Enemy (2013)

"Chaos is order yet undeciphered."

A man seeks out his doppelgänger after spotting him in a movie. 

Denis Villeneuve is an interesting director that’s been doing pretty well recently with his films ‘Prisoners’ and ‘Sicario’ so I was curious to check out some more of his work. FYI, if you haven't seen 'Prisoners' already then I highly recommend it... Anyway, I stumbled upon the trailer for ‘Enemy’ by accident and was intrigued by the dark and cryptic atmosphere that it had. I realised it was directed by Villeneuve so I got my hands on a copy and put it on without knowing much else about it. 

‘Enemy’ turned out to be a film that is as mysterious as it is puzzling. 

I don't think I'm at any risk of revealing spoilers because, even if I did, it still wouldn't make 100% sense... 

The film starts off with Adam Bell, a History professor played by Jake Gyllenhaal, who seems to be permanently stuck in a monotonous routine. One night, he breaks that routine to watch a movie where he spots an extra in the background who looks exactly like him. We follow his journey discovering who the man in the film is and why they look so alike. 

‘Enemy’ is definitely a slow burner. It's in no rush and it gives the story plenty of space to breathe and build the mystery and the characters. As things begin to unravel and the plot thickens, Adam faces some difficult choices and it gets undeniably tense. There’s a sense of dread that hangs over the film like a black cloud. You don’t really know where it’s going but you know it’s not going to be good. 

Gyllenhaal impresses once again by playing two characters in one film, much like Tom Hardy in ‘Legend’, both Adam and Anthony are played by Gyllenhaal. He creates two entirely individual characters that he develops and brings alive with intelligence and style. There are nuances and subtleties to each of the characters that most actors would struggle to bring out in one character let alone two. Both characters have to exist separately while still being able to interact with each other in the same scene. You'll forget that Gyllenhaal is both characters as you make the separation yourself and, after a while, you can recognise which character is which just by how he is acting.

The tone and style of the film is an exciting blend of Hitchcock and Kubrick, who happen to be my favourite directors. You’ve got classic tension and mystery, which feels very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock’s films, and these elements are then wrapped in a puzzle that leaves you perplexed but curious to explore the possible answers, much like how Stanley Kubrick’s films leave you.

The cinematography is beautiful. Balancing a washed out, stark colour scheme that is contrasted with harsh, sharp yellows and blacks. Add this to the fluid tracking shots and intricate composition and it makes for a feast for the eyes and really sets the tone for the film and builds more layers of tension. It looks as strange as the film is and contributes a lot to the films style.

‘Enemy’ has layers on top of layers and explores the depths of the male psyche through Gyllenhaal’s characters Adam/Anthony. It examines a lot of interesting themes and it heavily deals with masculinity, control and infidelity.

It has recurring ideas and motifs that only become clear after the film has finished and you analyse what you've just seen. I have a theory as to what it all means but there is still a lot to discover in the film. It merits a second and even a third viewing just to get it all solidified in your head.

Overall, ‘Enemy’ is a very dark, complex and secretive film that gets better the more you think about it and break it down. 

It’s a slow burner with a head scratcher of an abrupt ending but it has a lot of tension and intrigue to keep you hooked till the finish. 

Although I must say, if you don’t like spiders then I’d probably stay clear of this film… You have been warned.

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

"No more false gods. 

I'm here now."

I don't think I've ever seen so many dramatic single tear drops in one film...

After an ancient mutant emerges and threatens to destroy mankind, the X-Men must unite and face him head on. 

By this point, I’ve totally lost track of the whole X-Men franchise with it’s many prequels, sequels and spin offs. I’ve seen the original two X-Men movies along with the most recent installation ‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ which wasn’t too bad so, as I sat down to ‘X-Men: Apocalypse’, I didn’t have much to go on. 

What followed was one of the cheesiest film experiences I've had in a long time...

As far as plot goes in this X-Men prequel/sequel hybrid, it's pretty much your bog standard "end of the world" situation. You've got a big blue dude who's more powerful than the other blue dudes so all the blue dudes must come together and fight the biggest blue dude or the world will end. Slightly exaggerating as not all of the X-Men are blue but you get the gist. 

And that's your 2 hour movie folks.

You are taken back to ancient Egypt for the re-introduction to the X-Men world as Apocalypse is revealed. Believed to be the very first mutant, he's a badass with some powerful superpowers. 

At first, it appears that there are a lot of stakes. This ancient mutant is gathering a team of powerful outcasts and is planning on dominating earth and becoming a god. As the film proceeds, you soon begin to realise that there are actually no stakes at all. All of the "new" cast members are all featured in the other movies and the main X-Men are obviously there for the long haul. For me, this deflated the whole film. All the action became hollow showpieces and had no impact on the plot because, at the end of the day, you already know the outcome. This seems to be an issue in just about every prequel I’ve ever seen, there's no danger or excitement in watching an action sequence where you know no one is going to get hurt. You know for a fact that everyone is going to come out of it alive because you’ve seen them in later films so when the tagline of the film is “only the strong will survive” I find it a bit hard to believe...

The performances vary wildly from character to character due to some exceptionally difficult dialogue to spew out. Two actors in particular that I felt really struggled were unfortunately two of the main female roles, Sophie Turner as Jean Grey and Jennifer Lawrence as Raven/Mystique. Hammy dialogue and poorly written characters make for a battle between the actor and the audience. 

Most of the seasoned actors that you’d expect solid performances from deliver quite well, Michael Fassbender being one of them. He seems to always be convincing and relatable in every role I've seen him in. It was nice to see him bring some humanity to a character that could very easily become a caricature. Alongside James McAvoy, he holds a lot of the film together when the comic relief in Quicksilver (who I initially thought was The Flash…) isn't on screen. Played by Evan Peters, Quicksilver is pretty entertaining. I distinctly remember him from ‘Days of Future Past’ and he definitely has some of the best scenes in the film. 

Oscar Isaac plays the main villain Apocalypse and does a pretty good job. Personally, I think he’s currently one of the most interesting actors working in Hollywood and he did the best job he could with a comic book villain. He’s menacing and wants to take over the world and you believe him so I suppose that’s all you really need in a villain like this.

What I did like about 'X-Men: Apocalypse' was the fact that there were a lot of practical make-up effects on the actors. This brought a whole new level to the film that a lot of other blockbusters are missing. Within the boundaries of the comic book universe, it felt real and more believable seeing the actual actors with prosthetics on. 

To balance this fantastic use of practical effects, there was some horrendous CGI... I’m not entirely sure if the CGI looked worse because of the intelligent use of practical effects or if they were just poorly executed. I’d like to think it was the because of the practical effects but, either way, a substantial amount of it looked really bad.

I feel that the cheese factor in this film has to be addressed… I’ve not properly cringed at a film as much as I did in this one in a long time. At some of the saddest scenes in the film I accidentally broke into uncomfortable giggles which was probably not the reaction they were looking for. If there was a world record for the amount of single tears drops that a film can have then I think 'X-Men: Apocalypse' would take that record with ease. I know the single tear drop cascading down a characters cheek can be dramatic but they certainly do flog a dead horse in this one. 

A little cheesiness is good in a film like this but I don’t think a lot of it was deliberate. You can only pass it off as over the top comic book silliness for so long before you have to look at it objectively and realise that it’s just plain cheesy. Especially when this film in particular was taking itself relatively seriously. You can't take a character back to Auschwitz and try and tell me that it's all just shits and giggles...

Overall, ‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ is pretty cheesy film that, for me, is just another blur in a long line of comic book films. It has ups and downs with performances, an overblown and predictable plot and so much cheese it’s hard to see anything other than the single tear drops. 

Is it bad that I really want a beloved character to die? Just brutally mauled by a villain like Apocalypse and the next movie is just all the characters coping with PTSD because of what they've seen. 

There's your next movie Marvel. 

'X-Men: Apocalypse Now'.

Small Soldiers (1998)

"What are you worried about? They're only toys..."

'Toy Story’ meets ‘The Terminator’.

Globotech Industries designs an action figure embedded with a military microchip that brings the toys to life.

The nostalgia is strong in this one.

It's scary to think that 'Small Soldiers' was released when I was 5... Alongside ‘Space Jam’ this was one of my favourite films growing up and I'm pretty sure I wore out my old VHS copy of both. I was excited and nervous to revisit ‘Small Soldiers’ after so many years because, on the one hand, it’d be great to relive it but, on the other, it might not be as good as I remember...

Fortunately, even with age and experience, I still loved ‘Small Soldiers’ as much as I did when I was a boy. The magic hasn’t gone and neither has the fun so my fond memories, thankfully, haven't been destroyed.  

It’s funny what you remember and what you don’t when you revisit a childhood film. There was a lot that I actually didn’t remember but this didn’t make a difference because I was hooked again and was laughing straight from the beginning.

Two Globotech designers make a toy that can move and interact with children, not realising that the microchip they implant in them is for military use only. The toys come to life and the commandos take their programming extremely seriously and vow to hunt down the Gorgonites at all costs. Let the fun and toy violence begin. 

There’s a lot of humour for children in the film but what I enjoyed was the fact that, returning as an adult, there was new "grown up" material for me to discover. Hidden crude jokes and adult themes make for some humorous moments that were totally fresh for me. It's always the sign of a good kids movie if the parents can enjoy it just as much. Pixar tend to have this balance nailed and, as it turns out, DreamWorks did too before they moved to become DreamWorks Animation.

It has a lot of subtle homages and throwbacks in there that I'd obviously never noticed when I was young. Movie references and cameos are the most prominent, even down to the casting with George Kennedy, Clint Walker, Ernest Borgnine and Jim Brown, who all play toy commandos in the film, all actually played soldiers in the original ‘The Dirty Dozen’.

I had totally forgotten about the appearance of a very young Kirsten Dunst who doesn’t seem to age like regular human beings... She actually has some decent chemistry with Gregory Smith who, unlike Dunst, hasn't went on to do much more. For two child actors, they hold the film together and have as much fun with it as we do. Tommy Lee Jones even voices Chip Hazard, the main toy villain, which makes it all the funnier. 

'Small Soldiers' has a badass attitude and it's so much fun because of the subject matter. At the end of the day it's toys that are attacking each other but that doesn't even matter because of the style that it brings. It's got a banging soundtrack featuring the likes of Queen and Led Zeppelin which just adds to the attitude. The action, for being toys, is exciting and pretty violent when you break down what is actually going on. A lot of this has to do with director Joe Dante who also directed 'Gremlins' which has a similar borderline tone for kids and adults. 

For me, this was the golden age of CGI work. CGI was just being introduced but practical effects were still at the helm of filmmaking. This meant that a wonderful blend of CGI and practical effects was being used. CGI was only used when something couldn’t be done practically which is the way it should be. It was only meant to enhance the practical effects rather than replace them. ‘Small Soldiers’ still looks great and the effects still hold up today which is a testament to the balance that was found at this time. 

What I loved about this film growing up and revisiting it now is the fact that the toys have real personality and character. You invest in the idea that they are alive because they're not just purely created in a computer. They are physical toys that move and react like toys would and, when CGI is used, it's so well mixed in with the live action moments that you just believe it.

Overall, ‘Small Soldiers’ is as much for grown ups as it is for kids and I'm glad that I've been able to enjoy it as both. 

I would not like to see what these toys would do to poor old Woody and Buzz...

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

"We need to be put in check. 

Whatever form that takes, I'm game."

'Capman V Iron Man: We do it better than DC'.

After too many public incidents and casualties, The Avengers are given an ultimatum by the rest of the world to either agree to government surveillance and command or retire for good.

The newest edition of the Marvel Universe comes in the form of 'Captain America: Civil War', comedically released not long after DC's dreadful 'Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice', and shows us all how a battle between heroes should be done. 

Not so much a "war" as a group of friends having a tussle in the playground but it certainly is civil.

After booking a seat for yet another superhero film, I was less than excited to sit down and watch the newest comic book film in the never ending stream that we seem to find ourselves with. However, this feeling was quite short lived as a surprisingly enjoyable film played out in front of me. 

For me, 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' was one of the better films in the MCU, it didn't feel like a superhero film and it adapted into a different genre very well. Even though 'Captain America: Civil War' falls more heavily into the traditional comic book film genre, it has some pretty interesting things going on and was, on the whole, entertaining.

Multiple casualties and collateral damage caused by The Avengers "saving the world" has forced the countries of earth to re-evaluate how The Avengers operate. It does a good job of laying that out clearly early on and gives us a new insight into that world. It's relatable and makes sense. Obviously when faced with a proposition of this kind, some agree to be governed by the United Nations but some are clearly against the idea altogether. This is a logical and well thought out story step from Marvel, which is based on the comic book, as it forces our heroes to re-examine their roles and the use of their powers. It was really interesting to watch how each of the different characters rationalised their choices and decided which side of the fence they sat on. You'll constantly hop back and forth as to who is in the right and the characters, much like real people, do the same.

Like most Marvel movies, the comedy is always great. Not that this is a laugh out loud movie as recent marvel films have been, the jokes are few and far between because of the serious subject matter but they still manage to lighten the mood with some well needed comic relief. 

We see a lot of new faces appearing in this film along with the usual cast and some familiar characters from other spin offs. When Ant-Man shows up he's as good as he was in his own film and a brand new addition to the group is a very young Spider-Man, who doesn't have a key role but is fun and adds a new dimension the cast. I won't go into too much detail about the new characters to avoid any accidental spoilers so you can discover that for yourself. On the whole, pretty much all of the performances are of a high standard, especially Robert Downey Jr. who always manages to steal every scene he's in. 

The big throw down between the heroes is what you go to the cinema and pay to see and it's definitely the main spectacle of the film. It actually happens around half way through if I remember correctly so it's not the climax of the film, more of a mid-season finale. The action is top notch and seeing each character utilising their skills in a battle like this is fun and exciting. It's more of a friendly kick about in the park rather than a real match though, no one is really trying to do any damage and you don't expect any real casualties because they're all, mostly, good friends. This did take out some of the tension, a group of this much power smashing head first into each other could have been a lot more tense than it was, there weren't really any stakes involved but it doesn't negate how exciting and action packed the scene is. It's like emptying your entire toy box out onto the floor and making them all fight as a kid.

Despite the impressive visuals and action sequences, when you start to take a look at the plot itself and go deeper than surface level, the film starts to show its very obvious flaws.

The idea and concept of the film is the number one selling point. It's what is interesting and exciting about the film and is the meat on the bones for the viewers. However, the skeleton of the main storyline is thin at best with a totally forgettable villain who wasn't entirely essential to the story. There are a lot of convenient plot devices to get us from A to B with the main storyline being illogical and a little convoluted. The main "villain", if you can call him that, has a grand scheme that just feels somewhat pointless in the end. If you were to take his character out of the film it wouldn't actually affect the plot in a major way. You could change a scene or two at the beginning and the film could almost play out the same way without his input. We go round and round on a wild goose chase only to be unsatisfied by the execution and reasoning behind the ending. 

This long winded plot makes the films pace feel sluggish and a little bland at points. Coming in at nearly two and a half hours, it could have been cut down by about 45 minutes with the right storyline but, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. A lot of recent blockbusters feel the need to have huge running times and 9 times out of 10 it could have played out in a more bitesized, action packed chunk.

There was a lot that I wanted to happen and a lot that could have happened to shake things up a bit but nothing really comes to fruition or concludes in a satisfying way. Just one long Act 2. 

I always find the same issue with superhero films. It's like eating a McDonalds. 

It seems like a great idea and is totally enjoyable when you're eating it but afterwards you're never fully satisfied and you just end up hungry again in a few hours. These films are designed to make us come back to the cinema time and time again. Every film is promised to be the next best one and, personally, I feel like they're always selling an idea rather than the finished product, the advertising and marketing is manufactured like the click bait that plagues social media. 

They're fun on surface level but they're not challenging or worth a second watch for me. It's a popcorn flick and, until the market changes, I think they'll have to stay that way. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a popcorn flick but when it's making so much money and demanding so much respect, I think it should have a little more quality than quantity in the storytelling. 

The 'Daredevil' Netflix series is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Marvel and Netflix have the freedom to explore some deeper and more challenging ideas and stories with the TV show and they do it so well. I recently just finished season two of 'Daredevil' and was very impressed, it blew season one out of the water. They manage to elevate it from the superhero genre into something that stands on it's own two feet and I think that's why I liked it more than the films that have been released. 

I think I just have to accept that I'm never going to be a real superhero fan...

Ultimately, 'Captain America: Civil War' is one of the better superhero films in recent memory with some spectacular action sequences. It's entertaining, it's comedic and it's exciting. The plot leaves a lot to be desired and it does lag the film up a bit but on the whole you'll have a good time with it, even if you do pick it apart after the credits have rolled.  

I forgot to mention that eating a McDonalds is improved tenfold by eating it when you're drunk or hungover... Maybe that's the key to truly enjoying Marvel movies?