This is the End

The world is going to end any minute now. By the time you’re done with this review it could already be over. At least that’s what Hollywood believes. Over the past few years it has churned out countless predictions for how humanity will meet its demise. Whether it’s a Mayan prophecy, alien invasion, zombie attack or a deathly virus Hollywood has been very creative in showing audiences worse case scenarios. But after all this tragedy some comedy relief is not far behind and this year some studios want us to go out on a high note. There is Edgar Wright’s latest Cornetto release (the series of films with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost that all have a different flavour of Cornetto in them) The World’s End as well as This Is a Disaster and Rapture-Palooza. But before them comes celebrity crammed This is the End a film so over the top it will either be an instant hit or a total flop.

In This is the End all the actors play caricatures of themselves. Jay Baruchel, from Knocked Up and How to Train your Dragon, comes to LA to visit his old friend Seth Rogen. After getting high together and playing computer games Rogen persuades Baruchel to go to a party at James Franco’s new house. There Baruchel must socialise with Rogen’s new friends who he’s made since he became a huge star. Then judgement day happens. The righteous are taken up in a blue light and the wicked, including most of the celebrities at the house party, are left on Earth to fend for themselves.

Although this doesn’t sound like this should work it does. It’s a stoner comedy that could have only come from the minds of Rogen and frequent collaborator Evan Goldberg, the team that brought us Pineapple Express and Superbad. There is a smorgasbord of talent here that all play up to the public’s perceptions of themselves. Rogen is a weed smoking nice guy; Baruchel is indie kid who hates LA; Franco is a liberal intellectual snob; Danny McBride is a gross partier; Jonah Hill is the new kid who wants to be nice. This leads to a number of extreme and comedic situations-whether it’s Franco painting a picture for Rogen to show his admiration or McBride turning up uninvited to the party. There are also characters that go against perception such as Michael Cera who plays a cocaine snorting sex-pest who receives a duel blowjob his Franco’s bathroom. The audience will laugh right the way through the film at just how ridiculous the characters are. The greatest scene has to be the one which involves Emma Watson using an axe to steal the group’s supplies. The movie should be a hit just for that.

It is possible that This is the End has unseen depths that analyse the concepts of celebrities and how they are not who we perceive them to be and in fact not good people (since most of them were left behind after the rapture). But on the surface it’s a simple buddy movie about sticking with people as they change and remembering to bring your friends with you as life goes on. That is if you were having a friendship crisis during the apocalypse. As all these actors have worked together in the past and enjoy each other’s company the chemistry is all there making the relationships believable. Baruchel is great as the geeky outsider who doesn’t like his best friend’s cooler friends.

About two thirds of the way through the film does drag a little. It probably could have had slightly less Lord of the Flies style examples of animosity growing within the house. It was not necessary to see every way in which the characters possibly fall out. But saying that the end makes up for this issue. With demon attacks, cannibalism and confrontations with the anti-Christ, the final thirty minutes is full of suspense.

This movie may be outrageous and extreme, but that is why it works so well. The cast fully get into their, sometimes self-critical, roles and play them with gusto. It may not be to everyone’s taste, but for those who have enjoy gross-out, dicks-out type comedies this is some of Rogen and Goldberg’s best work.

Degree-2:1

A hilarious film that doesn’t take itself seriously

and is better for it.

 

 

Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3 Poster

Have a think how far superhero films have come since the first Iron Man. Not even Nick Fury saw the transformation coming. At Iron Man’s release in 2008 Marvel hadn’t had a credible movie for years, while DC was darkening the genre with Christopher Nolan’s Batman. Then came the first step in Marvel’s grand-and now clearly successful-plan to make an unrivaled blockbuster. Iron Man was humorous without being camp, serious without being morbid. This perfect balance has become the tone of all Marvel films since then and continues in this potential finale.

After battling aliens and traveling through wormholes during Avenger’s Assemble Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) is a wreck. Suffering from anxiety and PTSD he can’t sleep and busies himself improving his suits before the next attack. On top of that a terrorist known as the Mandarin is attacking America.

On the surface the plot is predictable for both die-hard fans and regular moviegoers. It refers to enough source material for fans to keep ahead. But, there are a few twists that few will see coming that make up for some predictability.

Considering the film took two years to make the plot feels oddly ‘now’. It tackles PTSD in soldiers and how it strains relationships. Downey Jr gives Stark a vulnerability not normally associated with the arrogant billionaire. The sleepless nights, panic attacks and the constant frustration vividly capture what many American soldiers go through on a daily basis.

Then there are the bombings. Early on there is a bomb attack at Hollywood’s Chinese Theater that is uncomfortably similar to the Boston Marathon attack last week. Although only a coincidence it demonstrates that Iron Man 3 has captured the spirit of this age and is serious for a comic book.

But don’t worry it’s not too serious. Like Avengers Assemble Shane Black’s and Drew Pearce’s script has laughs alongside the action. This is after all what Marvel does best. Downey Jr is given one-liners in the action scenes, in the emotional scenes, and in every scene in-between. As an added bonus the jokes don’t fall flat, but have audiences laughing.

Sometimes the film does sway a bit too far towards a punch line. There are moments, especially during the fights, where they have chosen to be goofy over cool. It may have been a sleeker movie if a few gags hadn’t been included. But then it wouldn’t have been as enjoyable. There are still plenty of geek-gasm moments and great actions scenes to avoid being branded lame. For example the final fight includes an army of Iron Man suits. It doesn’t get much more exciting than that.

While the last time the suit went out for a flight it was part of a team Iron Man 3 all about Stark putting a deserving Downey Jr in center stage. His jokes get laughs, his action drops mouths and his panic attacks warms hearts. This is the deepest Marvel has gone with any of its characters so far. Downey Jr sensitively plays a broken man by not making light of the situation, but also not becoming too enveloped in it.

The problem with it being the Robert Downey Jr Show is that other characters aren’t used as much. Ben Kinsley, Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce all do well, but the female characters aren’t as lucky. Both Gwyneth Paltrow as girlfriend Pepper Potts and Rebecca Hall as ex-fling Dr Maya Hansen have a few ace moments, but they are few and far between. Marvel has shown it can do fun non-heroic female parts, such as Agent Maria Hill or Black Widow, so it is a shame they didn’t succeed her. Instead both often stick with the damsel role.

The original Iron Man lead the way for a new style of comic genre movie and this film carries on that legacy. Overall Iron Man 3 is a marvelous addition to the franchise and explores new depths with the central hero. The tone is well balanced with humour and seriousness blended well together between fun and exhilarating action scenes. Let’s hope the rumours that Downey Jr will step out of the suit are untrue as no other actor right now could replace him.

Degree- 2:1

A well balanced and fun comic book film that would be

perfect if there were some minor tweaks.

Perks of Being a Wallflower

Gone are the days of vacant teenage movies.  Modern high school dramas can no longer be all about finding a great date for prom or simply being unpopular. Like the comic book genre teen movies need to have a bit of wit and darkness about them. Perks of Being a Wallflower follows this mature trend and does it successfully.

The film is an adaption of the late 90s novel of the same name by Stephen Chbosky, who also wrote the screenplay and directed the feature. The story follows a quiet boy called Charlie as he completes his year at high school. During the year he goes through many phases we associate with being an awkward teenager: not fitting in; being bullied; falling in love; discovering yourself. But, on top of all this, the film tackles heavier content such as homosexuality, drugs and suicide. This heavy subject matter is handled with a compassionate touch that allows the audience to be moved by the situation without beating them over the head with how tragic it is. The film also doesn’t reveal everything all at once. Instead, some mystery is contained and audiences are left guessing right up until the end.

As with other films in this genre, Perks of Being a Wallflower will fly or fall on the backs of the main cast. Fortunately, this main cast is exceptional. Audiences will become emotionally invested in all three lead characters. Logan Lerman plays Charlie and is instantly likable. Although he may be socially awkward, Lerman shows that Charlie has a kind heart, an enquiring mind, and emotional maturity well beyond his years. Lerman portrays incredible vulnerability with Charlie’s character, having him always just a little bit away from snapping.

The other male lead is Patrick, played by Ezra Miller. Miller swaps the quiet control he used to play the title character in We Need to Talk About Kevin and goes for full comic timing with Patrick. Patrick is the comedic relief with his bitchy put downs and flamboyant nature that Miller is able to pull off with ease. But this character also has darkness that is explored in the film, mainly revolving around Patrick being gay. Although he himself is fine with it, which is refreshing in an adolescent film, there are still difficult issues revolving around being gay in a small community. Miller is able to switch between the lighter and heavier moments seamlessly.

The final lead actor probably has the most to prove. Emma Watson, of Harry Potter fame, plays Sam, Patrick’s stepsister and love interest of Charlie. Watson has not always been considered to be worth the large sums she has been paid. Like her Harry Potter co-stars she likely chose this role wanting to prove she can do more than just wave a wand.  With this film she made the right choice, and with a good script she shines. The character of Sam requires outward confidence, but a fragile little girl on the inside. Watson manages to balance the two perfectly making the love interest appear to be more than just the prettiest girl in the school. Sam’s brokenness is what attracts Charlie to her and is what attracts the audience’s affection. Watson also shows great chemistry with both Miller and Lerman, more chemistry than she showed with her male leads in Harry Potter.

Music plays a vital part in Charlie’s teenage awakening, so along with a great cast the film can boast an exceptional soundtrack. Set in the early 90s the film makes references to Rocky Horror, David Bowie, the Smiths, and many other indie bands of the time. It may not be the most up beat of soundtracks, but writer and director Chbosky handpicked them to add extra emotion to the story.

This is not just any old ‘teen getting through high school’ film, but one that has real heart and depth to it. In the same way Easy A made teen films more witty, Perks of Being a Wallflower makes them deeper.

Degree- 2:1

A witty film about being a high school outcast.

Maybe a little too saccharine or predictable for some,

but it is certainly a cut above most in the genre.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

This may be a novel about spies, but with a cast that includes Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and Gary Oldman no one should be expecting it to be the next Bond or Bourne. In fact ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ pertains to show audiences the actual reality of being a spy.  John Le Carre’s novel is based on his own experiences in MI6 and reveals it to be a boys club with its own code where office politics takes on a deadly role.

Taking centre stage is Gary Oldman’s George Smiley who has been brought out of forced retirement to find a Russian mole that has been placed at the top of the Circus (the code for MI6). Having not read the novel nor seen the greatly praised BBC mini-series starring Alec Guinness, it is difficult to comment how Oldman’s Smiley compares with past versions, but what can be said is that Oldman fits smoothly into the part he creates. This Smiley is a thoughtful, quiet man who appears to be happier at a desk than seducing beautiful women whilst driving an Aston Martin. Smiley is a real spy, one who is a keen observer, fiercely intelligent and able to do more than just look good in a tuxedo (or perhaps some tight fitting trunks).

Oldman’s controlled and minimal performance makes Smiley a difficult character to warm to initially. He only talks when he has to and always in a deliberate, purposeful manner. In fact there are only two occasions when he appears to lose this tight control and it is at these points that we see Smiley as a mortal man. This careful balancing of emotion really shows off Oldman’s skills.

The cast surrounding Oldman are the crème of British acting talent (at least the male side of it: there aren’t many ladies in the Circus). Colin Firth, John Hurt and Mark Strong play the old boys of the spy world and show off Britain’s great-established talent, whilst Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch are the younger members of MI6 and a new breed of up and coming actors. Although each actor steps up to the challenge and delivers, due to the streamlining of the book to fit into two hours audiences don’t get to know very much about any of them. It is isn’t clear what motivates them or what the stories are behind the older spies, which is probably not the case in either the book or the mini-series. So although the pacing is good plot wise and a lot happens to keep audiences awake, this may have come at the expense of character development.

Even though the film may lack the depth and detail of its source material, it should still be considered a successful literary adaption (unlike other releases this season cough One Day cough). For those who may not have the time to put into either the book or the mini-series, you should know that this is a worthy version that stands up in its own right. Even if you’re not fussed about the film, seeing Oldman at his absolute best is worth the ticket price alone.

Degree- 2:1

A great British film with a strong cast and engaging story

that sadly still suffers from the traditional flaw of not having

enough minutes to fit everything in.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Troll Hunter (Trolljegeren)

 

If you go down to the cinema today you’ll be sure of a big surprise, well, particularly if you go to see ‘Troll Hunter’. Since it is not on very wide release it may require some time to find a cinema that hosts the film, but it is worth going to see this smart and well shot Norwegian flick as it is consistently entertaining. The biggest surprise comes from the fact it was made on a budget of $3 million (19,900,000 NK), which to put into context is 1/65^th of the budget for the new Transformers movie which cost $195 million to make.

‘Troll Hunter’ uses the well worn found footage gimmick with hand held camera shots, but adds new life to this old method of adding ‘realism’. The film uses the best points of past releases, such as the teens in the wood set up of ‘The Blair Witch Project’ as well as the CGI monsters a la ‘Cloverfield’. This combination of different techniques makes the film feel fresh and original. The teenagers in the woods are Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen), Johanna (Johanna Mørck) and Tomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), three film students who start to follow the suspected poacher Hans (Otto Jespersen) until they find out he actually hunts trolls (the CGI monsters in question). It turns out that not only are trolls real, but the Norwegian government knows about them and wants to keep them secret, though it is never explained why they bother keeping them alive at all.

The concept of the film is inspired: taking the well known Norwegian export of troll myths and presenting it as if it might be a possibility. A lot of thought was clearly put into rationalising the myths, such as how an animal could biologically be allergic to sunlight, as well as how they may look and act if they were truly alive. Every troll, and you get to meet a good number of them, looks both fantastically mythical, but also realistic. The director cleverly uses night vision shots in order to keep the realism of the trolls intact even though the budget is only a fraction of other films released.

As well as the trolls being well researched and thought through, the government agency in charge of them (the troll security service or TSS) that has the feeling of legitimacy that only comes when the film subject has been properly and fully researched. The TSS was full of men in suits, forms that needed to be filled in and cheap outsourcing- all the embodiments of bureaucracy. Hans is the most interesting character. Being the only troll hunter in the TSS he is a disgruntled employee who hates the long hours and bad pay, yet still strongly believes in what he is doing. He may not look it, but Hans has a deeper, understanding side that Otto Jespersen brings out,very impressively when you consider that Jespersen is originally a controversial Norwegian comedian

The pacing of the film has been well set with the slower parts that set the scene at the start quickly leading towards large scale action. What easily makes this film great is how audiences are shown a troll within the first third of the film, there is none of the teasing or alluding to what they might look like. This works out well, because then audiences are not disappointed by what they are shown (unlike what happened to a certain cloud of black smoke). The slower parts may not go into the characters as much as they were probably designed to, but as soon as the running starts (beware of the motion sickness at these points) the film doesn’t easily let up until the final credits roll. However, not all the scenes are hard and fast action, the film certainly as a more comedic side as well. There are scenes placed between the running that make you smile and not take it all a little too seriously. Whether it is having men in suits haggling over the prices of dead bears or Hans using three billy-goats to lure out a troll under a bridge this light bit of humour means that ‘Troll Hunter’ is not the doom and gloom that you are used to with ‘found footage’ films.

Overall ‘Troll Hunter’ is not like many films out at the moment as it does not have a well known cast or huge budgets, but it has the balls to try and break into cinemas outside of Norway and that should be recognised. In the end it is a film that everyone needs to see in order to appreciate what can still be done with a camera and computer and without the clout that Hollywood has.

Degree- 2:1

An enjoyable film that pushes what can be done 

on a budget and makes audiences realise how 

much we should ask for from the big movie studios.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Bridesmaids

Guest writer Andy Bruce

‘Bridesmaids’: the anti-chick flick, laugh-a-minute, female version of the Hangover, if the ten star user reviews on IMDb are to be believed.

They aren’t.

The film is as ‘anti-chick’ as a spa weekend with your BFF, or carrying a tiara-wearingChihuahuain a Mulberry handbag. I mean, the plot follows a group of women planning a wedding – there’s very little you can do with that to ‘unchickify’ it (though Wiig (‘Saturday Night Live’) and Mumolo (You won’t have heard of her before now) would have you believe that a couple of scenes of scatological humour are enough to do just that); there’s a predictable girl meets guy love story; and it ends with a musical performance which screams ‘Shrek’ more than ‘comedy film of the decade’. This isn’t to say the film is bad – not by any stretch of the imagination. It just doesn’t live up to the hype or the expectations I had going in.

However, any film that opens with Jon Hamm (‘Mad Men’) playing an arrogant asshole having fast sex with the hilarious Kristen Wiig’s Annie is bound to have some great moments, and here the film does not disappoint: from Wiig’s early impression of a penis, to Wiig’s performance on the plane, to Wiig going crazy at the bridal shower. In fact Wiig gets so many great scenes you might be forgiven for thinking the film was written just for her to show off… oh… wait… I guess it was. Don’t get me wrong; Wiig is a great comedian, and if the 2008 Republican vice-president nominee had looked like her instead of Tina Fey, perhaps Wiig would have her own (mediocre) half hour comedy on NBC and Fey would be the one writing greedy big screen scripts for herself. But the fact is that the supporting cast of ‘Bridesmaids’ (perhaps with the exception of Rose ‘Ugly when she cries’ Byrne) barely gets a word in, so much so that the bridal party of six has essentially become a party of four by the end of the film, with Wendi McLendon-Covey and Ellie Kemper becoming nothing more than glorified extras after the halfway point – so much so that I can’t even remember their character’s names. And the same is true of Matt Lucas and Rebel Wilson’s creepy brother/sister act, and the almost offensive underuse of Jill Clayburgh as Annie’s well-meaning mother. The film devotes so much time to Annie’s story that it never really develops the other characters to the extent that they might possibly deserve, and there is rarely any conclusion to their subplots.

The other exception to this is Melissa McCarthy’s (‘Gilmore Girls’) portrayal of Megan, who at first glance might look like the token ‘comic relief’ member of the group. Indeed, at first she plays up to this role with a couple of throw-away lines and some physical comedy, but then develops into a character with actual feelings – a rare occurrence in the film. Her own subplot even gets a conclusion in the coveted (but utterly ridiculous) post-credits scene. So she, along with Chris O’Dowd, who plays the only not-a-glorified-extra male character surprisingly well in a female (Wiig) dominated film, is the real stand-out. Whilst Rose Byrne, who I expected to be great, was lumbered with a two dimensional bitch of a character whose eleventh hour reprieve is out of character at best, and totally unbelievable at worst.

All of this makes the film sound pretty bad, which isn’t the case. It’s just far easier to point out its flaws than remember the scenes that had the audience laughing*, which there were plenty of. For all the above criticism, Wiig plays Annie perfectly, switching from hilarity to sombre moments seamlessly, and carrying the audience with her on her journey to rock bottom and then even lower, and you can truly feel for her character. The main plot revolves more around friendship than the actual planning of the wedding, which gives the film more depth than its poster and marketing would have you believe, and the fact that they managed to make an actual comedy into a full length two hour film rather than the standard eighty minute ‘comedy’ is not without merit.

Despite the faults pointed out above, the film is still very good, and well worth the student two-for-one ticket it cost. Go in with great expectations and you’ll come away slightly disappointed, but you’ll still have had two hours of laughter. Ignore the hype and you’ll come away happy and you’ll have had two hours of laughter.

*I wanted something more dramatic like ‘cackling’ or ‘giggling’, but they both imply a predominantly female audience, which is accurate but shouldn’t put men off seeing it – there were at least 10 of us in the full cinema…

Degree: 2.1

A funny film to highlight Wiig’s great writing/acting,

though the humour is often obvious and unintelligent.

The crass scatological humour doesn’t really do enough to offset

the 95% female cast, 90% of whom are almost pointless. Certainly doesn’t live up to hype.

X-Men First Class

 

As a self-confessed geek and huge X-Men fan, I have wasted many an hour or two reading through countless Wikipedia pages on all the characters from my favourites to the lesser known ones, so I was extremely excited about the up coming prequel. Having been disappointed both by ‘X3-The Last Stand’ and embarrassed by ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ I was optimistic when I saw the names Matthew Vaughn (who directed ‘Kick Ass’), Jane Goldman (who helped adapt ‘Kick Ass’) and Bryan Singer (the director of the first two X-Men films). Needless to say, my expectations were met and, in some areas, surpassed.

Set in the 1960s, ‘X-Men: First Class’ has gone back to basics to create an origin of one of the most fascinating relationships in the franchise – the one between Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender). As well as their relationship, the film focuses on how Xavier becomes Professor X, the world’s most powerful telepath, and Lehnsherr becomes Magneto, a man who can control magnetic fields and thus manipulate metal. Set during the real-life event of the Cuban missile crisis, the story concentrates on the first coming-out of mutants to the not only the rest of the world, but also to each other. Lehnsherr’s is the first power we see manifest and audiences are given an insight into his anger and drive; how he survived a Nazi concentration camp as a young boy (fan boys will notice how Singer’s original opening to ‘X-Men’ was used) and his powers stem from the emotional hardship he suffered. Seeing Lehnsherr’s origins allows us to understand how his later philosophy of mutants above humans does not come from being innately evil, but from his own negative experiences of the world, many of them cruel and unbending. As the film goes on Lehnsherr transforms from a volatile loner to a calm, magnetic (excuse the pun) leader that we recognize as the Magneto immortalized by Sir Ian McKellen. Fassbender plays a brilliant young Magneto, who is stylish, ruthless and takes no prisoners. It would not come as a surprise if Fassbender became the next James Bond as he skillfully manages to give feeling and depth to what some might describe as an unrepentant character. He also manages to make turtle necks look suave and menacing, which is no mean feat by any means.

Xavier’s transformation to the serene mentor played by Sir Patrick Stewart is a little more obvious, and slightly poorly handled. At the start Xavier is a confident arrogant DPhil student (well what DPhil students aren’t?) studying genetics at Oxford University and using his powers for his own personal pleasure, such as reading the mind of a girl to find out her favourite drink. However, upon finding the existence of other mutants besides himself, and realizing that they need to be looked after, he grows up and willingly accepts his responsibility as a mutant mentor. This transformation doesn’t feel fully believable, most likely because McAvoy lacks the gravitas to pull off the serious act. He is much better playing the annoying playboy than serious grown up.

As well as Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, ‘X-Men: First Class’ includes a list of characters that fans of the original comic books will enjoy. The strongest, most interesting and best written one is easily Raven, who will come to be known as the blue shape-shifter, Mystique. In the original movies Mystique was many people’s favourite due to her refusal to hide her difference, even though she easily could, in this prequel we see how this determination develops. Originally she hides her mutant ability and assumes the look of the normal, albeit beautiful, Jennifer Lawrence, but as the film progresses she is shown to question whether she should have to hide. What makes her part in the film even more interesting is how she creates a kind of love triangle with Xavier and Lehnsherr. She starts off following Xavier, but audiences all know she will change her allegiance if she is to be on Magneto’s side at the start of the first X-Men.  Watching the two men battle for her support adds extra tension to a relationship that already has two strong egos believing they are right.

The second supporting character to add to the characterization and depth of the film is another blue fan favourite, Hank McCoy, later known as Beast. Although in his blue bestial form when played by Kelsey Grammer in ‘X3: The Last Stand’ in this prequel he still has his human form and is played by Nicholas Hoult. What is interesting about McCoy’s character is he is not as selfless as the rest of the team and desperately wants to make his monkey-like feet normal again. For once, it is nice to see a superhero that reacts in a normal, slightly superficial, way to his situation in a way that reflects how audiences might also react. It would be great to say that the rest of the X team are as well developed and as well written as Mystique and Beast, however, this is sadly not the case. Whether it is the fault of the script for not giving them more depth or the fault of the original source material for not providing enough to work with, the rest of the students from Mutant High feel like add-ons. It seems that they are only there to fill up the fight scenes. It could be argued that out of the hundreds of characters that could have been picked, Jane Goldman and her team should have chosen more filled out ones.

If some of the characters in the X-team let the side down, Kevin Bacon’s Sebastian Shaw – a mutant who can absorb energy – and January Jones’ Emma Frost – a telepath who can also turn her skin into diamonds – are certainly enemies who bring it back up. Both actors ooze the natural sophistication and glamour that is associated with wealth in the 60s. Because of this they are a delight to watch and part of you will want them to succeed in their plot because they just look so good doing it.

Unlike many comic book films released at the moment (Green Lantern comes to mind…) ‘X-Men: Fist Class’ is character and plot driven over the special effects. Truth be told, some of the CGI is not up to scratch with most summer blockbusters; maybe blue is a difficult colour to use, but both Mystique and Beast have looked better in previous incarnations and Emma Frost’s diamond skin looked a little cheap. But if these faults have come because more time was spent neatening up the script, then they are a worthy price to pay so that the film breaks away from being a normal comic book adaption. Saying this, there are still enough little bits of comic trivia for fans. From jokes about Xavier’s hair to the appearance of two stars from the original three films, these little in jokes will keep fans happy. However, the studio did take a few artistic licenses that some fans may not be happy with.  For example, likely due to American audiences being unable to understand British accents (commiserations Ms Cole) both Banshee and Moira McTagart have lost their heavily accented heritage to become clean spoken Americans. Although this may seem a little petty to complain about, this is just the sort of things that fans will pick up on and get annoyed about.

Although some aspects of the film have been changed for better or for worse, the premise is still very much pride of the underdog. ‘Mutant Pride’ is constantly and unsubtly mentioned, but really the word ‘mutant’ could be replaced by any minority or down trodden group – gay pride, female pride, geek pride. This is the very essence of what X-Men is about: who the fan base is. And that is what has made it become so successful. People enjoy X-Men because it shows that being born different doesn’t mean you are born unequal, and it is fantastic that this mantra shines though out the entire film.

Degree- 2:1

Finally the franchise has gone back to the basics that made

it so successful to begin with. This is a film that even those who

don’t like the comics may enjoy as it focuses more on plot than CGI.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec

As foreign language films go ‘The Extraordinary adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec’ certainly feels different. Doubtless many similar films are made and released, but most of the ones that arrive on these shores tend to follow the same pattern:they are often character based criticisms on how tough life can be and what is important about being human; this film on the other hand is a more light hearted bit of fun than deep melodrama and is more enjoyable because of it.

Based on a series of Franco-Belgian comics written before and after the Great War, ‘The Extraordinary adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec’ follow author and investigative journalist Adele Blanc-Sec (Louise Bourgoin) as she searches ancient Egyptian tombs for a way to cure her twin sister Agathe from her coma. As this is going on a pterodactyl, which has remained dormant for about 130 million years, is terrorising early 20^th Century Paris.  This gives you an idea of the off the wall feeling that the film has, and it is this quirkiness that is the film’s strongest part. From walking mummies discussing what site to see all the way to a pterodactyl pooing on the Parisian commissioner (yes both do happen) the film does not take itself too seriously and is full of charm and laughs because of it.

The bulk of the charm certainly comes from Louise Bourgoin, who plays Adele Blanc-Sec. She is an exceptional example of a great leading lady with stunning looks, excellent comic timing and great acting chops. Adele is a great character, one that Hollywood’s leading ladies should try to emulate. Often many central female characters end up being strong right up until they are in trouble and then they ask for the help of their male love interests. However, not only is Adele smart, but she has no need for a male love interest, which is refreshing as many Hollywood films include love interests just so that a sex scene can be shown in the trailer. As well as being strong and independent, Adele is also very funny, and this comes from a script filled with little witty one-liners and turns of phrases, which help maintain the film’s light hearted feel.

Since it is in French it of course sounds beautiful, but the visuals are also stunning as well. Set in 1912, ‘The Extraordinary adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec’ is a gorgeous period piece, filled with bright frocks and smart suits and of course the wide streets and bohemian rooms of Paris. Each scene is stunning to look at, whether it is an ancient tomb or Adele’s lavish flat, the film certainly looks stunning. There are a few areas where the film does look a bit cheap, namely the poor animation of the risen mummies and the pterodactyl, but this is of little consequence for the overall feel of the picture.

This film is certainly not for everyone. If you are looking for a serious bit of drama or maybe some form of enlightenment then you will likely leave ‘The Extraordinary adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec’ feeling that it was all superficial twaddle.  However, if you take the film as an enjoyable, light-hearted bit of fun then you will leave feeling elated and excited to see if Adele Blanc-Sec has any more adventures on the horizon.

Degree- 2:1

Not the deepest film you’ll ever see, but where it lacks depth

this film has charm that more than makes up for it.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Never Let Me Go

Production companies 20^th Century Fox, DNA and Film 4 have recently taken on the difficult task of adapting a popular and highly acclaimed novel. This is always a challenge, but when your source material is Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let Me Go’ which has been called the greatest novel of the decade by Times:London the task is made even harder. However, with the help of some great young British talent and a team clearly passionate about the story, director Mark Romanek has managed to pull it off.

The film, like the book, is broken up into three acts, each one set at different times at the end of the 20^th Century on an alternate timeline; before you make any wrong assumptions this not a sci-fi movie with space ships and chrome, but a sci-fi fable set in the English countryside. The science-fiction that is a crucial part of the story is simply used as a metaphor for what the film is trying to put across, which is not that medical advances are scary, but that life is fleeting and difficult.

The first part takes place in Hailsham boarding school and it is in this ‘Just William’ like setting that we meet the three central characters, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, as children; played by Isobel Meikle-Small, Charlie Rowe and Ella Purnell, who must carry the film for the first third. All three are incredibly engaging and each give phenomenally mature performances. While at Hailsham all the children, are given everything they need: food, clothes, exercise, companionship, the lot, but there is also something sinister we are not told about. Many of the adults act uncomfortable around them, while those that don’t describe the children as special and use words such as ‘donations’ and ‘carers’, which is not made sense of till much later. In the second two parts the adult cast of Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley are used and the more grown up dynamics, such as duty, jealousy, love and despair are brought in as they all get close to their ‘completion’.

Ultimately story deals with the issue of growing up and realising how fleeting life truly is. It seems we only have a second or two with the ones we love before it is all over and this is what Romanek and Ishiguro are opening our eyes to. With watches and clocks in almost every scene the audience are constantly reminded how short life can be, especially for the poor students from Hailsham.  This massage is also made more tragic by having us watch young people grappling with ideas that they should not be grasping until they are 80-years old. Don’t go into the film expecting a rom-com, but this bleak drama is touching non-the less.

In order to work the film relies on the love triangle that forms between Kathy, Ruth and Tommy so it was the right move of Romanek’s to bring on such amazing British stars. Both Garfield and Mulligan show that they are worthy of the term ‘rising star’. Garfield’s performance has great passion and one of his scenes later on in the film will break your heart and send shivers up your spine. Mulligan gives a much more reserved performance that perfectly fits with her character Kathy who on the surface may seem to accept her fate, but is struggling against it as much as any of them. The two seem to have an adorable, down played chemistry that makes their relationship seem real and believable. Knightley is also exceptional as Ruth, the girl who is blocking Kathy and Tommy’s love. With ‘Never Let Me Go’ she increases her impressive literary pedigree by this time playing the unlikable character, so it credits her ability that she can make the audience sympathise and pity Ruth by the end.

Not only are the actors beautiful to watch but also the scenery surrounding them is stunning. With the film being shot all over England, Romanek captures some beautiful images of the countryside such as Holkam Beach and Clevedon Pier. To give the film an extra feel of strangeness the visual palette was made completely devoid of primary colours, leaving behind only muted browns, greens and blues. The purpose of this was clearly to add to the atmosphere, but it also makes the film seem very dreary, which was not helped by its slow pace. Although the fate of the characters is not explained right away there are enough clues for most to guess what will happen and this predictability, along with the slow pace and subdued colours, might bore many and have them miss the overall meaning that Romanek is trying to put across.  However, those that feel that way will likely have missed what really makes the movie effective. It tugs subtly at our emotions and the fact that Romanek avoids using obvious tear jerking motifs or crowd pleasers is to his credit.

The film sticks very closely to both the original message and dialogue of Ishiguro’s book. This may mean that it is not the right thing for some people, but for others it will be a delightful and haunting watch. Thanks to the superb acting of the leads and the layered source material, the experience will stick with you long after it has all ended.

Degree: 2:1

This is a film that will divide people, even I was umming and ahhing about

what to give it. In the end it is well acted, beautifully shot

and deserves to be recognized, even if the subject matter

isn’t to everyones taste.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

127 Hours

This is not really a film that you enjoy while watching it; there is very little enjoyment to get from such a terrible situation.  The film does, however, hook you into watching every single minute, like a slow motion car crash; this just goes to show the talent of Danny Boyle and the magnetism of James Franco that people will actually pay to watch it and then rave about how inspiring it was.

The plot follows the real life tale of how Aron Ralston, an engineer turned climbing enthusiast on weekends who got trapped by a boulder in Robbers Roost Canyon, Utah, and survived. He ends up literally being stuck between a rock and a hard place (ok, I couldn’t resist the pun) and unable to move for over five days. As the audience watch the movie unfold they witness Ralston showing an amazing amount of survival instinct and inventive flare that is impressive to behold. Since this is a true story the ending is quite obvious and many moviegoers go in knowing what will happen, but it is the journey across the 90 minutes that will awe and inspire them. The film certainly has a lot of similarities to ‘Buried’, the Ryan Reynolds film released last summer; they both have ordinary men stuck in one spot for days, they both manage to keep one actor entertaining the audience for the majority of the film, but where ‘127 Hours’ differs is that it is not a thriller like ‘Buried’, but is meant to captivate and shock people, but also give out the message that nothing is too difficult to overcome.

Similarly to ‘Buried’ we only have one individual on screen for the majority of the film who must maintain the audience’s interest throughout. This is certainly a difficult thing to ask any actor, especially when you add the heat of the canyon, plus all the physical and psychological strain that goes on during the filming, but James Franco pulls it all off superbly. Ralston was clearly a confident, cocky individual and Franco is able to portray this in a simple smile and a walk. But Franco can also play the several emotional stages that Ralston goes through as the gravity of his situation slowly dawns on him. Franco was also truly all-alone in many of the scenes and this led to one of the funniest scenes in which Ralston gives himself his own Jerry Springer style talking to during which he brings a lot of underlying issues about how he enjoys pushing people away and being alone. Although this scene is amusing to watch, it is also heart breaking as Ralston realizes a little too late that he should have lived his life differently. Franco takes on this challenge and truly delivers giving great heart and strength to the performance, which was likely significantly helped by having the real Aron Ralston to hand on set. Having the real Ralston on set meant that he came back to where it all began and took his first step onto Robbers Roost since the incident-a further testament to his courage and personal strength.

The film is beautifully shot, but that is what we have come to expect from a Danny Boyle film. His shots of Robbers Roost truly show how stunning the landscape is and this makes Ralston’s fascination with it all the more understandable. While in the canyon, in order to get the heightened feel of claustrophobia there are many tight close up shots where all we see is Franco’s face and the audience begin to understand the conditions he is in. On top of this Boyle also uses wide angled distance shots that reveal how vast Robbers Roost is and so how alone Ralston is. Boyle’s smartest move in the film is to break up the solo shots of Franco with dream sequences that appear due to Ralston’s dehydration. Within these sequences the audience is given glimpses of the life that led Ralston to the boulder; we see his family life, his friends and the girl he loved and lost. Unfortunately we never do get the full story, but simply little snap shots, but in some ways this is quite special as it allows the audience to create their own history for Aron Ralston, and it also means that the real Aron Ralston does not have his privacy invaded world wide.

Now of course all anyone is really interested in is ‘that scene’, so let’s not waste anytime skirting around it. It is more gruesome than you could possibly be prepared for, but like a slow motion car crash you can’t help but watch. It lasts for a good 10 minutes during which Boyle uses a combination of sound and visuals to make you feel as if you are cutting your own arm off. For example when Ralston is tugging at one of the nerves in his arm every touch causes the audiences ears to be bombarded by screeching sounds that reflect the pain he must be feeling. It is almost unbearable to watch, and then suddenly it is all over and you are hit with an overwhelming sense of relief and awe that someone would go through all that for survival. This feeling of awe and relief will stay with you even after you have left the cinema and get home; all you will think is ‘No problem in my life can be so bad that I have to cut my own arm off to survive it’.

Overall it is a good film that never falls into the trap of putting a few too many tension-heightening devices in. It is well shot, emotionally portrayed and enlightening. Ralston now does public speaking and charges thousands of dollars; this is a much cheaper way of getting his message. Just remember if you are a thrill seeker: always take a phone with you.

 

Degree- 2:1

Possibly not a film you will feel you ‘enjoyed’ while you

watch it, but certainly one that will leave its mark

and have you thinking about it for a long time after.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)