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. 

The Princess Bride (1987)

"Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?"

"Yes."

"Morons."

It's a genuine mystery: This Is Spinal Tap is one of the funniest films ever. How, then, can pretty much the same team- Rob Reiner directs, Christopher Guest has a major role- produce something so unfunny as this.

I can see what it’s trying to do- play with the silliness of the tropes and cliches. Hence we have exaggerated tropes such as a princess with absurd faith that her ridiculously heroic man will save her, and a Spanish swordsman who lives to avenge his father’s death. But none of this is addressed with any real wit, and it’s obly the names (Prince Humperdinck) and cameos from the likes of Peter Cook and Mel Smith that tell us this is intended to be a comedy.

All this is narrated by Columbo to his annoying, sport-obsessed grandson for no apparent reason, in a framing sequence that has no obvious reason to be there. It describes a weird mediaeval word where fictional countries mix with real ones and people seem to have heard of Australia. And where there are, er, “rodents of unusual size” which look awfully like a man in a suit. It’s clearly meant to be funny. It isn’t. An odd misfire.

I very strongly suspect, mind, that the “battle of wits” scene strongly influenced the first episode of Sherlock.

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.

Forrest Gump (1994)

"Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get."

I didn't want to like this film. I assumed it had a passively conservative agenda in that the homespun wisdom of the Deep South is a much better guide for life than those pesky liberal intellectuals. And yes, there is a bit of that. And it's not necessarily a good thing to imply that success comes to those who morally deserve it as it does to Forrest- it doesn't. But I liked it anyway. I may be a Guardian reading type and Lib Dem voter (though definitely not on Clegg's wing of the party), but I hail from the reactionary, UKIP voting rural East Midlands and, while most of my fellow denizens of this region may average some decidedly right wing views, I'm definitely proud of where I come from. Eh up, me duck.

All of which is to say that I rather enjoyed this film and I think it would be churlish to knock it for it's fairly passive conservative slant. In any case, I'm wary that I haven't read the novel on which the film is based. So let's actually talk about the film, shall we?

Firstly, Tom Hanks is superb, evoking both humour and pathos in a way that reminds one of the great Charlie Chaplin.

His choice of scripts may often leave something to be desired, but as an actor he's one of the best that Hollywood has to offer. And the film is fun, riffing enjoyably on its Zelig concept to insert Forrest into footage of the likes of John Lennon and any number of American presidents. It is, perhaps, an example of a post-Cold War America, in the middle of the "End of History" era, looking back fondly over its most recent tumultuous decades of counterculture and Vietnam. 

Forrest's homespun philosophies are, of course, silly, and the film could be accused of naïveté in having it's mentally subnormal star end up rich and successful because he's nice. But one can also, if one tries hard enough, see there an existential acknowledgement of the absurdities of life and fortune, and I tried very hard indeed. The film is worth a look and great fun, even for those of us wary of possible conservative overtones.