Film Review: Detroit (2017)

The truth will out?

Detroit (15)

Starring: John Boyega, Will Poulter, Algee Smith

Director: Kathryn Bigelow

The Plot: A dramatisation of real events that took place in the city of Detroit, in July 1967. Racial tensions escalate to the point that a large amount of the city's black population begin to riot, loot and burn down buildings. With the police forces overwhelmed, a curfew is put in place and the National Guard and US Army are brought in to put the city on lockdown. At the Algiers Motel, a deadly confrontation ensues when a black man fires a starter's pistol out of the window, prompting a violent response from the Police. Among the people involved are Krauss (Poulter), a racist white Police officer; Melvin Dismukes (Boyega), a black security guard who tries to calm the situation, and Larry (Smith), a black singer from the group "The Dramatics" who had taken shelter at the motel after a cancelled show.

Review: Kathryn Bigelow is no stranger to taking on controversial topics; having dealt with the Iraq War in 2008's amazing The Hurt Locker and then the hunt for Osama Bin Laden in 2012's terrific Zero Dark Thirty (which itself generated controversy for it's portrayal of waterboarding), she's come a long way from her earlier work - of which, mind you, not a single bad thing can be said about 1991's Point Break, one of the best films ever made. Just let me do it, Johnny. I digress. With her latest film Bigelow has taken on the subject of racism, focusing on a particular incident that took place in the notorious "12th Street Riot" in Detroit. It's a difficult topic, and if you read anything about the Algiers Motel incident you'll find conflicting reports and opinions about what happened. The film attempts to be both part history lesson and part commentary on the social injustices that took place.

Apart from a rather odd graphical sequence at the beginning where text tells the audience about the various discriminations the black population of Detroit faced, Bigelow does a good job of setting up the events that happened. The production value is outstanding, from the locations and costumes to the cars and props used - this absolutely looks and feels like 1967. We see the police raid on an illegal bar that sparks the riots into existence, and then while events feel a bit rushed from there, we still get a very good impression of the scale and impact of the rioting and looting, prompting the deployment of the National Guard and the Army.

This is all a lead up to the second and central act of the film, the raid of the Algiers Motel that leads to the deaths of three of its residents. This is the film's high point - it's a long, dramatic and tense scene that's terrifically acted by all the players involved. Shooting and killing one man as they enter (who unbeknown to them was the one who fired the starter's pistol), the Police begin a violent and intimidating interrogation of all the people present at the motel - largely black men, including Larry, but two white women are also present and receive the same treatment. There are some horrible moments of racism and profiling which, along with the brutality, Bigelow doesn't shy away from showing.

The acting here is excellent and paints a picture of all sides of the incident: Poulter, as the racist officer Krauss, is a vile and unlikeable character who firmly believes that what he's doing is right and justified, but his mask slips slightly after the second man is killed to reveal fear of being caught. On the opposite side of this is Larry, who wants nothing to do with the violence raging on the streets, and his fear and compliance makes a gradual shift to anger as he suffers at the hands of Krauss. Boyega, as Dismukes, is caught in the middle: as an armed security guard he's shown slightly more respect from the Police (but not a lot), and he enters with them in the hope of keeping the situation calm. We get the strong impression of a character who's frustrated at the fact that even though he has a badge and gun as well, there's little he can do other than encourage the others to co-operate and not lash out.

After this powerful second act, the film begins to fall flat in the third where it deals with the aftermath of the incident. The film has a rather bloated run time of around 140 minutes, and as it switches into something of a legal drama as Dismukes, Krauss and the other Police are put on trial I was beginning to get a bit weary. The film still has relevant points to make in this section but it's in no hurry to do so. There was also a rather baffling switch in Boyega's character where, being questioned by Police, he states that all three black men were dead when he entered the hotel, which is clearly a lie, and we're given no explanation as to why he offers that version of events.

The reason why I feel the film doesn't quite work is because I left the auditorium not quite knowing what to feel. Despite the damning criticism of the racism on display, I wasn't sure exactly what message Bigelow was trying to present with this film, other than "racism is bad" (which I wholeheartedly agree with). While she's clearly on the side of the people who were hurt and victimised in these events, there's a failure to condone the violence and disorder of the rioters. Some of the hotel residents blatantly lie to the Police as well, and while it's impossible to imagine how you'd handle that kind of situation unless you're in it, the film doesn't criticise them for it at all. The film ends with a notice to the audience that some events and dialogue have been dramatised, based on the accounts of the participants, so unfortunately you're left to make your own mind up about what was real and what has been guessed at. Not good when you're dealing with powerful events like this.

Score: 3 out of 5 stars
Another technically accomplished and presented film from Kathryn Bigelow, that unfortunately isn't clear on what it's trying to say. Given the recent events in America it's clear that racism is still, sadly, a big problem in our society and any film that speaks out against it is welcome, but despite it's excellent performances and strong central act Detroit is a bloated film that doesn't quite hit the mark and, by its own admission, is just one interpretation of a horrific sequence of events that only the people involved will ever know the truth about.

Film Review: The Dark Tower (2017)

Childe Roland to the Dark Tower came . . .

The Dark Tower (12A)

Starring: Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey

Director: Nikolaj Arcel

The Plot: Our world is but one of many, and they are all held together by the Dark Tower, a nexus of reality that sends out energy protecting all of the worlds from powerful evil forces. In a realm called Mid-World, the dark wizard Walter (McConaughey) works to destroy the tower; opposing him is Roland (Elba), the last of the Gunslingers who are sworn to protect it. On Earth, when teenager Jake Chambers begins having visions of Roland and Walter, he quickly finds himself drawn into their world and their conflict.

Review: I'll hold my hands up immediately and say I'm not an impartial reviewer when it comes to this film. Not only is Stephen King my favourite author (even beating J.K.Rowling), but I consider his Dark Tower series to be a masterpiece, his magnum opus if you will. I've been eagerly awaiting some sort of screen adaptation of the series for years, as it's been through the kind of development hell that you'd expect given the sheer volume of source material (seven main novels plus one additional novel over the course of twenty years). Oh, how sad it is that this is result.

If, like me, you've read the novels, you'll understand the sheer scope and scale of them, the depth of the story that King has woven that reaches out to link with many of his other stand-alone novels. How do you even begin to capture a tale of this magnitude? Well, if you're the director and writers of this film, the answer is to take the core plot from the first novel The Gunslinger, cherry-pick some small moments and themes from the remaining six novels and sprinkle those in, then tack on a traditional action-movie style ending. And do all of this in an hour and half.

Yes, you read that right. The film clocks in at a grand total of 95 minutes. What the actual fuck. 

Arcel has said the film is both a sequel to the novels and an adaptation of them. Again, if you've read the novels (and I keep using that phrase, apologies but it's for a reason), you'll understand why that's possible. But the film is entiretly unsatisfactory as either, giving neither the story or its characters the outing they deserve.

Now, that's not to say that nothing happens here. A great deal happens in fact - the film proceeds along a brisk but smooth pace - but it's biggest problem is that it crams so much in whilst explaining very little. The core concept of the story - Roland's quest to stop Walter - is given none of the depth of the novels and Walter's motivations for bringing down the Tower are explained in a single short sentence. I tried to put myself in the place of someone who has never read the books, and I imagine they will be left puzzled as so much happens that's either explained poorly or isn't explained at all. For example, at one point Roland is referred to as Roland of Gilead, with no further explanation of what the significance of that title means. Frustrating for someone like me who's read the novels, no doubt confusing for someone who hasn't.

It doesn't stop there. The entire film felt like it had been made purely for those familiar with the novels. Here's a few examples of things I spotted that were given no explanation at all:

• A Tet Corporation logo in the opening credits, complete with turtle and a rose
• Logos for the Sombra Corporation
• Graffiti reading "All hail the Crimson King!" complete with eye motif
• Breakers - the psychic children being used forcefully by Marten to bring down the Tower
• The Low Men - called "Skin Men" in the film
• Brief uses of the High Speech - one character greets Roland with "Long days and pleasant nights", and another character is heard saying "Thankee-sai"
• Walter is seen using more than one of the powerful orbs that make up Maerlyn's Rainbow
• Walter's base of operations is mentioned as being in the Wastelands

I could go on. Yet again, if you're not familiar with the novels, none of that will have made any sense. And that's a big problem.

One of the things that the film does get right though is the references to King's other stories, something that becomes important in the novel series: Jake's psychic power is referred to as his "Shine"; in Mid-World, Jake and Roland encounter the remains of theme park complete with a "Pennywise" clown ride; the portal co-ordinates for Walter's base are "1408"; again I could go on and on. There's lots of little references scattered throughout for eagle-eyed fans of King's novels and films to pick up on and enjoy.

To try and claw this back to being a film review and not just a glorified comparison to the novels, it's not a complete disaster. Visually it's superb, with gorgeous shots both in New York City on Earth and in the broken environments of Mid-World, and the (far too brief) shots of the Dark Tower itself are wonderful. The one real action set-piece (prior to the "final battle", if you will) is an exhilarating display as Roland takes out an entire room of adversaries. McConaughey is terrific as Walter, giving a real sense of malice with the limited script he's been given to work with here. Elba doesn't fair as well, but I place the blame firmly on the script. Roland just isn't as fleshed out as he deserves to be. In his supporting role as Jake, young actor Tom Taylor does okay but is a bit wooden in places. It's acceptable given his age.

It's just such a shame that these high points are far outweighed by the lows. To take such an epic story, cut out close to 95% of it and then wrap it up neatly in an underwhelming final battle sequence is incredibly disappointing.

Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Whilst not a complete disaster, this is a messy, frustrating adaptation of a truly outstanding novel series that fails to bring any of the depth and scale of the source material. Frustrating for fans of the series in its treatment, and frustrating for newcomers due to the sheer amount of plot and story that's left unexplained, this goes down as a clear miss when it comes to adaptations of King's work. A real shame.

Film Review: A Ghost Story (2017)

A tale as old as time . . .

A Ghost Story (12A)

Starring: Casey Affleck, Rooney Mara

Director: David Lowery

The Plot: A young couple, C and M, share a loving life together in an old house in a quiet rural area. When C is tragically killed in a car accident, he returns as a white-sheeted ghost. Unable to be seen, heard or felt, he is forced to first watch M deal with her grief and then, as time passes, the entire world he knew change radically.

Review: To say that this film is original, and odd, is a bit of an understatement. This is a film where Casey Affleck spends 90% of his time mute, virtually unrecognisable beneath a white sheet. It's not a horror film - there's no menace or scares - and it's certainly not a comedy, despite the deliberate choice of C's ghost appearance to resemble the classic costume a kid might wear on Halloween. No, this is a brave, heartbreaking story of love and loss that will stay with you long after it finishes.

If you haven't seen David Lowery's 2013 film Ain't Them Bodies Saints I highly recommend you do, as it's a terrific modern Western that also features Affleck and Mara. Lowery has reunited them here for A Ghost Story and, despite them playing another couple, it couldn't be a more different film. Given the description that I've given you, you probably won't be surprised to learn that it was shot on a very low budget ($100,000). It's a testament then to what can be done on such a small scale: this film will play with your fears about death, whether you knew you had them or not. It presents you with questions: what would you do in that situation? How would you cope if you suddenly found yourself unable to be seen or heard by your loved ones? How would you deal with the world moving on and forgetting you? 

It's a beautifully presented film, shot in an unsual aspect ratio that gives the impression that you're viewing the events through a photograph. Everything about it is visually gorgeous, from the design of the house that C and M share (and where C ultimately ends up spending a lot of time) that becomes a character in itself, to the vistas that surround it. There are some beautifully-framed shots during the initial period of time C spends at the house as a ghost while M is still there. Sound also plays a very important role in this film: dialogue becomes very minimal after C becomes the ghost, and while some incidental music is used, there are large sections where the only noise we hear is environmental noise and non-verbal cues from the characters. It reinforces C's isolation from the world and is used to great effect.

I take my hat off to Casey Affleck, as to take a role like this where you spend the majority of the film unrecognisable, takes not only courage but also great skill to pull off. And he does. In the scenes he shares with Mara when C is still alive he's as good as you'd expect: C is a quiet individual (a music producer) who's blissfully happy with M. There's a fantastic (and lengthy) scene where, returning to bed after being woken from an unknown sound, C and M kiss and cuddle before slowly falling back to sleep. It's clear (and a credit to Mara too) how completely happy and comfortable these two characters are with each other. But when C becomes the ghost, it's incredible how much emotion Affleck is able to portray without being able to speak or to see his face. It all becomes about body language, and he nails it here. We can tell when he's angry, when can tell when he's sad, and we can even tell when he's at the end of his tether.

Rooney Mara, similarly, is fantastic in this film, despite her getting less screen time (she's absent for about the last 30mins of the film). Like C, M is a somewhat quiet character but she has more dialogue while C is still alive and she's very believeable as a character who, while just as obviously in love with C as he is with her, is clearly unhappy with some parts of their life. She's best in her scenes after C has died and returned; her grief is absolute and believeable, and there's one particular scene which was outstanding: lasting almost ten minutes, M returns to the house to find a pie a friend has left for her. She sits down on the floor and begins to eat it, C watching her from the corner of the shot, and the more she eats the more her grief begins to come to the surface as her actions become less and less controllable, until eventually she breaks down and dashes to the toilet to be sick. It's a powerful scene and really shows what a brilliant actor Mara is.

Given the subject matter, the presentation of C as the ghost, and the lack of dialogue, it's clear that this film isn't going to be for everyone. A few people got up and left the auditorium during the screening I went to. I think some people just won't like it, and some people just won't get what Lowery is trying for here. Even during the third act of the film, after M has left the picture and C (now seemingly incapable of grapsing how much time is passing) now deals with the physical world around him changing, it opens up more questions. But if you're open to this kind of experience, believe me when I say that this is a film that's, if you'll excuse the pun, haunting.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

A truly original, beautiful, heartbreaking film featuring incredible performances that asks questions about love and life and death. It's odd, and I dare say that it'll be divisive too, as some people just won't like it or understand it. But this is hands down one of the best films I've seen this year.

Video Game Review: The Flame in the Flood (PS4)

Take me to the river . . .

The Flame in the Flood (2016)

Format: PS4/Xbox One/Windows PC/Mac (Reviewed on PS4)

Publisher: The Molasses Flood

Developer: The Molasses Flood

What is it: A "roguelite" survival game, set in the American South where an apocalyptic flood has devastated the land. The player controls a young girl called Scout who, accompanied by her dog Aesop, must traverse a gargantuan river by raft, stopping off at islands and ruined settlements to gather and craft the essential supplies needed to keep Scout alive.

Review: Another video game review, another indie game. I don't play them exclusively, I've just happened to have picked up a few of them lately. And I'm late to the party with The Flame in the Flood - it came out in 2016 for PC and Xbox One, then made it to the PS4 back in January of 2017. It's a charming but flawed game that nevertheless has kept me coming back to it.

The basic premise of the game is survival - you have to keep Scout alive for as long as you can, making your way as far along a huge, procedurally-generated river as possible, all the while keeping her hunger, thirst, temperature and fatigue in check. The game is essentially split into two parts: one where you're travelling on the river itself, guiding your raft around obstacles, and the other when you set foot on dry land and get to move Scout around, foraging for food and supplies.

And what a beautiful game it is. The graphics have a distinct style to them, with an almost Tim Burton-esque look to the characters. Everything is gorgeously animated, from the day/night cycle and the changing weather, to the river itself (that ranges from slower, calm sections to frothy rapids that see you fighting to steer your raft) and the rusted and ruined detritus that floats alongside you (including entire ruined houses), a constant reminder of the devastation that Scout is fleeing from. Stepping onto dry land finds you in the company of rusted out pickup trucks, ruined wooden churches and broken asphalt. The whole environment, especially when coupled with the excellent Americana score composed by Chuck Ragan (including several original songs that kick in at key moments), puts you firmly in the South. There's a distinct Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer vibe going on here.

Where the flaws begin to kick in is the sheer complexity of the game's core element - survival. There are two difficultly modes, but even on "normal" you had better prepare your anus, as The Flame in the Flood takes no mercy. This game goes out of its way to try and kill you.

There are four core elements that you have to manage, which are represented by the circular icons next to Scout's avatar at the bottom of the screen and deplete with the passage of time:

1. Hunger - Scout's gotta eat. There are some simple berries and plants that you can find and eat immediately, but these don't restore much. To survive for any decent length of time you'll need to kill animals for meat or cook more complicated ingredients, both of which require tools and a campfire, for which you'll need supplies. If your hunger gets to zero, you die.
2. Thirst - Scout's gotta drink. That bloody big river is polluted, naturally, so to drink the water you gather from it you need to craft a water filter, which requires supplies. You'll occasionally find taps or wells with clean water, but these are scarce. If your thirst gets to zero, you die.
3. Temperature - Scout's gotta stay warm. You start the game wearing simple cotton clothing, but the further you travel down the river, the colder it gets, so you'll need to make warmer clothing, which requires supplies. If your temperature gets to zero, you die. Are you sensing a theme yet?
4. Fatigue - Scout's gotta sleep. You need to find shelters (campfires, abandoned buildings, old school buses) where you can rest up for a few hours, which allievates fatigue but increases your hunger and thirst. If your fatigue gets to zero, Scout collapses, you die.

This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for how the supplies in the game work. There are a huge amount of different supplies to gather, a lot of which have multiple uses, and Scout can only hold so many items. Your trusty dog Aesop (who helpfully runs around sniffing items out for you) has a small bag on him which can also hold a few items, and you can store some items in your raft as well (but only access them when you've docked somewhere), but it quickly becomes incredibly hard to manage it all. You need certain supplies to make the tools you'll need to create traps or clothing, but those same supplies are also needed to make a campfire, and also needed to make medical supplies, and so on and so on. You have to make hard decisions about what to keep and what to use them for. That's if you find them at all - the islands and settlements are split into different types, and you'll only find certain supplies at certain types of area. Because of the size of the river and the current that propels you along it, you can't visit them all, so you have to choose where to stop off with care.

If that wasn't enough, the game tries to kill you in other ways. You'll encounter wolves and wild boars, which you can kill and eat if you've manage to craft the right traps or weapons, but if you haven't they'll attack you, resulting in lacerations and broken bones. You'll need bandages and splints to deal with these injuries which, you've guessed it, require many of the same supplies as everything else to craft. If you don't manage to treat the injuries within a period of time, you die. There are frequent downpours of rain which soak Scout; if you don't find a shelter or campfire within a certain time and dry out, Scout gets sick, you die. You can get bitten by snakes or poisonous ants; if you don't find aloe to treat it within a certain time, you get an infection. If you don't make penecillin within a certain time, you die.

Oh, by the way, did I mention that your raft is somewhat fragile and can only absorb so much damage? Crash into too many things while you're on the river and it gets destroyed, and you die. You can collect materials to make repairs, but these take up more of the limited space in your pockets.

The game is meant to be a challenge, I completely understand that. But what makes its survival system so complex and, at times, unplayable, is the use of RNG. Ah yes, the dreaded Random Number Generator. I mentioned before that the river you travel down is procedurally generated - this is to ensure that no two games of The Flame in the Flood that you'll play are ever the same. However, the game uses RNG to determine: A) what types of islands or settlements you'll encounter, and B) what specific supplies you'll find at each one. When you have the sheer number of different items you have to find and things you have to craft that this game does, the use of RNG ultimately becomes its downfall. I've had games where it's been kind and I've managed to travel really far, constantly finding what I need, but I've also had games where I literally haven't survived past the second day due to not being able to find the right combination of supplies for anything. When this happens it's frustrating to the point of being unbearable.

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
A beautifully presented, challenging game that's ultimately let down by a complex system that's run by RNG. When a random number generator governs your enjoyment of a game I really shouldn't recommend it, but the beauty of its presentation and the fun to be had when things do go your way make it worth your time.

Film Review: Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

Future imperfect . . .

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (12A)

Starring: Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne

Director: Luc Besson

The Plot: It's the 28th Century, and a former human space station called Alpha has become a sprawling megalopolis that houses thousands of different alien species living in harmony with mankind. Major Valerian (DeHaan) and Sergeant Laureline (Delevingne), agents for the station's government and partners in more way than one, are ordered to recover a very small, very valuable alien creature - a creature that, they discover, is a link to a grand conspiracy masking the genocide of a peaceful species and a threat right at the heart of Alpha.

Review: I am, 100%, the target audience for this film (which, for your sanity and mine, I'll just refer to as Valerian rather than its full title), being as I'm both a sci-fi geek and a huge fan of Luc Besson. The French director is, in my opinion, someone who the term "visionary" truly belongs to, because the scope of his imagination seems to hold no bounds, no matter what his involvement in a project is, be it writing, directing, or producing. I'm not saying everything he touches turns to gold, far from it - look at Lucy, 3 Days to Kill or The Transporter Refueled in recent years - but when you consider that this man brought us Leon, The Fifth Element and the stunning Angel-A, he's the perfect choice for this.

You more than likely won't have heard of Valerian and Laureline, the French comic-book series that serves as the source material for this film. Hugely popular in France, where it ran from 1967-2010, it's fair to say that it's not very well known outside of its home country, although there's an argument that it has influenced many artists and films around the world, which I won't get into. Besson is a huge fan of the series and has said that it's been his dream for many years to make it into a film - The Fifth Element itself was something of his homage to it back in 1997- and it's only with recent advances in technology that he felt it was possible to bring it to life on the big screen. He's made some changes here, not least of which with the title - French fans were, so I read, very angry at the dropping of "and Laureline" because of her popularity. In the comics Valerian and Laureline are time-travellers (or "spatio-temporal agents"), with Laureline herself originally being an 11th-century peasant girl that Valerian brings back to the 28th century with him, and the pair travel through space and time protecting it from temporal anomalies. Time-travel has been ditched for the film, with Valerian and Laureline now generic "agents" (albeit with ranks) who seem to serve as a kind of galactic police force. Also, RIP Laureline's red hair.

The film is being heavily promoted as "the 3D event of the year." I must admit that I didn't watch it in 3D, for two reasons:

1. I find that 3D spoils the overall presentation of a film, often making it blurry and difficult to follow what's going on, particularly in action sequences
2. I look and feel like a fucking tit putting a second pair of glasses on over my own

I can confirm, however, that 2D is perfectly fine and you don't lose any impact of what is, hands down, one of the most visually spectacular films I've ever seen. The sheer scope and scale of Valerian's universe and the denizens that inhabit it is mind-boggling, and the combination of motion capture, pure CGI and prosthetic effects used here makes The Fifth Element look small in comparison. It's understandable why Besson previously thought it couldn't be done. From the opening scene where we witness a beautiful oceanic planet home to the peaceful aliens called Pearls, whose semi-transulcent skin glows with different colours depending on their mood, to the sprawling technological wonder of Alpha with its endless self-contained environments, this is an exquisite treat for your eyeballs. It's pure sci-fi and fantasy, and makes no apologies for it. There are really no words I can say to do it justice, but it is, unfortunately, the film's high point.

I like Dane DeHaan. I think he's a fantastic actor, and everything that I've seen him in up until now has been impressive. How sad then, that he proves to be the weakest link of this film. There's just something about him, as Valerian, that doesn't feel quite right, and a lot of that blame can be laid at the feet of the script. Valerian just isn't written very well: he's alternately portrayed as both a stoic soldier who's determined to see the law be upheld, and a cocky ladies man who can't commit to something serious. DeHaan doesn't suit either of these personas and it shows, making it hard to get behind Valerian (despite some herioc moments, such as an exciting chase sequence where he smashes through different sections of Alpha in his exo-suit), especially in the scenes where he "playfully" flirts with Laureline and just comes off as an arrogant prick. This spoils what's obviously intended to be an important aspect of the story - their relationship. They begin the film as a couple, and a running plot thread is Valerian trying to get Laureline to accept his marriage proposal, but when he acts the way he does it's hard to see why she's even with him in the first place.

Delevingne, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of this and gives the best performance of the film. Laureline is smart, kick-ass and isn't afraid to speak her mind, even if it goes against the laws that she and Valerian are upholding. Delevingne attacks the role with gusto and is clearly having a whale of a time, and Laureline comes across as a far more engaging and sympathetic character than Valerian. She does her best with the relationship, continuously rejecting Valerian's proposal until he's finally ready to drop his cocky persona and take things seriously, but again the script is what both she and DeHaan struggle against in these scenes.

A quick note on the supporting cast: Clive Owen features as the Commander of the goverment forces and chews the scenery wherever he goes, given nothing to do other than be an entirely obvious villain. Ethan Hawke gamely channels his effeminate side as a character called "Jolly the Pimp", and pop superstar Rihanna appears as a shape-changing alien called Bubble. Her introductory sequence is visually stunning as she morphs into various personas, and her character does provide some laughs as Valerian uses her rather inventively to sneak into an alien area to rescue Laureline. She does fine.

I've said before that actors can only work with the script they're given, and the script for Valerian is a big problem. Written by Besson, it's largely responsible for the aforementioned issues with Valerian's character but there are other issues as well. There are huge plot holes scattered here, there, and everywhere; it's a rambling story as well, clocking in at almost two hours and twenty minutes, and could easily have been trimmed down. I get the sense that Besson just wanted to include as much as he possibly could, no matter how much it would detract from the overall story. It's a shame, as this is a fun and exciting film, but it could have been so much better.     

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
A mixed bag of a film: this is a visually astonishing, fun and action-packed piece of science fiction, that's unfortunately hampered by a rambling script that's full of plot holes and paints an unflattering picture of its title character. One for fans of sci-fi only, or those willing to look past the flaws to appreciate the sheer scale of the spectacle on display.