The Call Of The Wild

This review may contain spoilers!

Dog movies don't tend to be very good as a rule, but when you swap out a real dog for a CGI stand-in then you're just asking for trouble. I would give The Call Of The Wild a 3.5/10.

The Call Of The Wild follows Buck, a suburban crossbreed who was raised in California but is abducted from his home and spirited to Alaska to be sold. There Buck forms a bond with a dog-sled team, helps a lonely hermit and finds his calling with the wild Yukon wolf packs. This film has the boundless charm that most dog films possess, a protagonist who is undeniably charismatic and likeable. Buck is a very expressive animal character and has a simple journey of character growth that is easy enough to follow. I think the film has a casual approach to a thrilling adventure, which is nice in the way it invites you to take in everything it has to show along the way. The cinematography and special effects for the film I'm quite torn over for a number of reasons, the camera work looks really good when we're chewing the scenery somewhat. While the special effects have a few noteworthy moments too; such as the avalanche scene, some computer-generated scenery and the wild wolf spirit that recurs as a symbol throughout the feature.

The best performance came from Harrison Ford, who played John Thornton. Thornton acts as the voice and the guide to the film, providing narration in a world-weary tone that gives a sort of legend to Buck's story. I really enjoyed watching Ford play this honourable hermit, a man who had lost himself to the wilds of the Yukon and couldn't rekindle with civilisation. There was a very real sense of honour to Thornton in the way he treated others, particularly the canine characters. I think the deep sad he had over his deceased son was a nice subtext throughout that Ford played to very well. I loved seeing the joy and companionship between this role and Buck, a lot of the film was put squarely on Ford's back to deliver and no one can say he didn't do his part.

The Call Of The Wild is a slow feature that offers up brief anecdotes in the leading canine's story, none of which have particularly much to say and containing little to surprise the viewer. The framework for most dog features is maintained; the main character drifts from owner to owner, situation to situation; along the way encountering the best and worst of humanity while forever remaining the best possible depiction of man's best friend. The film begins pushing the idea that Buck is going to venture into the wild from very early on and so a number of the plot points feel so minor and insignificant that you don't much care what happens one way or the other. The film tries to construct some kind of message about gold prospection in the Yukon and man's greed for wealth but it never commits enough to this aspect of the story for it to actually be interesting. The cinematography comes across as a slave to the visual effects more often than not, making for quite a static visual experience with few creative shots. The special effects for most of the animals in the feature is terrible, the dogs especially don't look very real and you can't see very much reason for having foregone the genuine article. The score for the film feels light and like it was made in a very simplistic manner, the melodies are unisnpired and I have heard music score for movies like this plenty of times beforehand.

Omar Sy and Cara Gee, who played Perrault and Françoise respectively, don't make a strong mark as the first major human owners in the Yukon storyline; Sy tries his best to be passionate but her overdoes things a bit, while Gee seems perfectly content slipping into the background of scenes. Dan Stevens and Karen Gillan, who played Hal and Mercedes respectively, give some of the worst performances of their careers as the film's antagonists; Stevens in particular is hard to watch as a cartoonish sinister and cruel prospector who hates Thornton and the canine characters.

Emma

This review may contain spoilers!

Quite simply put, one of the most impressive adaptations of a Jane Austen novel to date. I would give Emma an 8/10.

Emma is an adaptation of the Jane Austen bearing the same title, in which our main character, Emma Woodhouse, makes a disaster of things in her community after fancying herself a matchmaker. This story is both an interesting period coming of age tale and a classic comedy filled with a variety of unforgettable characters. In fact what made this film so distinguishably better than any other Emma film that has come before is the degree to which humour emerges. It's a markedly clever wit in which dialogue is handled precisely, characters are utilised cleverly and timing is key to everything. I think the manner in which the film presents the titular character is very impressive too, for a significant aspect of the film you feel like Emma actually has control and ownership over her community, like her machinations actually do influence matters amongst her peers. But as the plot progresses we come to understand Emma's 'matchmaking' to be a destructive force and the lessons to be learnt and the same as own values Emma must take on to better her selfish character. I was thoroughly impressed to have seen a Jane Austen adaptation that was entirely engaging and rather accessible for a wide audience. The cinematography for the film is the best I've currently seen in an Austen adaptation, shots were cleverly manipulated around the title role and every scene had an extremely deliberate picturesque quality. The score for the film shared in the easy novelty and wit introduced in the plot; using a classic tone to illicit a connection to the setting and characters.

Anya Taylor-Joy, who played Emma Woodhouse, might very well have found her best role yet; Taylor-Joy plays to the grand machinations and distinct vanity of the character with subtlety and finesse. Johnny Flynn, who played George Knightley, is a kind and passionate tempered role; Flynn and Taylor-Joy have an intense and capable chemistry onscreen that is unmatchable. Bill Nighy, who played Mr Woodhouse, is utterly hilarious as the paranoid hypochondriac; Nighy really has fun with Woodhouse's consistent complaining and fearful attitude. Mia Goth, who played Harriet Smith,  is really quite charming as the mild-mannered friend Emma takes under her wing; the way in which Goth portrays her role bending almost entirely to Emma's will is very well done. Callum Turner, who played Frank Churchhill, is a very arrogant role who seems in love with his own self; Turner manages to make his vain role charismatic while recklessly uncaring to many of the other characters. Amber Anderson, who played Jane Fairfax, is quite a refined and elegant performer; the degree of ease and perfection with which she presented Jane made for a very noble figure. Tanya Reynolds, who played Mrs Elton, is stunning as this very scathing character; her self-absorbed attitude and biting dialogue were excellent to watch. Connor Swindells, who played Mr Martin, is a very charming role that you think a great deal of in his time onscreen; Swindells has a really gentle chemistry with Goth that is lovely to watch. Chloe Pirrie and Oliver Chris, who played Isabella Knightley and John Knightley respectively, made for an excellent pair of extremely differing personalities; Pirrie plays against Nighy's paranoia well with her own while Chris has a wry humorous portrayal of exasperation.

However, the best performance came from Miranda Hart, who played Miss Bates. Anyone who has ever read Emma knows that this role's fast-talking gossip and inability to judge social situations makes her one of the funniest characters in the novel. This film realises the wit, cleverness and charm of Austen's work and I daresay no one performs to it quite as well as Miranda Hart.Her abrupt nature of working into a scene is brilliant and the deft way she handles her dialogue is very witty. It's easy to cast Miss Bates as the 'funny' role when in fact she's a relentless gossip who clings to her friends and relationships due to her lack of prospects. Hart really gets the essence of this and the scene in which Taylor-Joy's Emma mocks her is quite possibly the best scene in the film.

While I really love this film one of it's biggest failings is that it relies too heavily on fans who have read the books or seen the style of these films before. It plays up to familiar themes in these films or just assumes the audience comes from a place of recognition and then chooses not to relinquish enough information. I feel if you aren't very familiar with a Jane Austen inspired feature then this won't be a venture worth your time. The scenes sometimes push things too far in it's efforts to break the mould, moments like Emma getting a nosebleed as she becomes caught between two choices feels like a significant example of this. The pacing for the feature started to steadily peter out, it felt like nothing was spared which worked really well at first but dragged the narrative a lot in the third act. The classic folk song soundtrack came off as pretty stale too, entirely lacking the charm provided by the score.

Josh O'Connor, who played Mr Elton, played the seeking bachelor a little creepy for my tastes; he really played up the nastiness and the blind desire of his role in a manner that just felt extremely over the top. Rupert Graves and Gemma Whelan, who played Mr Weston and Mrs Weston respectively, felt like a necessary duo to introduce and carry the story to the next scene but ultimately provided little in terms of character; Whelan and Taylor-Joy's relationship didn't have a strong dynamic and Graves failed to find the comedy in his role.

Bloodshot

This review may contain spoilers!

I haven't enjoyed a film led by Vin Diesel this much in years. I would give Bloodshot a 7.5/10.

Bloodshot follows Ray Garrison, a former marine turned super soldier after his supposed death at the hands of a violent terrorist. As Ray explores his new abilities he discovers there might be more to his origins than meets the eye.This film takes a little while to get going but the minute the feature gets the chance to cut loose and explore Garrison's new 'Bloodshot' abilities this becomes an immensely satisfying film to watch. Watching the main protagonist explore his capabilities in a quick, visually appealing manner is immensely satisfying and a fond departure from the usual formula of lengthy explanation into each power. The plot also establishes a good web of intrigue about how free Garrison is, whether he is a person or a weapon to point and shoot now. The full throttle action that sees Garrison become free is quite an action-packed adventure around free will, it's no deep dive on the subject but it is certainly explored in a way audiences are really going to find entertaining. The cinematography for Bloodshot is some of the nicest blockbuster work I've seen in 2020, every shot feels framed to get the best visual potential into a scene. The visual effects are a real treat, especially the nanite tech within Garrison but also the designs for each of the other super soldiers. The score for the feature is nothing but high intensity, the scenes in which Garrison is on the move feel almost like something from a horror film with how charged the music becomes.

Vin Diesel, who played Ray Garrison, does a really solid job as the feature protagonist; Diesel's gravelly tone and stoic presence fit the soldier role and his confrontation scene with Pearce is the standout moment of the film. Sam Heughan, who played Jimmy Dalton, presented the sort of minor antagonist I really got a kick out of; Heughan brought this twisted form of jealousy and hatred against Diesel's character that made for an interesting motivation to see unfold. Toby Kebbell, who played Martin Axe, has a really intriguing dual role in this film; Kebbell plays well to the sadistic nature of one of his roles and the fear-stricken nature of his other. Lamorne Morris, who played Wilfred Wigans, is one of the funniest characters in the film and stole a lot of the scenes he was in; Morris had a habit of really quickly presenting a comedic line that was unpredictable and exactly what a scene needed to be enhanced.

However, the best performance comes from Guy Pearce, who played Dr. Emil Harting. In blockbusters like these you can sometimes get a performer who really showcases their talent and lifts the quality of the material up through their acting ability. Pearce exemplifies that in Bloodshot, almost constantly. When first we meet mild-mannered scientist, Dr. Harting, you come to trust him pretty quick even if he is a little skittish. Pearce plays strongly to the charisma of the role, and the deep passion and care for the projects he has embarked on. Yet as the film continues and he loses his ability to control the people who are his project his calm temperament slips. What I enjoy most about this role is that Pearce keeps the charismatic passion present throughout, he was never hiding who he is so much as his intentions. Once things stop going his way this character really flips how he operates, systematically exerting his influence over those he has experimented upon and trying to influence the way others think. He steadily descends into a more panicked state, berating his workers more and even destroying others that are in his way in order to achieve his end goal. This was a really fascinating, well-rounded performance to watch.

I quite enjoyed Bloodshot and found it to be the first mature blockbuster to really impress me this year, but it wasn't without some strong narrative flaws. The start of the film is a rough watch and is loaded with too many cliches to just brush it all away, in spite of the film trying to do so. We see Garrison as this unbeatable American soldier, a super-patriot with an attractive wife who he disappears with to an idyllic coastal town that is too good to be true. Everything about this introduction is simulated but for an opening it is laid on very heavily and didn't particularly endear me to the leading role. As the film goes along it has a very erratic pace; often the narrative would move at the perfect speed before suddenly we hit a scene where a wave of information that is crucial to the plot is very suddenly and abruptly offloaded. These moments aren't very well handled and were quite jarring to actually watch. Finally the film ended rather weirdly, playing things a bit cheesily and setting up the sort of rushed happy ending it didn't really deserve. The sequel bait exit line was a real downer as well, as it seemed like a poor attempt to somehow justify an already poor concluding scene. The editing for the feature set a very odd pace and din't always jump to the best beat in the action, which I found surprising given the nature of how the film had to present its narrative.

Eiza Gonzalez, who played KT, did not know how to play a role that was subtle; you were never surprised by this character and Gonzalez made certain plot points easy to predict because of hos she played to a scene. Talulah Riley, who played Gina Garrison, really didn't have much chemistry with Diesel which made the husband/wife dynamic a little tougher to buy; Riley really pushed this love interest role who felt two-dimensional to watch. Siddharth Dhananjay, who played Eric, was a source of comedic relief who played to that a bit too obviously; I never found this character overtly funny and he flubbed as many jokes as he landed. Alex Hernandez, who played Tibbs, was a quiet expressionless role that never really moved out from the background; Hernandez  was the opposite of Heughan because he never found much reason to be more than just an antagonistic henchman. Johannes Haukur Johannesson, who played Nick Baris, was a very blunt figure who didn't bring the same level of intrigue as Kebbell did; the best Johannesson managed to be was a blank expression of resistance to Diesel's leading character.

Dark Waters

This review may contain spoilers!

This film was an incredibly well-informed examination of the Dupont Teflon poisoning cases helmed by lawyer, Rob Bilott. I would give Dark Waters an 8/10.

Dark Waters is a biopic that follows lawyer, Rob Bilott, as he uncovers the truth about Dupont using poisonous and harmful chemicals, selling and dumping them affecting the global population. This is a complete examination of the atrocities Dupont is responsible for and the fight Rob Bilott is still waging against this megacorporation.I couldn't help but feel a complete sense of sinking dread as I watched this film, it is entirely horrific some of the statistics you'll be fed, some of the personal accounts. The film doesn't tend to over-dramatise so much as it sits there and informs you in no uncertain terms just how deeply the corporate corruption at Dupont runs and how human beings have been manipulated and mistreated by this company. It is a film about respect for Bilott and his fight, how meticulously the case was built up and for how long it has been fought for. You watch a man who expresses an initial interest into a routine case turn to waging a titanic battle against one of the most powerful companies in the United States.

Tim Robbins, who played Tom Terp, did a fine job of portraying the neutral employer throughout; I enjoyed seeing Robbins play to both sides of the divide and his eventual outburst lauding Ruffalo's Bilott really felt deserved. Bill Camp, who played Wilbur Tennant, was a gruff outspoken figure who really rallied against the injustices done against him from the start; Camp made Wilbur a fighter and a hero to the last. Victor Garber, who played Phil Donnelly, was as close as this film had to the perfect antagonist; Garber's corporate exec was a two-faced snake who spit venom at anyone who opposed him.

However, the best performance came from Mark Ruffalo, who played Rob Bilott. I think Ruffalo manages to do a very good job at selecting scripts and roles that really highlight issues that warrant attention and have a strong message about modern society. In this Ruffalo is a very restrained lawyer who does things by the book and knows how to negotiate his colleagues in the law sector. He establishes a really convincing indifference to the issue he is asked to investigate at first but you really see the curiosity start to gnaw away at him. The rest of the film sees Bilott become consumed by his work, frantically confronting people others would be too intimidated to or tackling a task most would shy away from. This film is a fight and the passionate monologues Ruffalo imparts that highlight the issues behind the Dupont/Teflon case are proof enough that this is one of Ruffalo's strongest leading roles.

Dark Waters is an incredibly brilliant script with a lot to share but it doesn't really know how to pace itself or manage some of its minor subplots. You lose track pretty quick of which supporting cast members matter because the film drops roles quicker than you'd expect or takes a while to introduce them, as was the case with the Kiger roles. The film really didn't seem to know how it wanted to present the home life of the Bilott family and it was by far the weakest aspect of the feature. The cinematography tended to look pretty bad and had a very worn, faded out quality to it; the moments in which the camerawork attempted to get fancy resulted in some of the lesser shots of the film. The editing set the groundwork for such a slow pace, there was a lot more that could have remained on the cutting room floor. The score for the film felt absent at best, I think a more consistent tone could have been crafted with more effort in this area.

Anne Hathaway, who played Sarah Barlage Bilott, was a role the audience tended to dislike which felt disingenuous to what Dark Waters was trying to achieve; Hathaway was a harsh figure with little empathy and not much to connect with. Bill Pullman, who played Harry Dietzler, gives a wild unpredictable performance that feels more like Pullman than the role itself; I never found myself understanding this character and he felt like the performance probably the most detached from reality. William Jackson Harper, who played James Ross, gives about the same quick-talking intellectual role he's been giving for the past few years; this is a character who jumps between best friend to work rival and was a small attachment we didn't especially need.

The Invisible Man

This review may contain spoilers!

This film boasts a real stylistic flair but is let down by the weak dialogue and formulaic plot. I would give The Invisible Man a 6.5/10.

The Invisible Man follows a woman, Cecelia, who escapes an abusive relationship only for her ex-boyfriend to take his own life. However, when Cecelia begins to be plagued by random events that ruin her life she begins to suspect her boyfriend might not actually be dead. This film really knows how to negotiate its theme really well, opening a strong discussion about abusive relationships, manipulation and recovery. Throughout the film you really get inside the main character's head and come to understand how controlled she felt, she was constantly questioning whether her actions were her own or if they could ever be again. I think the film really showed some of the positive aspects of real recovery in the first act while also doing a spectacular job of showing a figure who has been abused claiming power over her abuser come the end of the feature. I think by finding a story in which this female protagonist is being assailed by a man who holds an almost supernatural power over her and watching her find a way to trump him opened us to a concept that is a really worthy talking point. This film took what you expect from an Invisible Man film and really made it its own. The cinematography for the feature had some repetitive space but manipulated empty space well to aid mounting tension, the camera toys with perception which I felt really enhanced the experience. The special effects weren't the most inspired I'd ever seen but certainly achieved what they were there to do, probably the best aspect was the cybernetic design of the Invisible Man suit. The score for the film was this bass noise that completely drowned and overwhelmed you, I liked this because it enhanced the mental health discussion for those scenes and left the audience feeling as trapped as the main character.

Oliver Jackson-Cohen, who played Adrian Griffin, is truly psychotic as the main antagonist; he works so well because it feels like he has this malice just coiled up beneath the surface of his charismatic facade. Aldis Hodge, who played James Lanier, has a nice chemistry with Moss as her role's best friend/recovery support; Hodge is probably the most charismatic of the cast and has a very likeable dynamic in the majority of his scenes. Michael Dorman, who played Tom Griffin, almost worked even better in his antagonist role than the main guy; Dorman was duplicitous and really negotiated and manipulated in his scenes very well.

However, the best performance came from Elisabeth Moss, who played Cecelia Kass. Moss isn't an actress I've seen in a lot of things but in everything I have seen her in she has knocked it out of the park. This film was no different to that, Cecelia was a complex role that Moss really brought a lot to. Throughout the Invisible Man we watch Cecelia grapple with an ever-present fear that she'll never be free of the man who manipulated and controlled her. Moss takes a very practical approach to depicting a survivor's story, making her paranoia and hysteria all the more arresting to watch. I enjoyed that the character had this stubborn resolve to prove herself right which became a journey to defending herself, ultimately leading to her fighting back and triumphing against her abuser. Moss takes this character on a journey of self-perseverance, she seizes back her very life which is such a great character arc to watch.

As much as I loved this film stylistically and conceptually I do feel the film really let itself down with a script that didn't match the thought behind it. The overall story became very formulaic very quick; the hero leaves a normal danger and becomes safe, supernatural danger occurs and the stakes heighten, hero uses the antagonists' weakness or own power against them to win. This just felt like the general framework plot for a lot of the horror/thrillers we're watching come out at the moment and it's entirely underwhelming. As an audience member I start to predict narrative beats far too quickly and the story loses the element of surprise, which matters a lot in any good thriller story. Another major issue was the dialogue, the whole film needed a lot more work in that regard. A lot of the lines are very superficial, generic statements that you would expect in any horror movie. This just made the characters look a lot more two-dimensional and really limited the actors. Not to mention there were a number of scenes that felt poorly blocked out in terms of delivery; moments like Cecelia gifting a ladder/money to James and Sydney or the big restaurant scene with Cecelia and Emily.

Harriet Dyer, who played Emily Kass, really seemed unable to find her way to a role that didn't feel two-dimensional at best; her stony expressions and hostile persona never went through change and Dyer never aimed for anything other than what the script fed her. Storm Reid, who played Sydney Lanier, is an upcoming performer that I'm really not all that excited about; she had a pretty boring role in A Wrinkle In Time and this film was equally quite a muted, generic character.