The Oscars 2015: And the winners were ...

Image Source: Collide

Written By: Luke Mythen

Another year, another Academy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles. This year, the 87th awards show was hosted by the very enthusiastic and talented Neil Patrick Harris, taking over from last year’s host Ellen DeGeneres. Before the awards, everyone had their own opinions and favourites, ranging from Birdman to The Theory Of Everything; everyone had their own views on who should win. And whether you love these awards or you hate them, they are the peak of an actor's or a film maker's career, they can open doors, and they can allow the unrecognisable to become recognisable. They have also provided us with some of the most famous television moments, from Ellen DeGeneres' selfie with the audience in 2014 to Marlon Brando’s Oscar snub in 1973 when a young American Indian girl named Sacheen Littlefather took to the stage to meet the crowd. If you would like to see this in full, click here.

As with every ceremony, the opening is vitally important. There was an immense pressure on the shoulders of the diverse host, who has previously worked on stage and was most recently in Gone Girl and the television series How I Met Your Mother. The opening was very tasteful, which is a rarity for the Oscars: the song was quick and easy to bob along with, and it was performed well by both Neil Patrick Harris and Jack Black. The Birdman sequence was really something to behold; another historic moment in the history of the Oscars.

The live performances on the night kept the show moving, and provided the audience with a grateful gap between awards. The stand-out performance, however, was the song by the Oscar winners on the night for their original number Glory for the film Selma. It moved a lot of the audience to tears with its message of hope and freedom, the message that Martin Luther King was spreading at this time.

Still, we are not watching the Oscars because we want to see the host all night. We want to see the awards, the victory speeches and the losers' sour expressions. Back in January, we were given the shortlist of the nominations within each category, and a lot of them had already been predicted and expected, but there were some unusual absentees. For example, The Lego Movie, which was a personal favourite of mine last year, was not considered for Best Animation category, although the song Everything Is Awesome from the movie was nominated and performed at the ceremony, with a surprise guest known as Batman. Another strange absentee was Jake Gyllenhaal for his powerful and gritty performance in Nightcrawler. But now is not the time to concentrate on who should and who shouldn’t have been there; all we need to concentrate on now is who won and who didn’t this past Sunday evening.

We shall begin with the most prestigious category, and that is Best Picture. The films nominated were Birdman, The Theory Of Everything, Whiplash, Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Selma and The Imitation Game. All fantastic films in their own right; however, it was Birdman that came out victorious on the night. The field was strong, so it shows how good this year's winner had to be to triumph. You can read a review of Birdman by my colleague Mark Armstrong by clicking here.

The next big category is Best Actor In A Leading Role. Now, this had a lot of speculation before the nomination announcement because the calibre of the past year had been so high. The nominated actors included Eddie Redmayne, Michael Keaton, Steve Carrell, Bradley Cooper and Benedict Cumberbatch. I expected Redmayne to win, and he did. He provided a complete performance in The Theory Of Everything, as we accompanied him on a fascinating journey as Professor Steven Hawking from his time in University to the present day. I remember leaving the theatre that day knowing then that he would win the Oscar for Best Actor. You can read my full review of this particular film by clicking here. As you'll see, my foresight was exceptional!

The last category I am going to divulge into is Best Actress In A Leading Role. The nominations were again fierce and the competition was intense. Those up for the award included Marion Cotillard, Felicity Jones, Reese Witherspoon, Roseamund Pike and Julian Moore. The winner, of course, was the ever-talented Julian Moore for her performance in Still Alice. This is a long overdue Oscar for the actress who in the past has been nominated but was unsuccessful for films including Boogie Nights (1997) and Far From Heaven (2002).

Overall, this year’s Oscars didn’t stand out like many have in the past, as the films up for contention were not big box office smashes, such as in 2010 when the overall income for all the nominated films were over $1 billion. This time around, it was a much lower key event, but the winners were on the whole logical, the host was very entertaining, and the show ran very smoothly. And so I look forward to next year’s event with bated breath.

I conclude with a list of the winners in all categories at the 2015 Oscars. See you on the red carpet in 2016!

Best Picture: Birdman
Best Actress In A Leading Role: Julianne Moore (Still Alice)
Best Actor In A Leading Role: Eddie Redmayne (The Theory Of Everything)
Best Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu (Birdman)
Best Adapted Screenplay: The Imitation Game (Graham Moore)
Best Original Screenplay: Birdman (Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris Jr. and Armando Bo)
Best Original Score: The Grand Budapest Hotel (Alexandre Desplat0
Best Original Song: Glory (Selma; Music and lyrics by John Stephens and Lonnie Lynn)
Best Documentary Feature: Citizenfour (Laura Poitras, Mathilde Bonnefoy and Dirk Wilutzky)
Film Editing: Whiplash (Tom Cross)
Cinematography: Birdman (Emmanuel Lubezki)
Production Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel (Adam Stockhausen and Anna Pinnock)
Best Animated Feature: Big Hero 6 (Don Hall, Chris Williams and Roy Conli)
Best Animated Short: Feast (Patrick Osborne and Kristina Reed)
Achievements In Visual Effects: Interstellar (Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter and Scott Fisher)
Best Actress In A Supporting Role: Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
Sound Editing: American Sniper (Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman)
Sound Mixing: Whiplash (Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins and Thomas Curley)
Best Documentary Short Subject: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1 (Ellen Goosenberg Kent and Dana Perry)
Best Live Action Short Film: The Phone Call (Mat Kirkby and James Lucas)
Best Foreign Language Film: Ida (Poland)
Makeup and Hairstyling: Frances Hannon and Mark Coulier (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Costume Design: Milena Canonero (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Best Actor In A Supporting Role: J.K. Simmons (Whiplash)

Disagree with any of the choices? Leave your comments below!

Ex Machina

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Universal Pictures (UK) and A24 Films (US)
Production Companies: DNA Films, Film4 and Scott Rudin Productions
Director: Alex Garland
Producers: Andrew Macdonald and Scott Rudin
Scriptwriter: Alex Garland
Main Cast: Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander and Oscar Isaac
Released: January 23 2015 (UK)
Running Time: 108 Minutes
Certificate: 15

Ex Machina tells the story of a computer coder, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), who wins the chance to spend a week at the house in the mountains belonging to Nathan (Oscar Isaac), the CEO of the company he works for. This film is the directorial debut for screenwriter Alex Garland (28 Days Later, 2002), and he sets about telling the story about the complications of robots and their capacity of feeling attraction. The concept as a whole is a very difficult subject to approach; it's hard enough to script feelings for living characters, so writing them instead for an AI and allowing the audience to connect with those feelings is a tricky task.

The film only has three characters, with the two human protagonists portrayed by Dominic Gleeson (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, 2010) and Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, 2015) respectively. As an actor, it is must be very difficult to work with only one actor on a daily basis and to keep each scene fresh and interesting for the audience. But these two actors do a good job maintaining this: there is always an awkward tension between the two that flies brilliantly off the screen, and their contrasting views on the AI really make for an interesting conclusion at the end of the film.

Stealing the show, however, is Alicia Vikander (A Royal Affair, 2012) as the new AI they are testing out. For the most part, her face plays a pivotal role in connecting her character with Caleb. The concept of the Turing Test revolves around the idea that when you are speaking to an AI, you don’t know the difference between an AI and a real human. The story is well-paced, with very little action; however, the social interaction with all three characters allows for a boat-load of drama.

The complex nature of the relationship between the three characters leaves some questions come the climax of the film, as each character (including the AI) has their own motives for their actions, but they are largely resolved by the end. Without spoling it, the conclusion does leave you scratching your head a little, not for a lack of story development but more in terms of searching for logic. I was left wondering why a certain character did what they did when they must have known the consequences of their actions. When you see the film, it is obvious what I am talking about.

The film has some excellent ideas that are delivered very well. It has been shot beautifully and is also written very well. The pacing is good, despite it dragging a little during the middle section for around 15 minutes. This is a must-see for hardcore movie goers, but for a viewer who wants to sit back and relax, it may not be your cup of tea.

Overall Rating: 8/10 - Very Good

Spiderman swinging in the right direction

Image Source: Marvel

Written By: Luke Mythen

Finally, Spiderman has returned to where he belongs, MARVEL!

The huge news reveals that Spiderman will now join up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) in phase 3, starting in 2016.

This news will not come as a shock after the Sony email leaks at the back-end of 2014, and after the poor showing at the box office for The Amazing Spiderman 2. This announcement, first and foremost, brings a lot of excitement and enthusiasm that the character had lost even after its reboot in 2012. The fans should be excited: if anyone can make a new franchise work, it is Kevin Feige, the Marvel Godfather; he has turned unknown characters like The Guardians Of The Galaxy and Thor into A-List names for comic book fans.

Spiderman, however, is a different kettle of fish. He is a universally known icon and character that has carried the Marvel comics for 70 years, but can he now integrate himself into the MCU? Most people would say: "Of course, why not?" However, there are some concerns that I have regarding this.

Marvel ultimately don’t need Peter Parker swinging by in one of their films; they will make over a billion dollars this summer with the ‘Avengers Age of Ultron’ and ‘Antman’. So, why bring him back home?

Well, that is exactly it: Spiderman is coming home, having been owned by Sony for many years and having really struggled since 2004, with Spiderman 2 (Sam Rami, 2004) being the last commercial and box office success. Since then, the MCU has evolved into a tornado of successful films, even when the characters are relatively unknown. The idea of Spiderman becoming part of the Avengers for ‘Avengers Infinity War Part 1 and 2’ is mouth-watering to say the least. So, ultimately, the main reason they have brought him back is because they want to, not because they need to.

Sony need this deal more than Marvel. They have struggled directing this series the right way despite new directions, directors and actors. They do still have the final say on production, scripts and casting, but crucially they have the safety net of Kevin Feige, who will help steer them in the direction the character will take.

All sounds good then, so what are the negatives about this news? Well, personally, the fact that Sony still have creative control worries me immensely. Yes, Marvel will be involved and will have the authority to make certain decisions, but ultimately it is still the same company who made The Amazing Spiderman 2 and Spiderman 3 (Sam Rami, 2007). Can Spiderman fit into the universe? It will be difficult for him to share a film as we suspect he will in Captain America 3: Civil War (Russo Brothers, scheduled for 2016). Would he steal too much focus away from the protagonists and the overall story? Yes, he might, but he could also offer a new exciting angle for the franchise to be taken in. His solo film has already caused a bit of a stir after the preceding films all needed their release dates to be pushed back by six months. Spiderman will now be released on the day that Thor 3: Ragnorok was scheduled, so is Marvel saying that he is more important to them than their rock Thor?

Overall, though, this is a win for fans of comic books and, more importantly, fans of the Spiderman comic books. He will provide the Avengers with something that they are yet to explore, and provide Marvel with another platform to dominate at the box office. I am personally happy about the deal, although I still have concerns after the last ten years. But good luck to Spiderman in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. My Spidey senses are tingling with excitement!

Superman: Man Of Steel

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: DC Entertainment, Legendary Pictures, Syncopy and Cruel and Unusual Films
Director: Zack Snyder
Producers: Charles Roven, Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas and Deborah Snyder
Scriptwriters: David S. Goyer
Main Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Ayelet Zurer, Christopher Meloni and Russell Crowe
Released: June 14 2013
Running Time: 143 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

Back in 2006, we were introduced to an update of the Richard Donner classic Superman from 1979. This seemed the easy route to take the Superman franchise after the success of Christopher Nolan’s re-imagining of Batman (starting with Batman Begins, 2005). However, the film bombed in the box office and the story was bland and flat. Since 2008, Marvel and Disney have taken over the superhero world with their multi-movie collaboration with the Avengers that has left DC and Warner Bros. very jealous and lagging behind. So, they turned to Christopher Nolan and David Goyer (Blade Trinity, 2003) to revamp Superman and the Justice League. They both wrote the story for Superman: Man Of Steel, while Goyer carried on to write the script. Nolan left to become head producer and employed Zac Snyder (300, 2006) to direct his re-imagination of Superman.

To begin with, this is a major improvement from Superman Returns. However, it is not without its faults. I am personally not a big fan of Snyder; he is a good action director, but when it comes to character development and storytelling, he falls flat on his face. His bigger concern was making the film look good: Snyder said very early into production that this was going to be his most realistic-looking motion picture, as he shot it on film and in native 2D, which in post-production was then converted over to 3D.

Anyway, onto the movie itself. This is not actually the complete re-imagination that some people wanted, as it follows the same story as the comics and the original movie. What differentiates this from its predecessors is the telling of the main story. We get flashbacks to Clark Kent’s (Superman) past, which for me was the most interesting part of the film. The first two acts brilliantly set up the finale, which in turn will ultimately let you down.

You can really feel Nolan’s influence in this story with character development: the story arc with Kevin Costner, who plays Clark's earth father, is brilliant. Clark is torn between wanting to show off his powers to help people, while his father wants him to rein it in as the world just isn’t ready for a superhero yet. This does tie in with certain parts later on in the film which brought about a satisfying conclusion.

So, why does the ending disappoint? Well, the one thing I look for going into a Superman film is the moment when you want to stand up and cheer, which the first two Superman movies both had. Unfortunately, this lacked such a moment. Don’t get me wrong: the action still had some special moments, one example being when he is defending his mother (Diane Lane), but overall the action was one big bang for special effects and noise. Which while watching this on an IMAX screen is undobtedly special, it gets a bit dull upon second viewing.

On the whole, the casting is very good. Henry Cavil (Immortals, 2011) is a good Superman: he mixes the balance of superhero and human very well, and you do care and feel for his character. Amy Adams (American Hustle, 2014) is a step up from the last Lois Lane we were given; however, she isn’t anything special and the chemistry isn’t really there between the two lead characters. Michael Shannon (Boardwalk Empire) is very good: he has a creepy, dark tone, which is the complete opposite to Superman, and he uses his facial expressions really well.

However, Kevin Costner steals the show as Clark's father. It’s unfortunate that he only really sees an hour of screen time, but when he is on-screen, you are drawn to his presence. The conflict he has with a young Clark Kent is fascinating, and something we had yet to see on the big screen, which is part of the reason why it was the highlight of the film. To see the emotion of not just Superman or Lois Lane but of the two most important people in his life was really refreshing and a nice touch.

The intention with this movie was for Superman to come back with a bang. He has done that, but not in the way many would have hoped. Yes, this is a good film; no, it didn’t re-define Superman or the superhero genre. It did give us a solid base for many more films to come, beginning with Batman vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice in March 2016. If you are a fan of Superman, this will appeal to you, but the franchise has yet to reach the levels of Marvel and their introductory movie Iron Man.

Overall Rating: 7.5/10 - Good

The Wolf Of Wall Street

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Production Companies: Red Granite Pictures, Appian Way Productions and Sikelia Productions
Director: Martin Scorsese
Producers: Martin Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio, Riza Aziz, Joey McFarland and Emma Tillinger Koskoff
Scriptwriter: Terence Winter
Main Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner, Jon Bernthal, Jon Favreau and Jean Dujardin
Released: December 25 2013 (US) and January 17 2014 (UK)
Running Time: 180 Minutes
Certificate: 18

It was a bitter and cold evening when I was asked to see a new movie, and not just any movie, but The Wolf Of Wall Street, the new, highly anticipated film from Martin Scorsese (Shutter Island, 2010; The Departed, 2006). I had seen the trailers, which did entice me a little; however, the running time of almost three hours slightly diminished my enthusiasm. Still, I did go and see it, and I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.

The film is a true story about a young stock broker named Jordan Belfort, which covers his life and times, from his early days on the stock market to becoming one of the most powerful men in New York. The film angles its point of view from Jordan, played wonderfully by the ever-growing talent that is Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, 1997). This has struck controversy, which I will get onto a little later.

This film follows the narrative pattern that you would find in a Scorsese movie: for example, as is the case with many of his other films set in New York City, the lead protagonist is ultimately the victim of his own power, and therefore he usually loses everything by the end of the film. That's the case here too, but that doesn't reduce the entertainment provided, which explains the five Oscar nominations for this motion picture.

The opening scene of the film tells you everything you need to know about what to expect over the next three hours. It opens with our main character Jordan Belfort snorting cocaine off a young model, and the film continues in the same vein, in all honesty. The story does take many twists and turns along the way, which I expected with a long run-time. The strange thing for me was that everything in this film is about excess; from the money to the drugs to the girls, it is all about wanting more and more, and yet I never found myself hating or disliking the character like I thought I would when I had seen the trailers. This man is everything that I despise about rich self-centred people, but I still wanted things to work out well for him when I was watching the film. Maybe this is because he isn’t born into wealth and has to work his way to success, albeit illegally.

To be honest, I’m not sure whether it was DiCaprio’s performance or the directing by Scorsese, but I was interested in what was going to happen next to these characters. Jonah Hill is passable in this film; I’m not his biggest fan (I personally don’t understand all the fuss around him being funny, since most of his jokes revolve around his weight), but he is bearable in this movie. Margot Robbie plays Jordan's second wife, and she plays the role well, but you don’t miss her when she is off-screen like you do with DiCaprio.

When this film was released, the critics slammed it for glorifying the life of a criminal who made his money by cheating other people out of theirs, and then spending it all on cars, boats, houses, booze, drugs and hookers. I understand where the criticism comes from, as this movie really does glorify the whole thing, but within the context of the movie, it works. If you are disgusted by these kind of people who exist and are the reason why the economy collapsed, then don’t waste your time viewing this film. It is meant to be a comedy drama that, at times, makes light of everything Jordan Belfort did, but there are also points in the film which are very serious, such as the moment when Jordan hits his first wife Naomi. This is been edited to make the moment even more sinister, and is shot to make it as dramatic as possible.

In actual fact, my main issue with this movie is that, as is the case with many long films, it feels like it lasts thirty minutes too long. I enjoyed myself for two and a half hours, but then my body was telling me that I've seen enough. That's not to say that the final half-hour is poor, but the movie as a whole could have been shortened and the overall story wouldn't have suffered as a result.

“My name is Jordan Belfort; the year I turned 26, I made 49 million dollars! Which really p---ed me off because it was three shy of a million a week.” This line in the trailer really does sum up Jordan Belfort, who after losing everything is now a rehabilitee, and a lecturer on how to become a good sales pitcher. That’s the one thing the movie does get across well about Jordan: his main passion is sales, and this skill is seen in abundance from the beginning.

To conclude, The Wolf Of Wall Street is brilliant at what it aims to do, which is to glorify the life of a rich criminal (perhaps to maximise the impact it has on Jordan when he loses everything), and the performance from DiCaprio is Oscar-worthy; however, the running time does let it down by the end.

Overall Rating: 8/10 – Very Good

The Theory Of Everything

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Focus Features and Universal Pictures
Production Company: Working Title Films
Director: James Marsh
Producers: Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lisa Bruce and Anthony McCarten
Scriptwriters: Anthony McCarten
Main Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Charlie Cox, Emily Watson, Simon McBurney, David Thewlis and Christian McKay
Released: September 7 2014 (TIFF) and January 1 2015 (UK)
Running Time: 123 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

Right now in Hollywood, it is awards season. The Oscars are fast approaching on February 22, and films are jostling to be winners.

One such movie is The Theory of Everything, which has been nominated for five Oscars, including Best Actor for Eddie Redmayne. The film is a biopic of the theoretical physicist Stephan Hawking, and was developed from the memoirs of his ex-wife Jane Wilde Hawking. The film had it world premiere back in September 2014 at the Toronto International Film Festival, and it received brilliant feedback. From there, it has been nominated for the Golden Globes and the Oscars.

If you are looking for a movie about the science of Stephan Hawking, his achievements and his working background, well, this isn’t the film for you. The film’s primary focus is the relationship he develops with his girlfriend-come-wife Jane, while motor neurone disease begins to slowly degenerate his abilities. It is a heart-breaking story, yet one that ultimately leaves you feeling uplifted by the end, because of the struggle he has faced and continues to faces, and everything he has overcome, to still be around today.

There is only one place to start in this review, and that is the performance by Eddie Redmayne. He allows the character to completely take over his performance; there were times during the film when you really can’t tell the difference between the real Hawking and Redmayne. It’s not a simple role at all: he has to act as if he is playing different characters from beginning to end. In fact, because this movie was not filmed in chronological order, it makes it even harder for him to show how he has physically degenerated down the years. We see the disease begin to take effect, right up to the present day difficulties that Hawking endures. The highest praise I can give Redmayne is that, at certain points in the film, you can’t imagine this character being played any other way because you are so engrossed by the different stages of his condition at those moments. The performance by Felicity Jones, who plays Jane, is also brilliant: while the film does focus on Hawking and his disease, it also does a fantastic job of showing the emotional impact it has on his friends and family, especially his wife.

The story moves along at a pleasing pace: you never feel that they are over-exposing certain parts of his life, but they delve into a suitable amount of detail that you feel like you know enough about the history of his life. I must admit that I knew very little about motor neurone disease before going to see this film; now that I have seen this movie, I am much more knowledgeable about the physics of the disease.

Before filming, Eddie Redmayne would meet with Stephen Hawking to find out little details about his life and to look at some of his mannerisms. The rest of the cast are very good, but they allow the central characters to shine throughout. As stated before, the focus of the film is Hawking’s love life as opposed to his scientific work, which has attracted some detractors. But, in my opinion, it gives the film a more powerful narrative and an increasingly dramatic climax than if it had focused solely on the science. As much as this is a love story, the science is approached and is more than just a minor plotline. Stephen’s theory of black holes and the beginning of the universe are prominent components of the story, as they change how the world viewed Hawking and made him a man to believe in.

For a love story, I felt that the film could have been a bit more emotional; if some scenes had been a little longer and been more focused, then we may have felt more emotion towards the characters. That being said, the ending of the film is very uplifting thanks to a powerful final speech by Hawking.

Overall, I believe that this film is a fantastic blend of science, love and tragedy. As much as the disease retains the focus of the audience, the relationship between the characters through each stage of his illness must be applauded as well. Eddie Redmayne is the outstanding performer of the movie and, to me, should be the favourite to lift the Oscars for Best Actor and Best Performance. The Theory of Everything is an enjoyable film for all the family, which will leave you feeling uplifted, inspired and sympathetic at the same time.

Overall Rating: 8/10 – Very Good

The Dark Knight Rises

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Warner Bros., the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Warner Bros. Pictures

Production Companies: Legendary Pictures, DC Entertainment and Syncopy

Director: Christopher Nolan

Producers: Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan and Charles Roven

Scriptwriters: Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan

Main Cast: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Morgan Freeman

Released: July 16 2012 (NY) and July 20 2012 (UK & US)

Running Time: 164 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

Back in 2003, a little-known director named Christopher Nolan (Insomnia, 2002) began working on the reboot for the Batman franchise that Warner Brothers had been waiting for. At this time, Nolan had only made a couple of feature films, all of which were very low budget; however, they were all well-received at the box office and by critics alike. And so he and David Goyer (Man of Steel, 2013) set about the task of drawing up a new way to tell Batman’s origin story and a new theme for the franchise.

In 2005, Batman Begins was released, and it was a huge success; this was the film that all Batman and comic book fans alike had been waiting for since the dreadful Batman Forever (1998). And after that came arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time with The Dark Knight. The film will forever be remembered for the performance of the late Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain, 2004) as the Joker, rightfully earning himself an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 2009.

So it’s understandable that the announcement of the most recent installment in the franchise was greeted with mass excitement. Before the confirmation of the Dark Knight Rises, the Internet had been awash with speculation about the title, whether Nolan would direct it, and who the villain would be portrayed by. Now, I am reviewing this retrospectively; it has been almost three years since this film was released. I still remember the day I went to see it for the first time: I queued up early, having already pre-booked my tickets online. And, fortunately, the movie lived up to the hype as I shall now explain.

To begin with, the story picks up eight years after the Dark Knight, and it is really interesting to see where the characters are at this point; they are still struggling to cope with the actions and decisions made eight years earlier. Bruce Wayne had become a recluse within his own home, and therefore Batman hadn’t been seen since the death of Harvey Dent/Two Face. However, there is a dark force coming to Gotham in the form of Bane. Batman must come out of retirement to fight the evil Bane and protect his beloved city.

Now, I am not going to give any more of the story away in case you haven’t seen it already. Because this was the final installment, and that this was emphasised by Christopher Nolan from the beginning, fans speculated about whether Batman would live, die or pass on the baton onto someone else. The film is around two hours and forty minutes, which is an awfully long time; yet the movie is so enthralling that the time passes by very quickly; you are so engrossed into the story and the images on-screen. Part of the reason concerns production. Along with the Dark Knight, Nolan decided to film certain scenes in this film in the IMAX format. These scenes look fantastic on the big screen; Nolan is a master of the IMAX camera, and it really helps the movie, especially in the action scenes with the Bat and Tumbler fight complex.

Running concurrently with all the fighting is a very warm story that runs deep through the majority of the characters. The theme of the movie is hope: despite everything that happens in the film, the characters cling onto Batman as hope, and at times even Bruce Wayne looks up to Batman. This movie has to deal with a number of story arcs coming to an end, and occasionally it does seem to be juggling too many plates at once, but they all come to a deserving and worthy end that fans should feel comforted by.

The casting and acting is brilliant. Each actor brings something different to their character. Tom Hardy as Bane was a good choice: Hardy is a method actor, and so he gained around 40 pounds to make sure he was big enough to play Bane. But it is his eyes that steal the show: for the majority of the film, he wears a special breathing mask that covers up everything other than the eyes (which puts a lot of pressure on the scriptwriters to tell the story when you can’t see the lead villain’s mouth). Tom does a fantastic job and, in particular, he deserves a lot of credit for diverting us from the fact that Heath Ledger is not here to play his role, and instead he gives us a completely different and totally believable and threatening villain; a villain that can even stand toe-to-toe with Batman in a fight on a number of occasions.

However, it is Anne Hathaway who steals the show this time around. A lot of fans complained beforehand that she wasn’t good enough to play Selina Kyle and that she wasn’t fit enough for the role. But credit to Anne: she went through six months’ worth of prep in the gym before shooting and closely studied how cats move. She is perfect for the part: she doesn’t allow the suit to overtake her on the screen, and she brings a new look and style to a very well-known character. She is by far the best part of this film.

In addition, the cinematography is absolutely fantastic, and that is all down to Christopher Nolan’s brilliant cinematographer Wally Pfister (Transcendence, 2014). Every shot looks visually stunning on a large canvas, and this allows colours and sound to really fly off the screen.

Overall, The Dark Knight Rises was a fitting conclusion to the greatest comic book trilogy of all-time, and maybe even the greatest trilogy of all-time period. The climax left me feeling satisfied, the action was enjoyable, and the story was interesting from beginning to end. A worthy end to a classic trilogy.

Overall Rating: 9/10 – Outstanding

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: 20th Century Fox, the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: 20th Century Fox

Production Companies: Chernin Entertainment, Scott Free Productions, Babieka and Volcano Films

Director: Ridley Scott

Producers: Peter Chernin, Ridley Scott, Jenno Topping, Michael Schaefer and Mark Huffam

Scriptwriters: Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine and Steven Zaillian

Main Cast: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Mendelsohn, Sigourney Weaver and Sir Ben Kingsley

Released: December 12 2014 (US) and December 26 2014 (UK)

Running Time: 150 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

For a number of years now, I have become less excited each time I hear that Ridley Scott (Alien, 1979; Blade Runner, 1982) is directing a new feature film. His last couple of films have been average at best; for example, Prometheus (2012) had so much promise, and was a film I had been looking forward to as a massive Alien fan. However, it did not live up to expectations; it was not a bad film, but it wasn’t a particularly good one either. I was also let down by Robin Hood (2010), amongst his other recent works.

Which brings us onto his new film, Exodus: Gods and Kings. I felt this was a very cheesy title, probably given to draw in crowds since a film about Moses, God and the Ten Commandments probably wouldn’t be too popular with the average modern-day movie goer. This film is a remake/modern adaptation of the 1958 film ‘The Ten Commandments’ (Cecil. B DeMille), which starred Charles Heston as Moses. This time around, it is Christian Bale (The Dark Knight, American Hustle) as Moses. Originally, he was wanted as Noah for Darren Aronofsky’s Noah (2014), but ultimately filming schedules clashed and he opted for this biblical epic instead.

To begin with, the casting in this film is a little erratic. The leads are played brilliantly by Bale and Edgerton (Warrior), as you would expect from such experienced actors. However, the performances of the supporting cast are very forgettable, and this includes Sir Ben Kingsley (Shutter Island, Iron Man 3). This is partly down to the script favouring action over story, in my opinion, which in the case of Kingsley just doesn’t do an actor of his ability any good.

Casting has been heavily criticised for this film. I won’t go too much into racial politics and so on, but the idea that all the main characters are played by white American or British actors and that all the slaves were played by black American actors made me feel very uncomfortable. I understand that at the time slavery did exist, but it seems like the movie is trying to hammer this point home, which is slightly unsettling. Ridley Scott has claimed that this film would not be financially viable without white actors, which has led to discussions of whitewashing and structural racism in Hollywood … but we’ll move on.

At 150 minutes, the running time is fine; I didn’t feel the need to keep checking my watch to see how much time had passed. That being said, one could tell that it had been 150 minutes long. The opening scenes are fast-paced and introduce the characters really well. But then the movie becomes less enjoyable: the middle section is really boring and easy to forget, despite being pivotal to the narrative, to the point where I just couldn’t find myself caring about the characters at this point. And some scenes are simply not effective or progress too quickly. For instance, at one point in the film years pass by, and it isn’t explained very well at all. One minute, Moses is meeting a young woman for the first time and flirting with her, but then in the next scene they are married, and just as quickly they then they have a child. I understand about moving the film along, but maybe it would have been a little more interesting to show their love a bit more? Not only was this rushed, but when he leaves to help his people, you should care that he is leaving his family behind, but because of the rushed nature of the marriage and parenthood, I really didn’t care at all. I knew her for fifteen minutes and then she was gone again. How am I meant to feel an attachment to a lady in fifteen minutes?

On-screen, I mean?

The film does pick up steam as it heads towards its climax, as the two lead actors come together again. The plagues of Egypt form the highlight of the movie, in my opinion; on the whole, they are done really well, and whilst some were more disgusting than others, they all make an impact in their own way. That being said, the plagues are done fairly quickly so they perhaps does not hit the audience emotionally in the way that they should. A key problem I do have about this film is when we see the parting of the Red Sea by Moses. Now, I am a believer in Christianity and God, but I am a little skeptical on whether Moses really did part the sea. But in this film, I was still hoping to see an incredible CGI effect for this moment that would look fantastic on the big screen, which would make me sit back and go “Wow!” But it didn’t happen. The way that this was handled was really dull and disappointing and, if I hadn’t already read the story of Moses, the chances are that you wouldn’t have even noticed it happening. It looked more like the tide went in and then just came back again a couple of hours later, so this was a big let-down.

To be fair, the CGI is actually really good in this movie. I believed everything that I saw; everything seemed to look realistic enough. I am not generally a fan of 3D films; I feel they are a waste of money and, even when a film is shot in 3D, I still don’t feel the benefit of them. Besides, they give me a headache. So, if you do go to see Exodus, don’t watch it in 3D!

To conclude, the best thing I can say about Exodus: Gods and Kings is that it has been hard to write this review, but only because I had forgotten most of what happened. It does not stand out for me as a 3D film, an action film or a drama. It tries too hard to do one thing that it forgets the basic elements of an interesting story and script. The story of Moses is really interesting; unfortunately, this film’s adaptation of it is not.

Overall Rating: 5/10 – Average

The Blind Side

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: Alcon Entertainment and Fortis Films
Director: John Lee Hancock
Producers: Broderick Johnson, Andrew Kosove and Gil Netter
Scriptwriter: John Lee Hancock
Main Cast: Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw, Quinton Aaron and Kathy Bates
Released: November 20 2009 (US) and March 26 2010 (UK)
Running Time: 129 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

The Blind Side is a 2009 semi-biographical sports drama film, based on the upbringing and career of American NFL star Michael Oher. The film was written and directed by John Lee Hancock (Saving Mr Banks, 2013; The Rookie, 2002), and is based on the book by Michael Lewis entitled ‘The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game’. The film was nominated for many awards, and picked up the Best Film prize at the Academy Awards and at the Teen Choice Awards. Sandra Bullock also received special praise for her performance, picking up an Academy Award for ‘Best Supporting Actress’ and a Golden Globe in the same category.

Now, I am not going to lie: I have not got a clue about American football. I do not know how to play the game, I do not know the rules of the game, I do not even know any of the major stars in the game. It is something that has never interested me and, when I have seen it on television, either at Wembley Stadium or in its natural home of the USA, quite frankly it has bored me. So when I discovered The Blind Side, I had my reservations about it. I knew that it had done very well during the awards season, and I admire the work of Sandra Bullock in other films (Gravity, released in 2013, and Speed, released in 1994, are two such examples); however, I was still unsure about this movie. In the end, I finally decided to give the film a chance, and I am very thankful that I did. This carries a number of different emotional story arcs that effectively convey into the overall plot of the film; for that reason alone, it is a must-watch for any film fan. Notice that I did not say sports fan! Yes, the premise of the film is about American football, but that pales into insignificance when you watch the emotional entanglement of the Tuohy family as they battle to help a young man find his feet in a world that has never been fair to him nor has it provided him with an opportunity to shine.

Sandra Bullock is fantastic in this movie. Her character, Leigh Anne Tuohy, starts out as a focused interior designer who works very hard. She is married to her husband Sean Tuohy, played by country singer Tim McGraw (Friday Night Lights, 2004). They have a happy family with two children: a young boy named Sean Jr. “S.J.” Tuohy, portrayed by Jae Head (Hancock, 2008), and 16-year-old daughter Collins Tuohy, played by British-born actress Lilly Collins (The English Teacher, 2013). The opening act introduces us to these characters during a volleyball game between two schools. This scene was designed to emphasise the family’s rich sporting background. On the way home, they pass by Michael, or ‘Big Mike’ as he is referred to initially. Leigh Anne feels sympathy for him, and decides to invite him back to their family residence.

To be honest, this was my major disagreement with the plot-line: yes, the narrative is based on true events, but the entire family welcome him in, basically with open arms. Surely, there must have been some resistance from the husband or daughter about letting a stranger stay in their home. In my opinion, they could have covered this in a little more depth. However, it is a small gripe that does not disrupt the flow of the film nor does it take one’s attention away. I am a big fan of the BBC film reviewer Mark Kermode, and he said something about a film once that really stayed with me. His comment was: “If you are watching a film and you start wondering and thinking about what should be in the film, whether it is realistic of the characters to do a certain action, then you do not have a care for the characters in the film. You are more interested about other things than what is actually on the screen.” Despite my reservations about the aforementioned scene, at no point in this film did I feel like that; I was completely engrossed from beginning to end.

By the middle act, The Blind Side it is trying to pull a number of different yet interlinked story-lines along. You have the struggle of Michael trying to fit in at his new adopted home, during which time he is trying to get good grades so he can go off to college, and he is still trying to impress his school football team. In the meantime, Leigh Anne is trying to find Michael’s true mother and to learn where he originally came from. This could cause complications for the viewer and become difficult to follow; however, this is not the case. The movie has a seamless flow to it that keeps you interested without too much actually happening on-screen. As the film rolls on, Leigh Anne instills confidence into Mike to try and make sure that he can become the very best at American football. Now, Leigh Anne isn’t in any need of extra cash, so from the beginning you are aware that her motives for helping Michael are different, and I believe that is what helps the movie to stand out; what are Leigh Anne’s motives?

By the time we reach the climax, the film has followed the usual routines for this genre; the problem has been solved, and cue a celebratory montage. However, one question is thrown at Michael which, in turn, is thrown to the audience, and suddenly the conclusion is not all what it seems. What is that question? Now that would be a spoiler, as it makes one reflect over the events of the film and make you decide your own feelings on the situation, partly because the question is essentially left unanswered. We are left to assume that her motives are positive, although that doesn’t necessarily mean that the lady on whom this is based made her decisions for the same reasons. All I will say is that it relates to an affiliation to a certain college football team, which is foreshadowed during the volleyball game from the opening scene. Despite this unanswered question, the ending provides enough satisfaction that you will probably not be wishing for a sequel, but part of the movie’s strength is that the tale is told so well, and the ending is conclusive enough that no sequel is necessary. I certainly found it to be 129 minutes well spent.

Overall, I believe that The Blind Side was a real success. It drew me in, and I am a UK resident with no knowledge of or interest in American football. And at times, I was inspired by what the Tuohy family did for Michael and, in turn, what he did in return. This movie is fantastic at what it aims to do, which is to bring you into this perfect American family and take you on the same journey as Big Mike himself.

Overall Rating: 8/10 – Very Good

Interstellar

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Paramount Pictures (US) and Warner Bros. Pictures (International)
Production Companies: Legendary Pictures, Syncopy and Lynda Obst Productions
Director: Christopher Nolan
Producers: Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan and Lynda Obst
Scriptwriters: Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan
Main Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Bill Irwin, Ellen Burstyn and Michael Caine
Released: November 5 2014 (US) and November 7 2014 (UK)
Running Time: 169 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

“Do not go gentle into that goodnight, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light.” A sentence that encapsulates the entire movie of Interstellar and its themes.

To begin with, Interstellar is a science fiction film written and directed by Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, 2008; Inception, 2010). This is Christopher Nolan’s first film since he completed his Dark Knight trilogy. Personally, I am a huge fan of Nolan’s work: I have enjoyed every single film Nolan has directed or written, from The Following to Insomnia to The Prestige, as well as all three Batman films. And then there’s the mind-blowing Inception which is an absolute must-see for anyone unfamiliar with the movie.

And so we come to his latest project, Interstellar. Prior to its release, there was been a lot of mystery surrounding this film, which I like: I personally love walking into the cinema and not knowing anything about the plot or the characters, which is exactly what happened when I went to see this movie for the first time. To show how much I enjoyed it, I have seen this film three times already (no mean feat for a movie lasting nearly three hours) and twice in IMAX which we will get onto a little later.

The casting in Interstellar is of a high standard, with actors such as the resurgent Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine and Matt Damon. For all the scientific elements and for all of its stunning production qualities, this is ultimately a film about love. But don’t confuse this with a romantic comedy; we’re talking about the love and connection between a father and his daughter, who builds up resentment towards her dad after losing touch, but never loses the love she has for him, nor does she 100% lose faith that someday they will be reunited.

There is a line spoken by Anne Hathaway’s character Amelia which is: “Love is the one thing that can transcend time and space”. And that is the true focus of this film. Yes, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) has a mission for NASA and is aiming to save the future of the human race, but his underlying mission is to get back home to see his daughter before it is too late. You feel this while watching the film; you feel that time is slipping away, which begins to affect certain decisions they are making whether for good or bad. Yet you feel every emotion that Cooper does; you the audience feel very attached to both father and daughter, because the exposition of the film is handled brilliantly by Nolan.

The opening of the film focuses on Earth’s plight and the struggles humanity is facing; the world is running out of food and needs to either find a new home or find a new way of creating food. Meanwhile, NASA have been working in secret to find a way to save the world, and their answer lies within a number of habitable planets outside of the galaxy, with the intention being to move everyone off Earth and to the new planet. However, they must find the right planet first, and that is a task assigned to Cooper and his team. They pilot the space craft through a worm hole put there by more intelligent beings from the future. While Cooper is in space, his son Tom and his daughter Murphy grow up but, given the circumstances by which Cooper had to leave his family, Murphy chooses not to speak to Cooper for over thirty years, due to how much it affected her that her father had to leave. That being said, she does want to help and she too realises that time is running out fast. Tom, on the other hand, is more at peace with the situation and becomes a farmer and a father of two children, one of them whom is dying at a young age. Only then does he become insecure and then resent his father for not being there. Both Murphy (Jessica Chastain) and Cooper are fighting against time and space to save the world but, more importantly, for them to see each other again.

What makes Christopher Nolan so unique is his ability to make the picture the forefront of his films. By this, I mean the visual image on-screen which is sometimes more important than the dialogue being spoken, at least from a production standpoint. He is a keen advocate of IMAX cameras; now, for those unfamiliar with the term, I went to see this film in IMAX, and I have to admit that I was blown away by the picture quality and the sound. It adds a completely new visual and audio experience to what is already a brilliant film. The special effects in this film must also get a mention because they are stunning. A lot of these effects were done in camera, and the entire spaceship was built on a motion set, so the actors knew what buttons to press and what they were working with. This really does give the film a more organic feeling that most of the time you will not get with a science fiction film.

Interstellar as a whole is very entertaining, interesting and educational. You really have to pay attention to the science being discussed on the screen as it becomes very important once the film reaches its conclusion (which, incidentally, I will not spoil, although the ending has been criticised by some). Personally, whilst I felt that its key messages could have been explained a little more clearly at the climax, I still found it a fitting way to end the movie. For me, Interstellar is as good as perfect in every aspect, which is why I have given it the highest rating possible and why I expect it to make an impact at the 2015 Oscars.

Overall Rating: 10/10 – Perfect