Avengers: Infinity War

Me and my partner had an interesting chat before seeing Marvel's latest film, Avengers: Infinity War, about what constitutes a spoiler. As almost part of the marketing of the film, Infinity War has emphasised on social media not to spoil the film for those who haven't seen it yet. But what is a spoiler? I define it as revealing a milestone that fundamentally changes the dynamic of the narrative. Rosebud from Citizen Kane, for example, changes the dynamic of that film and spoiling it for someone who hasn't seen it can diminish some of the effect (though I think most people know about that one now ...). And I also don't think general plot stuff really counts as a spoiler. With that in mind, I will be discussing a very vague outline to the new Avengers film in my review so if you want to go in completely blind yet still know my opinion I'll summarise here: it's very good. I enjoyed the heck out of it. Thanos is great. The pay offs are wonderful. It's a bit of a mess. Leaves you wanting Part II now. For everyone else, let's continue.

So the time has come. After 10 years, 18 films, several TV series and a whole lot of box-office dollar, the Marvel Cinematic Universe reaches what can only be described as the culmination of its current form with the hotly anticipated Avengers: Infinity War. In a way, you have to hand it to the studio. With more clout than some small countries, the company, in partnership with Disney, have perfected their formula of audience-pleasing action-adventure-comedy films with enough tid-bits and Easter Eggs to keep the hardcore fans happy. However, many in the film press and industry have been gunning for the wheels to fall off the Marvel machine (including vocal directors such as James Cameron who is responding to the glut of Marvel films but making a glut of Avatar sequels) and Infinity War has gained a bit of flak for potentially being that film. So now that Thanos has finally arrived, does Avengers: Infinity War live up to the now decade worth of hype?

Honestly, as someone who largely enjoys these films for what they are, yes. Oh, yes.

Infinity War brings together a dazzling amount of heroes

The ultimate literal Big Bad of the Marvel Universe has arrived: Thanos (Josh Brolin), the Destroyer of Worlds. With a group of loyal zealots, Thanos bombards the universe in an attempt to search for all six Infinity Stones, the items that have been teased throughout the whole of the MCU since Day 1. With all the stones in his possession, Thanos plans on inflicting his own sick and twisted will on reality. All of our heroes must band together to take down their most powerful adversary yet as the fate of the whole universe hangs in balance. And they actually mean it this time.

This is definitely Marvel's biggest, messiest and most sprawling film yet with five different narratives intercutting with each other, almost like The Lord of the Rings or an episode of Game of Thrones. And I hope you've been keeping up. I do think a flaw of the film, to a degree, is that if you haven't watched all 18 prior films or have at least have a good working knowledge of what happened in them, Infinity War really doesn't spend a lot of time catching you up. For those who are invested in the films, however, this is the ultimate pay off. Can it be really be judged as an individual stand-alone film? Not really and, if we were, it doesn't really succeed on any of kind of narrative level. That said, Infinity War is unique in a way that it almost functions is as series finale to a long-running TV series, which nearly always assumes you've been watching since episode one.

Captain America leads the charges in the Battle of Wakanda

Infinity War has fun and fairly unexpected character interactions and team make-ups

I have heard some criticism that not all heroes have enough time in the light, there's certainly one character from the original Avengers that I wish had a little extra screen time, but overall I think it's all fairly well balanced. Which is insane considering all the characters who are in this film. If you have a particular favourite (I love the Guardians of the Galaxy and Spider-Man, for example) then they will have at least one moment to please you. It's also the unexpected team ups that surprised me. Five different narratives equals five different teams which leads to some surprising character dynamics which are honestly really fun if you've been keeping up with these films.

It's hard to pick out any stand outs from the cast, as the ensemble are all giving it their 100%, but I would like to highlight the constantly charming Tom Holland as Peter Parker and Dave Bautisa as Drax the Destroyer, who both provide some much needed (yet completely character appropriate) comic relief. Zoe Saldana's Gamora also gets a good chunk of screen-time, being Thano's adoptive daughter and all, and her arc is very tragic, continuing the "abusive father" strand from Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 in a very emotionally effective way, that actually helps to ground our Big Bad. The old guard are all great, as usual - Robert Downey Jr. is just effortless as Tony Stark, Chris Hemsworth is having a blast as Thor, Chris Evans (while not in it enough) is effective as a hardened Captain America, Scarlett Johannson has perfected her intelligent and powerful take on Black Widow and Mark Ruffalo is just wonderful as Bruce Banner, as always. All the Guardians gang are excellent, a particular treat being teenage Groot revealed in the post-credits of their last film, and new favourites, such as Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and the cast of Black Panther (a huge set-piece takes place in Wakanda, as per the trailers) are given ample time to shine.

The biggest surprise of the film is the big purple guy himself Thanos. Everyone knows Marvel has a villain problem and Thanos had the added pressure of living up to almost a decade worth of hype and build-up. The thrilling news is that he has been 100% worth the wait and, in a twisted kind of way, serves as the heart of the film. Josh Brolin plays the character not as a loud, hulking beast but as softly-spoken, intelligent yet highly zealous figure. His quest to find all the Infinity Stones, and the way he goes about collecting them, almost has a tragic Shakespearian quality akin to Macbeth's descent into madness after killing Duncan. Anytime he was on screen, I was completely glued. He is an all round quite terrifying figure and a highly believable candidate for the biggest threat our heroes have ever faced. The motion capture effect for the character is all-round flawless as well.

Josh Brolin as Thanos has been 100% worth the wait

Of course, this is only the first of a two part narrative that will conclude the current form of the MCU. The film makes sure to pack in as many audience pleasing moments as possible with some of the biggest set-pieces yet in the series. Quite how the directors, brothers Anthony and Joe Russo, hold it all together is quite incredible yet it does threaten on collapsing in on itself at times, in particular round the middle. However, throughout the film, there is the added layer of actual stakes, which the Marvel films have often suffered from a lack of. This does feel like the biggest, most harrowing and challenging threat our heroes have ever faced. The third act is an absolute emotional gut punch, as you'd expect, that ties together all the strands throughout the film. There was no one leaving their seats when the film ended. I won't reveal anything (part of me is tempted to post a spoiler-filled discussion of these elements) but it's probably one of the most audacious endings to a blockbuster I've seen in a long time. Hats off to you Marvel.

While I wouldn't put Infinity War quite as an all-time great in the series, there's still plenty to adore if you're a fan of these films. With several thrilling action scenes, an unexpectedly great villain, a dizzying amount of plot strands, wonderful character interactions and a super solid third act, Infinity War will no doubt please fans of the MCU and leave them gasping for more. On the other hand, if you're only lightly, or not at all, invested in these films, then I don't think Infinity War will be winning you over to the Marvel train. It is a bit of a mess and the wheels do almost fall off a couple of times but I would call it a glorious mess. It's overstuffed, ambitious to a fault but somehow sticks the landing. Bring on next year.

And for those interested, here is my ranking of the Marvel films:

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2>Captain America: The Winter Solider>The Avengers>Guardians of the Galaxy>Spider-Man: Homecoming>Avengers: Infinity War>Thor: Ragnarok>Captain America: Civil War>Doctor Strange>Black Panther>Iron Man>Ant Man>Captain America: The First Avenger>Iron Man 3>Avengers: Age of Ultron>Thor>Iron Man 2>Thor: The Dark World>The Incredible Hulk

A Quiet Place

Silence is golden. This is the mantra held by the main characters of the thrilling new horror film A Quiet Place. While it's not quite the levels of brilliance as modern genre classics such as The Vvitch, The Babadook or It Follows, A Quiet Place more than makes up for it with constant dread, genuinely great scares, immaculate production values and some great performances. I'm shocked that this was associated with Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes production company.

It's the post-Apocalypse and the world has been seemingly invaded by large reptilian-like creatures who roam the wastelands preying on the dregs of humanity. You see, the creatures are blind but have super-sensitive hearing. The slightest sound can set them off on a murderous rampage. So as long as you stay quiet 24/7, you'll avoid them no problem! We follow a family trying to get by in this terrifying new world - mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt), father Lee (John Krasinski, also director) and their children Regan (who also happens to be deaf, so the whole of the family knows how to use sign language - giving them a massive advantage) and Marcus (Noah Jupe). Having recently lost a younger son to one of the creatures, the family settle on an abandoned farm to anticipate the arrival of a new member of the family, as Evelyn is heavily pregnant. And in a world where monsters prey on loud noise, they're going to have to do everything they can to survive...

A Quiet Place revels in its audience pleasing scares, subtle world building and characters that we care about

I think one of the film's best attributes is how it visually explains the story and world-building. Indeed, the script doesn't feel the need to hold the audience's hand. I appreciate that it doesn't explain in great detail how the family knows how to use sign language, for example. It simply lets you infer this information through their interactions with their deaf daughter. Trust me, this is something a lesser film would spend time explaining, lest the (assumed) dumb audience doesn't get it. And the film is littered with great subtle moments such as these - the kids playing with soft tokens on their Monopoly board, laying out sand on their regular paths around their adopted homestead, crisps (chips to Americans) being the only food left in the supermarket etc. It's just little visual punctuation marks like that that elevate the film. For the most part this is, for all intent and purpose, a silent film and director John Krasinski knows how to use the visual language of cinema to explain this and how this family has survived as long as they have.

In general, A Quiet Place has a lot more heart than similar horror films. After an unforgettable opening, the film spends ample time getting to know the characters. I'm used to not caring about characters in mainstream horror films but A Quiet Place sets out time for this, making the gut-wrenching third act even more thrilling and actually quite heart-felt. The teenage frustration of Regan. The desire Evelyn feels to give her children a relatively normal upbringing in the horrific circumstances. The constant paranoia of Lee. You feel for these characters and fear for them in a way that is quite rare for the genre. Needless to say all the performances are top-notch though Emily Blunt might take the trophy for an unforgettable sequence as she goes into labour as one the creatures invades their home. Yikes.

A Quiet Place, despite your better judgement, requires to be watched with a good audience - the tension can be felt throughout the theatre

But it's in the simplicity (not as a detriment) of the framing and set pieces of A Quiet Place that sets it apart. The aforementioned labour sequence is just one of unbearably tense scenes the film has on offer and it just keeps piling it on. Krasinski knows how to employ classic Hitchcockian techniques for maximum effect on screen. The most inconsequential sounds have the effect of being noise-bombs that can signal the downward spiral into dread as we anticipate the arrival of the creatures. The fact that we never get a clear glimpse of the creatures is a work of genius and plays in a key role in the film's simple back-to-basics mantra. The most potent sequence finds the kids trapped in a grain silo - honestly, I think I watched that bit through my fingers. No joke.

The film's effectiveness can simply be felt in the theatre. I never thought I'd say this but the film must be seen with an audience (I was almost dreading seeing this with a noisy crowd). We saw the film on a week night at a surprisingly busy screening at our local multiplex. The usual rustling and slurping could be detected as the film began. Oh no, I thought, I'm going to get annoyed. However, 10-15 mins in all this stopped. This collective sense of dread remained until the end of the film when there was an audible sigh of relief as the audience could finally breath again. A Quiet Place is a frighteningly good time with plenty of well-constructred scares and subtle world building building to an incredibly tense finale. I don't think I've curled my toes as much in anticipation during a film in a long time. It's a nerve shredding assault on the senses and also wickedly good fun.

Isle of Dogs

I don't think cinema advertiser quite knew what they had on their hands with Wes Anderson's latest film Isle of Dogs. Our screening proceeded with trailers for kiddie drivel such as Sherlock Gnomes and Show Dogs (a trailer so bad I couldn't stop giggling) to a cinema packed with older people and film hipsters. Because no director gets the hipster vote quite like Wes Anderson. Some find his work a bit irritating. A bit too twee, too quaint, too fanciful. Me personally? I (mostly) love his films. The Royal Tenebaums is in my top 20 favourite films and his other works show a wonderful eye to detail in lovingly created worlds that mask a hidden sadness. And Isle of Dogs is probably Wes Anderson at his most ... Wes Andersony. So, if you're a convert you should have a rough idea of what you're in for. And if you're not ... then this is probably not going to convince you on why people view Anderson as one of modern cinema's most exciting talents. 

Isle of Dogs is a wonderfully inventive film packed with heart and character

The film opens in dystopian Japan where, by the order of the maniacal Mayor Kobayashi of Megasaki  City, all dogs have been exiled to an offshore trash island due to an outbreak of canine flu. Thus our dog friends live out their grim lives with no real future prospects. The film focuses on a small group - misunderstood stray Chief (Bryan Cranston), democratic Rex (Edward Norton), gossipy Duke (Jeff Goldblum), dog-food mascot King (Bob Balaban) and the sporty Boss (Bill Murray). However, things change when a boy-pilot, Atari Kobayashi (Koyu Rankin) (the dog hating mayor's nephew), crash lands on the island in search of his beloved doggie partner Spots (Liev Schreiber). So the surrogate group of friends set out on a quest to find Spots but incite a bigger wave of social change. 

Anderson returns to the scratchy stop-motion style of Fantastic Mr. Fox to create his most lovingly hand-crafted film yet. I always love how Anderson frames his worlds as mini doll houses (just look at the way The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Royal Tenebaums and Steve Zissou are filmed for proof of this) which is arguably drawn from how the great Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu framed his intimate family dramas. There is little camera trickery in Anderson and Ozu films - just straight on and simply shot. And Isle of Dogs is no exception, though every still of the film is filled with visual delight for us to take in. The whole thing feels like a diorama come to life. 

The stop-motion itself is absolutely gorgeous and the character models are ingeniously designed. All canine mannerisms are re-created in striking detail right down to those big-puppy dog eye. In particular, I loved the fight scenes, recreated in the style of Looney Tunes cartoons complete with cotton wool for the kicked-up dust clouds. I also loved the little detail that all the images on TVs are rendered in 2D animation. Anderson reunited with the London based animation company 3 Mills Studios for this and their sketchy animation style contrasts beautifully with Anderson's immaculate framing. The influence of the other great Japanese filmmaker, Akira Kurosawa, can be felt with the inclusion of the theme from classic Seven Samurai, and over all Alexandre Desplat's wonderful score gets the imaginative and kind of sad world the film has created. 

The cinematography of Isle of Dogs is immaculate but works even better when contrasted against with the clearly hand-crafted animation style

And what a staggeringly good cast he has brought on. The decision to have the dogs speak in a calm, dead pan kind of way is truly inspired. "I don't think I can stomach anymore of this garbage" exclaims Edward Norton's Rex in a cool voice at the start of the film, perfectly setting the tone. No one gets this more than Bryan Cranston as Chief. He is the heart and soul of the film and Cranston just nails it 100%. Chief is a battle scarred stray who sees himself as the leader of the pack and becomes the film's central focus. He struggles to relate to anyone until he meets Scarlett Johansson's suitably dead-pan show dog Nutmeg (though their burgeoning relationship is note the focus of the film) and the boy pilot Atari. And, honestly, the relationship that is built up between Chief and Atari over the course of the film is genuinely quite moving. This is the emotional core of the movie and works to anchor all the crazy plot twists and zippy narrative stylings. For the action is not just centred on Trash Island. Megasaki City is a wonderful futurist creation that places Greta Gerwig's plucky foreign exchange student Tracey as the head of a Pro-Dog rally against the evil mayor. There are also fantastic turns from Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton (as a frankly adorable 'fortune telling' pug), F. Murray Abraham, Ken Watanabe, Anjelica Huston, Harvey Keitel and, bizarrely, Yoko Ono. That last one is the only vaguely distracting one - the rest all fit into the narrative fairly seamlessly. 

Honestly, I had a blast with Isle of Dogs. And there is a real soul to the film. Like all of Anderson's films, the characters feel real and sad in a sincere kind of way, only heightened by the hand-crafted style and stunning cinematography. The attention to detail and animation style is phenomenal, the cast are excellent and the script has a dry wit that only Anderson could write. The pace is breakneck, packing in wonderful visual cues, slightly melancholy tone, witty one-liners and new revelations to the story. It's an odd little film that contains troves of something I've started to miss in mainstream film - creativity and sincerity. 

So let's briefly talk about this chestnut; some reporters have accused Isle of Dogs of culture appropriation. The thing is, as a wise YouTube video essayist once said, "culture appropriation is a neutral term". I think there are both good examples and bad examples of appropriation in mass media. Are we going to deny film fans a quality and beautifully made film because it was directed by a White American based in a Japanese setting? Should storytellers be limited to just their own experiences? They're big questions that I don't have the answers to but I think as long as the story is respectful to the culture it is based on, I personally see no issue. It all just depends on how well it is executed and context in which it's made. And honestly, I can't really see any malicious intent in Isle of Dogs. There is a real reverence to Japanese art, music and film throughout the piece. Does one of the characters draw upon the "white saviour" trope? To a degree, yes. Is it a bit "touristy Japan"? Sure, but I think for the film to work you almost need the human characters to not speak English...as this contrasts quite nicely with the deadpan delivery of the dogs. You might as well set it in a vibrant and stylistically interesting country. Indeed, I find it fascinating that this debate has cropped up now, considering that Anderson had done arch takes on other cultures in the past - Central Europe in The Grand Budapest Hotel and Britain in Fantastic Mr Fox. 

Seriously though, I can't recommend YouTuber Lindsay Ellis' video essay about Disney's Pocahontas enough. She assesses what company learned in regards to cultural appropriation for its future films. She masterfully uses the film as an example of poorly executed cultural appropriation. However, she contrasts this against later Disney films such as Lilo & Stitch (which uses a key part of Hawaiian culture as the subtext of an emotional scene between Lilo and her older sister) and the recent Moana. Ellis is eloquent in her argument on this, so just watch the video...link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ARX0-AylFI&t=1700s

Ready Player One

Geek culture has reached a mass breaking point. With superheroes taking over the screen, new video games often out-grossing films on opening weekend, the unfunny losers of The Big Bang Theory being one of TV's biggest "comedy" sensations and the ubiquity of nerdy ephemera in stores everywhere is proof of this. What was once considered niche and nerdy is now mainstream and bankable. And with more methods than ever of taking in all this mass media, the blurring of lines between formats has truly begun. Riding on this wave was Ernest Cline's best-selling 2012 novel Ready Player One. I have only discovered in recent weeks though that Ready Player One is possibly one of the most divisive best-selling novels of recent years. Some have declared it as the Holy Grail of Geekdom. Others have decried it for its racism, sexism, homophobia, unlikable main character, poorly defined world-building, terrible prose and fundamentally not getting why people obsess, engage with and love popular culture. And from what I've read ... it's hard to see past all that. I mean I thought the early trailers for the film adaptation looked bad anyway but reading the book has made me slightly dread this one. Steven Spielberg clearly has his work cut out ...

Wade Watts is our lead "character" in Ready Player One

The year is 2045 and the world is on the brink of societal collapse. However, the denizens of the future have found solace in an online world named the OASIS, a boundless universe where, via VR headsets, people can become video game avatars to live out their greatest fantasies against the backdrop of every piece of pop culture imaginable. The world was created by eccentric James Halliday (Mark Rylance), who has recently passed away. Halliday left behind a vast fortune to those who can find an 'Easter Egg' hidden in the game, which is locked behind three keys scattered around for players to find. Enter ... Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), aka Parzival (his in-game avatar name) who has become something of a Halliday expert, seeing the OASIS creator's obsession with 80s popular culture, and his own personal history, as the key to finding the Easter Egg...However an evil corporation named IOI, headed up Nolan Sorrento (Rogue One survivor Ben Mendelsohn) seeks to obtain the Egg for themselves in order to gain complete domain over the OASIS...

While Spielberg tries his best (he is, even at his worst, a consummate professional), many of the book's biggest problems I outlined in the opening paragraph are still here. The main character, played by Tye Sheridan, is about as bland as he is in the novel and, ultimately, has little driving his motivation outside of winning the contest. We know and understand little of what makes Wade tick. His motivation is just shallow and he faces no real consequences for his actions throughout the story. I mean the film tries, I suppose. His life seems pretty crappy, living in a huge stack of trailers with his rubbish aunt and abusive boyfriend, his only solace being the digital world and decades of geeky media, with an emphasis on the 1980s (the decade Halliday grew up in and idolised). Yet Wade never really engages with the world or pop culture as a fan - these are merely objects and clues to unlocking the fortune hidden in the OASIS. He is just a walking talking Hallidaypedia with no real love of the material, along no sense of personality or charisma. I can think of several classic 80s genre films that got the "down-on-his-luck-protagonist" right ... maybe Ready Player One should have taken some more notes on that... Ultimately, his drive is a bit of mystery with no real stakes involved and the film doesn't spend adequate time establishing what is at risk of being lost. Well, they do a couple of things. Spoilers - his horrible aunt dies but this is swiftly forgotten. The evil corporation tries to extert itself over our hero, yet they are so comically inept as to render any threat meaningless. Wade becomes the hero, gets the girl, and wins control over the OASIS. And that, coupled with the lack of threat, doesn't make for a satisfying character arc.

The film has some nifty visuals and good sequences but the whole is just a giant mis-judged mess

Wade is synonymous with a wider problem with the film - how tensionless the whole thing is. Problem with me is that I don't tend to like stories set in virtual reality - my biggest issue being that there is often little consequence to actions taken in the virtual world having little to no fallout in the real world. Only The Matrix, in my opinion, got this right. I mean sure, as mentioned, the evil corporation moves against Wade and his friends but the ease at which they avoid their would be captors makes them almost feel almost invincible - which harms the film's narrative as a whole. And the worst thing that can happen to our heroes in the OASIS is that they lose all their loot ... big deal. Ready Player One is the ultimate consequenceless free geek power fantasy which invariably taps into some fairly toxic parts of the internet (i.e. the Gamergate community) with little to no repercussions in the real world. So all the action scenes are rendered in breath-taking detail, with more recognisable characters than you can shake a stick at it but the central core is so tensionless and shallow it's hard to get invested.

The rest of the characters are served a little better, such as Olivia Cook's Artemis who gets something resembling a character arc, even if they are essentially cardboard cutouts. I did enjoy Rylance's suitably awakard performance as Halliday and the film reaches something of a satisfying coda to this character. There are several nifty scenes. The adaptation, wisely to some degree, makes the challenges a bit more cinematic than they are in the book (they basically bare no resemblance to the challenges as written). The opening car chase scene is phenomenally executed and one sequence, in which a classic Stanley Kubrick film is recreated wholesale, is a treat on a technical level even if it is borderline sacrilegious. The problem is when you get past the whole "hey, look a reference to something you know" the film offers very little as a substitute. So you get loads of wonderful 80s pop songs, plenty of appearances from video game characters and a plot twist based around an obscure Atari 2600 game...and that's about it. The final battle scene descends into a blurry CGI mess of iconic childhood heroes, yet I just felt ... nothing. I am a firm believer in the positive effects of consuming media yet Ready Player One doesn't seem interested in engaging with this at all. It just reminded me of better films, songs and games

Look, I'm a geek. Self proclaimed and no shame. And while it masks itself as being a celebration of the liberating effects of the internet on individuals and a love letter to "geek" culture, I'm not convinced that Ready Player One really gets any of this. It's flashy and hits several audience pleasing moments, largely in part due to Spielberg's own personal touch of magic, but the core is as fake as the OASIS itself. There's little at stake and no sense of why the OASIS is worth defending. At the end of the day, I can't get behind a film like this especially with the cold, almost cynical edge to the material. I know a lot of people are enjoying this film on a visceral level, and that's fine, but for me I was just left bitter and wishing I'd loaded up my character in the MMO Final Fantasy XIV instead. And no amount of Buckaroo Banzai references is going to make me change my mind about that ...

It almost seems like a film primed for them terrible click bait videos on YouTube - "31 Easter Eggs You Missed In Ready Player One: #17 Will Shock You"

And don't even get me started on how they used The Iron Giant. Just ... don't ...