Steve Jobs DVD Review

The Anti-Social Network

Released : November 13th 2015

Certificate : 15

Director : Danny Boyle

Cast : Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, Katherine Waterston, Michael Stuhlbarg

Plot : Depicting the life and legacy of Steve Jobs in three acts, each set in the short time before the unveiling of a new Jobs product. Backstage he struggles with his dysfunctional family dynamic, personal rivalries and his general attitude to his fellow man.

Aaron Sorkin returns with his third biopic of this decade, again returning to the digital world after he won his Oscar for The Social Network, and although with hindsight of late viewing, Steve Jobs was definite Oscar bait (only though for acting talent of Fassbender and Winslet). The award fame the film did gain was Golden Globes for Winslet and Sorkin and a BAFTA for Winslet to. But to back track to look at the films building blocks, as accustomed for Sorkin we get an elite director to guide his screenplays, here in the form of Danny Boyle, who’s last appearance with Trance left both audience and critic’s confused and ultimately disappointed. So what better way to re-enter critical appeal with a biopic, a genre known for its ‘purpose’ of being critical and award bait. Additionally, what made the film stand out was Sorkins limited scope for the film, regarding to his three acts setting, and although this may sound like a claustrophobic challenge, it appeared to play to Sorkin strength of fast paced fiery dialogue nature. For many this may be a disappointment as it fails to give a large overall insight as to how Apple (to the desired biographical extent) as The Social Network did and captivated audiences.

So straight of the bat to address Sorkin’s contribution of the film, this is the most ‘entertaining’ screenplay he has made. In particular, regards to the script here, which is the films foundation, he has created a symphony of crazy paced intelligent and gripping dialogue. The script manages grips audience in the same surprising nature that Whiplish final act does (not quite to the same memorable quality), to depicts the stress of backstage antics perfectly while also effectively intertwining the more emotive parts of the plot. There are some issues though, some dialogue may go over the heads of some audience members as they struggle with the speedy pace of the film. Also it does fall into the traps of most biopics of late being that with the very direct and blunt way in which it delivers the emotive aspects of the film, explaining each emotion to the audience isn’t always needed. And although this blunt technique is brilliant (really brilliant) for the plot points not connecting to family, the more personal emotive sets are rather lacking in subtly to the drama, for some this may be perfect, others slightly spoon fed. For this reason, it still functions as ever so slightly generic biopic material, but thankfully its generically perfect to take itself up a level.

Now for the under rated aspect of the film, Boyle’s contribution, for a director who is no stranger to the limited claustrophobic set, with the chillingly shot 127 Hours, it is a joy to be reminded of his talent. In many regards his work complimented the music score of Daniel Pemberton (a little known composer who has brought great added tone to films such as The Awakening and The Counsellor) to create a film that delivered Sorkins script in a way to create this enthralling orchestrated drama piece, they match was made for each other. The gripping following story within a limited time was slightly reminiscent of Birdman, of course not as memorable due to a failure to shake off a generic biopic aura. Alike the script, some of Boyle’s shot types can drift into obviously emotive ground, overall Boyle was very inventive with both his own additions to the film, presentation of the crowd was an effective tension builder, as well as the structure of Sorkin’ set poignant pieces, particular an address to the team before they escape from him into an elevator as he barks instructions, which uses has the one shot feel that was maintained in Birdman to create a great level of realism to the scene.

For the acting force in the film, before the heavy hitter are addressed in the film, there was a surprise gems across the supporting cast, a needed addition to the film, as many biopics fail in placing to much of the acting prowess within the lead characters. These other performances made the film much richer and gave Fassbender abusive Jobs a sense of reality as other actors reacted to it with such a high standard, a recent biopic that could have used this was Trumbo, also bait this past awards season. Out of all of the supporting; Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, Katherine Waterston, it was Michael Stuhlbarg who was most notable. Despite his very limited screen time and slightly type cast nature, Stuhlbarg embodied the little man under the pressure of the Jobs titan to an extent that had great chemistry, particularly in the final act, with his experience in nervous mannerisms and down-trodden acting abilities gained from other roles where on top form for this role. Personally Fassbender turned in a better performance than Winslet, but both actors in another year (with 2016 having huge acting talent across all categories) could quiet easily have taken home all the statues.

Steve Jobs is the biopic of the year by many a mile, but isn’t enough of a game changer to gain all the award success that it could have done. Sorkin has delivered his probably least realistic (as the dialogue sometime feels more staged for effect) but most invigorating script within the decade, you can definitely see the slightly cliché nature of A Few Good Men slipping into his recent sophisticated style. Regardless he has anchored himself as the best repeat offender of the true story genre within this decade (across all film making aspects) with an amazing trilogy of contribution with five years. And Fassbender has gone from strength to strength, having come a long way from breakout performance Hunger typified with 2015 being his strongest year with this film as well as lead in Macbeth (one of the strongest Shakespeare films to date). Fans of Sorkin will not be disappointed by this film despite its flaws, which can be summarised as the following. Sorkin was ambitions with his choice of the three act setting, but with making screenplays half come from script and half from the acting advice, set pieces and general scene construction. With a limiting setting you get a tunnelled screenplay and a miss on the rich set situations that made were present in Moneyball and The Social Network.

Verdict : Whatever genre falls or story issues that exists here, Steve Jobs is irresistible as an insightful and gripping drama. Sorkin has pulled it off again, but this isn’t a a one man show as the title suggest, across the filming making board, high standard.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “I’m gonna put music in your pocket.”

 

Enemy DVD Review

Spider Man 2

Released : February 7th 2014

Certificate : 15

Director : Denis Villeneuve

Cast : Jake Gyllenhaal, Mélanie Laurent, Sarah Gadon

Plot : A history teacher, Adam Bell (Gyllenhaal), lives a monotonous repetitive life. One day at work out of the blue a co-worker recommends a film to him, while watching it Adam discovers an extra who is physically identical to him. He takes it upon himself to investigate and meet his double.

Denis Villeneuve and Jake Gyllenhaal second team up of 2013, however this one went hugely unnoticed, surprisingly given the huge critical acclaim and audience praise their other film Prisoners received that year also. But this film did not come with half as much advertising or marketing that Prisoners did, and after seeing the film unaware of the moderate level of chatter that it received due to its confusing nature, it is clear why. As stated, watching it so late after release and completely unaware of the excitement it caused for a niche amount of fans and critics, it gave great perspective. It also made it possible to research the speculations behind the films meaning after viewing to piece together the metaphorical meanings behind the film, and most poignantly the ending. As a film that has gained attention only due to its murky hidden meanings and shocking ending, I high recommend this video which gives a very detailed explanation for everything in the film, but it does contain huge spoilers as well so view film before viewing video     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9AWkqRwd1I     Understanding of the films hidden themes in my opinion is vital to enjoying the film to a greater level, as there a specific meanings to the film, it is not polysemic or open to interpretation.

The film is by no means a straight doppelganger feature, as I was expecting, viewing purely out of respect for the actor and director. If a straight doppelganger is what is desired, then The Double will make for much more grounded and clean cut thriller about identity issues, despite its striking directing and cinematography. Regardless of fully understanding the film on first viewing or not, it will undoubtedly make an impression on the viewer. It is easy to see why many might instantly dismiss the film due to its unsettling nature and very dark moody themes. Equally upon the discovery of the films hidden meanings, many could easily reject the film still due to its unapologetically obscure way to deliver its message (which many could claim is deliberately obscure for the sake of gaining attention and praise, not for the sake of quality cinema) as well as again still the issue that its vibe is not one many would classify as entertaining.  For these reasons it is very much a Marmite film, both for critics and audience members, but it can’t be denied that it is an extremely unique cinematic experience, alike Only God Forgives in many respects.

Villeneuve work in this film was complimented beautifully with the addition of little known cinematographer Nicolas Bolduc. Bolduc work in this film may be too obverse and over the top for some, as the dark green tinge brought to the screen for some may overdo emphasis the films dark mood which is blatant enough with the story. As he recreated with Sicario, Villeneuve use of both rolling landscape shots and claustrophobic tight obscured shot presents the film in a way the greatly compliments the films tone. For directing, the story of Enemy is most likely on of the best suited to Villeneuve style, unfortunately that story is not one that appeals to the wider audience. Other tastefully skilled shot choice from Villeneuve are the soaring high shots over the apartment buildings as well as the very imaginative presentation of the interaction between the two Gyllenhaal characters interaction, which was vital due in first meet due to the tension built around the meet, and Villeneuve pitched it perfectly to leave the viewer feeling unsatisfied and threatened. As far as Villeneuve directing is concerned, he has cemented his style and film type with a hat trick of dark thought provoking thrillers which always remain with the viewer long after the credits have rolled.

Now for Gyllenhaal, who with this film demonstrates his great versatility as an actor, by playing two characters in the film, not a hugely radical move, but much less celebrated than Jesse Eisenberg in The Double or must recently the hugely publicised Tom Hardy performance in Legend. For a most part as with many doppelganger films, the two characters are needed to be polar opposites of each other, true in this case. Gyllenhaal throws himself into this role as he did with Prisoners for Villeneuve, as an actor who is renowned for his involvement in darker roles, he is a wise acting choice for this film. The skill of the performances grow throughout the film as the drama ensues and the emotions fly, but the performance is likely to be looked over by fans due to the characters being most subdued and grounded (despite topic matter) than many of his other roles. Because of the subtle characters, the meeting and discovering isn’t fully grounded as much as it could have been via Gyllenhalls performance, but is done well by the supporting roles of Mélanie Laurent and Sarah Gadon who are partners to each of the Gyllenhalls.

Villeneuve and Javier Gullón (screenwriter) have made a very bold film here, since the book the film is inspired by (The Double) contains none of the creepy imagery which the film was made famous by. Taking such a new approach to convey the themes that the book holds is a great skill, and seeing Villeneuve imagination flow in the dark recreation of Toronto is brilliant in the sense it lets this dark director off the lead. It could be said that watching the film so late gave the vantage point of Sicaro, meaning the director is more widely respect now, adding to Enemy’s prestige. But this doesn’t take away from its skill, as many of his now trade mark directorial action can be seen in this film. It is undeniable also that the discovery of the films hidden meanings adds a great amount of appreciation for the film, as much more is going on under the surface of the film. But also while the end result may scramble your brain, on first viewing the strength of Villeneuve and Gyllenhall are still noticeable, while you might not know to what end. A dark mind bender that credits re-watching after research and understanding to result in a rich, well thought out thriller.

Verdict : Things are never as they seem with Villeneuve. Enemy is a film mystery that can stand tall with Prisoners and Sicario creating a trio of exceptional dark thriller. Not for everyone, but a grossly unacknowledged unique film.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “Chaos is order yet undeciphered.”

 

Chappie DVD Review

RoboCop 

Released : March 6th 2015

Certificate : 15

Director : Neill Blomkamp

Cast : Sharlto Copley, Hugh Jackman, Dev Patel, Yolandi Visser, Watkin Tudor Jones, Sigourney Weaver

Plot : South Africa has become the leading county for crime fighting, as the chaotic gang crime and high murder rates have been tamed by a division of robotic police force. But conflict ensues when the creator of the robots (Dev Patel) gifts one robot with a coded consciousness.

Neill Blomkamp returns for his third South African based violent sci-fi flick, and this time its more South African than very before, as joining the South African talent Sharlto Copley (present in all three Blomkamp outings) is now South African rap duo Die Antwoord, staring and generating the soundtrack of the film (along with the help of Hans Zimmer) . For this feature, since Blomkamp has dealt with aliens, and spaceships, he now rests his sights on robots and artificial intelligence, with a script he has written (as he did with Elysium and District 9). With his third film the promises of talnet that were earned with Best Picture nominionee District 9 are still present, despite the modest critical reception of Elysium which was deemed to be lacking in the creativity and heart that its predecessor had. Perhaps the complex plot point that come with aritifical intelligence be ale to bring back some level of heart, to balance out Bloomkamp reliance for big cgi effects and extensiveness violent action sequences to allow for a film of better praise by critics who are looking for more than the average sci-fi shoot em up film type, despite the gripping and skillfully nature behind many of these films.

To address Blomkamps writing for this feature, which was completed with the help of co-writer Terri Tatchell, who also co-wrote District 9, there is undeniable aspects for dispute. This isn’t held within the largely 2d supporting characters (tipified by the villains of Blomkapms films) but more the set of a generic formula of the film. Despite the creative settings that both Elyusim and Chappie presented, there is the obvious generic rivalry in the film, you can see from the opening who is pitted against who and that the film for all of its development will boil down to and extravagant (all be it entertaining) closing action sequence. Good vs evil which is set up and set in a predictable direction to pay off for the big scale crash and bash (not that this isn’t well done, but makes for an uninventive story, rapped up in inventive premise). Secondly to this is and ending that may have outreached the bounds of imagination for many audience members, despite it being for the reason to make a profound ending to the film (bringing in some of that heart) it does so with a stretch too far, even for the world of sci-fi.

But for the positive attributes of Blomkamps, it is a joy to see his trade marks return to the screen, with noticeable trade marks making as repetitive (in a good stylistic way) as Zac Synder, but for sci-fi. Blomkamps iconography is as always, brilliant and beautiful, helped by the addition of Trent Opaloch, cinematographer for Blomkamps previous films (as well as the equally visually stunning Captain America: Winter Solider). There work together helps to create worlds and characters that are truly a visual feast that are underrated in this respect, as are the action sequences they produce which due to their bloody nature with Blomkamp get slightly smeared. This is what makes Blomkamp much more alike Zac Synder than Michael Bay, for his signature trade mark visual nature to his films. With this in mind as to the artful choreography of his action scenes, Chappie is lacking in them in comparison to Blomkamps previous work, making for a film with a slight lack of pace in some scenes, but doesn’t lose their visual appeal with a strong opening and closing display of bullets flying. Although it could easily be argued that like Synder, there is sometimes a tendency to rely on slow motion action too frequently.

As for the acting talent on offer, we have a voice performance by Sharlto Copley, making for an odd but effective robot with a South Africa accent, a very brutish and 2d Hugh Jackman as the badie veteran, and the interesting addition of a rap duo trying their chops at acting. Copley is able to create more of an interesting character than previously in Elysium, as he was burdened with the 2d villain role (which he performed with impressive conviction, but ultimately wasted on the character), how much of the voice was genuine or altered in post production is unknown but the end effect is impressive. To a large degree Yolandi Visser and Watkin Tudor Jones suit their roles like a glove, due to a degree them playing watered down versions of their on stage music personas, odd ball and gangster. Helping to create a ‘family’ dynamic with Chappie that is convincing and brings a level of emotion and conviction which is surprising for rap artists, and the addition of their songs in the sound track suit every aspect of the film pitch perfectly. The addition of Dev Partel is good type casting as is Hugh Jackmen, to embody the nerdy moral aware programmer and the hard headed ruthless solider, hence the actors are sutied to their roles to make performances with good conviction and help to anchor the beautiful and believable world created by Blomkamp and Opaloch.

Unfortunately it might have to be said that Chappie is the worst of Blomkamps sci-fi trilogy, but this doesn’t change it from being a Blomkamp film, and that means there is an inherent high quality, it just dropped a bit for this installment. The main falling point of this film is the potential that comes with the artificial intelligence genre and the interesting concepts that this holds, and why the film quickly and early finds direction, the final third loses it self in a generic good versus evil followed by an slightly outlandish stab at a profound ending. But along the way the audience will be rewarded with laughs, thrills and awe of Blomkamps eye for making the cgi effects artistic rather than gratuitous, this with his continuing imagination maintains him as one of the leading lights of the sci-fi genre. He will continually suffer from his first outing be so strong and everything being compared to this, but Chappie is by no means anything close to a bomb, just not as unique as the premise and director/writer could have been. A thrilling outing that may not be as memorable, but is a fast burning rush, that might stumble at the final hurdle, but this doesn’t smear the overall experience.

Verdict : No sci-fi classic, but its a tasteful rehash of old genre concepts and Blomkamps finger prints are all over it, making it an cut above the rest of yearly sci-fi entries.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “Why did you build me to die maker?”

The Drop DVD Review

Gandolfini Final Hustle

Released : November 14th 2014

Certificate : 15

Director : Michaël R. Roskam

Cast : Tom Hardy, James Gandolfini, Noomi Rapace

Plot : A bar in New York is run by Marv (Gandolfini) and cousin Bob Saginowski (Hardy), who both look the other way as local mobsters use the pub as a drop off for cash. The two routinely help the money change hands within the bar, until one night their robbed for five thousands, placing them in deep with the mobsters.

World class television series and film actor James Gandolfini last film is released after his untimely death. Gandolfini granted will not be remembered for his film performances as much as his Golden Globe winning iconic role in The Sopranos as Tony Soprano, a family man who is forced to juggle home life as well as his involvement with the mob. Hence Gandolfini is pitch perfect type cast for The Drop, a small crime thriller about cousins who run a bar in New York for the mob. The film tackles issues such as family ties, past glory, desperation and neighbourhood history, all wrapped up in a simple small story with complexity and character count alike that of A History of Violence or Drive. Meaning a film dealing with crime, but with more subtlety and scope than many of cinemas greatest crime outings, this doesn’t mean that less is more within the genre, but historically it hasn’t been the case.  With these sorts of films comes a higher level of investment in character, as the film doesn’t have as many guns blazing to distract audiences. For this film we have Tom Hardy’s lead as a quiet bartender who has a simple monotonous routine, and Gandolfini the manager of the bar who is frustrated by his position after former local fame.

Speaking on the topic of less being more, The Drop rides this waves throughout the whole narrative, relying on subtle metaphoric character interactions and lines hidden in a story that has little substance or weight. The film attempts to take a look at what its likely for the small timers or the ones beaten down by the bigger mob bosses, which is a good enough fairly unexplored premises. But the film lacked from very little in the ways of actual entertainment value to keep the audience on board for the poignant story to develop. There is some light and enjoyment to be derived from this gloomy thriller, such as a general likeability factor of Hardy’s simple bar tender character a few violent thrills as the plot develops, and the main selling point Hardy’s character discovery of abandoned pub and their friendship. But for many these comfort pleasures of the film will not be able to endure the rather dry and limited script which may be effective to creating believable characters, but not in dialogue that will hook audiences or provided stirring lines.

Other aspect such as directing did have their sparks of originality but few and far between. There is particular good handling of the final scene within the bar with unexpected camera work (due to dress up until this point) of a camera flip to follow the money exchanging hands, and also the overall building of suspense within the bar in the final act does bring about a level of tense atmosphere. But perhaps due to lack of experience that Roskam has, there is very little else brought to the directorial scene. There are attempts in directing, as with he story itself, to be more metaphorical and artistic than it really is, for example an opening cliché shot showing the bar through a reflection in a puddle. It could be argued that its plain presentation is purposeful in order to suit the mood of the film and clearly present the character driven drama of the film, and with little action, these no opportunity for flexing of directing muscles. But close up shots and over the shoulder shots wear thin when the dialogue on-screen isn’t enough alone to hook audience. Overall whatever the reason, Roskam work wasn’t anything memorable.

Now for the aspects of the film that were note worthy, that being the work of Hardy, Gandolfini and Rapace. Hardy’s character in this is far more subtle than many of his other roles, but that doesn’t make it any less hooking. The likeability factor of Hardy’s simple humble bar tender is the best part of this film, the characters written persona while being quiet and recluse is a needed presence as an average joy good guy within the story. Hardy delivers him in a plain and threatened nervous manner in the film, which makes you route for him all the more in the film, it ticks the box of what all protagonist should do, you care about what happens to him. Gandolfini work is brilliantly type cast for the character type, and fits the uncontempt angry manager like a glove, with particular flexing of acting muscles towards the ending of the film via some more emotional scenes of the film. While both performances are entertaining enough, the same cannot be said for the source material, even though Hardy has little to say. The dialogue was attempting to be too high reaching or poignant that it really is, but the characters created by script was solid.

The Drop is an attempt at a crime thriller driven by small cast character drama, and it has some of the components to do so. It contains written characters that are entertaining enough with actors which handled them well, but due to the overall dialogue that isn’t stirring as well as an old story, the characters can’t keep the film afloat. Ultimately the short run time of an hour and three-quarters drags, in a crime film, a genre that is definitive for its thrilling nature. While there is some enjoyment to be derived from the little story of Bob and his dog (he finds in a bin leading to a friendship with Noomi Rapace character) that make you invested in the character, it’s a recreation of a worn out ‘find my money’ story which is lacking in the necessary drive as far as twists and turns (which aren’t predictable) married with a script of intelligence that can left the film out of the gritty cold world it is set in.

Verdict : You might like a story of a bar tender and his dog, trying to make the best of it, as that undoubtedly tugs on heart-strings. Unfortunately it isn’t a unique, or even adequate, take on crime drama to do Gandolfini or Hardy work justice, there just needed to be more substance as far as story and script.

Verdict : 2/5

Quote : “But it didn’t, it was just a stool.”

Legend DVD Review

The Dark Kray Rises 

Released : September 9th 2015

Certificate : 18

Director : Brian Helgeland

Cast : Tom Hardy, Emily Browning, Taron Egerton, Christopher Eccleston, Sam Spruell, David Thewlis, Paul Anderson

Plot : True life story of the rise of the Kray twins (Hardy), Reggie and Ronnie, during the 1960’s. Two of the biggest gangsters that London and England has ever know. The film see’s them battle police, rivals, love and each other.

Legend is the remake of the little known British gangster film The Krays (1990) which tells the truth life story of the Kray twins, some of London’s most famous gangsters. To man the remake we have Oscar winning screenwriter of L.A Confidential (as well as nominated for Mystic River), Brian Helgeland, directing and writing the film. It is also packed with rough type cast actors to man the gritty London foot soldiers of the Kray’s, such as Paul Anderson (Peaky Blinders) and Taron Egerton (Kingsman: The Secret Services) both most famous for their likeable English accents and rude nature. And topping the film is Tom Hardy, truly flexing his acting muscles in as many unique roles as possible. First a film where he is the only thing on screen for the whole 87 minutes, now he embodies both main characters of Legend.

Straight out of the gate if audience were expecting a wall to wall gritty London based mob film, filled with cultural richness and brutal violence then they might find it unpleasant to have a large act of the film taken up with romance. Hence there is a surprising edge of Goodfellas female involvement in the film which plays a big part. This could be a positive attribute, as it sticks to the films true story, adds to the dynamic of the twins relationship and adds depth to the film, in premise. However the execution of this aspect of the film doesn’t fly as high as other aspects of the film, which it needed to in order to occupy so much screen time. The poor quality of this romance between Reggie and Frances (Browning),  a local office girl who dreams of more and falls for Reggie charming nature and glamorous lifestyle, is hard to pin point as it is certainly not the acting. Due to the writing mostly the romance was rushed into placed from the start with little exploration of why Frances is so immediately mesmerised by Reggie. The doomed loved story then continues to spiralling down due to the pressure of gang life, Ronnie’s character and Reggie late working nature, a gangster love dynamic that has been explored before. The writing however didn’t hook entertainment or tug at heart strings, due to this aspect of the script being more square than the rest of the film. Obviously the films tone needs to alter slightly between relationship and crime genre, but it was obvious to see that Helgeland found more imagination and pleasure for writing the crime aspects.

Continuing on to Helgeland’s work as both screenwriter and director of the film, there are aspects of his work that kept the film more than afloat, but thoroughly enjoyable. For script purposes of the film Helgeland was brilliant and turning out pitch perfect cockney humour between the characters full of zest and wit. The only issue is that of the film being unable to trade in its entertainment value of humour and action at the start into drama and tension towards the end, ultimately the film suffered from pacing. As the initial ecstasy enjoyment of being immersed into the world of the Kray’s and their rocky relationship doesn’t quiet transfer into gangster drama of an equally high calibre for much of the second half. As the film falls into a bleak and fairly dry drama between the nature of Ronnie and the suppressed frustration of Reggie. However Helgeland’s work is top class in aspects of humours and invigorating  screen writing as well as directorial work with a set that is top class at building a beautiful and believable world of 1960’s London to stage the legacy to audience, but not quiet make it as human for the ‘colder’ side of tale.

The secondary heavy weight talent on the film is of course Tom Hardy, being much more prevalent in recent cinema history than Helgeland, and who’s work in this film is the framework for the entire film. Hardy demonstrates true talent as a chameleon actor, being able to deliver brilliant chemistry between himself as he plays both role. We aren’t totally sure how the shooting process went, but it doesn’t matter as the tip toeing between the two brothers ticked the only box that it needed to. This being the fact that the brothers felt like completely different people, characters and actor, of course the audience all know the truth but for Hardy to walk in each day and create the two persona’s so effortlessly is brilliant. Some could say that the task seems fairly easy, but Hardy had to create chemistry that would translate into believable conflict and relationship, hence act out one scene and then remember his mannerisms of the scene to construct the reaction of another character. Where some actors struggle to maintain their half of one scene, Hardy had to construct an entire dual character arc.

Legend hits as many hits as many good notes as it does bad, but when playing in the gangster genre there needs to be exception panache to allow for people to stand and recognise, but at the end of the day it’s still great fun to be taken along for the ride. Helgeland was able to beautiful and stylishly recreate another crime ridden world for the story to be set, and worked wonders in stage a snappy and crisp dialogue to initially get you on board with this world. Tom Hardy turn out a solid performance as does Egerton and Browning, but these characters find more to work with initially than when their relationships hit the rocks, resulting in quiet noticeable issues with pacing. And maybe the running commentary could have been a little more imaginative as memorable, rather than a slightly plain description of the story. But its undeniable the fun available here, filled to the brim with gritty violence that almost comical when you’re not cringing, cockney accents with plenty of four letter words, and an entertaining enough chess game of gangs and police. Of course Hardy fans will have a blast here as well.

Verdict : Hardy gives a brilliant dual character performance, but he had a little less to work with on the ending character drama then the initial blast of brother hood. This issue exists for the films romance, story and overall entertainment. Better action crime comedy than stirring character drama.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “What is that? I come here for a PROPER shootout! What you gonna do with that rollin pin? You gonna bake me a cake? What I want is a shootout, a SHOOTOUT IS A SHOOTOUT… like a Western!”

Inside Out DVD Review

Finding Emo 

Released : July 24th 2015

Certificate : U

Director :  Pete Docter, Ronnie del Carmen

Cast : Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Mindy Kaling, Bill Hader, Lewis Black, Kaitlyn Dias

Plot : The story of a little happy hockey playing girl Riley (Dias)who has to move across America with her mother and father to a new home, school and life. This has big effects on her emotions, who Joy (Poehler), Sadness (Smith), Disgust (Kaling), Fear (Hader) and Anger (Black) all inside her head.

Disney Pixar’s final instalment before the long awaited and much hyped Finding Dory, for which a trailer dropped a few months after the films release. With the Finding Nemo, Toy Story and The Incredibles, there is a regiments tick box system in order for it to be a Disney Pixar. Firstly you need a topic that has strong childhood themes, not just in the story but equally in message, emotional range and appeal to both adults and children for different reasons. And who better to help meet the film fit that mold, than of the founding sculptors Peter Docter, the writer/director of Inside Out as well small projects such as Monsters Inc and writer of WALL.E and the Toy Story Trilogy (soon to be quadrilogy).

The story structure of Inside Out is filled with features that echo the settings of Monsters Inc, from theme to structure. The way that the emotions of the day are filed away like the scream canisters and of Monsters Inc and the employment like setting that both the emotions and Monster share. For poignant meaning and message, Inside Out carries enough to match all of the past Pixar films. It could be argued that the fact the stories characters are actual emotions makes this easier than to do so with abstract characters such as Toys and Monster as your dealing with inner thoughts from the start, which is true. But this by no means take away from the skill and talent that has gone into the script of Inside Out. From the relationship that the child has with the parents, to the relationship between the emotions characters all of which is a relish to watch. Providing sampling of high quality laughter and tears in the right balance for the film to provide the perfect feel good film. And if this wasn’t enough the film can be praised for its tackling of the most universal topic, in a way that children can enjoy, and maybe even learn from.

Second to Docter work on the funny and moving script, is that of his directorial work. For the sake of hyper criticism, the world that is created inside Riley mind, isn’t quiet as entertaining as that of the Monsters worlds, despite its simplistic metaphorical construction. Some sections of the mind seeming slightly overly dramatic (huge islands of life sections collapsing over minor issues), but for the sake of the children, this wont be noticed. And due to the strong script, the entertainment is plentiful via that of the interactions of sadness and joy through this world. This joined with the aurora of the Monsters Inc universe, with the field memories, the construct of a professional environment within her mind and the scope makes it hugely enjoyable. And besides, a film about emotions doesn’t hugely rely on the setting. Docter construction of the outside world with that of the inside world is handled beautifully, particularly in the more emotion scenes of the film. Allowing for the message of conflicting emotions to be clearly conveyed to the target younger audience. The literally fight conflict between the emotions proves for particular pleasure.

As for the emotions themselves the voice casting is outstandingly well done, with many of the actors persona’s matching the emotions they portray. With an ensemble of good characters, no doubt that each family member will walk out saying which was there favourite. In the name of fun Bill Harder’s voice as Fear supplied me personally with the most fitting voice for the emotion and supplied the most entertainment. But the main selling point character wise is that of the chemistry between Joy and Sadness. Due to the extreme of emotions and brilliant nature of the script, the actors jobs were almost effortless. It is for this reason why the two create yet another total mesmerizing and unforgettable character friendships of a Disney Pixar film, able to stand tall next to Buzz and Woody, Mike and Sully. Through Joy and Sadness will never likely gain the same iconic stature as these cinema duo’s, they certainly deserve their spot as character duo’s across both the animated and non-animated greats. As well as this the interactions of all the emotions in front of the screen seeing Reilly’s world is both brilliant as it is simplistic in concept, hence Inside Out carries a huge punch of character quality to stand out this year in cinema. Perhaps not for complex or flawed nature, but purely in terms of entertainment.

Inside Out is without doubt the best feel good film of the year, there are some who might resist due to the huge critical consensus, shown by its 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. But for a slight degree, with an animated Pixar film critic viewing can be allowed to be toned down. As these film in essence are for the entertainment of children, and the simplistic telling communication of some important metaphorical messages. As long as the film is aiming to please these two demands, then it is only a questioned of how enjoyable the film is found to be. And Inside Out passed with flying colours as quite possible the most touching film Pixar has made. Audiences will laugh as like children with a perfect tone of comedy that deals with all the emotions flaws equally. And a simplistic yet moving message that can act as comfort for both adults and children. Which is that sometimes you have to feel something, and this is something that you shouldn’t resist or be afraid of, and that it isn’t your fault.

Verdict : No Pixar film has pleased both of its audiences, adults and children, in such equal measurements. Full of warmth and humanity, an imaginative storytelling treat.

Verdict : 5/5

Quote : “Okay, I’m positive that you’ll get lost in there!”

The Program Review

Breaking Bike 

Released : September 16th 2015

Certificate : 15

Director : Stephen Frears

Cast : Ben Foster, Chris O’Dowd, Dustin Hoffman, Jesse Plemons, Lee Pace

Plot : The biopic of Lance Armstrong (Foster) as he fights through cancer, rise to the sporting hall of fame, and then shames it with the discovery of his insentient performance enhancing drug usage. His story is obsessed over by journalist David Walsh (O’Dowd).

Stephen Frears third biopic film, moving from that of a partiotic queen through struggle of family crisis, and another sweet old lady finding her son, on to the man how lead the biggest sporting drugs controversy in sporting history. A story of much more dark and thrilling nature, which needed to convert the touching and moving work done of on his last two instalments into shock and awe. The story itself carries with it a large amount of that awe within the script, how much of it is dramatised is up for question, in particular extent of corruption as well as David Walsh’s involvement with the story. Providing Frears with great base material of which to build upon, with a story which is a real pitch change for Frears after perfecting his craft of the moving biopic whit Philomena and The Queen.

Additionally to we have the apperence of Ben Foster in his first main star role. As some biopics do including The Program, there is an large amount of reliance on the lead character, and this was more relivant to this film than other of recetn years such as Steve Jobs. As The Program carries with it little extra luggage in the war of supporting roles from actors that are well known (not to mean they will deliver poor performances), meaning Ben Foster carried the film alongside that of Frears (not to the same extent as Fassbender and Boyle). But the script provided as well as the brillliantly insightful account of the cheat, some solid material for the drama between that of Armstrong with Walsh as well as co-rider Floyd Landis (Plemons). While Armstrong and Walsh have limited time on screen, the script balanced the presentation well with the impact that both character have on each other worlds, something that will never had been gained from reading the news articles (gain the extent of this reality is questionable). This is the main drama of the film included, as the family life of Armstrong is almost entire left out, apart from a wedding, despite the man having five children.

So for the first man to carry the half of the film is that of Frears, who’s work on Philomena was close to the quality of the enjoyment of the film, which was immense. Frears sets the scene effectively with dated footage of the tour, followed by a low camera angle behind Lance, making him tower over the audience, an effect that is continued throughout the film. Despite this and other directorial techniques not being ground breaking, it was enjoyable to see some meaning behind the presentation of the film. And despite its simple nature the little techniques that are in place do prove simplistically effective, for example the repeated effect of low camera angle to present Lance proved very poignant in a scene showed in the trailer when he becomes rattled by the imposing nature of his dope supplier informing him of the imposing allegations in his home. Some what effort was imploued from Frears was clever and added to the exprence, but his work was not has appreciable or memorable as in previous works, where it felt as if he was more in tune with the stories.

The fact that Frears work wasn’t as dominate within the film may be due to the fact of the utterly absorbing performance of Ben Foster that stole the show. Some may argue that similarly to the new Steve Jobs the character is presented in a overly distasteful way for the sake of entertaining cinema, but with a character that is one of the most famous cheats, the representation is acceptable and uncanny to the real Lance. This is all the way down to the fact that Foster and Armstrong even look similar, which added a chilling edge to the performance. Not that this was needed, as Foster presented him as man who that you could both understand and reveal in his twisted morality. Scenes that provided scenes of striking acting skill, where that of the recognition of ‘defeat’ after his attempted come back into the tour, as well as the inevitable breaking point of when he is caught. This is to name but a few in a performance that is sound throughout, and despite the characters ‘evil’ nature is completely enjoyable to watch. A piece of work from Frears which was simple but effective in the positioning of Fosters performance was that of brief recreation of the famous Oprah interview.

The Program is film which by no means rest on the entertainment of just the story, with may aspects of the film providing high quality. And as the goal of a biopic is, it needs to remain thrilling and absorbing despite the audience knowing how it is all going to end, which the film does and then some. Adding to the enjoyment is that of surprisingly strong performances of that of O’Dowd, how captures the driven and slightly everyday man striving for morals to a surprisingly high level given his previous work. And another performance from that of Plemons, who plays the worker overshadowed and mistreated by that of Armstrong, who battles with his morality as well as his own drive to become the champion, which he is forced to suppress. Both of which acted to compliment the run away star of the show that is Foster’s performance, who dipictes anger, deceit, ego and despair beautifully in a character arch which we know who it plays out. But we are still driven to see each scene, as Foster role provides to be one of the best ‘villains’ this year so far.

Verdict : A true story, with true trills, and utterly absorbing insight into the true story, and thanks to carer best work from Ben Foster and Chris O’Dowd, a brillliant character study as well. The only hold back is Frears nothing being as good as always, but just because he ins’t firing on all cylinders, doesn’t mean that the film isn’t.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “And I will not be brought down.”

Good Kill DVD Review

Black Hawke Down 

Released : April 10th 2015

Certificate : 15

Director : Andrew Niccol

Cast : Ethan Hawke, January Jones, Zoe Kravitz, Bruce Greenwood

Plot : Combat pilot Thomas Egan (Hawke) has been forced to give up his day of flying in Iraq after six tours, and instead now man’s a drown control panel stationed in Nevada where his family has always lived. When Egan’s unit are placed under the command of the CIA, the morality of the missions becomes more and more questionable, creating friction both inside the unit and for Egan’s home life.

Ethan Hawke, the now four times Academy Award nominated actor and writer knuckles down for a modern day war drama with a twist, a twist that until now had not been greatly investigated by cinema. For the original project he was joined by an old directorial accomplice Andrew Niccol, famous for the writing and directing of Gattaca, a film which was one of the main stepping stones for Hawke propelling him into mainstream cinema. Good Kill also happens to be written also by Niccol, so we could have the start of a enduring director, actor combo. But Good Kill was more of Hawke’s time to shine again, as the supporting cast being fairly unknown as well as Niccol by average movie goer’s, most of the attention for the film is revolving around Hawke’s ability to portray the damaged war veteran who can no longer peruse his passion.

The initial premise of the story was undoubtedly engaging, its a very modern aspect of warfare and studying the effects it has on the morals of war and the effect on soldiers, if nothing else the film is daring in its attempt to tackle new complex issues of modern warfare. The setting of the film is very restricting from a directorial point of view as it is set mostly in one room and all the combat of the film is one a screen itself, and as far as drama building it was made clear that Niccol struggled. As a viewer it never really seemed like Niccol was able to convey the shock and thrill value of the warfare, unable to overcome the issue of the war being seen through a computer screen. The atmosphere created for the first turn of the film while Hawke is at the controls of the drone where too calm, maybe in an attempt to demonstrate the cold hearted nature of the warfare, but neither this effect nor any sense of thrilling danger was really conveyed in the film as far as the war scenes.

Niccol’s writing as well was disappointing as far as the characters who felt purpose built, unrealistic in the way they had been written to serve a certain purpose in the film. The characters this was most apparent in was Bruce Greenwood as the bases captain, his dialogue was stereotypical in the way he was overly sweary when addressing the troops and his manner of disapproval of the quality of the new recruits gave the role a cartoonihs feel. You were reminded of other better film roles of commandos by the performance, which isn’t the fault of Greenwood but rather the recycled dialogue he was forced to wrestle with. Other characters such as the two other members of Hawke’s unit who blindly went along with the commands of the CIA to the point where their attempts to justify their opinions were borderline laughable as they attempted to justify their views with cliché patriotic speeches. There were further aspects that seemed like slightly cliché, such as the fact that the CIA’s role of the ‘bad guy’ was featured by a deep scary voice that came through a phone in the bunker, not an actual character. Because of these aspects which were extremely unoriginal the environment on the army base at least didn’t feel real, nothing surprised you as the film went along at what felt like a slow pace due to the lack of thrills provided by Niccol’s.

The other half of the film rested on the shoulders of Hawke’s performance and the drama provided form his home life. Hawke’s performance may not have been appalling bad, but again it wasn’t good enough to tackle with the script that he had been given, which must have been limited as the character was basically a mute for a large percent of the film, which can prove to be an issue if your the main character. The fact that he was silent mostly and joined with the way that Hawke played him as a cold eyed slow docile man prove for a character which it was difficult to make an emotional connection to, due to a large amount of inactivity. Unfortunately this didn’t make for riveting viewing, and for a film which revolves around a central character this was the main breaking point. On top of this the depiction of his life at home felt rushed, lacking in required depth and investigation, presumable to allow the story to spend more time on base with Hawke flying the drone, but as stated little excitement was found their either. The home environment of the film needed more time and effort, for example the children are never really feature in the film, other than hugging their parents, in the entire film only one scene when Hawke has a scene with multiple lines with one of the children. The effect of this was leaving more of the film to rely on Hawke’s sole performance, which unfortunately wasn’t strong enough to redeem all these poor aspects of the film.

Good Kill unfortunately doesn’t function well as a thriller or as a drama, and for a war film with little action this leaves really little to look at apart from Hawke’s Mustang. The disappointing aspect is that the films premise is good and unexplored until this film, meaning it had the potential free range to introduce us to the knew struggles that the soldiers who fly the drones have to face, but little in the film will provoke an emotional response. The highlight of the film is finally when Hawke’s character rebels against the CIA voice and decided not to carry out the mission, but this stage of the film had been preceded by many of Hawke’s team carrying out complete outrageously unjust mission that it felt as if the rebellion should have taken place much earlier. Due to many of these problems the film is a bit of a disaster wasting the promise it had with a new war film premise.

Verdict : With a slow pace and being dry of both thrills and engaging drama it offers little entertainment outside the interest of discovering how the drone programme is run, and a couple of scenes where Hawke sticks it to the man in the most reserved way possible.

Verdict : 1/5

Quote :  “Don’t ask me if this is a just war. It’s just war.”

Inherent Vice DVD Review

American Kerfuffle 

Released : January 30th 2015

Certificate : 15

Director : Paul Thomas Anderson

Cast : Josh Brolin, Joaquin Phoenix, Benicio Del Toro, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson, Martin Short, Jena Malone, Katherine Waterson

Plot : Set in 1970’s California, stoner private detective Larry “Doc” Sportello (Phoenix) is visited by a past girlfriend, Shasta (Waterson), who tells him of a plot in which her lover, restate typhoon Mickey Wolfmann, is at risk of being wrongly committed into a mental institution. While Doc investigates both Mickey and Shasta disappear, leaving him scrambling for the truth.

Acclaimed director Paul Thomas Anderson takes a leave from the more serious side of cinema, after producing two Oscar worthy (and winning) dramas, to bring us effectively a stoner comedy from the 70’s. Returning features of Anderson’s films include Joaquin Phoenix, again as the lead of the film and again is the centre of a film that leaves both the main character and the audience not fully understanding the entirety of the story, only this time the nature of this confusion is much more playful. As Anderson’s style is to create films which are notoriously obscure and sometimes trivia as to there meanings or purpose, it was refreshing and playful to see this style placed into a drug hazed setting of 70’s California, in a sense resembling a ‘Big Lebowski’ look alike. Similarities include a drug fuelled central character, a mystery, and no direction or meaning that is noticeable.

The starting point of the story is straight forward enough, and the general theme linking to the title makes enough sense. Doc has been left behind by what he may of once called his soul mate due to he’s lack of direction, and when she shows up to dump a case in his lap only to then disappear, he is driven to investigate not matter the what comes down the road. The journey that the film takes you on however is slightly different, as it is significantly harder as an audience member to follow the case as easily as Doc, despite the added help of commentary by a less significant character. Plus for a film that is two and half hours, for some it may be too much, but for the most part the case itself is as relevant as the film itself. Its a crime case in which the case is not the main drive of the film, as the unapologetic bizarre hilarity of Doc’s journey is the drive of the film. If Doc was less drug fuelled he would have been at risk of becoming as aware of the dizzying randomness of the film as an audience member.

On Anderson’s directorial work for the film, it is obvious from an audience member what he is aiming for. The entirety of the camera movements are to emphasis and depicted Doc’s story and feelings. This is made evident by an alarming amount of tracking shots of Doc, giving the audience the scenes that they are also on the roller-coaster journey. As well when Doc is seated at tables the camera doesn’t move to bring into view additional characters who have joined the scene. This meaning to the presentation of the film allowed the audience to relate to the escalating complex drama that faces Doc at made it all the more hilarious to witness his plain bewilderment at it all. Everything Anderson did was on the bases of injecting humour, even to the extent of a fight/struggle between Doc and detective Christian presented in wide slow motion shot for no other reason that it make the scene more amusing. As well am obscured angle from Doc’s view of Christian eating a lollipop which directly acts as an innuendo. It was refreshing to see Anderson put all his skill and drive into a film that has no real meaning or relevance other than entertainment, making Inherent Vice to be Anderson’s biggest crowd pleasure to date.

As for the cast, for what is in many aspects a stoner comedy, this is the strongest cast ever assembled for that genre. Most notably enjoyable to watch, was the scenes of chemistry between Phoenix and Brolin. The deliberate irritation that they inflicted on each other in every scene was childlike, as is the rivalry that the two characters share, with Brolin’s detective being offended that the law is allowed to be carried out by who he see’s as a low life stoner, Doc. In many respects the characters were larger than life, but that only accompanied the entire feel of the film, like an action flick ditching the laws of physics to allow for more stunning chases scenes. They were also enjoyable to watch for much of the same reason that Anderson is joy to watch in this film, as neither of the actors are renowned for any comic talent, seeing them stretch their legs in the genre and executing it perfectly made for memorable roles for both the actors.

Inherent Vice has both director, writer and actors working on top form, as its a slight stoner comedy it will never be considered these artist best work. Some will undoubtedly have trouble swallowing the film due to its overly complicated plot and serial nature, but for viewers able to accept the fact that it is one of those films which has no part to play in logic rather to just enjoy the ride than the film should prove to be a riot. The music, costumes and scenery are also a bonus which is well executed, as is the comic narrating, together adds a sense of calm to well orchestrated chaos of the comedy. It’s a joy to see professional artist being in a silly story about being unprofessional.

Verdict : A film awash with, chaos, drugs, laughter, acting, irrelevance, directing and chaos. The films a total riot, not straight forward enough to be a crowd pleaser, but no doubt one of the funniest films of the year, in many aspects.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “Is that a swastika on that man’s face?”