Ad Astra

(M) ★★

Director: James Gray.

Cast: Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Ruth Negga, Liv Tyler, Donald Sutherland.

"Wait... am I being overtaken by a Volkswagen?"

Unnecessary narration is a real bugbear of mine. Nine times out of 10 in modern film, it's redundant, telling us things we already know or could easily figure out. Rare recent exceptions include It: Chapter Two and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, where narration was used to good effect to fill in gaps with short, sharp exposition. It's also great in things like Deadpool, where it's a meta-tool to poke fun at what's going on and get laughs (see also the meme-worthy narration of Arrested Development).

But in most modern movies, it adds nothing, merely telling us what we're already seeing and treating the audience like idiots too stupid to decipher a wistful look or a pregnant pause. They took it out of Blade Runner for good reason, and the same should apply in Ad Astra, a profound yet ponderous existential journey into the far reaches of both outer space and an astronaut's "soul".

The narration is not the only thing that grates about Ad Astra, but it is emblematic of the troubles at the heart of this Heart Of Darkness-like journey. While it's an admirable attempt at an all-too-rare beast - the big-budget sci-fi art film - the film is about as subtle as its redundant narration.

Ad Astra (which is Latin for "to the stars") follows astronaut Roy McBride on a secret mission to the moon, Mars and beyond as he seeks to contact his astronaut father (Jones), who was long thought dead following a one-way mission to the outer edges of the galaxy.

There is so much to praise about this movie. Pitt's performances for one, as well as the sound design, Max Richter's score, the way the film portrays space travel, Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography, and some of the set pieces.

But all this excellence is dragged down by some painfully obvious pop-psychology, dully and unnecessarily narrated by Pitt. Without giving too much away, his character's journey is both an inner and outer one, and what he finds by the film's end is underwhelming, and as subtle as a sledgehammer. Ad Astra's plot-as-metaphor is tiring and silly, and ultimately unrewarding.

The film is also front-loaded with its best set pieces. The two finest sequences - a high altitude plummet from a space elevator and a high-speed shoot-out on the moon - come in the first half and nothing in the latter half can match their energy or excitement. The pace slows down dramatically, partly because the plot necessitates a long solo space journey which plays out as a monotonous bout of space madness. And then it just begins to wear on you, despite the beauty of it all.

And it is beautiful. The obvious comparison with that other recent big-budget sci-fi think piece Interstellar (which has a far worse ending than Ad Astra, to be fair) is difficult to avoid when you consider both films share a cinematographer. Hoytema's visuals are again amazing. And they're aided by an immersive and impressive sound design that also compliments Richter's score, which in turn compliments the whole production.

As for Pitt, he does a stellar job (pardon the pun), with a turn that fits into his already crowded list of great roles. It is a mostly quiet and internal performance, which makes the dull-and-dumb narration all the more frustrating. It's as if the filmmakers are saying "Pitt's performance is too subtle and people are too stupid, so we better get him to say what his character is thinking". It does Pitt a disservice, undermining a top 10 turn from him, and also undoing so much of the film's good work.

Ad Astra reaches for the stars in its storytelling, but isn't brave enough to really fly.

It: Chapter Two

(MA15+) ★★★★

Director:  Andy Muschietti.

Cast: Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader, Bill Skarsgård,  Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, James Ransone, Jaeden Martell, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, Teach Grant.

The new X-Men team wasn't up to scratch.

Read my full review of It (2017) here.

I loved It - it made my top 10 films of 2017 because not only was it pants-browningly scary, but it was also a beautifully shot coming-of-age story that deserves to be a rite-of-passage horror movie for teens now and in the future.

But that film was only half the story, literally. Stephen King's 1986 source novel divided its action into two sections, set 27 years apart. So It: Chapter Two finds the protagonists of the previous film all grown up, all unhappy, and trying to repress their 27-year-old memories of a child-eating clown named Pennywise (Skarsgård).

But Mike (Mustafa) stayed behind in their hometown of Derry, obsessing over Pennywise, while all the rest of his "gang" The Losers moved on and away. When it seems like "It" has returned to fulfil his 27-year murder cycle, Mike summons The Losers back to Derry to fulfil the promise they made to deal with the murderous clown once and for all.

The success of the first film (which works as a standalone movie) saw this sequel greenlit with double the budget and a top-shelf cast. It's this quality cast - notably Chastain, McAvoy and Hader - that helps elevate Chapter Two above its potentially schlocky material. A handy FX budget also helps sell some of the more ludicrous effects sequences, particularly in the inevitably CG-heavy showdown.

But the way the material is handled is top-shelf too. Whereas the first film dealt with adolescents on the brink of adulthood and the typical fears that come with coming of age, here we find the protagonists on the brink of mid-life crises, riddled with uncertainty and haunted by their pasts. Unrequited loves, closeted sexuality, childhood trauma, unfulfilled lives, self doubts - these are as much a part of the nightmares of The Losers' lives as the monstrous Pennywise.

As much as the likes of Chastain, McAvoy and Hader (and Ryan and Ransone too) bring the goods in the acting stakes, it's Pennywise's show. Aided by some freaky make-up and FX work, Skarsgård is again utterly terrifying, his performance a masterclass in scary. He again makes It's secret weapon, of course, "It". While the film leans heavily on its jump scares, delayed jump scares, and rising soundtrack, it also finds other ways to unnerve. A kid alone in the dark with Pennywise lit by a single firefly, a broad daylight encounter between Hader's Richie and Pennywise, an old lady acting strangely in a loungeroom, Pennywise headbutting a glass wall trying to break through - all of these moments will have you checking under your bed when you get home.

Pennywise may be the star, but special mentions goes to Hader, who gives the performance of his career. He's hilarious, providing some much needed levity amid the po-faced seriousness, but he also helps make Richie the most well-rounded and interesting character of The Losers. It's an under-rated turn from an under-rated actor in a film you might not necessarily seek out for its top-notch thespianism.

The only real creaks come in the story itself. Each character wanders off for their own trip down memory lane, which keeps the scares coming, but drags the story out. There is also the matter of how one kills a millennia-old fear beast, which tips the film's ending into absurdity somewhat. But the film is self-aware enough to poke fun at itself, via the age-old Stephen King critique that his endings suck, with McAvoy's Bill standing in for King (who also cameos in the film). This at least helps keep expectations in check.

It's likely we haven't seen the last of It (they're already touting the possibility of prequels) but if they can leave It well enough alone, then we have a finely crafted horror duology on our hands that will stand the test of time as one of the better Stephen King adaptations.

The Kitchen

(MA15+) ★★

Director: Andrea Berloff.

Cast: Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, Elisabeth Moss, Domhnall Gleeson, Brian d'Arcy James, James Badge Dale, Wayne Duvall, Jeremy Bobb, Bill Camp, Margo Martindale, Common, E.J. Bonilla.

They thought the kitchen was bad until they saw ... the conservatory!

I've often said that instead of remaking great films, Hollywood should be remaking disappointing films. Why do-over something that's already a classic - why not realise the unfulfilled potential of a missed opportunity?

The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Dark Knight Rises and Assassin's Creed are a couple of prime examples. And I'm going to add The Kitchen to that list. Its great characters, excellent premise and strong themes go begging courtesy to a haphazard delivery that never gives its characters, premise or themes time to shine.

Based on a Vertigo graphic novel series, The Kitchen is the story of three wives in New York's Hell's Kitchen who are left behind when their Irish mobster husbands go to jail for a robbery. Unsatisfied with the way the Irish mob looks after them while their fellas are locked up, Kathy (McCarthy), Ruby (Haddish) and Claire (Moss) decide to take a slice of the pie for themselves.

Soon they're running the Irish mob's protection racket and going head-to-head with the Mafia. But are they in over their heads?

This film has so much going for it. A killer cast with meaty roles, some awesome themes of female empowerment, power and corruption, plus a strong plot that gives its characters solid arcs. So where does it all go so wrong?

According to this post from John August's excellent screenwriting blog, the average scene length is about three minutes long at most, or between one to three for a Harry Potter film, as the reader's question notes. For The Kitchen, the average scene length appears to be less than one minute.

Obviously it's not every scene, but it's damned-near most of them and it gives the story a rushed quality, as if the filmmakers were racing to the end, like a four-year-old recounting their day - "this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this....". Scenes are never given time to breathe - instead characters get a few lines each, then bam, onto the next set.

While this is fine at first and allows for a quick set-up of the story, the film's "quickly, quickly" approach eventually grinds. For a story that often feels like it's begging to be a TV series, this is particularly bewildering and frustrating. The richness of the characters and their individual arcs are compressed into an endless barrage of short sequences, giving the entire film the feeling of a montage.

This not only messes with the pacing of the film, it also means we are unable to absorb some of the finer details of the story, rendering a "twist" ending ineffective. It also sucks much of the pathos out of the characters, voiding so much good work done by McCarthy, Haddish and Moss, who are all excellent. When key characters end up at the wrong end of a pistol, it's hard to feel anything because the relentless pacing has pulled the necessary emotion from the story.

It also ruins The Kitchen's potential for dark comedy. There are a couple of nice moments that start to summon up some black humour, but the film doesn't have the patience to linger or commit to the darkness, or indeed any particular tone.

It's a big disappointment from a story and characters with so much potential. The cast's good work and the great production design just makes it all the more frustrating.

Maybe we can get the TV series this deserves in 10 years time. But for now, a visit to The Kitchen is only going to get you a rushed, unsatisfying meal.

Danger Close: The Battle Of Long Tan

(MA15+) ★★★

Director: Kriv Stenders.

Cast: Travis Fimmel, Daniel Webber, Luke Bracey, Richard Roxburgh, Nicholas Hamilton, Matt Doran, Stephen Peacocke, Myles Pollard, Uli Latukefu, Anthony Hayes, Sam Parsonson.

"No, I said half Hawaiian, half Mexican, with extra cheese."

"War? Huh! Good lord! What is it good for?" asked The Temptations (and Edwin Starr and Bruce Springsteen and Frankie Goes To Hollywood).

The answer to this question is "movies". Or, more particularly in this case, "Aussie movies".

We Aussies do love churning out war films, almost as much as we love commemorating Anzac Day. In the past decade alone we've seen Beneath Hill 60, The Railway Man, The Water Diviner and Mel Gibson's Hacksaw Ridge (and you could probably include Tomorrow When The War Began in that lot if you wanted).

The latest addition to the list is the awkwardly titled Danger Close: The Battle Of Long Tan, which tries (and succeeds) at putting you in the midst of that fateful day in 1966.

For those who slept through history class (or didn't get taught about it), the Battle Of Long Tan is one of Australia's best "against great odds" war stories - 100 Aussies and some long range Howitzers versus an estimated North Vietnamese/Viet Cong force of about 2000 troops in a South Vietnamese rubber plantation.

Stenders' film puts you among the soldiers in visceral and well filmed fashion. It looks stunning and when shit gets real early on, it's heart-pounding stuff. There is also an admirable level of authenticity to proceedings. The battle seems to play out in real time, and the lingo, uniforms and behaviours make it feel like the real deal.

The downside of this is that the film becomes a near-endless barrage of shoot-outs that unfortunately begin to look and feel exactly the same. The shots become identical from one mini-battle to the next - count how many times you see a slo-mo of a faceless North Vietnamese soldier blown into the air by a Howitzer blast.

This action focus is at the expense of character. We get to meet five of the soldiers, led by Fimmel's Harry Smith, very briefly in the opening, but after that you're left to guess out who is who, with no names or character arcs for context. It makes it hard to feel for those that don't make it, which sucks a lot of the emotional punch out of the film.

Having said that, the performances are pretty solid all round. Fimmel is given the most to do and is a nice mix of suitably damaged, overly gung-ho, and quietly human in the face of great adversity. The rest of the nameless grunts are left to be scared/brave/determined/exhausted and do a good job of it, with Bracey standing out. Roxburgh, as the hissable "villain" Brigadier Jackson, is the only one outside of Fimmel given a lot of dramatic work to do.

There is some pretty impressive stuntwork, the cinematography from Ben Nott is superb, and the production design is good. One strange thing that bears mentioning is how bad the monsoon in the film looks - it's painfully obvious that it wasn't really raining, and that a too-small number of overhead sprinklers and minimal CGI were used to ill effect.

Stenders has put together a well shot and engaging re-enactment of the Battle of Long Tan, which strives for authenticity and should at least be praised for its efforts in achieving this and honouring the fallen. As a film though, it falls short in many areas, becoming a repetitive, emotionless and vaguely propagandist endeavour due to there being no context around the battle or the brave men who sadly gave their lives.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

(MA15+) ★★★★

Director: Quentin Tarantino.

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Timothy Olyphant, Austin Butler, Mike Moh, Al Pacino.

"I loved you in Johnny Suede."

Welcome to Tarantino's weirdest film yet. It's easily his most mystifying work since Pulp Fiction, his least accessible piece to date, and the most self-indulgent movie of his career (which is saying something for Tarantino).

Admittedly, upon leaving the cinema it felt like QT had missed his mark - that it was a bloated, plotless mess, more caught up in reproducing a lost era of cinema than telling a ripping yarn. But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced his aim is true.

It's long, yes - too long - but it's surprising, hilarious, and unlike anything else in his catalogue. Yet it's also definitely, distinctively, decidedly Tarantino. It will leave a lot of people cold, but that has always been Tarantino's thing - his idiosyncrasies have never been to all tastes, but here he really serves up something that many will find unpalatable, while others will savour for days.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is QT's ode to the final days of Hollywood's golden age; an era that he posits ended when a bunch of Charles Manson's minions committed the so-called Tate Murders in August 1969.

As the film counts down to that bloody full stop, we meet actor Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) and his stuntman/buddy Cliff Booth (Pitt). Rick's star is fading, making him a perennial guest star on TV shows while he hopes and waits for a career revival. Meanwhile Cliff fills his days doing odd jobs for Rick and driving around Los Angeles. It's during one of these drives that he meets Pussycat (Qualley), who is a member of the "Manson Family".

And living next door to Rick is Sharon Tate (Robbie) - a fun-loving actress whose star is rising.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is Tarantino's homage to the twilight of Tinsel Town's halcyon days, and he mirrors this decline in Rick Dalton's career. The role is a gift for DiCaprio, who gets to give some truly cheesy performances, as well as have an on-set meltdown, in between delivering some quite powerful and masterful moments.

DiCaprio gets Pitt to bounce off, and they make for a great pairing that keeps the film moving when it doesn't feel like anything is actually happening. While Rick is a bundle of flaws, fears and inadequacies, his ol' buddy Cliff is always there to reassure him. Cliff's own dark past is teased and tantalised, partly as a way to build the character, but its frustrating. Subject matter aside, Pitt makes Cliff a great mix of gumshoe and goon - an affable and easygoing stuntman from an era of L.A. that's about to wink out of existence, and he doesn't seem to mind.

Robbie's Tate is frustratingly underwritten, but in the context of the wider film, it works. She is the bubbly, oblivious flower child enjoying the best that Hollywood has to offer in this era.

The character focus makes the film feel plotless and meandering. It's first act is painfully slow, while the middle segments which follow Sharon, Rick and Cliff individually are long but more interesting. Then the finale hits and all bets are off. Surprises abound, gears are shifted, and you won't know what hit you. It's impossible to talk about it thoroughly and how much it all means without spoilers, but this isn't that kind of review. All that can be said is that Tarantino's choices for the ending will have you thinking, speculating and wondering for days to come.

It's this last half hour that really changes everything. Prior to that, the film felt like some great performances played out in a well-captured era, with the production design, radio ads, costumes, and soundtrack all serving to evoke the movie's time capsule vibe. But it seemed like little more than that.

But there's an exhilarating and bizarre boldness to the ending that is not only oddly hilarious, but hugely entertaining, like a pay off for the previous slowness. It also fits together so many pieces of the puzzle, helping to fully realise the picture QT was trying to paint. Some sections still feel overpadded, and it could easily be half an hour shorter, even in light of his magnificent outro, but it makes the journey worthwhile.

Like many Tarantino films, this bears re-watching, study and analysis. It's hard to tell where this fits in his oeuvre, but it's a fascinatingly strange movie from an incomparable artist.

Palm Beach

(M) ★★½

Director: Rachel Ward.

Cast: Bryan Brown, Greta Scacchi, Sam Neill, Richard E Grant, Heather Mitchell, Jacqueline McKenzie, Claire van der Boom, Aaron Jeffery, Matilda Brown, Charlie Vickers, Frances Berry.

The latest Endless Summer movie was a real disappointment.

In a rare week when there is not one but two Aussie films getting a wide release in our cinemas (see also Danger Close: The Battle Of Long Tan), you could be forgiven for thinking there was some kind of local movie industry resurgence going on.

But Palm Beach is not the signal of a new wave - rather it's evidence of an industry stuck in the sand. The film fills a void for an oft-ignored demographic, and hopefully gets bums on seats, but it lacks the vitality, spark and originality to make it a runaway success or even highly recommendable. It is okay, but nothing more than that. It is pleasantly average, vaguely disappointing, and largely forgettable.

If nothing else, the top-shelf cast and the colourful characters they portray are welcome company as they reunite at the scenic Palm Beach. It's the birthday (60th? 70th?) of former band manager and T-shirt designer Frank (Bryan Brown), and flying in to join him and his wife (Scacchi) for a boozy long weekend are their kids (Matilda Brown and Vickers), ex-bandmates Billy (Grant) and Leo (Neill), along with their wives - actress Eva (Mitchell) and the fun-loving Bridget (McKenzie) - plus Holly (van der Boom), who is the daughter of the band's deceased lead singer, and her beau Doug (Jeffery).

Over the next few days, they will bicker and laugh, and dig up old memories and long-buried secrets as they re-evaluate what went wrong and right with their lives.

A better Aussie cast you'd be hard-pressed to find, and their chemistry helps give the film some necessary warmth, even in the face of a script that struggles to drum up any real emotion. In the "having a good time" scenes, you get the sense this was fun to make, and that the cast enjoyed themselves. That goodwill flows over into the film, and the older actors all acquit themselves well. It's only a woefully miscast Jeffery (he's 50, not a young lover) and an underwhelming van der Boom who let the side down. But they are the least of the film's problems.

Palm Beach lacks tension, which induces tedium. Several potentially large issues are dealt with either too quickly or not at all. One character uses the band's hit song for an ad without the knowledge of the other members, and the next day, all is forgiven, despite it being a huge deal the day before (and there is no discussion about royalties - is it just me or is that weird? On a sidenote, this is representative of the film's unrealistic portrayal of its old ex-musos - they never seem like former bandmates in their inter-relationships or the way they talk about the band's past, if at all). A character damages a neighbouring house, but this is ignored.

The script's biggest disservice is done to its female characters. Their arcs all revolve around their men or are non-existent. Faring worst is McKenzie's Bridget who gets no subplot at all. But worst of all is the fact a lot of their conversations are about their men, as if they have no lives of their own. The female characters don't feel as well fleshed out as the male ones, which is disappointing.

The slow-burn central mystery of the film is hackneyed and fails to spark anything, while the various in-and-out of love plots are tiring. All of these issues boil down to the lacklustre and unoriginal script. It's The Big Chill meets The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, and that's not necessarily a recommendation.

(I thought I was clever coming up with that comparison, but it turns out Bryan Brown has been describing it thus in interviews. So if nothing else, I at least feel like I was right.)

It leaves Palm Beach lacking any distinguishing features beyond the cast. Ward's direction captures the setting well, and imbues shots with warmth, but the script (which she co-wrote) falls short. It needed more laughs, some sizzle in the dialogue, and some actual stakes. It doesn't help that the movie wanders from one mid-life crisis to the next, occasionally hitting a nice theme or seam of story, before meandering off to a montage of postcard-worthy scenery.

This blandness is also exemplified by the soundtrack. It's a mix of overplayed '60s and '70s rock, folk and soul songs that don't add to the film. Instead they unsubtly labour points, or feel like generic selections. Are these songs supposed to speak to the bygone halcyon days of these characters, because if so, the time span feels too wide? Why isn't the soundtrack buzzing with the "contemporaries" of the main characters' band, or a narrower selection from a particular era to invoke a welcome feeling of nostalgia?

This is a missed opportunity because the cast is largely fun to hang out with. But their high spirits and strong performances wear out in the face of tired tropes between the patchy entertainment.

Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw

(M) ★★★

Director: David Leitch.

Cast: Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba, Vanessa Kirby, Eiza González, Eddie Marsan, Helen Mirren, Cliff Curtis, Ryan Reynolds, Rob Delaney, Kevin Hart.

The new series of The Block was going to be lit.

Read my review of Fast Five here.
Read my review of Fast & Furious 6 here.
Read my review of Furious 7 here.
Read my review of The Fate Of The Furious (F&F8) here.

Here's a fun experiment - find someone who's never seen a Fast & Furious film. Then make them sit down and watch the first movie in the series (The Fast & The Furious from all the way back in 2001). Then get them to watch Hobbs & Shaw.

And then see if they can explain what the hell happened in between, and how these two films can possibly inhabit the same cinematic universe.

This spin-off is the ninth film in the series (although the actual Fast & Furious 9 is due out next year) and it certainly captures the over-the-top insanity and complete disregard for physics that the F&F franchise has made its stock-in-trade. There are still fast cars, although they are less prominent in this sidequel - this is less about cars, and more about Brosnan-era Bond-type OTT mayhem. Except on steroids. And possibly meth.

There is no subtlety here - Hobbs & Shaw makes past F&F movies look positively restrained. Remember when a high speed chase through tunnels under the Mexican border (see F&F4) seemed ludicrous? Well, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The plot revolves around the unlikely pairing of Johnson's federal agent Hobbs (first seen in F&F5) and Statham's soldier-turned-mercenary Shaw (first seen in an F&F6 cameo). They team up to track a stolen programmable virus, which is in the hands of an MI6 agent (Kirby) who has seemingly gone rogue. Also on the trail is cybernetically enhanced baddie Brixton (Elba), who has his own designs on the technovirus.

The films in the F&F series have ranged from bad and dumb (2 Fast 2 Furious) to good and dumb (Fast Five and Furious 7), and this is somewhere in the middle. It's particularly idiotic, but there's enough fun to be had to make its gargantuan run time almost worthwhile.

First to the dumb stuff. The contrivances in the first act-and-a-half are a real stretch. To get Johnson and Statham's supposed sworn enemies to work together, but also to keep Kirby's MI6 agent on the run means no one's motives make any sense. And your suspension of disbelief has to be tuned pretty high to be on board from the start. As with previous instalments, the way anything works - physics, law enforcement, the media, airports - is disregarded and replaced with an in-film logic that is basically whatever the filmmakers want it to be.

But Hobbs & Shaw's biggest sin is its length. After reaching a place where the film should have ended, our lead trio (and the plot) keep on running. While this brings us to Samoa for a memorable climax and some sledgehammering of F&F's eternal maxim - family is the most important thing ever -  it stretches the film well past its end-by time.

But now the fun stuff, and top of that list is Idris Elba. Despite boasting paper-thin villains with dodgy plans for world domination, F&F has managed to get some good actors to go bad and have a blast in the process. Charlize Theron and Luke Evans, as well as Statham and Johnson, have proven enjoyable antagonists in the franchise, and you can add Elba to that roster. Again, his character has little depth and a ridiculous motive, but he's formidable and entertaining. And, if nothing else, it looks like Elba is having blast.

Ditto for Johnson and Statham. Even if their insults and banter occasionally sink, there is still a half-decent dynamic between them. Kirby is an underwritten third wheel, poorly served by the script, but the film is definitely stronger when the three of them are on screen together. It's also worth noting that Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Hart, despite seemingly dropping in to visit the set from different movies, give really good cameos.

There's a lot about this that is not worth caring about and it's too long by nearly half an hour. But it's still fun, it still has some good moments (particularly its somewhat redeeming Samoan showdown), and it's batshit insane. But you get the feeling that it knows it's batshit insane. And that kind of makes it all okay.