Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

I will start this review by saying that I wasn’t the biggest fan of the original Anchorman, not because I didn’t enjoy the film, but more so that I didn’t find it as infinitely quotable as many other people did. The humour is very broad, allowing each viewer to latch on to their own preferred kind of comedy, be it slapstick, crude, offensive or satire.

The plot of Anchorman 2 follows Ron Burgundy in the eighties after he is fired from his news show and his wife, Veronica, is made the news anchor after choosing the job over their marriage. Ron then sinks into a dark, albeit hilarious, pit of despair before he is offered a job with a brand new twenty four hour news channel.

As with any comedy, it all comes down to the simple point. Is it funny? For the most part it is. There a few jokes that didn’t work for me, but this is hardly something to be hold against a film. Anchorman 2 is undoubtedly at its best when it sticks to satirizing the news and the numerous programs and channels, or when it really goes for it, such as the ‘smoking crack’ scene or the family dinner. While these could be seen as easy fare for comedy, because of Ron and the news team, they work.

Ron Burgundy, to no surprise, makes the film and anchors the gradually increasing insanity that unfolds, building to a very surreal finale. Without such a likeable and funny character, the films second half wouldn’t have worked. Especially with the news team battle and the lighthouse sequence. I am trying to giveaway as little of the plot or the jokes as possible.

Not the longest review I have done, but comedy is a hard genre for me to get into. You will either find it funny or you won’t. Character development is relatively sparse, definitely preferring the delivery of jokes above evolving the people swept up in the story.

If you are a fan of the first, then you will in all likelihood enjoy this one. If you aren’t then the film could feel too long and in need of trimming at least ten minutes.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The Desolation of Smaug picks up almost immediately after the end of An Unexpected Journey, with Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarves struggling on their way to the Lonely Mountain and the lost dwarf city of Erebor, so that Thorin can take his place as King under the mountain. Along with this, we get to meet some old and new elven characters, are introduced to a completely new town and people with Lake Town and see the seeds of The Lord of the Rings being sown.

As you can imagine with any Middle Earth film, the run time is substantial, but unlike the first instalment of The Hobbit this film doesn’t slow down for a second, offering up more excitement in the films first hour than we got in the entirety of the previous film. The Barrel sequence, which I will get to later, is the highlight of this series so far. Don’t let this films running time or your experience of the first film put you off going to see the next part of Bilbo’s journey.

Visually The Desolation of Smaug relies on a large amount of CGI, which is to be expected, but unlike the first, the frame rate isn’t an issue with this film. As a result, the CGI holds up much better this time, while you know it’s not real, this time it is easier to lose yourself in wide vistas and detailed characters.

Like An Unexpected Journey, a lot of the film is carried on the shoulders of the films main heroes, Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin. McKellen gives us more of the same of a character we have seen insult and lecture kings and the powerful since 2001. Thorin is as rough, rude and driven as he was in the first film, a dwarf who is set on one goal and won’t allow anyone to get in his way. Martin Freemans Bilbo is the heart and soul of the film, he is character we spend the most time with, although not as much as we did in the first film. He isn’t a near invincible hero like Aragorn was in The Lord of the Rings; instead he has to use his brains and wits to get him and his companions out of countless perilous situations.

The most interesting part of this film is the way we are introduced to the different workings of various societies and races throughout Middle Earth, each of them motivated by a communal goal established by a single man, some selfless, others not. The elven kingdom of Mirkwood is the most interesting society, undoubtedly the most fearsome and skilled warriors, they are happy to stay within their borders, even becoming lenient when Orcs spread into the forest. The father son relationship between the King and his son, Legolas and their discussion of what should be done about the events in Middle Earth is the films strongest scene and one I hope is revisited in the third film.

As mentioned earlier, the Barrel sequence is the highlight of the film, based around a river escape as the dwarves flee Mirkwood in a convoy of barrels floating down a river, chased by Orcs who are in turn being hunted by elves, led by Legolas and Tauriel (Evangeline Lily). We are treated to dwarf humour and ferocity as they struggle to stay alive and elven acrobatics and fighting flamboyance as they cross tree branches and cut through the orcs with utter precision.

While it may not be up to the standard of The Two Towers, The Desolation of Smaug is a return to form for Middle Earth. Helped by more action and greater stakes, this will leave you wanting more. Luckily we only have to wait six months this time.

Saving Mr Banks

I’ll start this review by saying that I saw Saving Mr Banks within twenty four hours of seeing The Counsellor, so the swing in tone and content may have bled through into how much I enjoyed this film. One that is infinitely easier to get into and far less unsettling. Unless you have some sort of beef with Mickey Mouse.

Saving Mr Banks follows the story of how Walt Disney and his team tried to make Mary Poppins into a film. Focusing on the story of P L Travers when she was a young girl living in Australia and the present day (early sixties) in which she has travelled to Los Angeles to work on the film and to be persuaded to hand over the rights to Walt Disney.

There are a lot of good things going for this film, one of the biggest is the script by Kelly Marcel, which knows exactly when to send us back in time to the days in the outback with her father. The moments that influence the older Travers don’t immediately precede or appear right after, instead we are given all of these ticks, memories and clues into how these experiences have changed her. We are asked to put it together for ourselves.

The two leads Emma Thompsons as P L Travers and Tom Hanks as Walt Disney have great chemistry together and their back and forth squabbles and arguments are a joy to watch. The supporting cast really fill out the world, bringing it to life and giving Travers different personality to interact with and put down in a amusingly upper class way.

Hanks, who has slightly less time than Thompson I think on screen, gives us a likeable but layered Disney, something behind the good natured and always smiling man you would expect. This is less a case of imitation as taking bits and pieces of the real man and making fit into this story. Hanks a true great of the screen gives you nothing less than this and while this is one of his best in years, if he is to take home an Oscar this year, it will surely be for Captain Phillips.

Thompson dominates every scene she is, in that way becoming every bit the woman she is portraying. She isn’t immediately likeable, in fact for long parts of the film it is in some way hard to sympathise with her at all. But maybe that’s because we know how it all ends up and she obviously doesn’t. As Travers begins to loosen, not by much though, Thompson plays up more of the vulnerability and longing for something she has long lost.

Colin Farrell is given one of the most interesting roles he has had in many years, as Travers’ father. A supporting father who encourages his daughters’ creativity and imagination, but suffers from a kind of chronic alcoholism. This is shown quite early on, so it’s not a major spoiler. The creative team of the two musicians The Sherman Brothers and the screenwriter are instantly sympathetic, stuck in the rehearsal room with the rude and incessant Travers. There best ideas are crushed and the film they have been playing ripped to sheds.

Saving Mr Banks is a great family film and one that people who both have and haven’t seen Mary Poppins will enjoy.

The Counsellor

I will start this review by saying that this is quite simply one of the most uncomfortable and unsettling film I have ever seen, taking its place alongside Oldboy and Blue Velvet. Like those films, it has moments of brutal violence carried out by people completely aware of what they are doing. Violence however, is simply the tip of the iceberg with The Counsellor. This film is an eighteen for a reason.

Written by one of the greatest living novelists, Cormac McCarthy and directed one of the best directors working today, Ridley Scott. The Counsellor follows an American counsellor as he gets involved in a drug deal, hoping to make a lot of money in a one time deal. I’ll avoid spoilers, but as you can imagine, his best laid plans soon unravel.

Where else to start with than the writing and the screenplay. You are dropped right into the middle of this world of drug dealers, corrupt middle men and assassins. There is little to no set up of the main story or its central characters. You are told to keep up and forced through this relentless terrifying descent into genuine horror.

The dialogue is beautiful throughout, although it does depend on the actor to see just how good it is, and  it is unlike anything you are likely to hear in a film this year. The monologues, which there are a few of, can be distracting and slow down the film at times, purely because they force you to really listen to words and understand the gravity and emotion behind each of them. One phone call is particularly hard to sit through, solely because of the actions and consequences which have led to this moment and the event to follow.

The plot is relatively simple to follow, but because we don’t come in at the start, you have to put together the pieces as the clues are drip fed to you. Although it’s nice to not be swamped with exposition, I can’t help but think that a few lines here and there would have gone a long way to making this more accessible.

The cast for this film is impressive, to say the least. Led by the stellar Michael Fassbender, whose arrogant law man starts off with the world at his feet and feeling untouchable before the inevitable and subtly delivered fall starts. Fassbender handles the unique dialogue well, giving the elaborate sentences and monologues a human feel, bringing substance to the style.

Brad Pitt and Javier Bardem fill out the supporting male roles. As with Fassbender, they handle the dialogue with a smooth and confident air, letting the words flow out. But it is their characters facial expressions which really bring them to life. Pitts final scene is powerful and echoes words and advice he told to the counsellor at the start of the film. Bardems greatest moment is in a flash back, as he tells of a night with Malkina (Cameron Diaz) on a golf course. I won’t give away details, but he holds a look that encompasses fear, confusion and a little bit of disgust throughout it all.

Penelope Cruz and Cameron Diaz, who play the two main female characters, fair in varying degrees with the dialogue, but both succeed with the silent moments. Like their male counterparts, they bring them to life with the simple gestures, smiles, glances or the wrinkle of a brow. It’s hard to go into details about these two, as a lot of their best moments come late on and would give away some key moments.

Visually this film is superb, as you would come to expect from any Ridley Scott film, set mostly in the desert, Scott and Dariusz Wolski make each barren landscape a pleasure to look at. Even when you know you shouldn’t, or don’t want to. Decapitations and automobile based sexual interactions have never been so beautifully shot.

The Counsellor will worry you, confuse you, entertain you and scare you. Some will love it, others will hate it. But you won’t find another film like it anywhere.

Just be warned, it is certainly not for the squeamish.

Gravity

It’s been a long wait for Alfonso Cuaron’s follow up to Children of Men, one of the great dystopian films of the last twenty years. With Gravity, Cuaron has returned with both his attention to detail and elegant use of long shots.

The story of Gravity is straight forward, taking a lot from the survival genre, as we initially follow the crew of Explorer as they attach scientific equipment to a satellite. This changes when a freak accident causes countless pieces of debris to rip through the shuttle and the satellite, effectively leaving them dead in the water, or space. What follows is a desperate race to get to the next satellite or space station that can sustain the team till the debris comes round again.

That pretty much covers all you need to know about Gravity in terms of plot, it is happy to keep it simple and instead focus on the visuals and it’s characters, arguably the films weakness.

But it would be wrong to start anywhere else with Gravity than the quite frankly stunning visuals. Yes, large amounts of it are made up of CGI shots, but this is CGI on another level, it looks real but at the same time never distracts from the rest of the film, something that often ruins CGI heavy films.

The other great visual joy is the use of long takes. The first shot of the film is roughly 15 minutes long. This shot isn’t just of a conversation, or a simple tracking shot of a single character. It shows us the Earth, the main characters as they work on a moving satellite, then follows each of them during the debris storm. It’s worth going to see this film for the opening shot alone.

Now, lets move onto the two characters in this film, Stone and Kowalski, played by Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Bar a few radio voices, these are the only two people you are going to follow for the film.

Bullock is arguably the lead in Gravity, as it her past that is focused on more and she is one that has any sort of character arc. As she fights to survive, we slowly have more and more information drip fed to us about what happened to her back on Earth. Bullock does her best with a somewhat basic script, there is very little character work, in part that is down to the events that follow the debris storm. It would have been interesting for her to have been given something meatier to work with and really build out Stone.

Clooney is as charming and funny as you would expect from him, he is the veteran up there and as a result the part plays to his strengths. His knowledge and experience earns him the right to be so relaxed up there. Clooney builds his character quickly, thanks to some stories he shares with Houston as they are working on the satellite, something like this would have greatly helped Bullocks character.

In Alien, the tag line was ‘In space no one can hear you scream’, and thanks to Gravity, sticking to this scientific fact, you get some really unsettling and discomforting sequences, especially during the action set pieces, when chaos is breaking out visually, but we can’t hear anything except the voices of the astronauts.

I had heard great things about Gravity, going into the cinema, even that it would change cinema. While I enjoyed the film, it did fall a little short of the hype that preceded it. This obviously, isn’t the fault of the film, critics will say what they want and it is easy to be taken in by the hyperbole that has come out of the film.

Gravity is a technically stunning film that will pull people in, but will ultimately divide.

Thor: The Dark World

The first Thor was, and still is may favourite Marvel Studios film, as it didn’t stick to their usual structure and handling of the villain. Instead of focusing on the action, of which there is a lot, it was more interested in the family dynamic of the main characters, Especially the relationship between Thor and Loki, something that would go on to be the best part of The Avengers.

The plot for Thor: The Dark World is fairly straight forward, a race that existed before the creation of the nine realms, the Dark Elves have returned seeking a power source known as the Aether, something that if controlled by their leader Malekith, will return the universe to darkness. This Aether has been locked away for thousands of years, but when Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) stumbles through into another realm and comes across it, she alerts Malekith to where it is. From there on, Thor must return to Earth, protect Jane and stop Malekith.

The films greatest strength, as with the first one is in the interplay between Thor and Loki, played by  Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth superbly. Their chemistry is so good and believable that they feel like brothers. Their first scene in the film together is where the film as a whole starts to pick up. Whether one is better in their respective role compared to the other is beside the point. 

They embrace the characters and make them their own, something that often seals the fate of any comic book film. Without one, this series wouldn’t be anywhere near as successful or interesting as it is.

As with any good comic book film you need a good  villain, someone you can really hate and with Loki being given a very grey area in this film it falls on Malekith to carry the threat. Unfortunately, he rarely does anything to warrant hatred, in fact you will probably barely manage more than casual dislike for him. In all, he kills about five people that I can remember and they are faceless warriors in the prologue.

His hench-elves do the majority of the shooting and stabbing. Christopher Eccleston is not bad in the role, in fact a lesser actor would have barely left an impression, but he certainly could have done with more screen time than he got to make the character more detestable or have him try and justify what he is doing. While not necessary for all villains, this crusade needed some sort of reasoning.

For a film about gods and the end of light in the universe, the action is somewhat downplayed at times, again similar to the first. But here, I really wanted it to go big, especially during an attack on a certain city and the climax of the film. The two major set pieces of the film.  Both sequences have good beginnings and good ends, but not that something special. By these points we are invested in the characters and have just been treated to some excellent characters moments. 

There is no grand moment in these sequences, no truck flip (The Dark Knight) or fight on top of the train (Spider-Man 2) to make the memorable. Where Man of Steel received complaints for the level of destruction and length of its final battle, Thor: The Dark World should be criticized for not going big enough.

By no means is this a negative review of the film, I enjoyed it a lot and would recommend it to anyone looking for a fun film to go and see. It slips into the upper echelon of Marvel films with ease.

Go to this film for the performances, specifically Hemsworth, Hiddleston and Hopkins, it’s their relationships and family politics that make this film as good as it is.

It looks like the red capes are doing okay this year.

Captain Phillips

I missed the real life events of this film as they played out. I remember the general story, but this particular event got muddled in with a host of other similar hostage situations so I couldn’t recall what had happened when the first trailer came out. As a result I can’t be sure how much of it is accurate and how much was changed to make the film more entertaining, in a harrowing and nerve shredding entertaining kind of way.

The story is fairly straight forward as it follows the hijacking of a cargo ship, the Maersk Alabama, off the coast of Somalia by pirates. As this is a true story it is hard to judge what is a spoiler and what isn’t, but I will keep spoilers to a minimum as it was how I went into the film and it increased my enjoyment of the film.

This is easily one of Tom Hanks’ best performances in years and could quite easily earn him a nomination for Best Actor, if not the award when the envelope is opened. At first, Phillips isn’t completely likeable, he is gruff and demanding, clearly not well liked by his crew, but respected. It is when the pirates come that we see this part of his character break and we get a man who is doing his best to hold on, keep calm and protect his crew.

The greatest moments of the performance come in the lifeboat, where the majority of the second half takes place. As the tension inside begins to wrap up, Hanks really makes us see the desperation and the feel the hope slipping away scene by scene. You should be as scared as he is and he makes you feel every bit.

The camera in Captain Phillips is always moving, as in any Paul Greengrass film, for some this is an issue, purely because of their own tastes and preferences. With the exception of the early calm(er) section of the film, where I can see the argument that the camerawork is distracting, once we board the Alabama the camerawork gradually begins to reflect the situation and state of mind of those it’s looking at. During the hijacking, it is everywhere, moving quickly to take in everything that is happening. During the lifeboat scenes, it is up close and moving erratically as everyone struggles to retain not just their cool, but their sanity. Where as aboard the US Navy Ships, everything is steady and calm, despite the clear high stakes of a US citizen being taken hostage and slowly getting closer to the Somali coast.

The second lead performance of the film belongs to the leader of the pirates, Muse, played by Barkhad Abdi. He is at times equally utterly terrifying and strangely vulnerable as the pressure of the situation and the expectations of his people mount up. Like Hanks’ performances, the best moments come in the lifeboat as he has to deal with the US Navy, Phillips and his own crew starting to crack as their chances of success very quickly disappear.

Often a film will be described as nerve shredding, tense, etc, but never really gets to the heights you are thinking of. Captain Phillips is not one of those films, it goes off the normal scale of tense, this isn’t turned up to 11, it’s turned up to 100. I barely heard anyone in the cinema say a word throughout the entire run time, ever single person was engrossed. By the time the climax starts to ramp up, you are so focused on the events on the screen that any knowledge of what actually happened completely escapes your mind.

The easiest way I can describe how invested I was, is with something I noticed when I left the cinema. Normally when I get tense I pick at my beard, just clipping the end of hairs or pulling them out. In the light I saw that I had pretty much covered the top of my shirt with small bits of hair that I had picked.

. So basically, stop reading this review, right now. Get in your car, bus or boat and go to the nearest cinema and watch it 

Rush

I’m no racing fan of any kind, never have and all likelihood never will be, so my knowledge of F1 and its long history is very basic. The only time I have managed to follow a season was the end of the 2008 season and start of 2009 season during my time at University, which was down to my flat mate being a big fan and a regular watcher. So what I’m trying to say is. If I make a mistake with a technical term/name or have interpreted something incorrectly, it’s because I just don’t know.

Rush is set in the late 70’s through to 1986 and follows the rise of drivers, and eventual rivals James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl) from Formula 3 up to the Formula 1. I’ll avoid spoilers much as I can, as I went into this film with very limited knowledge of these two men or their stories. Along the way we see how their similar privileged upbringings produced two very different men. One who was very loose and was willing to take risks in every aspect of his life and the other who was scientific and methodical in his.

The way this film is structured and plays out is very unlike most historical or biographical films, so much as it focuses on a relatively small portion of time and even then passes skips years to get us to the crucial and iconic season.

It also doesn’t focus specifically on either man, instead it jumps back and forth in sections from one to the other. The early focus is on Hunt, which sets the film up to be solely about him, before cutting to Lauda’s rise. Both are handled well and give us enough information and time with the characters so that when the big races come around we are invested in them both. Making you choose in effect who you want to see win each race.

Both performances are good, Hemsworth gives us a charming and likeable man who can seemingly do whatever he wants, can have any woman and has the support of rich friends. The good times are entertaining, but it is when his life starts to spiral downwards that Hemsworth gives us the more interesting side of the character. Dealing with excessive drinking and the break up of a marriage while trying to do his job.

Bruhls performance is oddly the more flashy and more likely to get recognition come awards season. There are more ticks and mannerisms to this performance than Hemsworths, and maybe that is accurate of the man himself. This is by no means is a criticism, as at times Lauda’s tinkering with cars and blunt comments are a enjoyable to watch as Hunts antics. Bruhls best moments come from the crash and beyond. The pain and obsession all feels real as he desperately tries to recover from a frankly horrific accident.

The biggest star of the film and the thing that kept me engrossed the most was the look and sound of the film. Never has the noise of gear changes, tires and engine movements sounded more exciting or captivating. I hope the cinema you see it in has their sound system as high as the one I saw it, other wise you would genuinely miss out and one the biggest and best parts of this film.

Rush is definitely a stand out film, especially considering the amount of films that are being released now. The awards seasons is starting to gear up, as is the horror surge we usually get in October and November. Don’t be put off by the racing elements of the story, go and enjoy an interesting movie.

Prisoners

A film about child abduction is hardly the most appealing of subject matters, as no matter how it is handled, there will always be something of an uncomfortable feeling about enjoying it, considering the real life consequences of this kind of situation. But whether or not this, or any other topic or subject matter is considered taboo or off limits, is something that should be decided by the individual and not a studio or focus group.

Prisoners, as mentioned earlier is about the abduction of two young girls from two families and what they do following the event. Each family reacts in different ways, which is shown through the actions of each father, one is proactive and tries to do everything he can while the other is passive and hopes that the police will find the girls. The other main character is the police detective who is tasked with finding the missing girls.

Prisoners did remind me of a few films of recent years, not necessarily in terms of plot or characters, but more in its tone and its structure. At times it doesn’t play by the normal rules of a thriller, it down plays its big thrills and doesn’t use music to build tension, instead it relies on its performances, in much of the same way that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or Zero Dark Thirty did.

Tonally, it is a call back to some of David Finchers most recent films in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Zodiac, as there is a omnipresent sense of dread and hopelessness as the situation and weight of the characters choices bare down on them.

As I touched on earlier, this is a film driven by performances, and two in particular. Hugh Jackman as Keller, one of the fathers who has lost their daughter, and Detective Loki, played by Jake Gyllenhaal. Where most actors would choose to go big whenever they could, these two choose to tone it down and play it in a much more restrained and natural way.

While Jackman plays the emotional core of the film, as he struggles with the desperation to get his daughter back and come to terms with what he is willing to do to get her back. It is Loki who is by far the most interesting character we meet. Very much a loner who has the respect of his superiors and colleagues, but isn’t liked by them, it’s as though he needs to keep up his 100% record to validate himself and be able to fight his corner.

In his conversations with Jackman, which are the strongest of the film as you may expect, he offers the bare amount of sympathy he has to at the beginning, which then quickly deteriorates as the family start to interfere in his investigation and hinder his work. He fights back a desire to truly berate Keller on numerous occasion’s, it is a struggle that is rarely seen in crime films.

There are a few loose ends at the end of the film, I won’t go into detail, that  in a way undermine the brutal natural of the previous two hours as some consequences are ignored, while others are brought to the fore front. The one that is pushed to the front, in actuality needs to be pushed on the audience as they are asked to make their own conclusions about should happen to a certain character and if their actions are right, wrong or at least justifiable.

When awards season roles around I hope there is at least one category with someone from Prisoners in it. If I were to put money on it, it would be Jake Gyllenhaal in a supporting role.

It is a difficult subject matter to deal with, but one that is worth your time for questions it poses and that it offers up a mature adult based thriller, something we don’t get as often as we should. Whether it pushes the subject matter to far, or not far enough is up to you.

If a story about children being kidnapped doesn’t put you off immediately, then go and see this great film.

Mud

A Blu-ray review this time, but one of a film that came out this year and is well worth your money.

Mud is Jeff Nichols third film, after 2007’s Shotgun Stories and the amazing Take Shelter from 2011. Having only seen Take Shelter, I can’t fully comment on his evolution as a filmmaker, but looking at the quality of those two films, Nichols will likely continue to go from strength to strength as both a writer and a director.

The plot and story of Mud is fairly simple, but there is one of the films great strengths, it doesn’t try and fill up its run time with a complicated story.

Instead it focuses on the relationships between the characters. When two 14-year-old boys, Ellis and Neckbone find a boat stuck in a tree on an island on the Mississippi river (I assume this is right river), the boys claim it for themselves.

However, also sharing the island with the boat is Mud (Matthew McConaughey), he tells the boys that he is waiting for someone and needs their help to get the boat running, which he too has claimed as his own. Making a deal with the boys, they bring him food, parts and take messages for him to people in town.

The person Mud is waiting for is his girlfriend Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), this isn’t a spoiler as it is revealed early on in the film, the reason for them not being together is something too interesting to give away here, as I wouldn’t do it justice.

As mentioned before, this a film about performances and the standouts are the two boys, Tye Sheridan as Ellie and Jacob Lofland as Neckbone. The biggest compliment that you can pay them is that they genuinely feel like they have been friends for years and have a short hand when they are around each other, not having to speak to one another. Ellis has more screen time, as we also get a subplot about his parents’ potential divorce.

Sheridan plays his character as a boy looking for a real father figure and growing up without any real guidance, the only person he can really speak to is Neckbone and then Mud. He places so much faith in the idea of love being strong enough to keep two people together that it should never be given up on, that when a relationship he has begins to have troubles, the confused pain that creeps over his face is painful to watch as similarities with the other relationships in the film finally hit home for him.

Neckbone is a rougher character and more comic, especially with his cutting little remarks and delivery of the lines he is given. The best is when he refers to his Uncle keeping him out of their house while he has sex with someone. Around Mud, he plays it much more cautiously, wary of Mud and what he is telling them. But he is loyal to Ellis and helps him whenever he needs it, never questioning it, just attacking it with a determined steeliness.

Mud, the main character is someone who speaks through stories and by telling people things that they want to here. This is no doubt how he has come so far on the limited resources he had. McConaughey plays him with a disconnected air, unaware of what is going on not only around him, but in the world at large, focused only on getting his boat fixed and his girl. Everything else is secondary.

It is a subdued and natural performance that really gets you to invest in the character, so that when the action kicks off in the last fifteen minutes you care about him. Maybe that is the performance’s greatest achievement, he is able to make you sympathize with what could be seen as a liar and a dangerous man.

The camera work is beautiful, as it swaps from long takes of the river to journeys through the town, either in the back of a truck or on a hand made motorcycle. Each shot is a work of art, and reminds me of Once Upon A Time In Anatolia, where every shot looks and feels like a painting, each one perfectly framed, lit and realised. If the rest of the film wasn’t as good as it is, it still is worth seeing for its cinematography alone.

Jeff Nichols has crafted his best film so far and one that should receive attention come the awards at the end of the year. But unfortunately, will sadly be overlooked in all honesty. Make sure you don’t make the same mistake.

To put it simply, this is the best film I have seen this year.

Does everybody need Batman?

I’ll state this now. This isn’t an article about how Batman is THE comic book character and how everybody else is second to him. It’s probably true. This is about the news that we won’t be getting a pure Man of Steel sequel, but instead a team movie called apparently Batman Vs Superman.

I enjoyed Man of Steel, it achieved to a similar degree, what Batman Begins did eight years earlier. It reintroduced a classic character back into the mainstream after a time away and a dud film.

Leaving the cinema after Man of Steel, I talked as much about what I had just seen, as much as what would come next. The fallout from the battle of Metropolis, Lex Luthor, Clark at the Daily Planet, Jimmy Olsen, Clark and Lois, the list goes on. I was looking forward to Superman getting his own version of The Dark Knight.

I didn’t want Batman to turn up in this film, or any other Justice League character and take over. Let Superman establish himself with this generation of fans first and build his world like The Dark Knight trilogy did with Batman. Unfortunately it looks as though those films were a one off deal, now everybody wants team ups and cross-pollination.

But lets look at this from a different angle. Batman and his world has always, for most part, been contained to Gotham. Albeit with the odd trip every now and then. His city is teaming with great characters, that easily number in the hundreds. He doesn’t need outside characters like Superman or Wonder Woman to come in, he has a character that can be fitted to any theme or plot already there, be it a rogue or an ally.

Can the same be said of Superman? He doesn’t have the same kind of varied Rogues gallery that Batman does, or even the vast array of supporting characters. He has the same core group of rotating characters that appear regularly, but there is only so many times you can reinvent the same character.

One character that is important to Clark is Bruce. They are good friends and talk openly, but Bruce is unafraid to challenge Clark. He is probably one of the few people who isn’t afraid of the Clark the person, he undoubtedly respects him and his powers, but he knows he is a good person.

Bruce has this kind of relationship with a number of characters, Alfred, Dick Grayson, Gordon even Selina all challenge him regularly in what he is and does.

With the next film it’s safe that some point Bruce and Clark are going to come to blows. It may not look like his fight with Zod, it will probably be more like something out of Alien. Striking up close and quickly then disappearing. Kryptonite will have to be involved. Because after seeing what Man of Steel showed Clark being capable of, a straight up fight would look stupid.

The reason for a fight between Bruce and Clark is that we already watched the alien threat with Zod and it’s unlikely that we will see that again in this film. Hopefully Luthor will be involved as some kind of manipulator challenging Superman on the destruction of Metropolis.

I hope that despite Batman and his presence in this film, it remains a true Man of Steel sequel. I want more of this Clark Kent, they opened up this world and I want to see it built upon. If this world includes a Batman, then let it be one that must adhere by this world and its rules. He shouldn’t be a main character, maybe similar to the amount of time Joker had in The Dark Knight. He should be in it to entertain us, but also to teach Clark something about the people he has sworn to protect.

Looking at one of basic differences between the characters. Batman thrives when he is silent and unseen, striking quickly and without warning. Creating fear. Superman thrives in the limelight, he is there to inspire. He needs to be seen. Keep Batman in the shadows and Superman in the sun.

One hurdle this film with have to overcome is the early days of the Bruce and Clark relationship, something we rarely see in the comics. More often than not, we see them as long established friends, they may not agree with each other. But they understand each other and their methods.

This film doesn’t have that luxury and maybe it could work to there advantage. We get to see their early conflicts and first fight. What we don’t get, and shouldn’t get is their history.

By just confirming that Batman is going to appear, Warner Bros have pretty much guaranteed themselves a billion dollar film. But it should still be a Superman film. Apparently Man of Steel didn’t make as much as they hoped for, which is why Batman is appearing in any form at all. For the record this is information I have heard through articles and podcast, don’t take it as gospel.

Let’s compare box office grosses for “origin” films since 2000. Man of Steel made rough $650m. Only Spider-Man (2002) which made $821m and The Amazing Spiderman(2012) which made $752 have done better. One of which was reboot. It was close to doubling Batman Begins Box office and look what happened with that films sequel.

Man of Steel wasn’t as well received as Batman Begins, but there was room to fix that in the sequel, most notably the camera work. Keep it steady this time.

At some point Batman and Superman will have to work together, this is as guaranteed as the fact that they will fight each other. I just hope the climax is kept to a pretty much solo Superman effort. Or at least getting a ending similar to The Dark Knight, where we get an action finale then a character climax, where Batman could show up. Swapping Gordon and Dent for Superman and Lex.

I still want to see Clark do things no one else can.

Just please, if nothing else. Change the title. Maybe Man of Steel: Worlds Finest, anything but Batman vs Superman.

Clark may need Bruce. But he is still Superman.

Pacific Rim

Yes it’s quite late. So late in fact that the film has finished its theatrical run. Which basically means that my review will have no affect on whether you go and see it in the cinema, you’ll just have to wait till it comes out on Blu-Ray, DVD or wherever else you watch films now. If you want to see it that is. You should by the way.

Pacific Rim was dubbed as Transformers vs Godzilla(s), and in a way it is. But don’t think of this in a bad way, it delivers exactly what it promises, a hugely entertaining piece of blockbuster entertainment. This is in no doubt due to Guillermo Del Toro, who brings his unique visual style and love for monsters, of all kinds, to this film.

The plot for the film is straight forward, giants monsters, known as Kaiju emerge from a wormhole known as ‘the breach’ in the Pacific ocean and in response humanity creates Jaegers, giant robots to fight them. We join the battle as the plans for a final assault on the breach are being put together. Our main character and hero is Raleigh , played by Charlie Hunnam, who is brought back to pilot one of the last Jaegers, but first has to find a partner to drift with.

Drifting, is a crucial part of both the Jaegers and the plot as a whole. In order to pilot these gigantic machines, two pilots are required to handle the massive strain. So that two people can act as one, they have to share memories, opening up their minds to each other, so that they can work together. The film touches on this throughout the story, especially during a memorable flashback sequence, featuring one of Raleigh’s co-pilot potentials, Mako Mori (played by Rinko Kikuchi). Where we see the effects it has on her, and the affect it has on the other pilot. If there is a sequel, this is one of the parts of the films world that I would hope they delve deeper into.

The films action scenes are its strongest aspect, and I think it is fair to say that this is what most people expected to be the biggest draw, and they certainly don’t disappoint. The opening fight we see is one of the most tense action sequences I have seen this year. The danger that the Kaiju exude is blatantly obvious, they are terrifying, near unstoppable beasts which take a monumental effort to put down. The highlight of the film is it’s mid point battle where we see all of the remaining Jaegers in battle against a host of Kaiju, the sequence is quite long, but Del Toro handles it well. Where he cuts between the machines and beasts, the pilots and the civilians on the ground.

This is a Del Toro film, but in varying degrees throughout the film. The Kaiju are undoubtedly from his brain and one of his famous notebooks, along with the sections with Hannibal Chau (Ron Perlman) and his team in their elegant laboratory. The large battles and the more military parts of the film feel less like him, which consequently makes them a little less engaging and original as these other parts. But no matter what part of the film you watch, it all looks absolutely stunning (the viewing I saw was in 2d).

The major criticism of the film is its dialogue and is the only real complaint you could level at the film. It is basic, maybe in a stripped down way that was planned, but it never really works. The ideas and principals come across, but none of it really sticks. In all honesty, I think all it would have taken is to have one more pass on the script, to just dial it back a bit and give the actors something better to work with.

Overall, this is a film that is what it is and is unashamedly proud of it, instead of shying away from its concept and idea, but it storms full force towards it and its grand spectacle.

 

Now You See Me

Usually when I see film I tend to form a fairly consistent opinion of it shortly after seeing it, then maybe, a second viewing may change my opinion of it, The Master is an example of this (No, i’m not comparing Now You See Me with The Master), where my opinion actually improved. But with Now You See Me, I just left with the feeling of I JUST DON’T CARE.

The plot of the film is fairly straight forward, despite what the trailers promise (they also give away a ridiculous amount of the plot and the twists), it has none of the wit and ingenuity of the great heist films that work on similar ideas, such as Oceans Eleven or the narrative complexity of The Prestige.

We follow four magicians, brought together for some long drawn out, and oh my is it, scam/trick/heist/just-get-on-with-it that you have to wait for the end to see it all pan out.

I would go through the characters and give you a breakdown of the performance, but frankly most of them are largely forgettable, two dimensional and uninteresting that I won’t waste your time, like the writers and director did with the insane amount of talent they had in their cast.

It is unfair to be hard on the cast, apart from their decision to sign on, although this one of these scripts that maybe looks great on the page, but the lack of any real depth to their characters should have stood out. Greats like Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are wasted, then discarded at points in the film.

Jesse Eisenberg, whose normal style of witty delivery has been a pleasure to watch in his previous films, especially The Social Network, is wasted here on lines that are just clever for the sake of being clever, but aren’t actually clever. Maybe if someone else had been the head magician/person in charge it wouldn’t have seen so out of place.

Woody Harrelson is probably the only character who lives up to his potential, and this is because of how laid back and spot on his delivery is. This is in spite of the overtly cocky dialogue he is given, Harrelson has to work hard to make it entertaining.

The visuals which are interesting during the first act, begin to bore you, to the point where at the climax, it feels like a giant outdoor version of the Who wants to be a millionaire? Set, with massive spotlights turning on and off every few seconds accompanied by loud music and sound effects that would make Michael Bay think about toning it down.

With any kind of magic/heist film there is a lot of sleight of hand visually and suspension of disbelief required, but here the level needed is farcical. Getting more and more ridiculous as we progress from trick to trick. Another frustration, is that too much of the technology featured in the final trick is unexplained, where they had previously outlined everything, here they blissfully omit. It is important to play fair, to a degree with the audience with plots like this, but here they don’t and it just comes across as cheap. They asked questions they didn’t have the answer to.

Unlike World War Z where it was the last half an hour that I felt let it down, here after a somewhat bearable first 25 minutes, the film nose dives into boredom, smugness and delusions of grandeur as it tricks itself into thinking that something interesting is happening on the screen, and that you should care what happens. You shouldn’t.

World War Z

Taken from Max Brooks ‘ brilliant zombie novel, that charts the course of a decade as the human race, across the globe, fights back against an all encompassing virus. So when it was announced there was going to be a film adaptation of the novel, it was hardly a shock. Here was a story, rich in scope and content, with tens of characters to choose from. So what did they do with it? Yeah, they changed all the but the basic premise, ignored some of the most interesting characters and narrowed the scope.

The basic plot follows Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) as he and his family at first flee their hometown, which is filling up with fast, dangerous and hungry zombies. They flee to New Jersey, then ultimately to an armada of military ships that have sought sanctuary on the open sea (in the novel, boats aren’t as safe as they are here). Here Gerry is forced to take up his old job as a UN investigator, so his family can stay on the ship, and go and find the source of the cure, and hopefully a cure.

Pitt, as the central character, carries the film on his shoulders, and does it well, considering his revolving door of partners, which restricts him from creating any real kind of relationship. He is believable as an investigator, as he moves and talks with a confidence of a man who doesn’t need to prove his intelligence. Then when the action kicks off, and it does, he is resourceful enough and tough enough to get through the frantic action.

The quality of the film, is determined by what made it into the original script, and what was then reshot later on.  The first two acts of the film, are thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining as we follow Gerry across the globe, including two great set pieces in Korea, a brilliant night time sequence involving the refuelling of a plane whilst under attack from Zombies, or Zeek as the soldiers call them. The second, is the highly advertised Israel section, arguably the high point of the film, I won’t spoil any of the events in that section, but conjours up a terrifying possibility of the zombie invasion.

Then the film drops off and we get a climax that removes the tension and the world wide feel of the conflict, as well as giving us a happier ending, the original was decidedly darker, but much more interesting. It’s just unfortunate that the studio didn’t have the confidence to go with the original, even if it wasn’t as safe or take the same amount of care in building a franchise.

There are sequences where we see large amounts of zombies and people running together and interacting, done with real people with prosthetics, which are believable and some of the scariest in the film. There are also a large amount of CGI shots that ruin the moment, obviously some can’t be achieved with just practical effects. But this film seems scared of that middle ground, of mixing well organized and crafted practical stunts and people, then enhancing them with CGI. One of the biggest disappointments of World War Z, and there are only a few in all honesty, was that it reminded me of I Am Legend.

Go and experience this film, well not all of it, enjoy the first two acts then leave the cinema, you’ll feel more satisfied. You can read the original ending (or hopefully see it on the DVD) or just make up your own one.

The Last of Us

The following review was written by Dominic Burns.

The Last of Us has been getting some high praise since its debut on the PS3 this month and it’s easy to see why. As a self confessed post apocalyptic geek and a big fan of the Uncharted series from the same developers Naughty Dog , I knew from the second I saw the announcement of this game that I was going to like it, what I underestimated was just how much.

I will try my very best to keep this spoiler free.

The story of The Last of Us revolves around two characters. Joel, a weary survivor turned smuggler who witnessed the world fall apart during the first days of an infection that destroyed civilisation by infecting people with a fungus that turned them into crazy and violent zombie like creatures and, Ellie, a 14 year old girl born into the world, post infection who, he is charged with protecting as they journey across the wasteland that the United States has become. 

The introduction to the game very quickly sets the tone, and it’s bleak... so very bleak, but this is The Last of Us’ strongest point in my opinion. The first ten minutes of the game are set before the infection, before the world falls apart. But this changes rapidly. The post apocalyptic geek in me was grinning with delight once the action started but this was soon replaced with a sense of terror and an empty feeling once the title sequence begins to play and as I watched the titles rolling in a style that draws comparison to Zack Snyders 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake I found myself wondering what this game was going to throw at me... and needless to say, it impresses.

The game isn’t just about action, about killing the zombie like creatures that plague the world. It’s very story driven and focuses on survival and what it takes to survive and also about what has been lost.  It draws parallels with The Walking Dead game, TV series and comic books, in that these too are more focused on the characters development as survivors and less on the zombies, and it makes for a much more interesting game.

The two central characters to the story, Joel and Ellie, are two of my favourite characters in gaming and it’s a joy (tinged with sadness from the situation) to watch them develop as the game progresses.  Joel is a man who has lost everything, like most people in this game world. He watched his world fall apart and lost anything and most anyone he loved. And it shows. From his weary attitude to the world around him, to his aging in the 20 years that pass since the introduction, he is a man who is broken, but surviving day to day.

Ellie is the mysterious girl he’s escorting across the States, a 14 year old girl who knows nothing of the world outside the quarantined zone (QZ) she was born into. I felt a great attachment to the two of them and cared for their wellbeing on their journey, especially when in rooms full of multiple enemies.

The development through the game is an interesting one and as mentioned leaves you as a player becoming more involved in their lives and their stories; however it is this attachment that can leave a bitter taste in the mouth with morals being called into question on more than one occasion. What’s different from most games is that you have no choice in the matter, you cannot choose the right or wrong path, you are made to watch no matter how you may feel about the matter. (Apart from one scene early on where you can choose whether or not to euthanize an injured, recently infected man.) 

It is again an interesting choice, where most games would have you press a button to determine the actions, but not in The Last of Us you’re made to watch during cutscenes, (which are crafted with cinematic quality that’s almost eerie in their ability to capture the emotion and acting talents of those involved. ) and this lends itself well to the progression (or deterioration depending on how you view their actions) of the characters when you see how far Joel, a once loving father, is willing to go to survive and ultimately for what reasons...

Watching the development of Ellie comes from her interaction with Joel and the world outside the QZ she was born in. Hearing her make passing comments at forgotten relics as you explore is common and fully believable of a person who knows nothing of record shops or houses in neighbourhoods where barbecues and other such family occasions took place, but perhaps most interesting is her turning from the 14 year old girl who throws bricks at her enemies, asking a myriad of questions at Joel, rather than to him, to the character we see in the later game.

It can be quite uncomfortable to see her developing into the killer that she needs to be to survive in the world she lives in and when Joel eventually hands her a rifle you can see the internal dilemma he has in entrusting a weapon to a 14 year old and shattering any form of innocence she may have clung on to by making her a killer.

I found myself fascinated by the world that Naughty Dog have created, the crumbled buildings, the abandoned cars littering highways and suburban streets,  all reclaimed by nature are crafted in such a way that again they are fully believable locales. From the QZ inhabited by lost souls and over watched by an overzealous military, to the abandoned cities, quarantine zones that have been lost to the infected, to small town America surrounded by foliage. They are all realised beautifully.

These locations are of course inhabited by the infected, who roam them either with the vile movements inflicted by the parasitic fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis (a real, disturbing, fungus that infects insects) that’s taken control, who will spot you and run at you without a single regard for their safety, known as runners, to the more heavily infected known as clickers. These are a form of human that are so far infected the fungus has sprouted from the skulls and distorted them to the point that they are now blind and rely on echo locating clicks to listen out for and hunt their prey. The latter, truly are a terrifying enemy and ramp up the tension during the stealth sections, which is a necessity when faced with a building full of them.

Ammunition in this game is scarce at best and tends to make an awful lot of noise if used too, and one misjudged use of weaponry, be it firearms or melee will result in a quick death from these creatures. (complete with a graphic depiction of a characters death.)

Throughout the world in typical post apocalyptic gaming fashion, you will find notes from other survivors, diary entries, notes to family or friends, suicide notes and goodbyes, but unlike any other game, I found myself becoming invested in these two, spending good portions of my time playing, scouting out abandoned houses, hoping to find some clues as to what happened to their former residents, as well as finding essential supplies.

One in particular still plays on my mind, you follow one mans journey from abandoning his small boat, to setting up a refuge for fellow survivors in a sewer complex. You find notes from him and other survivors scattered around this area and I found that I cared deeply for this character through what he’d achieved and his thoughts scribbled on paper. I cared for a character in a game that I never got to meet or even see, and that to me was something special that Naughty Dog achieved.

The stealth required doesn’t feel as forced as it can do in other games, holding down R2 will focus Joels hearing, so you can pinpoint enemy locations so long as they’re moving, and will make him move more cautiously in a crouched position. It lends itself well to the style of game play. Ammunition is hard to come by and you find yourself reluctant to use your firearms. Every shot counts, a point that is hammered home when each missed shot could choose your fate.

Joel is a far cry from the one man army of Nathan Drake found in the Uncharted games. He doesn’t take 50 bullets only to return them all to sender, he doesn’t leap great distances and scale ancient ruins, he’s a Texan everyman, he’s a father and so combat in this game is far more realistic. Melee weapons come in the form of bats, pipes, machetes, but are limited in their use. They can be upgraded with nails and the like but are still limited. So every swing of your weapon, every pull of the trigger is a measured one.  

Supplies, like health kits and Molotov cocktails and even weapon upgrades are crafted by Joel using items found in the game world, and, whilst creating these vital items the game does not pause, leaving you vulnerable for precious seconds, so that health kit you’re making, could cost Joel his life. This really adds to the atmosphere of the game when you have to run from a gunfight, or dispatch a clicker silently, then craft a med kit hoping you don’t get discovered.

My one criticism is of the often illusion shattering ineptitude of the none playable characters AI in stealth. You’ll often see them running around like headless chickens in front of enemies you’re hiding from trying to find cover, thankfully they won’t be noticed, only you can alert enemies to your presence, but it still ruins the moment to see them crouched down at an enemies foot, or to have Joel say “keep quiet” only for you to hear every footstep and movement they are making.

But back to the positive.

The graphics in this game are second to none and the detail with which they have captured the faces of the actors playing their roles during cut scenes is quite eerie. During the introduction you see a range of emotions playing across their faces, from laughter to tears, they are all recreated brilliantly. It is quite an odd sensation being able to look into game characters eyes and see tears forming, from the drops welling up, to them falling down the face.

The conveyance of emotion this carries with it is stunning when you consider this is a game and shows just how much they are evolving. Combine this with the compelling story of The Last of Us, the relationship between the characters and the world in which this all resides and you have a serious art form that deserves all the praise it is receiving.  Even the soundtrack is brilliant, and sets the mood perfectly with oft single instruments wistfully playing a sorrowful melody as you scavenge long abandoned homes, that complements the setting perfectly.

The Last of Us truly is a brilliant game, and if you are a Playstation owner, you will do yourself a disservice if you do not buy this game.

Go out, pick up, and bring it home. Take care of Joel and Ellie.

Make every shot count...