Spectre Review
Moderate Royale
Released : October 26th 2015
Certificate : 12
Director : Sam Mendes
Cast : Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Andrew Scott, Christoph Waltz, Rory Kinnear, Monica Bellucci, Dave Bautista
Plot : Bond (Craig) goes rough, leading his own investigation and assault on an olden organisation known as SPECTRE. As he follows them across the global he slowly realises the mass scale SPECTRE has had not only on the world, but on his own life as well.
The bond film that has carried much hype around it after the rumoured that it could be Daniel Craig’s last outing as the British spy. Whether this is true or not will depend on who you ask, but the character stepping down is that of Mendes, who originally said that Skyfall would be his only instalment, but now is quiet insistent to leave Bond behind. These factors and the huge popularity of Skyfall, as the film which wasn’t a book that provided to be better than most, built up much anticipation for the 24th Bond film. Much excitement was also rallied when it was announced that Christoph Waltz would be the villain to do battle against Bond, the double Oscar winning actor who seems as if most of his career was building to being a bond villain.
Following the story of Skyfall, which story and script wise proved to be the best bond film for Craig and some labelled ever, left Spectre with a ‘return’ to the loosely book based material. Spectre was very much built like a fare well to Craig, due to the way that the film’s plot linked to all of Craig past films to create what felt like an extravagant finale, like an end to a franchise or horror trilogy. The way that the film went about this felt very purpose built, which was intensified by being followed by Skyfall. Skyfall’s use of a villain with connection to the other main characters past wasn’t a new idea to Bond but a rare one and not overly dramatics. But to follow it straight after with a villain of the same nature seemed unoriginal. It was much ruined by the huge build up that was present for this villain, maybe due to the connection with Bond or maybe because of it being Waltz or both. The build up was immense, only to result in a villain whose presence in the film is briefer than any other villain in a Craig Bond film, or ever. Resembling that of an old horror film where you see the monster at the end.
Other aspects of the plot of the film didn’t fly as they should, particularly the aspect of the film trying to interlink with every past villain by claiming that they are part of SPECTRE. Some could argue that this approach is new and original and attempts to bring Bond to modern standards instead of generic good guy versus bad. But when on screen it didn’t feel genuine, as with the link between Bond and the villain. Having had no inclination to the existence of SPECTRE existence or a link of any kind between the past villains, the same with that of the Waltz character relation to Bond, it gave the film a forced reality. In order to make this Bond more dramatic, dark and compelling, it built a story to tick all of those boxes, but didn’t really gel with the Bond universe, feeling less like a Bond film than Skyfall did. Despite the story aspects there were Bond classical trade marks that where more noticeable and enjoyable than in any Craig Bond film, such as the car full of gadgets, the villain with the unusual weapon, and the over the top method of killing Bond. These were fun warm additions to a story that was attempting to be overly dark and concluding in a clichéd way.
Not every aspect of the film fell apart along with the story, most noticeable being that of the directing of Mendes, who as out done himself, as if nothing else Spectre is one of the best shot Bond film ever. This is made clear from the outset of the film with an action scene in a Mexican Festival of Death, the camera panning through the crowd following Bonds movements is stunning and unlike anything the franchise has given us before. The actions scenes pitched by Mendes were also a special in the clean and orchestrated nature, however did fall short on the believability and the memorability of the works of Casino Royal and Skyfall. But Mendes other aspects where sound such as the music title sequence and the presentation of the vast different landscapes that Bond travels to on his journey. Mendes feel of the story was sound, despite the story itself being the fail, hence doing the best with what he had, constructing the dark suspense of the organisation to a tee. With a particularity memorable scene of the introduction of Waltz and Bautista in a SPECTRE meeting, using the shadowy effect that can be seen in the trailer to keep the audience enthralled and on edge, only to then let these two beautiful character have limited appearance.
The acting from Craig was up to the same high standard as usual, despite this film having the lacking nature of the character development from Bond as previously meaning that for some his performance may prove to be too subtle. But without a doubt with this performance amounting to the fact that Craig is the best actor for Bond since Connery and surpassing him. The Bond girl played by Lea Seydoux was impressive but unfortunately again one of the more passive girls to grace the screen during Craigs reign. Waltz was generic Waltz, enjoyable in his brief but maniacal cunning way.
Spectre is likely to have crowds divided due to it being so different from past Bonds, just as Skyfall did. But unfortunately it thought it was packing a bigger punch than it actually was. A global villains organisation could have been enough on its own to have taken the drama of Bond up, as this is a plot point had not been expanded on before in the time of Craig, but it lacked the direction. The film succeed on the following, performances, directing and build up (as you do go along with the Bonds hunt throughout the film, only to be left hungry). Failing with story, style and action.
Verdict : Not as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale by some way, but still a hell of a lot better than Quantum of Solace.
Verdict : 3/5
Quote : “You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond.”
Mini review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2
Year: 2015
Certificate: 12A
Director: Francis Lawrence
Screenwriters: Peter Craig, Danny Strong, Suzanne Collins
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Donald Sutherland, Mahershala Ali, Sam Clafin
After surviving the Hunger Games and the Quarter Quell and becoming the figurehead of a nascent rebellion in the districts, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and the other rebels must face one final push into the Capitol if they are to overthrow the despotic President Snow and bring peace to Panem.
Director Francis Lawrence valiantly wrestles a well-paced action thriller from what is arguably one of the weaker books in the series, ably wrangling improbable setpieces as Katniss and co. make their way through the booby-trapped streets of the Capitol. The emotional beats work well, with Jennifer Lawrence doing most of the heavy lifting to inject credible human drama into the fantasy scenarios. However, it all feels a little paint-by-numbers at this point, and the demands of the plot leave little time for the sharp political allegory that was an attractive element in the second and third instalment, although the discussions around precisely how much violence is a justifiable price for peace are certainly topical. The impressive supporting cast (including a gloriously scene-stealing and all too brief reprisal from a shaven-headed Jena Malone as former tribute Johanna) get their moments to shine, and Josh Hutcherson gives his best performance of the series charting Peeta’s erratic recovery from torture and indoctrination at the hands of Snow.
While not the best of the franchise, Mockingjay part 2 rounds off the story well and provides an entertaining few hours of action with just enough political intrigue to bring some depth.
Verdict: 3/5
Image credit: lionsgate.com
Everest Review
Brokeneck Mountain
Released : September 18th 2015
Certificate : 12A
Director : Baltasar Kormakur
Cast : Jake Gyllenhaal, Jason Clarke, Josh Brolin, Michael Kelly, Sam Worthington, Keira Knightley
Plot : The true life story of May 10th 1996, when two commercial expeditions made their assents to the summit of Everest. But upon decent a violent storm strikes the mountain, placing everyone’s lives in danger.
If nothing else Everest has assembled the best cast of any disaster movie in recent years, a ‘Expendables’ size cast of the disasters thriller. Some may think that this has little effect on the enjoyment of the film, and that big actors don’t promise big performances, but an unexpected benefit of a number of famous actors is that it brings a level of unpredictability. With most disaster films where one main lead actor of high status is known, in most cases that will be the actor that survives, but when you have three high-profile actors in a film, it adds fun for the audiences as its harder to pin point survivors. While the supporting cast is of a surprising high standard, with the likes of Sam Worthington and Michael Kelly, the main players are of Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler), Jason Clarke (Dawn of Planet of the Apes), Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men) and Keira Knightley (The Theory of Everything). Between them having enough talent and Oscar nominations to promise to bring the required acting power needed for the drastic emotion to bring disaster films to life.
Down to the specific characters themselves the main protagonist is Jason Clarke character of Rob Hall, an experienced climber who is extremely particular to doing everything by the book and as safely as possible. He is helping climbers who he has worked with before and newcomer to Everest to react the summit, one of which being Beck Weathers (Brolin). He plays the part of a wealthy business man playing a large part in the funding of the expedition but lacks in experience in comparison to the other climbers. Then the polar opposite to our Rob Hall we have Scott Fisher (Gyllenhaal), the most experienced climber on the mountain and the most likeable character in the film due to his laid back surfer like vibes. Keira Knightley plays the pregnant wife of Rob Hall at home waiting news from the expedition. This has the structure to bring to the film an enjoyable level of character drama, with a pleasant mix of characters who will prove for different reactions to the situation and plot, unfortunately the film doest actualized much upon the way of character interaction apart from that of Clarke and Knightley.
This flaw is shown via the way that during the build up to the disaster strike, there is a lacking of substance to the film character interaction, resulting in the film slightly dragging its feet to the point of plot development of disaster. The characters are plainly revealed to use in a way that gives each character a 2D appearance, lacking in poignant development and chemistry to get you on broad with the characters. With a cast as skilled as this, the film could have really benifitted with script material to build the characters and there realtionships, so that you woul dhave the added benefit of more emotion when these character arr in danger. But instead the film lacks in this construction and so we are given ‘rushed’ character and result in a slow transition to the point of near the summit reaching.
The entertainment that is found if through that of Kormakur work with setting the scene and presenting Everest, which was effective for the most part but the magic is lost in some point where it can be noticed that footage is repeated, only once does this occur, but for mainstream blockbuster it seems rather old-fashioned and conveys again a scenes of being rushed, and lacking in the required attention to detail to make the film more than the average disasters movie that has ultimately been seen before, only in different setting. Where Kormakur’s work is at its best is at the point of the disaster strike, where the storm runs up the mountain towards the climbers effectively brings both excitement and a true sense of reality to the situation on top of the world. Following this the directing skill compliments the acting of Jason Clarke, as the story of the main characters battle though the mountain proves to be the most enjoyable. Kormakur effectively builds the atmosphere of complete helplessness around Rob Hall efforts to get all of the team back down the mountain. This for the most part makes up for the rather unimaginative build up with animated shots of Everest from a distant, which served the purpose of conveying the sheer size, but just didn’t appear as realistic due to the reliance of special effect. But by the time that the film is in full flow of the storm, he is able to stretch is legs conveying the high level of thrills needed. He did however still struggle with dedicating enough time to each story, as some many characters find themselves marooned on the mountain, it would have added sustains to cover everyone story in the same detail, but Clarke story fortunately held the required emotion to mostly make up for this.
When the film is in the thick of its disaster flow, there was a chance for acting that was lacking in the film up until this point, and it was found within Clarke and Knightley chemistry within the face of the imminent threat. One particular scene where the two are connected via telephone call where Rob Hall is on the verge of throwing in the towel was of a surprisingly effective manor and will prove to be found moving to most audience members. Clarke was able to depict the sense of extreme exhaustion to the point of despair brilliantly, and Knightley is as effortless at scenes of overwhelming sadness as ever with a believable reaction to the updates on Clarke situation. Due to the issues within covering all the different sub-plots of all characters on the mountain we are unable to see Brolin or Gyllenhaal make an emotional connection to the audience like Clarke and Knightley did, which would have brought the film to the next level and had more of an impression, but also made the film more heavy going.
Verdict : A disaster film which falls short of being as good as its cast suggest due to initial directorial and script issues, but the are glimmers of pure talent from the makers during the most gruelling scenes which make the film a cut above most in the genre, unfortunately the effect couldn’t been sustained, but proved effectively intense when present.
Verdict : 3/5
Quote : “Human beings simply aren’t built to function at the cruising altitudes of a seven-forty-seven.”
The Man From U.N.C.L.E Review
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Agents
Released : August 15th 2015
Certificate : 12A
Director : Guy Ritchie
Cast : Henry Cavill, Alicia Vikander, Armie Hammer, Hugh Grant
Plot : During the cold war, an american spy (Cavill) with a past as a criminal and a KGB agent (Hammer) with a stained family name are forced to work together against their will by their superiors to stop a bomb plot.
Guy Ritchie moves on from his top class reboot of the classic English story, onto the classic American story, granted Sherlock Holmes being the better known than Napoleon Solo. But again Ritchie takes the story of a dysfunctional duo’s fight against evil from the past to a different setting. For this period action flick Richie has traded in for actors with less experienced than in Sherlock to fit the mould of the stylish comic duo of hero’s. Henry Cavill being the leading man (as Robert Downy Jr was) known for being this generations Superman, and Armie Hammer as the companion known best quirky Disney reboot as The Lone Ranger. With the similarities in both style and structure it is very hard to compare this film to Guy Richie’s Sherlock Holmes.
The film introduces the two spy’s to us with an intro in which they are on the same mission, which set everything up perfectly within minutes. You had a largely unrealistic but also largely enjoyable chase scene across the murky streets of Berlin, with both Napoleon and Illya Kuryakin showing off each of their specific talents in a very playful way. This establishing scene, before you even had time to be introduced to the actors chemistry together, pitched the film as tongue in cheek spy entertainment that was the perfect recreation of the classic espionage films. Shortly after this you are introduced to the chemistry of the two actors together as foe’s turn friends, the chemistry of this was vital as mostly the entire film revolves around it, much like Sherlock Holmes. The approach to the roles by both actors was suited to the films tone of lacking in seriousness, which was brilliant as it avoided overacting the roles which would have turned the film cheesy. With both actors walking the line of the characters being almost cartoonish, it was evident that both actors understood the films purpose and this resulted in thankfully, great entertaining chemistry.
After this point in the film it lost momentum, between the introduction of the pair to the mission, a large part of the film had to account for the spy’s progression into the investigation which was undoubtably slow. The film picks itself up with some comic action sequences, which are not as grand as in some of Richie’s other work but were still entertaining. But still up until a certain point at which the villains and hero’s actually come head to head the film lacked to show anything original outside of the recapturing of the style and mood of the period spy films. Which despite for this feature of recapturing being very well executed as well as the chemistry of the actors, you are left wanting the rest of the films aspects to match these two effects. The film does then let the villains raise their ugly head’s resulting in a cat and mouse game which has enough curve balls to keep you entertained to a more than satisfactory level for the rest of the.
With Richie’s handiwork, it was notable to see in the opening credits effects from Richie which really set the mood of the film. The old fashion camera film showing Napoleon with crackles in the picture and lens flair showed how Richie was keen to recreate the style and mood of not just the original show but also the time period itself. His finger prints were as evident throughout the rest of the film both in script and directing. The comic edge the was brought to the two spy’s relationship via script was effective and required, something you want and expect form a Richie flick. But this aspect was not up to Richie’s best, then wasn’t the same level of banter between characters as with his other films, relying mostly on situation humour to add laughs to film, making it less effective. With directing an effect that Richie continued to employ was a split screen, many different scenes brought together in many sliced together films on the screen. As original and effective as it was in the pursuit of the spy comic book style, when it came to actions scenes and he continued to employ, you are left wishing he had just shot the action sequence, trading in style of thrill creation.
‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E’ so far is one of the biggest disappointments of the mainstream cinema world, not because it is bad, because it isn’t, but because it feels like if more work and effort went into it the film could have done so much better. The film did everything that is was supposed to do, have a entertaining two hour spy thriller that has style and driven by the relationship of the duo. But it can’t escape an air of being unfulfilled, little things such as maintaining the momentum throughout the entire film, having a more engaging and original storyline. Something that was personal missed from Sherlock Holmes was the strong presence of the villains character and the amount of interaction the hero’s have with them. You will enjoy the film, if you resign yourself to the fact that the film offers little more than comic playful redoing of old spy films with a fun duo of actors.
Verdict : Fun, sarcastic and lacking in seriousness, but maybe some seriousness would be required in order to make it something more than a action summer flick that will be forgotten. The annoying thing is it does the basics well enough to amuse and charm you, meaning your left open to idea of a sequel.
Verdict : 3/5
Quote : “For a special agent, your not having a very special day.”
Southpaw Review
Nightbrawler
Released : July 24th 2015
Certificate : 15
Director : Antoine Fuqua
Cast : Jake Gyllenhaal, Rachel McAdams, Forest whitaker
Plot : Billy “The Great” Hope (Gyllenhaal) is the reigning junior middleweight boxing champion, with an ideal family life. But Billy’s anger problems leads to disasters, and in the wake of tragedy he is at risk of losing everything.
Jake Gyllenhaal is given his chance to play the classic film character of the damaged boxer, a familiar role to the cinematic world, as is the setting of the boxing ring. ‘The Fighter’ showed us new life can be brought into the (what has almost become in its own right) genre, so despite such frequent additions to boxing film, people are prepared to be open to some pure talent funnelled in this formate. This year talent is Gyllenhaal and Fuqua partner up for the ring, but also yet another chapter in the Rocky franchise with ‘Creed’, the story of Appollo Creeds son. The combination of both Gyllenhaal and Fuqua is a partnership that sound perfect for the boxing film. With Gyllenhaal’s ability to play the darker and more aggressive character in an very visceral but believable way, pitched with Fuqua experience in handling both action and character drama. To help along the way actors such as Rachel McAdams and Forest Whitaker were employed as well as a largely Eminem driven soundtrack to add to the mood of the film.
Storyline is not the notable point of the film, as the riches to rages tale is nothing new and exciting, hence the audience will find little to engage with merely via the story. The story itself is when at a press conference shortly after defending his title for a fourth time, Billy (Gyllenhaal) is provoked by a challenging boxer, a fight ensues which leads to the accidental shooting of Billys wife (McAdams) which leads to her death. From this point Billy’s life spirals out of control from a number of different angles. Some aspects of ‘Southpaw’ execution of this generic storyline were surprisingly cartoon like, the provoking of Billy by the other boxer is so aggressive and random that it is almost unbelievable. The representation of Rachel McAdams is almost slightly shallow, shown to the audience in a overly sexual way for the short time she is on screen is a waste of McAdams talent for deeper characters. Because of these two aspects, the film has the sense of disregarding much needed development and depth for compatibility with the storyline to be made, focusing plainly on Billy’s come back story without an effective context before hand.
Despite the lack of time devoted before the disaster, Fuqua is effectively able to capture context for the main relationship of the film, which is Billy and his daughter. Granted this is mostly down to the skill of the acting, but a bedside scene between the two character is presented very well by Fuqua so that at least we are able to have context for the main plot point of the film. In this sense the film is given the bare minimum of texture to get the audience on board with the come back tale. Fuqua overall presentation of the film warranted more respect for scenes outside the ring than inside. Fuqua attempts to employ overly exotic camera angles and movements when the actual boxing is occurring takes away from the excitement of them, surprising given his experience with the action genre, however Fuqua is worthy is reflecting the mood of our hero turbulent story outside the ring. Fuqua style is conventional but effective for the down spiral of Billy life using shaky camera movement and hazy lens flair to exaggerate Billy’s lack of control, also employing many obscured close up shots of Gyllenhaal’s face, making his performance all the more enjoyable and obvious, and the plain representation of the acting between Gyllenhaal’s scenes and his on set daughter allows the acting to shine through.
The powerhouse performance for this film however is Gyllenhaal as Billy. Gyllenhaals performance is engaging enough from the start that you are willing to let slide the fact that there is little story development present at the beginning. Gyllenhaal was exceptional at conveying Billys broken state after the death of his wife and also later on his hopeless to reconnect with his daughter, which proved to be the most entertaining section of the film. Billy’s scenes with his daughter after the tragedy are total absorbing, with a good performance from the child actor, for the most part redeem the rest of the film. The development of the characters as well are believable, turning the film into a dysfunctional relationship story which is a boxing flick in its spare time. Another pleasing good appearance was from Forest Whitaker who plays Billy’s trainer, playing the stern and truthful coach creates a trio of characters that pick the film up and carry you along the familiar path.
Its predictable as they come, with a storyline which is familiar and rushed in places, but due to Gyllenhaals performance and straightforward but never the less touching character drama, you are prepared and entertain to see another film set around the ring again. Fuqua not performing as well as his actors, only because the actors are on top form, makes this film a ‘Raging Bull’ minus Scorsese and a captivating storyline. The film can amount to another Oscar worthy turn out from Gyllenhaal (following his last in Nightcrawler) as he shows off his talent in more and more roles, only issue here is that we know this roles all to well, and the entire film doesn’t match his standards. Go and see for the touching father and daughter relationship.
Verdict : Gyllenhaals saves this picture with a performance among his best. With a welcome addition from Whitaker, makes for touching and winning character drama. Fans of either these actors will have a great time, but from one look at the trailer you know the rest of the story.
Verdict : 3/5
Quote : “How am I, I’m a fucking mess”!
Review: The Last Five Years
Released: 17th April
Certificate: 12A
Director: Richard LaGravanese
Screenwriters: Richard LaGravanese & Jason Robert Brown
Cast: Anna Kendrick, Jeremy Jordan
Charting the five-year trajectory of the relationship between young writer Jamie (Jeremy Jordan) and struggling actor Cathy (Anna Kendrick), Richard LaGravanese’s adaptation of Jason Robert Brown’s stage musical The Last Five Years offers episodic glimpses into the triumphs and struggles of an ultimately doomed romance.
That isn’t a spoiler; as its title might suggest, TLFY begins at the end, with a tearful Cathy removing her wedding ring in an empty apartment. However, the musical’s unusual narrative device, in which Cathy’s timeline unfolds in reverse while Jamie’s occurs chronologically, means that the next thing we know they are leaping into bed with joyful abandon as Jamie sings about his infatuation on their first date. This juxtaposition lends a poignant and bittersweet edge to the story throughout, and the fact that- except for one number when the timelines meet in the middle- all of the songs are solos enhances the idea that even in their most intimate moments there was still a disconnect between them.
Adapting plays and musicals to the screen is always tricky, and LeGravanese here shrewdly aims for naturalism rather than spectacle. The use of close ups and occasional shaky-cam build to an ad-hoc feel which complements the rawness of the emotions at play and the intimate nature of the songs, and lends the piece an immediacy which allows the audience to invest in the story despite the fact that the ending is no secret. Each of the toe-tapping and poppy songs has its own feel directorially, however due to the almost total absence of spoken dialogue the overall effect is more of a visual concept album than a story, which somewhat undermines the otherwise effective communication of the weighty issues at play.
The leads cope well with the dual demands of acting and singing, although the trickier vocal parts have less impact when they are the best of however many studio takes rather than being produced live onstage. However, the cinematic format does allow the actors to utilise more subtle facial expressions and gestures rather than having to play to the gallery. Kendrick’s remarkable knack for bringing verisimilitude and depth to her characters lends vulnerability and charm to the initially rather unlikeable Cathy. Jordan is also a solid screen presence, and while not as effortless as Kendrick brings a suitably volatile energy to Jamie which is particularly evident when he’s injecting necessary pace into the odd (but in his hands entertaining) tale of Schmuel, the tailor.
Somewhat light and episodic, The Last Five Years is nonetheless lifted by impressive performances and enjoyable musical numbers.
Verdict: 3/5
Image credit: facebook.com/TheLast5YearsMovie
Review: Love is Strange
Released: 13th February
Certificate: 15
Director: Ira Sachs
Screenwriters: Ira Sachs, Mauricio Zacharias
Cast: John Lithgow, Alfred Molina, Darren Burroughs, Marisa Tomei, Charlie Tahan, Eric Tabach.
Ben (John Lithgow) and George (Alfred Molina) are finally tying the knot after nearly forty years together. When George loses his job as a music teacher at a Catholic school as a direct result of this decision, the sudden loss of income forces them out of their apartment and places them at the mercy of their friends, family and the capricious New York housing market.
Ira Sachs mines a rich vein of social realism to assemble this poignant tale which illustrates with a quiet dignity the devastating consequences of prejudice. Ben and George find themselves separated by necessity: Ben occupies the lower bunk of his great-nephew’s (Charlie Tahan) bed, while George moves onto the couch of a much younger friend. Neither of these new placements is ideal, and friction quickly develops as Ben and George struggle to adjust after enjoying only each other’s company for so long. The drama is perfectly balanced, avoiding the temptation to invoke interest through histrionics, instead illustrating the myriad tensions which arise from existing in close confines with people with whom, given the choice, you would have not chosen to live. As Ben says, “you [end up knowing] more about them than you care to.”
Sachs and Zacharias have a gift for economical dialogue which, when combined with the nuanced performances of the cast, imbue the story with a seemingly effortless verisimilitude. Lithgow and Molina both shine in the principal roles, Lithgow beautifully creating a character who is ever so slightly out of his time and fretful, but who shows untold resilience in the face of a situation which threatens to get the better of the outwardly more sanguine George. The supporting cast, particularly Darren Burroughs and Marisa Tomei as Ben’s nephew and niece-in-law whose marriage does not need the presence of a long-term house guest, fill out the ensemble perfectly.
As is often the case with understated naturalistic dramas, some may feel that Love is Strange is a little too incidental, and the occasionally elevator music-esque score at times can reinforce the film’s slightness. Personally, I was spellbound, but I can’t deny that it’s more focused on the minutiae of human interaction than on plot. One wonders if the filmmakers’ fear of this criticism motivated them to include an ending which feels manipulative and out of step with the film’s overall tone. Added to this a slightly unclear timescale in the final act ultimately robs the denouement of the satisfaction promised by the strong first hour. This is unfortunate in a film which otherwise addresses important political and personal situations with gravity, wit and charm.
Verdict: 3/5
Image credit: loveisstrangemovie.tumblr.com
Review: Wild
Released: 16th January 2015
Certificate: 15
Director: Jean-Marc Valée
Screenwriter: Nick Hornby, Cheryl Strayed
Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern, Thomas Sadowski, Keene McRae, Gaby Hoffman
In early 1995, Cheryl Strayed set off alone on a 1,100 mile hike along the Pacific Crest Trail, which winds its way through California, Oregon and Washington. Adapted from Strayed’s own account of her journey, Wild sees Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) navigating not just the truculent terrain of the PCT, but the messy trail of her recent past, which unravelled after the death of her mother (Laura Dern).
The way that these twin journeys (one of the mind and one of the body) intersect and intertwine forms a strong thread throughout Wild. Each challenge in the formidable American wilderness has its looking-glass twin in Strayed’s reminisces, and her attitudes to the events on the trail are given context by the gradual reveal of the events in her life. Witherspoon delivers an assured performance in an unusually physical and complex role. She perfectly captures Strayed’s anger, vulnerability and growing resolve, and is unflinching under Valée’s frank camerawork. Strayed’s disintegrating pre-trail life is a downward spiral of promiscuous infidelity and drug abuse as she seeks to punish herself sufficiently for failing to live up to the example set by her mother, however despite the explicit content of certain scenes, they never feel gratuitous or voyeuristic, and are clearly intended to illustrate, rather than titillate. This is laudable and ensures the focus remains squarely on Strayed’s emotional journey. Nick Hornby’s script, despite falling into the inspirational story trap of being a little heavy on cod philosophy, generally works well. The conversations between Strayed and her mother in flashback are particularly poignant, and the walking to redemption theme is surprisingly moving. The esoteric touches of the mysterious fox and of Strayed’s mother appearing, spectre-like, at the scenes of her recalled misdeeds, are also effective. Although the film is played perhaps a little too conventionally to be truly extraordinary, there is nevertheless much to admire about it, and indeed much to enjoy.
Verdict: 3/5
Image credit: foxsearchlight.com/wild
Kingsman : The Secret Service Review
Tinker Tailor Soldier Boy
Released : January 29th 2015
Certificate : 15
Director : Matthew Vaughn
Cast : Colin Firth, Samuel L. Jackson, Taron Egerton, Michael Caine, Mark Strong, Sophie Cookson, Sofia Boutella
Plot : Eggsy (Egerton)is a young lad from the streets of London who is slightly off the rails, but is offered a chance of a better life when he meets Harry Hart (Firth), a secret agent, who offers him a chance to become a Kingsman spy. As Eggsy trains the Kingsman meet their greatest challenge yet, as billionaire Richard Valentine (Jackson) plots a plan to cause mass genocide.
Matthew Vaughn sets about he second mockery of a large motion picture genre, setting his sightson the spy genre. A genre which is just as easily laughable as the superhero genre, especially in films. But due to Kick-Ass huge susses, which can be demonstrated by its spawn of a disappointing sequel, there was always anticipation for another comedy from Vaughn, and to make it another spoof would be even better. And he as returned, after returning to the X-men saga for a very seriousperformance, producing in one of the best outings from the saga. With Kingsman, we can be pleased that a Brit is the one to dissect our most famous movie category. Ironically enough we see Colin Firth as one of the main stars of the show, after not too recently being in one of the great spy classics of modern cinema, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy. so we have British powerhouse talent to mock our greatest work.
For this spoof like Kickass we take someone who is the least likely to fit the mould of the hero character, Eggsy (Eggerton) is a very stereotypical South London teenager, all fitted with the snap back and tracksuit bottoms. His character is a prime example of waisted talent and his heading for a life of crime. But due to connections his dead father made, he meets Harry Hart (Firth), a top secret Kingsman agent who can offer him the path of greatness, to become a spy. Meanwhile at the same time the evil villain Richmond Valentine (Jackson) hatches a plan for world domination, or rather destruction, with the help of a very cool sidekick, literally. The stage is there by set for a epic spy show down, fitted with explosions, sexy women and lots of guns, perfect blockbuster.
Like Kick-Ass it contained much of the films comedy with in the style of the mocked genre, and Kingsman certainly outdid Kickass for style. But to accompany that the way he film mocked the genre was much more obvious than Kick-Ass. Instead of an overload of jokes featured within the script, it choose to feature much more the conventions of the genre, or rather distortions of the conventions. This was visible not only in its style and over all feel but in its characters and sequences also. This gave the film a much more deliberate attempt of sarcasm towards the genre, whereas Kickass just took a typical superhero film and inserted humour and ridicule. This meant that the laughs fr this comedy came less from the witty one liners, but instead leaving the films humours manipulations of the genre to be enough. Firstly this was generated by the unconventional characters interaction with the conventional characters of the story, most obviously done via Eggsy and Harry Hart. This was rather an familiar duo in the history of comedy, the poorer ‘unproper’ character being forced to work with the moral, high society model citizen. This in many cases as proved to be a wining formula, but due to the lack of devotion to the humour of the script, the jokes generated by this partnership became recycled as the film went on. Not due to the chemistry of the actors, but to do with the lines themselves. The clash of the two worlds did make for entertaining scenario sequence and amusing language barriers, but this did become predictably repetitive. The jokes could almost be spotted being set up.
As for Vaughn work on directing, his reconstruction of the spy genre was entertaining to watch come together, and didn’t lack in overdoes of style. Featuring big elaborate shots of the gadget rooms, long off shots of a villains menacing and illogical hide out but the essential part of the spy thriller; the action sequences were poorly orchestrated. Perhaps in an attempt to emphasis the drama of the fight scenes or in attempt to make the acrobatics of it look more entertaining. But the end results was very shaking and dramatic camera movements, which made the viewing slightly obscured and less entertaining than the kick ass action of Kick-Ass. Vaughn hasn’t before done this, despite being the head of many big scale action movies, and Kingsman was not exception to that, having plenty of big bloody brutal scenes, but it would have been nice to have them delivered a bit plainly. Vaughn work on directing was slightly over the top, in some scenes spoiling the magic. But in other cases Vaughn was able to contract entertaining large scale meltdown, scenes of many powerful people heads exploding in unison was a particular high point, but perhaps choreography of the hand to hand scene weren’t up to his normally controlling standard.
Where Vaughn did not faultier is in the creation of his characters, particularly Eggsy, Harry Hart and Valentine. Many of the characters where very straight in there roles in the film, but still entertaining enough to watch. Eggsy and Harry together as characters is an brilliant blend, but the chemistry between the tow actors wasn’t anything memorable, the two actors gave entertaining comic roles individually, but when they shared scenes it didn’t compliment each other performances particularly. But when a big loud blocker buster is being made, not many people are going to miss a great deal of acting, especially in a such as this, which doesn’t take much very seriously. The most intelligent and enjoyable character to watch in the film was by far Valentine, played by the commonly appearing powerhouse which is Samuel L Jackson. The character of Richard Valentine is one of the best qualities of the film, a modern creation who fits with the old evil villain codes, seeing him all dressed in the outlandish modern cloth full with snap back was a sight to behold. And Jacksons portrayal of the stylish villain made for a loveable pieces of comic relief, within a cleverly created character.
Kingsman is one of the boldest blockbusters so far for 2015, and a cut above you average action extravaganza, as it contains a intelligence enough to dissect the spy genre with lashings of comedy, due to writer/director Matthew Vaughn. Its not short on comedy, and its not short of violence, but maybe Vaughn efforts to parody another genre have been too formulaic in and attempt to do the same for the spy genre has he did with the superhero genre. Unable to recreate the same level of stylish cult entertainment, proving for an unique big screen action film, but not quite another memorable parody. Does what it says on the packet, but doesn’t surprise and isn’t what we could get if Vaughn was on top form. But with a strong cast, big scale, and a entraining premiss its not a disaster by any means.
Verdict : Stylish, witty and comical violent, Kingsman is a treat of a blockbuster, another entertaining outing from Vaughn. But in all its class, the laughs are slightly formulaic, but the intelligent premiss itself balances out for a a film that is notable. Cool as Bond, but isn’t quite Kick-Ass.
Verdict : 3/5
Quote : “I’m a Catholic whore who needs to visit my black, Jewish boyfriend who works in an abortion clinic. Hail Satan.”
Review: Into the Woods
Released: 9th January 2015
Certificate: PG
Director: Rob Marshall
Screenwriter: James Lapine & Stephen Sondheim
Cast: Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt, James Corden, Anna Kendrick, Daniel Huttlestone, Lilla Crawford
In a storybook kingdom, some familiar tales are brewing. There’s a girl with a red hooded cape, a boy with a cow, a young woman cleaning up after her stepsisters and a young couple wishing for a child. Their respective desires will lead them into a dark and forbidding wood where their paths will intertwine, and singing will ensue.
Adapting theatre to the big screen is always a tricky prospect. On the plus side, the director can direct the audience’s attention precisely where they want, and the myriad of camera angles, special effects, and often (increased) star power can add up to a truly unique experience. However, it also brings challenges: how to make a film of a play truly cinematic, and what to do without the peculiar alchemy that comes courtesy of having something enfold, live, before the eyes of the audience. Adapting musicals is doubly difficult as there’s the need to make the audience believe that a collection of people would spontaneously decide to sing their feelings. The canon of Hollywood adaptations of stage musicals seems to be firing blanks at least as often as it scores direct hits. Weirdly enough, Into the Woods falls somewhere in between.
Part of the problem is that Into the Woods is more of a light opera than a musical, and struggles to overcome the challenges of a less toe-tapping libretto. Some of the longer songs drag a little despite the cast being generally more than equal to the demands of the score. Although the film proves that an all-star line-up doesn’t necessarily equal a five-star movie, there are some fantastic performances here. Emily Blunt is perfectly cast as the resourceful baker’s wife, and is able to play up the comedic and melodramatic elements while still delivering a subtle and cinematic performance. James Corden is also charming and the scenes with both of them are some of the film’s best. Meryl Streep valiantly shoulders plenty of heavy lifting narrative- and music-wise, and the younger cast (Daniel Huttlestone as Jack and Lilla Crawford as Red) both seem perfectly at home amongst the Hollywood heavy-hitters. The only real non-sequitur is Jonny Depp as the Wolf, which smacks of stunt casting and is rather overplayed.
Rob Marshall, who proved his musical mettle with 2002’s slick Chicago, delivers inconsistently here. The faster-paced songs like Act 1 Prologue and Your Fault are skilfully done, with winding camera angles injecting pace and showcasing the actors’ talents. However, the Princes’ duet Agony feels stodgy and stagey, and the sequence involving Red’s rescue from the Wolf just bizarre. Although the fairytale elements benefit from cinematic VFX (the Witch’s entrances and exits are suitably spectacular), the giants- surely a major selling point as they’re so hard to render onstage-are weirdly brushed over.
Although perhaps this is fitting as, in true fairytale style, it’s not about the giants. It’s about rules (and breaking them), longings, misconceptions, the shadow of the past and the shimmering mirage of the future, and being careful what you wish for. The scariest things in the woods aren’t the monsters, they’re the choices we’ve made and the choices that are still ahead of us. Despite the missteps, Marshall and co. understand this and the overarching theme of the piece is able to shine through, buoyed by solid (at times exceptional) performances and enough directorial verve to keep everything moving.
Verdict: 3/5
Image credit: movies.disney.com
Stuck in the Cheap Seats 
Recent Comments