Review: X-men: Days of Future Past

Year: 2014
Director: Bryan Singer
Screenplay: Simon Kinberg
Starring: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart

Synopsis is here:

The blockbusters are now in full flow, and despite the latest entry of the x-men franchise gaining healthy word of mouth both critically and commercially, I once again left the auditorium with feelings of fatigue. My enjoyment of the X-men series hit its peak with the brash knock around pleasure of X-2 (I did really enjoy 1^st Class also) but the time hopping antics of Wolverine and company only allowed a cloud of malaise to fog my mind.

Not being a comic book fan (per se), I find that my enjoyment of many of these films stems from when they slightly stray from the frame. I found myself more entertained with these characters when Singer decidedly placed himself out the frame as opposed to following things panel to panel. I enjoyed his broad brush strokes of religion (Nightcrawler) and race (Malcolm X and Dr King parallels) slotting into generally fun and balanced ensemble pieces. Day of Future Past cuts things straight down the line, with little time to be distracted by things that aren't dictated by the plot. We're too far down the rabbit hole for those small character beats that some enjoy.

Days of Future Past has Wolverine as the de facto leading man once again in an alteration to the original that is understandable in terms of the story, but feels dull due to the volume of X-men films with Hugh Jackman setting the pace. Jackman is still solid in the role, but after situating Wolverine as the main poster boy for long now has the decision feeling stale. It did allow my audience to gawp and giggle at Jackman's bare ass. The hefty violence, however (which did cause one family walk out), didn't raise an eyebrow. As I considered how desensitised audiences can be to on-screen violence, I realised that while the film didn't stop for me to finish my contemplation (why should it?), it didn't have anything within it to make me stop my mind from drifting.

I found myself thinking about the texture that Singer had brought to X-men before. Having mutants such as Nightcrawler who didn't just feel like an amazing opening set piece, but a chance to introduce a mutant which had a certain amount of consideration to his character. Days of Future Past has an illuminating Quicksilver (A mutant with superhuman speed) sequence which had me grinning at the wit and cocksure attitude that Evan Peters brings to the role. However, he feels utilised only as a plot device rather than anything else. The use of Quicksilver doesn't feel as jarring as the motivations of Michael Fassbender's Magneto in the later stages. Writers who know their comic onions such as Devin Faraci have written entertaining pieces on why the film has no continuity errors, but a decision by Magneto feels more muddled than it ever should do. Had I no formal knowledge of the character, I would have been questioning the film even more. The film screenplay often clunks plot elements about heavily. Ask yourself: how often do we need Wolverine to explain to people on why he's in the past? 

Here's where we are now in the comic franchise city. If you weren't around at the beginning and something confuses you, then tough cookies. It makes sense to the nerds and geeks, so you're not invited. Anything that may feel like a piece of badly communicated plot can be happily explained to you afterwards, but if that's the case, is it good filmmaking? Then again, even those who have enjoyed past entries may raise an eyebrow to other actors who get short-changed by the film's direction and its clunky narrative. Halle Berry and Anna Paquin could have had grounds to sue if they looked like they gave more of a damn.

Clearly I'm being facetious, but looking at how previous characters are treated in Days of Future Past reminds me of how empty the film made me feel. After watching it last week, I'm now struggling to remember anything other than the odd one or two moments that held my attention. Nixon caricatures and speeding Quicksilvers aside, Days of Future Past will (and has) impress those who revere the film's source material. For the likes of myself who remain on the periphery of this wave of geek pop culture, there's a good chance of being slightly stumped.

 

Review: The Amazing Spiderman 2

Year: 2014
Director: Marc Webb
Screenplay: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Colm Feore, Felicity Jones, Campbell Scott, Embeth Davidtz, Paul Giamatti, Sally Field,

Synopsis is here:

Two years ago on what was likely to be a wet day in Peterborough (can't remember), I found myself leaving The Amazing Spiderman (2012) with a beleaguered look on my face. Sony’s redeux of the story felt more like the contract cash grab by many people, including myself. I found it not only to be wallowing in its own angst, but also quite dull in its execution. I can’t honestly think of a moment or sequence that truly stuck with me after it’s 136 minute running time.

Now in 2014, on a wet weekday in High Wycombe, I once again found myself struggling to find myself enthused with Marc Webb’s second entry to this rebooted canon. Although it’s worth noting that The Amazing Spiderman 2 shows a large improvement from the previous film.

Webb once again shows that his strength lies within the bonds he forms with the relationships. As much as I enjoyed the Sam Raimi movies, it’s Webb that really seems to nail the dynamics of these comic creations. Garfield and Stone really click as a couple, while Sally Field is most certainly a stronger Aunt May. With the likes of Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker) and Dane DeHann (Harry Osborne) in place of Toby Maguire and James Franco respectively, one may feel that Webb has lucked out with a better suited cast, yet there’s an affection that Webb coaxes of situations that Raimi overlooked. The dynamics between Garfield, DeHann and Stone (Gwen Stacey) in quieter scenes have better judgement than that of Raimi's. It helps that Webb and the screenwriters have clearly matured the characters and toned down the angst somewhat, although the role of Gwen Stacey feels underdeveloped.

The film's action is strangely forgettable. Despite the clear improvements to Spiderman’s web slinging and New York swinging (the opening intro trounces anything Raimi in the air), the films actual set pieces don’t really have too much to say and still feel slack on the physical front. They also feel odd in terms of pacing. The sequences don’t particularly feel well balanced to all the downtime we share with Peter as he tries to patch his personal issues. The Amazing Spiderman 2’s set pieces seem to finish quite quickly (with certain villains suffering under the too many antagonists theory). They also don’t feel that connected to the narrative. The film's opening and climax are very guilty parties, feeling more tacked on than they should. Of course, like so many of these adaptations, both the beginning and end are really about the NEXT escapade and to try and get you hooked on what comes next. More shadowy figures for Roberto Orci to get his teeth into.

It’s a shame The Amazing Spiderman 2 doesn’t reach the kind of heights we now expect for a second entry of a these recent franchise. The film feels less rushed, but still doesn’t define it’s villains as well as the previous series. The relationships work well, but the narrative still buckles under the strain of having to balance so many plates.

We get a film which is still more of a simple distraction than anything really distinctive. Even Jamie Foxx's Electro feels more of an echo of Jim Carrey in Batman Forever (1995) than anything particularly idiosyncratic. The most unfortunate thing about this is that Garfield is the better Peter Parker by quite a long way. I wish they could combine his smart-Alec attitude with Raimi’s knock around vibrancy. Then again, we all know that comic books do a great job at alternate universes. Maybe something for Sony to perhaps chew on while they slap their products all over their films.  

Review: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

Year: 2013

Director: Tommy Wirkola

Screenplay: Tommy Wirkola

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Peter Stromare, Famke Janssen

Synopsis is here:

Hansel and Gretel clearly wishes to be a cult comedy. The names Adam McKay and Will Farrell flitter up on the screen during the film’s opening credits, which play on an idea of fairy tale land newspapers. There’s a riff of Shrek in the air as you watch. This doesn't leave easily. Later on when Hansel narrowly avoids an oncoming arrow, we get a moment of bullet time. Shrek played with Matrix effects in what seems to be quite an age. Hansel and Gretel makes it feel like 2001 all over again.

That comes off a little harsh, considering the vast amount of films which have borrowed from the popular effect that The Matrix series help make popular. That said Hansel and Gretel wants to join in with some of the popularity made with po-faced fairy tale revamps such as Snow White and the Huntsman (2012), while trying to make sure that everyone’s forgotten that Terry Gilliam toyed with Grimm tales with mixed results in the tortured Miramax project The Brothers Grimm (2005).

Hansel and Gretel lacks the spiritedness that a director like Gilliam embraces wholeheartedly. His film may not work fully to certain viewers but many can take solace in the offbeat humour he tries to install within his piece as while of the ambition of a few of the ideas.  Tommy Wirkola’s H&G:WH is more about sexing everything up, as is the way with this cycle of fairy tales. See the aforementioned Snow White and the Huntsman.

The off pace Hansel and Gretel has no Monty Python gene and it shows, establishing itself with violence and swearing to try and endear itself to the dream audience of teenagers but perhaps lacking in the askew view that would give it a true cult feel. Yes this faux old timey period has makeshift tasers and defibrillators but these aren't felt has fun gags, more mediocre asides. Meanwhile the conceit of Hansel having diabetes feels more like a forced plot device than anything substantial. Then again that’s no more uncomfortable than Renner’s performance, with his Hansel feeling less like a womaniser, and more like a tepid, reconditioned version of his Hawkeye. Arteron also struggles with her Gretel despite having a lovely corset but little brassiness in her actual character. Although the screenplay is wise enough to make sure that she not just a sex pot with a crossbow that falls in love, but does little to truly highlight the attentiveness that makes her more emotionally in tune to her surroundings. No matter what Hansel mentions, I just didn't get the feeling.

But Hansel and Gretel isn’t about feelings, it’s about heads a popping. And the claret spills in a frustratingly messy style, doing little to show of the impressive monster design of the villains. The film holds a lot of practical effects, but still feels more like a retread of the early 2000’s. Watching this after a kinetic and pulpy found footage feature like Frankenstein’s Army (2013) is a shame, as this film pales in comparison. Then again the same goes for the films modern trappings that lack a decent subversive quality. The f-bombs and lame quips that litter the film can’t hold up to even the weakest parts of Hanna (2011) with revels in mucking around in the same ballpark with better effect.  But Hansel and Gretel is never completely sure of itself, as a fairy tale throwback, or a twisted genre jolly.  Peter Stromare stars in both this and The Brothers Grimm. He seems to be having more fun in 2005. 

Review: G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Year: 2013

Director: Jon M Chu

Screenplay: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Channing Tatum, Adrianne Palicki, Byung-hun Lee

Synopsis is here

What do you get if you mix the Director of a couple of Step Up movies with the writers of Zombieland? You get a tonally awkward and erratically plotted sequel to a silly but entertaining franchise. It’s clear that G.I. Joe Retaliation’s issues are not the complete fault of its writers and director. The film has obviously been tinkered with. The studio had held the film back for re-shoots (involving more Channing Tatum) and there is a longer cut available. That said without Stephen Sommers; Retaliation becomes an extremely po faced exercise which lacks the knowing silliness that Rise of the Cobra featured.    

Retaliation hops from place to place with of real sense of time, while introducing us to a glut of brand new, bland characters not worth writing in depth about. Not that a G.I Joe film is looking for poignancy, however it’s troubling that an actor like Dwayne Johnson has less moments of interest than Marlon Wayans. The reshot scenes that involve Johnson and Tatum are of no real importance. Then again nor is the major city that is destroyed in an instant. Even when Paris went the way of Team America in Rise of Cobra, there was at least a reference to what had took place. Then again it’s hard to argue with a film that feels that a woman dressing down to a bra and panties produces more harm to young minds than the amount of cannon fodder which bit the dust during each limp action sequence.     

It’s bizarre to think why the studio has such disregard for its franchise and it’s fans. Why chuck away half the characters and actors we got to know for little reason? Do people really deserve such forgetful action sequences? Why was the original tone for Rise of Cobra replaced with something more gung ho and hawkish? These questions will never be truly answered and only the most militant of fans will happily paper over the cracks with their own resolutions. I'm glad for them. Others on the other hand may find themselves more than a little confused.

Review: Man of Steel

Year: 2013

Director: Zack Snyder

Screenplay: David S Goyer

Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Laurence Fishburne

Synopsis is here:

NOTE: This review begins with a small description of a scene that may feel like a slight spoiler to some. You’ve been warned. 

Clark Kent is sitting in school. He cannot concentrate on the teacher’s voice. The fact is; he hears more than just the teacher’s voice, he also hears the voices of the other children. But they are not talking. He is hearing their thoughts. He can’t focus on the teacher, as when he looks at her he sees her biological workings. He sees her insides.

The child, confused at this sensory overload, dashes out of class and locks himself in a nearby closest, trying to shut out the voices and gain sense of just what is happening to him.  He doesn't leave until his mother arrives sometime later.

Clark Kent: “The World’s too big, Mom.”

Martha Kent: “Then make it small.”

It’s a tiny moment of a very large and lengthy film, but to me it’s one of the most important.  A short scene in which we witness the Kyptonian’s powers first-hand but also notice how far these powers may reach. Call him Clark, call him The Man of Steel, Moments like this only help remind us of the largest allegory people often attach to Superman; Jesus. The film Man of Steel, much like Superman, much like The Lord and savoir, must be all things to all men. However scenes like the one mentioned are few and far between in Snyder’s loud and proud “Epic”. The world of Superman is huge. I often had issues with Man of Steel as Snyder struggles to make it small.

Not to say that I disliked Man of Steel outright. The film’s main objective to me is to create a Superman for a generation.  That generation may not be for those who reach for Christopher Reeve’s portrayal, or certain versions of comic book. It's earnest in some of its intentions and tries hard. Looking back, this new, more anxiety ridden Superman almost reminds me of the trapped young characters of Snyder’s own Sucker Punch. While Sucker Punch is the weaker film and although both are visually different, both have their young characters seemingly escape into fractured mind sets of themselves. Sucker Punch’s Babydoll steps into an alternate dream world to protect herself, while we observe the view point of Clark Kent through flashback as he tries to make sense of the man he will soon become.

At first I found myself at odds with the cinematic language utilised to inform us of how this new Superman would come to be. Hand held cinematography is rife, while the films screenplay does little to help out the films flashback structure with Individual scenes being quite effective while others pale in comparison. I didn't feel that Snyder’s overall direction was bad, but I kept feeling that some moments felt more at home than others. I know many enjoyed the films beginnings on the planet Kypton, and yet these scenes to be quite dull. Meanwhile; scenes in Smallville of a young Clark growing up, fared much better.

I found that despite the more clunker aspects of the script; Synder’s direction of the actors and their performances, kept my interest levels up, even if the very nature of the characters themselves sometimes went astray. Cavill gives us a Superman that isn't an aping of Christopher Reeves but does more than enough to show us that it shouldn't be. Michael Shannon’s tone as Zod is all fire and fury and yet he manages to capture a tragic aspect of the antagonist. Shannon, who said in interviews that he stay away from playing Zod as a villain, depicts a character who believes that what he’s doing is righteous in his own eyes. The crowning achievement goes to Costner, whose performance as Jonathan Kent, speaks volumes as an actor whose best roles were often ones of earnestness. Here he manages to take this even further, breaking hearts in the process. Even when questioning Jonathan’s motives, Costner nails the grey area that lies in all of us. Do we agree on his actions? Possibly not, however, not only does Costner sell his scenes (with limited screen time) but he also makes “Pa” Kent and more interesting character to get a handle on.

Unfortunately; in terms of the female’s roles, I was less impressed. Diane Lane was fine, but her turn didn't 

strike me as hard as it has others. Meanwhile, I found the usually brilliant Amy Adams to be one of the biggest chinks in the films amour. Gone is the ballsy, go getting portrayal laid by Margot Kidder, we are now given yet another entry into bland damsels in distress graduation year of 2013. A Lois Lane is one that "kicks ass" yet never feels organic while her romance with Cavil feels awkward and cold. Adams is not helped by a screenplay that doesn't seem that interested in her as a character.

Once the film finds its rhythm in the third act, set pieces become the real name of the game (as is name checking aspects of the DC universe). Snyder revels in the loud and proud destruction that takes place. Secondary characters; that are suddenly now more important than the film made out, are shoved into danger. The scale of carnage reaches Doomsday (the character) levels. I was impressed with just how overwhelming the scale was. You see where the money went and I can’t say I wasn't entertained.

Funnily enough, many have been disgruntled by the vast amount of collateral damage that is evident and how muted the response is considering the source. I found myself more annoyed at Iron Man 3 than here. Stark had hit the peak of his story arch at this point and I found his actions towards his antagonists problematic (due to certain story elements). I maybe wrong; but here we have a hero who is still learning who he is in the world and Snyder’s film still manages to execute a motion that helps address what we see.

Maybe Snyder and his crew will address some of this film’s frustrations with more clarity in the next instalment. Isn't that the way now? Just wait till the next one to answer your queries while supplying you with more? The scale and action is in the right place but other aspects are sloppy. Until Snyder can ground his story and characters as well as Richard Donner did with the first two films, then I feel we will once again have an uneven playing field. There was enough to keep me interested though. There’s room for improvement. It’s difficult trying to be perfect.

Review: Fast & Furious 6

Year: 2013

Director: Justin Lin

Screenplay: Chris Morgan

Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Michelle Rodriguez, Sung Kang, Chris Bridges, Luke Evans, Gina Carano, John Ortiz.

Synopsis is here

We are currently in a climate which film critics are being attacked for their taste in comparison to populous opinion(despite it often falling in line); the first defence is how the critic’s opinion means nothing as the films profit margin is way more important. "All these people went to see it; therefore your thoughts are invalid". The second attack is one I call the Kevin Smith offensive. This is where the only people with an opinion are the ones with the ticket stubs.  

You have to laugh at the absurdity. You can only have a say about the film if you pay for it, and by paying for it, your payment is a statement that you enjoyed the movie. It is a warped sensibility, but one that appears more and more. We now have the unsettling occurrence in which keyboard warriors lie in wait for the first negative review of any popular film and unleash at whatever poor sap had a different opinion from their own. 

So when your franchise is six films in and the latest entry is close to making half a billion at the box office, it doesn't really matter what any blogger or critic thinks. Yet here we are writing about these movies, often trying to give cultural context to these episodes of pop culture, while the loyal servants lie in wait to explain how wrong you are by calling you a faggot. 

Fast & Furious 6 sole aim to fascinate and frustrate those who believe that their palette is too sophisticated for such "lower" nonsense. Many complain about the lack of original movies and while we may be standing at the films sixth entry to the franchise, Fast 6 not based on any previous material. True the franchise is completely derivative but, hey, at least it's doing it on its own account. The film still indulges in displaying gratuitous female flesh, and yet still utilises more female characters than both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek. Women in Fast 6 have more to do, say and truly feel part of the films terrible plot and storyline. Fast 6, much like 5 is also vastly multi-racial and uses it to its benefit. Aside from one or two poorly placed moments of dialogue, race is not a major issue in Fast 6, with its main theme of family extending across racial lines. 

Justin Lin (the veteran director of the franchise) doesn't lose stride with hi direction of the action. The late night London locale is effective and while Western editing has effectively maimed the beautiful art of choreography, Lin still manages to deliver simple, easy and enjoyable action to follow. I found it incredibly easy to find myself caught in the twisting of metal and cracking of bones, simply because Lin holds a shot for half a second longer than most. 

The film is still nonsense, keep up with the loop jumping plot and we're still watching a film in which the good criminals are planning to steal from bad thrives because screenplay. The film is incredibly happy with its strange discourse of bloodlessly murdering innocents without a care in the world. A nitpick but still bizarre when watching. The script is happily fuelled with dim witted dialogue, graceless wit and dubious platitudes and even at its worst the validity of the characters is flimsy. 

Yet, the sheer unpretentious of what's at play, drives Fast 6 through most of its obstacles. Unburdened with the geek weight of comic book adaptations, Fast 6 can happily laugh of any YouTube "everything that's wrong with" videos because it has nothing to live up to and yet succeeds somewhat with what it delivers. It's hard to call out a film which has its main catchphrase "ride or die" at its heart. 

Fast and Furious 6 isn't doing too bad critically. It is currently fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and riding high on the IMDB. It will not stop a small army of fans deride anyone who doesn't hold it with high praise. Despite this; what makes Fast and Furious 6 interesting, is not that it has a force big enough to provide ammunition if it were under attack. It's that the film and franchise is big and ugly enough not to give a fudge if anyone likes it or not. 

Review: Iron Man 3

Year: 2013
Director: Shane Black
Screenplay: Shane Black, Drew Pearce
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Ben Kingsley, Jon Favreau

Synopsis is here:

NOTE: The following review contains what could be considered explicit spoilers. The film may have raked in all the money, but one must believe that not everyone visiting has seen it. 

"Since New York, everything changed" states an anxious and perturbed Tony Stark. It is a statement I wholeheartedly agree with. The billion dollar blockbuster which was The Avengers showed us just how big Marvel and Disney want to make these comic book franchises. The Avengers may be mostly based within the state of New York, yet in terms of the stakes, you can sense just how high they have become.

The Avengers also brought about a straight headed frothiness often forgotten in this kind of venture; happily reminding us that these comic books can not only manage grandeur but can do so while being bright, breezy and colourful. Iron Man 3 feels rather wearily like two steps back. Now, we have "final" entry that is little too romanced by The Dark Knight than it needs to be. While the second film didn't much the scale of The Dark Knight, so much of Shane Black's screenplay has the tinge of Nolan's adaptation, that the film near loses its own identity. However, there was a good chance of that happening anyway, as Iron Man 3 also harbours an awkward mesh of Disney and ultra violence that comes close to undoing the work that the first two films happily put forth. Yes, that's an admission that I didn't hate the second film.

My main issue with Iron Man 3, stems from its jarring tonal shifts. The film looks set to delve into the more curious aspects of Tony Stark, who is now having nightmares and panic attacks due to the events in New York. Unfortunately, despite the large amount of time Stark spends out of the suit, the film does very little to look at his demons effectively.

In fact Stark and friends feel the best of curing what ails him is with ludicrous and abrasive violence. The kill count of the good guys is not only high, but doesn't feel wholly justified when put in consideration to the villains badly realised motives. We should be fine with Iron Man blasting away indiscriminately because he spends lots of time with some latchkey kid during the second act. Stark's Real Steel moments suffer from the same kind of clumsiness that affects Spielberg at his so called worst, and yet due to the "cool" factor that comes with Robert Downley jr, this seems to be bypassed. The jump from Fisher Price my first mechanic to blasting fools with little regard becomes a harsh discourse.

I began to find the whole thing reductive. As a Disney/Marvel franchise feature, going dark could be problematic, but hiring Shane Black makes a clear statement of intent. Black's traits are everywhere for all to see, but are shoved awkwardly into a third feature which had its character under a different arc. One where its character evolved from selfish arms dealer to all into someone who begin to understand the responsibility he held in his blood stained hands. IM3 decides to effectively blast that away for some kick ass action scenes. That said, sky-diving set piece aside, the films spectacle is only intermittently engaging.    

 Iron man is far happier dulling my expectations by messing around with its main villain, The Mandarin. It's understandable that some of the more controversial and prejudiced aspects of the character needed to be exercised, but why after to the blood and sweat are we left with yet another white collar industrialist as the man behind the curtain? The series has cumbersomely come full circle.

On the positive side, the cast are still finely tuned to everything thrown at them. Downley Jr and Paltrow bounce off that fantastic chemistry that makes them such a fun couple to watch. Black's screenplay does much to keep them separate, yet their moments together are still effective. Sir Ben's Kingsley guzzles scenery like toffee and I really can't fault anything Guy Pearce, Don Cheadle or Rebecca Hall have done recently, let alone here.

A lot of the dialogue is snappy and chucklesome and individual moments and scenes hit their mark as you'd expect from a writer of Black's calibre. Yet the entire feature doesn't settle well in the pit of my stomach. As murky as the politics were in Nolan's Dark Knight Rises, the film still managed to fit within its universe of necessary evils and chaos that its characters are meant to inhabit. At least Batman kept it all about the turmoil of Bruce Wayne, Iron Man 3 seems happy to dismiss Stark's relationship and anxiety as fussy, uninteresting and easily micro managed by an 11 year old. That may not bother the cool kids or bean counters, but it gave me food for thought. 

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Year: 2012
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenplay:  Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Richard Armitage

Synopsis is here

Sorry folks, I call them as I see them. The Hobbit may have a ton of hype and looks set to make more cash than even Smaug could handle. However the film, for me, was merely passable. My words will do nothing for the fan base (some of which have made up their minds before even seeing the film) and that's fine. I fact I commend them, as I would love to idly glaze over any issues I had with the film. Unfortunately I found myself becoming more and more restless.

My biggest problem with the film came from the story itself. The Hobbit struggles to try and match the same scale that was given to Lord of the Rings n terms of plot. It becomes very evident that the films narrative cannot keep up. For all the bemoaning of Return of the King's many endings and the like, at least it was due to its build of characters and sub plots. The Hobbit is so linear in its quest that much of it is merely padding. Once again, I'm sure fans will find this the greatest thing ever. Others will wonder why Jackson wasn't more ruthless in the cutting room.

The films length becomes a sticking point as The Hobbit's characters are quite flat in comparison to what we've had before. We spend ages with this gang of dwarves before any questing begins, and yet none stand out. Even Martin Freeman's Bilbo is too passive, only coming really coming alive during the encounter with Gollum (The ever excellent Andy Serkis). 

The Gollum Confrontation occurs in the second, more entertaining half of the film, which helps remind you just why you loved this world in the first place. Once the quest gets fully under way, it's hard not to be reminded of the strengths of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Hobbit may not have the character dynamics or conflicts of the larger trilogy, but it's set pieces still bring forth a certain amount of scale that is only matched by few films. However, one's feelings of such sequences will depend on their feeling of the people caught within them. It may also depend on how they feel about deus ex machinas, lots of exposition and protagonists who fade into the background. 

Yet, The Hobbit still manages to fascinate. Middle Earth didn't strike me as it did in 2001 but's it's design, look and visual scale is still an eye opener. I may not have been too bothered about the characters, but the performances are solid enough. I also have to admit, when the film harked back (forward?) to Lord of the Rings, it was then I was most engaged. For instance, the final moments between Gollum and Bilbo, give a knowing depth to proceedings, particularly if you are someone who comes to this series fresh. My only quest now with this first hobbit segment is to watch it in the infamous 48 high frame rate and see how I feel afterwards. It will also be a good chance to give the issues I had a reassessment.

Review: Skyfall

Year: 2012
Director: Sam Mendes
Screenplay: John Logan Neal Purvis, Robert Wade
Starring: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Bérénice Marlohe, Albert Finney

Synopsis is here:

NOTE: I do not give explicit spoilers, but this review may not be great for anyone who wants to know anything about the film (although nearly everyone has seen it by now)

Skyfall is the film which celebrates 50 years of the character, appearing in features. Starting from Dr No in 1962 to the present day, Bond has drank, shagged and shot his way through five decades and remained something of an institution of British culture despite a barrage of ever-changing constituents. Add to this that cinema itself is not even 150 years old itself, Bond's longevity is something to behold. Bond’s near rampant alcoholism and misogyny apparently meaning nothing to his stout love for country. Maybe it's just the franchise's incredible ability to make things blow up extraordinarily, that keeps many chomping at the bit.

The most recent interpretation of Bond, has held some of the most radical alterations to the character since its sixties incarnation. Daniel Craig's Bond is a subject of grief, pain and retrospect. Even the rushed, muddled shenanigans of Quantum of Solace (maybe the only person in the world who doesn't mind it) reminds us that the brash, blunt instrument is someone motivated by murky emotions. James may be "doing it for England" but it's clear that he is heavily motivated by his relationships and those that he has lost around him.

Film critic for The Independent; Anthony Quinn, doesn't have much of an affinity for this more affected, softer Bond that's been on display, and it's understandable. There's a strong feeling that the Bond of the old guard is slowly evaporating. The character's mystique ebbing away; due outside wishes to be a little bit more like the Bourne franchise. The mythos is a sacred one, just look what happened when Mutt was introduced to the Indy mold.

Yet, here with Skyfall, I found myself invested with the ideas and themes that are at play. Here we have a more traditional spy caught in an era of transparency and internal conflict. Skyfall is smart enough to move with the times and ground an iconic hero with a certain amount of "plausibility" (we'll use this term very loosely). But it also caters to other aspects of the character that has made him so durable. It doesn't all work. The lack of camp humour has made the jokes and jibes dryer than a Chardonnay in the Sahara. Also, Skyfall still has difficulty with how it wishes to place certain females in the frame, trading off a well written a solid performance of Dame Judy Dench's M, for what can almost be considered as almost Bond girls. I have no real problem with Naomie Harris or Bérénice Marlohe in terms of their acting. However, they happen to be two of the more forgettable elements of the feature. At no point are we given the same sizzling interplay that makes Eva Green's Vesper Lynd so beguiling.

Nevertheless, Skyfall, for me, is the strongest of the Craig Bond features.  Swift with its pace and high on its octane levels, the film rarely drops a gear, nor loses focus. As an action film, the film hits all the beats with a satisfying crunch. Unlike the haphazard Quantum of Solace, Sam Mendes dictates the film with an actual rhythm for the audience to follow. He also gives us set pieces that just feel right for the occasion. Commandeering a Caterpillar and taking out VW Beetles? A dazzling, silhouetted fist fight in a Shanghi high rise? Kicking ass in-front of Komodo Dragons? Moments like these fit Bond to a tee.

As many have said, the film's real star may not be the intense, brooding Craig, but actually, cinematographer Roger Deakins. Mendes and Deakins work together, not only to make Britain itself an exotic place of its own accord (with Bond travelling all over the world, the U.K should feel strange to him) but also shape Britain as a visual metaphor for Bond himself. If the damaged MI6 building in London is where James' heart lies, it's no surprise that Skyfall, located in the Scottish Highlands is where his head is at. Deakins' creates a perfect storm of murky gloom. Such ambivalence is needed in the aesthetic to help continue a through line created since the Casino Royale reboot, that this a Bond conflicted internally by hurt. Some may not want such an understanding of 007, but the idea that the ability to inflict so much damage comes from a certain form of affliction (orphans make the best spies) is a decent way to keep the character fresh.

Deakins works his magic in wondrous ways, producing one of the most memorable introductions to a Bond villain that I can remember. For all the Brit-centric elements of the film, the first appearance of Raoul Silva on his creepily deserted island makes a grand impression. As the rouge net nerd, Silva, he struts between rows of modems and servers.  We notice that his savvy for modern tech is the perfect contrast towards Bond's staunch, last Bastille of traditionalist Britain. Bardem hits the ground running, allowing his flamboyant performance to tie up with the scene. He is the antithesis of Bond. His ambiguous sexual advance towards Bond at one point only helps suggest that this new world of villainy doesn't adhere to the same straight edged rules, we've known from before.

Themes like these are what Skyfall is about at its heart. I'm fascinated with how certain roles of traditionalism play off in a world that is shedding many of those features. A good chunk of the film belongs to Dench as M, who herself is trying to figure out what place she as well as Bond has in a changing regime. A pivotal and tense court room set piece sums up her feelings eloquently.

Skyfall comes out of the box strong, delivering high impact thrills and now a fully updated Bond that many can get their teeth into. Grumblings about Connery being the best will never go, and those complaining about a Spanish agent spying in Hong Kong for the Brits during the handover, may possibly be looking a tad too deeply into things. For me, Skyfall was the type of solid summer popcorn film, which ironically, due to tradition, missed its season.

Review: Total Recall

Year: 2012
Director: Len Wiseman
Screenplay: Kurt Wimmer, Mark Bomback
Starring: Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, Byran Cranston, Bill Nighy, Bokeem Woodbine, John Cho

Synopsis is here:

After finishing The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex by Mark Kermode (light and witty), one of the main points that stayed with me was the chapter about Mainstream movies being better. Kermode believes that due to the fact that films no longer truly flop and merely "under perform", and that the studios that finance said production don't actually risk that much as they don't really lose money, should we be getting better quality movies? Now of course "better" and "good" are of course to the eye of the beholder, but as always I feel that the bequiffed one has an interesting point.

Kermode's words ring particularly true when it comes to the likes of something like Total Recall; an unbelievably, unremarkable and not at all daring Total Recall remake. However I would trade the word better with "stranger" for this particular entry. Reason being; if you're going to remake a Paul Verhoven adaptation of a Philip K Dick short story, you should make it stand out. Unfortunately, safe bets the talking in Hollywood, and they do it louder than middle aged bass playing critics, or live T.V producers who blog about movies for a hobby. Hence why Total Recall is a completely average footnote of the cinematic book of 2012.

The main issue is Total Recall has the used stench of other films hanging off it like burnt offal although it will smell like sweet pork to someone who may not be too bothered about their sci-fi or never got the fuss of the big dumb Arnie original. This film shows the generational gap between film-makers more than you think. We are now plunged fully into the directors who plunder and pilfer from other films and video games for no other reason than they remember it and it looks cool. Wiseman nabs all the artificial elements he can find from the likes of the original film, Blade Runner, Minority Report, I-robot and whatever Xbox games he had in the house at the time but does little else to the film to make our time with the mish mash world he's created fulfilling. This remake thinks it's a decent idea to discard the ambiguity that made Verhoeven feature such a stand out. Arnie is a naff actor, but Verhoeven is a learned director, with his original, wanting the viewer to second guess the intentions of it's lead and situation.  TR2012 cuts all this for the "simple" approach, as if the audience couldn't comprehend the identity crisis that featured in the original.

In fact, so much is hollowed out from the original film that the film becomes frustrating. For instance; Quaid's exotic relationship with Melina, the girl of his dreams/reality, was so different from his blonde haired, blue eyed wife it caused an entertaining dynamic. Melina 22 years ago wasn't just different in looks but in personality. A head strong rebellious latina, supported by a feisty performance from Rachel Ticotin. Fast forward to our remake and we get a bland portrayal by Jessica Biel whose only characteristic is to look slightly forlorn that Farrell's Quaid can't remember his own birthday. Such lazy reimagings crop up everywhere as Wiseman's film decides to take the road most travelled. Character actors such as Nighy and Cranston are wasted and the only person seeming to have any fun is Beckingsale's Lori. But then again that is the directors wife we're once again watching in tight clothing holding weaponry (see also Underworld) .

For all the arguments placed on Christopher Nolan's head for his two recent blockbusters (Inception and The Dark Knight Rises) and Ridleys Scott's hyped yet flawed return to sci-fi (Prometheous), Both directors can at least say that their far reaching influences allowed to bring more to proceeding than just the plain surface. Their films have brought months of argument and debate, but at least they have something in there to rouse such heated talk. They have the main source yet manage to bring more to the game.

Total Recall 2012 gives us nothing but gloss and sheen. Verhoeven knew the power of ultra violence and the general insanity of the whole thing. This retread however, is happy to contend with platform game pilfering and Blade Runner cloning. The film doesn't even seem to understand why it's taking certain aspects. Case in point, a three breasted cameo that find its way into the film early on. If you took away the original reason for said cameo to be there in the first place (Mars) why bother with the hark back? Nostalgia be damned, not even the slick action that takes place, can shift the annoyance.

Review: The Bourne Legacy

Year: 2012
Director: Tony Gilroy
Screenplay: Tony Gilroy, Dan Gilroy
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton

Synopsis is here

My problem with The Bourne Legacy is that it's so interested in it's lofty themes, it completely forgets about getting the basics down. There's a kernel of a decent film which is lost amid a pool of lacklustre motivation, uninteresting characters and bland story. All that isn't supposed to matter because GUNFIGHTS AND CHASES. Unfortunately; we've seen all that before, with the first three Bourne films. Those films also had the decency to give you something tangible to hold on to while you rode the roller-coaster.

As I said before there are a few points of interest within The Bourne Legacy. One of them is the idea of soldiers being created with less remorse, making them more efficient killers in the field while losing the compassion that compasses their humanity. The film references this twice. Firstly; when a our new Jason Bourne, Alex Cross (Renner) meets another agent at a remote outpost, sent there because he "fell in love". Secondly in a admittedly impressive motorcycle chase sequence, an enemy agent grunt who is "tradestone with none of the inconsistency, appears and goes Terminator on our heroes. The idea that the genetic science that may have created Jason Bourne is now being used to zone out emotional capacities is something I would find fascinating in a movie, particularly in one like this in which does show some promise with dialogue that doesn't feel like it's been processed for teenagers. Placing a pharmaceutical company the way the film does as the antagonist also gives the film a 70's thriller vibe and maturity that you may not get with your vampire hunters or even Avengers.

Problems arises however, when you realise that Alex Cross is just not Jason Bourne and the so called legacy looms large over the entire project. We are told every early on by an uninterested Edward Norton, to forget about Jason Bourne. But Bourne's search for his identity (as well as his humanity) give him a clear purpose. Here; we're given a bland goal of having to get "chems" or else. This wouldn't be a problem if Cross was a character worth following. The same goes for the antagonists chasing him down. There seems to be little at stake for everyone involved. Whatever stake that is negated, doesn't feel worth bothering about.

The film doesn't make good on its terms, starting very slowly, almost to the point of tedium, before wandering aimlessly (the middle being punctuated with well structured but ultimately meaningless action set pieces) and finishing abruptly, with the main narrative being nowhere as interesting as the subtext the film mentioned. Renner and Weisz sell their roles well but I found myself constantly arguing the point of the whole thing with myself. When you do that, your not enjoying the movie.

Review: The Expendables 2

Year: 2012
Director: Simon West
Screenplay: Richard Wenk and Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Chuck Norris, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Liam Hemsworth, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nan Yu

Synopsis is here

NOTE: I go into some spoiler territory here, but if you turn up to this for the plot, you surprise even me.

In a brave new post modern world; where action heroes are now more likely to be character actors (Bale, Damon, Downley Jr et all), The Expendables came across as a distressing plea for relevance at the hands of it's director and lead, Sylvester Stallone. Rambo himself may have jogged audience members memories to remember heap of near forgotten action stars. However, the misty eyed nostalgia of seeing these screen heroes was quickly obscured by the real reason for the films existence: ego fuel.

Sly's film was less about showing the young pretenders how it's done and more about exclaiming that he was till around. Drunk of the response of Rocky Balboa and Rambo, The Expendables' constant extreme close ups of an elderly Stallone mumbling naff gags was unfortunately more memorable than the hastily hacked action.

Empire writer Helen O'Hara rightfully lambasted the net nerds and lugheads on twitter by quoting the following:

"It's ironic, a movie that wears masculinity like a badge has fans who read 1 bad review & cry like little girls"

I couldn't agree more. The Expendables is less about delivering a decent action feature as opposed to stroking the egos of those who star in it. Stallone, Arnie and Willis have all make their mark in action films that were way more effective in story and set pieces. High pitched screeches of how "old school" it is, can ring from here to Albuquerque. The whining falls on deaf ears when the likes of films like The Raid are only a rental away. That film also has issues, but when it comes to action, the scenes put forth could be watched over and over.

That said, The Expendables 2 will probably quench the thirst of those who lust for the wrinkly muscle of it's meat headed cast. The film starts out with a set piece that could have easily been the climax of any other action movie. As oddly composited the sequence is (considering the film, and the money put in place, it doesn't look great) this sequel clearly wishes to expand on what came before. Bullets fire, bones crack and faceless soldiers of a far away country are set on fire. Director Simon West sorts out some of the geography of the on screen action although still it feels like characters drop in and out with no real sense of place or time.

It is good that a director like West has taken over directing duties from Stallone. The film is a little more assured of itself this time round. The film trundles along at a decent enough pace and hits it's action beats better than it's predecessor. Most of the dialogue and gags are still pretty awful, but Stallone and his band of writers at least feel a bit more accurate with the ironic aspect of the franchise. I've got to believe that the confusing and cliched monologue that Liam Hemsworth spouts is for the "lolz" because his character goes so far past tongue in cheek that it skips past sad and ends up right back where it came from. Honestly, the moment Hemsworth utters his first line of dialogue, his trajectory becomes more than a little predictable.

But then that's what films like this are about. Stating the obvious and things that go boom. Things don't have to make sense as long as a famous action start pops up from nowhere, makes a pop culture reference to themselves and shoots a gun. There is little to no reason for Chuck Norris within this movie, other than to mention a Chuck Norris joke from the internet and distract you from the fact that Jet Li was only in the first 10 mins of the the movie.

It's not completely tragic. I really enjoyed the casting of Jean Claude Van Damme, who milks his villainous character for as much as he can get, while there's no denying that there's a certain chemistry between Stallone and chums, although it still feels like him Bruce and Arnie didn't shoot their scenes together. The inclusion of Nan Yu as an intelligent (for this kind of movie) female character also means well. Unlike a Micheal Bay movie, Yu doesn't feel as sexualised as so many Hollywood startlets, and yet remains attractive in her own right.

For all it's obviousness, The Expendables 2 does at times strive for something earnest. One "dramatic" moment has Sly's Barney Ross lament at why some are chosen to die, while others do not. The scene is badly played out (almost laughable) and yet touches on something I wished both this and the original film leaned on more. However, it's not meant to be. The Expendabless 2 stayed in my memories longer than the first film, but still faded quicker than watery mist on a hot July day. That negative response may have more grown men weeping and raging, but at least they'll have the large arms of The Expendables to keep them safe.

Review: The Amazing Spiderman

Year: 2012
Director: Marc Webb
Screenplay: James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, Steve Kloves
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans, Sally Field

Synopsis is here, but also here, with parts here also.


A friends Facebook status gave the kind of sharp review of The Amazing Spiderman that most people respond to these days. In a world where 140 characters seemly affect people in a more direct way than essays and articles, labelling the film as "utter gash" will obtain way more response than whatever dross I vomit up in this blog.

While I don't fully agree with his analysis, I know that the next time we sink some tins of tyskie, I do feel we'll both agree that The Amazing Spiderman is as unnecessary as the 3D glasses I had to take to the cinema to wear. It's bad enough that that once again, 3D does little to prove its worth for a tent pole release. But the fact that the film that the effect is attached to can't make up its mind on whether it's an actual reboot or otherwise, provides a certain amount of disenchantment.

The Amazing Spiderman really does feel like a product of a company clinging onto the franchise. Sony don't appear desperate (product placement aside). However, the films needless demand to once again show us how Spiderman got to be, does little to change the fact that the film is a contrivance. The lack of ideas continue as without Sam Raimi (Script issues, unmoving release date), recycled bits of the original plans look like they've been slotted awkwardly into wherever fits. It also feels like they've spent too much time wondering what Warner Brothers were doing with DC material.

In hiring Marc Webb, we've been given 500 days of Spiderman Begins. A film which spends most of it's time targeting the high angst of the teen characters and mimicking the slightly grittier tone that The Dark Knight made its own. But while Christopher Nolan successfully crafted a comic book series that spliced its pulp roots the director's own obsessions, TAS comes to us a bit of a hodge podge. The film makes a bigger push of Peter Parker's powers as a metaphor for teen growing pains. But all the images of a hooded brooding Parker acting all Nirvana, reminded me of the reason I enjoyed Raimi's films in the first place. In fact it's something that Joss Wheedon's Avengers remembered; it's ok to have fun with these heroes.

The problem is that The Amazing Spiderman spends just so much time navel gazing, that I lost what I found so engaging from before. Raimi's Spidermans were board and a little bit silly, but they didn't feel like they had to hide that. In fact, they fully embraced it, reminding me of the 90's cartoon series that I grew up with. There was just more vibrancy originally.

This isn't to say Webb's film is a travesty. I'm sure TAS, has its fans who read more comics than me who can honestly say it's closer to the version they expected the first time around. Webb brings some interesting visuals to the table, and while the performances don't feel as earnest as those that have come before it, they're certainly stronger in other areas. The chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is charming, while placing Martin Sheen in the Uncle Ben role was a well played stroke. It's quite clear that Webb's strength is in the interactions of the actors.

Unfortunately, this doesn't stabilize the films awkward plotting and general poor usage of characters. Other than being the first love of Peter Parker, the film isn't sure of what to do with Gwen Stacy, while the plot thread involving Uncle Ben is dropped quicker than a hot potato. Why reboot this aspect, if Peter isn't going to be that bothered with it soon afterwards? Elsewhere, Rhys Ifans tries to update Brundlefly for the twilight generation, but unfortunately is given a villain that lacks the creepiness of Willem Defoe's Green Goblin or the pathos of Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus. Much like the film's action set pieces, Ifans' villain struggles to escape the shadow that Raimi has cast.

Still, I say this while the film made a killing at the box office (although knocked off the top spot in the U.K by Ice Age 4 as of posting this). This only helps the film disprove the idea that people desperately want original films. But in counting the amount the Xperia phone shots that hang from this tent pole. It seems to me that Sony's belief that branding is best in this cinematic world is correct when the numbers are that good. Money talks.

Review: Men in Black 3

Year: 2012
Director: Barry Sonnigfield
Screenplay: Etan Cohen
Starring: Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Emma Thompson, Michael Stuhlbarg

Synopsis is here

For a film that went into fillming without a finished script, MIB3 almost manages to hang together. It seems it does this due to a lot of heart, a time travel plot that freshens things up a bit despite feel like a futrarama episode, a relatively decent villain, and some killer Tommy Lee Jones mimicry from Jeff Brolin. Is it wrong that if there has to be another entry (if the moneys good, they'll probably all be there) I'd like to see this partnership team up again and jump through a different decade a la quantum leap? I certainly can see that more than anything continuing with Jones.

Jones, a man I once lambasted or being on rails in William Friedkin's The Hunted is far worse here. That film, released almost ten years ago (much like the last MIB film) had a monosyllabic Tommy Lee slowly tracking down Benico Del Toro. But I can possibly forgive the film for what it was trying to do. Here Jones (like the most of the films comedy and a sleepwalking Smith) is firing on no cylinders.

Jones' older K, takes up most of the first act and oddly unlike the first film, none of his time together with Smith's J is worthwhile. He doesn't seem interested, but then neither does the script which is uneven and practically devoid of jokes. The film only gets going when Smith enters the sixties. A scene in Warhol's Factory raises an eyebrow, while the small moment involving Smith's Jay experiencing racism in old timey New York is handled well enough to raise a smile. But a smile is all. There's an edge that's missing from MIB3, that many could well remember from The Addams Family.

There is, however, a certain amount of pluck within the film. It lies in the character of Griffin. While the character is a complete basil exposition, Griffin shines brighter than he should, due to an energetic child-like display from A serious man's Michael Stuhlbarg.  A well cast and nearly wasted Emma Thompson, does well with the antics and gives us slightly tender moment that hints at a sub-plot should have been handled better. Josh Brolin also gives a climatic scene way more heft than expected, all of which reminds us of some of the smaller aspects which made the first film (and not the awful second) appealing. It also helps that the meat of the clue seeking aspect of the plot within the second act does enough to grab some attention.

The main problem is that for a comedy adventure, it is sub-par. The action may not be much to tattle about, but it just about does the job. With this said, I could have done with some yuks. But then again, maybe if they finished the script before filming, they would have had time to work on the jokes.

Review: The Raid

Year: 2011
Director: Gareth Evans
Screenplay: Gareth Evans
Starring: Iko Uwais, Ananda George, Ray Sahetapy


Synopsis is here:


You can write the premise on a napkin. A SWAT infiltrate a dug lords apartment building only for the tables to be turned on them. It was never about them getting in, it was always about them getting out. The conceit is simplicity itself and one of the reason I feel an action film like The Raid will gain many fans on DVD Theatrically, the U.K numbers haven't appeared on Box Office Mojo, however, the fact that once again I was in a screen by myself speaks volumes (mainly that I work odd shift hours).


The Raid is exactly what I expect from a movie of it's ilk. The kind of film that get's Roger Eberts back up. It's violence incarnate and completely unapologetic with it. Gareth Evans' film is a ballet of broken bones with a tremendous amount of twisted limbs and large bouts of bloodshed. 


It's also suffers from below average characterisation and a humdrum story. I'm sincerely disappointed that the films dialogue and plot are not up to the level of the carnage. Such thoughts will piss off the hardcore fans of such a genre, however brutality aside, I have to say I found myself lamenting that The Raid didn't push the bar further. Haywire's lead actress wasn't the strongest, but such the female dynamic made it stand out (see also Hanna). The dialogue is one note while most of the films twists are pretty transparent. Don't expect anyone of the actors to be the next Lawrence Olivier. 


And yet, this does nothing to distract from the films ability to startle with it's action. The film showcases the traditional Indonesian martial art Pencak Silat. It is a fight style that I've never experienced before, and one that I enjoyed indulging in. Evans use of geography throughout the film is sublime. The labrinth-like corriders are filled with doors that are quick to burst open with assailants, while the fights themselves are quite remarkable  given the limited space available within the rooms. The Raid is quick to remind you that the environment is a character as well.

Is is however, unfortunate that compared to the likes of older (early John Woo) or more modern (A Bittersweet Life) far eastern classics we are not given a character whose as interesting to follow during the "talkie" moments. It's true that we go to the raid for the chop socky action. However, when compared to the likes of Chow Yun Fat or Bruce Lee, the film falters as the lead actor Iko Uwais just doesn't have the presence. While the only way other characters get to bounce off him is by throwing their fists at him. The dances of death throughout are exhilarating, the charisma that flowed through the films it's influenced by however is missing.

The Raid is a six-pack film, which features moves that allows you to marvel at some brilliantly executed set pieces while you swill some watered wheat and hops around your chops. Films like this always make you double take what you just saw and remind me just how regulated the American film industry is in terms of health, safety and insurance. I'll be interested to see just how Hollywood manage some of the stunts on show, in their soon to be filmed remake. I'd be even more surprised if that film manages to bolster the thinly spread plot and characters at play.

Review: The Avengers

Year: 2012
Director: Joss Whedon
Screenplay: Zak Penn, Joss Whedon
Starring: Robert Downley Jr, Chris Evans, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddlestone, Scarlett Johannson, Mark Ruffalo, Samuel L Jackson

Synopsis is here:

Ploughing through my grammatically dubious past reviews (seriously, the grammar Nazis must have a field day before never returning), it's clear to see that my thoughts about Marvel's studio adventures were mostly entertaining, yet consistently preoccupied. My enjoyment of the various entries have ebbed and flowed for an assortment of reasons. However, the element that stands out like the proverbial sore thumb, is the common knowledge that all these features are accumulating to something grander in scale.

This has lead us to a series of relatively fun jaunts which are sorely lacking at points. We've come to a very peculiar point in cinema in which the executives are now so invested in future projects that the first features are pushing sequels, way beyond a cheeky hint or odd nod. It seems that back stories and plot points are now being made even more verge than ever before, due to the desire for the audience double dip.

This brings us to The Avengers*, a film which aims to be the actual fruit of all the other labour, the definition to the large amount of Marvel input. It's hard not to feel a little duped by the "in-complete" feel of the previous entries. However, even before the end of the first act, any ill feeling begin to subside.

Simply put; for me, The Avengers delivers, in spades. Joss Whedon doesn't give us a "game-changer" or whatever new hyperbolic label being haphazardly thrown about recently. In fact Whedon's ingredient for success is to par everything down back to basics. True, the use of story and character has been bolstered somewhat by the previous films and yet The Avengers works on it's own as Whedon has boiled every character down to their essence, balanced the screen time and grown the film around them.

Liberties with it's introductions and the script has small issues (some awkward info-dumps) with some of the intricacies of it's admittedly silly plot (lets not fool ourselves that the tesseract macguffin is any more advanced than a certain allspark). The difference here between Whedon's Avengers and many of the others blockbusters that have passed, is that here, he and Penn (writing credits to X-men) really utilises the knowledge of the world these characters inhabit. The screenplay knows what makes these heroes tick and allows them to grow organically. From the humour of the characters to the action sequences, it all stems from a good understanding of not only the material, but character itself.

Let's take the villian of Loki (Hiddlestone) for example, who has bloomed from a Commodus-lite snivelling creature to a presence of Machiavellian reverence. Hiddlestone's Loki now has the same self arrogant swagger as Whedon's Mayor, but now he is a fully formed creation.  This villain, like The Joker, isn't simply a faceless alien or a generic spy antagonist but a character given an intricate agenda. Not just one born from a lazy wish for power, but sourced from a fractured family relationship only started in the first film. Such elements are examined and expanded with a deftness of touch, which has been sorely missing from a few blockbusters.

But that's what the pens (well keyboards...possibly tablets?) of Pen and Whedon bring to proceedings. Their focus the actual people inside the frame helps highlight the spectacle. What we are given is action driven through characters as opposed to empty effects. In a world in which we're consistently being being thrown bigger effects in a shallow effort to make us believe that bigger (and louder) is better, The Avengers works because it's creators simply go back to what made blockbusters so memorable in the first place. We share their plight, see their fears and flaws, pompous as this may sound, Whedon quite simply, has given these heroes their humanity.

Joss Whedon has grown and matured as a feature film director. The Avengers carries much of his writing quips and visual style, but while the Serenity was a little raw and still that cult feel (though a favourite of mine), here we have a boarder appeal but at no expense of entertainment. The humour is just as colourful as the film itself but it's is not at the sacrifice of the characters. It's not shoehorned or misplaced, quite the opposite.  The Avengers channels its spectacle through emotion and character as opposed to flashing blatant brand recognition and explosions (although that stuff is clearly within the film). Whedon is slowly crafting his own style of film action (those short sharp zooms were seen in Serenity). And while the set pieces aren't the strongest I've seen, the simple fact that sections are tailored to suit the characters personalties effectively makes a huge difference. I will say however, that the film suffers from a horrible infliction the proceeds so many of it's type. I found myself questioning the dubious power levels that these people have. The super powers of these beings seem to fluctuate for when the story accuires. I'm sure an actual comic book fan would be able to "set me straight", however it's that issue which reminds me why I favour the likes of Batman.

Slight frustrations aside, The Avengers is what I want from a summer movie. Whedon's film manages to mine the charisma found in the comics and place it on screen. We have an odd balance in play, in which, what we know about the characters from the previous entries gives us a certain level of depth and knowledge, and yet The Avengers gives enough space and time to allow these characters to mature further. I am still, in all honestly, wondering about the dodgy mechanics of Loki using his silly power cube to bring about the Gears of War reject army and story does feel dumb. But like a good summer movie should, I rolled with the punches because the emotion behind the motivations are there. The performances (standouts are Hiddlestone and Ruffalo, the humour and knock around tone washed away my issues. The Avengers has laid down the Summer gauntlet, I hope it starts as it means to go on.

*I simply refuse to call the film by it's stupid name change. The only good thing that alteration has provided, is making sure I get U.K cinema listings as opposed to U.S ones in Google.

Review: Battleship

Year: 2012
Director: Peter Berg
Screenplay: Erich Hoeber, Jon Hoeber
Starring: Alexander Skarsgård, Brooklyn Decker, Liam Neeson, Taylor Kitsch, Rihanna

Synopsis is here:


Halfway through Battleship, my mind wandered and formed two creations. One was a basic plot premise for the alleged upcoming monopoly film (I suggest a film like It's a mad mad world or rate race with Ben Kingsley as the monopoly guy). The second invention was the Battleship drinking game. You drink when Rihanna does something feisty, spunky or sprouts dialogue that was clearly reserved for Michelle Rodriguez (possibly too busy to sign for this film). Drink when the film features a scene which displays hilarious jingoistic tendencies. Drink when risible line of trite sound bite friendly dialogue is uttered by Taylor Kitsch. Seriously, It just kept going.

Battleship (based inexplicably on the Hasbro board game  is one of the most expensive unintentional comedies I've had the (dis)pleasure of watching. I mean it must be winking at the camera if after two waves of alien attacks, its lead only then mentions "I've got a bad feeling about this". At one point after yet another moment of silly "lets-go-get-um" dialogue, a scientist actually asks in a rare moment of self reference: "who actually talks like that". The film suggests that the Army and Navy haven't neglected it's veteran's in any shape or form. So much so that they can not only rely on them when the chips are down, but said vet's will easily have the faculties to jump into action at a moments notice. Maybe I'm hopelessly wrong, and a ragtag band of U.S Dad's Armies and disabled soldiers could hold their own against an almost infinitely advanced Alien army but this I doubt. Such is escapism and suspension of belief. Maybe I'm just not pushing mine far enough.

But maybe not. Battleship is a film which costs around $200 million to make and yet is so invested in becoming Transformers at sea that they couldn't even be bothered to finish the script fully. The film looks like it's poking fun at itself and yet it can't even be bothered to sort it's structure out. In the obligatory alien autopsy scene, the film mimics Independence Day (it does this often) with a flashback sequence which reminds us of that weird mind meld moment with Bill Pullman in Area 51. The film half heartily gives us some   exposition of the beings, but then drops the info, immediately afterwards. The film is full of moments and devices like this in which scenes don't advance plot or character, but remind in the film because Battleship, that's why.

This is Peter Berg mimicking Michael Bay as close as he possibly can. An attack on Tokyo* feels lifted off Dark of the Moon. The film is littered with countless Bay-like circling shots and needless slow motion, paper thin character development and an obscene running time which belies the films actual depth. Yet, credit to Berg for delivering a popcorn which doesn't have that nasty after-taste that comes with choking down Bay's tedious fighting Robots saga.

Lets not lie, this is a jingoistic recruitment film for the U.S Navy, but the film is so ridiculous in it's creation you may not believe it. You may even laugh as hard I did. I was far more entertained by this films absurdity than any Transformer film. Just watch the way it shows images of children under threat from the alien "other". Or an amusing aside where Taylor Kitsch (who is woeful in this, what happened to the John Carter pluck?) basically does his best to make sure that little Jimmy or whoever joins the Navy with his description of life at sea ("I drive the ship, it's way more fun").

Whether or not the film and it's comically haphazard construction is intentional or not will be in the eye of the beholder. There's a good chance that those who love the likes of Battle L.A and Transformers will probably see no different. However, Bergs film despite it's sloppy scripting, terrible acting (featuring a criminally wasted Neeson) and dubious placement of not only military organisations but fizzy drinks, mobiles and the like, is relatively competent in one area. While the action itself was relatively bland, it at least it could be followed.  Berg's film misses the topical commentary (and more entertaining set pieces) of his earlier work, Hancock, and lacks the edginess that Very Bad Things, brought to proceedings. However, Battleship revels in its badness enough, to make it a poor movie worth watching once if not for the hilarity. I will be wasted if I ever sit down to watch this again.

Review: The Hunger Games

Year: 2012
Director: Gary Ross
Screenplay: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, Stanley Tucci, Josh Hutchinson, Liam Hemworth

Synopsis is here

*WARNING: There is a slight spoiler in my review but come on...who hasn't seen it yet?*

By the time I had my ticket to the hunger games, half the western world had seen it.

Yes; the biggest problem for a film blogger, who is also a paying patron, is that with work related issues and life getting in the way, you'll often be talking about a film that many have already seen and forgot about. My reviews on movies have never really been about telling people exactly what to watch although it's great if someone takes my view and enjoys a flick. However, it is nice to try and get your writing out with the big guns before the money rolls in.

From the view of The Hunger Games however, it's particularly interesting to observe the reaction of a film after the opening weekend. As much as we go on about cinema as an artform (and it can be), mainstream cinema always has and always will be dictated on cash. How a film uses it's money and how it makes it back is the bottom line of everything, period.

Case in point, it's fascinating to watch how (regardless of your view on quality) The Hunger Games lapped up the board audience and big bucks that John Carter missed previously. Scott Mendelson gives us decent reasoning as to why John Carter had such a fall from grace. Strangely enough, The Hunger Games appears to have done the complete opposite in all regards and reaped the rewards.

While one of the main reason behind the films attraction is of course the clear fact that the film is aimed at the "young adult" crowd. The film clearly has universal appeal. It's director; Gary Ross, had his writing talents involved in films such as Big (1988) and Pleasentville (1998). Simple features with board appeal and to this blogger, more than enough entertainment value. As writer and director here, Ross makes sure that the basic translation is solid (although it's clear that plot strands have been streamlined), and those who know the material well will probably be happy with what transpires.

Those who have brought the book on their kindle, and are still reading the life and death of Don Simpson, will see that the films story and themes, tender to various audiences. There is something for most within the material.Played out like Lord of the files meets The Running Man (with a sprinkle of Orwell), the films politics, the action and the female lead all come out well enough, yet doesn't feel like they've been picked by committee. You do get that true escapist feel of the world situated. I'm sure that this is evident with the book (I'll brush the dust off my kindle soon) but Ross does his best cinematically to give the film a certain amount of scope.

Jennifer Lawrence is as convincing here as the world that is built. This is mostly because she brings to the role the same quiet steeliness that she graced Winter's Bone with. Striking her role with the right balance of vulnerably and aggression. Whether it's bouncing off the ever reliable Woody Harrelson, or fighting through the foliage during the games themselves, Lawrence carries the film as comfortably here as she did in the Ozarks.

The film has it's faults. Due to it's 12-A rating and modern action filmmaking in general, it's blink and you miss it editing makes some of the set pieces feel awkward. Meanwhile; a streamlined relationship between Katniss and a fellow hunger gamer Rue, feels reminiscent of the Ripley/Newt but feels lacking in screen time.  Such aspects could do with a bit of breathing space. However, the films lengthy running time reminds us that we should be happy that the film manages to place as much in as it can. In fact, contrary to the racists tweets from ignorant alleged fans who clearly can't read well, one of the films changes from the book involving a revolt in one of the districts after a certain event, works surprisingly well because of the aspects of race. Consider the films talk of districts uniting and revolting together. Surely such a mixture of races uniting as one voice makes the theme stronger than a typical white on white view. But then, maybe I'm wrong with such idealism.


Dubious race readings aside, the film works well when it has other sci-fi in its sights. Many have made the comparison to one Battle Royale, and while it's true that the film's main conceit has similarities, Much of the film seems to owe itself to Orwell's seminal 1984 (don't they all). An early moment within the film involving Katniss and her District boyfriend feels much like the neutral space that Winston and Julia share halfway through the novel. The constant manipulation of the media and containment of hope and emotion evoke the  same Ministry of Love meddling that took place in Oceania (and of course the aformentioned Running Man).

Some of the films politics are clearly dated for where we are now. Ideas of celebrity being not only an importance but life affirming (as well as life giving). The dolling up our young and utilizing them for political gain and distraction is a difficult and complex element that the film does well to explore. The complexities aren't there, but for such a mainstream film to even think about such things is surprising. In comparison to Battle Royale*, The Hunger Games lacks the explicitness found within certain areas of that feature. In fact its straight laced nature of the film means that it lacks the absurdity observed within it's so called Japanese counterpart. The severe bloodletting is of course missing, but then so is the extreme adolescent behaviours that take place. Said enhanced immaturity helped highlight the senselessness of the situation. The Hunger Games doesn't appear to strive for anything too similar, focusing on a typical Hollywood arc, in which the kids grow up fast and quickly, one step already into womenhood and heroics.

This isn't a negative per say. More of an observation between two films that share similarities, yet are from two very different cultures. The Hunger Games works well as an entertaining piece of Hollywood affair. One willing to engage in lofter and darker themes than one would usually expect. For a film that found itself being touted as "the next twilight", this gives us a heroine who eschews the passive nature of Bella and hints at a romantic triangle which looks set to be more complex than the wolfs and the vamps. What happens next should be quite compelling. For now, I need to make do with checking out the book, as I'm more behind with that than the movie.

*Note: I know, I know EVERYONE has referenced it.