R3: Days without End by Sebastian Barry

Released: 2016

Genre: Historical Drama

Pages: 301

History can serve a rich backdrop for any story, delivering both context and depth to already engaging narrative. More recently I’ve taken an interest the Indian and American Civil Wars among US history overall. Seeing it on the shelf of recommended books, I bought a copy, taking some time to read it all the way through.

The book follows homosexual Irish couple Thomas McNulty and John Cole as they meet in America, serve in the military, witness countless horrid deeds and soon encounter the Native American tribes who were caught in the middle and eventually forced off their old lands by the white man. During this time, they find a displaced child named Winona who brings out the best in both, but also exposes the harsh reality of the conflicts they find themselves in. The plot is framed entirely from Thomas’s perspective in the first person, relaying the events to the reader as they happen, occasionally becoming more reflective to draw them in to the things he cares about most in his life. It’s very easy to follow and tells a complete story; any shifts in time are clearly marked by the author.

Some of the major themes of Days without End include family, personified by Thomas and Cole’s relationship and later their bond with Winona. What’s interesting is how the characters come together despite their lack of natural blood ties. At times the book will move you in the way individuals from completely diverse backgrounds live in harmony despite the chaos of events going on around them. This contrasts with the nature of duty that permeates Thomas’s time in the army, which is often brutally absolute in its treatment of Native Americans, leading to an eventual clash. The final and arguably most important thematic hook is redemption; based on the vividly graphic battles depicted in the story, a sense of guilt weighs both Thomas and John down; it may not boil into full-blown post-traumatic stress disorder, but it is subtly noticeable. These themes working together enhance the novel’s emotive elements, compelling the reader to see the narrative to the end.

Recommended?

Any reader of history or closed emotive drama should give Days without End a look. It’s very slow moving, yet always vivid in its portrayals of both the American Civil War and the relationships between the characters. The book only has a few chapters of violent action and it certainly won’t appeal to those looking for an in-depth study of the Civil War as this is only a passing event in the book’s huge timescale rather than the main focus.

The book went on to be listed for the Man Booker Prize in 2017 and it is worthy of that title. Given how it’s a fairly recent book, plans for adaptations and other expansions are rare, but with the right amount of balance between its different elements, it could make for a strong historical drama in a similar vein to 2005’s Brokeback Mountain.

Tomb Raider Movie Review

Released: March 14th 2018 (UK)

Length: 118 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

Director: Roar Uthaug

Starring: Alicia Vikander, Dominic West, Walton Goggins, Daniel Wu and Kristin Scott Thomas

The Tomb Raider franchise has been active in the gaming scene for over two decades thanks to its unmistakably recognisable female lead. 15years ago, Angelia Jolie gave her own film interpretation of the character in a trashy two-part punch of dumb fun, but back then the source material was rather different. Tomb Raider 2018 edition mirrors the new series of Tomb Raider games which went more gritty and realistic, something which Square Enix is hoping will pull fans back into theatres. While nothing too special, this latest on-screen appearance of Lara Croft is worth a watch.

Tomb Raider follows Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander), a rebellious youth who dismisses her missing father’s vast wealth and estate in favour of living dangerously; when she uncovers a hint that Richard Croft may still be alive on an expedition to the lost island of Yamantai, she heads out to find him, only to be caught up in an illegal expedition led by the shadowy organisation Trinity. If you’ve played the new series of games, Tomb Raider the film will feel incredibly familiar from the offset. In short, it’s as if the filmmakers took the 2013 video game, condensed and sanitised it down to a two-hour flick then placed an action scene or two into the proceedings. I was very much reminded of it, particularly in the first act as Lara escapes a rusted old WW2 bomber dangling over a waterfall, gets buffeted around the trees in a ragged parachute and obtains a bow and arrow among other escapades. While nothing too intense, the action itself is still entertaining, especially in the final act underground. It’s a very “by-the-book” structure, which is both the film’s biggest blessing and its biggest curse. On the one hand, there’s a taut focus with no deviations or unnecessary side tangents from the main plot. But on the other, everything more-or-less plays out exactly as you expect, which does diminish its overall impact. Some mistakes the game made, particularly with Lara killing for the first time also stand as missed opportunities that are brushed aside quickly.

Characters are rarely a strong suit of video-game movies and Tomb Raider is no different, even if a couple of performances stand out from the rest. Alicia Vikander is great as Lara, bringing both great physicality (No doubt she trained hard for the role) and emotion in all the right scenes; she matches the more grounded tone of the reboot game series effortlessly. Lara’s father is also quite well done, and the chemistry between the two of them feels genuine throughout the film which makes use of both flashbacks at sporadic moments to tell the story. Don’t expect the same level of detail from the other characters however; they’re all paper-thin which doesn’t distract from the main performances but also stands as another missed opportunity. At first, I liked where they were going with the villain, a man bound under strict contract from Trinity who cannot see his family. The film never goes into detail on this very much though, making for a villain with some potential coming off as quite flat. The captain who brings Lara to the island has a round of action scenes and that’s about all there is to him, and the heroine’s friends in England feel rather tacked on at best, even if the film doesn’t focus on them for very long. The few performances that are well-developed are good enough to keep you interested however.

Tomb Raider is also competently produced; by relying on a tone more focused on seriousness over wild fun, the film’s identity is clear from the start. There’s some strong locational work mixed with environmental rendering at work here as the film translates from London to the island, the hidden tomb and back again. It’s more focused on drawing the viewer in with wider shots, rather than letting them expect the closer details. The stunt work is mostly done in camera to great effect with Vikander herself diving headlong into the action scenes without a hint of hesitation or awkwardness. The sequences are all shot well without too much cutting and the pounding soundtrack is layered appropriately, despite not having any tracks that will get the blood pumping. Unlike Assassin’s Creed before it, Tomb Raider isn’t hurt so much by its 12A rating as the action drops the unrelentingly brutal violence of its source material for a tamer, yet still impactful collection of action set-pieces.

I went into Tomb Raider expecting a lacklustre flick like many other video-game movies before it, but instead it ended up being mildly enjoyable. The film clearly knows what it wants to be and gives you exactly that carrying neither fluff or any real surprises on its bones. If you set your expectations down a bit, you’re sure to feel the same.

Rating: 3/5 Stars (Fair)

Post-Viewing: The Cloverfield Paradox, Annihilation and pushing films to Netflix

In the modern digital age, there are two main ways of watching a film; heading to a cinema or streaming online, with physical media trailing behind in recent years. But what happens when one overshadows the other? In 2018, a new trend has emerged; one which sees film releases moved to Netflix if the filmmakers feel it won’t make a profit with a general release. This cuts down on the cost of distribution, particularly with physical copies to use by projectionists in theatres and reduces the advertising needed to get audiences in seats. The Cloverfield Paradox from Julius Onah and Annihilation Alex Garland are two examples of this and when looking at both, it exposes a growing trend in modern cinema.

The Cloverfield Paradox is widely regarded as a disappointing entry in the franchise, but others have pointed out that it’s a painfully flimsy effort to form a connection to its two predecessors; I can’t help but feel the same. Previously placed into production as “God Particle”, a script in progress that was picked up by Bad Robot. JJ Abrams, who served as producer for the film, decided to tie it in with the Cloverfield Paradox, referring back to the mystery box formula that aims to keep audiences guessing. Soon afterwards, Netflix acquired the rights to release the film and it went on to surprise fans at the American Super Bowl earlier this year. After around a week, five million people had watched the film thanks to the novelty of the surprise marketing. In this instance, the film’s format change was down to corporate acquisition. Would the film have done well had it released in theatres like the previous films? Possibly, but cinemas are also prone to the box office drop-off. When word of mouth spreads about a film, particularly poor-quality audiences quickly ditch the film to see something else. Batman and Robin, Batman V Superman and Justice League all suffered from this trend. Placing a film on Netflix often allows it to remain there indefinitely, allowing audiences to watch it freely from the convenience of their own home. With films budgets constantly rising nowadays, more studios may choose to distribute it digitally if they feel a production won’t make profit.

While it did receive a wider release in the US and China, Annihilation was pushed to Netflix for all other regions, something director Alex Garland said he was disappointed with. This release came because of a poor test screening which created a rift between the producers over whether the film was too intellectual and complicated for regular audiences. Due to these disagreements, a deal was struck with Netflix to release Annihilation internationally. Garland has gone on to say that his film was meant to be viewed on the big screen and for a production as visually stunning as Annihilation, this is hardly a surprise. Personally, I can’t help but imagine how breath-taking the film might have looked in cinemas; had it been given that chance, audiences may have warmed to it over time, giving the film the success it deserves. With a lack of confidence in the film being successful, what does this mean for future creative projects in cinema? In terms of cost and convenience, releasing on Netflix seems to work both ways. For studios and executives, the film costs less to put out to the public, who then watch the film for a cheaper price than heading to an auditorium. But for filmmakers themselves, it may end up limiting their overall creativity and vision, having to release or possibly alter their creations in order to account for both profitable and unprofitable situations.

As the juggernaut of a company that it is, Netflix is now being granted more and more access to the biggest names and studios in Hollywood, not only with its own original productions but those made on the highest budgets. How will the streaming service evolve? Will it become a dumping ground for films that aren’t confidently received by theatres, or will it come to surpass the film auditorium as the main place for viewing the latest releases? With the amount of success it has received since entering the production business in 2013, particularly the 117.58 million paid subscribers consistently logging in, Netflix could be on its way to monopolising the film distribution business, something fans of cinema should keep a close eye on in the years to come.

(Images used for the purposes of review and criticism under fair use)

Annihilation Movie Review

Released: March 12th 2018 (Netflix)

Length: 115 Minutes

Certificate: 15

Director: Alex Garland

Starring: Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Gina Rodriguez, Tessa Thompson, Tuva Novotny, Oscar Isaac and Benedict Wong

Grounded science fiction can be classed as a sub-genre that takes place in a world not too dissimilar to our own while incorporating often frightful disasters or tricky situations into the mix. Coming off a major hit with directorial debut Ex Machina, Garland dives deeper into the sci-fi genre, with a slower but equally engaging science fiction film.

Based on the book by Jeff Vandermeer and set in the near-future, Annihilation concerns the appearance of an unknown region called The Shimmer or Area X; it has engulfed the reaches of a US national park and will continue to grow until it envelopes entire population centres. Previous expeditions have been launched inside in a bid to understand the biomass but to no avail. A team of all-female scientists trained in direct combat is sent in for the first time and they begin to uncover the realm’s secrets. Five women make up this team, the most fleshed out of which being Natalie Portman’s Lena, who volunteers for the expedition after he husband grows ill after a previous venture. The story is told from both present and flashback viewpoints as the film charts both the expedition and Lena’s own tribulations at home. From the moment it begins, Annihilation marks itself as a very slow-paced and serious production, with a tantalising mystery slowly drawing the viewer in over its two-hour runtime. Using the perspectives of the science team is a very good choice, as we the audience gradually learn more about the Shimmer and its twisting geometries as they venture deeper in, enhancing the intricacies of the mystery. As they venture deeper in towards the source of the Shimmer, discoveries are made, and things become even more twisted, calling into question what the mutation is really undertaking. If you can stomach the reduced amount of action (which is used sparingly throughout the proceedings), the film succeeds beyond all doubts at immersion. The last act is almost exclusively visual storytelling with minimal dialogue and will no doubt prompt plenty of questions and interpretations.

Characters are fairly few and far between in Annihilation, with the team of scientists being placed at the centre of the proceedings with little to distract. Lena is especially well-portrayed by Portman as she captures both a serious side to being a former soldier and scientist while also hiding the more emotional aspects of her character’s struggle, particularly when it comes to her husband Kane (played by Oscar Isaac with suitably cryptic traits). The other members of the expedition team are admittedly underdeveloped with only a few sprinklings of backstory revealed about them, but the performances are nevertheless very well done, especially when tension sets in and divides the group. The entrance of more psychologically unstable breakdowns are undoubtedly the highlights of the film, walking the line between nuance and full-on madness as they journey towards the source of the phenomenon. There is enough time dedicated to bringing the group together and seeing them interact, allowing the side actors to overcome to relatively limited amount of material they have to work with. They each reflect the grim situation they find themselves in, creating an authentic portrayal of how a situation like Area X would be handled.

Annihilation is often visually spectacular, but this is a case where the special effects make the most of a limited setting. The Shimmer hangs over a national park filled with mutated forest growth and roamed by hostile creatures. There’s plenty of visual cues to set it apart from the real world, including a strange glow hanging over the proceedings, mutated trees and visual effects on the various wildlife and fauna that really give off an other-worldly presence. The lack of music, combined with these visual effects creates an unrelenting atmosphere that pulls you in just as the characters are entering the Shimmer themselves. There’s a significant amount of ambience throughout the film as it makes use of audio cues to clue the viewer in to its landscapes. A wide range of shots is used to both give off the wide-reach of Area X, before moving closer to create tinges of horror and rising tension. The highlight of the design work culminates in the final act as a bright, unrelenting fiery effect engulfs the last revelations thrown at the audience. While more minimalistic than other science fiction films, Annihilation should receive high commendations by making its seemingly basic world feel incredibly absorbing, provoking fascination within any audience who takes the plunge.

Annihilation is another excellent effort from Alex Garland, whose deliberately slow and contained approach to filmmaking has creating an intoxicating, atmospheric and highly thought-provoking piece. Despite being moved to Netflix rather than getting a full release, you should give it your attention.

Rating: 4.5/5 Stars (Brilliant)

5 Niggling Things: Mass Effect 2

Since its release, Bioware’s Mass Effect 2 has gone down not only as the best entry in the original trilogy, but also one of the best role-playing games of all time. I’ve played through it at least 6 times over the years and recently having gone through it again, it’s time to give it the 5 Niggling Things treatment. While Mass Effect 2 nears perfection, a few noticeable flaws hold it back.

Be warned as there are NUMEROUS SPOILERS for the game throughout.

During this scene on Freedom's Progress in the first act of ME2, the sound cuts out as the heavy mech enters

1. Framerate dips and out of sync audio on the PlayStation 3 version

Releasing one year after the original Xbox 360 and PC versions in 2011, Mass Effect 2 on PlayStation 3 did receive slightly lower review scores on release with many critics pointing out the version’s technical problems. While some of these (including a glaring save glitch which deleted your files) were patched out, the version still has problems that affect the game’s overall immersion. The game’s sound, particularly in cutscenes often won’t sync up with the action taking place. This is especially noticeable in the more intense moments, almost as if the game’s audio has trouble keeping up with the proceedings. It’s a small hiccup that doesn’t affect gameplay too much, but in a title that desperately wants you to become immersed, having these inconsistencies can muddy the waters a fair bit.

2. Kasumi and Zaeed’s basic dialogue and interactions

As characters placed within DLC packs, the sly thief Kasumi and all-around angry mercenary Zaeed were always going to have a difficult time gelling with the existing crew members in Mass Effect 2, but their disappointing aspects stem from a lack of consistency; both characters receive loyalty missions from the moment they’re recruited and once you complete these, both characters retire to the crew quarters and engineering decks respectively. From here, their contributions to conversations (outside of mission dialogue) are relegated to simplistic lines that often repeat, with the occasional new lines coming in depending on the player’s actions. It’s a shame that Bioware went through the effort of giving both characters their own loyalty missions but didn’t follow through with the production value to make them feel like complete parts of the crew back on the Normandy. This makes them stick out for the wrong reasons, particularly when in Mass Effect 3, the missions Kasumi and Zaeed are involved in have enough production value to keep you interested.

3. The Collector Invasion plot hole

For the most part, Mass Effect 2’s story is exceptional, transporting the series into darker territory while delivering a more urgent threat in the form of the Collectors. The sole plot hole in the entire game occurs shortly after finding the Reaper IFF. You’re almost set to launch your assault on the Collector base and EDI says: “I suggest you take the shuttle to access your next destination”. So, taking all 12 squad members with them, Shepherd leaves the ship to go… somewhere… Meanwhile, on the ship, the player finds themselves in control of Joker as Collectors invade the ship, abducting the entire crew in the process. It’s an incredibly creepy scene and a strong prelude to the game’s fantastic endgame sequence, but the plot hole does diminish things a bit. Where did Shepherd and company go? How did all twelve of them fit on one shuttle? My best guess is that they headed down to a backwater planet for a kind of team-building exercise to get the squad working together cohesively. But even after the Commander returns to the ship, there’s never a full explanation, which could have been easily rectified with a line of dialogue or two. It’s the only real issue I have with the story at a glance.

4. The final choice (and its ultimate lack of consequence)

In Mass Effect 2’s final moments, Shepherd and company head to the centre of the Collector base, finding the source of the human colony abductions in the form of a gargantuan human reaper under construction. Say what you will about the final boss of the game; my issue is with the final choice the player must make. Either destroy the base completely or trigger a radiation pulse to kill the Collectors and leave the station intact for humanity’s own use. There isn’t much in the way of build-up to this decision over the course of the game; you learn a fair bit about the Collectors and their goals over the course of the game, but the pieces don’t all come together coherently. Instead the Illusive Man pops up on a transmission at the critical moment to quickly drop the choice on the player’s mind. The game could have used more build-up towards this moment and this lack of impact continues after the end of Mass Effect 2, with characters delivering basic reactions, not to mention the minimal impact it has on Mass Effect 3.

5. Legion’s back-ended conversations and lore

Towards the end of its 30+ hour adventure, Mass Effect 2 drops one of its biggest surprises; a lone Geth trooper, coming to be known as Legion, can join the squad; after killing hundreds of the vicious machines in Mass Effect 1 (eloquently summed up by Shepherd’s renegade line: “Every other Geth I’ve met tried to blow my head off”), the shift catches the player completely off guard. The avatar of the Geth’s artificial consensus is a fascinating character, with an excellent amount of effort put into his backstory, especially his ultimate fate in Mass Effect 3. When you first meet the ambiguous Geth trooper, you want to learn everything about him but because you don’t recruit him until the final act of the game, there isn’t much time to explore his character before you complete his loyalty mission, get the aforementioned invasion of the Normandy and subsequently blast off to the Collector home world to take them down. Patient players can uncover a great deal of information from Legion regarding their war with the Quarians and their overall hegemony, often operating collectively to achieve peak performance in both combat and bureaucracy. Many players will miss these intriguing nuggets shortly after finishing Mass Effect 2, especially if they proceed straight on to the final act of the trilogy. Bioware could have included more options after the loyalty mission, but before the Collector invasion to balance this out a bit more.

The Cloverfield Paradox Movie Review

Released: February 4th 2018 (Netflix)

Length: 102 Minutes

Certificate: 15

Director: Julius Onah

Starring: Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Daniel Bruhl, Daniel Oyelowo, Zhang Ziyi, Chris O'Dowd, Askel Hennie and Elizabeth Debicki

Since debuting a decade ago, the Cloverfield series has made its name by slipping underground after each release, only to surprise movie-goers with a new idea being pulled out of the mystery box. The third entry in the franchise (which mostly ties things together with a few nuggets to expand the mysteries) has taken a different turn, showing up on Netflix rather than the big screen. Does it work? Not all that well I’m afraid.

The Cloverfield Paradox raises some eyebrows immediately with its plot; set in the not-too-distant future aboard the Cloverfield Space Station, the world’s energy resources are dwindling, with the major superpowers set to go to war over the remaining supplies. It’s up to a multinational team of astronauts, engineers and scientists to discover the secret to unlimited energy and save the planet from catastrophe. The action unfolds both onboard the space station and on Earth where a set of disasters with no clear cause occur from the perspective of lone doctor Michael Hamilton (played by Roger Davies) Paradox’s considerable distance from terra firma is only the start of its failings. The film does a very poor job of world-building as we’re given very basic glimpses of Earth and barely enough time to get to know the space station and all its intricacies. Sure, the action takes you across many of the station's rooms, but they never connect organically. The film's only real strength narratively speaking is the way it haphazardly plays off your expectations aboard the station with a series of random events, making for some occasionally unpredictable surprises; but these are few and far between.

Not only is Paradox a poor contributor to the franchise’s lore, it’s also very one note when it comes to originality. Of all the science fiction films that have been released, it’s Danny Boyle’s Sunshine I was reminded of the most while watching; a desperate mission in space to save those back on Earth, a theme of impending doom and ultimate sacrifice hanging in the balance. The Cloverfied Paradox feels rather derivative in this regard and on top of that, there is barely any world-building both on and off planet Earth, the former of which recalls 2008’s Cloverfield with none of the racing tension. But more than anything else, Paradox doesn’t really feel like a part of the franchise; previous films typically involved the entrance of the supernatural and science fiction into a setting not dissimilar to our own. While this third entry does have ties to issues such as dwindling energy supplies, putting it in outer space seems rather far-fetched. Not only does the third entry step too far outside the bounds of the series, but it also falls well short of the acting standards set by the first two films.

There's only one real bright spot in The Cloverfield Paradox's cast and that's Gugu Mbatha-Raw's performance as protagonist Ava Hamilton; she conveys a lot of emotion throughout, particularly with the distance between her and her husband on Earth. Unfortunately for those hoping for performances up to the standards of the previous films, every other performance throughout feels wasted; the other members of the cast are very barebones; we learn next to nothing about them, particularly their lives on Earth, which could have added more weight to their mission. Each of the characters has one characteristic and little else. To name a few, Kiel is the generic leader of the group with no real character arc, Tam's (Zhang Ziyi) mandarin dialect seems tacked on to give the film some diversity and Elizabeth Debicki's role, which I won't spoil for plot reasons, is painfully flat and monotone. Of all of the characters though, it’s Irish engineer Mundy (Chris O'Dowd) who draws the short straw here with a pretty awful scene involving his arms that couldn’t stand out more awkwardly in a film that’s supposed to be serious and intense. With so little chemistry between the crew, the attempts to build the tension between fall woefully short.

At least it’s all competently produced; The Cloverfield Paradox is no slouch in the visual department, with an array of detailed sets and long exterior shots that translate the scale of the space station beautifully. The music, while not all that memorable is effective sci-fi fare as it transports you through time and space. The destruction that takes place onboard is very well-rendered, as is the chaos on Earth with a collapsed hospital looking especially bleak and war-torn. The aesthetics of the space station itself fall somewhere in-between the analogue space trucker style of Alien and the hyper future of Star Trek, with heavy uses of green and purple highlighting the important bits of the machinery. Make-up effects for the more brutal fatalities that occur feel especially nasty and overall the film does deliver on the tinges of horror that made their way into Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane. The effects are strong despite a reduced budget, but they can never coalesce properly because the film's other aspects are so prone to failure, much like the station's own particle accelerator.

A far cry from its superior predecessors, The Cloverfield Paradox has veered off course considerably, bringing us a rather rotten apple from its mystery box formula. It does very little that other science fiction films haven’t done already and what’s here is disappointingly underwhelming. Despite its surprise release and minimal marketing, you’ll have a tough time caring throughout.

Rating: 2/5 Stars (Disappointing)

Red Sparrow Movie Review

Released: 1st March 2018 (UK)

Length: 140 Minutes

Certificate: 15

Director: Francis Lawrence

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Joel Edgerton, Matthias Schoenaerts, Charlotte Rampling, Ciaran Hinds and Jeremy Irons

Following in the footsteps of Salt and Atomic Blonde, Red Sparrow is another foray into the tough-as-nails female sub-genre. This time, we’re venturing into thriller territory, with a former ballet dancer, pushed into weaponizing her body to eliminate targets and obtain vital information. While it had potential to place a darker subject matter front and centre, the result is very disappointing when compared to its contemporaries.

Red Sparrow follows Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence), a talented Russian ballet dancer whose career is cut short by a freak accident on stage. Faced with the prospect of her mother losing her health and dignity, she is pressed into joining by her uncle (played by Matthias Schoenaerts) , a key member of the country’s secret service. Reluctantly, she agrees and soon encounters CIA agent Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton), who has his own plans for her. This is a narrative with plenty of room for ambiguity and the testing of loyalties, but it’s undercut by poor pacing. At some points, it moves far too slowly, forgetting to build up the tension and weight on Lawrence’s character and at others you have moments of violence that come out of nowhere, making for a jarring transition as opposed to an unpredictable plot. In short, it runs on for too long, without enough depth to draw the viewer in. There are also many missed opportunities, most notably with the Sparrow school; we see glimpses of how both genders are broken down in their attitudes of privacy, conformity and modesty to become weapons of the state. But because of the rushed training sequences at the end of the first act and a hand-waved modern context, it fails to build proper intrigue that would give the narrative more weight.

Characterisation in Red Sparrow ranges from mostly acceptable to incredibly underhanded, taking away from the tricky situations that permeate the narrative. Despite being saddled with limited material that swings between serious and intense emotions, Jennifer Lawrence still gives a worthy performance. The problem is that there’s very little opportunity for her to get across an internal struggle that comes with working for such an aggressive organisation; this would have made the audience root for her more. Charlotte Rampling is also good as the often-ruthless Matron of the Sparrow School, even if we don’t see enough of her controlling ways. Outside of these two performances however, just about every other performance feels incredibly underwhelming. We learn next to nothing about Nate Nash and when the film puts him alongside Dominika, it’s hard to care. The chemistry between the two of them is very poor and it certainly doesn’t help that the characters surrounding the duo are equally shallow. The CIA team assisting Nate feels far too basic to make an impression, Jeremy Irons has a rather awkward attempt at a Russian accent at some points, Ciaran Hinds is reduced to a middle-man behind a desk and we barely see enough of Joely Richardson’s Nina (Dominika’s mother) to build a proper bond between them. All these problems combined lead to a very unbalanced film all around.

Red Sparrow is at least fine to look at; the costume work is on point throughout, particularly in the way it delivers different statuses to various characters. Everything is well shot, with mostly close interiors and a drab colour palette used to highlight the closed nature of the Sparrow’s work. Red Sparrow’s sinister source material is placed up front, even if it swings wildly back and forth from a narrative standpoint; in fact, the film was really pushing an 18 rating at several points; these moments stick out from the other parts of the plot for their often-sadistic trappings, though not necessarily for the better. Because of the film’s weak plot and underdeveloped characters, the nastier moments stick out with reduced context to the main proceedings. The music uses some traditional Russian pieces, most notably in the opening ballet scenes, but it isn’t all that memorable, once again failing to create tension in the moments that sorely needed it.

Jennifer Lawrence gives her best, but she can’t make Red Sparrow amount to anything more than a cumbersome thriller with a few moments of brutality sprinkled throughout. While these do add a gritty, often brutal edge to the proceedings, the narrative and characters simply aren’t engaging enough to make a full impression.

Rating: 2.5/5 Stars (Mediocre)

The Shape of Water Movie Review

Released: 14th February 2018 (UK)

Length: 123 Minutes

Certificate: 15

Director: Guillermo Del Toro

Starring: Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Octavia Spencer, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg and Nick Searcy

Fantasy has given filmgoers plenty of imaginative creations through the decades, but the setting and subject matter are often drastically different. The latest addition to fantastical drama is more grounded; it’s very much a modern rendition of 1954’s The Creature from the Black Lagoon which also gave of plenty of inspiration for The Shape of Water. But through updating to modern techniques and moving past the monster movie tropes, director Guillermo Del Toro has crafted something truly beautiful.

Draped in a coat of Cold War militarism, The Shape of Water takes place in a government lab in 1962; the mute Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins) works as a cleaner at a secret government facility in Baltimore; when a strange humanoid creature (performed by Doug Jones) is brought in for experimentation, she forms a bond with it and resolves along with her close friends Giles (Richard Jenkins) and Zelda (Octavia Spencer) to set it free. The narrative unfolds from the perspectives of these characters as the bonds between them are eventually tested by the prying eyes of Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon), the ruthless head of the facility who beats and tortures the creature to learn its secrets. While the plot is straightforward for the genre, it never wastes a minute in its execution; there are no unnecessary side tangents as the film focuses entirely on the characters, each with their own perspectives and plans for the creature moving back and forth between them with excellent pacing. Each character has a definitive start and end point but most of all, the connection between Elisa and the creature is always the primary focus and it’s this aspect of the film that will pull audiences in more than anything else.

What makes the characters worth caring about in The Shape of Water is their position in relation to the setting. Each of the protagonists is an outcast; invisible, even shunned by the society around them, which brings an immense amount of sympathy to their characters in their own ways. This is shown through their statuses in the lab; the cleaners are ethnic minorities through and through, a stark contrast to their superiors who are exclusively white, demonstrating their dominance in several ways. Colonel Strickland has a lot of symbolism dedicated to his character, the first being the long black weapon he brandishes at all times; Michael Shannon does a great job of making you detest him throughout. But on the other side of the coin, each of the main characters are both interesting and lovable. It’s astounding how Sally Hawkins communicates every facet of Elisa through sign language and when you place her with the creature himself, the result is one of the most heartfelt and emotional bonds in years and it’s all done without a single line of dialogue. The creature is incredibly expressive and innocent; out of his element he’s vulnerable and yet he will grow on you over time, particularly through the ways he slowly learns and grows closer to those who help him. Octavia Spender’s Zelda is both charismatic and supportive throughout the proceedings and Giles has another strong bond with Elisa in that his orientations often keep from interacting with others outside the small flat they share. With all their struggles, the main characters form an strong complement to the main plot.

The Shape of Water is a stunning film to look at and not just for its authentic and detailed 1960s backdrop. Tints of teal and bright greens colour the film from top to bottom, creating an aquatic feel surrounding the creature at the film’s centre. The use of real sets and costumes, particularly on the creature itself with all its scaly skin feels especially lifelike; on top of that, some extra details were added to the face to create a more expressive image. The sets are also simplified to the government lab, Giles’ flat and a few select locations, mirroring how the characters rarely venture out in public. The musical score is fantastic, perfectly capturing the romance that builds over the film’s two-hour runtime; a serenade plays constantly to give off this feeling, along with several ambient pieces to build the atmosphere as well as rougher sounding tracks that heighten the tension at key points. Every part of the film’s presentation comes together superbly; at times The Shape of Water even goes full arthouse, transporting the viewer back to a golden age of 1950s glitz and black and white films; it’s absolutely mesmerising.

The Shape of Water is a detailed, passionate and sublime work of art, and a masterclass in visual storytelling. It will both dazzle you with its visuals and move you with its story and characters, making it an unmissable film.

Rating: 5/5 Stars (Exceptional)