movie-reviews – Page 15 – Craig Andrew Robertson

March 24, 2015

Suite Française

I used to be very against watching “films for girls” when I was growing up. To me, watching anything based on the works of Jane Austen was the height of immasculation. Since then I’ve grown up. I’ve realised that just because the protagonist of a film happens to be a woman, or that the story is based around romance, it can still be a masterpiece. So if the boys and men around the world take anything out of this, please remember that even if a film is “girly”, its execution may be a stroke of genius.

Suite Française is a movie based on the novel by Irène Némirovsky about a young woman (Michelle Williams) in Nazi-Occupied-France falling in love with a German officer (Matthias Schoenaerts) staying in her home.

There’s little in this movie I can point out as being wrong in this film.

Its acting is very good, particularly from Kristin Scott Thomas as the protagonist’s strong-willed mother-in-law and I really like the way the two romantic leads are able to keep a great deal of their struggles a mystery to the audience.

I really enjoyed the idea that it put across whereby you cannot place absolute trust in the honour of your neighbours, particularly during war-time. And despite the premise sounding way too poetic and non-realistic, the way the plot unravels, it all seems plausible.

Any issues I have with this film stem from nit-picks that any film can suffer from that would be pointless for me to shake my finger at, and subjective issues.

Art, as we all know, is subjective. There is no one book that states that you have to do this in order to get an emotional response from the audience. As a filmmaker (if I can call myself that) there are simply things in Suite Française that I would have done differently.

For one, the protagonist in the film provides voice-over exposition that is not really needed until the end. This may sound strange to those who know that I adore Martin Scorsese’s use of voice-over in his films. The difference here is that Scorsese knows how to make the narration feel like an organic extension of the visuals and Michelle William’s voice does not feel that way here.

However, once the film ends, we are given some background on the novel on which the film is based and the tragedy surrounding it. So I can see the narration as being a tribute to the writing in the story, much in the same way the narration was handled in the mixed bag that was 2013’s The Great Gatsby.

There are some other, minor, things I would have done differently if I had the job of directing this film.

I would have liked this movie to have been in black and white, to resemble the films of the 1940s, the time period of the story. And I would have liked to see this film made in the language of the characters.

The latter is an issue I have with a number of movies set in places around the world. I do understand the director wanting the western audience to sympathise more greatly with the characters and that can be done by having them speak English. There’s also the issue of marketing. Not that many people want to read subtitles throughout the run-time of a movie, or at least will not want to try it.

Both these things are preferences of mine and they are just as much creative, subjective decisions as adding camera shake to a shot in a particular scene as opposed to keeping it still and I will defend to the death the right for a director to make that decision, even if I don’t agree with it.

All in all, I really liked this superb romantic film.

Recommended Scenario: When you’re on a date. Unfortunately, I was forced to watch this film alone.

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 21, 2015

Run All Night

For the second time this year, I am reviewing a movie starring Liam Neeson as a man who has problems connecting with his kid and has the ability to beat people up. This is still a thing apparently.

Run All Night has Neeson play a former gangster who has to struggle to save his son, who is on the run from Neeson’s former mob boss. And as the title suggests, this is all over the course of one night.

Liam Neeson should really spend more time talking to people face to face in his movies.

It is fun to point out that this film’s lead actor has been doing the same sort of stuff in most of his films for years. Besides being an action hero a lot, he also consistently plays the older gentleman who teaches the feckless youth how to kick ass.

When I saw the trailers and other promotional stuff about this film, I thought, just like everyone else, that this was going to be another Taken retread. And while there are a number of similarities, besides both films being of the same genre and having the same lead actor, I don’t necessarily think that this should be a problem in and of itself.

For one, Liam Neeson is not the only actor to have one character archetype he keeps to, with subtle variations. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood are two of cinema’s greatest “legends” despite their acting careers both consisting of the same sort of work.

Secondly, despite the fact that a particular actor has the ability to drastically change the way a film could work, for many films, including this one, the fact that the lead has been in other similar projects should have no bearing on how I critique its quality.

So what level is Run All Night‘s quality? The answer is surprisingly good.

The premise feels like a reasonably clever twist on the classic revenge actioner, with the antagonist having a genuine reason to be angry at our heroes and the hero having sins that act as a consistent chip on his shoulder.

Yes, it has some cliches and the dialogue, being in a story that goes over the course of one night, is distractingly expository at times, but this movie kept me invested throughout.

The supporting cast, which includes Ed Harris as the mob boss after Neeson’s son, does an excellent job. A strange incident here is that the only member of the cast to have ever won an Oscar, despite big names like the two already named, was Common, the singer/songwriter, who plays a random hitman.

What about our lead? Liam Neeson’s character, like many in this movie, occupies a dark and dangerous world of people who carry scars from past lives, himself included. This makes for a protagonist who is easy to despise and sympathise with, which I loved. Neeson himself plays it well, despite him continuing to be unable to do a convincing American accent. Let’s face it, he really has problems with it.

The action suffers from some of the problems which plague many action movies in recent years. Occasionally the camera shakes to an extent where you cannot quite see what’s going on. However, I have seen far, far worse and I was never bored or confused by it. And at least the good guys often seem like underdogs, keeping the tension high.

Also, the violence is stepped up to 15 rating levels. This in and of itself is a move which can never save terrible action, but can at least help to deliver more powerful punches to the audience.

The direction has some noticeable style to it which I think kind of worked here, though I will concede that not everyone will agree.

Run All Night is everything Taken 3 should have been. I hope it doesn’t get a sequel which demolishes it all.

Recommended Scenario: When you want an action film that isn’t based on nostalgia or pandering to the male demographic.

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 14, 2015

Chappie

I’d like to preface this review with a short retrospective on today’s film’s director, Neil Blomkamp.

The South African filmmaker rose to fame in 2009 with his debut sci-fi effort District 9, produced by Peter Jackson.

At one point I felt I could put District 9 in my top 10 of all time. It’s a clever, well-made and extremely entertaining action film. Plus, its combination of found footage and cinematic techniques hold up better than anything else that has attempted found footage throughout its runtime.

Elysium, his second feature, came out four years later. I enjoyed it though it did expose a flaw in Blomkamp’s films, all two of them. He makes painfully obvious social commentaries.

While the messages are not as blatant and pretentious as the Wachowskis’, when I watch District 9 again, now, it sometimes feels like someone is poking me and saying “Do you get it? This is about the apartheid!”

A political message is fine though in fiction, of course, and this trait does not stop me from enjoying Blomkamp’s first two films, but I totally understand why some would feel rubbed the wrong way.

Another issue some have, with District 9 at least, is the common belief that it was a wholly unique film. It of course wasn’t. The film borrows many elements from other sci-fi efforts. However what does make it unique is the way it mixes those traits with some relatively novel ideas.

The Auteur theory, whereby a director leaves a recognisable fingerprint on a film, can be applied to find that Tarantino likes slow stories driven by great dialogue or that Michael Bay likes attractive women and buff military men running away from explosions. It may be unfair to profile Blomkamp on only two films, but it is an interesting exercise.

So what does Neil Blomkamp, South Africa’s most famous director (which I have to give him credit for), like in his films? Gritty Science-fiction action with a protagonist with some selfish trades going up against a psychopathic villain who does awful things, because they believe they are for the greater good. All while saying something politically motivated.

Now on with the review.

Chappie is a sci-fi tale about a robot with a inquisitive mind of a child despite an extremely powerful body.

This is actually the second cute robot, that I've seen this year, which spends time learning how to do a fist bump. — This is actually the second cute robot, that I’ve seen this year, which spends time learning how to do a fist bump.

A number of the things I was looking forward to from the trailers advertising this film were present. In particular Blomkamp’s gritty near future world-building demonstrated in his previous films and the titular robot.

This robot, despite reminding me of every powerful cinema creation with childlike innocence (The Iron Giant, Baymax, E.T, et al), was indeed charming. Sharlto Copley lends his voice, and though you wouldn’t know it from the superb Weta Digital VFX, gave him life via motion capture.

However, and this is a big however, he inhabits a script with plot-holes as numerous as on a sieve and dialogue from a bad Doctor Who episode.

For one, the villain, played by Hugh Jackman, is a complete idiot, with a motivation more confusing than Javert’s in Les Miserables.

Like I said in my It Follows review, my no-spoiler policy in my reviews causes me to refuse to go through plot holes in any great detail. I cannot deny, though, that it did really pull me out of the film a few times.

The dialogue, as I said, also felt rather cheap. The most cringe-worthy lines come from Dev Patel’s character, Chappie’s Creator. In fact at one point I turned to the girl next to me and we both openly laughed at one of his apparently serious phrases.

Another couple of problems with this film’s screenplay, co-written by Blomkamp, is its pace which went like a bullet and is rejection of some scientific logic.

While I deal every week with a great deal of suspension in my disbelief, I spend a lot of my time in a dark room watching light hitting a wall, as a computing student some stuff here properly baffled me.

I will give this movie credit, however, in a couple of respects. While the action lacks the over-the-top glory fun of district 9, there was perhaps inherited from Peter Jackson, it is reasonably decent although a major action scene does begin part-way through its action.

Another positive is a message which is a little more of an intellectual exercise to decipher than previous Neil Blomkamp films. While I was able to work out that something to do with the ease with which children can be led into gangs by abusive friend circles and some philosophical stuff about the relationship between man and God (chappie and his maker), it was a piece of David Lynch compared to the director’s previous work.

This film, overall, suffers from one of the most unfortunate flaws in cinema. I wrote a better screenplay, mentally, while I was watching it. There is so much potential for a pretty good film, if only the two writers had come to me before amassing its $30 million budget.

It was recently announced that the next Alien movie will be directed by Neil Blomkamp. I think this is a superb decision. The man has proven that he can do gritty sci-fi I do believe he can possibly save this once great franchise.

I’ve heard people comment that this artist has sold out for bigger budgets and more famous actors. No. He has done what all successful filmmakers do. Expand his pallete.

It’s unfortunate that he wasn’t performing at his best here.

Recommended Scenario: If you want to see the range of quality even a good filmmaker can have.

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 10, 2015

It Follows

You may be reading this in the assurance that I am a true connoisseur of cinema. That I am a total expert and there is no film that can daunt me. That would be untrue. For, you see, while I believe that all art has worth and I believe that there is no “bad” genre of film, I am in fact a scaredy-cat when it comes to horror movies.

It Follows is a supernatural horror movie from writer and director David Robert Mitchell. Its story is that of a high school girl who is taken over by some spirit presence which she sees following her wherever she goes.

Those halcyon days of high school. Sun, cars, beautiful girls and demons from the fiery pits of hell.

The set up of this film follows the old cliches of this sub-genre of horror (sex, beautiful teenagers etc) yet that shouldn’t stop enjoyment. Cliches are an inevitability in movies. It’s the mastery of those cliches which can bring about a great picture.

I like horror. It’s a fascinating and extremely effective genre when done well. Like all film, it relies on manipulating the audience to give an emotional, visceral reaction.

What I find is that the more I connect to the characters in a film, the more frightened I am of their predicament.

That’s the major difference I found between Alien and Prometheus. The former tried to be a straight-up scary movie, and succeeded in becoming one of the most effective of its kind. Whereas Prometheus attempted to be an artistic reflection of philosophy and creation, which worked to a certain extent, packaged up in a horror movie, by the same director as Alien. Prometheus failed because it presented characters I wanted to die, unlike Alien which got me to care about them.

It Follows gives us characters, which I don’t think are the most memorable, but they are certainly not unlikable and I didn’t want them to get hurt by the titular, terrifying, evil presence.

That presence, thanks to some ingenious direction and pacing, meant that I would often cover my eyes and ears in the cinema. Yes. I had to look away.

After the movie’s really clever ending, a woman sitting next to me asked if I was OK. I was truly embarrassed that the film had got me so well that I was visibly scared in my seat.

On my way to the bus from the cinema, I found myself laughing at how often I would look behind me when I saw my own shadow. I cannot fault this movie on that front. This was a scary movie, which scared me.

There are a couple of nitpicks in the film’s logic I can go into, but I don’t find much enjoyment in ruining a film for some people by pointing out plot-holes before they even see it.

I now have sour feelings toward David Robert Mitchell. But in a way that I think will make the man very happy.

Recommended Scenario: If you want a movie to give you the heebie-jeebies this side of Halloween.

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 6, 2015

The Wedding Ringer

There is a perception among a number of people that comedy is a weak art form. That it’s an easy thing to do. The age of YouTube has shown us that pieces of randomness that had literally no thought put into them can be found funny and get viral until we all get sick of them and they collapse under the weight of their own success.

I’d argue however that comedy is one of the hardest things to write and perform well. YouTube has also taught us that for something to stay with us in our mind, there has to be some intelligence behind it, even if it appears to be random.

Check out this video for an example.

Surely if a couple of Scottish cartoonists can come up with something, a budget of $23 Million can do the same thing.

This scene was not funny. Really not funny.

The Wedding Ringer stars Kevin Hart as a man who can be hired to be your best man on your wedding day, if you’re like the protagonist of this film and have no friends.

That sounds like a reasonably good premise, doesn’t it? It fits right into the old rule that a comedy must end with a wedding. Also, with the whole deception thing, there are times when this feels like a heist/con film.

On top of that Kevin Hart is not a bad choice for this role. He’s a charming man who can also bring, fast-talking funny in his stand-ups which appear everywhere on my Facebook wall. This is going to be great!

No. It’s not. Because of all the boxes I appear to have ticked off, I’ve missed out one cataclysmically important one. A comedy must be funny. The most that came out of me was a nasal exhale and a polite smile in the 101 minutes of this movie.

This movie is so boring and predictable. The “drama” bits feel like they come out of nowhere. The characters are generally stereotypes (bar Kevin Hart and one other clever exception). And when it tries to make serious points on its theme of “you need friends”, it feels cheap and rushed.

One other major point the movie tries to get across is that weddings are all a sham to make the Bride and the Bride’s Mother happy on their wedding day. Now, I don’t know what your opinions on the concept of marriage are, but judging by the rest of the movie, the writers of this movie want to get back at women for some reason.

I know I’ve talked a lot about sexism in movies recently and I won’t say that there is as much as some films, here. But the premise and some of the plot-points feel just anti-girl, in my opinion. The mantra of this immature mess most likely being “bros-before-hoes”.

As we struggle to get to the end, we get the standard “friend meeting the in-laws”, “bachelor party” and “people play American Football scene”. None of which were funny.

Once we reach the end, I will give the movie credit that they tried to do something a little different and put across some form of a good message, and they did set up some elements of it a bit. But the final reveal which causes this ending is so ridiculous that I imagine the writers using it as a way to get them out of the corner they’d written themselves into.

And the film keeps going after that ending to more misogynistic partying which makes little sense and doesn’t add anything. The lights came up in the theatre a good few seconds before the movie finished. I think the cinema itself was bored with it.

It is not that easy to write a review for a bad comedy. Not only is it not easy to sit through, but there’s only so many times you can write “that’s not funny”. I think I did OK for my first. Let me know what you think.

Recommended Scenario: If you can really, really switch off your mind. Or you are on holiday with no DVDs, books or friends.

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 4, 2015

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

I’m not going to try and pretend to be all “macho” here. I really liked The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. It was funny, charming and at times very moving. So what are my thoughts on its follow-up?

This sequel, whose title means so many things, continues the intertwining stories of the characters we grew to enjoy the company of in the first movie, plus a few new ones.

I can think of a dozen other old British actors who deserve a stay at this hotel, off the top of my head.

Some of the elements I adored in the first movie are back. There are still funny moments and the characters and the actors who play them are effortlessly charming.

There is certainly acting royalty on display from the geriatric British characters. Dame Maggie Smith in particular is on firs as the “angry auld bisum” she portrays.

A matter for debate for viewers, I’d imagine is the reprised performance of Dev Patel and his character’s writing. I find Patel to be one of the most likeable actors in the business, particularly as the bumbling fool that is the manager of the titular Indian hotel. To others, he could come across as a tad over-the-top.

Another unfortunate issue, which I find the movie suffers from, is its own existence. While I can deal with it suffering “sequel-itis” and having its quality being a couple notches down on the previous film (particularly in delivering emotional punch when it needs to), it is hard for me to get over the fact that the entire production seems a little unnecessary.

On one hand, I’m glad that a relatively small picture I liked got enough attention to warrant a sequel. And it is nice to be invited back to India to spend time with our old favourite characters.

On the other hand the first film’s conclusion warranted no continuation of the stories. And the resolutions of this one are generally little different from those of the first. Either that or they are easily guessable answers to old cliffhangers or the stories leaves on not quite so nice a note.

This film was also spoiled by its advertising. No fault of the film itself, mind you, but I hate trailers which give too much away. It is as if they believed that this film was not good enough not to be spoiled.

So do I want a Third Best Exotic Marigold Hotel? I don’t think so. The first film was good enough to have on its own, as a background movie one can watch again and again while doing some ironing. No further stories need be told.

However, I do not hate this second film. Both the first and second have a certain cheesy nature to them which did have me smiling by the end.

Take it for what it’s worth.

Recommended Scenario: If you’ve seen the first film and genuinely want to know what happened after “Happily Ever After”.

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 1, 2015

Focus

This year’s big, twisty-turny, scam film is here. And no, I’m not going to work any Fresh Prince of Bel-Air jokes in here, as I’ve never seen the show and all the jokes to be made are already on the internet for you to find.

Focus is a thriller whose story centres around the will-they-won’t-they relationship of a con-man and a con-woman played by the charming and handsome Will Smith and the funny and gorgeous Margot Robbie, respectively.

Margot Robbie actually beat Will Smith's time on "Top Gear". This was his reaction. — Margot Robbie actually beat Will Smith’s time on “Top Gear”. This was his reaction.

One thing I have to admire those behind this film for, is that they understand that it takes more than an on-screen couple’s attractiveness to make them interesting. They talk as if they have genuine feelings for one another. Unlike a certain other film I reviewed a week or two back!

Robbie and Smith are actually good actors. My favourite past performances to recommend to you are Smith’s in the underrated Hancock and Robbie’s in the awesome The Wolf of Wall Street.

Their chemistry and the writing of their funny, flawed, strong, enigmatic and interesting characters carry this movie supremely. While the dynamic they share is based on the deception that comes from lives of tricking people, it works wonders here. However, a couple of their decisions do get a little in the way of their total routability.

But enough about all this lovey-dovey stuff. What about the scams?

The plot is intricate and weaves through a number of genuinely tense scenes of the main characters trying to dupe their victims. It follows some of the basic rules of the crime thriller. Keep it reasonably light, the plot complex, but not too confusing and keep the bad guys bad.

I really like these sort of films and Focus is a good example of how to do it right. On top of that its well directed, edited and shot, with not coincidental use of focus to provide a nice artistic effect through an often shallow depth of field. And on top of that this is a funny film.

While some of the jokes seemed to try too hard in my opinion, this does make a good example of what some call a “dramady” (a film which you can see as either serious or silly, unironically).

Though a couple of parts in this film didn’t make much sense to me, this is one enjoyable film that I can’t think of much wrong with, in terms of what it set out to be.

Recommended Scenario: If you’re in the mood for a mix between The Sting and Ocean’s Eleven. Even Hollywood can’t deny that sounds fun!

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 1, 2015

Whiplash

Before I get started with this review, proper, two things.

For one, I apologise for the tardiness of this review. The film’s barely in cinemas anymore and it’s already received its Oscars.

Secondly, since this is a musically themed movie, I thought I’d take time to promote a couple musical friends of mine.

The first is singer/songwriter Aidan Smith. I could go on about how talented he is, but the best thing to do is show you his stuff here.

The other one is Rosie Lavery, Youth Ambassador for Classical Music in Glasgow. She has a blog of equal greatness to this one here, on various aspects of classical music.

With that, on with the review.

Whiplash follows the story of a Jazz drumming music student and an overbearing teacher and the conflict which ensues between them.

There is a lot more swearing at this moment in the film than there is in this photograph.

J.K Simmons won an Oscar last week for his performance as the teacher here. I say he absolutely deserved it, bringing forth a mix between of Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann from Full Metal Jacket and Daniel Plainview from There Will Be Blood.

However, I think the show is stolen from him by Miles Teller who portrays the student. Teller apparently was not a drummer before this wonderfully written script landed on his lap. But, watch this film and you’ll think he’s been playing since he was an embryo.

Not only that, the intense relationship between these two characters and its effects can be read on their faces in stark detail. Even when they don’t speak, you can tell without miming what they are thinking about one another.

This tale is about pure passion for art and the lack of acceptance for anything but perfection in that art. I for one sympathize with the internal debates discussed here. While I lack the obsessive drive of Teller’s character, I often see my future as naught but the pursuit of a career in film.

This and another favourite of mine for this year, Birdman, have some things in common. They both have drum heavy soundtracks and have a close connection to me due to their explorations into artistic issues. These connections to me and my approval of the film, may go to show once and for all that film enjoyment is subjective and therefore, as is explained in Birdman, critics are pointless.

I heard a woman complain to her partner about the ending to this movie. And while I do understand that endings of this kind are not to everyone’s taste, I ask all who feel this way about this ending what sort of ending they would have preferred. I personally found it a perfect send off in a relatively jazzy style.

I’d say catch Whiplash while you can in cinemas or you’ll be tapping your foot impatiently for the DVD/Blu-Ray release, as I am doing for Birdman.

Recommended Scenario: If you love to be told fables of the dangers of pleasures of ambition.

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.

February 26, 2015

Blackhat

It’s interesting that the only visible product placement in this hacker-thriller from Universal Pictures was a Sony USB Dongle, used to rid a company of a computer virus.

Blackhat is a film by acclaimed director of thrillers, Michael Mann. Its subject is the very relevant cyber-terrorism and stars Chris Hemsworth, Tang Wei and Wang Leehom as three hackers trying to prevent it. It is also a movie that is unfortunately not doing so well commercially.

I've got bad news for high schoolers thinking about doing a computing university course. I have not met a computer whizz who looks as good as Chris Hemsworth yet. — I’ve got bad news for high schoolers who are thinking about doing a computing university course. I have not met a computer whizz who looks as good as Chris Hemsworth yet.

Like always, I’d prefer to start with the positives.

For one the plot is right up my street. I am really enjoying this current trend of John-Le-Carre-esque espionage thrillers which require your brain to be engaged. And as a first year Computing Student I have a biased love for hacker-heroes.

Speaking of heroes, the aforementioned cast members do a relatively good job in their roles. While the supporting cast occasionally looks like they don’t want to be there and I’d prefer it if not every one of our three leads were so attractive by most people’s standards, those leads seem to know what they’re talking about when the conversations get very jargon-based. And they do in fact give a reason why a computer hacker has the body and fighting skills of Chris Hemsworth.

Fighting brings me onto the third of the major positives of this movie. Michael Mann shot the gunfights here like they were actually happening, in a superb, almost documentary style. This compliments well the decent hand-held nature of this film’s cinematography. What a lot of people don’t know is that guns don’t sound quite the way they do in most movies. I’m happy to report that this film does not conform to that norm.

“Alright, Craig. So is there anything wrong with this movie?” I hear you ask.

Not much, is my answer, but enough to make some note, the keyword, like with most hit-and-miss movies, is “inconsistency”.

I’ve already told you about the superb sound work on the gunfights. However, the quality of audio continuity, volume and dubbing is often awful. Filmmaking 101, your audience will pick up on audio problems before they pick up on anything visually wrong.

The visuals never got as bad as the audio did, though some choices in the cutting room are a little confusing, including the one which allowed placenames to appear in the corner in the last twenty minutes, despite never showing them earlier in the movie.

These problems, alongside a slightly confusing climax, may be the nitpicks of a jealous amateur filmmaker. I do believe that these issues could have come as a result of studio deadlines forcing a situation where the lead editors outnumber the director 4 to 1.

Unfortunately, this does not provide a defence for the out-of-character, dangerous and disturbing love sub-plot between the characters played by Hemsworth and Tang Wei.

Wei plays a strong woman who regularly contributes to solving the problem alongside the other leads. And while the character may have some suppressed sexual complex as a result of having an overbearing brother played by Wang Leehom, why would she fall for an ex-convict Chris Hemsworth so quickly. The fact that he goes along with it makes it doubly creepy.

They have enough chemistry to make the majority of their story plausible, but there appears to be no reason to have to bring sex into the discussion other than the fact that these are two good looking people that the audience want to see in obscure sex scenes.

On the other hand, I have never met Chris Hemsworth, so I don’t know how I’d react to his hammer-of-Thor.

All in all, a mixed bag. But there is some enjoyment to be had here. It is the mark of an unjust society that this movie has barely made one quarter of its $70 Million budget back in its first month in cinemas, while Fifty Shades of Grey has already been greenlit for a sequel in 2016.

Recommended Scenario: When you want to see A Most Wanted Man with a lot more Java.

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.

February 21, 2015

Selma

So many people, including myself, have been making fun of the old formula for Academy Award success in the acting category, in recent years. What you need is a story about a dead, famous underdog who stood up for some form of conviction despite difficulties coming from their inner demons and the society they hope to challenge. If the lead could change their appearance and/or voice, the statue is guaranteed.

And yet, this movie about the attempts of Dr Martin Luther King Jr to perform a march with his followers in the town of Selma, Alabama in 1965, while it ticks all the criteria, has been refused nods for its acting.

A powerful image, which sums up the power of the black American civil rights movement and the movie.

This is especially confusing here, considering David Oyelowo gives the best performance I have seen this year. Don’t misconstrue me. Eddie Redmayne, Channing Tatum, Michael Keaton, Benedict Cumberbatch and Bradley Cooper* were wonderful in their respective performances (I have not yet seen Mr Turner). But Oyelowo takes it to a whole new level here. I am not the greatest expert on the man he plays, but I saw Dr King in his every breath.

King is portrayed in what feels like a very real light. The man, by all accounts was a humble, decent human being who believed that enough was enough and the concept that all men are created equal was a very real concept. On the other hand, he was still a man and he did not always hold the entire situation under control. This film makes all this strength and weakness abundantly clear.

Selma is not Martin Luther King: The Movie, however. This is a showcase of the immense bravery and pride of the black community of America. It is a testament to the gall they had to show during a major turning point of the movement that they spent years fighting for. A far more powerful message than could be shared by going through Dr King’s entire life.

The movie shows that this struggle was and continues to be very much an uphill climb and that there can never be one single victory that would make everything fine in the country. This message comes at the most appropriate of times, when a black man is in the White House and yet there are reports of police officers still practising discrimination on the streets.

An extremely touching aspect of this gorgeously shot movie is the focus on the people in this situation who never made headlines. The best scene in the entire picture focusses entirely on this very thing.

Another strong point is the portrayal of Coretta Scott King by Carmen Ejogo. She gets across the pain of being in love with an occasionally hurtful man who is putting both their lives and their children, at risk for their right to self-determinate. This is a strong female character. I finally got one this week!

All in all, this is an excellently written, wonderfully acted, beautifully shot and superbly realised film about standing up and being counted.

*Interestingly enough, all these men portrayed real people, arguably including Michael Keaton playing himself!

Recommended Scenario: When you want to learn about the true heart of an extremely important moment in relatively recent history.

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.