DEADPOOL: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

I promise that the film is more than DMX’s “X Gon Give It To Ya” for ninety minutes, despite what the trailer might suggest. Ryan Reynold’s passion project about the fast, funny, foul-mouthed uber-violent merc with a mouth that finally makes up for his piss-poor debut in X-Men Origins: Wolverine is finally up on the big-screen with the first superhero film of 2016, Deadpool. 

When former Special Forces operative Wade Wilson gets cancer in everything bar his right pinkie, left testie, and third nipple he volunteers for a rogue experiment that gives him super-powers and a super-unf*ckable face. So bestowed with accelerated healing powers and a face like Bea Arthur’s testicles he uses this great power for great irresponsibility as he becomes a gun for hire. You know the rest of the story doesn’t really matter: bad guy steals his girl, he’s got to get her back, lots of craziness and an insane amount of meta references repeatedly punches you in your face for the next hour and forty eight minutes. 

Look, the first thing you need to know is that this isn’t a comic book movie, this is a Deadpool movie, which is basically a comic book movie turned up all the way up to f*cking eleven. It is really violent, like really really violent for a comic book movie, it is filled with profanity, lewd jokes, lots of sexual content and nudity - so it’s not for kids any more than 2010’s Kick-Ass was for kids. But it is entertaining, really entertaining, with rapid-fire non-stop jokes from start to finish and some great action sequences, even though most of them were shown to us in the trailers and TV spots.  

The film is almost a little bit like an episode of Family Guy where it’s just one joke after another after another and if one joke doesn’t land it doesn’t really matter because the next one is only five seconds away. The film is filled with so many nods, winks and digs at comic book movies, easter eggs and other references that you could be forgiven for thinking that the film is suffering from Tourettes Syndrome with all these twitches. But the film really does live and die on Ryan Reynolds charm and comedic timing - he’s just so damn funny and self-deprecating throughout the runtime, taking the piss out of every other comic book movie and his own stabs at comic book films. 

And while we’re at it, how awesome has all the marketing for this film been? They left no stone unturned when promoting this film, from capitalising on holidays to producing material that tricks your girlfriend into seeing Deadpool to advertising the film using only emoticons. Once again, it was Ryan Reynolds comedic charm that has turned Deadpool from a niche character only known by comic nerds, to the character everyone is talking about this year (especially when we Batman, Superman, Captain America and Iron Man all making appearances in the next few months.) 

Of course don’t forget that this film also exists in the Fox-Men shared universe and even though there are lots of continuity issues when compared to the previous seven X-Men films, this can all be forgiven thanks to the continual fourth wall breaking and acknowledging that even Fox don’t know if this is set in the McAvoy era or Stewart era of X-Men movies. 

The film isn’t perfect. The development of the villains is really really thin, I mean beyond paper-thin, more like Christian Bale going for another Oscar weight-loss thin and the climax happens on top of some big structure that they never really explain what it is or why the villains are there in the first place - maybe they did explain it and I just never heard it because I was laughing so much, that could easily have happened during this movie. But these complaints are only little niggles, honestly you’re too busy laughing and having a genuinely good time to care about these kinds of things. 

Overall, this film deserves an audience just for its effort alone, but thankfully there are so many great reasons to see this. Fans of comic book movies are going to have a good laugh, Deadpool fans are going to see this as a near-perfect interpretation of the character and everyone else is going to applauding with the rest of the cinema when the end credits start to roll. 

Deadpool gets Four and a Half Stars (or Four and a Half of Bea Arthur’s testicles - I believe she has eight, and she hangs them around her neck, and they’re all hers and not anyone else’s) 

STEVE JOBS: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

How many Steve Jobs movies and documentaries are we going to get? Is it going to become like every other Apple product and we’ll be subjected to upgraded versions of Steve Jobs biopics that always look brighter and shinier than the previous biopics but also make the previous Steve Jobs biopics seem obsolete? Hopefully, they stop, and if they stop here then they’ll have stopped on a high. 

Steve Jobs is the new biopic of the man behind the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad and the loss of all your money from your wallet. Set behind the scenes of three of Jobs’ biggest unveilings; the film is split into three equal parts each set in real-time 40 minutes before each big presentation. During these 40 minute time periods, Steve Jobs deals with system malfunctions, board meeting debates, parenting issues, alimony deliberations and most importantly his massive fucking ego. With a solid recurring cast throughout each time period along with some kinetic editing and delivery of the shifts in time and space makes this one of the more interesting biopics of the last two decades. 

It’s a given that this is an improvement to the Ashton Kutcher version. Essentially, if the Kutcher version was a first generation iPod Shuffle then this new version is the iPhone 6 of Steve Jobs biopics. Seeing as they’ve upgraded everything; they’ve upgraded Ashton Kutcher to Michael Fassbender, they’ve upgraded from Matt Whiteley (whose only ever writer credit is that Jobs piece of shit) to the new and improved Oscar-winning writer of The West Wing Aaron Sorkin, we’ve upgraded from the director of Kevin Costner’s Swing Vote to the Oscar winning director of Trainspotting and Slumdog Millionaire, and we’ve upgraded from low-rent Seth Rogen to... Seth Rogen. 

So with all these upgraded elements, how good is it? The dialogue is punchy and tight, the performances are all rock solid and the narrative itself works so well in this three act structure. Essentially you have all of Steve Jobs biggest moments tied together by these three unveilings which are presented in compactly edited flashback, call backs to the previous conversations and character development through simple gestures. So yeah, it’s a pretty good film, if maybe just a little too clean and a little too tightly packaged. 

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always loved Sorkin’s writing style, it’s such a unique voice in cinema and television nowadays that you could easily argue that he is an auteur in his own right ahead of the director, however with directors like Fincher and Boyle I realise that’s an incredibly hard argument to make. Getting back to Sorkin’s writing here though, it feels far too clean with respects to what is said in the film. It would be easy to say that this whole film has been written with the benefit of hindsight because everything that Steve Jobs says, even back in 1984, is indicative of how we live our lives today. Now Jobs is presented as arrogant, abrasive, dismissive of others, but throughout the whole film, he’s always right which just seems a little too convenient, plus some lines come off a little too perfect between all the arguments and back and forths.    

Performance-wise everyone is performing at their best with Rogen putting in a very non-Rogen performance, Kate Winslet brings her usual talent but with a very hard to pin-point accent, but of course everyone is talking about Fassbender’s performance. His performance is good, he sounds like Jobs, as he ages he grows into Jobs, but in yet another year of white-washed Oscar nominations, its‘ Fassbender’s performance that feels like it could have made way for Samuel L Jackson in The Hateful Eight, or Michael B Jordan in Creed or especially Jason Mitchell’s role as Eazy-E. 

When all is said and done, Steve Jobs is one of the more creative biopics and certainly worth watching if you are an Apple fan, however if you are not an Apple fan then this film will not win you over.    

Steve Jobs gets Four out of Five Stars (or Four out of Five obsolete Ashton Kutcher iPod Shuffles)      

THE HATEFUL EIGHT: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Ever wanted to see a Western version of Cluedo directed by Quentin Tarantino? Well you’re in luck because The Hateful Eight is Tarantino’s very own murder-mystery with his usual brand of violence, expletives and a polished Ennio Morricone soundtrack for good measure. 

Set in Wyoming 12 years after the Civil War, The Hateful Eight sets you up for a three hour slogfest with some of the most racist, sexist, homophobic individuals you’ve ever met who seem to be hell-bent on beating Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character to a bloody pulp throughout the course of the film. With a whole lot of money on the line and a bunch of doings a transpiring plus things not quite adding up, you will be sitting in the cinema trying to piece everything together before the end as you try to figure out who is not being honest in a room full of only eight people. 

So look, Tarantino is not for everybody. Some people can’t stand him, some people love him. For full disclosure, I’m in the latter category. Much like Martin Scorsese, I just love Tarantino’s encyclopedic knowledge of film because it’s always up there on the screen to enjoy, his homages to films of a similar ilk are there to trainspot, whilst he still remains committed to keeping everything in the same cinematic universe with references and winks that establish that it’s all connected, even during the post-civil war era of Westerns.   

The performances are all strong. Kurt Russell looks like a bear and you almost want to cuddle him if he wasn't such a scary as f*ck guy, Samuel L Jackson brings what Samuel L Jackson always does to a Tarantino film, Tim Roth plays the perfectly creepy Englishman, whilst Michael Madsen is probably the one character who feels a bit short changed amongst the key cast. Jennifer Jason Leigh, aka the human punching bag in this film, brings a well-deserved Oscar nominated performance through not just the terrifying things she says but the heart-breaking quiet moments she can have in the film as Tarantino just lets the camera linger on her after copping an elbow to the nose or a hot bowl of stew to the face. However the stand-out performance, for my money anyway, is from Walter Goggins, who you may remember a Venus Van Dam from Sons Of Anarchy, he just plays this despicable racist red-neck who you almost come to like if he wasn't still a despicable racist red-neck. 

The cinematography is second to none in this film with Tarantino going all out with the Panavison 70mm filming. Normally used for sweeping landscape shots this film works so beautifully in the confines of a wooden haberdashery as well. The frame is filled with characters going about their business in the background as other characters spit Tarantino's dialogue forcing you to pay attention to what everyone is doing in this film, when it's not focused on characters in the background then the 70mm film allows us to see the beautifully detailed backdrops of the haberdashery complete with floating snowflakes. Watching this on the big screen is a must, please don't watch a downloaded version of this film, it does a disservice to Tarantino effort and there is no way it could look half as good as it does in the comfort of a cinema.         

This film is really for the intense Tarantino fans because it plays to all of his best strengths: intense character development set within a single location, much like Reservoir Dogs, sudden and dramatic changes in protagonist, much like Death Proof, and explicit attention to detail through the sets and cinematography like in Django Unchained and Inglorious Basterds. At nearly three hours long, Tarantino drags out a lot of these elements more so than usual so it may test the patience of some of his more devoted fans, however the ending has a satisfying conclusion that makes up for any frustration some fans may feel. Although there’s no denying that the film could easily have been edited down.  

Tarantino’s films normally ride a sea of controversy and in this case one of the big talking points is the violence towards women, or in this case violence centered all around Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character. It’s always sudden and always confronting, however the one thing that often seems to be overlooked is how strong and terrifying her character is amidst all this violence. It could be argued that the violence is representative of the time and place the film is set, but does this make Tarantino a misogynist? To be honest, it’s not my place to say. As a white male in my mid-thirties, I have no right to “man-splain” misogyny in a Tarantino movie any more than “white-splain” whether Tarantino has the right to use the N-word in his movies. 

Overall, this film is a great murder-mystery that stretches for a near three hours, Tarantino masterfully manipulates you into playing the guessing game for the whole length of the film. Once everything is finally revealed and we have a dramatic change in protagonist you realise as an audience member that all the clues were right there in front of you all along, which makes The Hateful Eight a must-watch for a second time. 

The Hateful Eight gets Four and a Half out of Five Stars (or Four and a Half ********** ********** ********* out of Five ******** ******** ********* *******) 

KILL ME THREE TIMES: SPOILER-FREE FILM-REVIEW:

Wow, what an incredibly boring piece of shit film, and people wonder why audiences aren’t flocking to cinemas to see Australian movies. However, if you want to see Simon Pegg be completely underused, whilst the director fails at doing their best Tarantino impression and shows us a bunch of boring characters you couldn’t care less about then I’d highly recommend watching Kill Me Three Times.

Set and filmed down in Margaret River, the movie cuts up the narrative to show you a the events of a series of forgettable double-crossing Aussies and a British hit-man, played by ‘Shaun of the Dead’s Simon Pegg. How forgettable are they? Well it stars that guy from the ‘300‘ sequel, that girl who was in zombie-flick ‘Warm Bodies’, that dodgy-guy from ‘Underbelly‘, that guy from ‘Cocktail‘ that wasn’t Tom Cruise and also starring Thor’s other other brother, Dwarf Hemsworth. Each actor plays a very one dimensional character with a dark side and no clear motivation other than ‘we’re just bad people.’

The shots of Margaret River are quite beautiful and that’s where the compliments for this film end. It’s just so fucking boring, I can see it’s trying to be interesting with its dutch tilts, non-linear narrative and crime-world themes but amidst all its desire to be an Australian Tarantino film it’s forgotten the one key element that makes Tarantino’s films so engaging: interesting characters. This film takes no time to establish who the characters are and what makes them tick, we just move from one action to another without feeling invested in any characters. And of course let’s not forget the other cardinal sin of this film: having Simon Pegg and doing nothing with him. This could have been a great role for him but he comes off as so bland that they could have given the role to anyone else.

But the flaws of this film extend beyond just the film itself, this is yet another Australian film that sought out star power, got it but then didn’t capitalise on it. Last year, ‘Son of a Gun‘ gave us Ewan McGregor, a movie filmed in Perth but when the premiere arrived Ewan McGregor was nowhere to be seen. Sure he gave a few shout-outs via Twitter when filming here but then did little to no promotional work during the film’s release. Simon Pegg  has done a little more promotional work and interviews for this film but let’s be honest, how many people actually knew that this film was coming out? As an industry, Australian film companies need to lock down overseas talent to ensure that they are there for the promotional push of these films if they ever want to get the traction they need to succeed.

Overall, this film really needs to find its own identity instead of borrowing so heavily from others and focus a lot less on style and more on characters if it wants to be memorable. See it if you must, but I’m sure there are better things you could be doing with your life: watching your toenails grow, getting a tooth removed, licking the inside of an ashtray.

Kill Me Three Times gets Half a Star out of Five (or 90 minutes of your life wasted)

THE REVENANT: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Leonardo DiCaprio gets f*cked by a bear... Sorry, typo. DiCaprio gets f*cked up by a bear. In any other DiCaprio movie that would be how the movie ends because let’s face it, DiCaprio and Sean Bean are seeing who can die in the most films, however this is how the new survivalist film The Revenant starts.

The film follows John Glass, an experienced explorer who is mauled half to death by a bear and is then left for dead when his injuries become too much of a hinderance for the rest of his groups survival. On top of this Glass is brutally betrayed by one of his own men, played by mumbling Tom Hardy, who murders his son before attempting to bury him alive. From here, DiCaprio forces himself through sheer will and determination to make it back to camp and seek revenge for the death of his son.

The first thing that needs to be said about this movie is that it is beautiful, it’s harsh and unforgiving, but it is beautifully shot and executed. The director of Birdman,  Alejandro González Iñárritu, has used every visual trick in the book, along with filming exclusively with only natural lighting to create a visceral and harsh terrain for our characters that really brings realism to the forefront of the film. Once again he uses long tracking shots to bring us closer to the characters and their surroundings and at times you’ll be wondering when you saw the last cut between shots. Trust me, there are going to be some hard things to watch in this movie, mostly because it all looks so real but it’s also one of the main reasons to see this on the big screen.

But let’s get to the performances: Leonardo DiCaprio goes full Bear Grylls in this movie, AND YOU NEVER GO FULL BEAR GRYLLS - but let’s face it, if anyone’s going to do, it should be Leonardo DiCaprio. This is a guy who has been seeking Oscar glory for his whole career, and still hasn’t achieved this, but you can see the pain in his face as he gives it his all in this film. Not only is he doing the intense DiCaprio thing, but he also the only actor this Oscar season who has eaten raw fish from a river raw moose liver for our entertainment - the only thing missing was him drinking his own pee. So Academy, if you listening, please give him the Oscar, because I’d hate to see what he does next for our approval. 

Of course it’s not all about DiCaprio in this film. There are some great performances from Will Poulter, a cast of really intense looking Indian characters and probably cinemas most valuable player of 2015, Domhnall Gleeson, but the other big star is Tom Hardy. Yes, after playing mumbling Mad Max, and the charming and scary Kray twins, we have Hardy returning to his mumbling best as the villain of the piece John Fitzgerald. Don’t get me wrong, his performance is brutal and intense but also incredibly hard to understand as, much like in the film Lawless, he has opted to deliver all his lines mid-mumble. So essentially for the majority of the film DiCaprio is unable to talk so is reliant on communicating in only grunts and groans, add to this Tom Hardy once again doing an intense mumbling, hard to decipher performance and you easily have a contender for best foreign language film.

Overall, this movie is brutal as f*ck. Really that should be the whole review but there’s a whole lot more to talk about. But honestly, do yourself a favour and see this on the big screen if for no other reason than to see the brutal Saving Private Ryan-style opening scene.

The Revenant gets Four and a Half out of Five Stars (or Four and a Half out of Five DiCaprio getting f*cked by a bear dream sequences...)  

THE PEANUTS MOVIE: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

It’s that classic tale of the little boy who’s the text-book walking-talking definition of a childhood neurotic who flicks between depressed and anxious whilst constantly becoming paralysed through his own over-analysis of any given situation. That’s right, it’s the perfect children’s movie about handling your thoughts, feelings and anxieties: it’s Inside Out oh wait, no it’s the other one: The Peanuts Movie, oh wait, they changed the name again for international audiences; it’s Snoopy and Charlie Brown: The Peanuts Movie!!

Yes, based on the classic ‘Peanuts’ tales that we all grew up on, the work of Charles M. Schulz has finally been realised on the big screen, providing you don’t include “A Charlie Brown Christmas”, “Why, Charlie Brown, Why?”, “Charlie Brown’s All Stars!”, “A Charlie Brown Valentine”, “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” and every other made for TV movie that came before it. However, in the big screen debut, featuring cutting edge 3D animation, we find Charlie Brown looking for love, whilst Snoopy embarks on a mission to finally defeat “The Red Barron.”

Look, as far as a movie goes, The Peanuts Movie is not pushing the narrative up to cinematic levels so don’t expect any large domes to be dropped on top of Hennepin County or for the Devil and Saddam Hussein to be attacking James Street Elementary School. What you do get though is a simple story essentially wrapped in a series of Charlie Brown’s greatest hits. They’re not doing anything meta, they’re not throwing in lots of adult innuendo to keep the parents entertained, they’re not doing a gritty-reinterpretation of the characters (let’s face it, can you get any grittier than Pig Pen?), but what they are doing is relying heavily on nostalgia - and in this case, there’s nothing wrong with that. 

The animation itself is a good blend of 3D animation for the characters and the backdrops, whilst they use 2D sketches for the character’s mouths and some of their facial expressions which helps to keep the look and feel of Schulz original drawings. Occasionally they even bust out some of the original artwork to keep the visuals entertaining. But whilst staying true to the look of Charlie Brown, the characters remain true to who they have always been: Charlie Brown is still neurotic, Pig Pen is still filthy, Patty is still a tomboy, and Lucy is still expectant; at the end of the day these kids are all very complicated individuals but are still loveable and annoying in their own little ways. 

The film really does do what it says on the box: it gives you a fun, feel-good time with characters that you grew up with. The story is simplistic and this keeps it true to the original comic book strips, so that works from a nostalgic-perspective for the parents, whilst if you’re a kid who knows nothing about Peanuts, then this is the perfect entry-level way of getting them interested in Charlie Brown and his assortment of supporting characters. If you go in expecting a Peanuts story and not a movie then you should not leave disappointed. 

The Peanuts Movie, I mean, Snoopy and Charlie Brown: The Peanuts Movie gets Four out of Five feel-good Stars (so Snoopy’s name comes before Charlie Brown’s name even though it’s a Charlie Brown movie? Man this is Batman V Superman all over again!)   

FIREPLACE: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

From Netflix, the network that brought you House Of Cards, Orange Is The New Black and Daredevil comes a new short-run series that follows the perils of several blocks of wood as they fight against one of nature's oldest enemies: Fire. Fireplace 4K:Crackling Birchwood has astounded audiences so far with its unique depiction of fire versus wood but the big question on everybody's lips is, does Fireplace 4K burn up the small screen or is it failing to light a spark in audience's hearts.

The film itself is fairly simple, several pieces of wood gather together only to discover that they are part of a deadly and sadistic car and mouse game with one of their greatest mortal enemies, fire. Sure the narrative may be lacking in detail and specifics but watch in horror throughout the whole 1 hour and 4 minute runtime as the director, George Ford, the director behind Aquarium For Your Home and Mountain Stream, chooses to complete the entire film in one unflinching camera take. This approach harkens back to the work of Gasper Van Noe and his single unflinching take of Monica Bellucci's brutal rape scene in Irreversible. Another interesting aspect of the cinematography is the rich earthy lighting that gives off an amber glow that also echoes the lighting style of Gasper Van Noe's infamous rape scene. Was this the director's intention to film with such striking similarities, at this stage we're not entirely sure but you could be forgiven for making that assumption.

There is also the interesting choice of the soundtrack which seems to be exclusively Christmas music. It is certainly a bold choice and one can't help but wonder if director Shane Black had a hand in the scripting of the film considering the Christmas setting.

The ambiguity of the film certainly will leave the viewer with many questions: will the log to the left of screen survive considering its inability to control its current circumstances? Were the rumours of Don Cheadle's scenes being cut due to a dispute with the director true? Could we expect another shocking twist ending such as the Red Wedding scene from Game Of Thrones or is Netflix above that kind of sensationalist filmmaking? Does this fit with the Marvel Cinematic Universe already established by Daredevil and Jessica Jones and if so, will the fire come back as one of the major villains in The Defenders mini-series?

Of course Fireplace 4K hasn't been out even a week and the film already has its' imitators. Netflix applied the same template to another new show titled Oscillating Fan 4K that also using the single camera take approach and natural lighting. The one key artistic difference here is that the film works exclusively with ambient noise recorded on set. This is certainly a bold choice on the directors part to choose to push the narrative forward with only ambient noise and this should be celebrated but this doesn't make up for the fact that Oscillating Fan 4K is just a pale imitation by comparison.

Ultimately Fireplace 4K may not be to everybody's taste due to the fact that the lot is about as thin as Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, however sources do say that the script was originally completed during the writer's strike of 2007. If that is true then considering the film's high production values some of that money could have gone towards polishing some of the finer elements of the script. However only see this if you have a burning desire to watch art-house fire-porn. Will it be remembered like other great TV series such as The Wire and Breaking Bad? Only time will tell.

Fireplace 4K: Crackling Birchwood gets Three out of Five stars (or Three out of Five missed opportunities for a Don Cheadle cameo...)