396 replies to this topic

[seawolfnyy]

Furious 7 (2015) ****

The seventh installment of the F&F franchise continues the OTT nature of the two previous films and I'm completely fine with that. There is far less CGI than in the earlier films and, despite the ridiculous stunts, were actually practical. They really did drop cars out of a plane. Furious 7 is at its best when it embraces what it is: a crazy OTT action thriller.
The story isn't the greatest, Dom's team is being hunted by Deckard Shaw for crippling his brother Owen in the previous film. The story moves from Los Angeles to Azerbaijan and to the UAE, with every location getting crazier and crazier and finishes with a great tribute to Paul Walker.
The additions to the cast are great and work well with a cast that already has fantastic chemistry. Kurt Russell feels right at home next to Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham is arguably the series' best villain. Ronda Rousey is wasted and Gal Gadot is sorely missed, but Michelle Rodriguez is better than she's been in the other films and Nathalie Emmanuel fits right in.
Overall, this is a fun piece of cinema that overcame a troubled production and will possibly end up as the 3rd or 4th highest grossing film ever. Not a bad send off for the man Vin Diesel calls Pablo.

Ranking of F&F films:
1. Fast Five (2011)
2. Furious 7 (2015)
3. Fast and Furious 6 (2013)
4. The Fast and the Furious (2001)
5. 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
6. Fast & Furious (2009)
7. The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)

[thecasinoroyale]

'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' (2012)

 

As this is only my 3rd visit to Peter Jackson’s epic interpretation of Middle-earth, and 2 of the visits left a sour taste in my mouth, I can only hope the experience improves when I return to revisit ‘The Lord Of The Rings’ trilogy I never finished, and this current ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy just started. So from the off, I was hesitant but after a good 10 years since I gave up, I was ready to try again from the very beginning. Not the best start I have to say, but there is a sliver of promise still glinting. The story itself is very simple and very fantastical - a real old fashioned adventure! It’s just that I feel we never really get going until the final 20 minutes and then it ends.

 

With most reviews I feel are more negative, I will try not to go on too much, but just convey the factors that didn’t work for me. Mainly, it was the over-long running time. Stretching a near 3hr film out from a book adaptation is fine; there is a clear narrative and beginning, middle and end. Stretching a near 3hr film out from a single book where you have nearly 6hrs left of viewing time to continue that single book is a chore, and something I will never understand. A good 46 minutes of this film is spent dallying around the home of Bilbo Baggins with enough burp gags and irritating dwarves to unsettle me from the start. The second act starts to pick up pace over an hour in but still returns to weigh itself down with unnecessary scenes and characters added by Jackson himself to a story where they didn’t even feature in the source material. And the finale was promising but a big cartoonish mess that wasn’t exciting, thrilling or tense enough for me to care. And then it ended when all the fluff was out of the way ready to get to some real meat on those bones.

 

This pretty much sums up my issue, and I say again I don’t mind long films at all, but the pace of this was so slow and up and down, it was like a learner driver bunny-hopping a car – one smooth roll forward and then two sharp lurches that slow you down.

Another irk was even though the film does look glorious, and New Zealand really does become another world entirely, it looks like one huge oil painting come to live. So many frames of this film were made just to look good on desktop HD wallpaper with the framing of gorgeous landscapes that half of what I saw was just like a picture postcard of Middle-earth.

 

And talk about shaky cam being annoying? I am so fed up of Jackson’s addiction to the sweeping shot. If you operate a camera and have a helicopter, then you’re IN with Jackson because after the 10th sweeping shot flying over our heroes traversing a number of landscapes, I was just done. Even during the cartoonish CGI battle at the end, we still had sweeping shots. The whole thing played out like an Enya song – sweeping cinematography which is fantastically beautiful with a majestic orchestral score played out.

 

With half the cast moulding into one, and I mean the irritating 13 strong dwarf company whose leader, Oakenshield, is the only one who stands out for obvious reasons. The others are just the usual bumbling array of child-friendly buffoons we are lumbered with who are so clichéd; the fat one, the lazy one, the scared one, the heroic one, the loud one – and they all end up prat-falling and bickering and running around magically avoiding death by comical coincidences that really left me bored. ‘The Hobbit’ was a children’s book at heart, and this film does convey that. Even our supporting cast brought in from the 'LOTR' era who weren't in this book at all feel pointless and just there to please fans to remind them this IS linked to the previous trilogy and all ties up somehow.

 

With CGI worlds, characters and creatures that are sub-standard and easily highlight the green-screen Middle-earth as nothing but the creation of a computer (made even more apparent with the 48fps), this was just a big spectacle that was nothing more than a family-friendly rehash of ‘The Fellowship Of The Ring’. I just pray the next instalment grips me more than this, because if not it’s going to be a LONG 6 hours to battle through.

[seawolfnyy]

It won't be. I could never get into The Lord of New Zealand, I mean Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit was even more of a drag.

[thecasinoroyale]

'White House Down' (2013)

 

This was the second film of 2013 released in months of each other featuring a plot that involved terrorists bringing down the White House and a lone hero saving both the President and the country/world. A fascinating competition by two studios with totally different methods of bringing their story to the screen. ‘White House Down’ was the summer offering featuring more bankable movie stars and a director known for big-budget action, but did it mean it would be better? It grossed more at the box office because of these factors, but as far as entertainment and the overall look of the film and narrative, ‘White House Down’ I feel is less superior to ‘Olympus Has Fallen’.

 

I’m not going to rattle off comparisons now about both films, but it is very hard not to seeing them days apart.

 

Emmerich maintains a very strong thread of family and hope during the events here, straight away establishing Tatum as a family man with a daughter to win over, Foxx as a family man with a country to win over, and countless other characters who rise from being the underdog to finding their own way to save the day or free hostages. It’s a sickly little bug Emmerich has, from ‘Independence Day’ through to ‘2012’ – ordinary people rise up to become mini-heroes in the face of danger. That may work sometimes, but not when a group of mercenaries storm the White House.

 

The storming of the White House was too easy; no real danger or threat (except the initial bombing which was visually impressive), and it fell apart when it was just a bunch of American mercenaries with a chip on their shoulder. I know there was an insider helping them, but still – it just made me feel it was TOO easy to get inside the White House and set everything up for the takeover, plus the villains didn’t feel particularly dangerous; just another batch of loud, tattooed war vets following an irritating and over-enthusiastic Jason Clarke who feels the need to shout and draw out of all of his lines of dialogue. At least the Koreans in ‘OHF’ came over as cold-blooded, ruthless and more calculating in their methods which made more sense rather than simply walking in, shooting, driving through a gate and establishing lockdown with very minimal opposition. Even the goal is clichéd to start a nuclear WW3.

 

As for Channing Tatum, I just didn’t buy him as our new John McClane, even with the white vest. He just looks so wooden, and young, and inexperienced to take on terrorists. I couldn’t believe in his character, and even he over-compensated being a Dad with every other line being about “My baby”. Give it a rest. Jamie Foxx and James Woods stack up the best here, playing their parts very well with the right balance of emotion and American bravado, but even then it’s hard to accept Foxx as a President when he wise-cracks and gets so involved with the action he’s just there as a buddy for Tatum to bounce off. It loses all the tension and danger when these two start riffing and hitting each other on the head with RPGs or debating fashion sense. It would have worked in any other setting other than the White House – or maybe because ‘OHF’ kept the wise-cracks minimal and the stakes high, while ‘WHD’ does the opposite. The CGI is marginally better and not as heavy, but then again nothing much happens to warrant it except for White House explosions and all the helicopters.

 

In all, it’s a very run-of-the-mill actioner shaking it up by being in the White House, but the threat is very weak with clichéd bad guys (it all comes down to one bad guy who is a computer whizz hacking White House computers who is also a little eccentric – yawn), an unconvincing lead and just a general feeling of all-American nobody's pulling together to save the day.

[DaveBond21]

Death in Venice (1971)

 

Directed by Luchino Visconti and starring Dirk Bogarde.

 

Italian drama (in English) based on the book by Thomas Mann. Visconti changed the main character from a novelist to a failing musician who takes a break to Venice to get away from his poor reviews and to come to terms with his homosexuality and his deteriorating life in general. Very slow moving, beautifully photographed, this is not for all tastes. This is a film with no dialogue until the 8th minute. 

 

Worth watching for fans of Italian cinema, and of artistic movies.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Professor Pi]

Avengers Age of Ultron (2015)

 

If you like Marvel movies, this one fits in perfectly with your expectations.  All the right nods to the original and twists on expectations make for a satisfying blockbuster to kick off the summer movie season.  Ultron is one of MCU's better villaiins (okay, not saying much) but James Spader's baddie makes the perfect foil to Robert Downey Jr.'s Stark.  Evil Artificial Intelligence might be a tired cinematic theme, but with recent warnings from Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking on the subject, Joss Whedon taps into a timely pop culture fear.  There's also a clever nod to 3D printing.  Each character in the ensemble gets their moment to shine, with Black Widow and Hawkeye getting much more of their stories filled out (nice reference to The Hurt Locker in the latter's case.)  Movie score duties are jointly handled by Bryan Tyler and Danny Elfman, and while it's nice to see him composing comic book hero movies again, made for a somewhat disconnected musical experience, with only Alan Silvestri's Avengers theme to connect the two.

 

Like FF7, Marvel has a more diverse cast than usual for a big event film--women, Asian-American, African-American, Eastern European characters--and it's about time they take the plunge and make a non-caucasion male leading character movie (Iooking at you, Black Panther and Captain Marvel.)   Speaking of which, Age of Ultron continues the MCU larger plot line of infinity stones, but also sets up movies in its more immediate future--the tension between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark is simmering, and Wakanda is finally given an explicit reference.  Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, with different origin stories than that of X-Men, have solid character arcs.  Quicksilver doesn't get the scene stealing moment that X-Men: Days of Future Past gave us, but does have one of the best scenes in Age of Ultron.  That and the second time Thor's hammer gets picked up (avoiding spoilers here, but you'll know it when you see it.  Theater I was in gave standing ovation for it!)

 

Clocking in at 2 and 1/2 hours, it's paced quickly with action and humor along with bits of character introspection here and there.  There's only one post-credit scene this time, so patrons can leave after the first one.  Would it have killed Marvel to give us a Spiderman clip at the end welcoming him to the MCU?  The opening night crowd's disappointment at this was mocked with someone yelling, "Stop toying with my emotions, Marvel!"  But it was all in good fun.

Edited by Professor Pi, 01 May 2015 - 03:24 PM.

[Call Billy Bob]

My fiancée and I are currently taking a break between films of a Disney double feature: Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I hadn't seen either film for years! Pocahontas holds up!

[thecasinoroyale]

'Kingsman: The Secret Service' (2015)
 
For a very British film with big box-office stars, it’s easy to see the jumbled roots and foundations director Matthew Vaughn as built his spy-homage too. With nods to British classic spy media such as ‘The Avengers’, ‘The Ipcress File’ and the early James Bond films, along with American material like ‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E’ and even ‘Austin Powers’, this takes the spy genre, injects a surreal amount of comic-book action and OTT production to give us a cocktail that comes out like James Bond: First Class.

Lacking the grounded narrative, slick film making and grounded realism (as much as you can) from Vaughn’s stand out film ‘X-Men: First Class’ and even ‘Layer Cake’, here we see him throw caution to the wind in a surreal love-letter to British and American espionage. From a very Michael Caine-esque Colin Firth in a very Harry Palmer-meets-John Steed-esque role, with Michael Caine himself running the Kingsman Secret Service in a very Harry Palmer-esque role himself, it’s just best you go along with things and don’t try to identify all the nods and references to spy media of the past because there’s too many to count.
 
However, with the action heaped on by the truck load in a chaotic ballet of CGI violence, disorientating camera work and ridiculous amounts of ignoring the laws of physics, our spies are thrust into everything from mass shoot-outs, hand-to-hand combat en-mass and HALO jumping. Everything is enhanced by CGI to give it that hyper-real, comic-book style Vaughn introduced us to in ‘Kick Ass’. But instead of superheroes or mutants, we have secret agents kicking the ass and training to become something great.
 
Taron Egerton is a convincing and likeable actor who makes a clear progression from troubled, foul-mouthed London youth to a dapper and mildly-irritating London spy in the shadow of Colin Firth, also playing a typical Firth role of a silver-tongued gentleman who can shoot, stab and punch his way through any CGI action sequence. Support comes from Samuel L Jackson in a role clearly made to attract his growing number of fans thanks to the Marvel franchise, playing a wonderfully odd villain who would just come across as annoying if it wasn’t for Jackson and the fact he himself is genuinely a likable actor and you could watch him in any role. Much like Michael Caine; his role is small, and based around one location primarily with little to do, but because it’s Caine, you forgive everything and just enjoy watching and listening to him on screen.
 
Mark Strong, Sofia Boutella and Sophie Cookson round up the cast in decent enough roles; Boutella especially unique in hers.
While the story is pretty ridiculous and uses very easy methods of explaining what happens and why, to taking a quick and confusing shortcut at the end which is so cheap it will make your head explode, this offering is fleshed out following Egerton’s development as a spy with violent chaos all around him from everyone else until our finale plays out like James Bond finally meets Austin Powers and becomes very tiresome and just dragging the obvious resolution out a little too far.
 
And yes, the anal sex moment is very peculiar indeed, and can’t be justified by saying it’s a nod to the 007 movies of yester-year. It’s just a crass moment with no real significance. It's a fun film in parts, slightly bland in others, and our selection of big star names make it more watchable than it could be.

[Professor Pi]

My fiancée and I are currently taking a break between films of a Disney double feature: Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I hadn't seen either film for years! Pocahontas holds up!

 

Those were the last two really artistic animated movies Disney made.  They were making more adult themed films before the box office disappointment of Hercules.  Milan and Tarzan were solid but a return to formula.  Emperor's New Groove is suprisingly funny and Lilo and Stitch has some heart.  But then Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, and Brother Bear practically killed traditional Disney animation in favor of the CGI Pixar movies. The Princess and the Frog was a decent comeback, but with the success of Frozen, traditional Disney animation may be extinct.

[Call Billy Bob]

My fiancée and I are currently taking a break between films of a Disney double feature: Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I hadn't seen either film for years! Pocahontas holds up!

 
Those were the last two really artistic animated movies Disney made.  They were making more adult themed films before the box office disappointment of Hercules.

No kidding. The whole subplot of Frollo's lust over Esmeralda was a bit much for my 8 year old brain to comprehend back in the day!

[x007AceOfSpades]

It Follows - 2015 - 3/5 - Directed by David Robert Mitchell - starring Maika Monroe and Jake Weary.

It Follows definitely is one of the better modern horror films in recent time. However, that doesn't mean I didn't fall in love with it like it seems everyone has. I definitely applaud writer & director, David Robert Mitchell for crafting together one of the most original and creepy horror films to come and going with a classic approach. Less is more. There's no gore, no found footage gimmick, no paranormal bs, it's far more better than that. I give him props for the work he's done, however, I think it's just good. Not necessarily full of flaws, but I also don't think this film is as smart as it wants to make us believe.

 

College student Jay (Maika Monroe) is in a movie theater with her boyfriend, Hugh (Jake Weary) when the two suddenly leave after Hugh spots a woman that Jay cannot see. Later, the two have sex in which Hugh incapacitates her with chloroform. When Jay wakes up, Hugh tells her that he passed on a sort of curse, passed only through sexy, in which she will begin to see a person, whether it's a stranger or someone she knows following her in attempts to kill her. The only way to be rid of the curse is to give it to someone else through sexual intercourse. Throughout the film Jay is pursued by "IT" and surrounds herself with her friends in effort to feel safe and eventually find a way to stop "IT".

 

As I had previously (briefly) stated, It Follows presents a very original and welcoming story to the now stale horror genre. Horror today revolves around the same old tricks, cliches, jump scares. Oren Peli surely didn't make things better once Paranormal Activity came out as it launched a renewed interest in wide releasing cheaply shot found footage style films for a big payday. That isn't It Follows. It's not going to have someone with a camcorder in your face or blood and gore everywhere. It's largely done in the vain of say, John Carpenter's 1978 - slasher masterpiece, Halloween. There's no doubt that when watching, you can how much Halloween and Carpenter (among other 70's and 80's horror films) influenced it.

 

It's incredibly atmospheric and downright spooky. Something that is missing with horror films today. Where horror films think being scary means being viciously stabbed to death or having ridiculous amounts of blood on-screen is scary, it Follows manages to be scary by almost not being scary. I was never hiding-under-the-covers-scary, but I was for the most part spooked. It was very tense in certain scenes (mainly those with "IT") and again, the atmosphere is what really built the film - laying a solid foundation to then build the film up.

 

It's also worth mentioning that this is a great example of visual storytelling. David Robert Mitchell frames his shots perfectly and cinematographer Mike Gioulakis presents a films that is haunting and event at times melancholic. This town (in Michigan, I presume) reminded me a lot of Haddonfield in weird way. Especially with the wide shots and tracking shots that really give this a great, distinct look and actually make the storytelling feel all the more expansive (as David Robert Mitchell has said). It's not a horror film trying to look pretty. It uses it's visual prowess to it's advantage and brings a world to life perfectly.

 

With the "curse", it is easy to see it as an allegory (I know this is the wrong word, but it's the only one I can think of) and view it as a sort of STD. Just a really fucked up STD. An allegory on youth, sex, and death - neat, right? For me it wasn't so much about sexually transmitted diseases, but more about lingering death. Death is always following us, wherever we go. It can strike at an instance. You simply cannot cheat death. That's how I view it. It tells us to be careful who you sleep with. It's death following. I know it's a little different to think this when it's generally the agreement that it's more in line with STD's but that's just what I think.

 

The acting is quite good for this film, with the strongest coming from lead actress, Maika Monroe. Everyone else is good, they aren't completely dumb or too smart. They're just people. How would you react if someone told you that they are now seeing people following them and the only way to get rid of it is through sex? If I was drive up to my friends house and tell him, he'd probably give me a beer and say I'm full of it. No one is trying to figure out what is this "IT" or how to stop it. They are just wondering what the hell to do since they can't see it.

 

Now for the negative. I feel at the scenes where it's truly supposed to be terrifying (when "IT" attacks) they don't feel scary. Yes the atmosphere is spooky as can be, but something felt off. For me it was the beautiful camera work. The opening scene, it worked, the 360 degree turn/shot was creative and the score, combined with the visuals made it creepy. using those long tracking shots and wide shots (wide shots particularly at the lakehouse) just didn't work and didn't have an effect. I would've liked a different technique for them honestly.

 

At times, the film does try to be smarter than it thinks, but it's all too simple to try and outsmart. It's definitely original and inventive, but that's about it. Is it a game changer? No. It's just the little indie horror film that could and did. I don't see major Hollywood horror films going by this mold now, not anytime soon. Is it worthy of it's praise? Sure, I just don't think it's the masterpiece some say it is. That isn't to say it's bad, but it's really just a good film. Nothing more, nothing less. If anything, I was actually surprised I liked most of it.

 

Now it appears Radius-TWC is thinking of a sequel, which shouldn't come as surprising when you look at how much money this made against a small budget. However, what made "IT" work so beautiful was that you didn't know where it came from. How it started. You know nothing about it. Just like in Halloween, all we know is that Michael Myers is this unstoppable force. Not a killing machine, but pure evil. The Devil. Doing a sequel to this loses that mysterious lore surrounding it, just like it did with Michael Myers, who went from being more like The Devil to more and more like Jason Vorhees: Coveralls & William Shatner Mask Edition.

 

Less is more. Let's just keep it that way.

 

[seawolfnyy]

Interstellar (2014)- **

Not much to write about this film. It's yet another bland and overly long film from Christopher Nolan. The premise is an intriguing one certainly: Earth is dying and we need to find a new home. What brings it down is the production and quite frankly the poor writing. Christopher Nolan does not know the meaning of subtext. Everything is on the nose, something even The Dark Knight suffers from (albeit not on this scale). The cast is completely unlikable, despite being filled with great actors. Jessica Chastain is probably the most likable despite having such a weak part. McConaughey is McConaughey and not the good one from Dallas Buyers' Club (Murph!). Rounding out the cast are Casey Affleck as McConaughey's other kid that he doesn't care about at all (at least compared to his connection with Murph), Michael Caine and Anne Hathaway (because it's a Christopher Nolan movie and God forbid he could cast some different actors) and John Lithgow who is criminally wasted here.
Joining Nolan again is Hans Zimmer to score the film. And again, the score is bland, loud and monotone (shocking). But he did win a completely undeserved Oscar for Best Score beating out the far superior score for The Grand Budapest Hotel. The effects are actually not bad and for the most part, the CGI works, until that ending *shudder*. Again, winning for best effects despite that awful CGI fifth dimension, time travel, gravity thing.
Basically, it's time to stop giving Christopher Nolan a pass because of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Gone are the days of Memento. Nolan needs a new writing partner and a new writing style. He could also use a lesson in keeping a story under 3 hours and how to properly cast a movie. I will more than likely be passing on his next film. Thankfully it is NOT Spectre.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Zimmer actually didn't win Best Original Score and the so called fifth dimensional world wasn't entirely CGI. It was actually practical.

[seawolfnyy]

You're right Ace, my fault on that one. Grand Budapest Hotel actually did win. Not that I really care either way. Zimmer's score sucked and didn't deserve the recognition it got and he did win some award for it.

[DaveBond21]

Star Wars Episode 4 - A New Hope (1977)

 

I watched it with my kids for the first time. My 7 year old daughter absolutely loved it and couldn't take her eyes away. My 4 year old son loved the action scenes but it got a bit long for him towards the end. He is used to movies being 90 minutes.

 

However, at the end, they ran straight into the garden to play Star Wars all afternoon.

 

I am showing them The Empire Strikes Back next weekend!

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[tdalton]

Maggie (2015)

Maggie is one of those genuinely surprising films that takes the tired, overdone zombie genre and does something new with it.  But that's not even the most surprising thing that the film does.  Maggie proves that Arnold Schwarzenegger can actually act.

 

It must be said, Schwarzenegger is outstanding in this film.  Surely, the initial image in your mind when you hear "zombies" and "Arnold" in the same sentence is Arnold standing in the middle of a deserted city street, holding a massive machine gun, mowing down hoards of the undead.  That's a film that I'd absolutely love to sit through.  This isn't that film, however, and it's all the better for it.

 

Abigail Breslin plays the titular Maggie, a girl who is bitten by someone infected with the "necroambulist virus" (the word zombie is never uttered in the film), a virus that has turned the United States into a place just this side of a post-apocalyptic wasteland.  The virus has an incubation period of a couple to a few weeks, so Maggie is allowed to go home and wait for the onset of symptoms before the police come and drag her off to Quarantine.  

 

Her father, Wade (Schwarzenegger), puts on a brave face as he brings his daughter home to die.  It should be said that Breslin does excellent work here as well, but that's not surprising.  She is an Academy Award nominee, after all.  Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, is a revelation here.  The man actually can act.  He shows a surprising vulnerability in Maggie, actually managing to cry at a couple of points and, most importantly, is very believable as a father grieving for his dying daughter while also trying to enjoy the last few days he has left with her.  All of that, however, is played off against the fact that we know that Schwarzenegger is a tough guy who is more than capable physically to do what is necessary once Maggie enters the final moments of her time as a human before the transition to a zombie begins.  What Schwarzenegger conveys in this film, however, is that his character may not be able to do what is necessary emotionally when the time comes.  There's a great, heartbreaking moment in the film where Wade holds Maggie in his arms on the floor.  It's the finest bit of acting Schwarzenegger has done in his career.

 

Maggie is a slow film, and in no way what one would expect from Schwarzenegger's involvement.  If you can get past the fact that this isn't typical Arnold, then you're in for a real treat.  Maggie is a terrific film featuring outstanding performances from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Abigail Breslin.

 

5/5

 

[thecasinoroyale]

Echo that, tdalton.
 
'Maggie' (2015)

As of 2013 when Schwarzenegger returned to our screens to take the lead in film once more, his offering was rather tepid in terms of critical and audience reception. With 4 films as lead under his belt in under 2 years, and an uncertain future as the Terminator in a gambled re-boot of the franchise looms, it’s safe to say that his turn in ‘Maggie’ is, as an actor, his best role yet in many a year.

With a genre, trailer and poster that understandably tease you scares, zombies, blood-lust and action, this is the second supernatural film Arnie has tackled; the first being the apocalyptic ‘End Of Days’ in 1999. However this films turns the zombie genre on it’s undead head and uses it as a backdrop for what otherwise is a heartfelt drama about a father and daughter’s bond through a life-changing event. And it’s very refreshing because of it.

We don’t see Arnie taking down zombies with chainsaws, shotguns or pick-up trucks trying to save his daughter and the whole world. Instead, we see Arnie defend himself with only an axe and single barrel shotgun in a total on-screen kill count of 2. The tone of this film is bleak – from the near sepia colouring to the desolate American town filled with burning crop fields, low grey clouds and abandoned roads. It’s not signalling the end of the world, but more like a community coming to terms with a virus they can try to contain, but also trying to deal with the emotional heartache it brings to those affected. It gives zombies and their families a chance to be seen as human, before the virus takes over.

There is very little zombie action, which again is refreshing. Bar a couple of wandering undead that remind us of the lingering threat, this slow-paced story is all about young Maggie who played brilliantly by Abigail Breslin who has become the latest victim of the virus and must come to terms with the knowledge she will eventually die and probably hurt those she loves in the process. She’s a young teenage girl who just wants to succeed in life and hang out with friends, but finds it impossible when her own family are scared of her and her confidence is shattered slowly by the disfiguring transformation. Breslin plays it perfectly, conveying both determination and helplessness in her situation and her slow transition from teenager to zombie is chilling.

But this film also belongs to Arnold Schwarzenegger as Wade, a husband and father who is trying to protect his family but primarily protect his daughter from herself and the threats of the outside world trying to lock her away. Schwarzenegger isn’t the greatest actor, and his back catalogue doesn’t require him to be as he was the pinnacle of action films and wooden acting that worked perfectly for his time. But now times have changed and he isn’t the acclaimed action star he once was, and so this film gives him the perfect opportunity to actually act for all his worth. No one-liners, no in-jokes, no action hero – here is just a father doing what a father would do to try and protect his child. He gives a very sombre and emotional performance alongside Breslin and the two share some truly heart-breaking moments together with great chemistry from the off. There’s no clichéd rift to heal or anything like that, it’s simply a father and daughter from the start taking a journey that they know will end badly, but it’s how they come to terms with it and what they both are willing to do in order to protect each other and the family.

I found this a brave story to tell going against everything one could expect from the genre and the lead star. It is a very slow-paced film even for 90mins, and requires you to leave all expectations at the door and immerse yourself in a drama; nothing more. It’s bleak, it’s moving and not your usual Hollywood style happy ending, but it provides enough moments to make it all worthwhile if you invest in the two leads and see how their journey pans out.

Wonderfully acted, brilliantly shot and very chilling and tense in moments. This doesn’t offer anything new, but it’s down to the leads and the actual story that solidify this as a very good film to watch, and a real gem from Arnie to show he can actually act given the right script and story away from CGI nonsense and the Hollywood blockbuster machine.

[Harmsway]

Mad Max: Fury Road

 

This isn't just great action filmmaking. It's some greatest-ever action filmmaking.

 

See it as soon as you can.

[SecretAgentFan]

Mad Max: Fury Road

 

This isn't just great action filmmaking. It's some greatest-ever action filmmaking.

 

See it as soon as you can.

 

 

I´ve seen it, coming back from it right now.

 

No doubt, this is action turned up to the highest degree and so skillfully done it´s breathtaking and definitely breaking new ground.  

 

However, this excess action at times lost me as a viewer.  The spectacle is carpetbombing the viewer with the result (for me, at least) that I became detached and even bored at times (especially in the middle of the film).  The final chase got me back, and I guess this is due to the fact that now the film got invested in its characters.

 

And that´s the cardinal rule of filmmaking: without feeling for the characters, even the best action will remain a technical feat, and the film suffers from it.

 

Also, I HATED the 3D, darkening the images and turning them into cardboard-foreground-background, instead of allowing the camera to work all by itself.

 

I also am astonished that Max is more of a supporting character in this one.

 

In conclusion: see it for the stunts and chases.  But don´t expect the haunting atmosphere of the original trilogy.

[DaveBond21]

Star Wars Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

 

I watched it with my kids - they were watching it for the first time. My daughter's face during the main revelation was priceless! They loved Yoda and they loved the AT-ATs.

[thecasinoroyale]

'The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out Of Water' (2015)

I’ve always loved SpongeBob Squarepants as a show and character. Granted, I’ve only seen the early seasons and the 2004 film, I have the episodes and film on DVD and still find them great fun and very clever and surreal. So without being burned out of sponge love, I welcomed the new film after not watching the show for many years, and it still had that humour and wit of the early shows to have me chuckling away.

The first 2/3rds of this film are where it shines the most, with the basic 2-D animation full of pop-culture references (‘Mad Max’ being the most obvious), quirky characters and wonderful characters who are just as loveable to watch as they were a decade ago. The voice talent is flawless, each actor bringing their character to life with a unique voice which in turn is partnered with lots of physical and visual comedy that appeals to all ages.

With a nice simple story, it is a fast-paced adventures that takes in time-travel, rebel uprising, big battles and heartfelt relationships as all good blockbusters do…but this is all capped with that mad-cap SpongeBob surrealism with eccentric animated sequences, toe-tapping music from N.E.R.D and jokes that make you think you’re tripping. Then again with the way SpongeBob acts and talks, he’s one of those characters people can debate about whether he himself, away from the eyes of children, is a drug-taking sponge who lives under the sea. It’s all good fun, and very well produced.

The final 3rd is a little weaker, but it’s still entertaining enough seeing a nice spin on Marvel and their Avengers. Antonio Banderas puts the work in as a dastardly pirate out to make his own riches and is thrown into battle with SpongeBob and his superhero allies in a fast paced and well shot climax, making the most of live-action and CGI animation before returning to wrap things up in mild-mannered 2D animation once more.

It certainly hasn’t lost the charm and style of the original shows, and has a fresh story with plenty of fun moments and quirky comedy to have you giggling along. It’s something to watch with the family, or simply by yourself if you’re a fan of SpongeBob because this will easily make you laugh if you’re into the award-winning humour he represents with his memorable friends who live around the pineapple under the sea.
 
 
 
Run All Night (2015)

With only a handful of films under his belt, Spanish director Collet-Serra has worked with Neeson for three of them; ‘Unknown’ in 2011, ‘Non-Stop’ in 2014 and now ‘Run All Night’. I found this to be the weaker of the three films unfortunately. I wasn’t given anything new, or different, or taxing. Instead it was a by-the-numbers thriller with predictable outcomes, routine car chases, shoot-outs and text-book characters.

Liam Neeson shines better here than his recent outing in ‘Taken 3’ and does come across more convincing here as his usual gruff badass role that now is just an easy pay check for something he does so easily. He’s got demons, he’s trying to make amends, he struggles to do so blah blah blah BUT he can still shoot and drive with a very unique set of skills that now are used against slow-burning Ed Harris and his mob as Neeson sets out to protect his son, the 2014 RoboCop, from being killed because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Set over the course of one night, this is a dark and gritty neo-noir thriller that uses the eerie backstreets, brightly lit main streets and dangerous housing estates to full use in giving our man Neeson the playground needed to take out the bad guys and protect his son. Kinnaman doesn’t really do much here apart act mean and moody, but not as convincing or entertaining as Neeson.

It could be entertaining enough in some way, but it just didn’t grip me in the usual way Neeson’s films do. They’re not award winners by far, but there was just nothing different about this from other late-night thrillers set against the backdrop of drug-dealing mob types out to ice someone. No twists or turns, no major set pieces, no unique locations…just very safe, and in turn not very exciting or entertaining from what I had hope from a Neeson vehicle. But, again, it IS better than ‘Taken 3’.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Mad Max: Fury Road - 2015 - 3.5/5 - Directed by George Miller - starring Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron

Thirty years after the disappointing Beyond Thunderdome, George Miller returns to his franchise with a new vision. The best way to describe Mad Max: Fury Road is that it's The Road Warrior injected with a long syringe filled with adrenaline. I won't say I fell in love with this film like it seems everyone else had, but for what it was, it was good. Extremely entertaining, but once the credits rolled, I wanted more than what was given.

 

The world is a desolate wasteland after nuclear war. Roaming the deserts of the world we once knew is Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy). Max is captured by the War Boys, the personal army for tyrant Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) and is labeled "Universal Donor" where he is being used as a blood bag for Nux (Nicholas Hoult). When Joe sends Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) and her War Rig to collect gasoline, he notices her going off route and finds his five wives missing (with Furiosa). With Joe and the War Boys heading after her, Furiosa builds an unlikely partnership with Max, where she and the wives plan to go to the Green Place.

 

Fury Road is one long car chase. If you thought the car chases and action in The Road Warrior were pretty crazy, than you really don't know the meaning of the word crazy. Yes, this film does largely favor practical effects, which is a great site to behold. It's not every day you see a major studio wanting to allow their director to handle things old school. That doesn't mean there wasn't any CGI, because I heard/read there was roughly a couple thousand (1-3K) VFX in the film. The difference between Fury Road and your average sub-par blockbuster is that everything looks outstanding here. You can tell why almost two years of post-production went into making sure this film was precise.

 

The action is relentless here, rarely giving you some breathing room in between the scenes. Each action scene (largely consisting of car chases) feels different than the last, bringing new ideas and new tricks instead of going stale (I'm look at you Fast & Furious). When the action hits, you're immediately taken by all of it. I won't lie though, while I did like them, I was sort of exhausted by the climax began. Everything before that was outstanding and perfect, but the climax just didn't hit has hard as I was hoping it would. It's still largely better than the climaxes of most blockbusters, but I wanted Miller & Co. to just say "f*** it" and just multiply all the madness by a hundred.

 

Mel Gibson is still and probably always will be Max Rockatansky, but Tom Hardy was fantastic as the one they call the road warrior. Max isn't keen on people - he's a survival. That's his one and only goal in the wasteland, to survive. He doesn't know every form of martial arts or anything of the sorts. He's a goddamn animal fighting to survive. Whether it means killing someone and their desert troops only to return covered in their blood with their supplies or waging vehicular warfare against the gangs of the wasteland. Tom Hardy had that perfect grit to him in this, truly encompassing the character and bringing to life the madness. If only there was more of his pursuit special, though. Charlize Theron was great to watch. You can say it's her character's film, but it's Max and Furiosa's film. They both share the screen together, they both work together in stopping Immortan Joe and work towards their own goals. Theron didn't dominate the film heavily in terms of screen time, she has her moments to shine, just like Hardy does. Sure she has more dialogue than Hardy, but Max wasn't dialogue heavy in The Road Warrior. It's a shared film, but both kick ass separately and joined.

 

After hearing all this talk about Fury Road being feminist, it's easy to see it. It didn't completely deter the film or heavily control it either. Traces of feminism? Maybe, but in all honesty, I think people talking about or complaining about need to just see it. Reading about it from someone else is not the same as experiencing it, because they are two different things here. The women don't empower the film. Yes, they are strong, but without the help of Max, where would they be? In the beginning it's an uneasy alliance, but one that proves to be successful. Everyone wants to survive, you just need to know who you can trust.

 

While the editing could've been better for me during the first car chase, it was nice to see something that wasn't relying to standard mold of cutting an action scene. The cinematography was brutal (in a good way), as the action has a tense feel, almost as if George Miller and director of photography, John Seale are choking you while watching. It's just fricking brutal. I love the sandstorm sequence, I though it was beautiful & colorful and crazy. Action directors can really take a not from George Miller on how to deliver goods - being both filled with style and substance.

 

The story was okay, fitting for this type of action film, but I wanted more. I think if the story was fleshed out more, than I probably would've fallen to the hype. It's okay for what it is, but at times it feels predictable. I see quite a few similarities between this and The Road Warrior, especially seeing how they are both survival films at heart. I wanted to know more about Immortan Joe and have more backstory to Furiosa and the Green Place and figure out more about why the War Boys are obsessed with Valhalla. I was hoping that being an R-Rated film, it would be violent, but this honestly could've passed for PG-13, if some frames of the more violent stuff was cut.

 

All in all, for what it was, Mad Max: Fury Road is a very entertaining film. The action is great, Miller is still in top form for his age, re-vitalizing this franchise. Hardy gives Gibson a scary run for his money, Charlize Theron can definitely do action, and Tom Holkenborg's score was just perfect for this film. It turned out better than expected, but I still wanted more. I'm hoping that on re-watch it improves, instead of the opposite.

 

Masterpiece? Not even?

 

Entertaining piece of cinema? Yes.

 

Lost River - 2015 - 3.5/5 - Directed by Ryan Gosling - starring Christina Hendricks and Ben Mendelsohn

There's no secret when watching Lost River and seeing the influence on debut writer & director, Ryan Gosling. The heaviest one for me was Nicholas Winding Refn (Only God Forgives comes to mind, along with some of his other films). I can see a little bit David Lynch, mainly with the surrealist touch to the film, but I overall can't comment on that since I haven't seen all of Lynch's work.

 

In a small American, town, Billy (Christina Hendricks) lives with her two sons Bones (Iain De Caestecker) and Franky in their home. Three months behind their rent and on the verge of having their home labeled for demolition, Billy takes a job from bank manager, Dave (Ben Mendelsohn) who also runs a burlesque show centered on gore and murder, in order to have income and save their home. Meanwhile, Bones befriends Rat (Saoirse Ronan) who informs him that with towns like this, they demolish towns and are flooded to make a reservoir. The only way to break this curse, is to go underwater and bring a piece of the land up to the surface.

 

The plot synopsis sounds really iffy, and strange, but it ultimately culminates much better when watching it. As if it hasn't been mentioned by everyone already, Lost River is a visually impressive film. Benoit Debie's work here is just flawless, and a beauty to watch and unfold further in mystical, colorful, and haunting ways. There's a great sense of atmosphere I felt when watching which really made my viewing all the better. It's almost like a dark fantasy films. The music score by Johnny Jewel also further adds to the film, making it an overall lush, viewing - as the score complements the cinematography.

 

The acting is a high-point with some of the finer performances coming from Matt Smith, Iain De Caestecker, Saoirse Ronan, and Ben Mendelsohn. Everyone else is great, but it's really those four whom I thought were indeed something special on screen. Especially Matt Smith, who plays "Bully", the films or towns antagonist. There's not a whole lot of depth to his character other than his a mean, crazed person, but it's the way Smith went about his character and truly brought it to life. I only wish there was more of him and his arc. Ben Mendelsohn is one actor I couldn't take my eyes off, and his scenes with Hendricks are among the best and move the plot forward the most. Mendelsohn, like Oscar Isaac in Ex Machina can also dance.

 

There's a lot of promise towards Gosling as a writer & director. If there were any flaws I have with Lost River, one of them are the characters. Yes, the acting is great, but I wish there was more development towards them, making them three dimensional. At times they feel a bit hollow, but overall, the acting makes up for this. I also wish there was more story, not that I had any issues with what was presented. I just wish there was more lore to the Lost River, but at the same time, having more of that, would mean taking away from the mystique and surreal, which makes this film work.

 

Lost River is a rather impressive feature from Ryan Gosling, whom I can say I will certainly be looking forward to his next film. It's easy to dismiss this film; it is flawed, but again, still manages to be highly watchable and thoroughly engaging. For what it is, I wasn't expecting much out of this, but it certainly exceeded any expectations I had. Lost River is a beautiful nightmare of a fantasy.

 

Ex Machina - 2015 - 4/5 - Directed by Alex Garland - starring Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac

Yeah, this is going to be a bit tough to review. Definitely going to require me to put in more thought to this, so I suppose I'll try my best, but I can't guarantee the end result will be good.

However, Ex Machina is definitely one of the better films I've seen this year and is certainly a great, thought provoking piece of science fiction. For Alex Garland's directorial debut, he makes a damn good impression.

 

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a coder for the world's most popular search engine, Bluebook. Caleb wins a company lottery to meet Nathan (Oscar Isaac) CEO of Bluebook and stay with him in his secluded home upstate in the mountains. Nathans home is more than just an ordinary, yet beautiful piece of architect. It's a research facility, for which he wants Caleb to be a part of. Nathan has built an artificial intelligence called Ava (Alicia Vikander) and wants Caleb to perform a Turing Test on Ava to see if the robot really has a consciousness or is just simulating one.

 

Throughout Ex Machina we view Nathan as a sort of God complex. He's created the first (presumably) artificial intelligence and has a sense of almost feeling superior at times. Yet, believes that one day artificial intelligence will surpass us humans. The idea of artificial intelligence has been thrown around for some long, that it only seems to follow the same mold. Ex Machina doesn't reinvent the genre (or sub-genre), but brings a nice, fresh look at such a thing. Can artificial intelligence truly express consciousness and be humanized, or just simulate for their own reasons? For me, after watching this, it was in ways both.

 

Ex Machina kept me thoroughly drawn into every little aspect. Whether it was the conversations between Nathan and Caleb or Alicia Vikander's performance where you know she is a robot, but never truly know just what she's thinking. Vikander is surely the star of the film as Ava, playing the character straight down the middle. The character and the acting never seem to be too robotic or too much or a robot trying to be human. It's just down the middle, almost decipherable. Her beauty is a definitely a gaze, but at times almost manipulative. Domhnall Gleeson was rather good in this, but sadly felt like one of the weaker parts of the film. I wouldn't say that it is because of his acting, but rather his overall development (Caleb). Oscar Isaac turns in yet another stellar performance, further cementing the fact that he is currently one of my favorite working actors right now. He can play cool one minute, than chilling then next without hesitation. He also can certainly dance to Oliver Cheatham's "Get Down Saturday Night".

 

It's definitely easy to see the influences other science fiction films have on Ex Machina have, particularly 2001 and Blade Runner. But they're just that, influences. Sure they have similarities, such as with artificial intelligence and themes, but Garland's film is a nice fresh take. The final act is what really did it for me. Everything paid off, and was just sheer brilliance. Alex Garland created one hell of a film. One that made me think, though again, I'm not sure I did a good enough job of expressing it.

 

Just go see Ex Machina.

 

Area 51 - 2015 - 1/5 - Directed by Oren Peli - starring Reid Warner and Ben Rovner

Oren Peli's sophomore feature after hitting it big with Paranormal Activity is a lot like that film. Area 51 has finally seen the light after reported rewrites and reshoots and editing left the film on the shelf for almost five to six years. Perhaps it should have stayed that way.

 

Three young guys, Reid, Ben, & Darrin (Reid Warner, Ben Rovner, and Darrin Bragg) come up with a plan to sneak onto the grounds of Area 51 and get inside the facility in hope of finding signs pointing to extraterrestrial life. They meet Jelena (Jelena Nik) who gives them access to her father's files from the time he worked at Area 51 before he "committed suicide". The files talk about the mysterious Sector Four (S4) which has long been rumored to house alien technology. Using freon filled suits to mask their body temperature, they successfully sneak onto the grounds, heading inside. Inside, they find what they're looking for, and what they weren't.

 

The idea of a found footage film taking place in the coveted Area 51 could turn out to be fascinating. However, it isn't - at least in Peli's film. While the overall planning and discussion they group has about entering Area 51 is actually not, bad, it takes up largely half the film. The other half is running around Area 51. If you're hoping to see some interesting theories or ideas into alien technology, you're not going to find it here. The second half glimmers over the technology with the big emphasis on anti-gravity and of course the flying saucer. These moments are cool and all, but anything frightening? No.

 

Area 51 is more or less Chernobyl Diaries (produced and written by Oren Peli). Similar concept, similar outcome in the end. There's only a few frames of the Gray alien in this film, but even then it's still hard to see exactly what they look like (probably due to budget [actually that's what it is]) It also seems (at least to me) that this film was drawn to Bob Lazar. The supposed "Area 51 employee" who claimed to have "worked on reverse engineering alien technology". Surely the film plods along slowly, never building interest, but what really irked me was the level of security shown at Area 51. I mean it's only the most top-secret base in the world that the CIA didn't acknowledge the existence of until just two years ago. The Area 51 in the film seems to be pretty lenient on security. I would imagine there would be a higher patrol rate as well as more on-site military guards, but not in this film.

 

Whether you believe Area 51 is some top secret base that either condones reverse engineering on alien technology or houses prototype weapons and aircraft for the U.S. Military is entirely up to you. Area 51 just simply doesn't give enough to make this viewing worth anything. It's clear why this took so long to get released. It simply wasn't good or imaginative.

 

Demonic - 2015 - 0/5 - Directed by Will Canon - starring Frank Grillo and Maria Bello

James Wan was planning on using his name, or rather Dimension Films was planning to for their latest supernatural film. Demonic actually turns out to be less demonic as the title and premise would suggest. It turns out that this film is more dull than Wan's The Conjuring. It presents a very basic premise and never really amounts to anything.

 

Six college students in Louisiana go to the Livingston house. A house where a group of people viciously slaughtered with seemingly no trace, nearly two decades beforehand. Detective Lewis (Frank Grillo) is dispatched to the house to investigate and finds that five of the students are dead, with only one, John (Dustin Milligan) alive. As the police search the house more details unfold with the help of Lewis' friend, Dr. Elizabeth Klein (Maria Bello). The college students were to summon supposed supernatural spirits in hopes of capturing it on footage, being that John's mother was in the house for the original murders but them disappeared shortly after.

 

The only real reason why I found myself watching this was because of Frank Grillo. Grillo isn't given much other than typical hard-edged detective who wants to get to the bottom of everything, and unfortunately isn't quite memorable. It's not it's his fault, but that his character and the script entire is awful. Demonic's only means of trying to be scary is by using jump scares and cliches (who knew!). It's quite a boring film to be honest and never really grabs your interest. It's just another supernatural horror film. It feels as if the overall story and the conclusion was done on the fly, as the entire third act is horrendous.

 

Not much to say. Avoid.

[DaveBond21]

Star Wars Episode 6 - Return of the Jedi

 

I originally saw this in the cinema in 1983. This time I was watching it with my kids.

 

For my 7 year old daughter this was amazing - she was enthralled from start to finish, especially the ending. For my 4 year old son, he is just a bit too young, but in a couple of years he'll love it.

[SecretAgentFan]

Birdman

 

Impressively made, an acting power house, a story well constructed, containing a sly satire on the current movie and theatre business.

 

Michael Keaton definitely deserved his Oscar nomination, and he would have deserved to win.  I haven´t seen the actual winner in that category - but it appears as if another actor playing a handicapped famous person just is what the Academy prefers, instead of the navel gazing of the extremes a washed up actor will go for just to feel that he matters.  At least the film itself and its director were awarded - but the acting branch of the Academy surely is too vain and to mean-spirited, and Keaton obviously not well-loved enough.

 

 

Nightcrawler

 

Do you know the feeling when you´re watching a movie and you´re simultaneously thinking: this will be a classic, a film that is perfect in every regard?

 

This one, IMO, belongs in that category, and speaking of Oscars, the only nomination this one got was for original screenplay (which it lost).  That Jake Gyllenhaal´s outstanding character work was neglected is again proof how ridiculously the acting branch of the Academy is voting.  At least a nomination would have been called for.  Also Dan Gilroy´s directing is excellent but did not provoke enough love by those who work on the campaigns for the Oscars - well, maybe Gilroy was too classy to dutifully shake hands and smile touring the voters (something the sure-fire winners always have to do).

 

If you haven´t seen "Nightcrawler", do yourself a favor and do it right now.  It is captivating, exciting, shocking, funny, intelligent and devestatingly up-to-date with the state of our media culture.  Also, it is one of those rare films who are tightly constructed with no superfluous scene at all, ending when it should instead of going on and on and on.

 

Definitely one of the best films of last year - if not of this decade.  A milestone.

[thecasinoroyale]

Two great films there SAF!


'Ex Machina' (2015)
 
A low-budget film that slipped under the radar, but provides far more depth, class and fascination than many big-budget blockbusters out there. ‘Ex Machina’ features minimal locations, minimal cast, minimal budget and minimal complications. It’s a sci-fi study of human and computer interaction with plenty of thought-provoking ideas and situations thrown at us as we take a journey with Caleb, a young computer programmer assigned to test and decide if A.I can ever be more human than we think.

The film belongs to Alicia Vikander here as android Ava, a stunning blend of CGI and live-action performance to create a being that even I can’t comprehend how the effects were put together so well. She’s real, but she’s not. She has silky words, remarkable physical movement and certainly confirms that less is more in her performance. And the best thing about this film is that I as shared many of the feelings and emotions our naïve and unaware Caleb did, played well by Gleeson.

Oscar Isaac is electrifying here and very unpredictable – you never really know his intentions, and you never really know if he is going to laugh with you and pat you on the back, or shout at your and punch you in the face. He’s a fascinating and very talented actor, and every role I have seen him in is one you can’t fail to invest in; Nathan here is one of those. A brilliant, complex and introverted man with brilliant ideas you can’t work out what they are all about until the finale. With Isaac never failing to create such interesting characters, I can’t wait to see what he brings to ‘The Force Awakens’ in December.

But with a film so fixated on the performances of our stars, we have to believe in them, to understand them and make a choice about them. I found myself sharing the feelings of Caleb more and more, which made me feel I had shared the experiment with him until the beautifully nightmarish finale. Questions are answered, but more and thrown at us as the credits roll, and it really makes you think about the possibilities of man and machine, and what the future holds for technology and social interaction between humans and robotics. It’s total sci-fi, but also so real.

It’s an utopian world we are living in for over 90mins, with hints of ‘Blade Runner’ and ‘Westworld’ in the set design, character representation and overall look of the film. Colours are used effectively – cool blues and dangerous reds and peaceful whites tell the story without words. Camera shots are dreamy, lingering and expansive so you see and feel everything, much like Nathan does with his array of CCTV. I felt I wasn’t just a viewer, but I was part of the Turing test itself – and I fell right for it.

A wonderfully interesting and almost scarily real idea narrated in a film that hooks you and engages you and makes you feel uncertain of your own emotional state after the credits roll, with brilliant performances and a finale that you won’t forget in a hurry – all without gratuitous CGI, action and multi-million leading stars. For a directorial debut, Alex Garland has impressed for all the right reasons.



'Chappie' (2015)

I knew very little of this film before watching it, and to be honest had little awareness of direct Neill Blomkamp’s back catalogue so felt I was watching without prejudice. The main appeal to me to was the sci-fi genre itself and Hugh Jackman – everyone else was simply a welcome addition to satisfy my curiosity. And from the off this was clearly a love-letter to films such as ‘RoboCop’ and ‘Short Circuit’ – a society policed by robots who are soon given the ability to learn, think and feel for themselves. Even the opening montage of our attack-robots in action had voices like the iconic Peter Weller Robo-voice.

After the initial excitement died down, the majority of the film itself becomes something of an urban/indie crime drama – very obscure in some ways but it managed to keep me watching. Dev Patel is likeable enough but doesn’t have much range as an actor I feel, and never came over to me as someone to care about, as for Sigourney Weaver in her comfortable “cameo” role popping up now and then as a tough-talking CEO.

The film belongs to Sharlto Copley as Chappie, providing motion-capture and voice acting for a visually impressive robot. The design of Chappie is unique enough to stand out from other screen robots, and the journey from tough-talking soldier to child-like innocent is well done through Copley’s acting – I was sold on his development and thought it was really well handled. I even felt sorry for the hunk of A.I at some point, much as I did with Short Circuit whenever they face danger and their child-like voice cries for help.

With Hugh Jackman on fine form as a snarling, jealous villain (the ‘Dick Jones’ to Patels ‘Bob Morton), the rest of the cast are made up of 2/3rds rap-rave group Die Antwoord and 1/3rd American acting talent. Watkin and Yolandi are irritating in their roles as the criminal gang working in slums to re-pay debts, fight off the police and train Chappie as their own, but in that respect they also sort of work. They convey nothing but what I’d expect from that typical gang culture born on the streets who use foul language, violence and strange dress-sense as a weapon. Granted, they aren’t very intimidating, but they serve a nice contrast against the suited and sleek work Chappie comes from to bring him down to.

While the majority of the film plays out as an urban sci-fi drama, simple enough to follow and invest in with some good visuals and mild action, the ending goes all out one level as a suddenly violent return to ‘RoboCop’ as MOOSE (our ED-209) unleashes lots of CGI hell against the anti-heroes and Chappie becomes the protector and solider he was always meant to be in a robo vs robo face-off with plenty of explosions, blood and violence. It’s only after THAT expected finale that the REAL finale goes off kilter and goes a little too strange and philosophical when it didn’t need to be – posing questions that didn’t need to be asked, as we don’t really care after the onslaught presented moment before.

The ending is too off track for me and ends the film in a way it didn’t need to take to try and make ‘Chappie’ prophetical in human-robot relations. ‘Ex Machina’ did it so much better. This should have stuck to the mis-match of genres it was wanting to be and ended on a far less deeper note.

[Professor Pi]

Ex Machina

 

This was the film Spielberg's A.I. should have been.  There is definitely a 'Kubrickian' feel to it.  It has social commentary as much on big data collection and surveillance as it does on the nature of artificial intelligence.  Oscar Isaac as the recluse genius inventor may be getting an Oscar nomination for this role.  Alex Garland has put forth an impressive directorial debut.  Its musical score has hints of both Jurassic Park and Close Encounters themes (at least to me) suggesting the dangers and wonders of humans encountering forms of new life.  How can humanity coexist with it? 

 

Like Spike Jonze's Her, this film does not give in to the evil A.I. trope completely (looking at you, Age of Ultron), nor does it proclaim this to be a welcome development.  More of an inevitable one.  There is a feminist/human slave trafficking undercurrent to it too, even more so than Mad Max Fury Road, which seems to be getting all the press on that front. 

 

The film's ending and denouement are fascinating to discuss.  Is it three minutes too long?  Ava passes a lot of Turing tests, but what about empathy, even for her own kind?  It flips Bladerunnner on its head so don't expect a happy ending, just a logical one. 

Edited by Professor Pi, 02 June 2015 - 04:04 PM.

[Professor Pi]

Mad Max/Road Warrior/Beyond Thunderdome

 

After Fury Road, the original trilogy can now be viewed free of the disaster that is Mel Gibson.  The 1979 original Mad Max holds up surprisingly well, with only the Hollywood trope (even for an Aussie indie film) of evil biker gangs giving aways its age and origins.  The stunts done for real are timeless (FF franchise, take note).  Max's inescapable destiny from heroic cop to anti-hero is evident in the final scene by the choice he gives the last surviving baddie before driving off into the prohibited radiated wasteland.  There's no going back now.  The Bluray has, for the first time, the undubbed Australian accents.  I suggest viewing this last as it works as a prequel as much as an origin story.

 

Road Warrior is still the pinnacle of the franchise, especially the original trilogy.  It set the tone, sets, costumes, feel, and stunt work that have become definitive of the series.  Fury Road could work as its sequel.  Beyond Thunderdome is an interesting disappointment.  The first half, set in Bartertown, still holds your attention, though the fight scenes could have benefited from an R-rating.  While the studio no doubt wanted the enhanced revenue that comes with a PG rating, George Miller practically turns the latter half needleslly into a children's story (a harbinger to Happy Feet?)  The chase scene to this third installment pales in comparison to the others.  The villains are made for laughs here rather than underscoring the stakes.  Each climactic chase in Mad Max movies ends in head-on collisions, taking out bad guys and vehicles with equal discretion.  Thematically, Max's sacrifice restores his heroism and thus brings his journey to a close, albeit a disappointing one.  And that segues perfectly into Tina Turner's "We Don't Need Another Hero" over the closing credits.

Edited by Professor Pi, 03 June 2015 - 02:21 PM.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Survivor' (2015)

Having not heard about this film, the one thing that caught my eye and lulled me into giving this a go was the sight of a mean and moody and pouty Pierce Brosnan holding a silenced gun. Yes, he’s playing his James Bond gone bad character, but with a strong track-record after his departure from Her Majesty’s Secret Service in 2002, I find him enjoyable enough to watch in many of his films, and as a fan he just about makes lacklustre films watchable.

This is one of those times, as this is a very basic, by the book, un-engaging spy thriller set in London that features lots of running, talking, grimacing and shooting. Brosnan plays it calm and collected, an ice-cold and calculating hitman who is silver-tongued and effective in his work and doesn’t ever break a sweat even in the heat of confrontation. He’s certainly embracing new and different roles that always are bolstered by a loving wink to his back catalogue as 007, but now he’s having fun playing a darker, more violent mirrored-version of the secret agent.

Milla Jovovich departs her kick-ass feminine role from the ‘Resident Evil’ franchise and instead plays a character who needs to use her brains more than bullets, and is quite vulnerable and out of her depth in the dangerous cat-and-mouse game of being chased by the good guys who think she’s a bad guy while she chases the real bad guys and has to avoid being chased by the bad guys as well. Standard stuff.

With a supporting cast who don’t really get to do much out of their clichéd roles, like the police investigators looking puzzled and macho with a gun, to the U.S ambassadors looking puzzled and desperate as time ticks on, this is really only held together by Jovovich and Brosnan – each likeable enough and enjoyable for their fans to hold onto. It’s not new, it’s not engaging and it’s very straight-to-video material.

With a few decent action set pieces and plenty of CG enhanced danger that involves a wonderfully ‘Batman Begins’ moment for Brosnan looking more badass than he ever did as Bond, don’t expect much from this, but it’s harmless enough to kill 90mins of your time if, as said, you’re a fan of Brozza.
 
 
'Kung Fury' (2015)

 

Watching this 30min assault on the senses will probably help you to comprehend the total carnage of this project. It is a love-letter to the 80s genres of kung-fu films, police action and everything else thrown in to balance it out like the Nazi party, dinosaurs, killer arcade machines and a triceratops cop.

Writer, director and actor David Sandberg knows his audience – this isn’t something to refine the spoof genre, but for something made for such a low budget in today’s market, he certainly has pulled out the stops. The visual effects are quality, evoking that jarry 80s style but also making it feel like something out of the ‘Sin City’ universe. Logic and physics and general coherence are thrown out of the window in a violent and surreal adventure through time in which our hero, tough talking cop Kung Fury, wages a one man war to stop Hitler, now a self-proclaimed kung-fu master himself, from taking over the world.

I struggle to explain this when we also are presented with dinosaurs who fire laser beams from their eyes, David Hasselhoff playing a talking Lamborghini and an arcade machine who is as rude as he is violent to paying customers. It’s crazy, mad-cap fun, and in a league of it’s own for something made out of sheer passion for film-making and storytelling.

It makes me want to seek out the source material this is based on, the real 80s movies that really tried to be something good but came out awful, but great – looking at you ‘Samurai Cop’. With a top-notch synth-soundtrack and action sequences that make you feel you’re watching a side-scrolling video game fighter come to life such as ‘Mortal Kombat’ or ‘Street Fighter’, this is nothing but a big guilty pleasure which shouldn’t be taken too seriously, and just should be watched and laughed at but really appreciated for the skill and talent put into making this on the budget it was given.

[SecretAgentFan]

Ex Machina

 

This was the film Spielberg's A.I. should have been.  There is definitely a 'Kubrickian' feel to it.  It has social commentary as much on big data collection and surveillance as it does on the nature of artificial intelligence.  Oscar Isaac as the recluse genius inventor may be getting an Oscar nomination for this role.  Alex Garland has put forth an impressive directorial debut.  Its musical score has hints of both Jurassic Park and Close Encounters themes (at least to me) suggesting the dangers and wonders of humans encountering forms of new life.  How can humanity coexist with it? 

 

Like Spike Jonze's Her, this film does not give in to the evil A.I. trope completely (looking at you, Age of Ultron), nor does it proclaim this to be a welcome development.  More of an inevitable one.  There is a feminist/human slave trafficking undercurrent to it too, even more so than Mad Max Fury Road, which seems to be getting all the press on that front. 

 

The film's ending and denouement are fascinating to discuss.  Is it three minutes too long?  Ava passes a lot of Turing tests, but what about empathy, even for her own kind?  It flips Bladerunnner on its head so don't expect a happy ending, just a logical one. 

 

Interesting.  The first half of the film I loved, expecting something extraordinary to come.  The actors are magnificent, the cinematography makes great use of the interiors, and the score heightens everything by being only an ominous, very low droning in the background (um, hints of JP and CE?  IMO, this score is the total opposite to Williams´ orchestral masterpieces).

 

Unfortunately, the second half does not offer any surprises at all but plays out as expected.  Not bad but definitely not reaching beyond the initial ideas.  I would have preferred to find out how Ava actually would/could interact with the real world, and the fate of Isaac´s and Gleeson´s characters feel like an easy way out for me.

 

So, IMHO, this film starts out strong but lacks the courage of its convictions.

[SecretAgentFan]

Whiplash

 

Weird movie, IMO.  Totally overpraised.  J.K. Simmons is a great actor and he has no problem playing this total psychopath of a music teacher.  

 

But the main thrust of the story is this: brilliance can and sometimes must be achieved through psychological torture, just to stand apart from the mediocre.

 

Um...  no. 

 

That´s just the easy way out for people who abuse their power and people who are eager to sacrifice their dignity.  

 

Truth is: hard work is important - but losing your humanity will not get you to happiness.

 

Thumbs down for this film, I´m afraid.  I can only imagine this becoming a critical darling because some reviewers simply love it when a character acts in the meanest way possible.  Unless it happens to them in real life.

 

 

American Sniper

 

I am a fan of Eastwood´s work.  He exactly knows where to place a camera, how to create tension and how to tell a story, everything in a most efficient way without resorting to "look ma, I´m a director"-show-offiness.

 

This film was a surprisingly huge B.O. success in the US.  But that, IMO, is only attributable to being completely misunderstood by the heartland who obviously thought the film celebrated the "people are either sheep or wolves or sheepdogs"-maxim of the protagonist´s father.  Of course, you can misunderstand the film that way because it does portray its protagonist in a very sympathetic way.  Lots of viewers felt justified again, having the US involvement in the Iraq war finally portrayed in a "we are the good guys, we had to clean things up"-manner.

 

Being a European, I already feel the backlash of that sentence.  I will be scorned and accused as a leftist, unpatriotic idiot who just does not know what he is talking about.

 

But if you compare "American Sniper" with another recent war movie, "The Hurt Locker", you will easily see that the latter film, celebrated at the Oscars but barely seen and not at all embraced by the general public, covers the same ground (a soldier becoming addicted to the war experience, unable to cope with real life anymore).  "American Sniper" portrays that character as a hero, "The Hurt Locker" as a tragic product of dehumanizing politics.

 

IMO, Eastwood does not condone the ideas of the protagonist´s father, and he occasionally underlines the tragedy of a life lived by grossly simplified ideas.  But in the end, it´s not enough to paint a critical picture.  And its major box office success definitely made lots of people very happy, including Eastwood´s accountant.