Movie Review: Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Walt Disney
Studios Motion Pictures,
the film publisher
or graphic artist.)

Written By: Paul Burke

Distributor: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Production Company: Marvel Studios
Director: James Gunn
Producer: Kevin Feige
Scriptwriter: James Gunn
Main Cast: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, Sean Gunn, Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell
Released: April 28 2017
Running Time: 136 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

He says “Welcome to the frickin’ Guardians of the Galaxy”. Only he didn’t use “frickin’”. – Rocket

The sequel to Marvel’s surprise hit finally lands. Were this any other studio, we would have had a sequel to the critically and commercial hit much earlier, keen to jump on all that goodwill, alas with the Marvel Cinematic Universe being interconnected every movie has a place in line. Thankfully, we will not have another three-year wait to see the group again as they will be teaming up with the Avengers next year, which a truly exciting prospect.

Funnily enough, though, there is barely any connection to the wider Marvel Universe in Volume #2. Writer and director James Gunn gave us such an offbeat hit that he has basically been given carte blanche in the sequel. This is quite the compliment in the tightly-controlled Marvel Universe, one not even afforded to Joss Whedon in Avengers Age of Ultron.

We open to the Guardians in team mode, a not-so-well-oiled machine, and straight away we are reminded of how different these films are to the others in the universe with a funky, mixed-focus, alien battle set to the music of ELO. Obviously.

Actually, the music deserves special mention. George Lucas once said that sound and music are 50% of the entertainment in a movie, and both Guardians of the Galaxy movies are prime examples of this. This sentiment most likely refers to a score (of which there are some really nice emotive pieces here by composer Tyler Bates), but in Guardians of the Galaxy, it is a collection of 70’s hit singles, some classics, and it gives the pace of the movie a real rhythm. Sells a hell of a lot of soundtracks too. Due to the success of the first film, Gunn has obviously been allowed any song he wishes, and boy he’s crammed a lot in, but it’s to his credit as a writer how the songs hit the right tone.

The pacing of the first act seemed somewhat off after that first scene. Without the villain not being so clear until later, there does not seem to be much focus on the overall plot. However, it does at least leave plenty of room for that rarest of things in an ensemble – character development. Each character is so well-defined to us now, yet you get a sense of a deep history behind them that you know there are so many stories there and so many directions you can take this group on.

There were moments were it seemed like the movie was going for some sort of gag-rate record that the constant stream of jokes were beginning to undermine serious moments. This was more in the first half, mainly involving scenes that involved the over-used Ravagers. And quite frankly, there is a certain Pac-Man moment that should not have happened. I get the fun of Peter Quill’s old culture references to his comrades, but this was a cringe moment in what was an emotionally and physically charged scene.

But it can be forgiven because the hit rate is much better than the miss, and some hit hard. When did comic book movies become funnier than comedy movies?

The visual effects are eye-popping; this truly is a comic book on screen. The different states we see the character of Ego in are very impressive. It’s great to see a director allowed to really give us the entire colour pallete. And the effect of showing older Hollywood legends as the young men we remember them as – like Michael Douglas & Robert Downey Jr in past Marvel films – turns up again here to wonderful affect. Kurt Russell as Ego is just really cool, guys. Credit too for the promotional team as the fantastic trailers gave nothing too important away.

Finally, although I am a fan of the plot device of well-established teams splitting to join up again later – something that allows characters more room to grow and create different dynamics – the real magic in this space age comic book action adventure of mismatched family drama is when our heroes have a back-and-forth together.

Each member brings something different and the lines sizzle. There are not many cinematic sights more guaranteed to make you smile than the Guardians of the freakin’ Galaxy together in full flow.

Overall Rating: 8/10 – We Are Groot

Beauty And The Beast

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Walt Disney
Studios Motion Pictures,
the film publisher
or graphic artist.)

Written By: Scott Gunnion

Distributor: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Production Companies: Walt Disney Pictures and Mandeville Films
Director: Bill Condon
Producers: David Hoberman and Todd Lieberman
Scriptwriters: Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos
Main Cast: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Kevin Kline, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Audra McDonald, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson
Released: March 17 2017
Running Time: 129 Minutes
Certificate: PG

Beauty And The Beast arrived upon us burdened with high expectations. It came shackled with the intimidating legacy of the original that came before it, whilst also afflicted with the immense pressure to convert animated greatness into something credible and magical at the same time.

Apparently, Emma Watson turned down La La Land before signing on to star as Belle; allegedly, she wanted La La Land to be filmed in England. Instead, she opted for this. Good decision, whether it be intentional or not.

The film allowed Emma Watson to finally abandon the shadow of Harry Potter, cast aside its legacy and establish herself as an actress in her own right. The film was so good that it made you forget all about Watson's well-documented pretentious posturing concerning feminism and everything else, something that has no doubt been holding back her career progression.

At times, the film felt like a word-for-word reproduction of Disney's animated original, yet it somehow managed to add an extra half-hour to the running time. So surely it can't have just been a word-for-word remake, though at times it certainly did seem like one. It's interesting that Kevin Kline's Maurice didn't have a musical moment, considering his musical background with two Tonys to his name.

The golden moment was the Gaston musical number involving Gaston, Le Fou and the villagers in full swing. It was an epic moment; a musical at its best. Another musical moment - "Be Our Guest"- felt like, as I said earlier, a word-for-word reproduction of its counterpart scene in the Disney original. A disappointment, though visually impressive.

The much-speculated 'gay moment' turned out to be overblown. Yes, Le Fou was obviously in awe of Gaston, though this could quite easily have been misconstrued as admiration as opposed to unrequited lust and desire. No doubt, it will have gone unnoticed by the legions of young cinemagoers who absorbed the movie and enjoyed it in whole. There is a moment towards the end where Le Fou dances with a man, and this too is underwhelming and overblown. Much ado about nothing.

To those who bigged it up, I say: stop trying to politicise Disney!

Despite these criticisms, the movie in whole was visually impressive and delightful. In fact, it was magical. The cinema was rammed with children and adults in equal measure, which speaks to its universal appeal. No doubt, there is a Golden Globe for Best Picture in either the Musical or Comedy category pending.

Overall Rating: 9/10 - Outstanding

Zootropolis

Image Source:
Entertainment Focus
(Copyright: Disney)

Written By: Paul Burke

Distributor: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Production Companies: Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney Animation Studios
Directors: Byron Howard and Rich Moore
Producer: Clark Spencer
Scriptwriters: Jared Bush and Phil Johnston
Main Cast: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, J.K. Simmons, Jenny Slate, Tommy Chong and Octavia Spencer
Released: March 25 2016
Running Time: 108 Minutes
Certificate: PG

“Life isn't some cartoon musical where you sing a little song and all your insipid dreams magically come true. So let it go.” - Chief Bogo

I see what you did there, Disney: Zootropolis, or ‘Zootopia’ as it is known in America and therefore in the wider world (or ‘Zoomania’ in Germany, just in case you're reading this in Germany and are confused - schreien um meine deutschen fans!)

Those niggling changes are basically forced on Disney having to rename for territories where those titles already have copyright. But while the company will see ‘Zootopia’ as the true title, I'd argue that ‘Zootropolis’ is a more fitting name. Because this is a very modern movie, set in a very modern metropolis. Modern-day items like CCTV and phones are used as plot devices. And the Zootropolis really feels like a full, bustling city of different types. ‘Zootopia’ is basically just a pun on ‘utopia’. Do people really love a pun that much?

But anyway, it is Zootropolis here in the UK and it's all the better for it. Since buying the Pixar company, the Disney corporation have used their acquired know-how to begin putting out their very own Pixar-like content, in terms of looks and almost in terms of quality too. Tangled (before Pixar, it must be said), Bolt, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6 and now Zootropolis move away from how Disney previously would have done stories about a talking animal, a video game, a robot and a Princess. They are almost anti-Disney. Sure, they are still predictable stories with a be-true-to-yourself message, but how we get there is different to what we are used to. With limited musical numbers overall, the Princess’ true love story is about her sisters, and the tale of the talking animal actually goes a little Animal Farm and hits us with a political story wrapped up in a classic ‘follow your dreams’ moral. But unlike every version of Animal Farm I've ever seen, at least Zootropolis does so entertainingly.

So, we basically follow Judy Hopps, a bunny rabbit from the country who not only dreams of living in the big city, but wants to do so as a cop. No easy feat when you consider most of the animal kingdom's predators roam the streets of Zootropolis. But Judy and her boundless energy has proved to herself countless times that anyone who tries to tell her that being the “little guy” is a disadvantage in life is wrong. Standard fare so far, then, as is much of the movie for the first two acts. She teams up with Nick Wilde - a con artist fox who grates on her; they have a standard, though quite intriguing, mystery to solve - to find the missing member of Zootropolis, and they do so through many exciting and often hilarious set pieces. The Godfather-inspired mob wedding provides several laughs, as well as the joke about the DMV being run by sloths, which is probably the stand-out moment of the movie. It's standard, but it's good-looking entertainment up to this point for the intended child audience and their parents (for whom there is even a Breaking Bad reference).

But once the mystery is seemingly wrapped up early, we are hit with a whopper of a third act. All of a sudden, the audience are being confronted with the idea of how people deal with and, just as importantly, use fear. It is a hugely prominent part of modern day politics, especially in this US election year, and arguably modern-day life since 9/11. And here, Disney confront that theme out of the blue, but without beating us over the head with it. With a kids movie! Yes, despite the mentions of 9/11, this movie is aimed at children. But they aren't reading this review. (Well, hopefully; if so, please leave the Internet kids. It's a bizarre and frightening place.)

The story’s outcome is fairly predictable early on, and while it has a lot of heart, it doesn't really have the same emotional weight as something like Up or Toy Story 3. It is not as visually interesting as the likes of Wall-E. But that is not to say that Zootropolis doesn't look stunning, because it really does. So much thought goes into how all these animals live, transport and work together that it could rely on its sight gags alone, but thankfully it doesn't. It plays on our ideas of these animals, modern-day life, and how they blend together, and not just in a superficial way. In fact, they don't ask the audience to forget what we know about animals, but they use our preconceptions on them to forward the plot. And rather than chase its 2D past, as it has been accused of doing before, Disney has instead taken the lead set by its ground-breaking in-house acquisition Pixar, and continues to push its own special Disney brand forward into the new modern-day.

Overall Rating: 8/10 - Very Good

Batman V Superman

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

Written By: Paul Burke

Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: DC Entertainment, RatPac Entertainment, Atlas Entertainment and Cruel and Unusual Films
Director: Zack Snyder
Producers: Charles Roven and Deborah Snyder
Scriptwriters: Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer
Main Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter and Gal Gadot
Released: March 25 2016
Running Time: 151 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

“The greatest gladiator match in the history of the world. God versus man. Day versus night. Son of Krypton versus Bat of Gotham.” - Lex Luther

It's not Batman vs Superman. It's Batman V Superman. Because having the ‘v’ instead of ‘vs’ is a way ‘to keep it from being a straight “versus” movie, even in the most subtle way.’ According to the director Zack Snyder.

So what does this mean, despite the fact that Lex literally says ‘versus’ several times in the movie? Wait, does this mean we aren't going to see Batman and Superman beat on each other for 151 minutes?! Well, despite what all the excellent marketing we've been hit with might suggest, no we're not. But that was obvious because this is Superman, the character who originally started superhero movies with Christopher Reeve, against Batman, the character who gave superhero movies credibility under Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy. The sell isn't their great battle or the "who will win?" outcome. These guys are the heroes. The selling point of the film is seeing two hugely iconic characters sharing the big screen for the first time.

It also cannot be a straight “versus” movie because, as almost everyone tells me before seeing the film, Superman is an unstoppable force and Batman is just a billionaire genius (conveniently forgetting that Superman's biggest foe is Lex Luther, who is a billionaire genius). How could Batman stand a chance?! Well, I'll forgo divulging the times Batman has defeated Superman in their comic book forms for now and concentrate on what we have here, which is the first true chapter of the DC Comics cinematic universe.

Because cinematic universes are a thing now. Because Marvel and Warner Bros. have trusted the vision of their universe with Zack Snyder. And what vision Snyder has. Quite a polarising director, Snyder has as many critics as fans due to his vivid style. While it is great for his movies to have a look and a feel that makes a Snyder film instantly recognisable, some argue that it is not fitting for every story he produces.

But it works well here. Better than it did in Man of Steel where Snyder's naturally vivid style seemed at odds with producer Christopher Nolan's natural, gritty look. Unlike Nolan, Snyder is really allowed to make a Batman V Superman comic book movie with more emphasis on the comic book and less on the movie.

And it is filmed very much like a comic book; the scenes can be short and cut between each other in a way that is sharp and rushed. In fact, for adult fans of comic books, this movie should be perfect. More complex and adult notions of what drives Batman and what Superman's place in the world is are explored, but unlike the Nolan films, the other worldly element Superman brings means that the movie can take leaps of reality. Though it means that characters make some questionable decisions (would people really just stroll through a cloud of dust from a destroyed building?), it also allows us to accept Wonder Woman's involvement, and she is an entertaining addition to proceedings.

The problem is that the dialogue also sounds like it is from a comic book. Characters don't really engage with each other, there are no natural conversations, and people mainly just say convoluted things at each other. Everything is metaphorical or anecdotal. Everyone is a philosopher.

The movie also has a hefty run time. Where Marvel used five solo superhero movies to build up to its shared universe team, DC are rushing it somewhat by only giving us glimpses of its entire team here. The several dream/vision sequences are clearly with the bigger picture in mind, but they just expand an already bloated movie, and without serving much narrative which can be very confusing. If you don't have an extensive knowledge of the source, then you'll be left scratching your head at just how odd these scenes are. You'll feel you had a bizarre vision yourself. Think Thor in Avengers Age of Ultron in that electric cave Jacuzzi.

Now, the new guys. Ben Affleck does everything the role calls for adeptly, which is anger. Batman is just really angry. And Superman is stressed. Super stressed. Batman V Superman kind of shows us the absolute worst of the heroes. That said, their action scenes are very well done, although they're a bit of a mess in the climactic battle. Batman, in particular, probably has his best fight scenes in any film; they're fast and brutal, but also clearly show what is happening, which is not how the Nolan fight scenes came out in their finished form. It could be straight from an Arkham computer game.

Gal Godot is a refreshing presence. Different from the other two heroes we've seen done to death in movies, she brings the same exuberance to the role as Wonder Woman does to the action. So much exuberance, in fact, that her arrival in the action changes the previously-sombre score to an up-tempo one. It's bizarre really, like a computer game score; the likes that appear after a cut-scene that basically tell you ‘this is when you fight now’. But it does help her leave her a strong impact, while it also leaves enough mystery left hanging over her character to justify her upcoming solo movie.

And then there's Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luther. Obviously going for a modern type of Mark Zuckerberg-esque billionaire instead of the classic suit character we're used to, the new take is refreshingly different, giving Superman a truly opposite foe. Eisenberg looks like he has more fun than anyone in a film ever has. The man ticks and twitches his way through with a borderline lunacy that you can accept his maniacal side enough; his respected billionaire businessman side, less so.

Overall, the movie probably takes itself too seriously, which never really seems to fit the Superman character. The dialogue seems like a first draft and the scenes, with the expanded universe in mind while also introducing so many characters, give the audience an enormous amount of information to digest in the allotted time. But the structure of the movie is excellent, all things considered; the necessary pieces are all there; and the action sequences actually get a lot more build-up than I expected. In fact, the film is so un-Snyder that it's Snyder's best movie. Not the best Batman or Superman movie by any means, but for the average film-goer, at least they are seeing these old characters do something different.

Overall Rating: 7/10 - Respectable

American Hustle

Image Source: Wikipedia.
(Copyright: Columbia
Pictures, the
film publisher
or graphic artist.)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributors: Columbia Pictures (US) and Roadshow Entertainment (Australia)
Production Companies: Atlas Entertainment and Annapurna Pictures
Director: David O. Russell
Producers: Charles Roven, Richard Suckle, Megan Ellison and Jonathan Gordon
Scriptwriters: Eric Warren Singer and David O. Russell
Main Cast: Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Lawrence
Released: December 12 2013 (Australia), December 13 2013 (US) and January 1 2014 (UK)
Running Time: 138 Minutes
Certificate: 15

American Hustle combines a pretty strong cast (Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Lawrence) for a movie that I would describe as unusual. It is part-comedy, part-drama, part-romance, with crime and violence mixed in, over the course of a long running time, and with a fair amount of confusion as it relates to the main plot-line. Still, as a whole, the movie remains an engaging experience, and one worth seeing for the powerful performances by the aforementioned stars.

We begin by learning that a relationship has been formed between two con artists in Irving Rosenfeld (Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Adams). They are rmoantically linked, although their love for each other is perhaps best exemplified by the lengths to which each is willing to go to ensure that their schemes are a success, from pretending to be English aristocrats to generally misleading potential customers to the point where you realise that their fate truly lies in the hands of the con artists. More troubling, though, is that Irving is actually married to another woman named Rosalyn Rosenfeld (Lawrence), who is mentally unstable yet has an undying love for her man.

Unlike some movies where you would believe that having two women on the scene spells trouble further down the line, Irving if anything is unapologetic: he realises as time goes on that he has made mistakes within his relationships, but he is in no hurry to try and narrow it down to one, and he feels no guilt as his primary concern is how he can make money. Rosalyn later learns the truth but, rather than immediately blowing up Sydney, she subtly gets involved, making herself indispensible yet distracting, and generally getting her revenge from the inside. This, of course, doesn't go well with the con artists and leads to a number of confrontations as the movie goes on.

However, whilst love and romance are elements of American Hustle, its main storyline centres around the leading characters' attempts to make money through false means. And the plot takes an intriguing twist when Irving and Sydney are caught in a loan scam by an FBI agent named Richie DiMaso (Cooper), but through a number of suggestions and allegations, it ends up that Richie actually works alongside Irving and Sydney to pull off even greater cons, to the point where some of his attempts seem so over-the-top and so difficult to pull off that even Irving has misgivings.

Unbeknownst to him, however, it soon comes to light that Richie and Sydney have fallen in love. This means that Irving is at risk of not only losing his key business partner in the event that Richie and Sydney try to cut Irving out of potential deals, meaning a loss of big money (and consider that if he moves away, Richie as an FBI agent will most likely have Irving taken to jail), but of also losing the woman he is in a relationship with behind his erratic wife's back. In short, Irving has been conned into a situation where he now has to go along with the orders of everybody around him, because while the developments are clearly taking a toll on him, he has much more to lose by getting out. It eventually leads to one major potential deal with the Mayor of Camden, New Jersey (Renner), where the deal-making process is comprised of several parts where the different storylines and character clashes are certain to come to a head. And given what each character has to lose, and since each character is in someway playing somebody else, it is uncertain as to how this will be resolved, who if anybody will face punishment for their actions, and who if anybody will come out of the whole thing smelling like roses.

It is an unusual story, packed with different plot developments. It is never predictable, and is engaging to watch. Lawrence shines as the unstable wife whose behaviour is at times alarming, even given the obvious negative treatment she is receiving, yet remains in love with the man she married and uses her own forms of psychological manipulation to achieve some level of redemption. Describing her as a sympathetic character may be a bit of a stretch because she comes across so erratic that you are unsure whether she is someone whose side you would take, but the character is a complex one that holds your attention in all scenes where she is featured. Bale and Cooper also play their roles well and, in the case of Bale, he plays a poker face which ensures that, despite his stated intentions and what is going through his mind, you never quite know what he is thinking and what he will do, and how he will react to sudden changes in the situations that he finds himself in. Adams also does this albeit to a lesser extent.

The main problems I had with American Hustle concerned the structure of the story. It is very hard to follow what is going on, to determine who is on whose side, and to establish who deserves sympathy and who deserves scorn. I have outlined the plot above, and the way I have written it out, you will understand it more than you would if you watched the film. It isn't a case that too much is going on, just that too many developments occur without proper exploration of the whos, whats and whys. I also felt that the running time of 138 minutes was a little too long, as the movie lost a bit of steam in the final quarter. Some scenes could have been dropped or at least shortened; a two-hour presentation would have reduced the irrelevant activity, and by streamlining the film as a whole, it perhaps could have been easier to explain the important developments and relationships, since we wouldn't have had added unncessary elements on an already-busy storyline.

That all being said, I still enjoyed American Hustle, and so did many others, given the praise it has received and the fact that it won three BAFTAs, three Golden Globes and a Screen Actors Guild Award, as well as ten Academy Award nominations. So, whilst it is a bit hard to follow and it does drag on a bit, I think that American Hustle is a very engaging movie which will entice fans of any genre, whether it be comedy, drama, crime or suspense. It may be best to watch it and then see it again to understand everything that goes on, but if the question is whether I would recommend American Hustle, the answer is a definite yes.

Overall Rating: 8/10 - Very Good

Annabelle

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: New
Line Cinema)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: New Line Cinema, RatPac Entertainment, Atomic Monster and The Safran Company
Director: John R. Leonetti
Producers: Peter Safran and James Wan
Scriptwriter: Gary Dauberman
Main Cast: Annabelle Wallis, Ward Horton and Alfre Woodard
Released: October 3 2014 (US) and October 10 2014 (UK)
Running Time: 99 Minutes
Certificate: 15

Recently released on DVD and Blu-ray but having premiered last autumn (just in time for Halloween), Annabelle is both a prequel to and a spin-off from the 2013 movie The Conjuring. It tells the story of a doll which, over time, causes great terror and puts lives at risk. And, yes, the movie is scary. Not the most frightening film you will ever see, but frightening enough that you will suddenly feel uneasy about having your doll by you in your bedroom (assuming you still collect dolls, like me ... I'm only joking).

Annabelle begins in 1970 with first-person accounts of the doll, in a scene which was also used at the beginning of The Conjuring. They are told to Ed and Lorraine Warren, or at least their characters as the real-life couple were ghost-hunters who had told or spread the story of a haunting doll named Annabelle. Then we go to 1969, where the movie begins proper.

We meet John Gordon (played by Ward Horton) and his wife Mia (Annabelle Wallis; a fitting first name for the lead actress), who live in Santa Monica, California, and are expectant parents, and their neighbours, the Higginses. We also see the doll Annabelle for the first time, a childhood treasure of Mia's which is re-introduced to her by John. However, as the movie poster proves, the doll has a chilling, evil glare in its eyes, one of which appears to be bleeding a tear. Now, I am a man, but if I was a woman, and I had been a little girl, receiving a doll of such resemblance would have scared the you-know-what out of me; I wouldn't have wanted it anywhere near me. Nevertheless, it's a horror movie, and whilst I can't fathom why a doll which looked like Annabelle would not immediately scare a young child, which Mia had been, it is suitably frightening for this story and gives you the chills each time you see it.

Anyway, you can tell that things are too pleasant; something untoward is bound to happen. It comes one night when Mia awakes and hears what turns out to be the murdering of her neighbours. When she returns home and calls the police, she is viciously attacked by the assailants, one of whom is holding the doll of Annabelle. The attack is frightening, violent and bloody, but Mia survives. We learn that the assailants were actually the children of their neighbours, Annabelle Higgins and her boyfriend, and that they are members of a satanic cult named the Disciples of the Ram, where they worship a demon with horns. After the attack, the doll is disposed of, but it keeps reappearing.

And so do the devil worshippers. The Gordons relocate to Pasadena, with Mia having now given birth early due to the after-effects of a fire caused by the disposing of the doll, but the evil follows them. A detective named Evelyn (Alfre Woodard) is brought in to help them, as is their local priest Father Perez (Tony Amendola), but the demonic attacks and home invasions continue, and those who are brought in to help also become targets. It becomes apparent that the only way to stop the plague of evil is to offer up a soul for it to take. The manner in which the evil ghost behind the doll tries to achieve this goal is uncomfortable to watch, and the way in which the situation is dealt with is equally shocking.

Annabelle only has around four or five scenes of genuine threat and horror, but those that are here do deliver. The other scenes take the time, occasionally too much time, to build up the characters and set up the chilling moments. In that sense, this is a lot more about storytelling than actual horror; however, the scariest scenes will make an impact. Some elements will be a little clichéd to long-time fans of the genre, but they are timeless in that they will always get a jolt out of you. Put it this way: even if you have always watched horror films, if you're walking by your bed and you are suddenly, unexpectedly grabbed by something beneath it ... you'd still be scared.

The plot itself is a little familiar; the idea of an evil doll spooking its owners goes back decades, a good example being a 1963 episode of the classic US series The Twilight Zone, which focused on a doll named "Talky Tina" that starts off being gentle and sweet, but becomes evil and causes psychological terror and threatens to kill those around it. (Incidentally, The Simpsons did a parody of this in a Halloween episode with a Krusty doll which was very funny, but elaborating on that here would lower the tone of this review; you really should see it though.) The key differences between the Annabelle movie and Twilight Zone are that in this film, Annabelle looks more sinister, this movie is much stronger for its horror and especially for bloody violence, and this doll possesses a truly evil streak, one which at times is beyond belief. Ironically, the name of the mother who buys "Talky Tina" for her kids in that Twilight Zone episode is ... Annabelle. Spooky, eh? (Cue the Twilight Zone music; if you've seen it, you'll know what I mean.)

Summing it up, then, Annabelle is a film which will be judged not by the performances of those involved or the strength of its story, but on the delivery of thrilling, horrifying visual elements. In that respect, it does a good job, because while the scary scenes are few and far between, those moments do generally meet expectations. As I said earlier, fans of the genre will not consider this to be the scariest film they have ever seen, and even those who saw The Conjuring may have expected more, but it does provide a suitably horrifying movie experience. And there are rumours of this being the beginning of its own film series. So, despite some mixed reviews, you should enjoy it. Just don't watch it at home in the presence of your old childhood doll.

Overall Rating: 7.5/10 - Good

Night At The Museum 3: Secret Of The Tomb

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

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Production Companies: 21 Laps Entertainment and 1492 Pictures
Director: Shawn Levy
Producers: Shawn Levy, Chris Columbus and Mark Radcliffe
Scriptwriters: David Guion and Michael Handelman
Main Cast: Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Dan Stevens, Ben Kingsley, Mickey Rooney and Ricky Gervais
Released: December 19, 2014
Running Time: 98 Minutes
Certificate: PG

I have found that, if you are planning to see a movie which acts as part of a series, it helps to watch the films in chronological order, otherwise it may get a little confusing to understand what is going on. That definitely applies with the third instalment of Night Of The Museum: although I was a little familiar with the trilogy and its basic elements, this was the first of the NOTM movies that I had actually seen, and it took me some time as a newcomer to the franchise to get to grips with the characters and situations. Once I had overcome these, however, the story began to make sense (well, within the parameters of this film, anyway).

A flashback to Egypt in 1938 sees the discovery of the tablet of Ahkmenrah by an archaeologist and his son, but before they can take it away, they are strongly warned that "the end will come" if they do so. Back in the modern day, a nighttime event at the Museum Of National History in New York City goes disastrously wrong (in a humorous way) when the exhibits that have come to life act abnormally (had I been familiar with the movies, I would not have found it strange that the exhibits were alive in the first place with it not being treated as unusual); we soon learn that this is connected to the aforementioned tablet.

Larry Daley (Ben Stiller), who is responsible for the exhibits, conducts some research and meets Cecil Fredericks (Dick Van Dyke), who is now long grown up but was the young boy who originally tried to take the tablet in Egypt, and learns that the message referred to the end of magic, something which would have a detrimental effect on the after-hours existence of the exhibits. And it becomes apparent that the tablet is corroding, hence the strange behaviour of the exhibits at the aforementioned event. A consultation with Dr. McPhee (Ricky Gervais), who is being fired, results in Larry travelling to London and to the British Museum, where Ahkmenrah's parents are and where it is hoped that the problems that the tablet is causing can be resolved.

In the meantime, we see problems in the father-son relationship between Larry and his child Nicky, who is rejecting advice that he go to college and is instead looking to carve out a career as a DJ. Hoping that the trip to the UK may help them to bond, Larry allows Nicky to come along with him, but unbeknownst to Larry, most (if not all) of the other exhibits travel over as well. And chaos soon ensues when it becomes clear that getting the tablet to Ahkmenrah's parents is not as easy as it seems. Both on the outside and the inside of the British Museum, there are human obstacles, but it seems that they have an ally in their quest to bring the tablet to its rightful home in the form of Sir Lancelot (Dan Stevens). There is an initial confrontation but it is resolved and all involved are on the same page ... or are they? And how will the developments to come affect the outcome of a mission which, if unresolved, could see all the exhibits return to a state of non-existence? And will the father-son difference of opinions have a happy ending?

The movie is notable for being the last movie to star Robin Williams and Mickey Rooney; both are cast here as Theodore Roosevelt and Gus respectively, but both passed away before it was released. As such, the film credits include separate tributes to both actors.

This is a film aimed at families and children (hence the PG rating), so it stands to reason that much of the humour is of the nature which would appeal to and be acceptable for kids. Given those barometers, I still found that the movie was enjoyable enough that adults should gleam a decent amount of entertainment from it. Without trying to provide a major spoiler, I will say that as a lifelong Liverpool FC fan, I for one appreciated the inclusion of an LFC mug during one scene at the British Museum (actually, it's in two scenes, but it's clearly a case of them being separated into two parts rather than being two different scenes). If you're a Kopite watching this movie, keep your eye out for that one!

As I said earlier, it really does help to have seen the previous two entries in the trilogy before watching this film, as a lot of things would then make a lot more sense. Otherwise, I would categorise as a fairly good, but by no means a classic, comedy adventure movie which a family with young kids should enjoy. And it has a star-studded cast which never hurts, as well as a parade of unusual and interesting characters.

So, if you are debating whether or not to watch Night Of The Museum 3: Secret Of The Tomb, I would suggest that you give it a try, but don't expect too much from it. And if you watch films one and two first, you'll understand movie number three a lot more.

Overall Rating: 6/10 - Reasonable

Fifty Shades Of Grey

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Universal Pictures
Production Companies: Focus Features, Michael De Luca Productions
Director: Sam Taylor-Johnson
Producers: Michael De Luca, Dana Brunetti and E.L. James
Scriptwriter: Kelly Marcel
Main Cast: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan, Jennifer Ehle, Eloise Mumford, Victor Rasuk, Luke Grimes, Rita Ora, Max Martini, Callum Keith Rennie, Andrew Airlie, Dylan Neal and Marcia Gay Harden
Released: February 11 2015 (Berlin) and February 13 2015 (UK and US)
Running Time: 125 Minutes
Certificate: 18

The long-awaited (by some) motion picture version of Fifty Shades Of Grey, the surprise hit novel of 2012, was recently released to great fanfare (that it was premiered the week of Valentine's Day was no coincidence). However, before I got round to seeing this film, I had heard a lot of people saying how boring it was, and how disappointed they were with the movie. Was it as bad as people claimed or were the poorer elements more noticeable because of all the hype? I was about to find out.

I should point out before going any further that I had not read the original book, so whilst I knew of the themes which the movie would contain, I was unsure what the plot was about. Therefore, the storyline as a whole would be fresh to me, whereas those who had read the book and loved it would have known exactly was coming, which could perhaps explain part of the reason why they did not enjoy the film as much as they would have hoped for.

The movie begins with Anastasia "Ana" Steele (Dakota Johnson) covering for her friend Katherine "Kate" Kavanagh (Eloise Mumford)E in travelling to Seattle to interview Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan), head of Grey Enterprises. She is totally nervous and, due to her nerves, she comes across as unprofessional when interviewing Grey. However, whilst he clearly notices her somewhat less-than-stellar interviewing skills, and uses his intimdating presence to show his superiority, he is willing to overlook this because, as we learn, he has something of a crush on her. Due to their vastly different backgrounds and levels of wealth, the relationship develops very slowly, and we only know for sure that the two are getting closer when, after Grey brings Ana back to his hotel room after discovering her in a drunken state on a night out with friends, the two share a passionate kiss in an elevator.

Even at this point, though, the assumption (or at least my assumption, being someone who did not read the novel) is that the two would become an item, I hate to say it, but "the normal way". But whilst their love for one another turns physical, we learn that Grey is only willing to do certain things with her on a social level, and insists on Ana conforming to his desires when it comes to what they get up indoors. He even has a contract drawn up for her to sign, which strikes her as odd; why would she have to sign a contract to become a girlfriend to this multi-billionaire?

We soon discover why when we see Grey's so-called "play-room": Christian enjoys performing sadomasochistic activities, and always being in control, even at times admitting that he feels his other half should be "punished" if necessary. Ana is shocked by this but, being a virgin before she met Grey, she feels that she has nothing to lose by going along with a relationship that looks rosy on the outside, but the details of which remain very secretive. She does insist on certain things which she simply will not get involved in as she gets to know Grey more, and he is willing to listen, but with the contract unsigned, there is still a sense of distance that Christian puts between the two before he is willing to fully commit. This is despite the fact that he showers her with expensive gifts, including a new car and a laptop. In the end, though, her insecurities force her to at least experience what would be "the worst"; after this, Ana simply cannot comprehend why Christian would find this pleasureable and leaves.

Sorry to spoil the ending, but let's be honest: if you see this film, it is mostly because a) you read the novel and loved it; b) you haven't read the novel but want to see it for its feminist ideology, or c) you're being dragged along by your girlfriend. (Hey, it's true.) As for me? Well, I'm a film reviewer and so it stands to reason that I should at least go and see one of the most anticipated films of 2015 and provide a review. Well, that's my excuse anyway (only joking).

Seriously, though, I actually did not find the film to be too bad. There isn't a great deal of excitement but I wasn't bored watching it. I felt that the relationship between Christian and Ana built slowly and logically, or at least logically under the circumstances. The believability of how two people of completely different backgrounds would begin such a relationship was questionable, as was the manner in which Ana dropped something of a key revelation about herself, and within minutes in screen time it may as well have not been mentioned (remember, I didn't read the novel, so I assume that in the book, this was a far bigger aspect of the plot). Still, it flowed well enough, or as well as could be expected, even when we learn the truth about Christian and realise why someone of such wealth remains single. Oh, and the soundtrack is very good, and appropriate to the movie. No, really, the soundtrack is very good!

I didn't think that the ending was up to scratch, though: we are told throughout about the importance of the contract being signed, and we are repeatedly informed that some sort of revelation about Christian which would truly explain the reasons for his behaviour were forthcoming, and yet the conclusion is abrupt and suddenly it ends without answering either of the burning issues. I know that a sequel is planned so perhaps we'll get more information there, but purely from the perspective of someone watching this film who is new to the world of Fifty Shades, I found the ending to be sudden and a bit unappealing.

Jamie Dornan is believable as Christian Grey, in terms of playing an intense, intimdating yet at times charming man, although it's unquestionable that his looks were prioritised over his acting skills when the casting was made. I actually thought that Dakota Johnson did a very good job as Anna. Considering the themes of this film, I expected the lead female character to be a raunchy, in-your-face girl who gave off the impression that she would be willing to do anything. Although the film includes some heavy physical content, at no point did I feel any less about Anna, which is a credit to the portrayal of her by Dakota. It's not Oscar-level acting by any means, but it's good to see nonetheless.

So, how to sum Fifty Shades Of Grey up then? I felt it was satisfactory but nothing more. It certainly wasn't a classic film, but nor do I think it was a giant waste of time. I think those who had waited so long for it would be disappointed and understandably so, but only an absolute knock-out movie would match such expectations and, with credit to the original writer of the novel E.L. James, Fifty Shades was never going to be that kind of film. At the same time, those who had no time for the novel and had even less time for the movie probably wouldn't see anything to change their minds. But for a someone who has read the novel and simply wanted to see it in action, or for a neutral observer, I think you'll find it worth your while; do not expect a great film by any means, but it's watchable enough that you should be satisfied, rushed ending aside.

And that's the end of my review. Now, time to write the overall rati ... oh, was there a word I forgot to mention in relation to this film during the course of the review? One beginning with "s"? Okay, okay, to answer that question before I finish ... yes, there is, and it's quite strong but it could be worse, so I doubt anyone (at least amongst the British audience) who goes to see the film will be offended by those scenes. Alright, now are you happy?

Overall Rating: 5.5/10 - Above Average

Whiplash

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Sony Pictures
Classics, the film publisher
or  graphic artist.)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Sony Pictures Classics
Production Companies: Bold Films, Blumhouse Productions and Right Of Way Films
Director: Damien Chazelle
Producers: Jason Blum, Helen Estabrook, Michel Litvak and David Lancaster
Scriptwriter: Damien Chazelle
Main Cast: Miles Teller, J.K Simmons and Paul Reiser
Released: January 16 2014 (Sundance Film Festival), October 10 2014 (US) and January 16 2015 (UK)
Running Time: 107 Minutes
Certificate: 15

There are certain films that you make specific plans to see, and then there are those which you don't. Whiplash is one of those that happened not unexpectedly, but by chance. You see, me and a friend attended a special screening of an upcoming film where the identity of the movie would only be known when it begun. And when I saw the name "Whiplash" appear on-screen, I was unsure what to expect. It sounded like a thriller. But it could have been a drama. Or would it be something completely different? And regardless of what genre it was, would it be any good?

The first question is hard to answer. It is a drama, but it has elements of a thriller, and it also has aspects which make it a comedy. And the second question? Well, it is good. Very, very good.

It starts off quite slow as we are introduced to Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller), a student jazz drummer determined to become a master at his craft, a goal spurned on by the direction of his new jazz teacher Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). His skills improve due to the guidance of his tutor, but of greater note is how strict a teacher Simmons is. He uses brutal criticisms to not only push his students to the peak of their powers, but he forces them to the level of tears - Fletcher throws a chair at Neiman as he is getting to grips with the musical number Whiplash in his very first lesson - even to the point where they are performing so hard with their instruments that they are bleeding profusely. And it is so realistic and there are so few camera cuts during the music rehearsal scenes that you wonder how they could have made it look so real. The answer is simple: these scenes were done for real. Well, maybe not quite as ferocious as what we see, but there are few special effects used here; what you see is what you would get had you been on set for the filming of these scenes. It helps that the other students are largely compromised of real musicians.

And Fletcher does not hold back: whatever you think is "too far", he goes beyond that, and then some. His delivery is as intense as could be, his general look and mannerisms exude intimidation, and he looks like he would sooner put a bullet in your throat than let you use it to produce music. In Neiman's case, as he is a drummer, we see his eyes water and his mouth quiver with every brutal verbal shot fired at him by Fletcher as he is rehearsing and attempting to learn new routines with very little practice and with the knowledge that one error results in him being torn apart.

All of that makes Fletcher seem like a truly loathsome man. But, at the same time, one cnanot help but smile - and, at times, laugh out loud - at some of his criticisms. Some of his cutting lines are so unacceptable, so filthy, so far beyond the realsm of acceptable taste in a college environment that you can't help but giggle, even if he is reducing his students to an absolute wreck.

Still, Andrew does improve. Too much, in fact: as he grows in confidence, it crosses over into arrogance as he willingly sacrifices a romantic relationship to pursue his dream to be, as he tells his less interested family, "the greatest drummer who ever lived". But being pushed by Fletcher and his attempts to fight back by standing up for himself result in a car accident that one would assume crushes his dreams. But he gets back up, only to be treated like an afterthought by the uncaring Fletcher. Now, Andrew does fight back, for real, and both are taken away from the environment which turned them into monsters.

However, their story does not end there. A chance reunion leads to them coming to an understanding, and even building something of a friendship as Fletcher invites his former student to perform at a major jazz festival. This is Andrew's chance to prove his talent once and for all. However, will he get the chance, or is Fletcher setting Andrew up for one giant fall? And, once he discovers the truth, how will Neiman respond to what could be the greatest moment, or greatest disappointment, of his life?

The story is very engaging, and there are plenty of twists which ensure that the plot never becomes predictable. The high-drama scenes are as intense as could be, and one cannot help but be mesmerised at what is unfolding on the screen. Fletcher manages to provoke hatred and some admiration at the same time, although the former definitely outweighs the latter; and the same applies to Andrew, only in his case the latter definitely outweighs the former. And whilst Simmons is the undisputed star of the movie as Fletcher - he brings to the role an air of menace, passion and a demand for perfection that, along with his cutting yet at times hilarious insults and his generally high levels of intimdation and intensity, that he becomes one of the most memorable "villain" characters that you are likely to see - Teller is very good as Neiman, and his performance in the final scene can only be described as phenomenal. To explain why would spoil the ending, so I cannot elaborate; when you see it, however, you will come away feeling that you have just witnessed something momentous. All I'll say is, you'll be even more impressed to know this was all real.

Perhaps the greatest compliment that I can give Whiplash is that I was not expecting to see this film, I may not have gone to see it had I known it was a drama based on jazz music, and there are scenes which are a bit slow and even the climax, as spectacular as it is, made for an abrupt ending. Plus, I had not heard of most of the cast beforehand. But even with all that, I found Whiplash to be an extremely compelling movie that I would recommend to anybody. Unlike what I had done, you should definitely make specific plans to see what I consider to be a brilliant film.

Overall Rating: 9/10 - Outstanding

Nightcrawler

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Open Road Films, the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Open Road Films
Production Company: Bold Films
Director: Dan Gilroy
Producers: Jennifer Fox, Tony Gilroy, Michel Litvak, Jake Gyllenhaal and David Lancaster
Scriptwriter: Dan Gilroy
Main Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Riz Ahmed and Bill Paxton
Released: September 5 2014 (Toronto International Film Festival) and October 31 2014 (UK and US)
Running Time: 117 Minutes
Certificate: 15

When I saw the trailer for the movie Nightcrawler, I immediately wanted to see it. A burst of adrenaline, the preview clip looked action-packed, edgy, dangerous - in short, it made the film must-see. I did go and watch it but, whilst there's no denying that it is a compelling film, it didn't quite have the impact that I hoped it would from the trailer.

Nightcrawler sees Louis "Lou" Bloom (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) looking for work in any field, before a chance encounter with a TV news cameraman sees him enter the world of crime reporting, albeit on a very low budget. At first, his attempts to cover brutal injuries are hampered by the experience of his competitors, and due to the quality of his work, the stories he can provide film on are rejected by news channels. But after one particular story, his almost too-good-to-be-true camera shots of the incident act as a breakthrough: his footage is used on a Los Angeles-based news station, and he begins providing similar scoops for the channel going forward.

Lou's career progresses in various ways: he can begin to afford better equipment, and soon hires an assistant, albeit one who acts more as a lookout, in Rick Carey (Riz Ahmed). He strikes up a good working relationship with Nina Romina (Rene Russo), the morning news director. He begins getting better footage of bigger scoops, leading to him earning higher sums of money for his films; so much so that at one point, a competitor attempt to establish a working relationship with him, only to be declined. But, most importantly, his footage becomes more gruesome as he shows a complete lack of conscience and consideration for victims; however, whilst the clips are shocking, the news station itself is struggling, so money triumphs over morals and the footage is shown.

But then comes a major incident: a triple murder of a family with the two assailants escaping. Not only does Lou break the law to obtain horrific shots of the victims, he engineers a series of events to have the police catch the murderers, but whilst filming the high-drama scenes, even if it means endangering the lives of himself and his assistant. Meanwhile, Nina is under severe pressure concerning the approach the channel takes to covering the story, made more awkward when Lou suggests that they must have a romantic relationship for him to keep supplying the station with footage. What will happen, and what (if anything) will happen to Lou?

I won't spoil the ending, but I will say that it felt like one or two crucial scenes are missing. The narrative takes us one way, to believe one outcome, but suddenly the situation somehow seems resolved and we enter a different arc, and then it ends. With one or two additional scenes to cover "How did (insert name) do (insert task)" or "How did he/she avoid (insert crime)", the climax would have made more sense; as it is, I was left wondering "Well, what happened?" I can accept an unexpected ending so long as we are given evidence to support why it was the case, but we aren't really given any.

I said earlier that I was a bit disappointed with the film based on the trailer, and I state here why: the action comes thick and fast in the short promo for Nightcrawler, yet the movie itself does not have that much more action in it. This is more of a cursory glance at the motives of a man who may not be evil but is cold, calculating, uncaring and willing to do anything, without remorse, to achieve his goals. Jake Gyllenhaal is terrific in portraying this character and, from a moral standpoint, you do wonder "How can he do that?" The crime scene visuals are as shocking as you can get, although I can't say such images drive me to see a movie.

So, how to sum up Nightcrawler? Based on my expectations, I was disappointed. Based on what I did see, though, I still found it to be worthwhile. It was dramatic, it was fascinating, it was at times uncomfortable yet compelling - in other words, it was a good movie. The less relevant scenes could have been omitted to include more moments to explain the climax but, besides that, it was a film that largely held my attention. It wasn't as good as I had hoped, but I still enjoyed it and, if you appreciate films that act as physical studies of how some states of mind operate, so should you.

Overall Rating: 7.5/10 - Good

Gone Girl

Image Source: Amazon

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Production Companies: Regency Enterprises and Pacific Standard
Director: David Fincher
Producers: Leslie Dixon, Bruna Papandrea, Reese Witherspoon and Ceán Chaffin
Scriptwriter: Gillian Flynn
Main Cast: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry
Released: October 2 2014 (UK) and October 3 2014 (US)
Running Time: 149 Minutes
Certificate: 18

The movie Gone Girl was much talked-about when released. Feminism is a strong theme of the main character's actions, but the discussion was so high that I felt the need to see the film myself. I knew that it was based on a novel of the same name by Gillian Flynn (who also writes the screenplay) and I understood the basic plot, but I still wanted to see it in full. The result: a movie that raises questions of how we judge people based on what they have and have not done, at times confusing and on occasion shocking, but overall very, very compelling.

For the first hour of this 149-minute motion picture, we have two interlinking story branches: one of a man, Nick Dunne (played by Ben Affleck), trying to learn why his wife Amy Elliott-Dunne (Rosamund Pike), has disappeared, with a police investigation looking at what may have happened, and with increasing evidence suggesting that he may have murdered her; and the other acts as an ongoing chronological flashback of the girl's diary entries from when they first met to their marriage to the troubles they faced as a couple and, ultimately, her disappearance.

At first, the presentation hints at one outcome, but you are inclined to disbelieve it; however, subsequent revelations change one's perception of the character and lead you to perhaps rethink what the outcome may be. But then, around an hour in, a curveball is thrown, and the whole picture changes, as does the plot, for no longer is the question "What happened?" - it becomes "What will happen?"

Revealing any more details would spoil the movie, but I can say this: you really do begin to wonder who is the hero and the villain, who deserves sympathy and empathy. These are points to ponder which are difficult to come to a conclusion on. Perhaps only those who have been in similar circumstances can relate to their situation and ultimately be able to pass judgement. It is possible that, when weighing it all up, both central characters deserve to be categorised in the same way, but even then is this a positive or a negative?

Either way, what doesn't require a debate is how thoroughly gripping this film is. Some films take a while to get into their groove but, whilst it does take time to fully get the picture of what is going on here, Gone Girl draws you in almost immediately and holds your attention for the duration. When you think it's a quiet scene, something happens; when you think the plot is someway from being solved, a swerve is thrown in. Where you think the story is going, it suddenly isn't. I will say that the ending, whilst not a letdown, was a bit too open-ended for a film which probably won't have a sequel, but on the whole, the movie is utterly engaging (one particular scene near the end was very shocking, to me anyway), and whilst the long running time may dissuade some from viewing it, I guarantee that you will feel like it is time well spent.

The performances are incredibly powerful. Rosamund plays the role of Amy extremely convincingly, although elaborating on why this is the case will spoil some elements of the plot. Nick Dunne is a multilayered character, who at various points deserves sympathy and disgust. His character is hard to define in terms of it being positive or negative, but it is one that many may be able to at least understand if not totally be on side with, so to speak, and Ben Affleck pulls it off marvellously. Other cast members put in strong performances, but this is a two-person film when it comes to making their roles count.

This is an 18-rated movie due to its very strong language and strong bloody violence (and it gets very bloody at times). I personally felt that the first 75-90 minutes were 15 territory, with scenes in the last hour hoisting it up to an adult rating. I should warn viewers that one thing which isn't mentioned in the BBFC rating classification is the focus on sexual content which at times is heavy, both verbally and physically. This, mixed with aspects already mentioned, make for a strong if at times uncomfortable viewing experience. In short, you won't be offended, but the movie may not be to your tastes.

Some criticisms of the film which have arisen concern are how the movie presentation handles elements of the novel, and how this impacts the events which play out and the perception of characters as a result. Certain scenes from the novel did not make it into the movie, but more notable is how, in Flynn's own words, she "killed feminism" via the way in which events play out. Others had a problem with how the subjects of marriage problems and sexual assault were handled, although as stated, the movie is based on the novel, so any such criticisms reflect the plot of the novel rather than solely that of this film.

In summary, though, Gone Girl is a truly absorbing movie and comes highly recommended. It tells one hell of a story with swerves that at times will have you in disbelief, but are gripping nonetheless. I can't say too much as it would be a real spoiler, but I can say that I am glad I gave into my desires to see this film. And, if you are in the same boat, so should you; you won't be disappointed.

Overall Rating: 9/10 - Outstanding

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

American Sniper

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: Village Roadshow Pictures, Mad Chance Productions, 22nd & Indiana Pictures and Malpaso Productions
Director: Clint Eastwood
Producers: Clint Eastwood, Robert Lorenz, Andrew Lazar, Bradley Cooper and Peter Morgan
Scriptwriter: Jason Hall
Main Cast: Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller
Released: January 16 2015
Running Time: 132 Minutes
Certificate: 15

American Sniper, a true story based on American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History by Chris Kyle, is a difficult movie to summarise. It has an equal amount of praise and criticism for very different reasons. As a viewing experience, however, one cannot deny that the film is thoroughly engrossing, even if some of its messages can be somewhat misleading.

We start with Kyle, played by Bradley Cooper, at the heart of war, seemingly about to decide whether or not to shoot a mother and child who are potentially armed. After a flashback to Kyle's childhood, which sees his father explain when and when not to defend the honour of another person or group of people, the story fast-forwards to more recent times when Kyle, a cowboy, decides to enrol in the US Navy, with a keen desire to protect his country.

Along the way, he meets Taya Renae (Sienna Miller) who he eventually marries and has two children to. In the meantime, however, both are shaken up by the 9/11 attacks and, at Kyle's wedding party, he and fellow servicemen are informed that they are being sent to Iraq. This begins Kyle's military experience, and leads to the aforementioned opening scene.

Before we move on, I want to point out a flaw. If you are unfamiliar with American history, the precious scenes would have you believe that terrorists from Iraq were responsible for 9/11 when that is not the case. The war on terror began after 9/11 in late 2001; American forces entered Iraq in early 2003. It is likely that the September 11 footage was included to show that Kyle was more motivated to defend the honour of his country, but the way in which these scenes are presented suggest that entering Iraq was America's answer to 9/11, which is simply not true.

So, we return to the opening scene where Kyle is in a tough position: the mother and child may be armed, but can he really kill them? As the movie rolls on, Kyle earns the nickname of "Legend" for the number of deaths he causes, which in turn makes him the deadliest marksman in US military history. However, situations such as this and other similar instances cause Kyle to feel a greater amount of remorse, which in turn eventually causes him to feel cold and just get on with it because, as his fellow servicemen remind him, he's just doing his job.

In the meantime, the war itself has a greater impact on his emotions. Each trip to Iraq sees Kyle edge closer to death, whilst seeing catastrophic scenes (some of which he has to bring about) which haunt his mind, and seeing some of his colleagues seriously wounded and killed.

Add to that the pressure put on his family, particularly his wife who feels that she will never have the old Kyle back to look after their growing family, and you have a real struggle for his strong character. Yes, he's doing his job for his country, and is doing very well, but the psychological effect it has on him is enormous. Can he get out in time to survive? Without giving too much away, the film has a shocking conclusion, but one has to see the film in its entirety to truly feel the impact of its ending. (If you know the story of Chris Kyle, then you will know what to expect; if you don't, wait until you see the film before you try to find out more.)

As stated, the film is very gripping and Cooper does a tremendous job as Kyle, as does Sienna Miller as Taya; however, it does have some flaws. Besides the aforementioned confusion over the link between 9/11 and Iraq, there is also a problem with how Iraq and Iraqis are portrayed. At no point does the viewer receive any information on why the Iraq war happened (as stated, someone with no knowledge of history would assume the direct cause was 9/11). This was a war which many have described as unjust, both at the time and today, and regardless of whether the war should have happened or not, that the justification is not explored feels like a whitewash, especially when words like "savages" are used to describe the Iraqis during the movie (and in the film, we very rarely see any Iraqis who are not on the enemy's side in some way). The scene when an injured serviceman thanks Kyle for saving his life is touching and does remind the viewer that the Americans were trying to do the right thing, but is it really true to hint that all Iraqis were villains?

As the "Legend" nickname suggests, the film seems to glorify killing, even the killing of women and, most shocking to see, children in the name of war. Whilst Kyle's inner torment is apparent, it's as if the overriding message is "Well, they're just doing their job, even if it means killing women and children." This glamorises the act of war despite the horrific effects it has for so many involved. Combined with the earlier mixed messages, this can make people believe that the movie is a big example of American propaganda, despite showcasing Kyle's psychological damage.

For this reason, this has invited comparisons with Inglorious Basterds (2009), a fictional movie in which the Nazis create a propaganda film on a sniper who killed many people - much to the joy of fellow Nazis watching it, but to the haunting dismay of Fredrick Zoller, the sniper who actually played himself in the promo film. The horrors of conflict are not explored; it gives the impression that killings which are deemed necessary for a country to achieve its goals are not only justifiable but something to celebrate. Unwanted comparisons to the Nazis maybe, but the message from American Sniper is very similar - and unlike Basterds, this movie is based on true events.

American documentary maker Michael Moore has also commented on Sniper, saying that director Clint Eastwood may have confused Iraq with Vietnam in his storytelling, although the greater story involving Moore and this film came from his criticism of snipers in general, calling them cowards in relation to the death of his father during the Second World War. This has drawn much criticism in response; but needless to say, American Sniper has drawn a significant amount of detraction.

Which is not to say that this is a bad film. I was completely drawn into this from the beginning to the very end, and whilst Kyle seems like just another American patriot at the beginning, as the plot progresses, one truly cares for him and is desperate for him to get home in one piece. If you are undecided about whether to see this, I strongly suggest that you do; however, the mixed messages about the cause of Iraq, the lack of acknowledgement over its justification and the feeling of American propaganda prevent this from being a true classic. Had these issues been addressed, I would give American Sniper the highest possible recommendation.

Overall Rating: 8/10 - Very Good

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