movie-reviews – Page 14 – Craig Andrew Robertson

July 25, 2015

The Choir

Formulaic is one of those complaints that is hard to pin down on the scale of complaint strength. On one hand we should be striving for original content and these formulas undermine that ideal. On the other there are only so many plots and characters and we can only do so many variations on them, leaving out the possibility for new ideas.

Taxi Driver is just The Catcher in the Rye. The Choir is just Dead Poets’ Society. Is that something worthy of moaning about?

The Choir stars new-coming child actor Garret Wareing as a troublesome boy who is sent to a prestigious choir school to be taught by a well-renowned choirmaster played by Dustin Hoffman.

Dustin Hoffman would make me want to join my school's boychoir!! — Dustin Hoffman would make me want to join my school’s boychoir!!

I’ll start with some of the negatives of this film. First and foremost is the pacing.

Halfway through, I thought that this movie was wrapping up and I was baffled by how quick it felt. I was thinking “wow, this must have really kept me hooked, since this two hour movie feels like half that length”. Then the movie kept going with another build-up to another climax.

Despite this, I feel like certain things were rushed. The big emotional scenes that were barely set up were underscored by quiet choir music as if that would help us connect more.

Another problem is of course how formulaic a lot of the plot is. Now, I don’t mind the fact that this premise of a troubled youngster proving himself through art has been done a helluva lot, but the fact that elements from those formulas were cut and pasted in here without real need, namely the cartoonish villains.

So, what did I like about this movie?

Well, paradoxically, it was some of the elements borrowed from other cheesy yet well done films of this kind that were satisfying.

At the beginning of this review, I said that this has a lot in common with Dead Poets Society, and while I stand by the idea that that film is far superior, Robin Williams’ english teacher’s spirit can be seen in Dustin Hoffman’s conductor, particularly in the subtlety of the effect the protagonist has on him and how much of it happens off-screen. That brings us closer to the point of view of the child, since we as children don’t see our teachers express their emotions about their profession.

I think that Garret Wareing has a strong future as an actor. I won’t say this is the greatest under-age performance I’ve seen. This is partly because he’s hampered unrealistically in the language department by a PG rating which makes the children in this movie often speak the way their parents wish they would (seriously, have you ever heard an impoverished 12 year old say “go to hell”). He still does a fine job with the material.

The music is fantastic, as it needed to be. We needed to connect to the notes almost as much as the characters do and the staging and singing really help that. This is the only reason I’d say it’s worth seeing this film in a theatre for rather than on Sky Movies.

A break from the formula of this plot comes near the end when the realities of singing come to a head for the characters. It’s done wonderfully. However, the film is undercut by a resolution that I find morally questionable in how neatly the bow is tied up.

To counteract a point I previously made, I enjoy some of these villains as well. Two of the bad kids in the choir are so OTT that I had to laugh, even at the line “get me a flash drive”.

What did I think of The Choir? It’s decent, but enjoyable. That’s all I can really say. I give credit to the filmmakers and actors involved that they didn’t half-ass this project that I will probably not remember, but I won’t be sorry if I didn’t forget.

Recommended Scenario: A lazy Sunday night on TV.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.

June 29, 2015

Mr Holmes

Sherlock Holmes has been adapted into at least 44 movies (not including TV), making him the most popular fictional character for the silver screen. At this point, with so many interpretations of the great sleuth, there is no such thing as a Holmes fan. There are enough versions that there’s a Sherlock for everyone.

In 2015, we have Sir Ian Mckellen playing the part in a light that has not yet been seen. Based on the book A Simple Trick of the Mind by American author Mitch Cullin, Mr Holmes gives us the title character in the twilight of his life, retired and struggling to remember his last case.

Ian Mckellen takes up the mantle of the world's greatest detective. No, he's not playing Batman! — Sir Ian Mckellen takes up the mantle of the world’s greatest detective. No, he’s not playing Batman!

Arthur Conan Doyle’s secret as to how his now world-famous detective came to be legend is that he created a superhero. That may not be obvious as Mr Sherlock Holmes never wore a mask or a tight costume (at least to my knowledge), but the basic ingredients of a caped crusader are present in this hero including special powers, villains and adventures (these being deduction, murderers and cases, respectively).

One of the most interesting arcs that seem to crop up in the stories of heroes is “what would happen if they lost their powers?”

Mckellen shows Holmes as a weak and forgetful 93 year old man who can’t remember what made him quit his profession. He tries to solve this puzzle by writing his account of his last case, the film flashing back when he recalls something.

Ian Mckellen is brilliant, capturing both the cold, logical intellect that we are familiar with from other interpretations, but also the humanity that he has to come to terms with in order to connect with his fellow man. As an old man, Holmes must deal with the gradual loss of the people he holds most dear to him and this is where the heart of the story is, not the mystery.

Attempting a connection with him is a boy called Roger, played magnificently by young Milo Parker. He has learnt about the former detective through the stories of Dr Watson, like we have and so is as shocked as we are to have the expectations of some veritable Superman be shown to us as a frail geriatric.

The structure of this film is a thing of beauty. Building layer upon layer of non-linear narrative makes you feel like you are Holmes, remembering past experiences. This way of telling the story could have come apart so easily, but it forever keeps one’s attention. Beautiful too is the cinematography and direction.

I was introduced to Sherlock Holmes through Guy Ritchie’s recent action hero films. People say that those are not accurate depictions of the character, but I say that they are fine artistic interpretations. They emphasise to me two things. The superhero nature of the world’s greatest detective and that this film totally reinvents the legend while holding true to it.

For that is what an adaptation should do. It should stay honest to its source material and yet do its own thing.

You may not agree with this way of showing Conan Doyle’s most famous protagonist, but I for one, absolutely loved it and I am recommending you to see it.

Recommended Scenario: If you want to be delighted by a fresh face to an old story.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.

June 24, 2015

Jurassic World (2D)

When it comes to franchises like Jurassic Park, reviews are pretty much unnecessary. That’s the level of power Universal have with these movies. All they had to do was say, “We have a new movie called Jurassic World and…”, and by the time they finish the sentence they already have your money and you’re watching. Dinosaurs will never, ever not be cool.

This fourth iteration in the saga is set around 20 years after the first film. The theme park is now open. Bad stuff happens. You know the drill.

HA! I bet you thought I would show you pictures of dinosaurs!

To give this review context, I’ll give you my quick opinions on what my blu-ray boxset calls the “Ultimate Trilogy” of the first three movies.

Jurassic Park (1993) – VFX that still hold up surprisingly well 22 years on. Classic Spielberg suspense, wonder and whimsy. A lesser version of Jaws, but on land!
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) – The message of “Life finds a way” is crammed down your throat by characters we are supposed to like but ultimately despise. Some cool scenes.
Jurassic Park 3 (2001) – A completely unnecessary and stupid movie that I love to bits out of blind nostalgia.

When I saw trailers of Jurassic World I was completely baffled by the in-movie plan to open the park after THREE movies told us that dinosaurs and people don’t mix. But then I took a step back and had a re-think about those movies and what ties them together.

What ties them together is silliness. The science behind bringing dinos back from 65 million years of fossilisation is unfounded and silly. Opening a theme park to display those monsters is even sillier (made worse when they try to do it in San Diego in the second one). Letting your kid go with your idiotic husband parachuting over the cliffs of the island where those dinos are held is tantamount to manslaughter!

However, this silliness has been shown to be successful and unsuccessful in those movies, so that on its own shouldn’t kill the fourth outing. Besides, this film series has already stooped pretty low so this movie cannot be accused of soiling the good name of the Jurassic period.

Now on with my thoughts on 2015’s interpretation of what would happen if Dinosaurs came back today.

Let’s start with what I didn’t like. Namely, the writing.

The relationships between the characters here, I just didn’t get into. Major and minor details that were meant to add depth serve simply to make me look at my watch. And I know you need to build characters so you care about them when the danger comes and so that danger becomes more tense and exciting (what I call the rule of Jaws). Unfortunately it wasn’t done that well here.

In the first movie, the bad guys were clearly marked. Here, I feel like pretty much every one of these people are idiots, drilling plot-hole after plot-hole into the script. While not as bad as Chappie, it did bring me out of the moment a couple of times.

Much criticism has been made of this film’s overuse of CGI and the lack of grit in the realism. While it is true that there are some scenes that have not so great effects and I feel like a couple more animatronic animals would have worked to the film’s favour, I will give the animators that there were a few scenes with near perfect use of their computers.

That brings me onto the good stuff. First of all, while I say that the dialogue is often clunky, there are some incredibly good lines and one hilarious character, Lenny. I want this guy to have his own spin-off movie! Make it happen Hollywood!

The writing also comes into it’s own when it becomes self-aware. There are times when I feel like the writers knew that this whole scenario is ridiculous and that the twists have the complexity of an old cartoon and so when a cheesy line is said, I can’t help but smile. They know that all they’re doing is trying to one-up the first movie in terms of getting new types of creature and so they attempt to pull off a balance between winking at the camera and keeping the seriousness in the characters’ predicaments.

The park itself is very creative. It felt close enough to the real world and yet was fantastical enough to make a connection to the main attraction that is the dinosaurs. And the film makes an excellent point about the fact that we do tire easily of seeing the same sort of stuff again and again.

So what is my opinion of those dinosaurs? Well there’s an overused phrase I just have to utilise now. They are jaw-dropping!

I mean it, my inner child made me forget all the asinine characters in the third act and made me appreciate just how fun these creatures are. Even when there’s something that doesn’t make sense by the warped logic of the universe, I don’t care as long as it looks cool.

I wish I was less reserved in cinemas, because there were moments when I honestly wanted to whoop with excitement and what was in front of me, occasional CGI glitches and all.

If you believe that these terror lizards weren’t enough to keep you hooked, I understand. But for me, I think this was well worth seeing just for those moments.

What’s odd is that I came out of the cinema beaming in memory of what I just saw and yet through most of this review I’ve been pretty much nit-picking at elements that when the whole thing came together, I didn’t care about. I suppose that sums up the weird mix that is Jurassic World. While failing in a number of areas that, if I was watching say, Transformers, would ruin the film for me, the filmmakers somehow keep it together to make something badass.

All in all, the lack of really scary moments and that many likable characters makes me place this below Jurassic Park, but I can safely say that this is the strongest sequel that it’s had so far.

In a word, DINOSAURS!

Recommended Scenario: Dinosaurs. There, you’ve already booked tickets.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.

May 29, 2015

Tomorrowland: A World Beyond

The way I see it, the blockbusters of 2015 are out of the dark-age that was the 2000’s. Not dark-age as in those movies were all bad, some were some of the best I’ve ever seen. What I mean is that there has been a tonal shift in some of the bigger ticket sellers, from dark and broody, post-911 skepticism to something a tad more upbeat than, say, The Dark Knight.

Enter Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, the Disney produced passion project from the writer director of modern classics, The Iron Giant, The Incredibles and Ratatouille, Brad Bird. Its story revolves around George Clooney and Britt Robertson and an adventure to a special, futuristic realm known as Tomorrowland.

Not only does this movie’s light-hearted and often classic Spielbergianly whimsical tone a sign of the direction films seem to be going this decade, but the entire theme of this movie is the different ways one could look to the future. Should we accept the problems of the world as our eventual doom, or should we attempt against the odds to provide solutions? Dystopia vs Utopia.

Representing the former camp is George Clooney’s character Frank, an inventor who has been hurt by his hopes for the future dashed by predictions that no matter what he does, there is no hope. Clooney does an excellent job as this pessimist. He’s grumpy and complains about the positive outlook of his supporting players, but he’s never truly cold. More like a grandfather than House M.D. (Coincidentally Hugh Laurie makes an appearance in this movie.)

Looking on the bright side is Britt Robertson as Casey Newton, another inventor who discovers the world that Frank is a part of. I really like Casey and Robertson is a good fit. A charming, funny and kind-hearted young woman who has the strength to take on the odds. My one gripe with her is her age. She is meant to be in high school, but I found that she fitted college-age a little better and I think that the story would have been little affected by this change. Of course, this is a very minor nit-pick.

Other problems lie with small plot-holes I found and some of the corniness (almost quite literally) didn’t sit too well with me.

However, like I say this cheese is meant to be there. A throwback to the mature family-friendly science fiction films of yesteryear. In fact, an entire scene takes place in a seller of comic books and other such nerdy merchandise. Needless to say there are plenty of easter eggs that I’m certain that the filmmakers very much enjoyed putting in these little tributes.

One thing I haven’t touched on yet, which I ought to, is the way this movie looks. When we first get a good look at Tomorrowland the film gives you the reason behind its approximately $200 Million budget. This film is more stunning than Avatar in its use of CGI to build literally A World Beyond. The first shot within the city is a long tracking shot of Casey as she explores the world’s majesty. I, like most cinefiles, am a sucker for a long tracking shot and this one cemented a place in my visual memory. Years from now, I believe I will close my eyes and look through 2015’s movies like a slideshow and that shot will be one of the centerpieces.

The action is pretty great too. What I didn’t mention earlier was that Brad Bird is also the director of Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol, and that experience obviously stood him in good stead for this film’s often breathtaking fight scenes that utilised a child-like imagination and adult skill.

I’m a firm believer in the balance of CGI and practical effects to bring a film to life. I know for certain that this film has a huge amount of CGI and I can’t be sure how many effects were done practically. All I can say is that it’s some of the best use of computers in film I’ve seen in years.

This film is good enough to get a sequel, but, as with many good films, I feel that the world they’ve built here is beautiful and intricate enough to stand on its own. It’s no great masterpiece, but I did enjoy it thoroughly.

All I can say with this film which uses state-of-the-art technology and a pretty strong story, the future looks bright.

Recommended Scenario: When you want your whole family to enjoy a look at a tomorrow which is a little more upbeat than Mad Max: Fury Road.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.

May 22, 2015

Mad Max: Fury Road

How many good fourthquel’s are there? We could probably count them on one hand. Star Wars: A New Hope, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Mission Impossible 4… I honestly can’t think of any more. It is the turning point in most decent film sagas. The moment where the studio lifts up their hands and says “I don’t care, give us more money” (if you are as cynical as many internet critics are).

So what is going to be the deal with this? The long awaited, supposedly, continuation of a series of three Australian films released between 1979 and 1985, Mad Max: Fury Road, stars Tom Hardy (replacing the original Mel Gibson) as the titular Max, a man going around a post-apocalyptic world where there are lots of explosions and cars.

Bane needs to stop watching so much "Fast & Furious". — Bane needs to stop watching so much “Fast & Furious”.

The wonderful Nostalgia Critic has given a name to these types of movies. “Dick flicks”. I find this name most apt as it serves not only as an indication that this is a film intended for a generally male audience while also touching on the parallels this sub-genre of action films have with the female-orientated “chick flicks” and the prejudices that are put against both types of films.

When one thinks of a “chick flick”, the immediate notion is that it immediately is going to be a low quality film “just for girls”. Because of course girls are incapable of understanding, never mind enjoying a good film.

This same frame of mind is held by those who look at a “dick flick” and say that it’s for adolescent minds who want to shut off their brains for something mindless.

However, just as Pride and Prejudice, has a great story and Pitch Perfect is funny while holding chick flick status, Robocop and The Terminator serve as fine examples of male-oriented mindless action films that might not be as mindless as one might assume.

I hope what you have just read has cleared up that just because Mad Max: Fury Road is a movie with lots of vehicular violence, it doesn’t make it either dumb or bad. In fact, this is a secretly clever and well thought out action film.

Max, in his endless travels, comes across a woman called Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron, who is trying to save a number of young women who would otherwise be held as sex slaves. Theron is nothing short of awesome in this movie. She is strong, smart and on the side of the right even when the odds are unfathomably out of her favour.

I was surprised at a number of elements in this film, not least the treatment of Furiosa (who is leagues ahead of Jupiter Ascending‘s lead).

The second thing that surprised me was the tone. The title suggested to me madness, and trust me it delivers it in the form of car-crazy excitement and endless imagination in the design of this apocalyptic world. However, I expected more of a comedic approach, similar to last year’s Guardians of the Galaxy. Despite the odd naturally placed joke, I was surprised at how seriously this movie took itself and how many genuinely dramatic moments where here. What impressed me was that it didn’t fall apart. This movie is so well directed and written that it simply invites you on the ride.

The madness of Mad Max is truly something to behold. The action scenes were done mostly for real and it shows. I am a huge fan of the mixture of practical and digital effects to create a compelling visual story. Over-reliance on one or the other will detriment any film.

I was deeply impressed by this stylistic, uncompromising movie. A well acted, well shot, well directed and well written film with a subtle and true feminist message that is buried under thrilling action that had my mouth open on more than one occasion.

Some have noted that the physical attractiveness of many of the women in this movie, their lack of injuries (for the most part) and the way the camera looks on them, is detrimental to the film’s feminist leanings. However, I’d argue that because the main women that Charlize Theron (who sports a dismembered arm) are in fact the wives of a warlord, it stands to reason that they would be kept physically attractive. Also, compared to a lot of movies, these women aren’t shot nearly as overtly sexy.

George Miller stated at Cannes that “There wasn’t a feminist agenda” to Mad Max: Fury Road. I say that that is excellent news. It means that this film which had no intentions of going out of its way to preach anything, treated its female characters with the respect they deserved.

And what’s more, like with Avengers: Age of Ultron I watched this sequel without having seen any previous movies and was never once lost. You don’t need any prior knowledge of the completely bonkers world of Fury Road.

Recommended Scenario: Whether you want a really good actioner, you want a stylistic thinker, or you want something completely different to anything around, this is for you.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.

May 6, 2015

The Avengers: Age of Ultron

With 11 movies under its belt and thousands of more comics to pull stories from, the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is fast becoming the most extensive movie franchise of all time. Marvel is truly an unstoppable force.

This latest film has its mightiest characters teaming up for the first time since 2012’s Avengers Assemble. This time they have to battle an evil robot and themselves.

Ultron — 2015 has been a good year so far for robofile cinefiles.

This next piece of information is probably going to surprise you. Before watching this film, and this does not include Guardians of the Galaxy whose continuity is irrelevant here, I had not seen ANY of the previous films in its “Universe”!

You may be wondering why then did I start with this film, so late into the series? Well, I hope that I could act as the voice of the newcomer to this franchise. I went into the theatre, armed with only my assembled (the irony of that word does not escape me) knowledge from internet spoilers of the previous films and the obvious knowledge that any characters who were in previous films must have survived to be in this one.

So, how does Ultron grab me, as a newcomer? I must say, I’m impressed.

Our heroes are people with clearly defined personalities and relationships, a not inconsiderable feat for such a large cast. The dialogue is funny, but never involves Batman and Robin style puns.

I expected to walk out this movie with at least one character I did not like. I ended up liking ALL of them. In particular I enjoyed Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow. A femme fatale can be caring and badass!

(Sidenote, I understand people are compaining about the fact that she is sad about being infertile, to which I say that would be a genuine reason for being sad. I will say that people are right to complain about the lack of backing for female lead superhero movies, considering it’s the era of Hunger Games.)

These superheroes have to go up against the titular Ultron, a robot with a diabolical plan to destroy the world. I like this villain. Unlike Ronan in Guardians of the Galaxy, who was the serious traditional bad guy to counteract the heroes fun personalities, this robot has a sense of humour. He sings, he makes jokes. I love this sort of villain. I haven’t seen a comic book villain since The Dark Knight.

If I had one complaint with him, it would be his evil plan. Not that it’s badly executed or that his motivations and journey toward that plan are badly done, it’s that I’ve seen the same sort of thing so many times before.

I obviously cannot comment on continuity, but from what I’ve heard it’s solid between this film and the previous ones. As a newcomer, I understood the majority of what was going on. There was the odd time I would think, “who is that” and without searching my memory banks for Facebook spoilers from the past few years, I may have got lost for a few moments.

Those without the luxury of people going through all the major plot details of every movie online, whether or not the listener has even seen the movie, I can’t say you will totally get this film on its own.

While some say that the MCU is an example of Hollywood’s lack of originality and how it shuts out proper independent filmmakers, the proof is in the pudding when these movies turn out to be really, really good. I would prefer for more indie filmmakers to get a better chance of getting their work noticed.

However, let’s face it, most of those artists are initially inspired to make something beautiful when they watch some form of “popcorn entertainment”. I know that I was inspired by The Lord of the Rings over ten years ago. Interestingly enough, that was, in a way, a superhero team movie too.

Recommended Scenario: When you want to see a fun, smart and engaging crowd-pleaser. Also, watch the other 10 films first.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.

April 4, 2015

The Water Diviner

Russell Crowe’s directional debut has him star as an Australian farmer in 1919 who travels to Gallipoli to find the sons he lost in the Great War. The title The Water Diviner refers to his character’s ability to track down water in what appear to be deserts in his home country.

Russell Crowe in his directional debut, "The Water Diviner". — Russell Crowe in his directional debut, “The Water Diviner”.

This title also has a second meaning relating to the man’s quest for his children, in that it can only be through some divine intervention that he could find his children.

Speaking of divine intervention, because a considerable amount of this film takes place in tumultuous post-war Turkey, elements of Islam have to be shown. Unlike in a number of war related movies in recent years, I’m happy to say that this religion is treated with some level of respect and dignity.

Another excellent element of this film is the emotional punch of a number of the moments. There are a couple of moments that Crowe allowed to play out very naturally and it worked so well.

I was also impressed by the “romantic sub-plot” which thankfully did not end up becoming romantic. This relationship is between Crowe’s character and a Turkish woman (played by Olga Kurylenko) who lost her husband in the same battle he lost his sons. I say “thankfully” as these two share enough of a connection through the love of friendship that grows between them that introducing elements of romance, just because they are attractive people of opposite sex would have dampened the drama.

Crowe should be proud for directing his first film so excellently. The only issues I have with his direction are simply nit-picks of style (for example the use of time, event and location indicating titles at various points) and some problems with the visual effects in the reasonably good opening scene showing the final morning of the Battle of Gallipoli.

Another issue I had at first glance is with the nature of the divine way in which the man finds water and attempts to find his sons. He explains his method of “feeling for the water” in a silent montage scene that I did not particularly care for. I thought at first that if he did explain to us the way he found the water, it would make his miracle based strategy for finding his kids easier to stomach.

However, as I thought more about it, this is a cynical man who has lost faith in his God yet not in his sons or his own will. That is a pretty deep piece of characterisation I must say. And if we were to hear of any scientific reason for his water finding gift, we’d lose some of his duality, battling between the harshness of the excellently captured chaos of the post WW1 period and the divine.

All in all this is a very good film about the love of a father for his children.

N.B. Don’t watch this film’s trailer. It spoils way too much.

Recommended Scenario: When you want to see a man’s odyssey to save the ones he cares about when all around him is the remains of destruction.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.

March 31, 2015

The Gunman

Film pitch time. What if there was one of these “one-man-army” action movies (along the lines of Bourne, Die Hard, Bond, et al), but half-way through the film, our hero, let’s call him Jammy Biggs (played by Eric Bana) gets killed by one of the random baddie henchmen and the movie takes off in a completely new direction afterwards. I think that in the right hands, this would be an awesome twist!

The Gunman is a one-man-army actioner which follows the general formula which was reworked by the excellent Bourne Trilogy from 80’s action movies. Sean Penn plays a former hitman on the run from his previous bosses.

There's apathy of action heroes while they kill people, then there's Sean Penn killing people. — There’s apathy of action heroes while they kill people, then there’s Sean Penn killing people.

What works a tad better in this movie compared to the three films starring Jason Bourne are some elements of the action.

While Doug Liman and later Paul Greengrass’ work with shaky-cam is some of the best the industry has ever seen, it is nice that The Gunman has a much smoother feel to its action. This satisfaction is only due to the overuse of camera shake in other Bourne imitators.

Secondly, though the violence in the Bournes was devastatingly brutal, some of the best ever put on film without gore, it is a welcome sight, and this is going to sound strange, to see blood in this film. I deeply respect the filmmakers for sticking to their guns, quite literally, and refused to cut away from the action unnecessarily.

Now, a cut-away from a kill can be used for dramatic effect, but often the greatest drama can be delivered by showing us the true ugliness of death. In fact, a friend once made the point to me that “clean” violence, the kind where there is no feeling of the characters feeling pain or death, is actually more of a bad influence for children. Violence can be done over-the-top fun (Commando), over-the-top stylish (Kill Bill), or disturbingly realistic (A History of Violence).

The Gunman is nothing special for its use of violence. But, it does serve as an example to those who want to water down action in order to get more audience members through a 12A rating.

Our lead, Sean Penn, is really good in this movie. His character suffers from the mistakes of his past life and this permeates his surface superbly.

The supporting cast all do a pretty good job as well. Unfortunately however, the film stumbles at the usual obstacle of this sort of film.

Penn’s character has a girlfriend at the beginning of the film. Stuff happens. He has to leave her. A long time later they meet again due to circumstances. They hook up despite the girlfriend being already in a relationship. Stuff happens. They have to go on the run.

These characters do not need to get together here. At best they can be friends by the end. It would make no difference to the plot if instead of them both being in love, he was still in love with her, but it remains unrequited.

I would like to see that more in movies. Instead we have a female character, who on one hand has some really nice moments of strength and breaking down in the face of the madness of the situation. On the other hand, she gets back together with a man who, while a good man, has treated her like dirt.

This annoyed me quite a bit, but I can’t necessarily blame the movie. This sort of trend has been going on since the first movies. It takes proper cajones to break it.

So, all in all, not a bad movie. Just don’t expect me to be raving about it to my friends.

Recommended Scenario: If you want a gritty, no-nonsense action flick, that is pretty similar to most gritty, no-nonsense action flicks.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.

March 31, 2015

Home

The trailers for kids films really need work. Every time I see one, I am turned off by it. It’s only because you wonderful people are willing to read my reviews that I actually go to see them and find out that they’re not that bad.

Home‘s trailer suggests that it is the story of a cute, dumb alien, named Oh, who is on the run from those of his own race because he has made too many clumsy errors with the help from a teenage girl.

This piece of advertising doesn’t actually show the important element that Oh’s race takes over the planet somehow out of cowardice and the girl is looking for her relocated mother with Oh’s help.

Girl, how can you smile when your entire planet is under the control of millions of squid things?

Computer Animation, in the years since Toy Story, has become the norm for family films. To be honest, I have to agree with a number of people who are sad at the decline in popularity of hand-drawn and stop-motion animation. But, when put into the hands of the good men and women at Dreamworks Animation, computers can capture motion like nothing else.

This movie looks great. Superb use of depth of field, the world is imaginative and the way the characters move feels alive.

The writing is really quite good as well, reminiscent of The Lego Movie at times. The Boove, the alien race, speaks in a way that is totally grammatically incorrect and their incompetence, cowardice and all around lack of understanding over the situation makes for some excellent comic foils.

Oh, played by Jim Parsons, is quite a good hero for a family film. Cute, friendly and an idiot, he’s everything I looked up to as a kid.

The girl, while she can be a little too positive at time, considering the Earth has been defeated in one day by purple morons, she isn’t annoying and she has her dramatic moments.

Speaking of drama, this movie does it good but not great. A couple of moments hit me with some “feels”. However, others were ruined by the soundtrack.

The problem I have is that not that the songs are bad. They are pretty decent and they fit the particular mood they’re going for. I have problems with them for two reasons. The first being that it will significantly date this movie down the line and that the studios know this and keep the songs in anyway because the kids love them just now.

Secondly, they really distract you. It’s like the Phil Collins songs from a few disney movies in the early 2000’s. If you’re like me, you can’t watch Tarzan without seeing the former lead singer of Genesis swinging from the trees. I would happily listen to the songs from Home in my own time. I just couldn’t concentrate on the drama they were trying to get across at the time when they repeated the same song from before.

Speaking of singing, Rhianna provided her voice for the girl and does a pretty good job at hiding her extra few years she has on her character.

So what does Home teach our kids? It teaches not to judge people too much on past mistakes, because everyone makes them, not to judge someone by their appearance. These are worthwhile lessons for kids to learn. If you have kids, this is actually a pretty good film to see.

If you don’t, you may not quite enjoy it as much. A number of the jokes are more meant for the adults to get, but I believe that the overall feel of this movie, with its poppy soundtrack, over-explaining of dramatic moments and general optimistic view of alien attack, I’d say this is one for our kids.

Recommended Scenario: If you think your kids are too young to watch apocalyptic visions of the world in the vain of The Road.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.

March 24, 2015

Still Alice

Still Alice is a film about a woman called Alice played by Julianne Moore who suffers from early onset alzheimer’s disease.

Every scene with these two is absolutely superb.

One of the things film fans like to do is point out bad performances. Whether it’s overacting, underacting or some strange mix that does not make much sense as to be green-lit, there is a lot of fun to be had in making fun of richer people doing a job we would kill to do.

The unfortunate thing about this attitude is that any movies the actors appear in later will not be appealing, even if they are good.

And one thing we fail to remember is that film is an extremely collaborative medium. Jake Lloyd could very well have given a superb performance in Star Wars: Episode I, but whether it was on set or in the editing room, George Lucas (who by the way gets way too much flack these days) decided to go with a take that made every line come from the young actor appear unnatural.

My point with all of this? Julianne Moore’s performances in The Lost World and Hannibal were critically derided. And don’t get me started on the negative reaction to Kristen Stewart’s performance in The Twilight Saga.

The fact is, actors can be victims of bad writing, bad direction or bad editing choices. There is no point hating these two actresses. Because you never know when a film like Still Alice will come along and give you the most wonderful portrayal of a mother-daughter relationship in cinemas in years, with these actors in the roles of mother and daughter.

This is a great movie.

The writing makes you feel like the family in the film is a real family trying to deal with a terrible situation of losing the matriarch while she’s still alive and young.

Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland, the film’s writers, also directed it superbly. The use of a shallow depth of field in a number of the shots really brings across the feeling of being lost Alice feels here.

Alzheimers is a horrible disease which affects so many around the world and its effects on the person suffering and the family around them are shown in an extremely honest light here by a great cast.

Julianne Moore won an Oscar for her performance here. While this particular feat does not mean anything in my opinion, she definitely deserves the recognition for an extremely powerful piece.

And yes, I cried a little during this film.

Recommended Scenario: If you want to really know what the love of a family is capable of overcoming.

If what I have written tells you that you would like this film, you can book tickets to see it at your local Cineworld here.