SPOTLIGHT REVIEW - A story that needed to be told

4/5

What a story. It is hard to believe this was going on right beneath our noses. This story focuses on the investigation by the Spotlight division of the Boston Globe. Pushed by a new boss, they uncover a ring of abuse and conspiracy that effects all levels of the justice system and carried out by the Church.

The screenplay written by Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy does really well here, building the mystery and tension as they uncover more. Tom McCarthy's direction is solid, focusing on the main players in the story, humanising where possible, but also showing the beauty of Boston with help from his cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi.

The cast is strong and all perform well. Much has been made of how spot on Micheal Keaton's performance is but a typically emotional Mark Ruffalo improves all scenes he is in. Rachel McAdams balances this out well with a restrained performance. They all do well with what they are given but the story doesn't stray far from the investigation. Husbands and wives are mentioned but not seen, the toll the work is taking is hinted at but not scene so it could be argue that the character development is thin.

But does this matter? When dealing with a story this sensitive, so close to the knuckle, would the personal lives detract from this? Perhaps the run time didn't allow for it, sitting at 128 mins I doubt much more could be squeezed in. Saying this, the investigation itself is strong enough to carry this film and attention throughout.

A shocking story bolstered by strong, albeit limited, performances make this a captivating watch and a story that should be brought to prominence. Well worth a watch.

DISCUSSION - Is The Walking Dead suffering from a lack of a villain ?

A lot of people are telling me that episode 9 of The Walking Dead aired Monday in the UK (Sunday in the US) was the best for a long time. Does this point to it being a good episode or have we been on a downwards curve for a while?

I have had a few gripes with The Walking Dead recently but I can't stop watching because I was a massive fan of the earlier seasons. I don't know if I'm looking at it through rose tinted glasses but I think that something is missing now. I think this is a villain. Some of my favourite episodes involved Rick tussling with either Shane or The Governor. Rick being pushed to the edge, seeing how he would cope.

But more than just that, the underlying tension between Shane and Rick worked so well because there was character development. I can not remember the last time a character truly went on an arc and changed other than to serve a 2-3 episode story. A recent example of these short stories is *SPOILER* the Wolves prisoner, he changed too quickly to saving Denise then dying. Then cropping up in a deus ex machina moment later in the episode. It was just too easy to have that and let me ask you something, is anyone going to be changed by the events?

Compare that to Shane growing frustrated with Rick's leadership, each week questioning him little by little. This worked because Shane was a rounded, believable character. He was so adamant he was doing the right thing and this is why Rick put up with him. This was compelling watching. Who has that kind of relationship now? Who even has a relationship besides philosophical conversations now?

I will always keep watching as I love some of the characters (Rich and Carol mostly) but I feel like there needs to be something more.

Bring on Negan.

SOUTHPAW REVIEW - Jake Gyllenhaal gives a life to the old boxing genre

3/5

Is the sub genre of Boxing movie back? Creed is picking up nominations and awards left right and center. Did Southpaw give everyone faith again?

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Billy Hope. He's on top of the world, riding high but it is taking it's toll on himself and more importantly his family. His fighting style opitomises him, orphaned and built up "in the system" he's a born fighter. In boxing/sporting movie fashion, all this is taken away from him and he must come to terms with this and make his comeback.

This may all sound very formulaic and perhaps it is but screenplay writer Kurt Sutter (with his first feature but a strong pedigree writing for The Shield and Sons of Anarchy) does something clever here. In screenwriting circles you will hear a lot of "give me the same only different", basically a fresh spin on a tried and tested genre. And this is what Kurt did, he didn't focus on a revenge story. This is a story about coming to terms with loss.

Strip back the boxing context and what do you have? *spoiler ahead* A man grieving the loss of his wife and learning how to cope as a single parent. Gyllenhaal anchors the film. His gruff take on Billy Hope, a man at odds with himself, with his own anger, feels natural. He seems like a person with flaws, on the edge constantly. With such films as Nightcrawler, Prisoners and Enemy, he is starting to show himself as superb actor. All those roles and this one are worlds apart, there is no danger of type casting.

Other key things happen that you'd expect: reluctant trainer, training montage, ect, but they all fit and are done well. I couldn't help but get behind Billy.

The direction is solid and the fights well choreographed. The only downfalls are some 2D minor characters. Outside of Billy and (Forest Whitaker on autopilot) Tick Willis we don't really get to know anyone else. The "villain" of the piece could be Curtis Jackson's Jordan Mains, who betrays Billy for no apparent reason, disappearing until he crops up on the opponents side. Naomie Harris is under used as a care worker assigned to the case of Billy's daughter. It almost seems as if a romantic subplot was edited out because she miraculously ends up watching the fight and cheering Billy on. Besides never saying more than 10 words to each other. There are a few other minor characters who just serve the plot and not much more. But with such a strong central character does it matter?

All in all a exciting watch. Restarting the boxing genre and carrying on Jake Gyllenhaal's hot streak.

THE THING (2011) REVIEW - uninspired prequel, but could anything succeed the original?

1.5/5

Let's have a run down of some of the things that made the original so great:

1) Tension
2) Acting and charismatic lead
3) Ground breaking visual effects

Are these here in the prequel? No. no and no. Let's start with number 1: Tension. This is the fundamental problem I had with this. The original was built around tension and atmosphere. Such a slow burn, building slowly, who is human and who isn't? But instead here we see the "Thing" right away, it's blasting out of the ice (which is shocking because it goes against all the rules set up in the first one, but more on that later), it's running around, mutating at will. Where are the scenes of distrust? Besides one scene, basically lifted out of the original, explored the distrust and it worked, it was the most compelling part. I believe that conflict was replaced with cheap jump scares. This is down to the screenplay.

The screenplay further comes in for stick with the second point. Even with the best acting in the world (Joel Edgerton is criminally underused, ever scene he is in is instantly improved) there is a core issue here: We don't know or care about any of the characters. Without any attachment, do we care who dies and how? It is suggested there is something between Mary Elizabeth Winstead's Kate and Adam but nothing is explained. Ulrich Thomsen's Dr. Sander Halvorson is angry and authoritarian but why? He has a go at Kate at times but we don't ever know what his plan is or what his goals are. He isn't even angry, he's just mildly annoyed, but we never know why.

That is another thing, there seems to be a distinct lack of emotion. Mainly from main character Kate. She has little to do besides churn out theories (which prove to be true every time), but she doesn't grow throughout the film, she doesn't have any flaws to overcome, she is just there.

Much has been made with the decision to go with CG after initial use of practical effects so I will just say that the film is worse for it.

One last issue, the lack of consistency. The "Thing" seems to have different abilities depending on when it suits the plot. One stage limbs can call off and become sentient creatures but then *SPOILER AHEAD* during the worst 10 mins at the end of the film, Kate escapes down a vent in the "Thing's" ship. Why not detach an arm and send it down? Nope, instead send some tentacles, then bust through the wall (trashing your own ship in the process). The film just loses credibility at times like these

I will say this, I do not know what film could have competed with the original. It is widely loved. It makes use of a young Kurt Russel on top form, it's idea is fresh. I like the premise of this film, finding out what happened at the Norwegian base but maybe it was doomed to start with. Matthijs van Heijningen Jr is obviously a fan of the original, he exhibited amazing attention to detail with set design and tie ins to the original and what else could he have done? A rehash of the first one that plays out exactly the same? It would have never had lived up and it didn't. If this film existed on it's own and not burdened by the original would it be better recieved? Probably.

All in all this film is a serviceable watch, you can tune your brain out and just watch for some mild shocks. But if you are after plot, character development, or suspense look elsewhere. Better still WATCH THE ORIGINAL.