Juno (2007) Review

(From this review onward, there will be more production details on each film)

Director: Jason Reitman

Producers: Lianne Halfon, John Malkovich (yes THAT John Malkovich!), Mason Novick and Russell Smith

Screenplay: Diablo Cody 

Starring: Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Allison Janney, J.K. Simmons and Olivia Thirlby 

Score: Mateo Messina 

Cinematography: Eric Steelberg

Editor: Dana E. Glauberman

Production Companies: Mandate Pictures and Mr. Mudd

Distributor: Fox Searchlight Productions

Release Date: December 5th 2007 (US)

Budget: $6.5-$7.5 million

Box Office: $231.4 million

Running Time: 96 minutes

Rating: 12/12a

'Juno' is a comedy-drama that deals with the 'taboo' (I put taboo in quotation marks since it should be discussed in some capacity) subject of teen pregnancy through it's titular character, Juno MacGuff. It received critical and commercial success, winning the Academy Award for best original screenplay and putting actress Ellen Page on the map. Does the film deserve such acclaim and more importantly, is there any way I can get that hamburger phone?

Page stars as Juno, a 16-year-old teenage girl who, after a night of passion with best friend Paulie Bleeker (Cera) becomes pregnant. She resolves to give the baby up for adoption to failed rock star turned commercial jingle composer Mark Loring (Bateman) and his wife Vanessa (Garner) but when Mark and Juno grow closer, complications arrive that put the whole adoption process in jeapordy. 

What's surprising about this film that despite it being a comedy about pregnancy, something which has happened before, this forgoes the usual cliches. The most notable of which is that instead of acting in an over-the-top matter, the characters are more calm and logical about the situation which is doubly surprising as this seems to treat teen pregnancy as less of a big deal than normal pregnancy. This does raise a bit of an issue regarding its portrayal of teen pregnancy since this calm portrayal could lead to some complaints about depicting a serious issue as something trivial. On the other hand, it is very mature about it. The characters do treat it as a problem but instead of panicking about it, they instead deal with it in a logical way. Heck the film does address that there is a stigma behind it with several characters treating Juno like an outcast, shown in a great scene where her presence parts the crowd like the Red Sea in Moses. I guess at the end of the day, this is showing how someone DOES react to teen pregnancy rather than how someone SHOULD react to teen pregnancy. Either way, I applaud the unique way it deals with the matter.

However, the film is too unique. Let me explain: there are moments where the movie is basically going FIND ME QUIRKY! FIND ME QUIRKY! Moments such as Juno showing up to Bleeker's home with a stolen chair and a tiger, Juno and her friend Leah (Thirlby) having lunch on a trophy display, Juno's room being a hipster's paradise (though that hamburger phone is awesome) and Mark's rather creepy behaviour towards her. It's not just individual moments, Juno's entire character is basically a cynical hipster with dialogue that, whilst funny, are also somewhat unnatural. 

Here's an example of what I mean: 

You see what I mean? I don't know if that was how teenagers talked back then but it sounds really weird nowadays. 

Aside from that though, there are few faults with the film. Its biggest strength lies with the performances. Ellen Page plays a star-making turn as Juno, her deadpan delivery providing most of the laughs of the film but also being emotional when needed. Though the cast is impressive, this is Page's show and she knocks it out of the park and despite being in her early 20s at the time, she was a very convincing teenager. 

That's not to discredit the others though. Michael Cera plays a likable dweeb (which for some reason I find relatable minus the 'getting a girl pregnant' part) with Bleeker and he shares good chemistry with Page in a genuinely sweet romance. Then there's the Lorings and despite Mark being a pretty deplorable character, you do understand his motives somewhat and Jason Bateman plays him well. Vanessa is a much more likable character and the scenes with her are often the most emotional moments with Jennifer Garner putting in a wonderful performance. J.K. Simmons is brilliant as usual as Juno's father with some genuinely sweet moments as well as providing the biggest laughs of the film and Allison Janney, despite having not much to do, has her moments as Juno's stepmother and it's refreshing to see a stepmother in film portrayed in a positive light. The same can be said for Olivia Thirlby as Leah since she does well with a smaller role. 

Another strength is that, at the very least, its heart is in the right place and it certainly hits the right emotions. The film can be funny with its absurdities and performances and the more emotional moments are genuinely heartfelt such as a scene where Juno's baby kicks in response to Vanessa's voice. And yes I will admit, the ending made me shed a tear. Yes shut up, even the toughest nuts must crack sometimes. I'm not made of stone.

The film's production values also scream Indiewood (a hybrid of indie films and Hollywood films) with a harsh orange colour palatte and a creative if pointless motif involving diary-like drawn animations. Reitman and Steelberg shoot this film well with a stand-out style though the mise-en-scene, like I said, is trying too hard to be quirky. The music is a bit of a let down as well as I didn't even realise that there was a score since the soundtrack mostly consists of indie music (which by the way, dominates the film so much it could give 'Suicide Squad' a run for it's money). Fortunately, the costuming is well done with some impressive pregnancy and childbirth effects. 

Overall, Juno is a very modest, funny heartfelt film with some very strong performances and a surprisingly mature approach to the topic at hand. Yes the film tries way too hard to be quirky with its dialogue and style but it also leads to some funny moments. I do see why this film received acclaim and I'm glad that Ellen Page went on to have a fairly successful career after this. I would recommend this to anyone 12 and over though I wouldn't recommend that any teenagers get pregnant because of this. This does portray teen pregnancy as an issue after all, don't let its casual approach fool you. Otherwise, watch the film and enjoy it for yourself!

This film receives 4 and a half hamburger phones out of 5.   

And yes I would like a hamburger phone...

Logan (2017) Review

Distributed by: 20th Century Fox

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Boyd Holbrook, Stephen Merchant, Richard E. Grant and Dafne Keen

Director: James Mangold

Screenplay: Scott Frank, James Mangold and Michael Green

Producers: Hutch Parker, Simon Kinberg and Lauren Shuler Donner

Based on: 'Wolverine' by Roy Thomas, Len Wein and John Romita Sr; and 'Old Man Logan' by Mark Millar and Steve McNiven

Running Time: 2hrs 21m

Rating: 15


I'm baaaaaaaaaack! For what seems like the upteenth time, I'm relaunching Perfectly Honest Film Reviews. Since I do film studies and I go to a Sci-Fi and Fantasy Society, I decided to review the films I will subsequently watch a day after watching them. With that promise out of the way, here's my first comeback review: 'Logan'.

The X-Men franchise has had it's fair share of ups and downs but if any films have had the biggest downs in the franchise it will be the Wolverine films. Despite Hugh Jackman being terrific in the role and the only actor to appear in every X-Men film (unless you count Deadpool), his standalone films were pretty rubbish with 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' (Gavin Hood, 2009)being a gigantic convoluted mess and 'The Wolverine' (James Mangold, 2013) being boring and forgettable. With Hugh Jackman allegedly stepping down as the Wolverine and Mangold returning to direct, is this mini-franchise doomed or does it have a secret healing factor that can save it at the last minute.

What's the story? It's 2029, there are hardly any mutants left with most of the X-Men gone and no new mutants born for 25 years. James 'Logan' Howlett (Jackman), formally known as the Wolverine, has lost his healing factor due to adamantium poisoning and is slowly aging and dying whilst tending to an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Stewart) whose degenerative brain disease cause him to have seizures that, because of his psychic powers, is a threat to humanity. When a nurse tasks Logan with helping Laura (Keen), a young mutant with powers very similar to Logan's, escape from Donald Pierce (Holbrook) and his army of Reavers, he must take Charles with him and get Laura to safety before Pierce catches up to them.

I'd better get any gripes I have with the movie out of the way first. I will say though that the movie's main problem is that it can get slow at points and whilst nothing is outright dull as every scene has a purpose both in the plot and with it's characters, the movie's length does get felt, particularly in it's final act. Other than that though, the rest of the film is pretty almost flawless, not only giving us the best Wolverine by far but maybe the best film in the X-Men franchise.

An impressive aspect of this movie is how little is explained. We don't exactly know why Logan is dying, nor are we explicitly told what happened to the X-Men or mutant-kind. Mangold and his writing team instead leaves clues for the audience to figure it out. This is a good thing because it demonstrates that Mangold trusts his audience to figure out what's going on without having the need to spoon-feed us. It's a very mature film in it's subject matter, content and it's treatment of it's audience and I respect that very much.

What's very surprising about this movie is how small-scaled it is, especially as it's Jackman's swansong. With most superhero movies, including those in the X-Men franchise, the world is usually at stake, there's an all powerful villain and the action sequences are very CGI-heavy. Here it's all stripped back. There's a limited cast, a group of children are at stake rather than the world and the action sequences are very grounded with minimum use of CGI. On top of that, the pay-offs to certain character arcs are intentionally anti-climatic to the point of possible disappointment. 'Days of Future Past' set up a brighter future for mutantkind but here, it's never been more bleak as what few mutant characters are left are at their lowest points. This isn't your typical X-Men film that's for sure.

This adds to the sombre atmosphere that accompanies Jackman's departure and it's strangely fitting. Logan is a man who's never felt peace in his life and nowhere is this more blatant than in this film. This isn't the Wolverine we're used to as he often staggers throughout the film with poor eyesight and an inability to break out his claws properly. As expected, Hugh Jackman is terrific here, portraying a broken and aimless Logan who has no hope for the future and this is a very fitting end to his time as the Wolverine. He's so synonymous with the role at this point that it's impossible to thing of a person who can take over and his portrayal is up there with Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool as one of the best Superhero portrayals in film.

That's not to discredit the rest of the cast who are all excellent here. Patrick Stewart portrays a very different Professor Xavier, one who is senile and a bit of a foul-mouth which is simultaneously amusing and sad since the once dignified professor has been reduced to a helpless old man and since it's Patrick Stewart, he just owns the role and he is certainly responsible for the film's more heartbreaking moments. Stephen Merchant is also very different as the mutant tracker Caliban. He has his stand out character moments and he has good chemistry with Jackman as he is basically Logan's voice of reason. It's very weird to see Stephen Merchant in such a serious role but he does very well here. Boyd Holbrook is appropriately slimy as the villain Donald Pierce though his character is sort of one note. Same with Richard E. Grant's Zander Rice who's an underdeveloped mad scientist. There is another villain as well which I won't spoil and though it's a perfect mirror of Logan's character and it has some good fight scenes, it's nothing special.

However, the standout actor besides Jackman is Dafne Keen who plays Laura. Laura is the only bright spot in this otherwise bleak film which is quite fitting since she actually has hope for her future whereas characters such as Logan and Professor X do not. Keen is wonderful in the film being very intimidating whilst nailing her more vulnerable moments as well as providing some of the very few laughs in the film. Her rapport with Jackman and Stewart is very strong and during the actions scenes... well let's just say in a film involving the Wolverine, she is the most vicious person on screen. She could give Hit-Girl from 'Kick-Ass' a run for her money.

Speaking of the action sequences, this is the first R-Rated Wolverine film and man does it pull no punches! The action is very brutal and no blood is left unspilled which is understandable as the main character has metal claws. The final act can dissolve into familiar comic-book territory which is a bit of a shame given how grounded the action and the movie is but it's thankfully nowhere near as jarring as 'The Wolverine's' climax. We also finally get to see Wolverine during berserker mode and boy is is satisfying to see!

James Mangold's direction isn't very flashy here but it still looks very good. The desert looks hostile with the use of harsh colours (though I hear the Black-and-White 'Noir' version is very good as well) and the cinematography is very well done with some stunning shots. There's no yellow costume or any superhero costume sadly but it helps add to the realism and Marco Beltrami's score is sombre and haunting. The effects are also very subtle with some impressive moments of violence as I've already mentioned.

Overall, this isn't a very fun film as it does wrap up the X-Men story in a rather underwhelming way but it's a very marvelous film! The actors, especially Jackman, Stewart and Keen are excellent, the film is refreshingly grounded, the action is spectacularly violent and James Mangold's direction is visually impressive despite it's limitations. Yes there are some weak characters and the film is a bit long but other than that, this film is the perfect ending for Hugh Jackman's time as Wolverine and a must watch for anyone that can stomach the violence. Oh and the final few moments are some of the most heartbreaking and will likely break both men and women. Thank you Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart for giving us the definitive performances of your characters. You really were the two best parts of that franchise and I hope your future is brighter than your characters.

Side note: Whoever decided to use Johnny Cash as a major influence in the marketing of this film is a genius and should be promoted!


This film gets 4 and a half adamantium claws out of 5

What did you guys think of the film? Do you agree? Disagree? Sound off in any comments section below and be sure to like my Facebook page 'Joel Mole' and well as sharing this around social media outlets. Hopefully this will lead to more reviews in the future! Until then, fare thee well good people of the internet!

The Mole Mends: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

So I'm trying a different format for 'Perfectly Honest Film Reviews.' Instead of conventional reviews, I'll instead attempt to do my own versions of movies that I was dissatisfied with. Yes I am taking inspiration from Belated Media's 'What If' series (check that out by the way) and don't worry, I won't do the Star Wars prequels because of this. What I'm doing instead is a movie that many people disliked: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

This movie was supposed to be the launch pad of the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) but instead it turned out to be an overstuffed, boring mess of a movie with cookie cutter characters, too much filler and a larger focus on set-up than story. In that case, my first movie repair is perhaps the most difficult because the movie has a lot riding on it.

Before I get to the meat and chips of this analysis, I will first list out elements I will keep.

Elements I will keep:

• The central conflict
• Lex Luthor as a villain
• Batman hating Superman because of Metropolis which is shown in the opening
• Superman being a reluctant fighter
• Superman being a controversial figure
• Wonder Woman being in the background until the climax
• The party scene
• Lex Luthor building a new villain
• The climax consisting of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman defeating the new villain
• Superman being out of the picture towards the end
• The film ending with Batman and Wonder Woman going to look for the Justice League 

Now on to my new version:

The film opens with Bruce Wayne going to Metropolis to meet Lex Luthor (not played by Jesse Eisenberg because that was horrible casting) for a business deal. The two are professional rivals but they maintain a sense of civility, This changes with the battle of Metroplolis from 'Man of Steel' and it happens like in the film except LexCorp is destroyed, not Wayne Tower. After the attack, Bruce sees a child looking for their parents and it's implied that the parents have died. This irks Bruce as Superman essentially made someone an orphan, something which affects him. This leads to a distrust against Superman. Likewise, because his business was destroyed, Lex Luthor now has a reason to hate Superman.

6 months later, we cut to Superman saving people from a perilous situation (maybe a burning building). This should be treated like a standard Superman rescue complete with charm and a sense of hope. Superman should also lighten up, being more friendly with people and taking extra care not to get them hurt. However, one person refuses to be saved because their family was killed in Metropolis and dies in the flames. It becomes clear that here, Superman is trying to compensate for his reckless behaviour after 'Man of Steel' but he can't fully atone for his actions since people won't stop reminding him. He has a confidant in Lois Lane (who knows his secret identity) and Superman's arc is set up. He's trying to be helpful but is unsure about whether or not he can ever make up for his actions. 

Meanwhile, Batman has been going about his business (cue action sequence of Batman being Batman) but he's more brutal after the loss of Robin (though not lethal because Batman killing is stupid and goes against everything he stands for). He has also been trying to find a way to detain Superman should he need to but he has no way of harming him. As Bruce Wayne, Batman has also invested lots of money in restoring Metropolis and has now bought LexCorp to save it from bankruptcy. Nevertheless, Lex Luthor still hates Superman and is now feeling humiliated at being Bruce Wayne's pawn. 

He uses some of his remaining funds to retrieve Zod's ship where he discovers Kryptonite and a dormant AI called Braniac. Luthor revives Brainiac who promises to destroy both Superman and Wayne Enterprises if Luthor builds him a body. Luthor agrees and Brainiac instructs him to find a way to manipulate and enable Batman to fight him. Luthor knows that Batman will need Kryptonite, upon discovering that it weakens Kryptonians, but he wants to hide his involvement. Braniac hacks into databases and reveals both of their secret identities, causing Luthor to invite them both to a party

At the party, Bruce meets Diana Prince who reveals her knowledge of his secret identity and offers a meeting between the two of them. Bruce also meets Clark Kent and Bruce argues against Superman whilst Clark defends him. He also points out that other vigilantes, such as Batman, are using brutal tactics whereas Superman is at least being careful but Bruce argues that at least Batman doesn't have the power to destroy worlds. This sparks an interesting debate that makes more sense than the hypocritical arguments they present in the actual film. Bruce does some snooping and discovers the hidden Kryptonite. 

We soon get another action sequence when the Joker crashes the party, causing Batman to intervene and dispatch the goons brutally. Superman steps in to stop him from causing serious harm. This causes the Joker to get away and Batman to become furious. He warns Superman to stay away from Gotham and disappears. Superman likewise flies away. Diana is appalled by this whilst Luthor is pleased.

Diana calls Lois Lane in for an interview where she reveals herself as a metahuman and the existance of other metahumans. She has been meeting with them with Superman as her next client but upon seeing his rivalry with Batman occuring after Bruce and Clark are invited leads her to suspect foul play and asks Lois to keep an eye on Superman. 

Bruce decides to get the Kryptonite but when Luthor declines, he dons the Batman suit to steal the Kryptonite (and we see him steal it rather than skipping it in the film). He then builds a Kryptonite arsenal and a metal armour with Alfred warning him against this crusade. 

Meanwhile, Superman is beginning to think that Batman was right about his idiocy in allowing the Joker to escape and vows to catch him to be in Batman's good books. Lois encourages him to do this but cautions him against fighting Batman. Superman replies that he will if he has to but he will keep the damage to the minimum. He leaves for Gotham. Lois, worried, rings Diana, telling her that a fight between Batman and Superman is likely to happen. Diana decides to don her Wonder Woman outfit and takes Lois with her.

Meanwhile, Superman finds the Joker but Batman finds Superman and picks a fight with him for going into Gotham and for the destruction of Metropolis. Through Kryptonite, Superman is rendered vulnerable but he's still a competent fighter. The big changes I will make for this fight are as follows:

• The fight will be longer (8 minutes maybe)
• It will take place in an alley (maybe even crime alley)
• The fight will be equal with both Batman and Superman gaining advantages (since the fight in the film was in Batman's favour)
• The fight will not end with 'SAVE MARTHAAAAAAAAA!'

Instead the fight will end like this: Batman wins the fight and is prepared to kill him, fearing that he's too dangerous to stay alive but Wonder Woman stops him. Lois tends to Clark and Wonder Woman admonishes Batman for doing this. Batman comes to his senses and realises that he's becoming just as bad as his enemies. He also realises that, due to Superman's reluctance to fight, he really has changed and is on the same side as him. Batman leaves in shame.

Wonder Woman informs Superman of her suspicions of foul play and the two figure out the links between Luthor, the party and Kryptonite. The two go into LexCorp and confront Luthor (dropping Lois off on the way). Luthor confesses his involvement and even admits to summoning the Joker to his party to provoke Batman into attacking. He then reveals Brainiac (now with a body). 

Brainiac reveals his origins: he was an AI created by Jor-El to find a way to save Krypton from its inevitable doom. It's solution was to shrink the city of Kandor and bottle it up in order to find a new planet for it. However it malfunctions and begins shrinking key cities from all the surrounding planets. The Kryptonian council forced Jor-El into removing Brainiac from the main systems and launches it in an unmanned ship which later becomes Zod's ship. Brainiac now wants to continue its mission by taking Zod's ship and using it to shrink Metropolis. He dispatches Luthor and takes the ship, ready to shrink Metropolis.

Superman pursues him but Brainiac has raised the shields, making it impenetrable. Wonder Woman tries to stop it with her invisible jet but that doesn't work either. Superman instead tries to save as many people as possible whilst Wonder Woman tries to disable Brainiac's shrink ray. Luckily, Batman, after see the attack on Metropolis on the news, decides to help out and manages to figure out a way to penetrate Brainiac's shielding. This gives the three enough room to enter the ship but not destroy the dish.

Here, I shall address a big problem with the finale (besides other things like Superman's pointless sacrifice and Batman's overall pointlessness) and that's the lack of comradery between the three heroes. They barely talked to each other during the climax and that, as well as the lack of distinct plan, leads me to disbelieve them as a team. With my version, they all confront Brainiac and after trying to reason with it, they formulate a plan. I should note that there should be banter throughout the entire climax, including the attack on the ship. Superman fights Brainiac, Wonder Woman tries to keep the ship airborne and Batman tries to deactivate the shrink ray. Superman takes the fight away from Metropolis with Brainiac proving to be a tough enemy. Batman successfully deactivates the shrink ray before it fires and Wonder Woman flies the ship to safety. Superman is losing the battle with Brainiac but Batman and Wonder Woman shows up in their respective vehicles and together, they destroy Brainiac's body. His mind returns to Zod's ship where Batman deactivates it.

Batman apologises for his actions. Superman forgives him, stating that Batman had a point about Metropolis but Superman promises that he's changing. The people of Metropolis are also starting to see Superman as a hero. Superman decides to dispose of Zod's ship where he discovers that Brainiac did indeed preserve Kandor. Excited, Superman decides to leave Earth to find a new uninhabited planet where he could rebuild Krypton. He entrusts the safety of Earth to Batman and Wonder Woman, feeling he could trust them to protect it carefully.

As he leaves, Wonder Woman tells Batman of the metahumans: The Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg. Batman decides to assemble a team of metahumans so that they can safely protect Earth from dangerous threats.

I should probably include a mid and post credits scene. The mid credits scene shows Lex Luthor discovering a statue of Steppenwolf that comes alive and communicates with him and the post credits scene shows Batman pursuing the Joker and Harley Quinn, failing to capture the former but capturing the latter, setting up Suicide Squad.

So here is what I changed:

• Batman has a legitimate reason to hate Superman
• The central fight is longer
• There is no pointless set-up scenes (I'm looking at you Knightmare)
• The set-up for the Justice League is more subtle
• Lex Luthor has a reason to hate Superman and is not Jesse Eisenberg
• Superman has a character arc
• The climax villain has changed and appears throughout the film
• The reason to end the BvS fight has changed to Batman realising that Superman is more passive that he first thought.
• The Trinity works more as a team
• Superman doesn't die at the end.
• Lois' role has changed to helping Wonder Woman 
• Superman's distrust of Batman stems from his brutality rather than his vigilante nature.
• The Joker is introduced here and has a more active role than in Suicide Squad

Hopefully this has made a more coherent film but I know it's not perfect. But at least I tried harder than Zack Snyder. 

So what did you think? Did you like this version? Do you prefer the original? How would you improve the film? Are there any more films you would like me to do? Leave a like and comment below and like my Facebook page 'Joel Mole' where you can find my other blogs. (On a side note, let me know if I should do more of these). I had this kind of idea for a while now and I want to do this for more films! I'll see you next time. Until then, fare thee well good people of the internet!

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) Review

MINOR SPOILERS INCOMING! I WILL NOT BE REVEALING ANY BIG SURPRISES BUT I WILL BE REVEALING DETAILS NOT SEEN IN THE TRAILER! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Distributed by: Walt Disney Studios, Lucasfilm Ltd., Bad Robot Productions

Starring: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Adam Driver, Harrison Ford, Oscar Isaac, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Lupita Nyong'o, Domhnall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Andy Serkis, Peter Mayhew, Max von Sydow

Director: J.J. Abrams 

Screenplay: Lawrence Kasdan, J.J. Abrams, Michael Arndt 

Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk

Running Time: 2 hrs 15m

Rating: 12a

What can we say about 'Star Wars'? The 1977 sci-fi epic was both a critical and commercial success with two sequels, the former being my favourite movie of all time and the latter, whilst not as good, is still a satisfying conclusion. Then in 1999, 'The Phantom Menace' came out... and we all know how meh that film is. Coupled with a terrible sequel and an ok conclusion to the prequel trilogy, people's faith in 'Star Wars' turned sour. Then, in 2013, it was announced that Disney had bought the rights to the franchise and were working on a new sequel trilogy, bringing back the old cast whilst introducing a new one. When 'The Force Awakens' came out in 2015, it was a huge commercial success, breaking lots of box-office records and is now the third highest grossing movie of all time worldwide. Is it any good? Do Stormtroopers have terrible aim? The answer to both of these is "of course".

What's the story? It's been 30 years after 'Return of the Jedi' and a New Republic reigns supreme. However, remnants of the Empire have banded together to become the First Order, led by Kylo Ren (Driver), a user of the dark side of the Force, and Supreme Leader Snoke (Serkis). Poe Dameron (Isaac), a pilot of the Republic funded Resistance, retrieves information concerning the whereabouts of Luke Skywalker, who has been missing for years, and places it in his droid BB-8. When he gets captured by the First Order, BB-8 escapes and meets a scavenger named Rey (Ridley) who is waiting to escape the desert planet of Jakku. As Poe is rescued by FN-2187 or Finn, a redeemed Stormtrooper, Finn eventually meets Rey and BB-8, and together, with the help of Han Solo (Ford), they try to escape to the Resistance who are trying to stop the First Order from using Starkiller Base: a planet turned weapon used to destroy whole solar systems.

If any of this sound familiar it's because it's the same plot as 'A New Hope'. That was just the basics, if I had to list all the similarities, I would be here all day whilst simultaneously spoiling the big moments of the film. Is this a bad thing? Well there should be some more originality but after three prequels ranging from ok to downright bad, it is nice to see a 'Star Wars' movie FEEL like a 'Star Wars' movie. Also, since they've ripped off TONS from the Original Trilogy, it paves the way for more original sequels. This is a way of saying "look. I know we've had some dark times but look! We can still do 'Star Wars'! We just wanted you to know we're ok before we do anything spectacular again." Besides the elements are at least done well enough so it doesn't matter. That is except for Starkiller Base and the subsequent attack on it as it doesn't have as big of an emotional weight to it unlike 'New Hope' and 'Jedi'.

A major problem with this film is the lack of detail. What is the logistics of the Resistance and their relationship with the Republic? What are the Knights of Ren? Where did Luke's old lightsabre come from? Why did Finn defect from the First Order? This and other spoiler-filled questions and loose ends sometimes make the film frustrating to watch because you want to know more. Now the prequels have shown that learning too much is just as bad but you need a balance. You need to set the stage so that the audience knows what's going on in the last 30 years.

Now that's out of the way, how are the characters? Rey can appear like a Mary Sue (like Mary Poppins describes it: Practically Perfect in Every Way) to some but she's still an endearing character! Not once does she get rescued and even does the rescuing in some areas. In all honesty, she's a total bada** who is a great role model for girls in a time where movies like 'Fifty Shades of Grey' portray women in a negative light. Not to mention that Daisy Ridley is awesome in the role. Think of her as Keira Knightly done right.

John Boyega is also fantastic as Finn. His character is the best-rounded and is honestly my favourite in the movie. He starts out as a Stormtrooper but soon realises that it's not the right way of living so he rises to become a hero but not necessarily the most competent one. He's also very funny with one of the best uses of the 'liar revealed' storyline put to film. Oscar Isaac is equally if not more charming as the dashing pilot Poe Dameron and he's the kind of guy that all the ladies want to be with and all the guys want to be wi- I MEAN BE! Not to mention his chemistry with Finn is borderline bromantic. In fact, all the characters have great chemistry with each other and by the time the film is over, I just want to get to know these guys because they're brilliant.

Kylo Ren however... man he's shaping up to be more engaging than Darth Vader himself! He may appear villainous, and make no mistake he makes some downright despicable decisions, but you can tell his heart's not into it. Think of him as a pretentious teenager who wants to impress his clearly morally reprehensible mates but it isn't in his character to do so. He's a very conflicted character who wants to be evil but is often tempted and Driver really drives (he he) home that conflict. He's Anakin Skywalker done right. 

As for the old cast, the slip back into their roles comfortably. Princess, or General Leia as we now call her, doesn't do much in the film but her moments with Han Solo and Rey are touching nonetheless. C-3PO is... C-3PO. Chewbacca gets some awesome moments and as for Luke Skywalker or R2-D2... well, watch the movie to find out what went on with them.

However, the real star of the old cast is Harrison Ford as Han Solo. It's not like 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' where Ford clearly doesn't want to be in it, he's Han Solo. Oh he's older and wiser during the 30 years but it’s undeniably the same character we know and love and his interactions with Chewbacca and the new characters are still very strong. You can tell Ford is having a blast in this and he makes Han the best he's been since 'The Empire Strikes Back'. 

As for the others, Maz Kanata (Nyong'o) is engaging and quirky though not in the movie much; Gleeson as General Hux is as slimy a character as you would think; Snoke is mysterious but so far uninteresting. Max Von Sydow and Captain Phasma (Gwendoline Christie) get literally nothing to do and BB-8 is the most adorable thing in cinematic history.

J.J. Abrams had a difficult job in making this film feel like 'Star Wars' and he succeeds with well-directed aerial battles (the escape from Jakku is a highlight) and his own personal flair that makes the film seem unique. The special effects are also great on the spaceships (The Millennium Falcon has never looked better), the alien characters, BB-8 (seriously, that's an actual practical effect) and the lightsabres. If there's one criticism on the effects is that the motion capture doesn't look particularly great. Maz Kanata sticks out like a sore thumb among the practical characters and Snoke looks like a video game character.

The action is stellar as to be expected with the space battles being great (again, the escape from Jakku), the shootouts and ESPECIALLY the lightsabre duel in the end. The latter in particular is great since it is slower and more brutal than the cleaner more choreographed prequels. If there's one complaint of the duel it's that the editing can be too fast to see what's going on but the duel itself is amazing all the same.

And now, the list of problems I have for this movie that will no way affect the overall score:

• Starkiller base is a bit of a let-down after seeing TWO death stars
• The final aerial battle lacks emotional weight
• There are a few pointless detours in the film
• Poe Dameron is missing for a large chunk of the film which is a shame
• The motion capture sucks
• Captain Phasma does absolutely nothing in this film
• There's sequel bait everywhere
• Max von Sydow's character is little more than a glorified cameo

Overall, 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' may not be the best film ever made but certainly the best experience I ever had. It was great seeing a new 'Star Wars' movie and not only that, a GREAT 'Star Wars' movie! The characters are amazingly relatable, both old and new, the action is great, the plot is easy to follow if lacking in detail and the feel of 'Star Wars' has returned after so long. It's good to see you back 'Star Wars'. Let's hope Episode VIII is just as good if not better. The force is strong with this one indeed...

'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' gets, despite my issues, 5 cross-guard lightsabres out of 5

What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below, be sure to share the review around Facebook, Twitter etc. and like my Facebook page 'Joel Mole'. Join me next time for my next perfectly honest film review.

Finding Dory Teaser Trailer Reaction

Well this looks good!

'Finding Nemo' may well be one of my favourite Pixar movies of all time and in my top 5 favourite movies at least! The characters are memorable, the animation is gorgeous and it manages to be both touching and funny. So its sequel, 'Finding Dory,' has a lot to live up to but this trailer promises to live up to its predecessor. 

The music presented in the trailer instantly brought me back to the world of 'Finding Nemo' as it is the music used for the emotional moments of the film. One of the things that was great about 'Finding Nemo' was its calm atmosphere punctuated by Thomas Newman's score (who returns for this movie). The teaser isn't shy to pull the feel card early as Dory says the following quote in her sleep:

"Don't cry Mummy, Don't cry"

*Tissues on stand-by*

The opening of this trailer is beautifully animated and it was awesome to see Marlin (Albert Brookes) and Nemo (Hayden Rolence) again. There's also a pretty amusing joke concerning 'sleep-swimming' (inspired!)

The rest of the trailer? It's ok. They seem to run a joke into the ground (Dory can remember! Shock!) and it can get tiresome. However, it does explain the premise of the movie in that Dory is finding her family so that should be good. Honestly there's not much to say considering it's a teaser but who knows? Maybe it could live up to its predecessor! Pixar did well with sequels before. (Hey! Cars 2 was alright actually and so was Monster's University!)

Other things to note/speculate:

• Oh how I love 'Somewhere beyond the Sea' by Robbie Williams!
• Where are the new characters? They don't appear at all in this trailer!
• It's nice that Dory's living with Nemo and Marlin in her own.... err... house?

Overall, this movie is set to be a worthy follow-up to 'Finding Nemo' and though this teaser shows little, that's what teasers do. 'Finding Dory' comes out on June 17th 2016.

La Haine (Hate) (1995) Review

Distributor: Studio Canal

Starring: Vincent Cassel, Hubert Kounde, Said Taghmoui

Director: Mathieu Kassovitz

Screenplay: Mathieu Kassovitz

Producer: Christophe Rossignon

Running Time: 1hr 38m

Release Date: May 31st 1995 (France), November 17th 1995 (UK)

Rating: 15

In 1993, Mathieu Kassovitz was inspired by two moments of police brutality. One was in 1986 where a man named Malik Oussekine was beaten to death by a riot police during a demonstration he was not a part of. The other was in 1993 where another man named Makome M’Bowole was shot in point blank range by a policeman even though M'Bowole was in police custody at the time. On that same day, Kassovitz started the script for 'La Haine,' which dealt with themes of police brutality and riots. The film was released to critical acclaim and currently stands at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Does Kassovitz truly deserve that praise?

What's the story? The movie follows 24 hours of the lives of three young men after a riot in Paris. These men are a Jew named Vinz (Cassel), an Afro-French named Hubert (Kounde) and an Arab named Said (Taghmoui). The movie centres around their lives in the Banelieu district, their scuffles with the police and their adventures in Paris, all the while Vinz is debating on whether or not he should violently avenge a friend who was brutally beaten by the police.

Kassovitz makes sure that the characters are not black and white, even though the film is. The main character, Vinz, wishes to be violent as he bases himself off Travis Bickle from 'Taxi Driver' and often fantasises about killing a policeman in revenge for his comatosed friend Abdel (Abdel Ahmed Ghili) but he does grow as a character as he starts to realise that violence isn't the best option. Hubert is the opposite. He is less violent and often tries to think of a peaceful solution to the conflicts that the three come across. However, he has shown some violence when the situation calls for it. Said is, almost literally, stuck in the middle of his friends. He is as easily excitable as Vinz but he also tries to work out a peaceful solution, especially when Vinz and Hubert butt heads over their conflicting ideologies. The three leads are not good or bad people, they are just normal youths who were set apart from society due to race, class and age. 

The police are similar though Kassovitz does portray them in an unfavourable light. They are portrayed as inept as they can barely control the hot-headed Vinz; they are portrayed as stupid since they mis-identify the "leader" as Said; they are portrayed as buzzkills as they constantly move the characters along from one location to another and they are portrayed as corrupt which is shown through a brutal interrogation scene. Throughout the film, the characters call the police 'pigs' and Vinz displays a burning hatred towards them as their displays of police brutality affected their lives. That's not to say the police are all bad as there are one or two that are actually helpful but the 'pigs' seem to be a constant nuisance that tail the trio and ruin their lives.

Then again, the lives of the trio aren't all that spectacular. Through the majority of the film, the characters wonder aimlessly through Paris and the Banelieu district with very little to do other than hang around and talk about cows or other topics. Their attempts at joining larger groups are often thwarted by the police or higher authorities, so it is as if they are forced to wonder haphazardly through the Banelieu because society will not accept them. Hubert is the voice of that message as his hopes of being a boxer are ruined by his gym burning down and his lack of job has forced him to stay in the Banelieu district, despite his verbal desire to leave. Even in Paris, the three are temporarily trapped there so they wonder through the city during the night. 

The production values are good too. Kassovitz really tried to make the film as realistic as possible and he succeeds. The characters share the names of their actors to make it seem like they are real people, the filming was actually done in the Banelieu district to show it in its entirety and some of the characters are played by people from the districts to make it seem like Kassovitz and his characters know what they are saying. That doesn't mean he isn't stylised as the film is in black and white to make it seem gritty and there is a ticking clock motif that not only details their 24 hours but also seems like it is counting down to something.

Does this film have problems? Well since the characters wonder carelessly throughout the film, the plot as a result does fall under a lot of filler so most of the scenes do little other than to convey the message of aimlessness. Also, besides the main three, the supporting characters are forgettable and the police are interchangeable. The characters of Vinz and Said can be unlikable since they are single-minded and obnoxious respectively. The ending, whilst making sense, does seem to come out of nowhere and does come across as abrupt.

Overall, 'La Haine' is more of a character study of the lives of three immigrants rather than an actual story. The characters and themes are very strong as it is a harsh and realistic presentation of Paris and the inhabitants we don't often think about. However, this movie needed more of a plot to keep things more interesting and it is only when looked at closely does the film truly shine.

'La Haine' gets 4 'pigs' out of 5

What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below, be sure to share the review around Facebook, Twitter etc. and like my Facebook page 'Joel Mole'. Join me next time for my next perfectly honest film review.

SPECTRE (2015) Review

Distributors: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Columbia Pictures (both from Sony)

Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Andrew Scott, Dave Bautista, Monica Belucci

Director: Sam Mendes

Screenplay: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Jez Butterworth 

Producers: Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli

Running Time: 2 hrs, 30 mins (approx.)

Release Date: October 26th 2015 (UK)

Rating: 12A

The Daniel Craig era of the James Bond Franchise has had its fair share of quality. 'Casino Royale' was unique and gritty, 'Quantum of Solace' was confusing and generic and 'Skyfall' was just plain awesome. Now Mendes of 'Skyfall' fame returns to direct this year’s Bond flick: 'SPECTRE' with Craig returning as Bond. Is this as good as 'Skyfall' or as big of a train-wreck as 'Quantum of Solace'? 

James Bond (Craig) is discharged after an explosive opening in Mexico, so he is working alone to track down a mysterious organisation known as SPECTRE. With the help of Madeline Swann (Seydoux), daughter of an old enemy of Bond, Q (Whishaw), M (Fiennes) and Eve Moneypenny (Harris). Bond discovers SPECTRE and its leader, Franz Oberhauser (Waltz), and they must stop him from taking over the world.

This film takes James Bond back to his 1960s roots with the return of SPECTRE, the lines 'shaken not stirred' and 'Bond, James Bond', a strong assassin and the famous gunshot sequence being in the opening this time round. This feels like a James Bond film unlike 'Quantum of Solace' which is a good thing as the era has truly taken off. However, because it played it safe, the plot feels predictable at times (gee, I wonder who Waltz is playing?!) and it's also abominably long. That doesn't mean it's a bad film as it is still entertaining to watch as the plot at least makes sense this time round. It also plays with the theme of surveillance quite nicely. We are in an insecure society where we seem constantly watched and the SPECTRE organisation utilises it to their advantage making the film very relevant. 

Craig, despite his (to put it lightly) resentment for the role, turns in a good performance, continuing the colder side to the character but also showing a sense of humour as most of his comedy comes through dry wit. Honestly though, despite revelations of his past coming to light, Bond doesn't feel developed as a character as he is more of the same throughout.

  

The Bond Girl, Swann, is also a weak character. Seydoux does turn in a decent performance but her character does not get much personality nor room for development as other characters steal the stage. She's just there to be a Bond Girl, that's it. Also Belucci is vastly underused in her role as she only turns up for one scene and she is never seen or mentioned again. This wouldn't be a problem if they didn't draw so much attention to her life being in danger.

The MI6 team fair a lot better though. Whishaw shows off his comedic timing for the role of Q and the role itself provides most of the comedy (which works). Fiennes turns out to be a very good M and he even gets in to a lot of the action. The same goes for Moneypenny who plays a key role in the story. Their antagonist, C (Scott) is also a slimy yet charming character, though what did you expect from the guy who plays Moriaty in 'Sherlock'?

As for the villains, Waltz is clearly having a lot of fun with his character as he steals every scene he's in. However, Oberhauser is not really in it that much which sadly doesn't give him time to develop as a villain so thank goodness for Waltz who was born to be a Bond villain, he's been playing Bond villains throughout his career for crying out loud! Bautista uses his physique for the role of the assassin Mr Hinx but the character makes a little impact and there is nothing that stands out about him unlike Oddjob and Jaws.

As for the production values, the films looks beautiful with the same quality of cinematography from the last film (that's a good thing!). The film also has a wide range of locations from Mexico to London to Rome to Austria and to Morocco. The wide range of locations allow for some stylised filmmaking to make them all stand out. 

The action sequences are also exciting for the most part. One particular highlight is the Day of the Dead opening with the majority of it being done in one shot, which can't have been easy given the amount of people there. There are other good sequences too like the plane/car chase in Austria and the train fight with Mr Hinx. 

The music is good too, again the highlight being the Day of the Dead scene as the James Bond theme is mixed with carnival music to make the scene lively. However the 'Writing on the Wall' theme is a bit weak by Bond song standards (though what do you expect from a singer as uninterested as Sam Smith?) and what is up with those visuals? Seriously Mendes, Octopuses do not make things sexy! 

With that said, the film is good but not great. It is a satisfying and entertaining follow-up from 'Skyfall' with good action sequences, humour, comedy, performances and the feel of a Bond film but it feels too safe as the plot is predictable and the characters do not feel developed. In answering the question on whether or not it is as good as 'Skyfall' or as bad as 'Quantum of Solace', it is neither. It is on the same level as 'Casino Royale': good but not great. However, it is good enough to recommend.

'SPECTRE' gets 3 and a half octopus rings out of five

What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below and be sure to share this review and like the Facebook Page 'Joel Mole.' Join me next time as I'll be as honest as possible with my movies!

Star Wars: The Force Awakens Trailer #3 Reaction

Ok first things first *a-hem*: SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

'Star Wars' has to be my favourite movie franchise of all time with 'The Empire Strikes Back' not only being the best of the saga but possibly my favourite movie ever. So as you can imagine this trailer got me hyped!

What's interesting about this trailer is the lack of plot details revealed. In a world where trailers give away crucial plot details (hello Terminator Genisys!), it's satisfying to see that the trailers for the most anticipated movie of 2015 give away little of the plot. However, it leaves enough to piece together some clues and get me excited!

Secondly, it's interesting to see that we might have a female protagonist this time round! One issue with the Star Wars films are the lack of female characters. Yes Leia and to some extent Padmé were awesome but they were the only major female characters in the whole saga. Finally, we may get a Star Wars movie that passes the Bechdel Test (Google it!).

Thirdly, the shots! This movie looks gorgeous and unlike any Star Wars movie we have seen before... but still recognisably Star Wars! The cinematography makes you feel like you're flying with the ships and the colour palette is rich so the movie looks aesthetically pleasing to look at! Even if the plot turns out to be rubbish, it will still look amazing. (One highlight is the hyperspace scene!)

Lastly, the tone. This Star Wars movie looks like it's going to blend dark and mysterious with fun action! That's good! That's the same tone as Empire!

Other things to note/speculate:

• Kylo Ren looks set to be a terrifying villain! Ok he's not Darth Vader but the scene where he tortures Poe Dameron looks daaaaaaaaark.
• I like how Han Solo is the guide and how his character has grown into believing the Jedi now
• Speaking of the Jedi, they're myth?
• The lightsaber duel has a brilliant set-up! A Jedi-in-training who knows little in lightsaber combat vs. a powerful force user? Sign me up!!!

Overall, there's little to expect in this movie which will make watching it all the more exciting! Bring on December 17th 2015!!!!

This is England (2006) Review

Distributor: Optimum Releasing

Starring: Thomas Turgoose, Stephen Graham, Jo Hartley, Andrew Shim, Vicky McClure, Joseph Gilgun, Rosamund Hanson

Director: Shane Meadows

Screenplay: Shane Meadows

Producer: Mark Herbert

Running Time: 1hr 40m

Release Date: April 27th 2007 (UK)

Rating: 18

In 2007, Shane Meadows released his independent film 'This is England' to critical acclaim. So much so that it spawned several sequel TV mini-series'. This coming-of-age story turned ensemble drama about a group of teenagers and young adults in the 1980s (and 1990) has resonated with people for the characters and the realistic depiction of violence, drugs and sexual abuse has earned the series several awards. At the time of writing, 'This is England '90' (the final season of the series) is currently playing so it is time to review the movie that started it all: 'This is England'.

Set in Northern England in 1983, the movie follows Shaun (Turgoose). He is a 12 year old kid who has recently lost his father to the Falkland Wars and is constantly bullied. Things change when he encounters a group of skinheads led by Woody (Gilgun) with members such as Milky (Shim) and Gadget (Andrew Ellis), as well as female members such as Lol (McClure), Smell (Hanson), Kelly (Chanel Cresswell) and Trev (Danielle Watson). Shaun feels at home with the group until former member Combo (Graham) returns with nationalist views and the gang are divided with Shaun joining Combo's group and he soon learns the darker side of patriotism.

The best part of 'This is England' is the characters. Before Combo arrives, you feel such a comradery between the gang to the point where you want to join them in their misadventures. Shaun in particular is the audience surrogate as he is a trouble kid but still a kid. He is naive to the dangers of youth culture and as such, he becomes easily influenced by Combo's racist views. This sets up a perfect coming-of-age story as he is exposed to extreme violence and racism and this is where the title comes in. THIS is England, not the patriotic country we all love but a country of violence, drugs and racism. Turgoose is a very good child actor who gets across the fun loving side but also the angry side of Shaun very effectively.

The other notable character is Combo. Combo represents nationalism and racism as his views of what it means to be English is disturbing but he is so charismatic you almost don't care. He does have a comforting side whether it is being a father figure to Shaun or professing his love to Lol, you do feel almost sorry for him in the end. Well almost... as he does have a violent side which is apparent in one scene. This will not be spoiled but this scene is truly horrifying and it is hard to watch Combo's blind fury comes out in full force.

It's not all doom and gloom as the supporting characters are likable enough to maintain a light-hearted side to the movie. Woody is a very likable and charismatic character but to be honest, there should be more of him. Yes we do see him more in the TV show but in the movie, he disappears after the first half. Smell provides some comic relief whether its Hanson's deadpan delivery or her unconventional romance with Shaun, there is bound to be some laughs. Cynthia (Hartley) is a caring mother who is struggling to bring up her troubled son as a single mother and Hartley makes her role comforting. Finally there is Lol. Like Woody, she isn't in the movie much to make an impact but there are hints to a past that is luckily expanded upon in the TV show. The rest of the cast, besides Gadget who gets a few standout moments, are interchangeable and only get development in the TV show except Pukey played by Jack O'Connell who is mysteriously replaced by Harvey (Michael Socha), Shaun's bully at the beginning. Overall, the cast are likable but are clearly screaming for development as the focus is on Shaun and Combo.

The production values are decent but not that special. The camera used is quite clever as it is a similar quality of a camera used for an '80s film which adds to the authenticity (though it gets ruined when a normal camera is used for the TV show) and the use of editing is done to good affect especially in THAT hard to watch scene. That and the music, whilst used sparingly, is used in the movie's more effective moments but besides that, it doesn't feel like a cinematic movie but rather a TV movie pilot. 

That's the problem with 'This is England', it feels like a TV pilot as there are lots of characters who need developing and are developed in a TV show. That being said, 'This is England' is a great look at skinhead culture with it's somewhat lovable cast and a hard hitting message on what it means to be English. It also perfectly mixes the tone between light-hearted fun to some of the most gut-wrenching scenes in British film history. Definitely watch this movie, if you like it then watch the TV show to see the supporting characters shine.

'This is England' gets 4 skinheads out of 5

What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below and be sure to share this review and like the Facebook Page 'Joel Mole.' Join me next time as I'll be as honest as possible with my movies!

Cidade de Deus (City of God) (2002) Review

Distributor: Miramax Films

Starring: Alexandre Rodrigues, Leandro Firmino da Hora, Phellipe Haagensen, Matheus Nachtergaele, Seu Jorge, Douglas Silva

Directors: Fernando Meirelles, Kátia Lund

Screenplay: Bráulio Mantovani

Producers: Andrea Barata Ribeiro, Mauricio Andrade Ramos

Running Time: 2hr 10m

Release Date: August 30th 2002 (Brazil)

Rating: 18

'Cidade de Deus' or 'City of God' was based off 1997 novel of the same name by Paulo Lins however it is loosely based off real events. Upon release, it received critical acclaim with Meirelles receiving a nomination for Best Director at the 76th Academy Awards. Is this Brazilian film worth the praise? Is the City of God ironically named? The answer to both of these is yes!

What's the story? Where do I begin? The film follows Rocket (Rodrigues), a resident of the City of God, as he details the rise and fall of the crime lord known as Lil Zé (Hora) formally known as Lil Dice (Silva). The story shows his rise to power through drugs and murder, his best friend Benny (Haagensen) becoming a playboy, the war with rival drug lord Carrot (Nachtergaele) and a personal vendetta against Knockout Ned (Jorge). 

That's explaining the story in simple terms and that's this movie's problem. There's way too much going on. These were just the main characters. There's also Angelica (Alice Braga), Rocket and Benny's love interest; Blacky, Carrot's assistant; Tiago, Angelica's ex-boyfriend; Steak N' Fries, a notable member in Ze's gang; The Tender Trio: Goose (Rocket's brother), Shaggy and Clipper; Bernice, Shaggy's girlfriend; Shorty, a man who somehow gets focus even though he has no bearing on the overall plot and the Runts.

There's just way too many characters and subplots to develop and many suffer as a result. Shorty gets focus even though his character goes nowhere, Steak N' Fries gets focus in the movie's most infamous scene yet it is uncertain what happened to him. The Tender Trio get little screen time outside the first act so it is difficult to care about them. Angelica is also just a love interest. No more no less. Most of these characters can be taken out of the movie and the plot would not suffer as a result.

Aside from that, there aren't any problems with this movie. The movie's main strength is the characters. Rocket isn't the focus of the movie but rather the observer. He's the relatable protagonist to shed some normality into the chaotic world of the City of God. He has ambition, he cares and interacts with the other characters and he has some normal teenage personality traits such as wanting to have sex. Rocket doesn't get a lot of development but the audience cares for him because he's the one normal character in a crazy world. In fact, he is similar to Max Rockatansky from the 'Mad Max' movies. He's the observer, not the main character.

The main character is actually the film's antagonist: Lil Ze. Ze is a scary antagonist as he kills for pleasure and he just won't stop until his quest for power has completed. That's what makes him scary, he's is ruthless and relentless. He does have dimension though as he gets upset when someone he cares about is hurt and he does have his kinder moments. However for the most part he is a sadistic psychopath. His rise and fall story arc is also interesting as he brought himself down by failing to realise that his actions have consequences. That and his humongous body count makes him an intimidating yet charismatic villain that the audience actually cares about. Hora plays adult Ze well giving him a sick charisma but it is Silva as the child version, Lil Dice (Pictured) that knocks it out of the park as his sadism mostly came out of Silva's performance and he is one of the most bone-chilling child actors out there.

Despite Lil Ze being a great villain, his best friend Benny is the best character. He starts off as Lil Ze's lackey but he is the voice of reason who stops Ze from becoming a full on nut job. Once he becomes a playboy, he is loved and respected by all which makes what happens to him all the more tragic. Playboy Benny is incredibly charming and likable, so much so that you either want to be with him or actually become him. He is also key to the movie as he is the only person who can control Lil Ze whilst also being central to the movie's main theme which is escaping reality. His fate is also what sets off the events of the second half of the movie.

Most of these events centre on Knockout Ned. Ned has the biggest fall of the movie as he starts out as another guy everyone respects. However, one tragic night later and he becomes vengeful and his pursuit of Lil Ze is reminiscent of The Terminator. He won't stop until he has his target. In a way he's the anti-Ze. He is a psychopath who won't stop until he gets what he wants whilst also being careless of consequences. However, unlike Ze, he has morals and you can tell he is regretful of what he has done. However when his morals are cast aside, it comes back to bite him in the most Edgar Wright-ish of ways. (For those who don't know, Edgar Wright has a payoff for aspects that seems insignificant in the movie).

All of these characters (with the exception of Lil Ze) have one ambition, to leave the slums for a better life. However reality catches up to them in the most brutal way which makes it clear what Meirelles' message is: You cannot escape reality. And boy does reality suck in the City of God?! It has everything from corrupt cops, poverty, drugs, murder, rape, gangs, violence and war. There's this one scene especially heart-wrenching where Steak N' Fries does terrible things to children in order to be initiated into Lil Ze's gang. This movie does not shy away from all the things mentioned above and it shows them in great detail.

It's not all doom and gloom as the movie oddly has a quirky style. This ranges from carnival music to camera sound effects to title cards of character stories to fast editing to flashbacks. This prevents the movie from being boring and this coupled with the likable characters makes 'City of God', despite the drama, a fun ride. Meirelles maintains the style throughout yet it is serious when it needs to be. It keeps the perfect balance that makes the movie entertaining whilst still keeping its serious message.

In conclusion, 'City of God' is an entertaining, heart wrenching yet overblown movie with likable (if too many) characters, a quirky style and an important message about poverty. If it had less characters and subplots this would have been very special but as it stands, it's very good and worth checking out... though viewer discretion is advised!

'City of God' gets 4 and a half psycho kids out of 5.


What do you guys think of the film? Do you agree or disagree? Sound off in the comments below and be sure to share this review and like the Facebook Page 'Joel Mole.' Join me next time as I'll be as honest as possible with my movies!