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.