tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30913848348337149412024-03-14T05:44:05.586+00:00Coogs Film BlogHi there, thank you for reading my blog and I hope you enjoy reading all my views. Please comment on my posts, I would love to read your thoughts on the films I review.TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.comBlogger325125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-42234805392957811112015-10-16T10:42:00.001+01:002015-10-16T10:42:07.451+01:00Final PostThis is the final post that I am doing on this site. From now on, all of my posts will be on coogsreviews.wordpress.com. I've had a good run on Blogger but the design of my site leaves a lot to be desired and I feel I can do a lot more on Wordpress than I can do on here. Don't worry about content, everything from here will be moving over to Wordpress and I look forward to you reading my stuff on Wordpress. Thanks for the run Blogger.TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-69656557198989242212015-10-06T12:09:00.000+01:002015-10-06T12:09:29.006+01:00Macbeth Review<div class="MsoNormal">
Out of all the adaptations of the works of Shakespeare in
film, Macbeth is probably the play where my familiarity comes through radically
different interpretations of the text. I haven’t seen a true adaptation of
Macbeth set in the time period originally described, the adaptations I’m most
familiar with being Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood, which adapted the text to
Japanese myths, and the BBC Shakespeare Retold version with James McAvoy set in
a restaurant. This new version of Macbeth is the one I’ve seen that’s truest to
the text, using most of Shakespeare’s original dialogue and it’s probably my
favourite of the adaptations of Macbeth I’ve seen.</div>
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m sure most people are familiar with the plot of Macbeth
but for those who aren’t a quick summary. The plot focuses on Macbeth, a
Scottish general and Thane of Glamis, who is given a prophecy by a group of
witches that he shall become the King of Scotland. Whilst initially dismissive,
he becomes convinced when one part of the prophecy comes true and he decides,
goaded on by his wife, to murder King Duncan so Macbeth can take over. However,
after the murder, with Duncan’s son Malcolm fleeing to avoid being considered a
suspect, Macbeth becomes more paranoid, especially regarding another element of
the prophecy that Banquo, a colleague of his in the Scottish army, would father
a line of kings, whilst at the same time, the guilt of their actions starts to
haunt Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Now with any adaptation of Shakespeare
liberties have to be taken with the text to ensure it fits the vision of the
director and the parameters of the film medium. In the case of this adaptation,
there is both a removal of some parts of the text, most notably half of the
dialogue of the Weird Sisters in the opening scene is cut out, but expansion in
other areas. This version of Macbeth includes the interpretation that Macbeth
and Lady Macbeth lost a child shortly before the events of the play and this
informs some of the actions the characters take, mainly the desire for power by
the leads and their descent into madness due to a feeling of emptiness that the
characters have and a desire to avoid anything else like it. The main elements
of the text are presented brilliantly in this film, mainly Macbeth’s descent
into madness and the increasing guilt that Lady Macbeth feels, after showing
the power that Lady Macbeth has, with it being clear at the start that she is
the mastermind behind everything, as the plan to kill Duncan would have fallen
apart if it wasn’t for her. At the same time, the explicit nature of the death
of her child does make Lady Macbeth a bit more sympathetic with this death
compounding the feeling of guilt that the character has near the end of the
film. Sure there are some points where the dialogue is a little bit hard to
understand but it never fully detracted me from the experience.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The cast meanwhile sell the hell out of the text, with this
film having probably one of the best screen versions of Macbeth seen with
Michael Fassbender. Fassbender is a perfect choice for Macbeth, brilliantly
showing the strength of the character at the start of the film, letting you
understand how he became so trusted by Duncan, along with showing his skill as
a warrior. When Macbeth starts to go insane, Fassbender handles the transition
brilliantly, making it feel incredibly natural for the character and when he’s
full blown insane, he can be quite terrifying because of how unpredictable he
is. Marion Cotillard is also great as Lady Macbeth, although there are some
limitations to her performance. On a body language level, Cotillard is
excellent, brilliantly showing the Machiavellian nature of the character at the
start, letting you know that she is the one in control and when she gets
overcome with grief at the end of the film, Cotillard brilliantly shows the
transition. If there is an element to the performance that doesn’t work it’s
the accent. For some reason her accent feels a bit off, I can’t explain why but
if you see the film you know what I mean. Paddy Considine is also great as Banquo.
Whilst he doesn’t get as much dialogue, the scenes he has he’s great in,
brilliantly showing the connection he has to Macbeth and to his son. The best
element of his performance though is his physical presence, which is key for
one of the most important scenes in the film. Sean Harris also does a good job
as Macduff, showing his gradual distrust of Macbeth well, along with being a
great, intimidating presence to let you know the skill of the character at the
end. There are some performances that aren’t as fleshed out though. Whilst
they’re good, David Thewlis, Jack Reynor and Elizabeth Debicki don’t get enough
screentime to become fully memorable and their characters are the weakest in
the film, but this is more than made up for by how brilliant Fassbender is.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The technical side of the film is where this film truly
shines though. Simply put, this is one of the most beautiful films of the year.
Director Justin Kurzel and DP Adam Arkapaw create a version of Macbeth unlike
any put on screen before. The use of colour in the film, from the use of yellow
in the scenes with the Weird Sisters and blue at the start of the film to the
deep, imposing red in the final battle scene, the use of mist and fog during
the battles and when Macbeth is doubting himself, and the brilliantly done
establishing shots (which make great use of the physical environment of the
Isle of Skye) all combine together to create some of the best imagery of the
year. This also helps show the power of the films visual storytelling, most
notably in the scenes with the Weird Sisters, with the colours and the body
language creating this unnatural quality that fits with the whole aesthetic of
the characters. These scenes also make great use of Scot Greenan as a young
soldier who Macbeth sees throughout the film who died in the battle at the
start of the film, with the direction in these scenes brilliantly showing the
turmoil in Macbeth’s mind and his growing insanity. The battle scenes
themselves are also brilliantly filmed, with great use of wide shots and slow
motion to highlight the brutality of the battles, making sure every speck of
blood and mud can be seen, making this a really intense and gritty film, and I
have to admit that I was on the edge of my seat during these scenes because of
how intense they were. The costume design is excellent as well, from the armour
and weapons of the soldiers covered in rust and being really bulky which fits
with the nature of the battles, to the costumes for Lady Macbeth ranging from
the black dresses she wears to show her grief and her resolve for power, to the
dresses she wears as Queen, denoting the power that she has and the
intelligence she has to keep Macbeth in check.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Overall, Macbeth is a great adaptation of Shakespeare’s
play. On a purely visual level, this is one of the best films of the year, one
of those films where you can turn the sound off and still understand everything
that’s going on due to the quality of the visual storytelling. These visuals
are matched by a career best performance from Michael Fassbender, who is having
a great year so far between this and Slow West (here’s hoping Steve Jobs
continues this trend). Sure Marion Cotillard’s accent is a bit distracting and
some of the other actors are wasted but these don’t detract from the powerful experience
this film is.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
My Rating: 4/5<o:p></o:p></div>
TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-53335325570705461262015-10-05T11:04:00.001+01:002015-10-05T11:04:08.213+01:00The Martian Review<div class="MsoNormal">
Over the past few years, Ridley Scott has had a pretty bad
track record as a director. The last truly excellent film he directed was the
Directors Cut of Kingdom of Heaven and since then we’ve had disasters like
Prometheus, The Counsellor and Robin Hood. However, with those films, the
stories were the problem, not the direction. All it would take for Scott to get
back on form would be a story to suit his directorial style and Andy Weir and
Drew Goddard provided that story with The Martian, Scott’s best film in a
decade.</div>
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The plot focuses on Mark Watney, an astronaught on a mission
to Mars who accidentally gets left behind on the planet when the rest of his
crew assume him dead after he gets hit with shrapnel whilst the crew is
evacuating during a storm. When Watney discovers that he’s been left alone he
needs to figure out a way to contact NASA so that they can pick him up but the
bigger problem is that the next mission to Mars is only going to arrive in 4
years and he only had enough food to last him just over one. Intercut with this
are scenes of the crew at NASA working out ways to ensure that they can send
Watney enough food and allow him to reach the site of the next mission so he
could be picked up. On paper this does sound like a really serious plot and,
whilst for the most part it is, there’s a great streak of humour throughout the
film. Drew Goddard’s script fully immerses you into the world of Mark Watney
with every decision he makes being completely believable and his personality
coming through really clear, showing why he doesn’t go insane or decide to kill
himself on the planet. This humour also underlies one of the major reasons the
film works so well, that being the optimism. The humour in the script helps to
create a sense of hope, making you want to see Watney survive for as long as
possible and this optimism goes back to the people on Earth. This is a film
that states that it is our duty to help people in need no matter how far away
they are. It says that providing help to people is what makes the human species
worthwhile and the actions of the people at NASA and on the Hermes (the ship
the rest of Watney’s crew are on), them doing everything within their power to
help Watney regardless of the cost, makes this film a great reminder of the
power of comradery and this makes every mistake made and everything that goes
wrong hurt even more because of how invested you are in the characters and you
don’t want to see them fail.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another key reason why the film works is through its use of
science. Like Andy Weir’s source material, the film uses a lot of technical
language and uses the most up to date scientific knowledge to keep the story
believable, letting you understand how someone like Watney can survive on Mars.
This is a film that shows Watney mixing his excrement with Martian and some
Earth soil to grow potatoes and assumes you’ll know how it all works. Whilst
the language is simplified a bit from the book to keep it more accessible there
is still enough of a scientific bent to make the film work in this way. Sure
not all the science holds up, mainly with the discovery of liquid water on Mars
the week of release, but it does work for the science known, whilst also
showing that our understanding of the universe is expanding. The film also
works as a great endorsement for NASA. Sure the film is about a man stuck on
Mars but it also shows the wonders that being on Mars can present, the ability
to see things no other human can see. It presents the main heroes as people
able to use their intelligence to think around the problems Mars creates and
using those as a new way to improve Watney’s chances of survival. I’ll say that
if one person is convinced to join a scientific field after watching this film
then the entire enterprise would have been more than worth it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I will say that there are a few key changes from Andy Weir’s
book, mainly near the end of the film and whilst I won’t go into detail, I will
say that some of the changes were a little bit distracting for me as someone
who loves the book but, in the context of the film, they all work really well.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A film like this though lives or dies on the cast. As good
as Drew Goddard’s script is, if the wrong actor was chosen to play Watney then
the film would have died. Thankfully, Ridley Scott got Matt Damon. Damon has
the right level of charm to play Watney with a great humourous streak that
makes him instantly likable and you fully understand why the people back on
Earth would want to get him back. At the same time he also shows the difficulty
of being stuck on Mars, with there being numerous points of anger when things
go wrong and points where you wonder whether or not Watney will kill himself to
avoid starving to death. This is a fine wire performance, go too far in any
direction and Watney could become annoying but Damon handles it all perfectly,
delivering one of the best performances of his career. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On Earth, Chiwetel Ejiofor is a great choice for Vincent
Kapoor (renamed from Venkat in the book, and if they decided to keep the
character as Indian Irrfan Khan would have been a perfect choice), brilliantly
showing the intelligence of the character and the desire to bring Watney back
alive, along with a pragmatic streak that shows he knows the limitations of
what’s going on. There are also points of similarity between the personalities
of Watney and Kapoor, showing that Kapoor was the perfect person to bring back
Watney. Also on Earth, Jeff Daniels is great as Teddy Sanders, being the
pragmatist in the group but willing to do everything to save Watney, even if it
comes at the expense of safety, along with worrying about the PR if things go
wrong, something he has in common with Kristen Wiig as NASA’s head of media
Annie Montrose and she’s good, even if the character isn’t used that much in
the film. Great performances are also given by Sean Bean, adding a great deal
of morality to the proceedings as Mitch Henderson, the person who wants the
crew of the Hermes to know about Watney, Benedict Wong is great as Bruce Ng,
the head of NASA’s jet propulsion lab, showing the commitment people have to
rescuing Watney along with the pressure they feel due to the short timeframe
they have to rescue Watney, Donald Glover puts a lot of life into Rich Purnell,
showing the intelligence he has in coming up with a solution for Watney along
with a quirky sense of humour that works for the character, and Mackenzie
Davis, whilst not given much to do, is great as Mindy Park, particularly at the
start of the film.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the Hermes meanwhile, Jessica Chastain is brilliant as
Commander Lewis. She expertly shows a strong attitude she has that lets you
know why she is the Commander, along with a feeling of respect the crew has for
her due to her willingness to avoid leaving people behind, with her being
reluctant in evacuating without Watney when she assumes him dead. In the second
half of the film, Chastain’s performance is elevated due to the guilt she feels
over leaving Watney behind which works wonders for some of the changes made to
the story. Michael Peña as Martinez continues his streak of excellent
performances, providing a lot of the humour for the Hermes scenes and stealing
every scene he’s in. Kate Mara does a good job as Johanssen, showing the
concern she has for the crew, along with her intelligence and her more
introverted nature, along with having good chemistry with Sebastian Stan (who’s
also good as Beck) which works for their characters near the end of the film. Aksel
Hennie also does a good job as Vogel, showing his love for his family and his
concern for the crew effectively at the end of the film, along with the
character’s knowledge of chemistry.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The technical aspects of the film are also excellent. As
stated earlier, as poor as Ridley Scott’s films have been before this, he
remains a top notch technical director and he’s on especially good form here.
Along with DP Dariusz Wolski, the filming for Mars is excellent with the deep
red of the Martian soil giving the whole thing an imposing yet beautiful
nature, one that lets you understand why people want to go to Mars. The designs
of all the equipment Watney uses, along with the tech on Earth, feel very
realistic and I wouldn’t be surprised if NASA let Scott use some of their
designs for the film. The music meanwhile really adds to the comedic tone of
the film, in a similar way to Guardians of the Galaxy, due to the character of
Lewis being a massive fan of 70s disco music and we get that music throughout
the film, which makes funny scenes even funnier, in particularly great use of
Hot Stuff and I Will Survive, along with great mood setting music, with the use
of Starman being the standout.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Overall, The Martian is one of the best films of the year.
It is a great show for the brilliance of NASA and is one of the most uplifting
and optimistic films of the year. With the aid of Drew Goddard’s excellent
script from Andy Weir’s brilliant source, and with the perfect casting of Matt
Damon, Ridley Scott has finally broken out of his bad film rut and has directed
a film that reminds you why we forgive the bad films Scott has made. If putting
up with films like Prometheus and Robin Hood means we also get The Martian then
that is a happy trade.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
My Rating: 5/5<o:p></o:p></div>
TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-2520298168381858462015-09-18T22:02:00.000+01:002015-09-18T22:02:11.069+01:00Bill ReviewEver since it was announced, one of the films I've been looking forward to the most has been Bill, mainly due to the cast and creative team behind it, that being the people responsible for the Horrible Histories TV series and Yonderland. Whilst I didn't really get into Yonderland, Horrible Histories is one of the best comedy TV shows made in recent years, a great combination of history, music, terrible puns, toilet humour and slapstick and the brilliance of this show has led me to call the team this generations Monty Python on numerous occasions, and if this team is the modern day Monty Python, then Bill is their Holy Grail. Whilst I had some worries due to the numerous delays in its release, the film is finally out and it fully lives up to the skill of this team.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The film focuses on a young William Shakespeare, before he became famous, who, after being kicked out of a lute band, decides to move to London to become a playwright, making contact with Christopher Marlowe. However, plays aren't being performed due to the plague and Shakespeare and Marlowe resort to dressing up as vegetables to make ends meat (pun intended). At the same time, King Phillip II of Spain hatches a plot to kill Queen Elizabeth I and needs a play to enact his plan and Shakespeare is the one they decide to use to write the play. The mark of any great comedy is the ability to make me laugh and I'm happy to report that Bill very much succeeds in that regard, mainly due to how silly the whole thing gets. Whilst writers/stars Lawrence Rickard and Ben Willbond put in enough jokes related to the works of Shakespeare and Marlowe, along with plenty of historical references, it is when they decide to let loose with the silliness that the comedy really takes off. The film owes more to pantomime than it does to the works of Shakespeare and that style works to the advantage of the film. There are plenty of toilet humour jokes, anachronistic jokes and so bad they're brilliant puns that for every joke that doesn't quite work, there are 2 that land. There were numerous times whilst watching the film where I was nearly floored because I was bent over laughing so hard. Even with the jokes, the film has a surprising amount of heart, mainly in relation to Shakespeare. Whilst he starts off struggling and not really knowing how to write a play, with the help of Marlowe, Shakespeare is able to fine tune his style to create masterworks, with many of Shakespeare's sonnets and speeches from his plays being quoted throughout the film after he starts working with Marlowe. In this way, the film shows the importance of perseverance in the arts and the need for encouragement. The film makes it clear that, if it weren't for Marlowe's encouragement and his own perseverance and heart, Shakespeare wouldn't have written a single word and this message of perseverance is especially prominent now in an age where the current Conservative government doesn't want people to be committed to the arts and is cutting funding and ending the encouragement of people's artistic style. That's not to say the message fully works, with this mainly being due to the plot. At some points in the film, the plot developments feel a bit forced and I feel the film needed to be a little bit longer and spend more time on these plot points rather than constantly going back to King Phillip. That said, when the plot and the jokes come together, comedic greatness comes through.<br />
<br />
The cast of the film create the most parallels to Monty Python in this film (along with a joke that feels like a deliberate shout out to Holy Grail) with the core 6 cast members playing multiple characters. For the purpose on time I'll be focusing on the main roles that each of the characters play, but I have to say that the cast shine in the smaller roles they have and these roles often provide the best laughs in the film. Mathew Baynton makes for one of the best screen portrayals of Shakespeare I've seen. From the start he lets us know that Shakespeare is a bit of an outsider and a rebel, along with showing a great deal of enthusiasm and pride for his writings which helps drive his increasing skill throughout the film and he always lets us know the intelligence Shakespeare has underneath and his skill with words which would manifest in a number of important phrases first introduced by Shakespeare (See <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=judjEmaTJAs">here</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Cy4-rfd24">here</a> for some of them). Jim Howick meanwhile is great as Christopher Marlowe, brilliantly showing the trouble writers had at the time, being devastated that his works cannot be performed due to the plague and that has led to cynicism developing in him to the point where he doesn't think any play can be performed and it's through Shakespeare that he's able to overcome this view. Howick also gets some great laughs from both the dressing up as vegetables bit and some of the developments for the character near the end of the film but it's in the more heartfelt scenes that he shines.<br />
<br />
Simon Farnaby meanwhile gets some of the best laughs in the film as the Earl of <strike>Crawley</strike> Croydon, one of the lesser members of Queen Elizabeth's court. He's hilarious showing the cowardly, preening, egotistical nature of the character, trying to get into the crowd so people actually know that he's the Earl of Croydon and the scenes of him with King Phillip are some of the funniest in the film. Speaking of which, Ben Willbond is hilarious as King Phillip. Whilst his accent is incredibly dodgy, it feels completely intentional and adds to the silly comedic charm of the film. The whole overt machismo aspect of the character is played for laughs brilliantly but Willbond also shows that Phillip can be a real threat at points. His performance also leads to some of the best running gags in the film which I won't spoil here. Lawrence Rickard meanwhile gives one of the more offbeat performances in the film as Sir Francis Walsingham, portraying him as a master of disguise so good that he was able to successfully fake his death at an open casket funeral. Rickard always keeps you aware of the skill and intelligence of Walsingham with the comedy being mined from the absurd lengths he goes to for his disguises, including as a body in a cart of plague victims and his performance is the most Python-esque in the film. Out of the core group, the one that is served the weakest is Marth Howe-Douglas. Whilst her performance as Anne Hathaway is good, showing the support she has for Shakespeare mixed with concern for whether he'll succeed, the writing for the character isn't always that strong and comes across a bit cliched at times.<br />
<br />
In terms of the other cast members, Helen McCrory is a lot of fun as Queen Elizabeth, playing the character more in the vein of Miranda Richardson in Blackadder, mainly the obsession with executions and the constant mood swings she has for comedic effect. The make-up for McCrory is great as well, fitting in a bit more with the historical descriptions of Queen Elizabeth than the traditional depiction of her, with the incredibly crooked teeth that look a bit burned being the most striking feature. Damian Lewis meanwhile is fun in his brief appearance as Sir Richard Hawkins, but the film forgets about him after his first appearance, but this is a rare case where I won't complain as that is the whole joke surrounding his appearance in the film. I will give that complaint to the brief appearances of Richard Glover and Justin Edwards, who I felt were wasted in the film.<br />
<br />
On a technical level the film is very impressive for the limited budget. There is a great use of locations, mainly for the Royal Court of Queen Elizabeth which creates a very grandiose vibe that fits those scenes, along with the area used for the London streets being a pretty faithful recreation, plus, it was great to see The Globe in this film, even if it was just for a short while. The costume design also does a great job at capturing the time period, with the costumes for Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of <strike>Crawley</strike> Croydon standing out. The music meanwhile deserves special mention. Whilst the score for the film is great, it's the song written for the film that is going to be discussed here. One of the staples of Horrible Histories is the song in each episode, taking a well known song and adapting the lyrics to fit a historical theme, often filled with brilliantly terrible puns, and I'm happy to say that Bill continues that tradition. Whilst the song here isn't a parody of a well known song, it fits the overall tone of the film perfectly and perfectly sums up all the jokes and references to Shakespeare's plays in the film, with the song being a retelling of The Comedy of Errors (which is the work most often mentioned in the film) adding to the humourous way the film plays fast and loose with historical events.<br />
<br />
Overall, whilst there are some elements in the plot and the writing of some of the characters that prevent it from being a true great, Bill succeeds in the most important area: it made me laugh. The game nature of the cast, combined with the brilliant variety of jokes that will appeal to any age, makes for some of the funniest moments I've seen in a film this year, with the films complete disregard for history adding to hilarious charm of the film. If this first film from this team is any indication, my statement at the start of this review that this team are the modern day Monty Python is well and truly apt.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 4/5<br />
<br />TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-38406603051163986942015-09-16T23:04:00.000+01:002015-09-16T23:04:16.592+01:00Legend ReviewOut of the big dramas coming out in the later half of this year, Legend is one of the ones I've been looking forward to. The Kray twins are two of the most important figures in British criminal history due to the way they controlled the criminal elements of London in the 1960s and they have been figures in British popular culture since then. Monty Python did a parody of them with the Piranha Brothers, shows like Whitechapel have made use of the stories of the Krays in episodes and there have been biopics about them, the most prominent one previously being the 1990 film with Gary and Martin Kemp of Spandau Ballet playing the Krays. This one though has peaked a lot of interest due to the decision to have Tom Hardy play both of the Krays using twinning effects like those in The Social Network and The Double and this was the best decision made for this film. However, the rest of the film doesn't full match up to Hardy's excellent performance.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot of the film takes a look at the career of the Kray twins from their roots in the East End gangs to their time ruling the London nightlife as casino and club owners, buoyed by their connections to the American mafia, to the events leading up to the eventual arrest of the twins. Like the previous film about the Krays with the Kemp brothers, this film mainly focuses on the perspective of one of the women in the lives of the Krays, in the previous film it was their mum Violet whereas in this case it's Reggie Krays' wife Frances. This does have an interesting idea behind it, mainly looking at the actions of the Krays using the perspective of someone in the know but not directly involved and, for the most part, this works to the advantage of the film. The way the film presents most of the relationship between Reggie and Frances comes across well and shows the damage that can be done by this lifestyle, along with showing the harm that is being done by the instability of Ronnie Kray, not just in the Krays' gang but also in the personal life of Reggie. The individual moments in the film work really well but as a whole, it doesn't quite mesh together. For starters, the way the film tells the story of the Kray twins means that the tone of the film is all over the place, going from incredible violent scenes to more tender scenes so quickly it creates a bit of tonal whiplash. This is especially true in regards to Frances and the way her relationship with Reggie deteriorates coming across as a bit rushed, it should have taken more time to present the deterioration, along with it ending in a pretty gratuitous scene of sexual assault which, by all accounts, didn't happen in real life. The feeling that the film is a bit rushed also comes across in some of the key events in the criminal actions of the twins. Major elements in the rise of the Krays', such as the gang wars at the start of their criminal careers, the role of the political establishment in keeping the actions of the twins under wraps and the investigation of the Krays' by 'Nipper' Read, elements that could have made interesting movies in their own right, get pretty much glossed over (for example, the film spends time on Reed trying to get the Kray's but, aside from at the end, doesn't really play much of a role and key elements, such as the team at Tintagel House don't get mentioned) and as such the film feels really rushed. There's also the unavoidable element of glamorising the violent actions of the Krays', at least in the early stages of the film. This is mainly due to the role the Krays had in the London nightlife, with people like Joan Collins, Barbara Windsor and even Frank Sinatra going to clubs owned by Reggie Kray and the film does portray this side of the Kray story pretty accurately, which is where the glamorisation comes in, you can't properly tell the story of the Kray's without that element but the glamorisation of the crimes is always present.<br />
<br />
The acting though keeps the film from falling apart, for the most part, with the obvious standout being Tom Hardy. As Reggie, Hardy does a great job showing the conflict he has over needing to keep Ronnie's violent tendencies under control along with the love he has for Ronnie, along with showing his desire to have some elements of the firm kept straight in order to keep Frances on side. As the film goes on, we see how Reggie gets more violent and some of his urges are getting harder to control, mainly in relation to Ronnie and Frances and how the violence of Reggie and Ronnie led to the arrest of the twins. As Ronnie meanwhile, Hardy shows the violent and unpredictable nature of the character really well. There's always the underlying threat that Ronnie will do anything and kill anyone if he's in the mood, which feels quite similar to Joe Pesci's performance in Goodfellas and works in pretty much the same way. Hardy also does a good job showing the homosexual tendencies of Ronnie and how open he is about them, which was dangerous in the 60s as it was only decriminalised in 1967 and, whilst the film doesn't fully explore his tendencies (mainly by presenting Ronnie as gay when, by most accounts, he was bisexual) it really works for the film, especially in regards to the establishment covering up the crimes the Krays' committed. Alongside Hardy, David Thewlis is as great as he always is as Leslie Payne, the business manager for the Krays', showing his disgust at Ronnie's violent tendencies mixed with the greedy desires of the character really effectively, Taron Egerton does good work as Edward Smith, one of the people who had a relationship with Ronnie Kray, presenting the affection he has for Kray really effectively, Paul Anderson as Reggie's enforcer Albert Donoghue, who has a great, intimidating presence and, in his brief appearance, Christopher Eccleston is a perfect choice for Nipper Read, showing his obsession with capturing the Krays' really well, along with the commitment he has to the law and how he feels the Krays' have cause irreparable damage to the East End, with Reggie thinking the same thing.<br />
<br />
Not all the performances match these though. For some it's due to lack of screen time, with Paul Bettany being the worst sufferer. His scenes have great black comedy and are some of the best scenes in the film, but he leaves 10 minutes into the film and the film does lose something due to his absence, the same also being true of Violet Kray, the mum of Reggie and Ronnie who was a major figure in the lives of the twins but is pretty much glossed over. The big problem though comes with Emily Browning as Frances and, to put it bluntly, she's terrible in the role. She comes across as really wooden, there isn't any real chemistry between her and Tom Hardy and, in the worst decision of the film, she gets given the role of narrator and there is no emotion behind anything she says, not helped by the pretty terrible writing of the narration which has moments that would have been unique, had American Beauty and Kick-Ass not done something similar. The film also messes up some of the timeline regarding Frances, mainly making it look like some major elements of her character (which I won't spoil) happen at the same time as the start of the downfall of the Kray's when it actually happened four months earlier, which messes up some of Reggie's motivations from real life. Along with this, it doesn't go into what could have been a really interesting part of the character in relation to Ronnie Kray near the end, which I won't talk about for fear of spoiling but, especially when looking at allegations made in the past few years, could have been a really interesting spin on the relationship between the Kray's but is not even brought up.<br />
<br />
The technical aspect of the film though is spot on. The period details are handled brilliantly, mainly the production design for London in the 60's from the East End streets which still have some remnants of the damage done by the Blitz to the glamourous nightclubs the Krays' own, along with the brilliant costume design. The main selling point for the technicals comes with the twinning effects used on Tom Hardy, which once again show how good twinning effects are due to the aid of CGI. There are no points where you notice any errors in the effects and the film does a great job having these match some of the more action focused elements of the film, mainly the fight scenes where both characters are in frame where it would be easy to lose track of the faces, which isn't done here. The standout for this is a fight scene where Reggie and Ronnie fight and the effects used to make it look like Tom Hardy is fighting himself are flawless. The fight scenes are directed and choreographed really well in and of themselves and the film doesn't shy away from how brutal the violence let out by the Krays' was, the film fully earning its 18 rating.<br />
<br />
Overall, Legend is a film where the whole is weaker than the sum of its parts. Elements like the direction, the production design, a lot of individual moments in the plot and especially the characters, mainly due to an incredible dual performance by Tom Hardy, work wonders, but the overall plot feels a bit too rushed, spending more time on Reggie's relationship with Frances to the detriment of the more interesting aspects of the criminal careers of the twins, not helped by a terrible performance by Emily Browning. The individual moments that work end up working so well that I would recommend seeing this film but it still feels like the definitive film about the Kray twins has yet to be made.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 3/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-27221512310663291822015-09-16T20:38:00.001+01:002015-09-16T20:38:16.205+01:00Me and Earl and the Dying Girl ReviewIt's not often that I go into a film with no expectations. I always end up seeing a trailer and reading reviews that can cloud my judgement on a film. Sometimes my expectations are too high and I end up really disappointed, other times I'm surprised when a film I had low expectations for turns out to be amazing. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is one where I had no preconceptions. I didn't see any of the trailers and I read an equal amount of positive and negative reviews, giving me a neutral image of the film and no expectations for the quality, and I think it's best that I went in like that. Having no expectations opened me up to be incredibly surprised by the film and moved by it's story.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot revolves around Greg, a socially awkward teenager in his final year in high school who has no real plans for the future and believes the best way to remain invisible is to hide in plain sight, retain just enough of a connection to all the high school social circles so that he's both in and out of all of them. The only person he has a connection to is Earl, who Greg considers to be a co-worker due to them making, by their own admission, terrible film parodies. This changes when Greg's mum forces him to spend time with Rachel, a girl living near him who has been diagnosed with leukimia and over time, a friendship develops between the two. Normally, this type of film would infuriate me, it has all the makings of an overly sentimental love story in the vein of The Fault in our Stars, but here it works and for one key reason: it's not a love story. Throughout the film, there is no indication of any romantic attraction between Greg and Rachel, it's all friendship. It shows the importance of just having someone to talk to during these events and the friendship between Greg and Rachel is really natural, as much as the two were forced into it, the actual relationship doesn't feel forced in the slightest. It also does a good job at exposing the selfish attitudes of someone like Greg. It's clear that he has no ambitions and in trying to please everyone to remain invisible, he has no real connection to anyone, he doesn't understand the true details of people, a point which comes across really well in a conversation he has with his history teacher and the final scene of the film. It's also clear that, without the influence of Rachel, and by extension his parents, he would have no future. Greg makes it clear that he doesn't want to go to university because he feels like he wouldn't fit in, and virtually every other character in the film calls Greg out on this attitude, especially Rachel who forces him to apply. We see that Greg does have talent and some form of drive but his own selfish attitudes are holding him back, he needs to understand empathy in order to understand how selfish he's being. This is also a good time to bring in Earl. The film makes it clear that Earl has been trying to get Greg to open up, mainly so Greg can accept him as a friend. All of the major developments for Greg to become a better person hinge on Earl getting Greg to admit his talents to people, mainly when Earl first tells Rachel about Greg's filmmaking and when Greg rejects these efforts to make him better Earl cuts off ties with him, but as the film goes on, we see that Earl is a true friend to Greg, unafraid to defend him from attacks but willing to call Greg out for his selfish attitudes. The whole film is about getting Greg to appreciate his talents, lose his selfishness and understand life better and, for someone as isolated and selfish as Greg, it could only be through an experience with death.<br />
<br />
That being said, not all of the plot elements work. There are a few characters that don't really work in the grand scheme of things and plot points that don't fully get resolved. These are moments that would probably have worked better on the page than on the screen. Individually, these moments do create some good laughs and some good character moments, but as a whole, they don't really add much to the film experience.<br />
<br />
The cast meanwhile really sell the nature of the plot. I've said all I need to about Greg previously so I won't repeat myself here, suffice it to say, Thomas Mann does a great job selling both the selfish nature of the character and the eventual reform of the character and understanding how to become a better person. This is matched by an incredible performance by Olivia Cooke as Rachel. She brilliantly shows the pain that a disease like leukemia can cause and the need to have someone just talk to you and make you laugh, with the chemistry between her and Mann nailing the relationship between the characters. When things start to go downhill for Rachel in terms of her treatment, Cooke brilliantly shows the pain that the disease is giving her and we see her will to live start to decline and in these scenes, Cooke's performance is incredible, showing how difficult her decisions have been to make and I came incredibly close to crying during these scenes (which is rare for me, the only films I've seen that have actively led to me crying are The Elephant Man, WALL-E and Up). RJ Cyler meanwhile does a great job as Earl, his more optimistic attitude being a great counterpoint for Greg and it's clear that, without Earl, Greg would not have been able to withstand high school. There's a bit of a Herzog-Kinski parallel between Greg and Earl that the film makes clear, with Earl wanting to get Greg to express himself and Greg being a selfish, egomaniac who doesn't want to and has to be forced to. There's also a good performance from Katherine Hughes as Madison, a classmate of Greg's and another person who tries to get Greg to open up to Rachel through his films, mainly be encouraging Greg to make a film for Rachel, and it's clear that she has sympathy for Rachel's situation and sort of understands Greg and does what she feel is best for both of them and, again, it's great that the character doesn't become a love interest. There's great comic relief from Nick Offerman as Greg's Dad, adding his really dry comedic style to the film as a pretentious sociology writer, Jon Bernthal, who's a lot of fun as Greg's history teacher, having some of the best laughs in the film, along with a really great dramatic moment. Molly Shannon as Rachel's mum is also worthy of mention as she brilliantly shows how someone would react to their kid getting diagnosed with leukemia and the difficulty she has in accepting what is happening to Rachel. There's also a fun little cameo from Hugh Jackman that provides a great laugh.<br />
<br />
On a technical side, the film is quite clearly trying to emulate the films of Wes Anderson, at the start at least. The use of chapter headings and the way the shots are composed, along with the use of stop motion, is very reminiscent of Anderson's work but as the film goes on, this style starts to become less prominent as the true weight of what is happening to Rachel becomes clear. Special mention in the technicals has to go to the film parodies themselves. The titles of them alone were enough to get a laugh out of me and the production elements in each of these films does enough work to recreate the style of the original films whilst putting their own spin on it, special mention going to A Sockwork Orange. As said before, there is a bit of Herzog and Kinski in the characters of Greg and Earl and this comes across in the style of the film as well, with there being a clear influence of Herzog in the direction and cinematography that's subtle enough where you wouldn't notice it unless you know the films of Herzog. The music by Brian Eno meanwhile is great at setting the tone for the film, working especially well at the end of the film and being one of the main elements that created such a strong emotional reaction from me.<br />
<br />
Overall, this is a film I had no expectations for going in and ended up loving. Films like this normally infuriate me but when they're done right, they can create great characters, memorable moments and brilliant stories. This is another case similar to that of The Perks of Being a Wallflower for me, and in many ways this film works as a bit of a companion piece to that one, showing the importance of friendship in the hardest time of a persons life and I have no reservations in recommending this film.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-10995323675796290832015-09-04T17:39:00.000+01:002015-09-04T17:39:04.745+01:00The Man From U.N.C.L.E Review<br />
Another day another spy movie to review. Just a few weeks after the last spy movie, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, we get another one with The Man From U.N.C.L.E, which is one of the ones I've been looking forward to the most. Whilst I was looking forward to it more with Steven Soderberg in the directors chair, Guy Ritchie was a decent choice to replace him. He's had a good track record recently and his style of directing can work for spy films. The trailers showed off a really slick, throwback to 60s spy films and that is seen throughout the film, which is what I got with the film, making it a ton of fun to watch.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
The plot concerns spies Napoleon Solo of the CIA and Illya Kuryakin of the KGB who are forced to work together due to private interests gaining control of a uranium and have captured former Nazi scientists to help them develop a nuclear weapon. To help them with the mission they enlist the help of Gaby Teller, a mechanic from East Berlin who is the daughter of the captured scientist and the niece of an associate of the villains. This is the type of plot typical in spy films of the 60s, refined to the best place it can be due to its focus on the characters. The way the film presents the relationship between Solo and Kuryakin, and by extension the relationship between the US and the USSR works really well due to the nature of trust presented. Throughout most of the film, the two don't trust each other, bugging each others rooms and being unwilling to work together, as seen through them fighting in their first face-to-face meeting and the way the relationship between the two develops over the course of the film provides the most engaging element of the plot, along with the characters which I'll get more into later. The tone meanwhile is nailed in this film. There's a light, breezy air throughout the majority of the film, with there being a lot of great, laugh out loud moments throughout, mainly when Solo and Kuryakin are on screen together, and some great gags about their agencies. However, near the end of the film, the tone takes a shift into something darker for a few scenes which feels really at odds with the rest of the film. There's also a considerable problem with the villains in that there is no motivation or character for then, meaning that there's no real investment to see them defeated. There are also a few times when the film recaps things that just happened which feels like they were padding the film out.<br />
<br />
With that said, the acting and the writing for the main characters helps the film work incredibly well. Henry Cavill is incredibly charismatic as Solo, having the right mix of ego and charm which fits the 60s tone of the film. His arc in the film is learning to trust others and understand that his desire to work alone does him a lot of harm and Cavill brings this across really well. Armie Hammer meanwhile is a lot of fun as Kuryakin. He works as a great comic foil for the rest of the cast, he gets a lot of the funniest moments in the film (mainly due to his outbursts of violence) and he has the most satisfying character development in the film, learning to overcome the shame he feels for his family and, like Solo, learn to trust. The whole trust element of the film works especially well due to the chemistry that Cavill and Hammer have with each other, they play off each other brilliantly and it results in one of the most homoerotic films of the year. Also worthy of mention is Alicia Vikander who, between this and Ex Machina, is having a great year. As Gaby, she shows herself to be the most capable out of the main three, with her skills in driving, mechanics and her intelligence being highly useful throughout the film. One of the best elements of the film meanwhile is the relationship between Kuryakin and Gaby due to the performances of Hammer and Vikander, who have great chemistry with each other, with the contrast between their personalities being a lot of fun to watch, mainly the scenes where Gaby takes charge. Elizabeth Debicki gives a good performance as the villain, Victoria, being a great intimidating presence despite not having much to work with in the script. Hugh Grant is a lot of fun when he's on screen but Jared Harris feels a bit wasted.<br />
<br />
On a technical level this film is a blast. Say what you will about Guy Ritchie but he can direct action really well, with there being a lot of really fun action beats in the film, in particular a car chase at the start of the film and an infiltration scene in the second act, which are some of the best shows for how fun the film is. The period detail meanwhile is spot on, with the costumes being particularly noteworthy, mainly the crisp, sharp suits for Solo and the dresses for Gaby and Victoria. The costumes even provide some of the best humour in the film, with one conversation about them at the start getting some of the best laughs in the film.<br />
<br />
Overall, The Man From U.N.C.L.E is a lot of fun. Sure the plot is a bit flimsy in regard to the villains but with an incredibly charismatic cast, slick, entertaining action scenes and a very witty script, this is the best spy film of the year so far. Just need to wait until Spectre to see if that tops this.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 4/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-88666536990660236182015-08-19T22:01:00.003+01:002015-08-19T22:01:28.012+01:00Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation Review<div class="MsoNormal">
Once again, I’m reviewing a spy film. This has been a good
year for those films, with the prior success of Kingsman: The Secret Service
and Spy, and the certain future success of Spectre. In this line up we get the next
Mission Impossible film. My experience with the series is definitely
incomplete. I only started with the series with Mission Impossible 3 and I
still haven’t seen the first 2 films, although I hear I’m not missing much by
skipping Mission Impossible 2. Still, as
3 and Ghost Protocol proved to me, these films are always a lot of fun to watch
and I’m happy to say that Rogue Nation follows that trend well.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The plot is a direct continuation of the ending of Ghost
Protocol, a continuation which wasn’t really seen in the other films, with
Ethan Hunt having to go into hiding as he tries to find The Syndicate, an
organisation that was instrumental in toppling regimes and causing economic and
political difficulties throughout the world. However, Hunt no longer has the
resources of the IMF as the events of Ghost Protocol have led to Congress
giving the CIA full control over the missions and resources of the IMF, with
Hunt being wanted by them due to his involvement in the events of Ghost
Protocol. Along the way, Ethan meets up with Isla Faust, a member of the
Syndicate who keeps saving Hunt’s life and has her own agenda outside that of The
Syndicate. The overall plot of the film works really well. It’s a
straightforward spy plot, but this works for this type of film. A lot of the
plot points you can guess pretty much from the get-go and the film decides to
just have fun with it. The plot feels a lot like an excuse to go from location
to location, in pretty much the same way as Ghost Protocol. It’s also great to
see the consequences of the actions of the team in Ghost Protocol, although I
was disappointed that Paula Patton didn’t come back for this film, as that
would have helped this overall plot of the film. I also loved that this film
addresses the fact that nothing can kill Ethan Hunt, with this becoming a plot
point near the end of the film, which feels really self-aware, and I’m amazed
that this type of thing wasn’t seen in any of the other films. There is however
a problem with the tone of the film, whilst most of the film has this really
light, breezy tone, there are some points where it goes quite dark, and some
scenes later on in the film feel more like a John Le Carre story than Mission
Impossible. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The cast meanwhile are all having fun in the roles. Tom Cruise
can pretty much play Ethan Hunt in his sleep, but in this film, they make the
character more damaged. You see that the obsession he has with catching the
Syndicate has caused a lot of harm. He could have stopped the Syndicate a few
times throughout the film, but he is obsessed with catching the leader, which
shows that he is losing himself in his mission. Plus, Cruise doing his own
stunts in the film works wonders for the action scenes, which I’ll go into more
detail about later on. Simon Pegg meanwhile is great as Benji, whose role has
continued to expand since his first appearance in 3. He’s gone from someone
behind a computer to the person that Ethan Hunt trusts the most, with Pegg
brilliantly showing his loyalty to Hunt, along with providing great comic
relief and being a lot of fun. Rebecca Ferguson meanwhile is a great addition
to the series as Faust. Whilst the character doesn’t really have much
personality, Ferguson does great work in the role, showing the duplicitous
nature of the character effectively and handling herself really well in the
action scenes. Jeremy Renner and Ving Rhames meanwhile are in more supporting
roles this time around. Whilst it’s great to see the characters back, in
particular Rhames who only appeared at the end of Ghost Protocol, most of their
scenes could have been cut out, the only relevant scenes for Renner are at the
start of the film and Ving Rhames doesn’t really do much throughout the film.
Alec Baldwin meanwhile does good work as the director of the CIA, but he feels
really one note throughout most of the film, ignoring the evidence that Hunt
didn’t cause the disasters associated to The Syndicate and ignoring the events
of Ghost Protocol. The changes to a more John Le Carre style are best seen when
Simon McBurney and Tom Hollander are in the film and they do good work. The
main problem though comes with the villain, a problem that was also in Ghost
Protocol. None of the villains have been able to match Phillip Seymour Hoffman
as Owen Davian, who legitimately scared me with his performance in 3. Sean
Harris is really bland throughout the film, there’s no real character there and
he doesn’t really impact the majority of the plot.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On a technical level, the film continues the high standard
of the other films. Christopher McQuarrie does a great job directing the action
scenes, with the use of practical stunts being a great call, along with
Cruise’s decision to do the majority of the stunts himself. McQuarrie is able
to mine a lot of tension out of these scenes, mainly when the team has to infiltrate a secure computer facility, along with some really thrilling
moments of action, in particular a car/motorbike chase through Casablanca.
However, the film peaks with the stunts too early. The scene with Cruise
hanging on the side of a plane as it takes off, a great piece of stunt work, is
at the start of the film and none of the stunts topped it throughout the film. Still,
the film does a great job with the action and does good work meshing the music
with the action, in particular a scene in the opera house, with great cinematography adding to the tense, adrenaline filled nature of these scenes.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Overall, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is a great
addition to the series. It doesn’t quite meet the same quality of 3 and Ghost
Protocol, mainly due to the poor quality of the villain and some of the
characters not being utilised well, but this is still a great action film, with
Tom Cruise doing great work again as Ethan Hunt and an effective plot that does
have some self-awareness about the nature of the series.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
My Rating: 4/5<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a></div>
TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-59406993473765228782015-07-30T18:05:00.000+01:002015-07-30T18:05:24.946+01:00Inside Out Review (Contains Spoilers)In the past few years, Pixar haven't been as on form as they usually are. They went from producing classic after classic with films like WALL-E, Up, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc and the Toy Story Trilogy to deeply flawed films like Brave and the disaster that was Cars 2. When I heard about Inside Out though, I and most other people, believed it would signal a return to form for Pixar, especially with it being the first Pixar film for Pete Doctor since Up, and I'm pleased to say that this is the case. Even amongst the high standards of Pixar, Inside Out is one of their best.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot concerns the emotions of 11 year old Riley, a girl from Minnesota who has had to move to San Francisco because her dad got a job there. Because of the move, the emotions, Joy; Sadness; Anger; Fear and Disgust, go into turmoil because they don't know how to react, with Joy trying her best to make Riley as happy as possible during the move. However, due to Sadness getting curious with memories, accidentally turning joyful memories sad, creating a core memory after her actions cause Riley to cry in school (one of the most important memories for Riley that forms islands of her personality, all of which had previously been created by Joy) and when Joy tries to stop the memory becoming permanent she and Sadness end up being sent to Riley's long term memory, leaving Anger, Fear and Disgust in charge, who are struggling to keep Riley happy, which leads to Riley's personality starting to fall apart. This whole plot, despite being more smaller scale than other Pixar films, nevertheless has some of the greatest stakes in any of their films. It's not a big end of the world scenario, but due to Joy and Sadness not being in the headquarters for Riley, her entire life begins to fall apart, with Riley becoming more emotionally withdrawn with just Anger, Fear and Disgust in charge. She has problems at school, with her main hobby of hockey and with her friends back in Minnesota. This also corresponds to the main theme of the film, that being the power of sadness and being able to express your emotions. Throughout the film, Joy cannot seem to comprehend the role of Sadness for Riley, especially since all the other emotions provide help to Riley (Fear keeping her safe, Disgust preventing her from being poisoned and anger being good in a fight) whilst there is no obvious role for Sadness, with Joy treating Sadness pretty badly throughout the film, starting the film by keeping her away from the console controlling Riley's thoughts and having her read the manuals for Riley's mind instead. In fact, in lieu of an actual villain (which is really refreshing), the character that is the most unlikable is Joy because of how badly she treats Sadness and how her actions are really unhealthy for Riley's psyche, which contributed to Fear, Disgust and Anger failing so badly when Joy and Sadness aren't in headquarters. The arc for Joy learning to understand the role of Sadness forms the spine of the film in this way and this helps brilliantly bring across the message of the importance of Sadness to the audience, as Joy understands how Sadness fits into everything, the audience does as well.<br />
<br />
The actors meanwhile all match the emotions perfectly. Amy Poehler as Joy and Phyllis Smith as Sadness are the obvious standouts. Poehler brings across this great sense of optimism that really fits the character, but also shows the more negative aspects of the character and the damage that can be done by being overly happy, with Joy lacking a sense of empathy since she doesn't understand the concept, something Poehler brings across perfectly. Smith meanwhile is great as Sadness, her voice has the right tone for the character, making her both lovable whilst also understanding why Joy would not want to be around her. Smith also shows the curiosity of the character which comes about due to years of being ignored by the other emotions. Bill Hader, Lewis Black and Mindy Kaling as Fear, Anger and Disgust respectively don't get the same level of development as Joy or Sadness, with their performances being based on the emotion they play, but they are a lot of fun in the parts, Lewis Black in particular having some of the funniest moments in the film. The emotional crux of the story meanwhile also comes into play through a brilliant performance by Richard Kind as Riley's old imaginary friend Bing Bong (who wasn't shown in the advertising for the film, something I really respected). At the start of the film, he is in a similar vein to Joy, being highly optimistic and fun-loving, but as the film goes on, the weight of what is happening to Riley gets to him as he understands that the memories Riley has of him are being removed and Riley doesn't have a place for him, which brings in Smith's great performance showing the empathy that Sadness has, culminating in a scene that almost sent me into floods of tears when watching the film. As Riley meanwhile, Kaitlyn Dias does a great job showing the conflicting emotions that she is experiencing due to the move, along with showing the emotional damage that is being done to her when Sadness and Joy aren't in headquarters. Diane Lane and Kyle MacLachlan are also great as Riley's parents, brilliantly showing the concern they have for Riley and the difficulties they have with the move themselves, Lane showing a lot of concern for Riley brilliantly and MacLachlan being a great bumbling, supporting dad and between this and his brilliantly bonkers, scene-stealing performance in Agents of SHIELD, I want Kyle MacLachlan to play parents from now on.<br />
<br />
All of this is aided by the as-to-be-expected incredible animation from Pixar headed up by Pete Doctor. The designs of the emotions are all perfect, they all perfectly capture the feel of the emotions so you can tell which is which through sight with the animation for each of them being really exaggerated to fit the emotion they represent, such as Joy being more energetic and Sadness being more lethargic. The stakes of the film meanwhile are brilliantly represented through how the different aspects of Riley's mind react to Joy and Sadness being outside the control room and the core memories no longer being there, with the destruction of the islands of Riley's personality being particularly well handled. The animation also allows for different aspects of the mind to be represented in a way that hasn't really been done before, including the animation for Riley comprehending abstract thought, which is one of the animation highlights of the film, and the designs for Riley's imagination, train of thought and the subconscious fears she has. The film also does a great job visualising some of the aspects of the mind you don't really think about that much, such as when you get a really catchy tune stuck in your head and it keeps cropping up at the worst times. The film also doesn't just limit itself to Riley's head, with key moments of the film letting you see into the minds of her parents, as shown in the trailers, and the credits have some really good gags about the personalities of the different people we see throughout the film, mainly based on which emotion is in control.<br />
<br />
Overall, Inside Out is not only a return to form for Pixar but also will stand as one of their masterpieces. The film takes an idea that has been done before in stuff like The Numskulls in The Beano and Osmosis Jones and does something unique with it. This film could have gone the lazy route with tired jokes about bodily functions which were seen in those prior works, but it takes the smart route, using this idea to explore the mindset of a child in one of the most important times for emotional development, creating a smart, funny and emotionally fulfilling cinematic experience.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-39608648474190968282015-07-21T16:23:00.001+01:002015-07-21T16:23:35.216+01:00Ant-Man ReviewOut of all of the Marvel films, the one I've been the most cautious about has been Ant-Man. Originally, it was one of the ones I was most excited for due to Edgar Wright directing the film and writing it with Attack the Block writer/director Joe Cornish but when they left, I became really worried, especially since it was so close to when filming was due to start. I thought that the creative difficulties so close would mean that replacement director Peyton Reed and new co-writers Adam McKay and Paul Rudd had no chance in creating a good film. However, I have been proven wrong. Even though I would have loved to have seen Edgar Wright's vision for the film, the finished product is still an entertaining film and a worthy addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot concerns Scott Lang, a former thief who, after being released from prison, is trying to reform himself in order to gain visitation rights. When he can't find a job due to his criminal past, he ends up breaking into a house based on a tip given to one of his friends. The house ends up being that of Hank Pym, who was secretly watching Scott, in order for Scott to stop Pym's former partner, Darren Cross, from selling suits that shrink the person inside, a technology that Pym developed in the 1960s, with Pym giving his suit to Lang, planning for Lang to take over as Ant-Man. This is probably the most scaled back and down to earth of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films since the first Iron Man as, despite the long winded explanation, this film ultimately becomes a heist film, in the vein of Ocean's Eleven and the like and part of the reason this works so well is because of the relationship between Land and Pym. Making this film about the passing of the torch from Pym to Lang was a brilliant move, providing a more straightforward way to introduce the technology and serving to get the audience up to speed, especially since the first half of the film is mainly taken up with Pym training Lang about how to use the suit, similar to how most of Iron Man was Stark developing the different Iron Man suits. You also feel that Pym is really reluctant to allow anyone to use the technology, especially his daughter Hope, although this does lead into a problem I had with the film. Even with the explanation given, it was obvious right from the start that Hope should be wearing the suit. When the explanation comes, it does create an emotional high point in the film, but there was no reason why Pym wouldn't have told Hope the real reason much earlier, especially since withholding that information led to a strained relationship between Pym and Hope. However, the other relationships Pym has in the film are very well handled. The mentor relationship he has with Lang is really well handled and works really well as a parallel to his former relationship to Cross, with Pym ending it because Cross was becoming too much like him, which Pym didn't want to happen, although there should have been more scenes or at least a flashback to bring this across more effectively. The film really works though in the third act, during the actual heist. All of the characters get great individual moments, there are scenes that continue the trend in the MCU to address potential civilian casualties (which continue to serve as showing the MCU characters to have a greater sense of empathy that the DC characters) and there are moments at the end that show that the MCU hasn't even begun to explore the strange, offbeat elements of Marvel (which will probably see greater air time in Dr Strange).<br />
<br />
<br />
Speaking of connections to the MCU, there are a lot of moments showing how these characters fit into the world. There's a flashback scene at the beginning that serves to show why Pym is distrustful of SHIELD and doesn't want his technology utilised by anyone else and this is the first post-Avengers MCU film to address the issue of why the characters don't bring in the Avengers to resolve everything quickly and easily, which provides a great character moment for Pym. There's also an extended cameo by one of the other stars in the MCU which creates a great tie in for some of the future MCU films, aided by the post-credits scenes which are some of the most important in the MCU so far, along with being one of the best action beats in the film.<br />
<br />
The cast meanwhile are on point throughout the film. Paul Rudd was a great choice for Lang. He has this everyman charm that sells the downtrodden nature of the character at the start of the film, along with showing the technical expertise of the character which showed with Lang was a great choice to take over as Ant-Man. He also works really well with Abby Ryder Fortson as Lang's daughter Cassie, which helps form the emotional core of the film. Michael Douglas meanwhile is a perfect choice for Pym. He brings this bitter, annoyed quality to the character which makes a lot of sense considering the stuff that happened to him in the past, whilst also having a small sense of optimism and trust that shows why he would give Lang the suit to take over. Evangeline Lilly meanwhile does a good job as Hope, brilliantly showing her anger over not being the person to take over the suit, along with showing why she was the perfect person to be in the suit in the first place. Michael Pena meanwhile is easily the comedic highlight of the film as Luis, Scott's cellmate when he was in prison and one of the people he gets to help with the heist, he gets all the best lines and scenes, with the montages of his tips being comedic highpoints in the film, and credit also needs to go to TI and David Dastmalchian as the other criminal helpers. There are some performances that aren't quite as strong though. Corey Stoll doesn't really sell the motivation of Cross to becoming evil throughout the film, along with the explanation being a bit forced in. His scenes with Michael Douglas are good, but the rest of the time, he comes across as fairly one-note. The one-note nature of performances can also be seen with Judy Greer as Lang's ex-wife Maggie, Bobby Cannavale as Paxton, a police officer and Maggie's new boyfriend, who only seems to be there to be an easy figure of mockery for Lang, and Wood Harris as Paxton's partner Gale, who gets nothing to do in the film.<br />
<br />
The technical side of the film meanwhile is really well handled. The effects used for the shrinking are really well done and the film makes great use of the changes in size for some really inventive fight scenes. This is also shown by providing a great sense of scale, letting you know exactly how small Lang is when using the suit, especially when he first uses it, when a bath being run looks like a tsunami to him. The film also makes great use of the different types of ant (carpenter, crazy, bullet and fire), each type having their own unique function and all being used to great effect throughout the film. The film also makes great use of different elements of shrinking and growing different objects which are used to great effect in both the action scenes and to create some really great comedic moments, especially near the end of the film. At the end of the film meanwhile, there is some really creative CG employed, which provides a great look into the style that could be seen in Doctor Strange, which I won't spoil here.<br />
<br />
Overall, whilst I still wonder what the film would have been like if Edgar Wright didn't leave the project, this is still a really entertaining film. The scaled back approach works wonders for this character, aided by a cast that is game for anything thrown at them throughout the film and effects that really sell the shrinking of the character, Ant-Man is a really fun time, although not one of the top tier films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 4/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-42464694753872915402015-07-19T18:18:00.000+01:002015-07-19T18:18:03.370+01:00Slow West ReviewOne film genre that hasn't really seen that much love in the past few years has been the Western. Sure there have been some but none of them have really been attention grabbing and none of them have seen much acclaim (although I could be wrong). The last Western that I saw with high levels of acclaim was the Coen Brother's True Grit and it's here that Slow West comes in. This is easily the best Western I've seen since True Grit, and is a film which clearly owes a debt to the Coen Brothers.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The film concerns Jay Cavendish, a Scottish boy and nephew of the Lord of his village in Scotland travelling through the American West to find the woman he loves, Rose. Along the way, he meets up with Silas, a bounty hunter who agrees to escort Jay to where Rose is, since if Jay went on his own, he would most likely die. However, unbeknownst to Jay, there is a bounty on Rose and her dad meaning they have to contend with other bounty hunters. Whilst the plot of the film itself is really good that doesn't seem to be the main focus of the film, instead of the focus being on the relationship between Jay and Rose, it focuses on Jay's journey with Silas and what happens along the way, mainly the people that they meet, all of whom are their own different brand of crazy. It's here where the comparisons to the Coen Brothers come in. Many of the characters and the conversations throughout the film feel right at home in the Coen universe alongside characters like Jesus in The Big Lebowski and the Bear Guy in True Grit, complete oddballs who don't really add much to the plot but create a unique experience. These characters also serve to show the true natures of Jay and Silas, Jay being incredibly naive and always seeing the good in people and Silas being more hardened, having been in the West much longer and seeing the true horrors that unfold. The main thing that makes the film work though is its humour. Even in the darkest moments of the film it is frequently laugh out loud hilarious, mainly due to the great writing and direction by John Maclean. It's incredibly dark humour and works really well with the tone of the film as a whole, moments of levity in a dark, dangerous world. This is also a film where the title is really apt. This is very much a slow burner of a film and this allows this great atmosphere to develop, sucking you into the world these characters are in.<br />
<br />
The performances meanwhile help sell the dark and humourous tone. Kodi Smit-McPhee is great as Jay, having a near flawless Scottish accent, along with his wide eyed face selling the naivety of the character. His performance also helps his love for Rose work so well. Throughout the film we are never in doubt that Jay is madly in love with Rose and McPhee shows this great determination throughout the film. This relationship is aided by Caren Pistorious as Rose who shows both why Jay would fall in love with her, but also that the relationship is one sided. It's clear that Rose cares for Jay, but more like a sister and Pistorious shows this really well. Michael Fassbender meanwhile is great as Silas. There's this dark, violent quality to the character, but also a patience to the character and, as the film goes on, you see the optimism of Jay getting to him, allowing him to see the good in the world again. There are also great performances in smaller roles from Ben Mendehsohn, Rory McCann, Andrew Robertt (who gives easily the funniest performance in the film) and Kalani Queypo but talking about them would spoil the film.<br />
<br />
The technical side of the film is excellent as well. Considering that this is his first film, John Maclean's direction is excellent, making great use of the New Zealand landscape to recreate the American West, aided by top notch cinematography from Robbie Ryan, having a great sense of timing for all the jokes and directing the shoot-out scenes incredibly well. The music by Jed Kurzel meanwhile adds to the overall atmosphere to the film, reminding me a lot of Neil Young's score for Dead Man, in a good way, creating this unique vibe to the film.<br />
<br />
Overall, Slow West is one of the best westerns to be released in recent years, making for a strong feature debut for John Maclean. A great story, very Coen-esque humour and excellent performances from Michael Fassbender and Kodi Smit-McPhee create this great darkly humourous world, helping to create one of the stand out films of the year.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-10596830961692532952015-07-14T22:50:00.000+01:002015-07-14T22:50:12.736+01:00Minions ReviewThe Despicable Me series is one that I've had mixed feelings on. I didn't watch the first film because it wasn't really my cup of tea and I found Despicable Me 2 to be just an average family film, no more, no less. The only thing that really stood out to me were the Minions, who were the best thing in Despicable Me 2. The success of the Minions in permeating pop culture meant that a spin-off focused on them was inevitable, but with this there was the risk of over-exposure which could make the film irritating after a while. Thankfully, that isn't the case. I don't think there's been a film this year that I've laughed at more so far than Minions.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The main plot of the film takes place in 1968, 42 years before the events of Despicable Me. After centuries of failing to properly serve their villain bosses, the minions have retreated into a hideaway in Antarctica (even though they should be in the Arctic Circle as they went there from Russia). However, the minions become dissatisfied with their life and three of the minions: Kevin; Stuart and Bob, head out to find a new boss. Their search leads them to Villain-Con in Orlando where they become the henchmen for Scarlett Overkill, the first female supervillain, who recruits them to steal the crown jewels but, due to mishaps by the minions, Scarlett turns against them. Now any film of this type lives or dies on whether or not you find the main characters funny. In most cases with giving comic relief characters the spotlight, the characters become incredibly annoying as there is no straight man for them to play off which results in the humour failing. Thankfully, that is not the case here. As stated earlier, I was laughing all the way through and that is largely due to the decision to only focus on three minions. If the film focused on the entire tribe of minions throughout then it would have gotten annoying but limiting the focus, only showing the rest of the minions in short bursts, works wonders for the film, along with letting us identify the three main minions much easier due to the difference. It also helps that Kevin does kind of act as the straightman to Stuart and Bob, and there is a strong sense of comradery between the three as the film goes on. That said, despite the film being hilarious and the main plot working wonders for the minions, the rest of the characters don't really feel that defined and the plot itself feels a bit rushed, especially towards the end when the elements that make it a prequel to Despicable Me come into play.<br />
<br />
Even with the characters being fairly thinly veiled, the performances themselves are brilliant. Pierre Coffin does an excellent job playing the Minions themselves. The language that they speak is a mixture of all languages (mainly Italian, French and Spanish) and this means there is just enough for you to understand what the characters are saying to each other, combined with the character animation for the minions. The big celebrity voice in this film is Sandra Bullock as Scarlett Overkill and, whilst the character motivation is pretty thin, the character herself is a lot of fun mainly due to the performance by Bullock. There's this sense of glee she has over what she does, relishing the chance to be bad and Bullock sounds like she had a lot of fun voicing the character. Jon Hamm meanwhile is, in my opinion, the funniest human character in the film as Scarlett's husband/inventor Herb. Hamm gives the character this laid back, almost stoner-esque vibe that is a lot of fun to listen to and is the perfect contrast to the vibrant, energetic performances of Coffin and Bullock. Michael Keaton and Allison Janney are also a lot of fun as the Nelsons, the parents in a family of criminals Kevin, Stuart and Bob hitch a ride to Villain-Con with, even if they're not in the film enough, the same being true of Jennifer Saunders as Queen Elizabeth II. Steve Coogan and Hiroyuki Sanada meanwhile are completely wasted, with the wasting of Coogan being the most egregious. When I first saw his name in the trailers I thought that he would be reprising his role as Silas Ramsbottom from Despicable Me 2 but here, he plays 2 characters (a scientist at Villain-Con, who does get one of the best black comedy moments in the film, and a guard at the Tower of London) and whilst his performances are funny and he gives them his all, there was no reason for Coogan to be cast over professional voice actors for such minor parts. The final main member of the cast then is Geoffrey Rush who narrates the film and he was the perfect choice. There's this calm, serene quality to his voice, like a parent reading a bedtime story to a kid, which, when mixed with a playful quality in there, fits perfectly with the tone of the film.<br />
<br />
The music meanwhile is another standout element of the film. The actual score of the film is decent enough, even if many of the musical cues are lifted from the mobile game Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem, but it's the soundtrack of the film which boosts it and is probably one of the best soundtracks since Guardians of the Galaxy. Since the film is set in 1968, you get a lot of era appropriate pop and rock music, with some of the best music in those genres coming out around that time, so you've got artists like The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, The Kinks, The Who and (obviously) Donovan's Mellow Yellow. The music covers done by the Minions themselves are also a lot of fun and were some of the biggest laughs in the film, with these including The Beatles' Revolution and the theme to The Monkees.<br />
<br />
Finally, there's the actual quality of the animation and I have to say that it's top notch. The recreations of 1960's New York and London is excellent (even if it does get the currency used in the UK at the time wrong) and there's a lot of great background details that create some of the best gags in the film (a lot of which are aimed towards an older audience). The animation for the minions themselves remains as great as it was in Despicable Me 2, allowing for a wide range of physical comedy options to be opened up, especially near the end of the film in a torture chamber and at the start of the film, showing the interactions between the minions and their former bosses throughout history, from dinosaurs to Napoleon. The action sequences meanwhile are brilliantly animated, having this great kinetic quality to them, maintaining a constant sense of scene geography and making great use of the different gadgets, with the colours of all of them popping out throughout the film.<br />
<br />
Overall, I had a blast with Minions. Sure the characters aren't that developed and the story is a bit thin but it more than succeeds where it needs to and that's in the comedy. The animation and the voice acting help to create some of the funniest moments in an animated film that I've seen this year and there is just enough of the minions themselves to stop them from becoming over-exposed, although I do think that this should be the end of the Despicable Me series.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 4/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-425299128804637382015-07-02T22:09:00.002+01:002015-07-02T22:09:44.597+01:00Mr Holmes ReviewOver the past few years, there has been an influx of Sherlock Holmes related media. From the Robert Downey Jr films to Elementary to the obvious best example of them, Sherlock. Hell, even The Asylum did their own version (which is hilarious). One thing all of them have done though is look at Holmes in his prime, when he was in his 20s/30s. This is what makes Mr Holmes stand out, the focus here is on a Holmes way past his prime and losing his memory. This focus, along with a brilliant performance by Ian McKellen, makes this one of the better versions of Holmes to come out in recent years.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot focuses on Holmes in 1947, at 93 years old and starting to go senile 30 years after his last case. Due to events involving him reading the published diaries of Watson, he starts to write down his own story of the last case, the events of which traumatised him so much that he decided to retire and become a beekeeper. Within this, Holmes starts to form a bond with Roger, the son of his housekeeper, becoming sort of a father figure to him, and we see a trip Holmes made to Japan (more specifically Hiroshima) to find a plant that he believes will give him enough of a memory boost so that he's able to remember the full story. This aspect of memory is one of the main reasons Mr Holmes works so well, not just the fading of memory over time but the way false memories are created, as shown through Watson's diaries. For Holmes, his age has finally caught up with him and we see him starting to forget more and more key details, with two great bits of visuals showing this, one involving a journal and the other being Holmes needing to write key names on his sleeves because of how quickly his memory is fading. The nature of the manipulation of memory meanwhile comes through the inaccuracies in Watson's diaries, most notably, the prescription of binary villains to the stories and the address of Holmes in the diaries being false (Holmes actually lived over the road from 221B to avoid American tourists), to him never actually wearing the deerstalker hat and being disappointed that he couldn't smoke from a pipe as it would fit into the stereotype. This is also evident in some elements of the Japan side of the story as well, though talking about how would spoil this element. Aside from memory, empathy is also a key theme in the film. In the sections of the story set in the past, Holmes is presented in the cynical, uncaring, detached style he normally is, but in 1947, he has allowed emotion in, mainly seen in his relationship to Roger. He shows concern over Roger's behavior, shows some care for Mrs Munroe (his housekeeper) and is angry at Roger saying things that he would have had no problem saying in the past. This emotional core of the film is best seen in relation to his final case, which clearly took an emotional tole on him and caused him to rethink his entire outlook on the world (even if the case clearly didn't call for Holmes in the first place). These two themes of memory and empathy are often sidestepped in Sherlock Holmes films and shows and it's very refreshing to see them here.<br />
<br />
These themes come across best due to the acting, especially from Ian McKellen. Considering all of the other actors who have played Holmes in the past few years it takes something really special to stand out and McKellen more than delivers. He does great work playing the traditional Holmes but it's his work in the scenes in 1947 that's the standout. He does a great job showing the age of Holmes, with the subtle aging make-up and his whole physical demeanor making it clear that he is losing the strength he has, especially near the end of the film, which I won't spoil here. His portrayal of Holmes' memory loss meanwhile is excellent, with it being abundantly clear when his memory is failing him and his anger over it, since it prevents him from achieving closure on his last case. The relationship between Holmes and Roger is best shown through the great chemistry shared by McKellen and Milo Parker. It's clear that, whilst there is a friendship, Holmes is becoming a serious negative influence on Roger, shown by Parker's attitude in the film becoming more similar to the Holmes seen in the flashbacks, and McKellen brilliantly shows his regret over causing someone else to become like him. Good work is also done by Laura Linney as Mrs Munroe, putting on a really solid accent, and shows how out of her depth she is dealing with someone like Holmes, not only due to his attitude but his physical condition, with it being clear that she's about to crack from the pressure. Roger Allam does good work as Holmes' doctor, although he isn't in the film nearly long enough, Hiroyuki Sanada does great work but talking more about him will spoil the film, the same being true for Hattie Morahan and Patrick Kennedy, who play the subjects of Holmes' final case. There's also a really nice casting gag with Holmes going to the cinema to watch an adaptation of one of the stories, with the Holmes in it being played by Nicholas Rowe, who previously played the character in Young Sherlock Holmes. However, there is another casting gag that does a great disservice to one of my favourite underrated actors, Phil Davis. He's a great actor but his character is only in the film for about a minute, with it feeling a lot like Davis was only cast as he played the villain in the first episode of Sherlock.<br />
<br />
Overall, Mr Holmes is a great film. An excellent script, a masterful performance by Ian McKellen, along with pitch-perfect production design and effective direction by Bill Condon make this one of the better Sherlock Holmes adaptations to come along in recent years. Sure there are a few problems with the plot, but the thematic weight of the film more than makes up for it.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 4.5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-78026361811362375262015-06-13T23:07:00.002+01:002015-06-13T23:07:37.057+01:00Spy ReviewThis year is seeing a big resurgence in the spy genre. We've already had Kingsman: The Secret Service and soon we're going to get The Man from UNCLE and Spectre. Out of this set of spy films though, the one I was the most cautious with was Spy. I have to say that I'm not really a fan of Melissa McCarthy or Paul Fieg and I count Bridesmaids as one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. However, Spy seemed right up my ally and I was hopeful to see a good female led comedy after the travesty that was Pitch Perfect 2 and I have to say that Spy delivered that.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot concerns Susan Cooper, the tactical support for CIA agent Bradley Fine. After a mission involving trying to find a nuclear device goes wrong and the identities of all the other CIA agents are compromised, Susan gets sent into the field. However, another agent, Rick Ford, who hated the idea of Susan going in, ends up trying to find the nuclear device and the person who know its location, Rayna, which complicates Susan's mission. Now this plot isn't anything original, in fact it's identical to the plot of the Get Smart movie from 2008 (which I was a fan of) and this film follows a lot of the tropes, with one major exception: Susan doesn't get by through luck and she doesn't cause any damage due to clumsiness. Susan is already perfectly suited to be a spy but her skills on the technical side and her weight made it so the CIA didn't see her as a field operative and her own self-esteem issues meant that she was comfortable as Fine's support and all of this works into the skillset of McCarthy. In the past, I've only seen McCarthy given roles that fit into the funny fat friend cliche but here, when Susan's undercover identities fit those roles, there's a real sense of disappointment in it that does feel like a 'take-that' to studios and audiences (including me I have to admit) that couldn't see McCarthy as a badass spy. It also works that a lot of the jokes are really funny. It's hard to describe in a review since it'll ruin all of the jokes. The action scenes meanwhile complement the humour, even with some pretty terrible CG at times, with the stunt team and McCarthy herself making the scenes work really well. However, there are some plot points that don't really work, there are constant assassination attempts against Rayna that don't add up to anything, a cameo at the end that feels really out-of-place and a few third act plot twists that could have been set up a bit better and these don't allow the spy plot to hold up as well as it could have done.<br />
<br />
The cast meanwhile are really solid. As stated earlier McCarthy does a great job with her character and acquits herself really well in the action scenes but she isn't the comedic highlight of the film, that honour goes to Jason Statham as Ford. Now I'm not the biggest fan of Jason Statham, I do think he's a good action actor but a lot of his films are pretty terrible and he's pretty bad in them. Here though, he takes the image of himself as the indestructible badass and mines it for comedy, making fun of the over-the-top situations that spy films often end up devolving into, with it being pretty clear that it's the characters stupidity that resulted in those situations. It also helps that Statham is more than willing to make fun of himself and this leads to the funniest moments in the film. As the villain Rayna, Rose Byrne does a great job, showing herself to be a pretty threatening presence and the interaction she has with McCarthy provides some good laughs. Jude Law meanwhile is a perfect fit for the snarky, smooth James Bond figure in the film, Bradley Fine, with his relationship with Susan being one of the best parts of the film. One of the things I was worried about prior to seeing the film was the involvement of Miranda Hart, who I am not really a fan of and I often find her annoying, but she's pretty good here, providing some good laughs and the friendship between her and McCarthy's characters comes across really well, whilst Allison Janney gets some good moments, but she isn't in the film anywhere near long enough (although the same is true of virtually everything with Allison Janney). However, I wasn't a fan of Bobby Cannavale and, as much as I like Peter Serafinowicz and his performance was good, the character was incredibly annoying. The biggest problem in the cast though is Morena Baccarin. Whilst she is well cast as the stereotypical female spy, she is given virtually nothing to do throughout the film and it's clear that the character was written with a much larger role that ended up being cut out and this does hurt the film.<br />
<br />
Overall, Spy is simply a really funny film. Whilst there are some problems with the plot, the performances, especially from Melissa McCarthy, Jason Statham and Jude Law and the script create comedy gold, with the whole plot around Susan working really well in the context of the film. I wish I could go into more detail, but it is incredibly hard to describe what makes a comedy work, just know that I laughed all the way through this.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 4/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-91052683101013447022015-06-12T23:21:00.000+01:002015-06-12T23:21:09.473+01:00Jurassic World ReviewBefore I begin, I have to say that I didn't have the same childhood experience with the Jurassic Park series as a lot of people. The first time I watched Jurassic Park was when it was re-released in the cinemas a few years ago and I haven't watched the sequels, so I don't have the same nostalgic connection to the franchise. That said, I do think Jurassic Park is one of the best blockbusters ever made and when this film was announced, I was looking forward to it, especially when I heard about the involvement of Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver considering the great work they did rebooting the Planet of the Apes series. After watching the film, I have to say that this series has become a B-Movie series, and a fun one at that.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The film takes place around 20 years after the events of the original Jurassic Park (and seems to ignore the sequels from what I can tell) where the park has been completed and is a major tourist attraction. However, the interest in dinosaurs has started to decline since they've become so commonplace and the owners of the park have turned to genetic engineering to create new dinosaurs. However, the dinosaur they created ends up escaping and the park staff have to contain the dinosaur (the I-Rex) before it reaches the tourists. This is a classic B-Movie, "don't mess with nature" plot and for a film like this, it's the plot that you would expect. However, they do manage to get a good bit of satire in there regarding focus groups demands being considered over what is actually needed and the corporatisation of science, with the park containing big brands like Pandora, Ben and Jerry's and Starbucks, along with the I-Rex itself being sponsored by Verizon. This is a clever way to update the whole idea of Jurassic Park and makes the most sense considering the whole aspect of the park. When the film focuses on this aspect it works really well. However, most of the focus in this film goes towards the military applications of dinosaurs and this whole plot is incredibly generic and not interesting in the slightest. This whole plot eats into the whole idea of genetic engineering since it was obvious from the start that the I-Rex was designed for military applications rather than for tourists. All of the characters in this subplot are incredibly one-note and some of them have their characterisation that was set up earlier on in the film eaten up by this plot. It's pretty clear that this whole plot was created just to lead into another Jurassic Park film with paramilitary dinosaurs (which does sound incredibly awesome by the way) but it didn't need to be in this film.<br />
<br />
The characters in the film as a whole feel very one-note, and it's the talents of the cast that make them memorable. Owen Grady is written as a generic badass, who has a lot of respect for the animals and isn't given any character flaws. The writing around him isn't that interesting but he becomes likable simply due to being played by Chris Pratt, who is likable in everything. The same is true for Claire, who is the standard workoholic seen in way too many romantic comedies, and again this character is made interesting and likable, not through the writing but through the performance of Bryce Dallas Howard. Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins as Claire's nephews Zach and Gray are pretty likable, but they are some of the worst written characters in the film, they only have one character trait each, Zach is a womaniser and Gray likes dinosaurs, and one of the major plots points about them is brought up once, with no prior set-up then completely ignored, it feels like there were major rewrites concerning these characters. Irrfan Khan is also pretty likable as Masrani, the owner of Jurassic World, who follows in the vein of John Hammond, being a 'spare no expense' kind of guy who is more concerned about the happiness of the customers and the dinosaurs than in profits and who is willing to do whatever it takes to prevent the I-Rex from reaching the tourists and he is incredibly charming throughout the film. Good work is also done by Omar Sy as Grady's fellow tamer Barry; Jake Johnson as one of the technicians who is a dinosaur lover and who is more in agreement with John Hammond's vision for the park over the new direction, even wearing a Jurassic Park t-shirt throughout the film and BD Wong, since it's always great to see BD Wong, even if his actions in this film don't line up with how his character was portrayed in the first film. The biggest problem with the cast though is Vincent D'Onofrio. After giving an incredibly villain performance as Wilson Fisk in the Daredevil series he gives an incredibly generic villain performance here, one we've seen hundreds of times before and is a performance D'Onofrio could do in his sleep, with nothing really special coming through.<br />
<br />
The technical aspects of the film however are brilliantly done. Considering that his only prior directorial experience was in the indie scene, Colin Trevorrow acquits himself well with blockbuster direction. The entire design of everything is very crisp and reminiscent of Spielberg's direction in the first film. He also doesn't skimp around on the more horrific elements of the dinosaur attacks, with there being a fair amount of blood for a 12A rated film. He also puts in a lot of throwbacks to the original film, from the statue of John Hammond in the information centre, to the appearance of Mr DNA, to a section of the film set in the information centre of the original film. The whole design of Jurassic World itself very effectively brings across the theme park vibe, with it definitely being a place that you would want to visit. The music is also effective, I had a massive grin hearing the John Williams theme again and Michael Giacchino's music fits into this style very effectively. The real star of the technical side of the film though are the effects and the action scenes. The effects work as well as they can for this film, although the lack of animatronics does hurt the film a bit and the I-Rex design isn't as scary as it could have been. All of these work though in the action sequences, which take advantage of every trait for all of the dinosaurs in the film and are actually quite brutal when you get down to it. All of this comes into fruition in the final act which is easily the best part of the film. Sure it's where the military stuff comes to the forefront but it's also the most fun part of the film. We get the scenes of Chris Pratt riding a motorbike alongside a team of trained velociraptors, which is just as awesome as I thought it would be. The final action scene meanwhile is a massive love letter to the best parts of the original film, and is full of moments, so silly, so cheesy and yet so awesome that I couldn't help but love it.<br />
<br />
Overall, Jurassic World is a pretty decent film. Sure the characters aren't written that well and the military subplot takes up way too much of the film, but the performances are incredibly likable, especially Chris Pratt, the satirical elements of the story work really well and the action scenes are things of glorious silliness. This is just a glorified B-Movie and, for a film like this, that's not a bad thing at all.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 3.5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-91302147539718788122015-06-10T21:40:00.000+01:002015-06-10T21:40:03.345+01:00Tomorrowland: A World Beyond Review (Spoiler Warning)Since it was announced, Tomorrowland has been one of those films that I've not known what to think of. Whilst the whole idea was interesting and I really like Brad Bird as a director, the vagueness of everything and the worrying presence of Damon Lindelof made it so my anticipation was limited. Then the reviews came in, a lot of them being incredibly negative, which further limited my anticipation. After watching the film, I have to say that I enjoyed myself, but I can't deny that there are some flaws with the overall plotting of the film that prevent it from being great. Since a lot of the film is based on big reveals there are spoilers in this review, if you do not want to know the spoilers, then go and watch the film first.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot focuses on Casey, a teenage girl who starts the film sabotaging the machines dismantling the NASA launch site at Cape Canaveral. This gets the attention of Athena, the recruiter for the city of Tomorrowland, a utopian ideal based around the optimism of science and progress seen in classic 50's sci-fi and in the steampunk scene. Casey gets given a pin that shows her visions of Tomorrowland and, wanting to find out more, she seeks out help, ultimately being directed to Frank, a former resident of Tomorrowland Athena brought to the city at the 1964 World's Fair who was kicked out due to one of his machines, who takes them to Tomorrowland with the aim of trying to prevent the apocalypse. Now a lot of the ideas in this film I really like. The whole idea of Tomorrowland and how we have let our society move away from the ideas of science and progress and focused instead on greed is an incredibly relevant and important message considering how many countries and companies do not want to do anything about issues like climate change since it will not make them money in the short run. The whole message that we need to improve the future is a message that we need to hear. Along with this, Tomorrowland itself is one of the most attractive utopian visions presented in recent films and you do want to go to the city as soon as you see it, which is very important for a film like this. I also love that the main science loving hero who ends up being the one to save the world is a girl, something which we need to see a lot more of.<br />
<br />
The problems with the film though come with the structure and the ending. The majority of the film is too focused on the journey getting to Tomorrowland and not what happens in Tomorrowland itself. Don't get me wrong, I liked the first act in the film, the characters all interact with each other brilliantly, the optimism is excellent and the plot is intriguing, but this first act goes on so long that there is no second act in the story. Plus, when we actually get to Tomorrowland, it has fallen into a state of disrepair and there is no explanation given in the film as to why this has happened. This may have been given in the pre-release material but, if this is the case, it was a terrible decision as most people, including myself, won't have seen this material, this is something that needed to be included in the film but was just left out. Then there are some of the twists that are obvious from the word go but are treated as major reveals, the main one being that it is completely obvious that Athena is a robot but you're meant to be surprised when you find out. The film is also feels too preachy at the end, with the villain Governor Nix, telling the characters that the current trend of dystopian fiction is bringing about the end of the world since it is leaving us numb to the reality, whilst seeming to ignore the optimism in most of these films, most recently seen in the optimism in Mad Max: Fury Road. All of this continues to show that, after Lost, Prometheus and Star Trek Into Darkness, Damon Lindelof cannot write an ending to save his life. If this ending was handled a bit better, and having Tomorrowland stay as the utopian ideal to make the message of optimism and progress more apparent (along with providing more sense to the actions of Nix), this could have been a great piece of sci-fi.<br />
<br />
One of the main things that keeps the film strong though is the excellent cast. Britt Robertson is a great find as Casey, with her entire optimistic nature being presented incredibly naturally, along with her intelligence coming across in such a way that it is not forced and can help serve as an inspiration to girls wanting to get into science. If even one girl is inspired by this film to go into the scientific field then the film is a success. She also plays off brilliantly with George Clooney right from the start in a prologue that, whilst a bit pointless, did help set up the relationship between the two characters. Clooney plays Frank as someone who had all of his optimism sucked out of him, someone who wants to be hopeful but has had too much taken away from him to have this hope in him until Casey turns up. Granted, when we find out why Frank acts like this it gets a bit creepy but Clooney pulls it off the best he can and he gets a lot of the best moments in the film. Whilst the character of Nix feels a bit underdeveloped, Hugh Laurie gives a great performance as him, showing that, even whilst being in Tomorrowland, he is ultimately a cynic who doesn't think we deserve a chance of joining Tomorrowland. Finally in the main cast, there's Raffey Cassidy as Athena, who does a great turn, showing the robotic nature of the character in very subtle ways that let you know that she is a robot effectively, whilst also showing the relationship she has with Frank is more than just a friendship and she does have the optimism and hope that personifies Tomorrowland. There's also good work done in small roles by Tim McGraw, Looper's Pierce Gagnon, Thomas Robinson as the young Frank (who shows the relationship between Frank and Athena most effectively and being a great contrast to Clooney as the older Frank) and another scene-stealing turn from Keegan-Michael Key as the owner of a sci-fi collectible shop Casey goes to trying to find out about Tomorrowland.<br />
<br />
The technical aspects of the film are also excellent. Brad Bird continues to show himself as an excellent live action director and, along with cinematographer Claudio Miranda, present a very clear, crisp film, making great use of colour and location to present the world of the film. The design of Tomorrowland itself is excellent, having this very futuristic feel but also a sense of the old fashioned idea of the future. This is a type of utopian city that would be seen in Star Trek or in 50's sci-fi comics and the whole environment really makes you want to visit, with the scene of Casey exploring Tomorrowland being one of the highlights of the film, and if this was not done correctly then the film would fall apart. The action sequences meanwhile are really well handled. The scenes have a great flow to them, the weapons in the scenes have this great pulp sci-fi look to them and they allow for some great comedic moments, mostly to do with Matthew MacCaull as one of the robots sent after Casey, Athena and Frank. The only problem with them is that the ending should not have had an action scene, Nix is a villain where it would make more sense to talk him out of his attitudes rather than fighting him and, whilst the scene is good, it does feel like Brad Bird was forced to include this scene by the higher ups at Disney. Finally there's the music by Michael Giachinno, which, whilst being a great score and really fitting the tone of the film, is a carbon copy of his music to Super 8, which was a bit distracting to me.<br />
<br />
Overall, if it wasn't for the ending, Tomorrowland: A World Beyond could have been one of the great works of utopian sci-fi but as it stands, it's just a really good film. All the ideas behind the film are incredibly relevant and need to be heard, the main three characters are really likable and the design and direction of the film is top notch but the curse of Damon Lindelof strikes again, with a greater focus on set-up than pay-off. I did have a great time with this film, the film leading up to when the characters arrive in Tomorrowland is excellent and I don't agree with all the negative press around the film but this is ultimately destined to be this years John Carter, a passion project of a Pixar director who was given a bit too much money that is going to end up losing Disney a ton of money and be unfairly maligned, at least for the moment, and I don't think this film deserves that fate.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 4/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-29631445850155413292015-06-04T21:43:00.000+01:002015-06-04T21:43:17.486+01:00Girlhood ReviewOut of the foreign language films being released at the moment, one of the ones that has been getting a lot of attention has been Girlhood. With a title done to capitalise on the success of Boyhood, you'd be forgiven for thinking you would be getting something similar, this film couldn't be further from Boyhood and is more along the lines of La Haine and Kes than Boyhood.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot follows Mariame, a black teenage girl living in the deprived suburbs of Paris. After being told that she hasn't achieved the grades to get into high school, she meets a girl gang (Lady, Fily and Adiatou) and, after some initial difficulties, becomes firm friends with them. As the film goes on, we see the homelife of Mariame, worrying about her younger sister following in her footsteps, dealing with an abusive brother and her fears that she will end up being a cleaner like her mum. This film does not sugarcoat the conditions that the people living in these deprived areas go through, violence and drugs are everyday occurrences, the girls frequently steal to get enough money to go into the centre of Paris for shopping and racial profiling is pretty common, with Mariame being followed around by a shop assistant due to the fear that Mariame will steal something. We see the girls committing quite a few crimes throughout the film, stealing from other people and from shops and taking part in fights, with the losers being humiliated by having their tops taken off and video of it being posted on YouTube. In any other film we would be asked to root against this behaviour but we know that the girls could be in a lot worse trouble and that this type of activity comes from growing up around gangs and having no other outlet available to them to express themselves.<br />
<br />
There is one thing this film needed to do correctly in order to work, that being the friendship between the girls. If this was done badly then the entire film would fall apart. Thankfully, writer/director Celine Sciamma nails this, both with the writing for their scenes and the excellent performances she gets from the cast, none of whom had acting experience prior to this film. Karidja Toure, Assa Sylla, Lindsay Karamoh and Marietou Toure have excellent chemistry with each other with their friendship being really believable. The way they act around each other suggests that they've known each other for years and there are very subtle quirks in each of the performances to show their character traits. The scene that really highlights the friendship is when the girls are in a hotel room in the centre of Paris and are singing along to Diamonds by Rihanna. The way this scene is shot and the way the girls interact with each other shows the closeness of the characters better than any other scene in the film, whilst also showing its lack of judgement since the dresses the characters are wearing are stolen, with the security tags still on them. Out of the four though, Toure is the highlight. Throughout the film, she shows how the group is bringing out the best of her, encouraging her to step out of her shell, and the worst in her, her violent tendencies, presenting a very morally ambiguous message regarding the merits of the group and doesn't provide any judgement. She also presents a great deal of fear, fear that she'll end up following her mum and become a cleaner; fear of her brother Djibril, played to terrifying effect by Cyril Mendy, and that she won't be able to protect her family from him; fear of what will happen regarding her relationship with Ismael (a friend of her brother, played brilliantly by Idrissa Diabare) and fear of what will happen to her with the gangs in the area due to her gender, with this being especially prominent in the final act of the film with the introduction of gang leader Abou, played to quite chilling effect by Djibril Gueve. All of these fears and doubts come together brilliantly in the ending, which is a perfect piece of acting from Toure.<br />
<br />
Overall, Girlhood will probably end up being one of the best foreign language films of the year. The brilliant, non-judgmental and naturalistic script and direction from Celine Sciamma and the excellent performances, in particular from Karidja Toure creates a very realistic portrayal of life for black teenagers living in the Paris suburbs and one of the most compelling films of the year.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-68592680566669291512015-06-03T23:35:00.000+01:002015-07-29T22:33:32.863+01:00Pitch Perfect 2 ReviewBefore I start I want to make it clear that I am a fan of the original Pitch Perfect. I feel that it is one of the best comedies released in the past few years and does everything right that films like Bridesmaids did wrong (yes, I'm not a fan of Bridesmaids, I think it is a terrible film). When the sequel was announced, I was worried. I thought that it would fall victim to the same form of sequelitis that hit other comedy sequels like Ghostbusters 2, and I was a bit sceptical of Elizabeth Banks in the directors chair since her previous directorial experience was with one of the segments in Movie 43. However, I did get some hopes again due to 22 Jump Street, which showed how good comedy sequels can be, and Guardians of the Galaxy, since its director, James Gunn, also did a segment in Movie 43, so I thought a good film could come out of it. After watching the film though, I was wrong with my initial assumption. This film is so much worse than I thought it would be. This is one of the most disappointing films I've seen recently and the worst film I've seen this year so far.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot concerns the Barden Bellas who, after winning the university a capella tournament 3 years straight, perform at the Kennedy Centre for the President. During the show, there's a wardrobe malfunction involving Fat Amy which results in the Bellas being blacklisted from the a capella world, the only way they can come back is if they win the world championship, something that no American team has done before. From the get-go, this plot is sequelitis incarnate, a successful team are sent to the bottom (the position they were in in the first film) and, like before, have to work their way back to the top. In a smarter film, like 22 Jump Street, these tropes would be used to build character or take apart the tropes associated with comedy sequels. This film doesn't do that, it plays this plot completely straight and it becomes incredibly predictable. The film tries to make up for this with the inclusion of multiple sub-plots, too many of them. You have Beca hiding her internship at a record company from the rest of the Bellas, the relationship between Fat Amy and Bumper, new character Emily trying to get into the Bellas and show her song writing skills, a relationship between Emily and Benji and Chloe needing to accept that she has to leave the Bellas. None of these come across in the narrative in a natural way and it feels like they were included to pad out the length of the film.The worst example of this though comes with Beca worrying about her originality and the harmony of the Bellas being lost. These are things that were never hinted at in the film prior to them being brought up and it felt like an excuse to artificially insert conflict into the film to make the third act more emotionally satisfying and none of it worked.<br />
<br />
I could forgive these story problems in the film if it was funny but the sad truth is, I barely laughed during the film, it didn't even pass the Kermode 6 laugh test. Many of the jokes are recycled from the first film, and don't work this time as the surprise factor in the first film is what made these jokes work. Adding on to this is that the jokes are focused more on stereotypes than in the first film. All of the jokes about Amy are fat jokes, a lot of them being repeats from the first film, there are more jokes making fun of a character for being gay and I feel like the whole joke around German rivals, Das Sound Machine, is that they sing w's as v's. Not even the commentators, played by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins (incidentally, I'm surprised there aren't any mash-ups of YouTube dubbing clips of Higgins' performance as Varrick in Legend of Korra over clips from this film), aren't as funny this time around. The worst jokes however, revolve around one of the new characters, Flo, a migrant to the US from Guatemala. All of the jokes around her focus on her life in Guatemala and the journey she took to go to America and it feels like the film is making fun of the conditions that these people faced as they made the journey which felt incredibly insulting. The only laughs I got in the film were from the record industry sub-plot because of how good a comedic performer Keegan-Michael Key is and the long stretches between these moments really harm the film.<br />
<br />
The musical numbers in this film aren't as strong this time around as well. Whilst Elizabeth Banks does direct these scenes well, sequelitis shows itself again. There are a lot more musical numbers this time around, with many of these not serving the plot in any way. Even with the scenes at the world championship, there's no real hint there that the rest of the world hates America, which is what was said to be the reason why America has never won it before. It feels like they decided to go bigger instead of going better and two moments stand out in this. The first is the riff-off scene, in the first film it was one of the highlights showing the rivalry between the different a capella groups and helping to build the characters. Here though, aside from a few moments with Emily, this whole sequence could have been cut out of the film and nothing would have been lost. Plus, some of the jokes in this scene don't translate well outside of America, especially the bits involving the Green Bay Packers. The other part is the song Flashlight, on it's own this is a decent song and Hailee Steinfeld does a great job singing it, it feels like the song was written first and the plot was written around it, rather than the songs fitting the plot like it was in the first film.<br />
<br />
If there is a saving grace in the film it's the cast. Anna Kendrick is still as charming as ever here, even though she isn't given that much to do, with this also being the case for Brittany Snow, Anna Camp, Ester Dean, Elizabeth Banks, John Michael Higgins and Skylar Astin, their characters feel incredibly one-note here compared to the last film, with one trait being used and jokes about them in the first film being repeated ad nauseam. Hailee Steinfeld does a good job with Emily, having a great singing voice and good comic timing, despite not having much of a character to work with. She also has some of the more charming scenes in the film with Ben Platt as Benji, with the chemistry between the two being really sweet and just the right level of awkward, overcoming the writing which makes the pairing of these two really forced. The record company scenes are the highlights of the film due to the aforementioned performance by Keegan-Michael Key, along with Snoop Dogg and Shawn Carter Peterson. However, there are still problems in the cast. Firstly, Birgitte Hjort Sorensen and Flula Borg play the most stereotypical evil Germans since Cool Runnings, with all their jokes feeling really outdated and their delivery not being that strong. The main problems in the cast though come with Rebel Wilson and Adam DeVine. In the first film, Wilson was the comedic highlight but here, they overexposed the character and the stuff that feels like Wilson was improvising just isn't as funny as the first film, often coming across as annoying or making fun of the overweight. DeVine meanwhile has no reason for being here. He comes back in this film with no explanation or even mention of what happened with John Mayer (which is the reason his character left the Treblemakers in the first film) and the pairing of him with Wilson comes across as forced and, by the end of it, it feels like the entire relationship sub-plot was just to add another bloody musical number into the film. I could live with this if the chemistry between Wilson and DeVine was good but it's not, it feels really forced and unnatural, with this helping to sink the film even further.<br />
<br />
Overall, I was extremely disappointed by Pitch Perfect 2. Aside from the likable cast, some funny moments in the internship sub-plot and some decent musical numbers, the whole thing felt like a cheap, lazy rehash of the first film, with many scenes being copied from the first film with no care over how to integrate them into this film, to make a quick buck without any attention being paid to the quality of the film. Worse still, a lot of the jokes this time around felt really offensive, taking cheap shots at groups that really didn't deserve it. This film could have been so much better but it ultimately joins the crop of films suffering from a severe case of sequelitis.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 1.5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-65653556585838925682015-05-17T23:19:00.000+01:002015-05-17T23:19:19.685+01:00Mad Max: Fury Road ReviewUnlike quite a lot of other people who have reviewed this film, I didn't grow up with the Mad Max films as a film cornerstone. I'd seen things that the films had influenced but the actual films just passed me by and I didn't really have much interest in watching them. Then I watched the trailers for Fury Road, which made me interested in the series and I watched the first two films, both of which are great (although The Road Warrior is better). However, after now seeing Fury Road, not only is it the best of the Mad Max series, it is one of the best action films ever made.<a name='more'></a>The film concerns Max who, at the start of the film, is captured by the soldiers of Immortan Joe, the leader of a survivor colony with an ample supply of water and fuel, and is forced to be the blood donor for one of Joe's soldiers (called warboys) Nux. At the same time as this happens, Imperator Furiosa, one of the lieutenants for Immortan Joe helps a group of women Joe keeps for breeding purposes escape, with them looking for the place Furiosa lived before she was captured by Joe, the Green Place, an area of supposedly fertile land. When Joe finds out, he sends out his full war party, with Max strapped to Nux's car to continue acting as a blood donor. After a sandstorm, Max finds his way to Furiosa's war rig and, since the rig has a kill switch which only Furiosa knows how to deactivate, Max reluctantly joins her quest. One of the things I didn't expect from this film was for it to be a statement of feminism. The main plot of the film is a group of women escaping their sexual slavery, with the whole crux of the film being that women are the people who should be in charge of the world. A question that gets asked time and time again in the film is 'who killed the world' and with people like Immortan Joe, his army and the leaders of the other nearby settlements of Gas Town and Bullet Farm, it's clear that men ruined the world and women are the ones in the best situation to fix it. This is a film that shows femininity as a strength and it's refreshing to see an action film take this route. Max's part in the story meanwhile is reminiscent of The Road Warrior, where he gets forced into a violent situation that was already occurring without him and he ends up being forced to help a group of people to benefit him. Whilst the film is called Mad Max, it isn't really his story, it's Furiosa's. That's not to say Max isn't a blank slate, he does have a great character trait where he sees visions of those he's lost and those he couldn't save, racking his mind with guilt and enforcing his lone stature. This also helps in establishing the film outside the original trilogy, not just with the appearance of the Interceptor (which was destroyed in The Road Warrior) but also through the child Max lost being a 6 year old girl rather than the baby son it was in the first film.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The cast meanwhile are incredibly game for whatever the film throws at them. Tom Hardy is a man of few words in the film (with his mouth blocked for the first third of the film) but his physicality works for the character. There's this very weary nature to the character that makes sense given the loss of his family and all he knows makes sense. The standout performer though is Charlize Theron as Furiosa. Again there's this great physical presence to the character, with the robot arm adding to the air of mystery surrounding her, whilst also having this great emotional core, constantly filled with a sense of hope that she can rescue the women. The wives themselves in a lesser film would have simply been the damsels in distress but here, it's clear that they organised their own escape and are all active throughout the film, all of them having different character traits, from one who wants to go back to Joe for the stability to one who wants to revive the world's vegetation. All of the actresses, Zoe Kravitz; Riley Keough; Abbey Lee and Courtney Eaton do great work, but the best of the bunch is Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. She's the one who orchestrated the events of the film and she displays a great deal of intelligence, knowing what to do to stop Immortan Joe just straight up killing them. Speaking of which, Hugh Keays-Byrne (who played the Toecutter in the first Mad Max film) makes a great villain. His design, from the sickly tumors covering his body to the breathing apparatus he wears, it's a really intimidating design, with his voice adding to this menace. This character also shows how the view that women are lesser (Joe sees the wives as property rather than people) is causing unending harm to the world. Then there's a virtually unrecognisable Nicholas Hoult as Nux and his character is the best show of the philosophy of the film. At the start, he firmly believes in the cult that Immortan Joe has established, where water is treated as a luxury, breast milk is farmed for sustenance and if you die in battle, you go to Valhalla, a reworking of Norse mythology to serve Immortan Joe's means, creating an army that is willing to die for him. As the film goes on, Nux sees just how ludicrous this whole view is, after trying to die in battle multiple times and surviving (with the image of those knowing they are going to die spray-painting their teeth chrome being one of the funnier elements in the film, along with the reveal over two of his friends). There's also great work done by Megan Gale and Melissa Jaffer, although revealing why would end up spoiling the film.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The standout elements of the film though are on the technical side.Firstly, this is a gorgeous film to look at. The way that George Miller and John Seale film the Namibia desert and the action in the film, making use of vibrant oranges and reds, contrasting them with the whites of the warboys, is expertly done. The design of every car, weapon, piece of clothing is handled to perfection, creating this wonderful world. The designs, along with the way the film is shot, lets you know a lot of the story and the philosophy of the film without the audience being lectured. The action scene meanwhile (I say that since the film is one long chase scene between Immortan Joe's army and Furiosa) have this sense of weight to them that is missing from most other action films. This is mainly because virtually all of the action in the film was done in camera with dozens of stuntmen and drivers. Everything from the car wrecks to fighters essentially pole vaulting from car to car at a hundred miles per hour was done for real, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMMWHr4_k8M">just look at some of the b-roll for the film and you'll see how much effort went into the action</a>. There are only 2 parts of the film where I know CGI was used, Furiosa's arm and the sandstorm, the rest I'm pretty sure were all practical. All of these elements, along with the excellent music by Junkie XL, are best represented by the Doof Warrior, a person strapped onto a truck which is just dozens of amps strapped together, playing a combination of guitar and flamethrower throughout the film. It shows the tension in the film through the sound of the guitar being heard whenever Immortan Joe's forces are close by, the way he's filmed is incredible, the orange flame bursts being some of the most striking visuals in the film and the fact that this character exists shows the mad genius of George Miller. Keep in mind, George Miller is 70, John Seale is 72 and they direct and shoot this film with the energy of 20 year olds. It's a shame we'll never see what George Miller would have done with Justice League because after this, I can only imagine what he would have done with the more bizarre elements of those characters.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Overall, Mad Max: Fury Road is an action masterpiece. George Miller has put almost every other action director to shame with this film, showing just how incredible practical effects still are. Tom Hardy makes the character of Max his own whilst Charlize Theron's Furiosa joins the ranks as one of the best female action characters alongside such characters as Ellen Ripley, Sarah Conner, The Bride and Hit Girl. This is also one of the most blatantly feminist films to come out in recent years without forcing it all down your throat, the skill of George Miller getting this message across. Even if you have no knowledge of the other films, if you're a fan of action films in any way, you need to see Mad Max: Fury Road.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My Rating: 5/5</div>
TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-67179385077512888682015-05-15T23:25:00.000+01:002015-05-15T23:28:16.594+01:0012 Angry Men Review<span style="background-color: black;"><i style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">This post is part of the <b>My Favorite Classic Movie Blogathon</b> in celebration of </i><b style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">National Classic Movie Day</b><i style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"> (May 16th). Click <a href="http://www.classicfilmtvcafe.com/2015/03/a-blogathon-in-celebration-of-inaugural.html" target="_blank">here</a> to view the schedule listing all the great posts in this blogathon.</i></span><br />
<br />
With the Classic Film Day Blogathon underway I got to thinking about which classic film is my favourite. Every time I thought about it my mind always went back to one film, 12 Angry Men. Everything I love in film is present here and the film has just been given new relevance from the Amy Schumer episode parodying it so there is no better time for me to review it.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot revolves around the deliberations by the jury in a case involving a young hispanic man accused of murdering his father. Whilst 11 of the 12 jurors feel the boy is guilty, one of them feels that they shouldn't rush into a decision and the jurors start going over all of the evidence to determine whether or not they feel the kid is guilty. The main thing I love about this film is that we never find out whether the kid is guilty or not. It's up to the audience to determine it for themselves and you fully understand why the jurors initially voted to convict the kid, the initial evidence did seem to line up with conviction. Furthermore, the stuff brought up over the course of the film to show the kid may not have committed the crime is based on just as much conjecture as the case to prosecute him, it's the doubt over whether or not the facts line up that's important, not the facts themselves. The characters all being anonymous meanwhile gives the sense that this could happen in any courtroom and this is just one of the many cases like this that occur each day. Even with the very brief introductions before the plot gets rolling all of the jurors have their own distinct identity and their own prejudices that inform their decisions, with jurors 3 and 10 showing the most prejudice. As these prejudices come to the forefront as the film goes on, you note how the emotional state of the jurors is just as important as the evidence, especially with juror 3 who, despite having all the evidence against the boy discredited still wants to convict the boy, transferring the anger he has towards his son towards the boy. This is also clear through some of the jurors, mainly juror 10, projecting their own racist attitudes towards the case, with the film making it abundantly clear that these values are not acceptable, especially when juror 10 goes on his racist tirade and all of the jurors except juror 4 turn away from him, with juror 4 telling him to not speak again after the rant ended, and juror 10 complies.<br />
<br />
These all show how the facts in a case invariably get lost and emotion takes over, with only one of the jurors using logic, his character being a calm and somewhat cold stock broker. It also shows the inherent selfishness of people, concerned about their own interests over the needs of others, with juror 7 only changing his vote to end the deliberations so he can watch a baseball game and some of the jurors playing a game of noughts and crosses whilst the deliberations are going on. These things piece together a pretty bleak view of the world but jurors 8 and 9 help show the inherent optimism in the world, the need to see the good in people. I also see the film as a bit of a condemnation of traditional masculine values with juror 3 and his relationship with his son. The idea that forcing someone to grow up into a fighter took away any good juror 3 had with his son and, as I read it, draws a parallel with the kid accused of murder and how violence from the father begets more violence and those who are willing to take a calm, thoughtful approach are the ones who will ultimately be the more valuable in society.<br />
<br />
The performances meanwhile are excellent. Henry Fonda as juror 8 has this overall air of dignity and respectability and this, along with a clear sense of intelligence, lets you know that this is a man that deserves to be trusted. He also does a great job showing some degree of doubt over whether or not the boy is guilty or not. This sense of respectability is also seen in Joseph Sweeney as juror 9. Lee J Cobb and Ed Begley as jurors 3 and 10 respectively show their own prejudices well and their breakdown rants near the end of the film are some of the best pieces of acting in the film. Jack Klugman and George Voskovec meanwhile helps show why these prejudices are wrong, being really thoughtful and calm throughout the proceedings, with Voskovec's speech on the virtues of the justice system being one of the highlights of the film. Meanwhile, Martin Balsam is great showing how inexperienced and out of his depth the foreman is, John Fielder does great work showing his courage increase as the film goes on, E.G Marshall's cool demeanor fits his character perfectly, Jack Warden is great showing his indifference to the whole thing, having a quite sleazy nature that fits with him being a salesman. Robert Webber meanwhile brilliantly shows the indecisiveness of juror 12, with his changing moods feeling incredibly natural and Edward Binns shows his principles and toughness throughout the proceedings really well.<br />
<br />
The direction and cinematography meanwhile are excellent. At the start of the film, when there's more of an informal atmosphere the camera is pulled back, we can see the entire room and everyone in it. As the film goes on the camera goes closer and closer to the action and this, combined with the shots showing the heavy amounts of sweat on each actor, give this incredibly claustrophobic atmosphere to the film. We feel like we're in the room with the jurors and it's a real credit to Sidney Lumet and Boris Kaufman that they made a film about 12 people in a room talking and made it an incredible cinematic experience.<br />
<br />
Overall, 12 Angry Men is an incredible cinematic experience. Sidney Lumet, writer Reginal Rose and DP Boris Kaufman take a story of 12 men in a room talking and make it into a tense, engaging, emotionally charged film exploring the different attitudes people have whilst members of a jury. The prejudices each of the jurors bring, how they let their emotions cloud their judgements, these are all presented perfectly with the strength of the cast and the script selling every decision made. This is easily one of the greatest films ever made.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-13478065244999371212015-04-29T22:54:00.001+01:002015-04-29T22:54:25.702+01:00John Wick ReviewOver the past few years, there have been a fair few throwbacks to the action films of the 80s. Films like The Guest and Cold in July have used the style of the 80s to create some incredibly engaging films and now comes, after way too long a wait for the UK, John Wick, which I think is the best of these types of films.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot concerns former assassin John Wick, whose wife has recently died and whose last act was giving John a dog to look after. However, the son of a Russian mobster who John helped rise to power, not knowing who John is, steals his car and, in the process, kills his dog. As a result, John goes on a rampage, killing everyone in his way to avenge the death of his dog. Now on paper, this plot is incredibly stupid but the way the film is scripted overcomes this stupidity. The entire thing is treated in the utmost sincerity and this gives the film a lot of charm and adds to the overall 80s feel of the film. The plot is incredibly simplistic but the world the film is set in is incredibly interesting. There are so many little details around the relationship between the different assassins, how the mobsters got into power and the safe house they have, most notably the Continental, a hotel where no business between assassins can be conducted. This is all stuff that builds a very compelling world and you want to know more about this world and a lot of the characters. And therein lies a problem with the film, it does its job at world-building a bit too well. There are so many characters in the film that come in and out of the film, many of whom could have whole films based around them. It feels like this film is more of a pitch for sequels focusing on these characters rather than a standalone film.<br />
<br />
That said, all of these characters have a lot of personality injected into them by a murderers row of character actors. There is the common perception in the media that Keanu Reeves is a completely emotionless presence in films but that's not the case here. His work may seem emotionless but is instead filled with a sense of stoicism that fits a character like him, someone who wants to turn his back on violence but who has experienced so much loss that he feels naturally drawn to the world again. Plus, the main reason why the plot isn't as silly as it could have been is that you do feel a connection between Reeves and the dog that is really touching to watch at the start of the film. For the other cast members, Willem Dafoe is really well cast as Wick's mentor and fellow assassin, who clearly shows a lot of respect for Wick and his employers whilst also showing a completely ruthless streak. Ian McShane meanwhile is fun in his brief appearance as Winston, the owner of the continental, although the comic highlight of the film is easily Lance Reddick as the concierge, who gets a lot of the best lines in the film. Michael Nyqvist and Alfie Allen do good work as the villains, Nyqvist being really intimidating but also showing a real sense of fear over Wick, whilst Allen plays his role like a spoilt rich brat which really works for the character and how he behaves throughout the film. Adrianne Palicki meanwhile is a natural action star, having great on-screen presence and between this and her role in Agents of Shield, she's got a great future in action films. There are a few actors who are completely wasted though. Whilst they're good in their roles John Leguizamo, Dean Winters and Clarke Peters, all great actors, don't get much to do in the film. I'd have loved to have seen them more as their characters really helped build the world of the film.<br />
<br />
The action scenes are where the film shines though. All of them are filmed with virtually no shaky-cam, with wide shots and long takes being the order of the day. This decision by directors Chad Stahelski and David Leitch and DP Jonathan Sela allows the stunt team to really show off their work, unsurprising since the directors worked with Reeves on the stunts for The Matrix. They know their way around action scenes, and we see every detail. This is especially true in a scene set in a nightclub, traditionally a location where shaky cam rules, but here is incredibly well shot, everything is clear, there's a strong sense of scene geography, the action scenes are just incredibly well handled and are brutal without being exploitative.<br />
<br />
Overall, John Wick is one of the best pure action films to come along in a long time. Sure there are problems in terms of some of the actors being wasted but the world the film builds is incredibly compelling, Keanu Reeves shows just how good an actor he is and the action scenes themselves are directed incredibly. If you want to see a great throwback to 80s action films, this is the film to see.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 4/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-59962467468929209982015-04-23T09:57:00.000+01:002015-04-23T09:57:20.968+01:00Avengers: Age of Ultron ReviewEver since the first film ended, this has been one of the films I've been looking forward to seeing the most. The prospect of seeing all these characters interact with each other again and how the whole MCU will continue was incredibly exciting, even more so since the release of Guardians of the Galaxy which started the path to Infinity War and Thanos as the main villain. Each new trailer that was released only stoked my excitement and yesterday, I went to an Avengers marathon of Avengers Assemble, Captain America: The Winter Solider and this. The big question out of the way first: is this better than Avengers Assemble? I would say so.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot revolves around Tony Stark who, after finding Loki's staff following a raid on Baron Strucker (the villain seen in the mid-credits scene of Winter Soldier), discovers something within it that would allow him to create his ultimate peacekeeping ideal, Ultron, a programme designed to protect the world when the Avengers cannot. However, when Ultron awakens he begins to see humanity as its own greatest threat and resolves to bring about peace through killing the human population, recruiting the Maximoff twins (again seen in the Winter Soldier mid-credits scene) to help him. Right from the get-go this is a classic creation gone wrong story in the vain of Frankenstein, when something designed to advance knowledge and do good ends up turning on its creator. It's also not hard to see why Stark would come to the conclusion that Ultron is a good idea, after his experience with the portal in the first film, he would want to prevent that from ever happening again. The whole film is really more of a continuation of Iron Man 3 in this regard, focusing on Stark needing to remove his ego from everything and still plagued with the fear over what happened. This fear is stoked by the Maximoff's, mainly Wanda, and this allows for the other characters to get a lot of great moments, seeing the worst possible outcome for them and seeing what drove them to who they are. This makes this film a fair bit darker than its predecessor, particularly around the second act.<br />
<br />
That's not to say the film is completely dark though, Whedon's signature writing style comes through loud and clear once again, with there being tons of laugh out loud moments throughout the film, in particular a party scene at the start of the film, and it's the dialogue and the characters that are the star here. Whilst the first film was more focused on what it would be like if these characters interacted with each other, this film looks at how they work with each other. How all of the members play off each other and work together and this is best exemplified in the Banner-Black Widow relationship. By the end of the first film, we know that Banner could control the Hulk and use it to help the team, but we also know that there is difficulty in calming him down afterwards and Black Widow helps with this role. After finding out about how Romanoff became Black Widow, it's clear that she is a kindred spirit with Banner and this is probably the most believable relationship in the whole series, made even better due to the excellent chemistry that Mark Ruffalo and Scarlett Johansson share with each other. Ruffalo in particular really sells his fear over losing control and hurting Romanoff and this is what drives his character throughout the film.<br />
<br />
The main emotional core though comes, suprisingly, from Hawkeye. We find out a lot more about his past and his life prior to SHIELD in this film, making up for how little character development he got in the previous films. This core comes through especially well in his relation with the Maximoff's, particularly Wanda, due to his experience being controlled by Loki in the first film, making him the best person to help turn the Maximoff's and Jeremy Renner is really allowed to shine here, with his whole demeanor helping him with the emotional heft of the film. However, this does lead into a bit of a problem I have with the film. Whilst the performances from Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson are great, adding a lot of personality to the characters and their backstory is a great dark parallel to Stark's, it's really only Wanda who contributes to the overall story of the film whilst Pietro is there pretty much for action scenes, and even then there aren't really strong shows of his powers (although I could be judging it a bit too harshly considering how well Quicksilver's action scenes were done in X-Men: Days of Future Past).<br />
<br />
Thor and Captain America are a bit more on the sidelines in this film. They help set the major parts of the film in motion, but once the film gets going they do fade into the background a bit, especially Thor who does leave the team for a bit in the second act to figure out what Wanda Maximoff showed him, although there is something lost with the character without Tom Hiddleston as Loki. Personally, I don't really have a problem with this as we've already had 3 prior films with these characters and it is nice to allow other characters a chance in the spotlight on a character development level. Iron Man meanwhile continues to get a lot of character development which, as stated before, builds off of the development in Avengers Assemble and Iron Man 3 really naturally and the main story of the film is helping to show Stark hubris for his actions with Ultron and that he cannot forcefully create peace as it would always backfire.<br />
<br />
This leads into Ultron. In the first film, whilst the character was incredibly well written and acted, I never really found Loki to be much of a threat, he could get inside their heads but physically he could be defeated quite easily. It's in this aspect that I think Ultron is a superior villain. Not only is he played perfectly by James Spader, showing how much of a god complex the character has, along with a streak of narcissism clearly inherited from Stark (with a lot of his dialogue moments feeling a lot like a robotic version of Raymond Reddington from The Blacklist), he is an intense physical presence. It's hard to destroy him, if one body is destroyed he'll just upload himself into another, with this helping into the overall message of the inherent initial harm in evolution (due to him violently destroying each previous body when he builds a more advanced one) and in the final action scene, the sheer strength in numbers, all of them with this personality, along with his overall plan, gives the ending a bigger sense of scale than in the first film.<br />
<br />
The future of the MCU is also really well shown through some of the other characters in the film. It's great to see more of Don Cheadle and Anthony Mackie, the scenes with Nick Fury and Stellan Skarsgard help to show the future of the team and the MCU effectively and the scenes with Andy Serkis (who is a lot of fun in his brief appearance) help set up Black Panther effectively, but it's in The Vision where the true intent of Phase 3 is shown. He is the most bizarre character introduced in the MCU (even including the ones in Guardians of the Galaxy). The circumstances behind his creation are probably the most overt parallel to Frankenstein in the film, his whole power-set is never fully explained but doesn't really need to be and the whole look of the character shows how much the comic book aesthetic is going to be appreciated in Phase 3. A lot of credit has to go to Paul Bettany for making the character work, the overall detachment from humanity being perfectly counterpointed by Bettany's soulful eyes, which helps make the character so compelling and I'm excited to see how he'll play into Phase 3.<br />
<br />
On a technical standpoint, Whedon has improved a lot as an action director since the first film. He was always good at directing the characters and the dialogue scenes but it was also clear he wasn't experienced directing large scale action. Here though, Whedon (along with DP Ben Davis) allow each action scene a lot of breathing room and use these scenes to help advance the characters. The standout in my eyes though is the Hulkbuster fight, there's a clear sense of geography throughout the scene and it builds up on a lot of character moments previously set up, especially the idea of Banner losing control (since the Hulkbuster was designed by Banner along with Stark). All the other action scenes have great moments as well, and I loved the long take used at the start of the film. The overall design of everything is excellent as well, from the threatening, imposing nature of Ultron, to the overall aesthetic of Avengers Tower and Ultron's lair. Each area has it's own unique identity, be it from the design or from the colour scheme and how it's shot, this is much more of a visual treat than the first film. If there is a problem I have with the technicals, and this is really more of a nitpick, it's that the music doesn't really have a strong theme for the team, I like the one they have but they could have done better to fit each character into it. That's not to say the music isn't bad, it's just that it lacks any real presence.<br />
<br />
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron is a very worthy follow up to the first film with a great focus on character. Whilst it hasn't overtaken Guardians of the Galaxy as my favourite MCU film it is a close second. Whedon's strength with dialogue and character is really allowed to shine, matched by a top notch cast at the top of their game, and it's clear that Whedon's skill as a director has improved between films. This is already an excellent sign for how Phase 3 of the MCU is going to go and I cannot wait for that to happen.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-38731277654500105512015-03-12T21:18:00.001+00:002015-03-12T21:18:28.011+00:00Kill The Messenger ReviewSometimes, there are occasions when you go to the cinema, not knowing what's on, and just choose the film that starts next. This happened to me a few days ago. I was going to see Chappie but the negative reviews led me to looking at a different film to watch, and I ended up choosing Kill The Messenger and I'm glad I did. I'm a sucker for these kinds of films and this is one of the best examples to come recently.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The plot concerns the investigations by Gary Webb, a journalist for the San Jose Mercury News, into the level of involvement the CIA had in the cocaine trade in the 1980s, allowing cocaine to be brought into the US and using the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Throughout the film, we see Webb try and find any evidence aside from the word of the drug dealers that he interviews. Along with this is the pressure he faces over the safety of his family should he report the story. After the story is published however, the story turns away from the drug deals and towards him, with the attacks mainly coming from the LA Times and The Washington Post, with the focus being that his reporting was sloppy, with the prospect of CIA involvement in discrediting Webb being in the background at all times. I found the whole idea of the CIA being involved in the drug trade to be a very interesting idea, one that I'm not surprised happened and I also wasn't surprised that the CIA did everything in their power to discredit Webb and even indirectly threatened his family. It's also intriguing that Webb was not the first person to investigate the CIA over everything, with Webb talking to other people who investigated, who warn him that the CIA will do everything to stop him. It ultimately becomes an issue of journalistic ethics over whether he should print the story. It's also really depressing to see that every journalist who proudly stood by Webb and called him one of the best journalists in the country turned against him the instant The LA Times and The Washington Post raised issues with his reporting, with virtually none of them following up on his story and those that did found that none of the people Webb talked to would talk to them. It's all incredibly interesting and these ideas are presented in a very intelligent way. I don't know if everything that happened in the film happened in real life but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the case.<br />
<br />
The performances are what make this worth watching. I've always found Jeremy Renner to be a bit hit and miss. He's great as Hawkeye in the MCU but I've never really been convinced by Renner in other roles. Here it's a completely different story. He's incredibly compelling as Webb, showing the drive he has to make sure that the story is reported correctly, the anger over what the CIA is doing and how conflicted he is over whether to report the story and risk the safety of his family or not report it and let the CIA get away with it. This sense of confliction is aided by Rosemary DeWitt as Susan Webb, who clearly wants Gary to report the story to the best of his ability, but is concerned about the safety, with this also being shown by Lucas Hedges as Webb's son Ian. For the newspaper, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is great as Anna Simons, the editor, who shows a lot of faith in Webb's reporting and wants to give him every opportunity to gain the full information but the higher ups in the paper won't allow her to do so, with these represented best by Oliver Platt, who falls into the category of people who originally supported Webb but the accusations against him got to him. Good work is done in smaller roles by Michael Sheen as Fred Weil, someone who tried to investigate the CIA but stopped due to threats against him, Tim Blake Nelson as a lawyer who helps Webb get the ball rolling at the start of the investigation and Michael K Williams as one of the drug dealers that the CIA indirectly used to sell cocaine. There's also great scene stealing turns from Andy Garcia, Paz Vega, Ray Liotta, Richard Schiff and Robert Patrick, rounding out a stellar cast.<br />
<br />
Overall, Kill The Messenger is one of the best surprises I've had watching a film in a while. I went in to see it with no expectations, barely knowing anything about it, and was amazed to find an incredibly intelligent thriller boosted by a great script by Peter Landesman and a top notch performance by Jeremy Renner.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-28980172844779016352015-02-22T22:38:00.000+00:002015-02-22T22:38:14.229+00:00Shaun the Sheep Movie ReviewOne of the only film studios that operates today that I felt has never made a bad film is Aardman. Chicken Run and Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit are classics in stop motion and their other films, Flushed Away; Arthur Christmas and The Pirates in an Adventure with Scientists, are all a lot of fun. But in terms of profitability, nothing has been bigger for Aardman than Shaun the Sheep. Spinning off from Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave, Shaun the Sheep started out as a TV show on CBBC, eventually getting a few video games, a spin-off series (Timmy Time on Cbeebies) and an artistic movement with statues of Shaun the Sheep placed across London and Bristol. Inevitably a film adaptation would be made, but there was a risk that the film would lose the charm that made the Shaun the Sheep TV series so good. Thankfully, that is not the case, Shaun the Sheep Movie (really needs a 'the' in there) continues Aardman's streak of incredibly entertaining films.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The film focuses on a flock of sheep, led by Shaun who, after getting tired with the same farm routine day in and day out, resolve to have a day off by locking the farmer in a caravan and spending the day relaxing. However, the caravan ends up rolling down to the nearby city, quickly followed by the farmers dog Bitzer. After they don't return, and the sheep not being able to get to their food, Shaun resolves to find the farmer in the city, with the rest of the flock tagging along. Complicating matters is the fact that the farmer is suffering from memory loss due to a head injury sustained in the caravan, with him thinking that he's a hairdresser, along with an animal control officer wanting to capture the flock. One thing that I'm incredibly thankful of is that the film continues the main stylistic choice of the series, that being that there is no spoken dialogue. The entire plot and all the character beats in the film are laid out almost entirely through body language. Sure there are a few noises the characters make, baaing from the sheep, barks from Bitzer and some grunts for the humans (provided by Justin Fletcher as Shaun, John Sparkes as Bitzer and the Farmer, Omid Djalili as the Animal Control officer Trumper and a cameo from Nick Park), but no actual dialogue is spoken. Aardman have made a silent comedy for modern day child audiences, who are used to fast-paced, dialogue heavy films, and that in and of itself is commendable but it goes beyond just being a gimmick. Directors/writers Richard Starzak and Mark Burton provide a lot of character details for everyone even without dialogue, notable ones being for Shaun, portrayed as a bit of a rebel who cares for the rest of the flock and is the most street smart of the group; Bitzer, who is a bit of a stick-in-the-mud who has a lot of respect for the Farmer and Trumper, who considers himself to be a highly efficient badass who wants recognition for what he does. The best character stuff in the film though goes to the Farmer. At the start of the film, we see the Farmer with younger versions of Shaun and Bitzer (who are probably the cutest things to be in a film in a long time), caring deeply for them and loving his work, when it gets to the present day, the Farmer has become a stricter, with a rigidly enforced schedule and who constantly hits Bitzer in the face with his door. As the film goes on, even after the memory loss, the Farmer has brief traces of love for his work and it's clear that he misses being the person he was in the past. This is all done with no dialogue and comes across incredibly well in a dramatic sense.<br />
<br />
That's not to say the film lacks its humourous moments, this is a really funny film. It's not really laugh-out-loud funny, and some of the jokes definitely aim for a younger audience, in particular the flatulence jokes, but there is a great deal of humour derived from the characters and how they interact with the city, especially with the sheep, that made me chuckle. This being Aardman, the animation itself plays a role in the humour. Whilst the main animation goes a bit broader and a bit slower for its humour, the stop motion style of Aardman is inherently funny due to the character design and the movements for each character. There's also a lot of great details in the background that will reward repeat viewings. The overall background details for the city are a joy to look at, even if it is pretty blatantly London, and there are a lot of smaller details that Aardman fans will spend hours looking for. In this viewing, I was able to see a picture of Feathers McGraw from Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers in the background of a scene set at the animal control offices and I'm pretty sure I saw an 'all your base are belong to us' joke. This also brings in the more adult humour that will go over the heads of the younger audience. but not in a sexual innuendo way, it's more referencing films that the younger audience won't be familiar with (such as The Silence of the Lambs) and technological issues (such as internet connection issues and how photoshop is used to alter photographs). It's all a lot of fun to watch.<br />
<br />
Overall, Shaun the Sheep Movie is a lot of fun. Whilst it's not Aardman's best work, it is admirable to see an animation studio committed to making a silent movie in the modern age of animation, with them even getting a good bit of emotion from it. Not all the jokes in the film work but it's still a lot of fun to watch and shows why Aardman is the best of the best for stop motion animation. Plus, it what other film released this year will you hear a song sung by Rizzle Kicks in collaboration with Vic Reeves.<br />
<br />
My Rating: 4.5/5TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091384834833714941.post-69717563891132518202015-02-21T23:47:00.000+00:002015-02-22T11:29:06.311+00:00My Thoughts on the 2015 Oscar NominationsA tradition that I have concerning the Oscars is to provide my thoughts on the list of nominees before the show. This year, I've cut it a bit closer than usual due to being busy with university work but they're here now. As usual, my thoughts will be for each category and split up into Will Win, Should Win and Missing with some overall thoughts at the end. With that said, let's get started:<br />
<a name='more'></a>Best Film:<br />
Will Win: Boyhood<br />
Should Win: Boyhood; Birdman; Whiplash; The Grand Budapest Hotel; Selma<br />
Missing: Pride; The Lego Movie; Interstellar; Nightcrawler; Gone Girl; Frank; Guardians of the Galaxy<br />
<br />
Best Director:<br />
Will Win: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu - Birdman<br />
Should Win: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu - Birdman; Wes Anderson - The Grand Budapest Hotel; Richard Linklater - Boyhood<br />
Missing: Damien Chazelle - Whiplash; Ava DuVernay - Selma; Christopher Nolan - Interstellar; James Gunn - Guardians of the Galaxy; Dan Gilroy - Nightcrawler; David Fincher - Gone Girl<br />
<br />
Best Actor:<br />
Will Win: Michael Keaton - Birdman<br />
Should Win: Michael Keaton - Birdman; Benedict Cumberbatch - The Imitation Game<br />
Missing: Ralph Fiennes - The Grand Budapest Hotel; David Oyelowo - Selma; Jake Gyllenhaal - Nightcrawler; Brendan Gleeson - Calvary; Jesse Eisenberg - The Double<br />
<br />
Best Actress:<br />
Will Win: Julianne Moore - Still Alice<br />
Should Win: Rosamund Pike - Gone Girl<br />
Missing: Scarlett Johansson - Under the Skin; Julianne Moore - Maps to the Stars; Gugu Mbatha-Raw - Belle; Tilda Swinton - Only Lovers Left Alive; Robin Wright - The Congress<br />
<br />
Best Supporting Actor:<br />
Will Win: JK Simmons - Whiplash<br />
Should Win: JK Simmons - Whiplash; Edward Norton - Birdman<br />
Missing: Michael Fassbender - Frank; Ben Schnetzer - Pride; Tyler Perry - Gone Girl<br />
<br />
Best Supporting Actress:<br />
Will Win: Patricia Arquette - Boyhood<br />
Should Win: Patricia Arquette - Boyhood<br />
Missing: Imelda Staunton - Pride; Mia Wasikowska - Maps to the Stars; Mackenzie Foy - Interstellar; Maggie Gyllenhaal - Frank; Emma Watson - Noah<br />
<br />
Best Animated Film:<br />
Will Win: How to Train Your Dragon 2<br />
Should Win: Big Hero 6; How to Train Your Dragon 2<br />
Missing: The Lego Movie<br />
<br />
Best Foreign Language Film:<br />
Will Win: Ida<br />
Should Win: Ida<br />
Missing: The Golden Dream<br />
<br />
Best Documentary:<br />
Will Win: CitizenFour<br />
Should Win: CitizenFour<br />
Missing: Life Itself; Jodorowsky's Dune<br />
<br />
Best Original Screenplay:<br />
Will Win: Boyhood<br />
Should Win: Boyhood; The Grand Budapest Hotel; Nightcrawler; Birdman<br />
Missing: Pride; Only Lovers Left Alive; Calvary; Locke; Edge of Tomorrow<br />
<br />
Best Adapted Screenplay:<br />
Will Win: The Theory of Everything<br />
Should Win: Whiplash<br />
Missing: Frank; Guardians of the Galaxy; The Lego Movie; Gone Girl; 22 Jump Street; Paddington<br />
<br />
Best Production Design:<br />
Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel<br />
Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel<br />
Missing: Guardians of the Galaxy; Paddington; Noah; The Double<br />
<br />
Best Cinematography:<br />
Will Win: Birdman<br />
Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel; Birdman<br />
Missing: Interstellar; Under the Skin; Nightcrawler; Locke; The Double; Only Lovers Left Alive; Gone Girl<br />
<br />
Best Costume Design:<br />
Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel<br />
Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel<br />
Missing: Guardians of the Galaxy; The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1; Belle; Pride<br />
<br />
Best Editing:<br />
Will Win: Boyhood<br />
Should Win: Whiplash; Boyhood; The Grand Budapest Hotel<br />
Missing: Pride; Birdman; Under the Skin; Edge of Tomorrow; Frank; Selma<br />
<br />
Best Makeup:<br />
Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel<br />
Should Win: Guardians of the Galaxy; The Grand Budapest Hotel<br />
Missing: X-Men: Days of Future Past<br />
<br />
Best Score:<br />
Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel<br />
Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel; Interstellar<br />
Missing: Under the Skin; The Double; Gone Girl<br />
<br />
Best Song:<br />
Will Win: Glory - Selma<br />
Should Win: Everything is Awesome - The Lego Movie<br />
Missing: I Love You All - Frank; I'll Get You What You Want (Cockatoo in Malibu) - Muppets Most Wanted<br />
<br />
Best Visual Effects:<br />
Will Win: Interstellar<br />
Should Win: Interstellar; Guardians of the Galaxy; Dawn of the Planet of the Apes<br />
Missing: Godzilla; Paddington<br />
<br />
Best Sound Editing:<br />
Will Win: American Sniper<br />
Should Win: Interstellar; Birdman<br />
Missing: Guardians of the Galaxy; Whiplash; The Lego Movie; Frank; Under the Skin<br />
<br />
Best Sound Mixing:<br />
Will Win: Whiplash<br />
Should Win: Whiplash; Birdman; Interstellar<br />
Missing: Guardians of the Galaxy; Frank; The Lego Movie; Under the Skin<br />
<br />
So overall, this years Oscars are a pretty mixed bag. Whilst it's great to see all the nominations for Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Whiplash and Birdman, the snubbing of Selma and The Lego Movie is pretty bad. And yeah, there is a fair case to be made for whitewashing with no people of colour nominated in the acting categories, my thoughts being that Oscar voters felt they gave people of colour enough wins last year with 12 Years a Slave, which some leaked Oscar ballots have revealed to be the case. Once again, brilliant sci-fi films have been almost entirely ignored along with British independent films. Every year I feel like it comes down to a race between two films. In 2009 it was Avatar v. The Hurt Locker; in 2010, The King's Speech v. The Social Network; in 2011, The Artist v. Hugo; in 2012, Argo v. Life of Pi; in 2013, 12 Years a Slave v. Gravity and this year I feel it's Boyhood v. Birdman. I also feel that the success seen by The Theory of Everything won't extend much further than the BAFTAs, especially since the director of it wasn't nominated here. So those are my thoughts on the Oscars. Tomorrow we'll see if I was right in my predictions.TonyCooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04138656686398075103noreply@blogger.com0