SICARIO: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Sicario is the latest movie to entice audiences to visit Mexico by highlighting all the drug trafficking, people smuggling, cartel-killings and dismembered bodies strung out for the locals and tourist to see. Besides the highly positive representation of Mexico one thing you can’t deny is that Sicario is one of the most bad-ass movies of the year.

With a stellar cast and some brutal concepts we find FBI agent, Emily Blunt, being brought in to assist with an elite government task force that are trying to squeeze out the last few avenues available to the murderous drug-cartels across the border. It's a quality film that packs a lot into its 2 hour running time, however this has real potential to be a six to ten part TV series that could really flesh out some more of the elements that make this film so great.

The film is structured really well with some really eerie landscape cinematography that shows Mexico in a way like never before. There’s birds eye views of Mexico looks like twisted contorted body more than sparse desert landscapes. On top of this the camera also serves as Emily Blunt's eyes often teasing out information about locations, character traits and character reveals. There some interesting choices with framing where sometimes intense conversations are shot at an extreme distance in order to just show the distress of the whole body as opposed to just the face.

Much like the brilliant but little seen Arnold Schwarzenegger film Sabotage, Sicario pays close attention to the procedural aspects of large scale tactical operations. The film works hard and works well with regards to bring you into the thick of the action without always having to resort to a first person shooter, sure they do do this at times but only to ratchet up the tension as opposed to "just because it looks cool." There's a grittiness and realism to the crimes in Mexico that it makes you wonder just how brutal the actions of the real-life cartel might be in reality.

The casting around Emily Blunt is really impressive. There’s some really weathered actors bringing some intimidating performances. From Josh Brolin’s head of the elite task force to Benicio Del Toro’s enigmatic consultant just bringing body bags in spades, you have a whole series of supporting cast that look like they’ve walked straight out of the actual cartel, or straight out the back of a people smuggling truck or straight the nastiest army regiment they could find. Plus we throw in the new Punisher Jon Bernthal for good measure. All this just adds to the realism and the blood, sweat and tears of the film’s surroundings.  

There's a sudden and dramatic change in protagonist briefly towards the end of the film which reinforces the reason for this film to be a ten part series. It is a little jarring and does diminish Blunt's character in many ways, but as Josh Brolin's character continually reminds us, she is just one piece of a much larger story.The ending itself is quite bleak and in some ways reminiscent of No Country For Old Men, this ultimately serves as a reminder that despite all the horrible things in this world, life continues to move on.

Overall, Sicario is definitely a film you should make time for. Granted I still feel that the movie had the potential to be better served as a TV series, but I’m certainly not going to hold that against it when it’s this good.

Sicario gets Four and a Half Stars out of Five (or Four and Half out of Five reasons to not f*ck with the cartel)  

PAN: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

So it's "Peter Pan Begins" with an origin story that was never really necessary but follows in the footsteps of Maleficent as we learn.... well, very little about any of the characters in the Peter Pan mythology in the new Hugh Jackman film Pan.

Set in England during World War II we find Hugh Jackman's Captain Blackbeard pulling a Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as he pays nuns to allow his men to snatch orphan children, where he takes them to Neverland in order to work in his mines (to be fair, it's never been proven that Brangelina have their children work in mines but it would explain why they have so many.) During one of these raids the Pirates steal young orphan Peter only to discover that he will one day fulfil the prophecy to defeat Captain Blackbeard.

Now the film is directed by Joe Wright who gave us Atonement and spy-thriller Hanna, and the guy really lets loose with the visuals and the choreography with some amazing set pieces, fight sequences and splashes of colour that make it feel like it's a commercial for a high definition TV. On top of that you just have Hugh Jackman chewing scenery and clearly having a ball in the role of Blackbeard as he gets the masses signing along to Nirvana and The Ramones, although it does look like "what if Hugh Jackman was a meth-addict?" Jackman's band of pirates look amazing but also look like a bunch of drag-queens who have just finished the world's biggest bender but this all just adds to the visual splendour if the film. Honestly, you cannot fault a single cast member, everyone gets into their roles, give it their all and look like they have a great time doing it as well. Even the normally wooden Garrett Hedund is a really interesting and comical James Hook and relative newcomer Levi Miller makes for an excellent Pan.

Admittedly I've never been a big advocator of 3D but if you are planning on seeing this film then 3D is the only way to go. There is so much depth to the scenery and so many layers all interlocking with one another that 3D just enhances the experience. I often find the 3D effect often wears off after 20 minutes but it really sticks with you until the end with this film. The film is ultimately aimed at a child audience so it is easy to assume that the character of Peter Pan is unadaptable and outdated, looking at the film from an adults eyes you would be right, but kids are sure to love the thrills, the music and the colours that this film offers.

Although the film is not without its faults: some of the scenes border of pantomime and this isn't helped by the continual foreshadowing that goes on throughout the film. From Hedlund carrying a hook for no good reason, to lots of suggestions that he might loose his hand to really cringe-worthy lines like "you and me Hook are going to be friends forever!" Even though there are some great visuals, there is also some really questionable CGI. There are flying/falling scenes where the body just doesn't move right, arms bend in places where they are not supposed to and there are some jaw-droppingly bad CGI colourful skeleton birds. I mean my jaw literally dropped when I saw them because I thought to myself, you can't seriously be putting something so shite in such a big budget movie.

The film still features the noble savages but instead of racist Indians like in the Disney version you have every other ethnicity from Aboriginals to Chinese Acrobats to Pakistani Indians to Malaysians to the American Girl With The Dragon Tattoo... So that's, less racist... I guess.

One of the other big issues, and this is common for these "prequel-type" movies is that often the things that made you love the original story so much are held off to the very end and sometimes not even shown at all because of the "we're sure we'll make a sequel" approach to film franchising nowadays. Also, much like Maleficent there's a strong desire to make a famously reviled villain be viewed as a misunderstood tragic figure, which is fine but let's face it, it's going to get predictable and boring after a while.

But when all is said and done it's important to remember that this film is aimed squarely at kids so the target market will certainly feel satisfied come the end, adults on the other hand are just not going to feel that their needs are getting met.

Pan gets 3 out of Five Stars (or 3 out of Five surly drag-queen pirates) 

PIXELS: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

OK so the guy behind Home Alone, the first two Harry Potters and Night At The Museum has a new film based on that awesome short film from 2010 about an alien-invasion featuring all the big video game characters of the 80’s. Sounds awesome right? There’s a catch though, it stars Adam Sandler and all the baggage that comes with a Sandler film.

Yes, Pixels has finally made it to our shores, after a dismal box office in the U.S. and a hammering by critics, it has resulted in many think pieces on the internet asking if Adam Sandler’s dominance in Hollywood is finally over. Now he’s always been a target for critics but the big question is does he or this movie really deserve such a beating? Yes. Yes he does. The film... a little bit. 

Pixels is set in an Adam Sandler world where Kevin James is the President of the United States and is life-long buddies with Sandler’s video game protege back in 1982. When the world is attacked by giant pixel video game characters like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong, it’s up to Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage, token pretty lady (played by the stunning Michelle Monaghan) and.... groan.... Kevin James to save the day with their superior video game skills. Peter Dinklage is good for his small role in the film (no pun intended) but he’s still delivering  that cringe-worthy humour that Rob Schneider would have normally delivered.

The film does have some flickers of Columbus magic, especially during the build up to the reveal of the giant pixel monsters but despite his best efforts this film still has Sandler’s grubby man-child fingerprints all over it. We have all the usual “Sandlerisms”: eighties rock music and power-ballads, people just accepting idiotic scenarios like a President who can’t read, and the casting of all of Sandler’s friends who would have died of starvation years ago had they not been his buddy. It’s not David Spade this time, not Rob Scheinder, that other guy.... yeah that one... f*ck I hate that guy. One of the other big “Sandlerisms” that happens in every Sandler film is, SPOILER ALERT, things always work out for Sandler no matter how illogical the resolution may be.  

So look, lots of discussions have been had about Sandler refusing to grow with his audience but I don’t think that Sandler is 100% to blame for this most recent effort. I think the problem lies with Sony Pictures enabling him and also applying their own kind of, what I’ve started to call “Sony Logic” to things. For example, Sony’s need to always ensure in any of their films that there are personal links between all the characters regardless of believability and it gets shoe-horned into the storyline no matter how much lube is required. They’ve done this with films like Men In Black, Spider-Man and pretty much every other Sandler production.There is no reason for Adam Sandler to personally know the President before being asked to save the world, there’s no need to have Sandler meet Monaghan’s character before visiting the White House, and spelling out plot devices in a slow phonetically sounding delivery by Dan Aykroyd is a greater insult to him than it is to us. Oh yeah and the Aykroyd cameo is stock-standard in any film when you’re trying to say your film is the “new Ghostbusters”, which it is not.   

But ultimately the biggest issue, regardless of which actor is in what role is that none of these characters are likable or interesting enough to care about let alone spending 106 minutes with them. If you have to watch it then keep your expectations low, there are some good moments, but not enough to tolerate Sony and Sandler’s contempt for you as an audience member.

Pixels gets One out of Five Stars (One Star for Peter Dinklage’s  appearance alone)