garethrleyshon

Turning this novel into a movie was always going to be a tricky feat. The novel oozes beauty and romance, peppered with sexual tension and longing from the first person perspective of young Elio. Can it replicated for the big screen?

Thankfully it can. Beautifully captured by James Ivory, the script captures all these elements of the novel deftly. It's no wonder that Call Me By Your Name swept the board during awards season for best adapted screenplay.

The production is incredible too, the nostalgia of the time is captured amazingly, from the costumes, to the locations, to the gorgeous cinematography. One wanted nothing more than to swept into this world on numerous occasions, with a cigarette hanging from my lips, sipping coffee in my short shorts... For the viewer to become immersed the world so thoroughly is high praise to all involved.

Timothee Chalamet, is perfect as Elio. Beautiful, yearning and vulnerable, he emotes everything with an ease and believability that more than proves his Best Actor nominations worth. Notable mentions to Elios parents too (Michael Stuhlbarg and Amira Casar) - both of whom are revelations in themselves; charming, warm and funny and add another dimension of beautiful heartache when dealing with their son.

The only reason that one didn't give this movie 10 stars is because of Armie Hammer. The character of Oliver should have been younger. While Hammer has the classic looks and charm of the Oliver in the novel, he just looks too mature. Also his borderline rude nonchalance towards Elio at the start of the film, is almost too much, and makes the interest in Elio, almost come as a little of a surprise.

Their relationship however is beautifully captured, the tension and the attraction between the two of them is very seductive, which makes the resolution of he narrative all the more heartbreaking.

Call Me By Your Name, feels real. That's where the main success lies. It tells the truth about forbidden love, lust and loss. I dare you not to fall in love too.

BOTTOM LINE: Absolutely peachy.

Ultimately Sierra Burgess is a Loser isn't a movie about catfishing, as many of the negative reviews on here might suggest. It's a thought provoking movie about looking past what we see on the surface.

It's a movie about faces. The face we show to others, the face others expect us show, the face we think we should show and the face others see on social media/messaging.

What makes Sierra Burgess a success is the fact that our lead is majorly flawed and at times makes incredibly questionable moral choices. She is unapologetically real. Both in looks and attitude. Perfection isn't her goal here, but perhaps simply being is. And nabbing a cute guy in the process would be a bonus...

Many of the negative reviews on here focus on the catfishing aspect of the movie, and while they are quite right in calling out the illegal practise, the movie does the same - it never really says "this is okay" and the viewer is always acutely aware that the players will get exposed in the end. People do get hurt and others have to apologise for their actions. The consequence is there, albeit on a smaller, personal scale, rather than a prison cell scale...

One will admit that the happy ending is somewhat far-fetched, but it was mostly refreshing that there was no tissue grabbing fairytale makeover/personality-over.

The young cast are particularly likeable; Shannon Purser shows she is a worthy leading lady and Noah Centineo is cute and likeable as love interest Jamey, but it's Kristine Froseth as Veronica who is the standout in the cast playing the character who is putting on the most 'face' out of the whole bunch. The contrast between her home self and the self she portrays to her peers is an example of what this film is all about.

The relationship built, and inevitably broken, between Veronica and Sierra is full of heart and was actually ones favourite part of the narrative. Honourable mentions to Loretta Devine who puts in a hilarious, if small, turn as Ms. Thomson and Chrissy Metz as Veronica's Mother.

A bit of a modern morality tale about being yourself in a world where the ability to be someone else is so easy, Sierra Burgess untimely has a positive message, even if the routes she takes are somewhat dubious at times.

BOTTOM LINE: Sierra Burgess is most definitely NOT a Loser.

When his father (Eric Bana) is murdered and his uncle (Jude Law) takes power over the kingdom, Arthur (Charlie Hunk-am) looses the life that is rightfully his and is forced to grow up on the streets of the city. But his destiny changes when Arthur is forced to try and pull the fabled sword from the stone...

Okay, so. This really won't be for everyone. It hurtles along at breakneck speed, mixing real time narrative with flashbacks/flashforwards (depending on your interpretation) and can most certainly be a tad confusing if you don't give it your undivided attention. Three minutes in and I was wondering the hell I was watching...

However, if you have the patience and perseverance it is really rewarding.

To begin with, the editing really is wonderful. Not only does it add a modern element to this otherwise historically styled epic, it's fast, inventive and at times very, very funny. Which is of course typical of Guy Richie, who ultimately shows here, he is more than capable of handling big budget epics such as the legend of King Arthur and still retain the style of earlier works such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000). And thankfully we are spared much of the over sentimental 'discovering your destiny' rubbish that one was expecting...

Richie does skew the original King Arthur myth somewhat, and adds a much more embellished magical and mythological take on the story. The magical elements are spectacular, the giant wildlife, the mythologic sirens, and scenes of elephantine destruction are incredible. This doesn't mean that the original myth is completely lost thought, it's still there, even if the set up to the pulling of the sword does seem to almost come out of nowhere.

Partly what lets the film down is the non magical elements. Some of the CGI fight scenes are disappointingly obvious, and our hero, Charlie Hunk-ams performance does seem a little phoned in and flat. Good job he's pretty. But then there's that awful uneven accent... But, so pretty... Oh, the conflict one feels right now...

Anyway, some of the other characterisations also get a little lost in the foray, and when the film ended, I definitely had no idea who some of the charters were or what they added to the plot. And whoever cast David Beckham and his non existent acting skills needs a serious talking to.

One of the best performances and characters comes from Jude Law, the villain of the piece, who provides us with some quite nice, if it's possible, inner turmoil over his actions. As engaging baddies go, he's not half bad.

BOTTOM LINE: Fast, furious and action packed, let down by some performances that can't be pulled from the stone

The Misfits tells the story of recently divorced Roslyn (Marilyn Monroe), and the friendship that she develops with car mechanic Guido (Eli Wallach), aging cowboy Gay (Clark Gable) and failing rodeo rider Perce (Montgomery Clift). Centered on how their relationships develop during their time at Guidos house in the Nevada desert and at the Dayton rodeo, these relationships finally become tested when the three men decide to hunt horses to be sold to a dog food manufacturer, much to Roslyns distress.

The Misfits essentially is about the way that people inadvertently treat others badly, culminating in the obvious mistreatment of the mustangs, innocent beings in the proceedings. The irony here is The Misfits script was meant as a gift from Arthur Miller to his wife, Monroe; the role of Roslyn being one that Marilyn could truly act. Yet Miller strangely unfavourably portrays Roslyn from time to time in the film. Occasionally naive, occasionally nothing more than the image of the sex symbol Monroe desperately craved to escape.

Regardless, Marilyn puts in her greatest performance, one which sexy and alluring, but filled with sadness and sensitivity.

All the characters are reaching points in their life where they feel they having nothing left; the washed up cowboy, the failing rodeo rider, the new divorcee and the mechanic looking to quit his job. Meeting each other sees changes in our two protagonists; Roslyn starts to become a poster girl for independence, while drawing out Gays never seen before domestic side. However these changes are minor, meaning the development of the characters and any intended arc they are meant to have to their personas are more like a gentle incline. Gay retains his stubbornness, catching the horse himself at the end just to release it again in an act of defiance, to show he can still make his own decisions. Roslyn's breakdown at the fate at the horses, is sweet, but ultimately shows her as weak. Despite being part of the titular misfits, Perce and Guido are reduced to supporting characters who have no development whatsoever.

The genre of the film is mixed too, with elements of buddy movie, romance, western and probably more, all rolled into one. While genre blending is all fine and good when its done well, here it seems halfhearted on all counts. The western element is perhaps the most dominant, but the whole film isn't stylised enough to be a classic western. There are moments when the narrative also feels like several stories that don't always fit together as they should. Perce, the rodeo cowboy generally feels superfluous to the plot, except when Roslyn hears his life story and expresses sorrow at his past.

Overly long, The Misfits would have benefited from a shortened run time, the catching of the mustangs in the closing act, seems needlessly long. There are moments also, for example, Guido wrangling the horses in the plane for Gay and Perce to capture, when the score is overly dramatic and out of place, building up to an anticlimax of nothing at all. And finally the ending of the film, is strangely abrupt considering the run time, and one can only assume that Gay and Roslyn live happily ever after.

BOTTOM LINE: Marilyns greatest performance in a film where the characters, or lack of, misfits.

Based on real events, Zodiac tells the story of a series of unsolved murders which took place in San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s. The serial killer, know as the titular Zodiac, taunted the police with letters and ciphers sent to newspapers, but despite long investigation into the case, and several possible suspects, the true identity of the killer is still unknown to this day.

Zodiac begins in 1969 and spans all the way through to 1991. While is historically correct in terms of the investigation and the prime suspect Arthur Leigh Allen, the substantial time frame offers up the films most problematic element. Choosing to highlight specific moments from the investigation, some of which happen years apart from one another, can make the film difficult to follow and leave the viewer feeling as though something is being missed out. And considering it spans 22 years, the characters appear ageless in appearance. One needs the name of their surgeons... Anyway, all the skipping ahead years at a time, means an awful lot is crammed in and leaves the run time at a hefty 157 minutes. A more concentrated study on a more definite event or part of the investigation perhaps would have made more engaging viewing. Instead too much, sadly equals too little.

Perhaps my view would be different if one had read Graysmith's book beforehand. However, one didn't, so it is not.

Graysmith's viewpoint from the San Francisco Chronicle is great however, and does offer something different than usual to the crime genre. Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic as Graysmith, the man to becomes obsessed with the Zodiac, sacrificing his marriage and children to the cause. All consumed by solving the case, Gyllenhaal portrays this convincingly and empathetically and is surely the best thing in Zodiac, supported by Chloe Sevigny who give a superbly understated performance as his wife who takes second place to the Zodiac killer.

Robert Downey Jr is occasionally funny but mostly irritatingly arrogant as the San Francisco Chronicle crime writer who sinks in to alcoholism. And Mark Ruffalo, while all good and hairy, is just a bit, well, meh.

David Fincher clearly directs his cast members well, but on the other hand there is very little of Fincher's stylistic direction that was present in Fight Club (1999), nor the grit, grime and edge of Se7en (1995) aside from the odd fanciful piece of camera work.

Perhaps that is it with Zodiac, there is no edge. The little tension that is built up at any one point is swiftly lost as we zoom years and years ahead to the next significant point in the investigation.

There is some attempt at tone; the film occasionally offers a dark and atmospheric look at San Francisco in the 60s and 70s. The opening sequence for example is chilling, with the emotionless execution set against the 4th of July celebrations. Much of the time however, the locations are nondescript. Location should be a character in itself in a narrative such as this, but here she is pushed into the figurative background.

There is a nicely played out underlying theme of addiction; the literal addiction of Paul Avery to alcohol and Graysmith's obsession with unmasking the Zodiac killer. The deterioration of both lives in different ways is contrasted nicely and effectively .

BOTTOM LINE: Not exactly killer, Zodiac is hard going at times. Worth slogging it out for Jake Gyllenhaal's brilliant performance as Robert Graysmith though.

There is always a certain amount of trepidation when sitting down to watch a adaptation of a book into film. Thankfully this is a faithful take on the book.

The Host tells the story of a non corporeal alien race who have taken over Earth by inhabiting the bodies of almost all of humanity. Melanie Stryder, part of the resistance, and one of the only few remaining humans, is captured and turned into a host. Now with a dominant alien being inside her, Melanie remains trapped inside her human body and she fights to save her brother and be reunited with her true love, Jared.

The Host is a strangely engaging for a film where nothing very much really happens.

The narrative in itself is admittedly an interesting one; the utopian future, where humanity barely exists any longer except for the resistance, a small group of human humans who live in caves in the desert fending for themselves, hoping not to be taken over by the parasites. Seeing how the remains of the human race are living, surviving in their self built underground lair is life affirming, and the welcoming of a stranger into their home, especially one who could threaten their cover, is uplifting. The climax is heartwarming too, if a little predicable (even if you haven't read the book) where both the underdog, in this case humanity itself, and of love true love, win through.

The sweeping desert landscapes and the utopian cityscapes are breathtaking and beautiful. Even the underground home of the resistance is simply but beautifully crafted. Even the aliens shopping facilities and transport are enviable.

Our lead as Melanie/Wanderer, is the main issue with the film. There is an obvious difficulty developing the two leading characters in the time usually taken for just one. She is relatively emotionless and static for the most part and while this is clearly a trait of the alien beings, the conflict between the host and the human still fighting inside never really leaves this inert state of emotion. Sadly this makes the character of Melanie/Wanderer rather unsympathetic. The novel obviously develops the emotional turmoil much more successfully. The tumult of Wanderer when she falls in love with Ian ultimately fails when portrayed by Wanderer's blank expressions and Melanie's wan voiceover. One would think this is more a performance based issue rather than a storytelling one. Disappointingly, Saoirse Ronan is not engaging as neither Melanie nor Wanda.

The voiceover occasionally grates too. It is a very unusual device to use throughout a film narrative, albeit one that does work, and is an effective way of getting Melanie's point of view across. It is also faithful to the way in which the novel is written.

Diane Krueger, however, is great at The Seeker, playing the struggle between her human side and host subtly, but with more success. The moment she shoots one of her fellow seekers, is the turning point for her character(s), her obvious turmoil showing with no need for a voiceover, just simply great acting.

The majority of the other characters are reduced to supporting roles, Melanies lover Jared, and her brother Jamie are lucky enough to be included in the flashback story of Melanie, pre insertion, but Jamie is sadly underdeveloped and Jared only a tad more so. Ian is the character that suffers the most, his pain in falling for Wanderer is sadly non existent, making him rather two dimensional. Uncle Jeb is more favourable, kindly, and sympathetic to the alien race, he is a champion to the human race.

BOTTOM LINE: Faithful adaptation of the novel, with an appealing and uplifting message.With mixed performances, the production is really the star, but still worth getting into the skin of.

Another foray into the science fiction horror genre for Horror maestro John Carpenter, sees a group of 22nd Century police officers lead by Helena Braddock (Pam Grier) and Melanie Ballard (Natasha Henstridge) head to Shining Canyon, a mining town on Mars, to collect and transport a dangerous criminal to stand trial. Upon their arrival, they find Shining Canyon deserted, aside from a group of self mutilated, homicidal beings, who turn out to be the townsfolk who have been taken over by the titular ghosts. Cue lots of guns, running and decapitation.

There is no two ways about it, Ghosts of Mars is a mixed bag. On the whole it is very entertaining, but has moments of pure ridiculousness and stupidity.

A lot is crammed into the 94 minute run time, and it is a lot considering the action takes place over a relatively short space of time. Told in flashback, and containing flashbacks within said flashback, the story is kept sharp and simple, never feeling over complicated and nothing is superfluous. The action is fast and furious; the fight sequences are compelling and the deaths of our police officers are thoroughly enjoyable. Decapitation and dismemberment agogo; a little extra gore wouldn't have gone amiss though.

However good the fight sequences are, one does wonder our heroes keep shooting at our ghost hosts? The deaths of the hosts releases the spirits so they can go find another host to inhabit. Truly moronic. And their solution to the destroying the alien race? Blowing up the town. Which would release all the ghosts. Um, slightly flawed...

Anyway, the production of Ghosts of Mars is great. The planetary aspects are done well, everything is steeped in red and the barren, dust filled landscapes around Shining Canyon only add to the isolation. It feel like the Mars one would expect. Also, the town of Shining Canyon itself seems plausibly tiny, giving a wonderfully claustrophobic feel to the main body of the film. Perhaps the best thing about the film is the make up and costumes of the mutilated hosts; they are grotesque, interesting, creative and a lot fun. The heavy metal soundtrack compliments our pierced, painted and sliced monsters beautifully.

Our other characters, despite being developed well enough, are a mixture of stereotypes and extremes. Jericho Butler (Jason Statham), the womanising alpha male; Arlene Whitlock (Joanna Cassidy) the bumbling scientist; Desolation Williams (Ice Cube), the no nonsense serial killer criminal type; Bashira Kinkaid (Clea DuVall), the naive rookie... There is nothing new here in terms of disposable characters. Sadly our two female leads are the most disappointing. Pam Grier is unconvincing as the tough, lesbian commanding officer; a role which apparently just requires an ample cleavage and no acting skills whatsoever. Thankfully she is dispatched relatively quickly. Even Henstridge falls a little flat most of the time as our drug fueled Lieutenant, bordering on dull and wooden. Perhaps the vacant look that occupies her face for the majority is a side effect of the hallucinogenic pills she pops at frequent intervals. The disappointing female characters are a surprise seeing as Carpenters forte is the slasher genre, a genre where female characters are usually strong, engaging and sympathetic. Not so much here...

BOTTOM LINE: An extra star for Pam Griers head on a stick. Fabulous.

Every seven years, in a randomly chosen city in the world, 30 of the worlds best assassins battle to the death for the entertainment and betting pleasure of a bunch of bloodthirsty millionaires, run by Mr Powers (Liam Cunningham). The last volunteer standing wins $10 million, and the title of the worlds greatest assassin. The reigning champion, Joshua Harlow played by Ving Rhames, returns to play again, along with newcomers Lai Lai Zen (Kelly Hu) and Miles Slade (Ian Somerhalder). An innocent unsuspecting Priest, Father Macavoy (Robert Carlyle), gets caught up in the games when he ingests the tracking device Anton Bogart (Sebastian Foucan) removes from himself. This time around the games are being held in the exotic city of... Middlesbrough.

Yes, Middlesbrough. To start with it needs to be stated that this film cannot be taken with on ounce of seriousness. If you can do that then this is truly a cinematic treat. The director and the cast have their tongues planted firmly in cheek throughout and the comical moments are incredibly well observed. The 'bus stopping' moment, the strip club, the petrol station, Miles Slade's camp as Christmas leather jacket... Middlesbrough, for Christ's sake!

The film indeed pushes the boundaries of credibility and plausibility. The tournament is watched via the cities CCTV network which in itself seems futuristically fast and comprehensive. The cleanup aspect of the film stretches believability too; one highly doubts that the amount of death and destruction that is witness could quite so easily be written off as accidents and the like, but as stated already if you can let these little glitches pass by, then you will be fine.

The aforementioned characters are our central players, with Ian Somerhalder putting in a surprisingly, especially brilliant turn as the psychotic Texan. Both Kelly Hu and Robert Carlyle are an entertaining double act as they team up to ensure the latter survives his mistaken participation in the game. Ving Rhames ins typically stony and emotionless, perhaps a little too so considering he is man bent on revenge for the death of his wife. But he is still a convincing, and at times scary, hard man that one certainly wouldn't want to run into in a dark alley, exemplified in the open scene where Harlow wins the previous tournament, which is just the epitome of cool, bloody action cinema.

The only criticism one has, is that there are too many players in the game. The majority of the deaths are throwaway. So many characters, who we have no idea who they really are, are dispatched in the blink of eye. It is a difficult concept to do well, The Hunger Games (Gary Ross, 2012), failed in a similar way, but it can be successfully done, Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000), for example. That said, the deaths that we do see are great, gloriously gory and over the top.

There is a nice little satirical edge to all the gore and silliness. The film quite simply offers The Tournament up as a dystopian future, where a select few, albeit rich and foolish, individuals are so desensitised to violence that it needs to be transcended into real life to be entertaining again.

BOTTOM LINE: Utterly ridiculous but a hell of a lot of fun. The Tournament is an odds on favourite, blacker than black comedy.

Blood Night is the story of a young girl who turns into a woman. It just happens to be a woman who likes to kill everyone.

A particularly heavy and gruesome period is the catalyst for Mary's transformation from young girl to psychopathic woman, causing her to go apeshit, and kill her parents. Years later while in psychiatric care, Blood Night is born when she pops out her sprog and then goes on another killing spree around the hospital, before being shot unceremoniously in the head. Fast forward again, and her child, who Mary thought was dead, goes on a killing spree of their own on the anniversary of the original Blood Night. Sounds cool, right?

The retrospective beginning of The Legend of Mary Hatchet starts the film promisingly enough. The whole sequence has a wonderfully retro feel to it, from the camera angles, to the atmosphere, to the gloriously camp and grim kills.

However, once we move into the present day, the film starts loosing its identity.

The legend aspect of the film which is set up at the beginning, is lost relatively quickly, only present in the distant background of the story in that the events are taking place during the Blood Night celebrations. When the legend comes to the foreground again it has almost become defunct; a pointless Ouija board in the graveyard, a door bursting open which no-one takes any stock in. The reappearance of the ghost of Hatchet at the close of the film is a nice touch, but leaves the viewer wishing more had been made of it throughout.

The presence of horror stars such as Danielle Harris and Bill Moseley, suggest this is meant to be perhaps an homage to the slasher genre, or at the very least a postmodern nod to that "old school B horror movie shit," a reference a character makes to 'Attack of The Killer Tomatoes,'(John De Bello, 1978). But these thing alone are not enough to make the filmmakers intentions clear. The overly abundant characters aren't savvy enough to be anything except for sex-mad, disposable meat sacks, which goes against any self referential or post modern leanings this film may have had. They do lend themselves to some inventive kills, the 'pickaxe and twist' being a particular favourite, but sadly some dire acting distracts from this.

The occasionally pastiche and atmospheric production is sometimes marred by the occasional dodgy camera angle and edits, such as terrible circular transitions. This does improve as the film moves on, these cheapening effects fade themselves out and production becomes more linear. It makes the tone rather uneven however, and spoils the overall feel of the film.

By far the most convincing thing in the film is Danielle Harris, portraying the psychopathic daughter of Mary Hatchet with gusto and success. However, despite showing she can really grind an axe, once she is revealed to be the next in line to inherit the family menstrual psychosis, it throws up some continuity issues with the narrative - how she is meant to be have snuck out of the house to kill a bunch of kids and then deposit herself back into a bloody bathroom without anyone noticing is anyones guess.

Overall, with some nice kills and buckets of blood, Blood Night will satisfy many fans of the slasher out there, but definitely adds nothing new to the genre.

BOTTOM LINE: Uneven, bloody menstrual story, best viewed with a maxi-pad.