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: Godzilla

Year: 2014
Director: Gareth Edwards
Screenplay: Max Borenstein
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Bryan Cranston

Synopsis is here

I found myself grappling with my thoughts on this latest rendition Godzilla since my viewing last Friday. I had more than enough time to piece a review together since then, but I wanted to figure out if my thoughts of the film would develop into something more than just "fine". As a big fan of Edwards last feature; Monsters (2010), I had some high hopes for whatever project would come the young director's way and while a $100millon plus blockbuster was possibly not what I was thinking, but I was more than willing to see what he would do with Japan's iconic, atomic beast.

Edward's Godzilla feels less like Roland Emmerich's flat 1998 adaptation of the material, yet it struggles to bring across the gloomy, tragic tone of the 1954 original. The film stumbles somewhere along the middle of both. Doing its best to project the huge amount of money spent on it and fumbling a plot that has a refreshing change of pace in comparison with other blockbusters, in terms of structure and themes, yet no interesting human characters to engage with. Edward's film excels when Godzilla makes its appearances in the film, but most of the films downtime is spent with people that hold no real interest. Edwards clearly likes to display the idea that when such creatures appear on earth, we are of little significance, and I enjoy how his displays this in such moments as the glorious skydiving set piece. If we are to spend so much time with its human characters, however, I would not mind some emotional connection.

The 1954 original film cleverly used the Japan as a collective source of character, utilizing isolating moments of terror and despair and unifying them as an emotionally connective tissue. There is no main character because Japan is the main character. 2014's Godzilla decides to lump its heavy weight upon Aaron Taylor Johnson, whose board shoulders aren't strong enough to carry it. Johnson plays the role barrel chested but cardboard faced. Other actors I expected more from (Olsen, Binoche, and Hawkins) are either bland info-dumping mouth pieces are unfortunately shoved into either dull homely or info-dump characters. This is the second film to place a female character within a uniform of a nurse and believe that's enough to sell the idea of the character (see also The Amazing Spiderman 2). Bryan Cranston tries hard to inject the kind of energy we expect from such a film, as yet another pent-up father figure, while Ken Watanabe is allowed inform us of the nature of the beast, yet the amount of screen time they are given to place any gravitas, is limited. A strong international cast is wasted, while we wait for what we actually came for.

Edward does deliver when it comes to the film's scale. The film generally feels large. We witness helicopters appear as mere specks on landscapes of foliage. Watching landscape shots of soldiers against the sheer size of the mutated monster only amplifies the feelings of insignificance of the human species as the rampage of the creatures takes place. Edwards also nods back to his first feature (as well the Godzilla franchise) with a solid sense of wit. Meanwhile cinematographer Seamus McGarvey's beautifully ashen cinematography and Alexandre Desplat winking score sets the right tone.

Godzilla 2014 tries hard to juggle a few pies in the air and only manages to a few of them up. Edward's film is making a summer blockbuster with very particular B-movie-like undertones. But while the original film smartly captures a country's pain with a sense of melancholy, Godzilla fumbles its human story with unengaging characters. The film really hits its stride when it all kicks off, but I would happily be calling the film great if the film's quieter moments had anything approaching the subtly affecting Mexican vigil scene found in Monsters. Godzilla is best viewed for its splashes of spectacle only.

Review: Bad Neighbours

Year: 2014
Director: Nicholas Stroller
Screenplay: Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O'Brien
Starring: Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Dave Franco

Synopsis is here:

If you squint a bit, you could possibly imagine Bad Neighbors (Neighbors in the U.S) as a sequel to 2008's Knocked Up. The appearance of Seth Rogen; here as stoned, nearly adult trying to cope with becoming a father and getting a little older, feels like an accurate continuation point for the comedian. Despite not being written by Rogen, Bad Neighbors harbors the same loosey goosey style that we've come to expect when have when Rogen appears on screen. Yet Bad Neighbours would appeal to me more if it simply had more focus. After This is the End (2013), I'm really starting to miss actual jokes.

Bed Neighbors may have a screenplay credited to two people, yet the film still gravitates towards shiftless improvisation which slowly becomes more tiresome as the film wears on. Stroller is more than willing to let scenes drift into unamusing and jarring dreariness as you realise the actors are trying too hard with their ad-libbing. The stoner references and the college party hijinks still have a certain allure to me, I guess (the film handles itself better than, say Project X), yet watching Zac Efron and Dave Franco push a "bros before hoes" sequence until it fizzles to an unfunny puddle is generally not needed. A shame as Franco has great comic presence, while Eforn shines brightest in the film as a whole.

The film is sporadically amusing, with some of the (actual) jokes and quips actually striking quite hard on my funny bone. The airbag sequence from the films marketing spots still made me laugh out loud in the cinema, while the Robert De Niro party appeals to the film nerd in me. As does the use of Batman actors to show the gap in two side's ages. There's a small amount of quirky moments that kept me from doing what I witnessed a couple do halfway through – walk out.

That said, I found myself more interested in which role we could see Zac Efron play next. He has a right amount of charm and presence to play an effective sociopath. The fact that I was more interested in Efron's future than the cheap gags he was performing on screen, says to me that the film just wasn't doing its job to it's full potential.

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: Transcendence

Year: 2014

Director: Wally Pfister  

Screenplay: Jack Paglen 

Starring: Johnny Depp, Morgan Freeman, Rebecca Hall, Kate Mara, Cillian Murphy, Cole Hauser, Paul Bettany

Synopsis is here

I squirmed uncomfortably through a lot of Transcendance. I was slightly shocked at just how soulless the film felt. It contains hefty themes of man vs machine, techno terrorism, environmentalism and man created reverence, yet administers them with the sternness of a strict schoolmarm. Far too often I found myself siding with either the humans or the computers and was willing the film to stop being so po-faced.

For many, their main concern with the film was it’s cumbersome science, which joylessly displays itself fully in the film’s third act. I’m less bothered by this. Mostly because most sci-fi heads enjoy similar tales which also hold bad disciplines. Nor for me the film’s dispassionate treatment of its characters was what irked me the most. The actors (with Depp as the prime target) have been attacked for sleepwalking through their performances, however, Jack Paglen’s script isn’t particularly concerned with investing the audience with any real reason to give concern. The threat of technology taking over the fleshbags is something that movies enjoy exploiting, yet Transcendance does very little in imposing any menace. 

Pfister does transfer his keen visual eye in his direction with sharp macro imagery of accumulating in droplets and contrasting them with the vast, detached open spaces we’ve witnessed in Christopher Nolan’s escapades. The crisp visuals, however, are perhaps at the detriment of the screenplay and performances. The image of computer circuitry trapped within a dream catcher is a provocative one, but feels weak when we combine with the distant performances and cumbersome screenplay. 

The fact is we’ve seen these themes work better in more substantial features. It’s hard not to look at Kate Mara’s Bree and be reminded of Jennifer Jason Leigh’s alt-rebel games maker; Allegra Geller, in David Cronenberg’s greasy Existenz (1999). The film's main conceit should of course prod viewers in the way of Frankenstein (1931), but Transcendance doesn’t even have the scenery chewing mania of Kenneth Branagh’s 1994’s adaptation let alone the clean and simple terror of James Whale’s original. Transcendence talks a good game about the god in the machine, but forgets that the enjoyment of these stories is the hysteria and emotional response we gain from the folly of man. Sure looks nice though.