I'll Be Back . . .

. . . as the great Austrian once said, and I will hold to my word. All's very busy here and I've been trying to take time out to write thoughts and feelings on films that I've seen and all manner of things going on but, finding the time is proving incredibly tough.

I've got so much I want to talk about, like how surprising yet still brilliant The World's End was, or how old siege face Alan Partridge in Alpha Papa was a great revisit of the character for the fans, but does it cater for just anybody? How Jim Carrey was criminally sidelined in the rather misguided but still a bucket fun Kick Ass 2 and how my ultimate pick of the year, (bar the next Hobbit film) Elysium delivered on a promise at being a balls out sci-fi movie, with added socio political riffs, South African cussing and craaaazy weapons.

Not to mention I haven't done a piece on just thoughts about films up coming. I really want to talk about how utterly mind blowing it is that Star Wars Episode VII is going to be shot on 35mm . . . . un . . . . believable. It means a lot for cinema any may be a fantastic middle finger to the likes of Cameron and yes I'm going to say it, Jackson for bludgeoning us over the head with 3D!

Sorry this is a short one just want to get something down and set myself an internet based promise to keep writing film stuff because it's written in ink . . . vicious, digital, ink.

For now if you haven't please read my Behind The Candelabra review, possible one of the knock out films of the year, took me very much by surprise. I also wanted to share with you all a trailer for a film I am trepidatious about however given it's a sequel to probably the best thing to come out Dreamworks Animation I can't help but feel a touch excited . . . enjoy.

I will be back!


 

Behind The Candelabra - Review

The cinema seems to be busting at the seams with big blustery blockbusters and today instead of going to see After Earth or Fast & Furious 6, films I have yet to see, I decided I wanted to see something a bit different. Behind the Candelabra has popped up out of seemingly nowhere, a biopic about the later years of Liberace's life. With names like Steven Soderbergh, Matt Damon and Michael Douglas in the shoes of the king of showmanship, I couldn't help but be drawn to it instead of the usual summer fare.

I certainly was glad I gave it go. It's not your average biopic, in fact it's not a biopic at all, it charts the latter part of Liberace's life when he is introduced to Scott Thorson. Dealing intimately with the relationship that formed from this meeting, Behind The Candelabra is seen through the eyes of Scott as he tumbles down the rabbit hole in to the life of this famously extravagant celebrity.

The film deals with the idea of a homosexual relationship brilliantly and pulls absolutely no punches, it feels distinctly honest, not glamourising or emphasising points that you might be battered over the head with in a normal biopic. Moments of intimacy between the two become so normal the thing you notice more is the fantastic acting and humour. We are deeply immersed in these characters, all scenes revolve either of the two and feels distinctly claustrophobic, adding to the ideas the film is putting forward. In one scene Scott (Damon) gets upset at the fact that he and Liberace (Douglas) never go out. They are consumed in this plastic opulence, we don't see a great deal of the outside world, which is the crown jewel of this particular film. Most films focused on celebrities will tell great yarns about their life with vast scope and endless take offs of other famous people they've met throughout he years, here we have just a few very focused performances, you get to indulge in these characters.

Both Matt Damon and Michael Douglas are outstanding here, I was aghast at how brave they both have been in really taking this on and making it feel real. It's certainly one of the best performances I've seen from Michael Douglas, and the fact that he gels so well with Matt Damon here is testament to these two fantastic actors. Also worthy of note is Dan Aykroyd who plays Liberaces manager Seymour Heller, a great presence here with a great look and impact on the film and the feelings Scott goes through.

There are moments of absolute comedy, like Liberaces man servant strutting through this palace of a house making drinks serving tight white shorts. I was watching this in a tiny screen with about 5 other people and laughed ferociously at certain bits, I just couldn't help myself.

A deeply rewarding watch and one that has stuck with me as I'm now picking this up months later to finish off. It's the film I talk about when raising the question of films that have made an impact this year. It's definitely not for everyone, but if you like great thoughtful character movies that speak volumes about the times they were set in and the real people they represent you'll eat this up for breakfast.      

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Man Of Steel - Review

It was only a matter of time before Zack Snyder got his chance to reboot a franchise, it seems to be the move that's making this generations Blockbuster heavy weights. With a checkered past that critics consistently pick at, and to be put in the driving seat for a franchise that only recently got dealt a reactionary damp squib by Bryan Singer in Superman Returns, one can't help but feel a sense of pessimism before seeing this latest crack at the man in blue tights.

The expectation, given one or two of the names attached, is very high and these names will undoubtedly reel people in to cinemas, albeit for wrong reasons. Those who know well and good what Snyder does best will revel in the visuals that shout action, adventure and surface meaning. However there's a different tone here that non of the previous Superman incarnations have hit, some emotion and meaning makes it through, particularly in scenes with Kevin Costner. Snyder seems to have learned some lessons in forging some connection with characters. However the age old problem of making Superman relatable is still there, especially when the final act sees the world become an arena for one hell of a grudge match.

Given this the film succeeds in creating excitement and taking you on a ride. The first scene wastes no time in grabbing your attention. Never has an alien world been so bombastically realised just as a jump off point for a film. It gives some real meat and potatoes to Jor El played excellently by Russell Crowe. What follows is a real juxtaposing narrative that sets up Clark Kent on Earth, flitting from his adult life as a ghost who always seems to attract treacherous situations, to those moments growing up with his foster parents. Henry Cavill is brilliantly cast here, he's charismatic and well suited to the role without trying to rob from previous performances. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane provide the more grounded emotional heart of the film, which is our gateway in, naturally we feel a greater deal for the human interaction between these characters and I ended up wanting to spend more time here. In fact Costner nearly steals it and in one scene in particular you could feel he'd struck a chord with the audience. However the plot has some ways to go, the development of the relationship between Louis (Amy Adams) and Clark doesn't seem so poignant or necessary and once Zod (Michael Shannon) catches up on Cal El (Clark) the resulting destruction is visually outstanding but loses its edge.

The heft of CG shots does take its toll, there are some that look suspect in places, especially in scenes with Zod and his various armoured suits that are clearly super imposed on to him. However in realising the speed and the furosity of Supermans power the computer effects and the way in which those scenes are shot make this feel epic and eye popping. I chose to watch this in 2D so I could fully enjoy these moments as 3D causes nothing but blurring and headaches. As this was retro fitted rather than shot in 3D I would seriously recommend seeing this in good old 2D.

The thing is, for all my criticisms I really reeeeally enjoyed it. Like the previous Snyder comic book movie Watchmen I was on board and enjoyed the spectacle of it. The thing is with Superman he gets away with it better, this is a 12 rated film for a bloody good reason, because 12 year olds will utterly love it. There's some stuff here for adults alike, but I could only help but feel like the kid I ended up sat next to, that thrill and that excitement of seeing Superman realised in a way that's believable on the surface. Those moments of wonder like when he pushes a bus out of a river and kids look on in astonishment. Those emotions that coarse through you when Clark is threatened and you know he could end it with a flick of his little finger.The sense of awe is palpable and it knocks spots off a lot of comic book movies that have preceded it. It's just unfortunate that it had to refer to type to tie it up, but again it had a lot more to it than say the latest Spiderman.

It's not perfect by any standard, and it does nothing particularly new as far as reboots are concerned, robbing ideas from various films. However this is my favourite incarnation of Superman on screen and just as I unflinchingly love some daft Hollywood blockbusters of the 90's I stand by this and say that I thoroughly enjoyed it.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

The Great Gatsby - Review

So I've set myself a challenge, no looking up, no re-edits or constant re-reads, just grammar and spell checking, and do it as fast as possible. In order to really put my opinion out I'm firing this review out fast and frantic and without too much forethought. Much how the film The Great Gatsby actually feels. As with anything that Baz Luhrmann lays his hands on, The Great Gatsby is the absolute definition of over the top. Everything from the cinematography, the special effects, the music, all are dripping with opulence and luxury, the costumes are astounding and the characters full of emotion and rather ridiculous. Welcome to the Luhrmann with a big budget in a cinematic world that just begs men like him to create spectacles and for you to wear 3D spectacles.

The Great Gatsby has turned many heads and raised many eyebrows as it's not exactly new ground for cinema, there have been incarnations of this American literary masterpiece before. The fact that the book is held in such high esteem, I can't help but draw parallels to Luhrmanns past work. He doubted so many doubters when he modernised Romeo & Juliet. But back when celluloid was king and the idea of modern style 3D was impossible, Luhrmann had a boundary, that ultimately kept him reigned in. Moulin Rouge is the obvious pre-cursor to this as it has a similar pace and over exuberance. With Gatsby I would say he's pushed this modernisation a little over board but in doing so created something memorable.

The thing is I went in blind, never read the book, had no idea what it was about, I was there as a film fan. For all its grandiose pomposity, I really enjoyed what I saw, even with stupid 3D, I got wrapped up in the ridiculousness of it. There was a fantastic sense of optimism and desperation wrapped in an inventive shooting style. The sets stand out, they're memorable, when Nick (Tobey Maguire) steps in to that room to meet Daisy (Carey Mulligan) the curtains flying wildly, but almost like their dancing, it imprinted on me. The telling of it from Nicks memory as a recovering alcoholic isn't particularly meaningful, however it occasionally offers a respite from the furious pace the story has. The film has only one setting and it's cranked up to 11, every scene feels electrically charged. The modern music soundtrack adding to this furious nature as cars fly along like they're in a Fast and Furious film. The over use of CGI had me at odd's, most of it looked decent but some of it wasn't great and it pulled me out of the film because I felt like I was watching a video game. There's a real effort to get as much in here and that's obvious, given the long running time, and as the plot unfolds and the pace simmers it does feel very long. But the stars dazzle and Leonardo DiCaprio is well cast as the obscure Gatsby, reminding me of his role as the very troubled Howard Hughes in Aviator. Tobey Maguire isn't quite as irritating as usual but he still over eggs as an idealist and when he gets serious I still never buy it. Carey Mulligan is stunning and well cast for this, along with her brutish husband played by Joel Edgerton.

I came out of the cinema feeling I had really enjoyed what I saw, but once again I felt I'd have enjoyed it more without the glasses. They still irritate me and the only time I've ever been comfortable with them was for Life Of Pi. Having said that it did not let it effect my opinion of the film. There are moments of good cinema here, but you feel that there is something far deeper that Luhrmann is attempting to reach for, but just isn't quite getting there, and this is hindered by it's relentlessness in beating you over the head with computer generated images and Jay-Z songs. Younger audiences will find it dazzling and extraordinary if a little daft, and to be honest, that's how I would describe Lurmanns films in general.

Also set myself a record, 1 hour from first writing to posting, not bad, I reckon.

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Third Contact - Independent Film Review

This week I was given an opportunity to see a an independent film by first time Director Simon Horrocks and asked to voice my opinion. Made over a year on a tiny budget with a cast of friends and acquaintances who worked for pretty much nothing, Si is hoping to get his production Third Contact in to cinemas in the near future.

Third Contact follows depressed psychotherapist Dr David Wright as he seeks to unravel the mysteries surrounding the suicide of two of his patients. The world he inhabits is not as it seems as he falls deeper into the rabbit hole that will see him discover a new outlook on the universe.

Third Contact starts very hurriedly with the complex fundamental idea that underpins the plot laid out mere seconds into the film. If you've never heard of quantum mechanics and its principals, like me, you will find this a hard pill to swallow. With it carrying on by throwing up names of people we've not met, nor will ever meet in a rather off hand way I honestly began to get a little lost. I actually forgot who Renee was and how he related to everything. So whilst I was trying to figure out what the slightly obnoxious man on the couch was going on about, or who the weird woman in the house was, I suddenly found myself thinking, who are these people they are talking about? However as the film continues I started to to scrape back what might be going on. And on re-viewing I realised where I'd missed the cues, having been lost in other thoughts first time around. My main issue is there is no time for you to pick up the pieces, there's no equilibrium set, we're introduced to our central protagonist at the same time this hard to digest idea is thrown into the mix, and that's 30 seconds in to the film. However once you see the film as whole you understand that the confusion at the beginning drives the questions later in the film.

Tim Scott-Walker pulls the most weight here in the acting department, with many moments of conviction and honesty, he's a good central character. Given most of the cast worked for little or nothing and consisted of friends there is an obvious short fall in the conviction of some of support characters. Many of which are foreign, which puts up another barrier when some of them struggle with particular words. My major criticism is the over use of bad language, particularly in a few earlier scenes, some of it is unwarranted and feels forced and is not a mark of conviction, just laziness.  

Time mends the wounds inflicted in the first act and I really was driven by the mystery of the plot, the acting and the shooting style drew me in as I realised that I'm really in unfamiliar territory here (a rare thing in cinema). The pace settles and as David tries to unravel the mysteries of his patients suicide, you see the pieces start to fit together. What is great to see is that there are steps towards highlighting character signposts, however some of these aren't paid off in anyway. For instance David has an OCD moment in the opening scene, yet this is never really touched upon or signposted again.

There are films that take a particular amount of concentration, needless to say all films should have your undivided attention, but in the case of Third Contact you really need to have your ears and eyes tuned in properly.With juxtaposing scenes, including one that had me vastly confused, in which David inhabits an alternate universe and sees himself walking the street, you will ultimately leave this film with many questions. Third Contact will jar you at first, but understanding will follow if you want it to. Having been a debut project for Si Horrocks, Third Contact certainly comes loaded with real promise and attention to detail. What I most enjoyed was Davids internal struggle with his past and how those memories, shown in colour, had a great shooting style and gave more depth to his character.

My first viewing of Third Contact resulted in me visiting the website and as if knowing that curiosity would follow, Si has constructed a site that explains more in depth those ideas that underpin the plot. I found this understanding enriched my experience of the film. Like one of my favourite films Donnie Darko I wanted to understand more, and while the dealing of the subject matter in Third Contact isn't as well executed, it comes loaded with that same promise; that you can discover the answers yourself and come to your own conclusion.  

Third Contact has one heck of aura around it, from the moment it starts there's an air of foreboding, something isn't quite right, like a David Lynch movie, it's immediately obvious from the way people talk to the cinematography. My immediate reaction was one of confusion with the plot, however the way in which the film is shot, and the quality of it is testament to the effort by Si Horrocks and the tiny budget this was made on. Also for a debut this is fiercely ambitious, with a concept that has it's roots in sci-fi this has a real world feel to it, much like Primer or Donnie Darko, the ideas can be believed in a real world environment. However I can't help but think that this could have been better executed, with expectancy that the audience will figure out certain character traits by paying attention to all of the exposition, this would be a hard film to enjoy for an average cinema goer. However for film fans who like intrigue and go to the cinema to have themselves challenged, Third Contact for a low budget debut has some great ideas and does its best to realise them. There are lessons to be learned here, but what I can honestly say there is real promise here for Si and his future as a writer/director.

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Star Trek Into Darkness - Review

For this film fan Star Trek was the least interesting thing in sci-fi cinema, until in 2009 J.J. Abrams revitalised the franchise into something that was, well . . . cool. A truly entertaining and fresh look at the story revolving around the original TV series. The first outing did an outstanding job of bringing these characters together and making it feel new, rather than treading down a familiar path. Just like Christopher Nolan brought Batman back to life, Abrams has reinvigorated Star Trek and catered to a much wider audience. Four years on and the follow up; Star Trek Into Darkness looks to be bigger and bolder, but will it be better?

Into Darkness see's Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Qunito) and the crew of the Enterprise hunt down John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) a one man weapon of mass destruction, after he attacks Federation headquarters on earth. With a lot at stake, and difficult decisions to meet head on their subsequent mission to find and kill him reveals truths about themselves, their enemy and the Federation.

Into Darkness starts with an almighty bang, no introduction necessary, as we see the crew in the final climactic stages of a mission to seek out new civilisations, to boldly go . . . etc. Lives are already on the line and lands us right in the middle of a situation that could end the life of certain pointy eared crew member. The crew is exactly how we left them in Star Trek, albeit a little on edge right now, in what will be the most exciting opener you'll see all year. It's great to see that the mood created in the first outing is reignited by throwing a bit more gas on the fire.

The following major plot thread doesn't give anyone time to breath. There are some dialogue scenes including Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and Kirk in a bar in a 'wait haven't we been here before?' moment (seriously every bar on earth must be lit same way in the future). Though no sooner are the crew back on Earth, they are abruptly en-route to find and destroy their new nemesis John Harrison. In the lead up there are expansions on Starfleet and the 'Prime Directive' which basically entails not starting or seeking out confrontation. However as terrorists go John Harrison is pretty ruthless, having beamed to another planet during an attack that has close personal cost to Kirk, the fool hardy Captain naturally seeks out revenge that could spark a war. So far so reasonably simple, there are some great dynamics created here, Cumberbatch plays the villain with a thickly laden menace, and Kirk responds as you'd expect. Later in the film the two have a furious one on one of deathly stares and brash words, in which I felt Cumberbatch although convincing, over egged the evil a little. The events of the opening act fuel the drama in the relationships and choices of the crew. All the major crew members are given some part to play that are ultimately greater than the those of the previous film, with Scotty (Simon Pegg) getting a lot more screen time in this case. The locations created are believable and everything once again looks visually astounding, with added Abrams lens flares, naturally. The soundtrack once again hits the mark with a definite theme running through that may have you humming it out the door.

The action moves at a lightning pace and certain twists and turns in the plot raise some questions. It's difficult to disclose any plot points here because they will ruin the overall surprise, but the film keeps going at a furious pace with a lot of serious conversations happening in the middle of the action. It gives you no chance to sit back and think about out that what you just witnessed. What helps carry the plot is the fantastic cast and sharp writing. The chemistry between these characters still feels electric and fun, Bones (Karl Urban) Kirk and Spock bounce off each other like an expert comedy trio. All the characters have a distinct impact on the tone of the film which is great to see in production that relies heavily on CGI and action. The final act is explosive without being overly grand, certainly not as epic as blowing up planets and creating black holes that you're nearly sucked in to. However the stakes are risen at a human level as Kirk risks his life to save his crew, and Spock has his moment to exact some green blooded bad assery.

The result is a fantastic re-visit to the crew of the Enterprise one that sees the pace vastly increased and the stakes risen. However with questions raised concerning the plot line dominating the third act, one feels the first outing was better executed and more believable. This is still great fun to watch and it once again keeps things interesting for fans and the newly initiated. Having been chosen to helm the new Star Wars movies, this film shows that J.J. Abrams is the only man qualified for the job. The joy is upon leaving the cinema in 2009, having just seen Star Trek, I craved more. Into Darkness was no different, I still want to see more.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Evil Dead - Review

Horror remakes, they never seem to end, and like movies based on video games they nearly always deliver poor or sub standard results. So imagine the collective sigh of millions of film fans when it was announced that one of the holy grails of horror, The Evil Dead, was to be remade. A small amount of relief came from the fact Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell were producing, but still is this really warranted? As someone who'd never seen the original before now, I had a chance to see the two with a fresh perspective.

Evil Dead (dir. Fede Alvarez) follows Mia (Jane Levy), her brother and three friends as they spend a weekend in a cabin in the woods in order to help Mia kick a drug habit. On discovery of a Book of the Dead they unwittingly summon demons that possesses members of the group. A desperate fight for survival ensues as the evil grows and bodies begin to stack up.

Evil Dead, although being a remake of The Evil Dead, does things differently to the original in terms of story and tone. The original plays out very simplistically, there's not a good deal of character foundation. The remake has a sturdy structure to it, the visitors have been here before as kids, they're long time friends and they're here to help Mia kick a drug habit, far from the world where she can fall back in to it. When shit hits the fan there are legitimate reasons for them to stay, it feels believable. This isn't your typical, stupid kids do stupid shit kind of film. Surprisingly any amount of humour is almost non existent, except in a few instances with one character flat out refuses to die, despite multiple, horrifying wounds. This lack of laughs is a little jarring and really not what I expected from the this film, and the seriousness makes you want to re-watch Evil Dead 2 just to remember why you initially wanted to see this.

The action is reasonably unpredictable, and with focus occasionally shifting from characters, you have a vested interest in some of them, however it's easy to guess who will come out on top. There are efforts to avoid cliched tricks of the trade that I have come to sigh and laugh at, therefore the shocks come from rather random places, and once or twice I did physically jump in my seat. However that idea of haunting, brooding and disturbing horror still remains absent, as it does from countless modern horrors, I firmly believe that no film will ever impact me the way The Shining did. The effects are quite simply stunning and grotesque, with most being old school in camera solutions mixed with flutters of digital enhancements. They will make you squirm and reel as there's so much care and attention made to keep this feeling very real. The result is a horror film that I actually enjoyed watching, the pace, action and the all important foundation of the story had me reasonably interested. What helps is the way the back story gives Mia's outcome some kind of metaphorical implications, rather than simply it's all over, let's get to a hospital and try and explain this madness. There's some element, albeit a very obvious one, that she may have ousted her demons.

It's not perfect by any standards, the genre and the setting are well worn and makes me think of The Cabin In The Woods in the which the idea is riffed on almost in a spoof fashion. It rings with those familiar problems with modern horror, but does a better job at keeping you engaged and occasionally surprised. Given this comes from the guys who defined the cabin in the woods horror, I can't help but respect that they tried something a little different, rather than a flat out remake (a funny mindless horror) they went a different road and sought to give us some serious scares. Brave move and on it's own it stands out further than a lot of horror movies, but ultimately makes me want to settle back in to the not so serious predecessors for some relief.

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆