Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

 "And blood-black nothingness begins to spin.,,"

Some films are entertainment. Some are much more of an immersive cultural experience, where one is simply bombarded with meaning by subtext, visuals, dialogue, plot, performance, world building all of it. suffice to say that, after just one viewing (in truly delightful company, I might add), I've no doubt that I've done no more than scratch the surface.

This film doesn't feel as though it's two hours and forty-three minutes long. Yet it owns its slow pace, with Denis Villeneuve feeding us a number of well-thought through environments in this future world (albeit a future to the 2019 not of the real world, but of Blade Runner!). It takes its time. This means suspense, yes, but just luxuriating on the visuals and what they mean for this subdued, downcast world where there are no trees but still cigarettes.

The plot is, perhaps, not particularly breaking new ground, despite a rather effective twist towards the end of the film, but that isn't the point. It's about mood. It's about an extraordinary cast portraying subtle yet deep emotions through facial acting. It's about world building- the Blackout, the sheer horror of Wallace's desire to create a race of synthetic slaves.

And it's a film about ideas. About memory versus reality. About the question of whether an AI can truly love. About what it means to be alive, and what that means as to who matters and who does not. About how we can so easily accept the terrible things done in our name. But also about hope, despite everything.

This is not in itself an adaptation of a Philip K. Dick novel, merely a sequel. Yet it feels very Philip K. Dick. It'll take a few more viewings to absorb this film properly, but it's a thing of pure hope that so philosophical a film can exist. A worthy sequel. And an extraordinary film. 

Dunkirk (2017)

 "He's shell-shocked, George. He's not himself. He might never be himself again."

Obviously, this is no typical war film: it's Christopher Nolan, after all. We don't even see any Germans, just the effects of their bullets, bombs and especially planes. There isn't even a central character as such, just an ensemble cast whom we follow throughout. Then there's the famously non-linear narrative structure- the events at the beach taking one week; the events at sea taking one day; and the events in the air taking one day. Yet this is over-hyped, I think: the film is perfectly easy to follow, and the film is about much bigger things than its own structure.

This film  is an extraordinary achievement. There's plenty of heroism on display, but also shell-shock, fear and paranoia- the scene in which the British soldiers in a sinking boat threaten to throw overboard first a Frenchman and then a man from another regiment is deeply disturbing. But this is reality. It is not a gung-ho adventure story. That would not be Dunkirk. Yet we see the heroism of Collins and Farrier in the air, and the heroism of Mr Dawson, Peter  and George, civilians who risk everything- with seventeen year old George losing his life... at the hands of a panicking, shell-shocked British officer.

The cast- Tom Hardy perhaps excepted- is composed of character actors rather than stars, reinforcing that this is not a stirring action film but an honest attempt to depict what the evacuatrion would have felt like. Both the direction and the soundtrack are utterly peerless throughout, evoking the feel of besiegement and desperation. And the performance of Mark Rylance, in particular, is utterly sublime.

There is hope at the end, yes. The evacuation is a success against the odds. It's a nice choice to have Churchill's famed words be read from a newspaper by a young soldier. Yet we're left in no doubt that the road ahead is long and hard. Wars are not won by evacuations. Yet nor are they won without an army. Mere survival is not victory. But it does, of course, keep the hope of victory alive.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

 "Well, if you save the world, you knoiw what that means...!"

I rather enjoyed the previous Kingsman movie, a fitrst class rollicking modern action movie which was basically a modern version of James Bond written by Jane Goldman and directed by Matthew Vaughn. I enjoyed this film for exactly the same reasons.

The first film was excellent. This sequel, unusually, maintained exactly the same level of quality, in exactly the same style. It's a blockbuster action film in the James Bond sort of genre, only without the historical weight and constraints on the visual style.

This works. Taron Egerton in=s a splendid lead. Julianne Moore is almost as good a Bond villain as Samuel L. Jackson was. We have a whole new American cast, led by Jeff Bridges, after Kingsman is destroyed, and are introduced to a new American secret socety based in the state of bluegrass and fried chicken, what would be the coolest state in the USA if it were not the fact that it votes for the Republican party, a fascist cult that hates democracy and is rightly despised by all who love freedom, including one hundred percent of the mainstream centre-right, . If you're reading this and you're a Republican, kindly cease doing so. And, indeed.cease reading my blog. You hate freedom and I loathe you as I loathed the USSR. Democracy hates you asv you hate democracy. Death to all you love. Thank you.

I admire the attitude this film takes to the drugs war. Personally, I'm on the fence. Cannabis obviously needs to be legalised, not least so that I can occasionally smoke it (at old-fashionred strength), but heroin? The film, while not telling us what think, addressed the topic thoughtfully, while showing us the cool side of Kentucky at the same time as giving us a US president almost as much as a prick as the criminal Trump. May he die in prison.

Anyway, superb film,.a blockbuster every bitbas good as the original..

Logan (2017)

 "Don't be what they made you..."

I'm going to do my best to watch the few remaining X-Men films from Fox in order. It'll be Dark Phoenix next, fairly soon, but for now we have this rather unexpectedly styled and surprisingly good film based on a limited series featuring Wolverine in the future (2029!) well after my time.

My knowledge of Marvel comics is fairly comprehensive up to circa 1993, and fairly nonexistent after them. So I know of Caliban- played here (and rather well) by Stephen Merchant of all people, and of course of Donald Piercxe and the Reavers, from the late 1980s stories by Chris Claremont in a rather differrent context.

But the situation here is different. Logan- more than two centuries old in a fairly depressing life- is dying of a myserious ailment; Charles Xavier is dying and suffering from dementia, a terrifying outcome for someone with his mental powers, and something which led, a year ago, to the "Westchester Incident" in which several, including multiple X-<Men died. And this is a world in which, for reasons ultimately explained, no mutant has been born for a quarter of a century. Oh, and, unexpectedly, by means of a test tube baby and sperm theft, Logan has a daughter. With claws.

This is a superb film, with superb acting elevating a quite good script to somewhat more than that. Hugh Jackman is excellentt but Patrick Stewart is sublime. The best X-Men film yet and, I suspect, unlikely to be bettered.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

"Ah, Skywalker. Missed you I have."

I'm a fan of Star Wars, in the ordinary sense of the word. Sufficiently so that I watched every Star Wars film at the cinema from Return of the Jedi in 1983 to The Force Awakens in 2015 at the cinema, incuding the horrible special editions of the original trilogy. Sufficiently so that I could spend talking about the old Kenner action figures. Suffciently so that I've blogged the '80s Ewok TV films.

That it's taken me so long to watch this film is a testament to how real life has changed for me these days, and little else. Let's just say that, with a daughter, a disabled wife and a full time job, free time is not what it once was.

But that’s not the only reason I mention this. Because I’m a fan, but not a fanboy. And I’m vaguely aware of the fact, if not necessarily the details, that the fanboys wee split over this film. And I have no idea why. It’s a splendid bit of blockbuster fun, with real heart at its core and great characters, and absolutely in the spirit- and indeed structure- of the original trilogy.

That last point, after this second film, is now abundantly clear. Hence Han, in the last film, fulfilled the role of Obi Wan, whereas Luke here is Yoda, in terms of plot function. Leia has a large and rather touching role, rather fitting as a send off for the much-missed Carrie Fisher. But the main protagonists are or course Rey, Finn, Poe and Kylo Ren, the next generation. And rightly so.

I love how the film knowingly echoes the sort of things earlier Star Wars films tended to do, but does unexpected things at the last minute. So Ren shockingly kills Snoke as Vader killed Palpatine- but not because he’s had a moral reawakening, merely because of personal ambition. Laura Dern’s unlikeable Vice Admiral Holdo turns out to be right, brave and clever all along. Luke is not even there in his final, epic fight with Ren- the second member of the original cast he’s now slain. Best of all, Rey is not Luke’s daughter or any such thing, just a poor person from nowhere. Social mobility is a thing on the Star Wars universe.

I can see how some may dislike Luke’s characterisation here; they have a good case to make, but good drama should be unpredictable and challenging by definition. Arguably it may be out of character, but by sleight of hand it works. As for those lonely, virgin little boys who stamp their tiny feet at the fact some of the cast have the temerity to not be white or male (gasp), let us leave them to their crippling loneliness.

I didn’t just like this film. I loved it. Waiting three years was absurd.

Get Out (2017)

“With my genetic material, shit gonna go down.”

 This is an extraordinary film, still very recent and an instant horror classic. Like the best horror films it holds back its scares and relies on suspense rather than gore, and works superbly on that score. Better than that, it's actually about something.

I'm British, and aware that it is doubly true that some of the commentary about race relations here are specific to America, where the legacy of slavery is something that actually happened in America rather than being too hurriedly dismissed as something that happened in distant colonies, and also that a great deal of it is universal commentary on race relations that very much applies here too.

The film is seen from the perspective of Chris, a nice, likeable, ordinary black man who is nervous about meeting his white girlfriend's very white family and turns out to be very, very justified. And yet said family is not overtly racist- there are no white hoods here and I have absolutely no doubt that Dean Armitage would indeed have voted for Obama a third time if he could. These are people who would be genuinely upset to be thought of as racist and a little too anxious to prove their non-racism in not-very-subtle ways. And yet, as the film points out, these people have seldom met a black person who didn't work for them.

All this happens with a grainy picture an a directorial style which is at once superb and very much employing the unsettling visual grammar of the horror film. The intensity of the hypnotism scene is terrifying, as is the later framing of Georgina's face in a creepy and highly effective scene, a triumph of both actress and director. This is horror by unease rather than jump cuts.

Even the final reveal of what is going on works perfectly as metaphor; the family may want to lobotomise young black people so their grandparents can use their younger bodies, but the racism here is far from overt but more of a metaphor for cultural appropriation and all the subtle, unthinking exploitation that we white liberals almost certainly undertake all the time. An outstanding and thought provoking film.

The Greatest Showman (2017)

"They're laughing anyway, kid. So might as well get paid."

This is notorious, of course, for being the film that critics utterly despised yet going on to become a massive word-of-mouth hit. Having now seen it I can see why it did well; it’s very well-shot and choreographed. Nevertheless, I didn’t like the songs at all as they sound like contemporary  chart pop with all the unlistenable production that implies, but some people must like chart pop.

This is a musical about Phineas T. Barnum, a figure whose life I know only in broad strokes and who is famous these days mainly for the apocryphal “there’s a sucker born every minute”. But the film presents him, Hugh Jackman’s charm and his being a good family man aside, as a deeply exploitative bastard who exploits those with actual talent- even if the “talent” is to be a dwarf or bearded woman- in order to make himself rich. He’s no better than Simon Cowell, a deeply unpleasant individual who uses, abuses and discards people and is a morally disgusting beast of a human being. When he finally abandons his “freaks” for a night, not wanting them to be seen by his posh mates as he puts on a big opera do, we see how little they mean to him in spite of giving him his fortune, and the bearded lady gets an uplifting song. Yet later on, in a perverse type of Stockholm syndrome, when Barnum nearly loses everything they insist on staying as part of the “family”. This is very uncomfortable to see.

And perhaps that’s it; it’s superbly directed and very well made, and well acted in spite of the central character’s surprising blandness, and I suppose the songs are aimed at people who can stand modern chart pop- they certainly aren’t show tunes- but I’m not sure what the script is trying to do. It seems to want to be a simple, escapist melodrama but you can’t really deal with the theme of “freak shows” without having something coherent to say about them, and this film doesn’t. It’s very well made by it’s largely Australian crew, but in the end it’s a largely empty experience.

The Death of Stalin (2017)

"I’m sorry you heard that, but he is a camel cock.”

This is my first opportunity in this blog to praise the great Armando Iannucci. I have, of course, seen all of The Thick of It, Alan Partridge and The Day Today, as well as some more obscure and older stuff. I am, it’s fair to say, quite the fanboy. And this film is in Iannucci‘s usual improvisational style and is rather good. So don’t expect a hatchet job.

It’s all historically accurate barring the odd bit of artistic licence- in reality Beria was executed a full six months after his downfall- and the inspired decision to ban cod Russian accents helps the film enormously. The cast is superb, with Steve Buscemi perfect as Khrushchev and Simon Russell Beale utterly evil as the loathsome Lavrentiy Beria. But it’s Michael Palin’s Molotov who steals the show, in a perfect bit of casting, as the fogeyish but utterly fanatical Vyacheslav Molotov, whose loyalty extends to believing his arrrsted wife must indeed be a traitor.

We begin with clear demonstrations of the evil of the regime, with one of Stalin’s “lists” being enacted as another load of random people are “disappeared” into Beria’s torture chambers, where he enjoys himself far too much for comfort. He’s an utterly repulsive and dangerous human being, yet it’s creepy that his downfall is in the end because of trumped up treason charges, with his very real history of extreme murder, torture and paedophilia a mere afterthought.

What disturbs, yet rings very true, is the sheer laddishness of the committee as a whole. They all plot for power, yes. They’ve all done terrible things for the party. But they’re nevertheless (the humourless Malenkov excepted) a bunch of immature “lads”. And yet there’s a fanatical groupthink here that is a scary ondictment of unchecked power with many lessons for us today. A superb film.

Justice League (2017)

“What are your superpowers again?”

“I’m rich.”

 I'd intended to start this blog with a quip about that notorious moustache. After all, I mentioned it to Mrs Llamastrangler and she was amused to find the CGI on Henry Cavill’s upper lip so very obvious. But sadly I can’t continue along those lines as this film is an utter mess. It’s a turf, a stinker, a mind-bogglingly bad film. What went wrong?

D.C. can make good films. I enjoyed Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. But they simply have no Kevin Fiege. There no quality control, no consistency of tone, no building up the characters in their individual films first. So we get these big epic films about iterations we don’t really know of characters who have barely been introduced to us in this version of the D.C. Universe. The pacing is atrocious and the script is lacking in sparkle. And the odd wittty line, presumably late additions by Joss Whedon after Zack Snyder was sacked, just jars with the po-faced and dull tone. This is a film about superheroes that fails to be fun. That’s quite an achievement.

Oh, some of the cast are good. Henry Cavill is well cast, and Ezra Miller is an inspired choice as an awkward young Flash. But Ben Affleck is both bad and wrong as Batman, Jeremy Irons is good but miscast as Alfred, and Ciaran Hinds gives us a generic and forgettable villain. And Jason Momoa’s Aquaman, incredibly, gets most of the best lines. And the amount of exposition just beggars belief. And don’t get me started on the sheer quantity of poor CGI.

This is, hands down, the worst superhero film I’ve ever seen.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

"I'm asking for safe passage through the Anus..."

Time for another Marvel film, methinks. I'm determined to get through them all.

This is an MCU film, so you won’t be surprised to read that I enjoyed it hugely. It’s not the very best effort from the increasingly indomitable fiefdom of Kevin Fiege, but it may well be the most fun. The whole thing is pitched as a comedy, and good comedy at that. It’s a departure for Thor, yes, but it works. And there’s something about Thor and his world that lends itself to this sort of thing. I hope Taika Waititi does more.

It’s good to see the post-Avengers Hulk too, with another excellent performance from Mark Ruffalo. The Hulk, rightly in my opinion, hasn’t been considered sufficiently popular as to warrant his own film since 2008, but remains a strong supporting character. It’s good as well as inevitable to see Loki, too, although the relationship between the brothers is so predictable by now that fourth wall-breaking humour is the only possible approach.

It’s brave, but absolutely right, to not only do Ragnarok and do it properly (while evacuating the population), to do it with humour rather than be bleakly depressing, and to mix it up with post-Guardians of the Galaxy cosmic hi-jinks. And Marvel, for once, give us a first class baddie with Cate Blanchett’s Hela, appearing just after Odin dies and revealing that his and Asgard's past has all been a lie; Odin was not always a wise and benevolent ruler. A less serious but highly entertaining baddie, though, is Jeff Goldblum playing superbly against his maverick scientist typecasting as Grandmaster. We even get an Doctor Strange cameo.

I realise not all Marvel films can be like this. But... can we have some more please?

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie (2017)

"Able to leap tall buildings without getting a wedgie..."

Mrs Llamastrangler and I were curious to see this recent DreamWorks effort after seeing the trailer last year and, well, it's on Sky Movies, we have a three year old, and we gave it a go. Our verdict is that yes, perhaps there are funnier films and, yes, there are many better efforts from the same studio. Still, we enjoyed it.

This film may not exactly have a star-studded cast, and it may be very, very silly, but... well, it's very, very silly. At its heart are two kids called George and Harold, who seem to be in the American equivalent of junior school and whose principal is delightfully villainous. Professor Poopypants, too, is the perfect supervillain and the conceit- said nasty principal is hypnotised into being Captain Underpants from the duo's personally created comic books- manages to get a film's worth of laughs. And of course Melvin is the perfect teacher's pet stereotype.

It's not the best film ever made, no. And I think our three year old girl was just that little bit too young to enjoy it. I also very much noticed how very, very male the cast was- the four significant characters are all blokes. But this is a very funny and somewhat charming film which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Wonder Woman (2017)

“They came to the conclusion that men are essential for procreation. But for pleasure? They are unnecessary.”

I thought DC Universe films are supposed to be rubbish? First Suicide Squad turns out not to be the turkey of popular opinion, then Wonder Woman turns out to be really rather good. I really ought to get round to the others.

I know very little about the Wonder Woman of the comics and am, I fear, reliant on popular culture for my knowledge of the character, although I’m vaguely aware of William Marston, his unconventional sex Life and his eccentric proto-feminist views. Both of those strands seem to be reflected here, with Diana originating from an island of Amazon warriors who seem to be ageless and are, of course, entirely female. And, while the film perhaps wisely steers clear of any overtly political style of feminism- that sort of thing tends to lead to preaching to the converted, and that would make this popular blockbuster a wasted opportunity; best to simply use humour and optimism to show a female hero kicking arse in a time (1918) when women were still a few weeks away even from having the vote. Yes, society has an awful lot of structural misogyny within it and, I have no doubt, my own consciousness of my male privilege doesn’t have much effect on stopping me from inadvertently contributing to it. After all, we live in a very misogynistic society in spite of some advances, and unconscious bias is a thing. It could hardly be otherwise. But sexual politics, like all politics, is the art of the possible and this is the age we live in. And a kick ass scene where Diana runs over the top and runs to the other side of the trenches to save an entire village is far better and more effective than preaching.

This film is fast-paced, exciting, full of witty lines and cool, likeable characters played superbly by an excellent cast, with a splendid villain to boot. But Gal Gadot is a true revelation, with exactly the right balance between innocence, heroism and wisdom. Hugely enjoyable.

Jigsaw (2017)

“The game- it's started!"

 SPOILERS. You have been warned.

Well, that was unexpected. Seven years after this long-running and very gory franchise of clever whodunit/vigilante tale/squirm fest comes to an ignominious end with Saw 3-D it gets another sequel- this time, against all odds, a fitting, satisfying and genuinely clever finale.

I don't use the word "unexpected" lightly. After all, John Kramer has been dead for so many films now that it really is just stretching credulity to have his pre-planned "games" still playing out ten years after his death. It also isn't remotely credible to have him somehow not have died, although the film teases us with this possibility. No; instead, the film riffs on this very dilemma and finds a solution which is, yes, cheating a bit- this new set of murders exactly mirrors an earlier bunch of murders, and we aren't told until near the end that the scenes featuring Kramer happen years earlier- but it's genuinely clever. I like the inclusion of Jigsaw superfan Eleanor, whose gory collection makes her a splendid red herring, while our two police detective anti-heroes soon focus into our two main suspects for Jigsaw's heir. We also get some gloriously fiendish "games" and as clever and intricate a plot as ever.

So the franchise is right back on form at the last moment. But please: no more.

The Emoji Movie (2017)

"Nobody leaves the phone! Delete them!"

Ok, let me make one thing clear from the outset; this film is pants. Oh, there are some films, such as Sausage Party, which seem at first as though they're going to be puerile and stupid but in fact turn out to be witty and clever. So I gave this film a chance. Don't make the same mistake; this film is half-arsed, boring and just plain bad.

It's hard to see whether the fundamental flaw is the concept or the execution. It's all set inside the phone of a kid called Alex, with emojis competing to be flavour of the month and the hero Gene, a "meh" emoji, gets into trouble for failing to always display a "meh" expression, only to save the day, predictably, for being in touch with the full range of his emotions and all that. Oh, and there's a token love story which, to be fair, has a genuine feminist subtext, and James Bloody Corden as the most annoying sidekick ever. We even get a deeply irritating dance scene purely for the purpose of letting Christina Aguilera do something.

The film is stupid, boring, feels over-long, and will inevitably look incredibly dated in not many years from now. And it gives rise yet again to that age-old question: why does America find James Corden funny?

Cult of Chucky (2017)

“You thought I was the only one?”

 I think it's well-established by now that this is possibly the most consistently excellent long-running horror movie franchise, given the high average quality of the seven films. And this film, by the same team as the superb and splendidly back-to-basics Curse of Chucky, is very good indeed, if perhaps slightly eclipsed by its predecessor. What a shame that both films were straight to DVD.

The film, unlike most modern Hollywood horror, looks superb, with the grainy picture quality avoiding the inappropriate glossiness that we so often see these days. The setting, too- a mental institution- is milked for maximum levels of disturbing horror. Mixed to the inherent and very deep darkness of the Catch-22 nature of having to prove your sanity in a world of straitjackets, sedation, electric shock treatment and absolute lack of freedom is the fact that the perverted Dr Foley hypnotises and rapes his horribly vulnerable victims. Even Chucky is not sure which of the two is the more evil, and that's saying something.

The conceit of the film is, of course, that the incanted spell can bring to life any Good Guy doll as Chucky, and on top of this he can now possess people, leading to a gloriously developing and fun slasher which ends up with three Chuckies, a possessed Nica, Andy in considerable trouble and a deliciously warped, silly, sequel-hunting final scene. This franchise is on fire, and is worth seeing for the skylight scene alone.

I have to single out Fiona Dourif for another outstanding performance, but the film as a whole is superb and deserves to be seen by far more people than, sadly, it will be.

Despicable Me 3 (2017)

"Oh, it is on like Donkey Kong!"

So we have another Despicable Me sequel and... yeah, this is one too many, isn't it, really? Don't get me wrong; the film isn't bad. But we're really getting to the point now where things are starting to feel a bit repetitive.

That said, I enjoyed it, even if I wasn't necessarily blown away. The characters are intrinsically funny, and the actors are all good, with Kristen Wiig in particular being outstanding. Bratt is an amusing villain, with his extreme eightiesness extending to a hairstyle which involves both mullet and spiky hair, constant use of Rubiks' cubes and bubble gum everywhere. Also, it's amusing to see Gru's twin brother, and the three girls are cute. But, well, the film comes in at less than 90 minutes and I think there's a reason for that.

Still, there is cool stuff, much of it revolving around Eighties references: "I love it when a plan comes together", indeed. "Monsieur Pompo" is a nice little dig at Trump. We get Minions, in prison, ruling the roost and being well 'ard. It's just that an awful lot of the character sub-plots (such as Margo's accidental "engagement") don't really go anywhere and it just feels as though the script could do with a couple of more drafts. Having said that, the film is worth seeing if you liked the others. Please, though, let us not have any more.

Baywatch (2017)

“You got your beef and your biscuits stuck down there...”

I know. What can I say? It was a moment of madness. I can certainly reassure you, though: I certainly won’t be blogging the TV series. No one wants that.

Well, let’s make clear from the outset that, a few good performances aside such as, yes, Dwayne Johnson, Mrs Llamastrangler and I are both united in the view that this film is, unsurprisingly, pants. The plot is as predictable as clockwork, with cartoon baddies and a secondary hero who has to prove himself, and there are the obligatory knowing winks and amusing cameos from both Pamela Anderson and a shockingly old-looking David Hasselhoff. Mercifully unexplained is why both mentor and protege are called Mitch Buchannon.

We have a nerd character (we know at the start he’s a nerd because he wears a Donkey Kong t-shirt) who ends up getting the sexy chick and, yes, you’re not going to get a movie like this without, well, not so much the male gaze as an awful lot of perving on scantily clad women by both the camera and the script.

There are some funny one liners, especially at the start and end, but unfortunately the middle of the film is all plot and action and this is really rather dull in the way rubbish films tend to be. Yes, this film is done with a knowing wink, the fourth wall is somewhat unstable throughout, but let there be no doubt that this film is utter, absolute pants.

The Lego Batman Movie (2017)

"What is the password?"

"Iron Man sucks!"

It's New Year's Eve, the little one is in bed, and it's my last night of freedom before a month of intense real life stuff that is likely to preclude pretty much any blog stuff happening between now and 30th/31st January because of some pretty intense real life stuff. Be reassured, though; normal blogging frequency will be resumed. Meanwhile, I'll do this last blog post of 2017 as several pints of Boddingtons go down.

This movie is awesome, the kind of knowing but very silly and very meta film that the Batman mythos was just crying out for. I knew it was going to be fun as soon as the Batman monologue over the opening titles started, and I knew it was going to be awesome as soon as the bloke started singing "Nothing bad ever happens to me".

I love the deliberate usage of all of Batman's rogues gallery from all media, including Egghead, Killer Moth, King Tut, Gentleman Ghost, Crazy Quilt and, er, Condiment King. Even better, there's a Chief O'Hara. This film has a huge amount of knowing fun with the whole mythos, including jokes about how Batman has been fighting crime in Gotham City for 78 years.

Things enter an extra level of awesome, though, once the Joker brings back his mates from the Phantom Zone including Godzilla, King Kong, Sauron, Voldemort, the Wicked Witch of the West and various other big bads that Warner Bros has the right to. And, er, certain nameless pepperpots that it blatantly doesn't. And the running romcom joke about the relationship between Batman and the Joker is genuinely funny. The most fun film of 2017 so far, without a doubt.

Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 (2017)

“I have sensitive nipples!”

Yes, the Guardians of the Galaxy are back. Wisely, James Gunn is also back to write and direct, and the soundtrack plays just as part a role. What we have is more of the same, which is no bad thing. This sequel may not be quite as good as the first film but it has the same humour, the same relatable characters in a very cosmic setting, and the same sense of style.

It even has a heart, with the message that men like Yondu who bother to raise children are proper fathers, whereas giant planets like Ego who bugger off to destroy all life in the universe are not. We also have a touching and hilarious romance of sorts between Drax (who gets the best lines, again: “I have famously huge turds”) and the innocent Mantis. The reconciliation between sisters Gamora and Nebula is heartwarming, and we are told the horrible truth that Thanos (Not in the film but ever- present) used to make his daughters fight and Gamora always won, and each time he would replace a part of Nebula’s body with machinery for losing- truly horrific. Baby Groot is cute. And Rocket Raccoon is everybody’s favourite arsehole.

Ego, of course, can’t always be shown as a giant planet on the screen, so Kurt Russell plays his human avatar, although we certainly get to see Ego as we know him, a living planet with a face. Mantis is as we know her from Steve Englehart. And the Stan Lee cameo is intriguing as we briefly catch him reminiscing to Uatu, suggesting that all his cameos may have seen him working undercover for the Watchers. Ego is a Celestial, apparently; they obviously look quite different in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Howard the Duck gets another cameo, played by Seth Green. And the ending seems to hint at the creation of Adam Warlock, no less.

We get a dramatic and very sad ending bringing everything to a splendid confusion, and some properly cosmic post-credit scenes. I’m glad it won’t be another three years until we see these characters again.

It (2017)

“Wait, can only virgins see this stuff? Is that why I'm not seeing this shit?”

Well, that was unusual. A modern day horror film that eschews all the usual glossy music video tiresomeness in favour of being genuinely excellent. I’ve never heard of anyone involved with this film but they done good.

It’s instructive to compare this, perhaps, to the 1990 two part telly adaptation; we get the same rough plot, except that the film is only the first half, during the principal characters’ childhoods- updated from the early ‘60s to the late ‘80s, with lots of pop culture goodness including both the Cure and Anthrax in the soundtrack. Like the original, and the novel, we get a bunch of white boys with a token girl (Beverly) and black kid (Mike). Jaeden Lieberher and Sophia Lillis are particularly excellent as the main characters- author substitute Bill who is mourning his little brother and poor Beverly, whose father is a nonce and gets a pleasing comeuppance. This, along with Henry Bowers’ tragic cycle of abuse, means that this film plays up the child abuse theme somewhat, something which is probably wrapped up thematically in the idea of Pennywise as the sum of all childhood fears.

The film excels as drama, with well-developed characters and good acting from some superb child actors. That is the basis of any film reliant on traditional narrative, regardless of genre, but this film
managed to scare me, and horror films don’t, as a rule; I’m far too conscious of that fourth wall. But here, unlike almost all modern horror films, we get a lot of genuine suspense at the centre of done superbly conceived and executed set pieces, and it helps that the direction is excellent. All that, and a solid script, makes for an excellent film.

Even the famously hard-to-please Mrs Llamastrangler is extremely impressed. Highly recommended. Coulrophobes beware, though!