Reviews

Using one of the weaker and more comedic characters in the MCU (Ant-Man; Paul Rudd) to set up one of the most menacing threats (Kang; Jonathan Majors) was an odd choice. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't really work. Ant-Man is hopelessly outmatched by Kang, and the day is eventually saved by a contrived series of events that all feel like lesser versions of similar tropes in other films; from speeches that inspire rebellions to sudden cavalry charges.

The cast does a good job with what they have, with Jonathan Majors as Kang being the stand out performer. The way he portrays Kang in all his manipulative, powerful and menacing ways is on point - although he does go out with a bit of a whimper. Michael Douglas as Hank Pym and Michelle Pfeifferr as Janet van Dyne elevate each scene they're in, which isn't surprising, but does makes it all the more disappointing that Pfeiffer in particular sort of disappears half way through the movie.

Kathryn Newton as Cassie Lang doesn't get a lot of chances to shine as her character stumbles through some tangential sub-plots. More grating is the minimized role of Hope van Dyne/The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly). As the first female hero to have a title role in the MCU, she now mostly stands around, can't contribute to various sub-plots, and then in the end throws in a few punches that - although crucial to the outcome of the film - come of as rather random. Switching the places of Cassie and Hope in the story might have worked better, giving Hope a leading role in rallying the locals and allowing Kang and his forces to be more menacing as they faced a duo of proper super heroes; rather than Ant-Man's rookie sidekick.

In any case, it's a serviceable film in MCU terms, but it's neither a great Ant-Man movie nor a particularly impressive set-up of Kang the Conqueror - and it's definitely not a The Wasp movie.

This film is a nice fit for the recent Tomb Raider games that trace Lara Croft's development from a young woman to the fierce and violent gun-toting adventurer the world knows from the original Tomb Raider games (and films).

The story is loosely based on the story of the 2013 game, but makes various changes to stay within the time limits of a film. That they've also cut back on some of the more outlandish and supernatural elements of the games works well - although we'll still see Lara suffer in ways that would no doubt be fatal. Given that one such case drew a lot of criticism after the release of the 2013 game, it's odd to see it included in this film. That Lara goes from panicked self-defence to cold-blooded murder in the span of a couple of minutes, another issue with the games, is also carried over into the film. A missed opportunity to show character change!

The CGI work was convincing, if not always equally so. The music never takes centre stage, and adheres too strictly to convention as it attempts to set the mood for certain scenes. The actors did a fine job - Dominic West is his usual convincing self as Richard Croft (his role here is much larger than in the game, which really wasn't needed), Walton Goggins makes a pretty 2D character somewhat sympathetic by conveying his frustrations in a convincing manner, Daniel Wu has a great screen presence and could easily have taking over the role Dominic West was given in the second half of the story, and it was good fun to see Hannah John-Kamen in a small role.

Alicia Vikander did a commendable job as Lara Croft, putting up with a huge amount of physical challenges. I've read she insisted on doing a lot of her own stunt work, and that's to be applauded - especially given the amount of it! Vikander is a good match for the younger Lara Croft, and there's little to criticise here. There's just one glaring issue: her accent. In the recent games, British actress Camilla Luddington is the voice of Lara - and Vikander can't really keep up in this department, even working a number of Americanisms into her delivery. It's not necessarily bad, but it's unfortunate - and noticeable. Something to work on for a possible sequel!

All in all, this is a fun two hour film about a Lara Croft just starting out in the Tomb Raiding business. Fans of the games and adventurous ladies in general will find enough to enjoy.

Taylor Sheridan writes and directs a visually appealing, but fairly mundane story that doesn't transcend the basic premise of the plot. Sheridan uses his experiences of working with director Denis Villeneuve (Sicario) to good effect, albeit it without quite matching the latter's work, and the acting is solid across the board, but the subtleties and conflicting motivations bubbling beneath the surface, present in Sheridan's earlier work, are largely missing. Some more details, and spoilers, below.

The film ends with a sombre note that no missing person records are kept for people living on Indian reservations. After spending what little time we had with the public officials of said areas being focussed on disputes about authority and their rights to be, or not be, somewhere - this kind of absolutist statements feels like it's missing a lot of context. Who isn't keeping records, the FBI? The local police? Can't they? Won't they? There's a lot missing here, and this goes back to the rest of the film: it's not as profound and clever as it - seemingly - thinks it is.

At the moment main character Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner) finds the body of Natalie (Kelsey Asbille) that sets off the chain of events that is the film's plot, he is seen in his job as a hunter. He is portrayed as such, says he is, and again emphasises he is later - and his quips are all about hunting, too. It is also quickly revealed that his own daughter was lost in the wilds and found killed, and that he still suffers from this - almost to the exclusion of other motivations. Are we as an audience supposed to have any doubt as to what this man's motivations are going into this story?

Renner does a fine job portraying Lambert as he is written, that's not the issue. But I'm struggling to find out what Sheridan wanted his audiences to feel. Are we supposed to cheer on his subsequent killing(s)? Are we supposed to feel as though Lambert is crossing some sort of line? And what line would that be, when the other characters in the story - from Natalie's father to FBI agent Banner - are all cheering him on to do what he ultimately ends up doing; making what is by then the only surviving man who assaulted Natalie suffer the same fate she did.

Speaking of which, when the police goes to confront the security workers at a drill site any remaining subtleties go flying out the window when the security engages in a wild shoot-out with police and FBI. Eh... why? What did they think was going to happen, that nobody was going to check on the place where they had just lost half a dozen law enforcement colleagues - and that they were going to get away with their crimes? Not likely! Sheridan then doubles down by introducing a lengthy flashback scene of the moment when Natalie and her boyfriend were attacked by said workers. The point of this is unclear. There is no need to know Natalie wanted to move to California with her boyfriend to appreciate that the assault was horrific, and her death a tragedy.

Furthermore, it further reduces the villains to caricatures. Fitting, for it allows Lambert to see them as stand-ins for the men- never outright stated, but hinted at - who were probably responsible for his own daughter's death, too. Contrast this to Sang-il Lee's Akunin ('Villain'), where the young man who kills a young woman ends up becoming the main character of the story. I get that Sheridan wasn't going for that, but he went way over to the other side, robbing us viewers of any ambiguity about what was the right thing for the protagonists to do. Moreover, it makes the confrontation with the villains one of self-defence, except for that last guy, and not a case of - perhaps questionable - revenge.

Quick note on the other actors: Julia Jones is fine as Lambert's ex-wife Wilma, Kelsey Asbille did a good job as Natalie with the little screen time she had in what can't have been easy scenes to film, Graham Greene makes for a very believable local police officer, Gil Birmingham and his character Martin go a long way towards making the setting in the Indian reservation meaningful (why wasn't the Lambert character part of the local police?!), and ... oh, Elizabeth Olsen as FBI agent Jane Banner!

I like Olsen, she makes the 'big city FBI agent' work, but I am just unclear as to what her purpose in this story is. She is of no help in the investigations, she can't actually be there because of jurisdiction issues - until she somehow can, she is attacked twice, rescued twice, and she in no way limits Lambert's all-too-obvious quest but instead encourages him to go his own way. Sheridan perhaps didn't want to retrace the steps he took in Sicario, where he also presented a female FBI agent as a moral compass of sorts (Emily Blunt) - but I'm sure he could have done better here.

Ultimately then, a decent film - but it takes more to make it great than adding landscape shots of Wyoming and a few run-down trailers of people named Littlefeather.

The premise of Jean-Paul Salomé's 'Les femmes de l'ombre' is as simple as it is effective: a hastily assembled team of female commandos is tasked with liberating a British man who ended up in a German hospital. He needs to be freed before the Germans realise that he might have information on the imminent Normandy landings. As usual, the plan goes awry, and the women are asked to go to Paris to take care of some loose ends.

What unfolds is a battle of wits, of torture, and of actual fire fights between the British SOE-affiliated French resistance fighters led by Pierre Desfontaines (Julien Boisselier) and his sister Louise Desfontaines (Sophie Marceau) on the one hand, and the loathsome Karl Heindrich (Moritz Bleibtreu) on the other.

While the events often strain credulity, and sometimes feel completely impossible, I was able to enjoy this little adventure through German-occupied France because of its high pace, interesting locations, and credible visuals. I suppose some will see this as a negative, and decry its similarities to the nonsensical American action films of which there is certainly no shortage. There's certainly something to that, and I would join them in hoping we'll someday see a more realistic take on these brave women who risked everything for their family, friends, and country. The Germans do a good job of living up to their reputation, though, and the film is appropriately dedicated to the women who fought against Nazi barbarity.

The acting is mostly fine, and I would ascribe any lack of characterization or credibility to the script rather than the men and women involved. I'd also like to echo the comment of another reviewer in that I would have liked to see more of Maya Sansa's Maria Luzzato, who seemed like a more interesting character than the two younger members of Desfontaines' group.

All in all, I found this film to be an enjoyable ride through France in June 1944. We are reminded, if perhaps not as accurately as possible, of the great sacrifice made by both men and women to put an end to the horrors Germany inflicted on millions of innocent Europeans. It might not be perfect, but it works well enough, and I think this perspective on the war will appeal to parts of the public that might otherwise not be interested. If so, it'll have accomplished a good thing, because as Ray Bradbury famously wrote in his book Fahrenheit 451 (1953): "We're remembering. That's where we'll win out in the long run."

I first learned of Toussaint Louverture and his accomplishments on Hispaniola by way of American sources of the period, and their take on him was conflicted for all the obvious reasons (a republican revolution sounds good, but it being led by a black former-slave surely seems a bit uncomfortable). This two-part series was a great introduction to the man from a more direct and personal perspective.

The basic framework of the film is as follows; in 1802 Toussaint Louverture is held captive in a prison in France, where a young aid to Napoleon Bonaparte is sent to extract from him the key to uncovering his great treasure, rumoured to be worth millions. Louverture is reluctant to cooperate at first, but gradually opens up to the man, perhaps recognizing that it might be a good way to get his own side of the story recorded in history. The film then switches back and forth between scenes of Louverture's life in the French colony of Saint-Domingue and his increasingly uncomfortable stay at Fort de Joux in eastern France.

The first part of the series is quite strong: we see how the young Toussaint is traded at the colony's slave markets, meets his future wife, learns to read and write, etc. It's a tight, well executed introduction to life at the plantation and to his background. At some point the already tense relation between the monarchists and republicans, French and Spanish, and inevitably the white, black and mulatto population leads to violence. Toussaint becomes involved, rises through the ranks of the 'blacks', and after some small skirmishes comes into contact with the Spanish. It's at this point that the story seems to start cutting corners. Before too long, Toussaint finds himself in a number of situations and positions that, while not necessarily historically inaccurate, might seem somewhat hard to follow because they follow each other in such rapid succession. Towards the end, the film even has Toussaint summarize events from his prison in France, which made me wonder if this was intended to be a longer series of perhaps three or four parts that had to be wrapped up in the second film. Or perhaps the rushed feeling of the second film was the result of budgetary constraints that meant that some of the military episodes of his life couldn't be shown. I don't know.

In any case, Jimmy Jean-Louis makes for a fantastic Toussaint Louverture. He shows a great range of emotions and exudes both wisdom and authority. It's not hard to imagine such a man becoming the leader of a revolt. I was also impressed by the performances of Aïssa Maïga as Toussaint's wife Suzanne, Yann Ebonge as his nephew Moïse, and Hubert Koundé as Jean-Jacques Dessalines. Though not shown in the film, Dessalines would eventually declare Haïti independent from France. On the French side we see Pierre Cassignard as the French general Étienne Maynaud Bizefranc de Lavaux, Eric Viellard as the French commissioner Léger-Félicité Sonthonax, and Stany Coppet as the scheming leader of the mulatto faction Benoit Joseph André Rigaud. All give convincing portrayals of their characters, as each seeks to navigate the continuously changing political and military landscape. It's important to remember that in this time the French revolution was still very much a current event, and the rise and fall of Maximilien de Robespierre cast long shadows across the Atlantic Ocean. I was less impressed by the French characters in France itself, but I don't want to ascribe that to the actors (Arthur Jugnot, Féodor Atkine, and Julie Dray) because that side of the story has only a fraction of the screen time compared to the main storyline in Saint-Domingue and serves mostly as a framework.

All in all then, this series of two films is definitely worth taking a look at if you're interested in the period, region, the history of slavery, the story of 'the only successful slave revolt in history' (though the Mamluks might disagree), or even just Jimmy Jean-Louis' excellent portrayal of Toussaint Louverture.

As for his treasure? Like Zhou Enlai famously said: 'It is too early to say'.

Whatever else is true about Defying Gravity, I thought the art had a nice touch to it; from the interior and exterior of the ship, to the costumes and the gear of the astronauts. It might not live up to the standards of more science-based speculations as to the future of space travel, but it certainly has a recognizable flavour of its own.

Other reviews have already commented on the ridiculous and juvenile conversations and motivations of the characters in this series. From their incoherent giggling, being unable to control their sexual urges, to disregarding critical instructions from mission control, these 'astronauts' are almost insulting to the real men and women who were and are a part of the space programs of Earth's various nations.

After giving up on the series relatively early, I read about how the story was supposed to have unfolded over the course of a few seasons. Though this outline was filled with the same unimpressive high school level personal drama that featured in the released episodes, there was actually quite an interesting spark of imagination underlying it all. The premise for this massive journey around the solar system might have been implausible, but there is not necessarily something wrong with that in the speculative genre that science fiction is.

Sadly, it seems a desire to drag the series out over various years led to the more interesting story being sidelined in favour of the same kind of cookiecutter 'drama' that you can find in dozens of other forgettable series.

Despite having a great interest in the late 18th century, I have not found many films that strike my particular chords. 'Les adieux à la reine' is one of them, and it does so mainly for two reasons: first, because it nicely shows us the dark underbelly of the lavish gold-plated upper rooms of the French royal palace at Versailles, exposing the system that contradicted the later observation by that inveterate revolutionary Thomas Jefferson, who was the American minister to France from 1785 to 1789, that: 'the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.' Second, because it shows us that for all their faults, the royals and their noble entourage where people too. People who did not voluntarily run for office, who loved their children and friends as much as anyone else would, and whose fears of what might be done to their loved ones and themselves drove them to nightmares and tears. Even if it was true that 'Louis must die that the country may live', as that great butcherer of men, Maximilien Robespierre, later remarked, the violent character of the French Revolution must surely have done great damage to their proclaimed ideals as well.

Some have criticized the two main actresses for appearing stiff and lacking spontaneity; and I can certainly see where that is coming from, but rather than seeing this as a negative, I think it works to illustrate the strict protocols and the ever present divides of class and status that permeate life at Versailles. With one notable exception, the personal opinions and whims of Sidonie Laborde (Léa Seydoux) are simply not tolerated by anyone other than her fellow servants. A seeming relaxed and smiling social better instantly turns on her the moment she does anything deemed unacceptable, and when she finally does 'win the love' of Queen Marie Antoinette (Diane Kruger) it is for reasons completely out of line with what Sidonie might have wished for, but should probably have come to expect.

Because if there is one thing about the character of Sidonie that I would criticize, it is exactly that: for someone seemingly so inquisitive, so observant of social protocol, and yet so willing to force her will through at certain times, she appears completely unable to assert herself around Queen Marie Antoinette - even when the rats are leaving the sinking ship, to use a Dutch expression. But perhaps this is unfair: perhaps she really did feel unconditional love towards the Queen.

Speaking of love, who can fault Queen Marie Antoinette for being completely swept off her feet by Yolande Martine Gabrielle de Polastron, 'la duchesse de Polignac' (Virginie Ledoyen). The movie seems to portray her as a somewhat more recent and distant presence at the court than she was in reality, but regardless, it gives the viewers a peak into the upper layers of society at Versailles. If the adage 'play or be played' is too modern a description, something more contemporary would surely have conveyed the same idea.

All in all, I consider this to be a fine film indeed. Diane Kruger gives us one of the more believable portrayals of Queen Marie Antoinette in recent times. If nothing else, acknowledgement of the fact that she was a mother in her mid-30s, and not a frivolous 20 year old, is a good start. But the film goes further, probably in line with the recent trend among historians to view Queen Marie Antoinette in a more positive light.

One final note about the supposed pornographic nature of some scenes, pointed out in the reviews of others (mostly Americans); there is nudity, a kiss, and some longing stares. But this is nothing out of the ordinary in French, and indeed most European, films. Don't miss out on this film for fear of seeing a naked torso!

Anno 1790 is a fairly derivative detective series, but the fact that it takes place in the capital of late 18th century Sweden makes it worth a watch. There are numerous interesting references to the conflicts and social movements and conditions of the day that set the series apart from similar productions in contemporary times; from politics, class society, science and medicine to religious groups.

Looming in the background is the revolution in France, which some perceive as the start of a new era of freedom and equality while others see it as a harbinger of dangerous anarchism. Nevertheless, the daily concerns of the characters dominate the series and while some of the cases Johan Gustav Dåådh (Peter Eggers) has to investigate are interesting, most follow fairly predictable story-lines.

Though they feature prominently in the final episode, I was disappointed that we didn't see more of Märta Raxelius (Sara Turpin) and her band of revolutionaries. Not everything had to revolve around this political conflict, of course, but I'm sure it would have been a more interesting sub-plot than the inevitable impossible romance that the protagonist ends up in.