy during his trial. However, after a U2 spy plane is shot down above Soviet air space and pilot Gary Powers is captured by the Soviet's, Donovan is the flown to Berlin to negotiate a swap between the US and the USSR so both spies can return home.

As I've just said, my expectations going into this movie were quite high. While Bridge of Spies may have fallen slightly short of the hype I set myself up with (I wanted it to be one of the best movies of the year) its still a dramatically effective and impactful film which creeps up on you emotionally towards the end. But, in order to enjoy this film you must know what you're getting into. It's a 2 and a half hour film of people sat around in rooms talking. I for one really enjoyed the experience for multiple reasons, I'd just be aware that this isn't a fast paced film with an endless amount of thrills or action set pieces. However, for what it is it is a good movie.

As you would expect, Tom Hanks is excellent in a role which may not require him to deliver on an emotional range like he has done in previous years, but in every scene he is in he radiates acting quality and keeps you captivated with his performance. He brings such an innocence and a likeability to his character, a man who just wants to do the right thing and prove that no matter who a person is, everybody deserves an equal shot at justice. It's these ideals which motivate his character throughout and because he is so likeable, you want this guy to succeed with the task he has been set.

Also, I have to give major praise to Mark Rylance who plays the Soviet spy in this film, because he is utterly terrific. Not only that, I love his character. He has a strange knack of remaining calm in situations where he really should be a little more concerned. And I love the fact the film made a point that despite the fact he is a spy for the enemy, he is not a traitor. In fact, Donovan even makes the point that he is quite the opposite. He's served his country admirably and honourably for not giving up any Soviet intelligence to the CIA. He and Hanks have real, organic on-screen chemistry and share some riveting conversations.

The reason why I was so invested in this movie's story and the 2 lead characters in particular was because the film's screenplay, written by the Coen Brothers, is constructed really well. The dialogue given to these characters here is excellent, and scenes which other movies would treat as downtime are actually where Bridge of Spies is at its most entertaining.

This, coupled with Steven Spielberg's masterful direction, make the seemingly mundane incredibly interesting. If you are a fan of directing and wish to direct yourself, I suggest paying close attention to the majority of the scenes in Bridge of Spies. Even when 2 characters are sat around talking, the direction of these scenes is marvellous to behold. Spielberg puts his stamp on every shot and gives the film another layer of enjoyment for film enthusiasts like myself.

It is definitely not a perfect film in my book and it is no where near the quality of some of Spielberg's earlier work, which is hardly an insult considering the man has made so many classics you'd struggle to fit them all on both hands! Being a 2 and a half hour film, there are times when it does feel like the movie's pace is dragging along. This is the case, for me, in that I feel as if a few scenes drag on for a little too long. I feel that whilst every scene was necessary in giving the narrative depth, some scenes could have been more impactful had they ended earlier.

I'm nit-picking here but there is also a transition that occurs between 2 scenes which came off as blatant propaganda, even if that wasn't the movies primary intention. Without spoilers, I'll say that it involves a transition from a Soviet prison to a US one, and the blatant differences between how well both countries treated their prisoners was a bit too much for me. This, however, was only one moment in a movie which actually does a brilliant job at steering away from US propaganda, with the exception of this one scene.

I'll also say that the ending goes on for too long and is very cliché Spielberg. But other than that, I really did have a good time with Bridge of Spies. Its well acted, well directed, well written and towards the end is surprisingly emotionally impactful. It's definitely not a casual watch but as a movie, I have to admit it is very good. If you know what you're getting into, I think it's a film you should see this year, especially if you're a fan of excellent filmmaking:


Rating - B

Thanks for reading,
Matt

The Captain America: Civil War Trailer is FINALLY here!!!

It's been a long time coming, hasn't it? At last! It seems that Kilgrave told Kevin Feige to finally release the trailer for next summer's headline event, Captain America: Civil War, set to be released on May 6th 2016. The scope of this film may not mirror the Civil War run in the comics, but it still looks like an amazing FILM based on the character drama exhibited in this wonderful teaser.

It naturally begins with the post credits scene from Ant Man. It shows that Cap and Falcon's "missing persons case" has come to an end, with them locating Cap's estranged friend Bucky Barnes, formerly the HYDRA vigilante The Winter Soldier. The effects of HYDRA's brainwashing are clearly fading and Bucky is regaining memory of his friendship with Steve.

And that right here proves to me that this film isn't the simple liberty and freedom vs. authority and regulation struggle like we all thought it would be. Civil War is essentially a personal story of the friendship between Steve Rogers and Bucky Barnes. This movie's emotional weight will come from their relationship, and the trailer clearly indicates that the reason Cap is willing to go rogue from the government is for the sake of his friend. He's caught in a clear moral dilemma but he's doing the right thing, and this is why audiences will connect with him.

It was great to see William Hurt back as General "Thunderbolt" Ross as it finally gives currency to the 2008 Incredible Hulk film that Marvel has willingly forgotten about up to this point. General Ross is the voice of the government in this instance, delivering the news to the New Avengers that the world has had enough of them operating free of government supervision. The superhero registration act from the comics is known as "The Sokovia Accords", which makes complete sense after the chaos caused in the final act of Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Friends are going to become enemies as this film removes the barrier between heroism and villainy. Old alliances will be broken based on ideological grounds. I love Black Widow's involvement in this trailer and I'm excited for the direction they are taking her character. It seems her alliances lie with Tony Stark and the government. But she has such a great relationship with Steve that her allegiances may come into question. She says "Stay out of this one...please!". She's practically begging Steve not to go after Bucky, but knows he will, which also means that she will have to side against him.

That's why I think this film is destined for greatness. There are so many characters in this film yet so many opportunities to create a multitude of different inter-related conflicts. Hawkeye vs. Black Widow being one, Scarlet Witch vs. Vision being another. But the main conflict-based relationship of Civil War (just as it is in the comics) is Captain America vs. Iron Man. Stark gives a great line which sums everything up; "If we can't accept limitations... we're no better than the bad guys".

Quickly wanted to mention Scarlet Witch who looks awesome and hot as hell in her new costume. Also, her allegiance to Captain America is now confirmed. When they released concept art showcasing the 2 teams, Wanda was nowhere to be seen so that made people speculate. Well speculate no more, she's Cap for life. It only makes sense for what Tony did to her parents, as well as what his creation (Ultron) ended up doing to her twin brother (Quicksilver).

Us lucky people got a look at Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther, the King of Wakanda himself, in full vibranium gear. I must say, he looks perfect. The design of his costume and the way in which he runs and fights is as close to perfect as I think we are ever going to get adapting a superhero from the pages to the screen.

The trailer does really well at showcasing Tony Stark's humanity as well in what is ultimately a very heavy trailer on Bucky and Cap (which it should be, it says Captain America in the title...). I love the shot of him over Rhodey after he gets his arc reactor destroyed. The look on his face just says it all. And I love the response he gives to Cap; "Sorry Tony, but he's my friend". "So was I". The line just says it all, highlighting the slightly humorous yet ultimately the tragic nature of this conflict.

And that final shot is glorious. It isn't some shaky cam bullshit with multiple, quick cuts and angle changes. It is one wide take of 2 pals laying the smack down on Iron Man's candy behind.

Now onto things that aren't in the trailer, because believe you me there are a lot of things they didn't put in which I'm glad they didn't. Firstly, Ant Man. Well... at least not at full size.

Crossbones, Baron Zemo, Sharon Carter and even goddamn Vision aren't in this trailer. But perhaps the biggest omission is that of a certain web-crawler...

Yes, we didn't get a look at Spiderman, and J Jonah Jameson isn't happy! But to be honest I am quite happy they didn't show him. I think what they're planning on doing is copying what they did with Vision in the marketing campaign of Age of Ultron; they'll wait until the final trailer and give us a minute glimpse at him. I'm excited to see Spidey back where he belongs, but I have to be honest when I say I'm struggling to see how he's going to fit in to this overall story, which again seems to be a personal tale of the strength of Steve and Bucky's friendship.

In the wider Marvel Universe, ordinary people with extraordinary abilities are popping up everywhere (the Inhumans, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage etc.). Maybe this is another factor which causes the government to release the Sokovia Accords, the fear they have of humans with super-human powers. Maybe one of these people is a 15 year old Peter Parker who Tony Stark takes under his wing as his protégé. It's all speculation at this point, but it's fun to speculate.

Long story short: loved the trailer, can't wait for May 6th! Watch it now:

Thanks for reading,
Matt

Jessica Jones Season 1 Review

If one thing is for certain it is this: Marvel and Netflix is a partnership made in heaven. Being completely free of catering for a young audience, Jessica Jones is the second Marvel show to appear on Netflix which pushes the boundaries totally and consistently. If there was one thing that Marvel was missing it was a strong show based off of a super heroine, and if Season 1 of Jessica Jones is anything to go by then we could be seeing this show return for years and years to come.

Jessica Jones tells the story of the character of the same name, a Private Investigator working in Hell's Kitchen. She's trying to rebuild her life after her previous attempt at being a super hero failed miserably until an evil figure from her past, Kilgrave, comes back into her life. This sends Jessica into a dilemma; she either continues to run away from her past and hope to God her life will gradually repair itself, or she can face her demons head on and bring down Kilgrave once and for all.

Krysten Ritter is terrific as Jessica Jones and her performances stays consistently great episode to episode. One of the biggest advantages I think Netflix Marvel has over the Marvel movies is that it has around 13 hours to flesh out and realise its characters. Unlike Daredevil, which is more of an action-packed crime drama, Jessica Jones is a more calm, meditative story. It's an intense and brilliantly effective character study concentrating on what might be one of the most intriguing characters in the MCU.

Despite the fact Jessica has extraordinary abilities, what is most extraordinary about her is her humanity, what makes her a person. She's rude, she's sarcastic but she's incredibly damaged and haunted by the events of her past from which she is trying to escape. There's a lot of internal conflict consistently raging on in her mind, and I love how Jessica Jones devotes its time to the titular character.

Netflix has also been doing a phenomenal job, unlike the majority of the movies, in creating some of the best villains the MCU has ever seen. Case in point is Kilgrave, played magnificently by the incredibly talented David Tennant who really commits to this role. He's one of the best villains in the MCU by a long stretch. He isn't a Nordic God or a Megalomaniacal robot, he's just a regular guy.

He has an incredible ability to make people do his bidding just by speaking to them. He could take over the world if he wants to, but no. He'd rather use his abilities to psychologically torment Jessica and those associated with her. He's simply a purely evil, sadistic man. But he's also a villain you can connect to and sympathize with as, like you do with Wilson Fisk in Daredevil, you learn about his backstory and find out just why he is as twisted as he is.

Mike Colter is also really good as Luke Cage and I can't wait to see him in his own series, set to be released probably around this time in 2016. He and Krysten Ritter have really organic on-screen chemistry and I love the directions this season took with their relationship. Plus, I was a huge fan of the way the show made you feel as if these 2 characters both connect with each other as they're both outsiders, but at the same time need each other to cope with the bad stuff that has occurred in their pasts.

The show does an excellent job at character building and weaving the plot to fit a 13 episode structure, almost playing out like a 13 hour movie. Even the supporting characters are great in the show. Even if it may feel like a lot of these characters aren't actually necessary to the season's overarching plot (which is Jessica finding peace with herself) they will do in later episodes. Characters which seem to have a minor role will all become relevant at some point.

This naturally brings me on to my only negative of the first season. While I like how all of the supporting cast have relevance with the story, at times in the last couple of episodes it felt like every time it would cut away from the Jessica vs. Kilrgave conflict it was wasting time and dragging out the story with characters who I really didn't want to see at that particular moment in time.

I have to admit that I definitely prefer Daredevil as a show, but I still think Jessica Jones is a great show and I really can't wait to see what they do with season 2. That's because Daredevil is more thrilling and has beautifully filmed action sequences which get my blood pumping every time they start. Jessica Jones is stylistically very different to Daredevil, showing off a more bleak sense of humour, musical choices and so on. Both shows film action very well and both shows do the basic character stuff similarly well. Jessica Jones is more character based than Daredevil is, and it's only a matter of personal preference as to why I prefer it over Jessica Jones.

Which I still think is a great show with a very strong first season. There are some really memorable scenes in this show, ranging from the nail-biting, the disgusting and the comedic. Favourite thrilling scene has got to be the scene in the police station. Most disgusting scene has to be what Kilgrave makes his mother do. The funniest being the bar fight scene in episode 2, where Luke Cage is cracking skulls and beating people up without even trying.

I am a huge fan of the Netflix format of Marvel shows. They don't hold back on the violence, the sex or the language and just go for it. Both of them so far have a great handle on what it would be like for a street level hero to fight their own, personal battles in the wider world of The Avengers. I'm really looking forward to next year, with Daredevil Season 2 and Luke Cage Season 1:


Rating - A-

Thanks for reading,
Matt

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 Movie Review

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 is the fourth and final instalment of the Hunger Games franchise based off of the second half of Suzanne Collin's novel "Mockingjay".  The film is a culmination of everything that has come before it, and follows Katniss Everdeen as she leads the rebellion against the evil President Snow and marches towards the Capitol in one final push to overthrow his oppressive regime over the people of Panem.

Now first and foremost I think its important for me to add that I am not a Hunger Games super fan as I haven't read the books. Every time I go in to the theatre to watch a Hunger Games film I'm always completely unaware of what's about to unfold in front of me. I'm not one of those people that completely slates a film because they missed out that one important scene from the books, I always create my own opinion based on how much I enjoy the movie as its own entity.

So because I had no idea what was about to unfold in this saga's final instalment, I was always interested to see where these characters would go. I was always captivated by the story that was unfolding, and I was particularly impressed with some of the directions they take with the narrative and the way in which the film positioned characters in relation to each other. For example, I've never really been a huge fan of the character of "Peeta" in these films, but in Mockingjay Part 2 I have to say Peeta stole the entire film. Josh Hutcherson's portrayal made Peeta more vulnerable than he's ever been before. He's a damaged, broken man for the majority of the movie's runtime and was the one character who developed the best for sure.

Jennifer Lawrence is typically brilliant with her performance as she really has the character of Katniss locked down tight. There is one scene in particular where she flexes her acting muscles, but a lot of the time her performance is very subdued. I think the combination of both of these factors perfectly embodied the character of Katniss; an emotionally damaged woman, but one who is determined to do what is right and is focused completely on her goals.

And Mockingjay Part 2 is so much more action packed than Part 1. In fact I have to say that Francis Lawrence and the production crew did an excellent job at crafting and executing some really terrific and exciting action sequences. I think my favourite scene of the entire film is definitely the "sewer" scene, where Katniss and co. are being attacked by these vile "Mutt" creatures. That scene was incredibly suspenseful, and maintained a consistently high level of thrills throughout, which I was very happy to see. I just wish that there were more of these scenes.

The major problem I have with Mockingjay Part 2 (aside from the love triangle which I've just come to accept and live with) is its dire handle on pacing. Part 1 was an incredibly slow and meditative film with no pay off whatsoever. Part 2 on the other hand does have pay off with some really intense action sequences and some powerful, bleak imagery, but it's still so excruciatingly slow on way too many occasions. This is the final film of the saga; it should be an exciting, action-packed and have an emotionally impactful ending. Instead, the film seems to grind to a halt in way too many instances.

The film's handle on pacing is actually quite atrocious. Not only does it grind the movie down to a stand still when characters should be involved in intense sequences, it also seems to speed up in the moments where the film should slow down and deliver that emotional punch. As it is the final instalment of the saga, people die in this film. When these characters do die, the movie glosses over them entirely. Surely these are the moments where the movie should wind down as opposed to just them resting in sewers or hiding in a tiger lady's basement?

I believe the Mockingjay book should have been adapted into one film. I think much like Part 1, Part 2 suffers from having way too many unnecessary scenes put in to extend the runtime and justify the movie's length. The film's ending perfectly reflects this. It goes for a "Return of the King" like ending only this time it doesn't feel like it is the closing of a book. Instead it feels like a string of scenes which were loosely tacked on in post. I feel the film could have ended 4 times before it did.

But just because I feel like a lot of this movie is way too slow doesn't mean I can't recommend you seeing it. I feel like fans of the Hunger Games novels and the films will take a lot of enjoyment from this film. I didn't dislike the film at all, I was very interested in the direction they took the story and how they fleshed out certain characters, plus the action was entertaining. I just can't possibly justify how slow this film is considering it should have been a non-stop thrill ride. Is it worth seeing in theatres? I'm not sure. But you'll probably go and see it anyway:


Rating - C+

Thanks for reading,
Matt

Spectre Movie Review

Spectre is directed by Sam Mendes (the man behind Skyfall) and is the 24th instalment in the long-running James Bond franchise and the fourth time Daniel Craig has played the popular character. In Spectre, Bond stumbles across a message from an old friend which leads him on a journey to uncover the mystery of Spectre, a shadowy, syndicate organisation responsible for coordinating several terrorist attacks. The adventure leads to Bond discovering some deep, personal secrets concerning his past. The best way I can sum up Spectre is as follows; it doesn't even come close to the brilliance of Skyfall or Casino Royale, but it is much better than Quantum of Solace (thank god).

Overall, Spectre is a bit of a disappointment considering it fails to deliver to the high expectations delivered by recent incarnations of the character. Instead of thoroughly embracing the more sombre, realistic take on Ian Fleming's iconic character, Spectre seems to sacrifice what made Skyfall and Casino Royale so memorable and instead pays homage to the classic Bond films of the Roger Moore days.

But there's a lot to enjoy watching this film and a lot of positives to take away from it. First and foremost, Daniel Craig is excellent as Bond. His organic performance in this film definitively makes him my favourite Bond of all time, embodying everything I understand Ian Fleming's character is. He has the look, the charm, the comedic timing, the physical ruthlessness and the vulnerability the role requires. He can play this role in his sleep.

I'd love to see him continue as Bond, but considering the narrative direction this movie goes I think this is unlikely. It's a shame, but that leads me onto another thing I really appreciated in Spectre; the fact it feels like the conclusion of everything we've seen before. The tie ins to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall do a good job at expanding the universe of this incarnation of Bond. It gives relevance to events which have preceded it and heightens the importance of events which happen in this film in a similar way.

I really enjoyed the dynamics that Bond has with returning 007 characters M, Q and Moneypenny. The chemistry between them feels organic and natural, as if these characters have a real history of working together as a team. Through these characters is a lot of the movie's humour broadcasted, and I think all of the returning actors did terrific jobs and understood their roles in the film very well.

Its an aesthetically gorgeous film as well with incredibly helmed and choreographed action sequences which really put you in the moment. The inclusion of Dave Bautista as the evil henchman was also handled brilliantly by both actor and script. They both acknowledged that while Bautista is an excellent performer, his acting isn't great. He only has 1 line in the film and I feel Spectre did well at playing to his strengths. Bautista and Bond are involved in an amazingly thrilling and brutal fight sequence on a train which was for sure one of the film's stand outs.

While it definitely misses the genius touches of Roger Deakins behind the camera (who recently shot Sicario), the movie's cinematography is still excellent. The opening shot of this film is an amazing one-take-wonder which follows Bond through the streets, up an elevator, out a window and along a roof. It was Lubezki-esque. Also, the use of focus and lighting in particular is borderline genius, particularly when it came to introducing Christophe Waltz's character Oberhauser, the film's primary antagonist.

Christophe Waltz is fantastic and steals every scene that he is in. However, this leads me onto my biggest negative about the film; the screenplay misses a lot of really big opportunities despite the fact that Sam Mendes' direction is trying to take the film down a particular path. Take Waltz's character Oberhauser as an example. The direction they take this character, the head of Spectre, should have made him the most memorable 007 of all time. But the screenplay doesn't allow him to be this. His character should have had a lot more emotional depth. He should've been stripped down to his humanity (like Le Chiffre was in Casino Royale) and his motivation should have been made much clearer.

The same things can be said for Lea Seydoux. Her performance in this film is perfectly serviceable with some glimpses of brilliance, but the screenplay missed a few things out when it came to her character. Early on you buy into her chemistry with Bond and you maybe think a romance could flourish between them. However, in the end the romance felt forced and almost awkward at times, happening way to quickly without much emotional development going on at all. She could have been a great "Bond girl" and a very strong female lead had a few minor script alterations been made.

Also the film has a couple of pacing issues. It starts off with a thrilling action sequence, sets the scene very well in the first act and comes to a satisfying conclusion. But it drags a lot in the second act mainly revolving around a sub plot involving the character of "C", an official who wants to shut down the 00 programme and replace it with a massive global surveillance initiative. The revelation surrounding that aspect of the plot wasn't surprising at all and it took the movie away from the interesting, personal journey Bond was going on elsewhere.

Ultimately, Spectre is a bit of a disappointing film considering that with 1 or 2 more re-drafts of the screenplay, it could have taken the opportunities it missed out on taking. There's no doubting that it is a fun action film with an actor who perfectly embodies what Bond is all about, but issues I had with the story, the screenplay and some of the characters makes Spectre an overall disappointment. I will still recommend you see it as it is a fun time, but know that it doesn't even come close to the quality of Skyfall or Casino Royale. Or Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation for that matter, they are basically the same film!


Rating - B-

Thanks for reading,
Matt