The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies Review

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies Review

Man, was I not looking forward to this review. Not because I hate discussing Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth saga. Hell, I could probably send everyone else to sleep discussing how perfectly these films, especially the Lord of the Rings trilogy, showcase the greatness that can be achieved by giving a quite possibly crazy person a massive project and the budget to let him do whatever he bloody-well wants. Here’s the problem: The Battle of the Five Armies is a massively flawed movie with very little in the way of narrative structure or cohesion. Yet, I walked out of the screening with tears in my eyes, a smile on my face and an urge to rave about it. Unfortunately, I’m a film critic, or at least that’s what they tell me. So, as much as I’d like to tell this is one of the year’s finest films, that simply wouldn’t be true.

Picking up directly after Desolation of Smaug, The Battle of the Five Armies is the culmination of the epic (and somewhat unnecessary) trilogy adapted from JRRR Tolkein’s 300-page tale of hobbits, dwarves, elves and Billy Connelly riding a CGI pig. Apparently. Having defeated the nefarious dragon Smaug, dwarf king Thorin is slowly becoming corrupted by his copious amount of gold. Meanwhile, Bard The Bowman (yes, that’s actually his name) must salvage the ruin of his people’s hometown. The film also follows Thranduil the woodlen elf king and his son Legolas, who teams up with Tauriel to uncover the orcs’ (led by Azog and Bolg). Witnessing all this is the titular Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins and are you confused yet? This really is a film that assumes you’ve seen all the other instalments. There is very little in the way of superfluous exposition or world-building. Director/writer Peter Jackson has made a film strictly for those who enjoy his Middle Earth films. I obviously have no problem with this, given that I adore these movies, it will do nothing to win over sceptics.

The performances are what ground this enjoyably ridiculous fantasy, most notably Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage as Bilbo and Thorin. Their friendship is truly palpable, making Thorin’s fall from grace all the more effective. Oh, and Freeman easily has the best walk in the business. Lee Pace and Luke Evans both give surprisingly nuanced performances as Thranduil and Bard. Rounding out the massive cast are Orlando Boom and Evangeline Lily as Legolas and TaurieI, along with minor roles for greats such as Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving and a 92-year-old Christopher Lee. Along with the snapy pacing, the script excellently presents a real dilemma: do we route for the rational peace-keepers or the dwarves we’ve grown to love over the last two movies? This refusal to mark anyone as wholly good or evil (or at least until the orcs appear to wreak havoc because reasons) makes this far more intelligent than the often clear cut conflicts of its predecessors.

Jackson is one of the finest visual storytellers of our time and the 45-minute battle of the title is perhaps his finest achievement to date. At least, it would be, if he hadn’t forgot to include the main characters until 15 minutes in. Those first 15 minutes, whilst visual stunning, are rendered emotionally inert by not featuring any of the characters with names/discernible personalities. I mean, even Azog (the main villain) is watching from afar whilst his pawns enact his dirty work. The later stages of the climax more than make up for this terrible creative decision with what could well be the most emotionally involving (pretentious word incoming) denouements (I warned you) I've ever seen in an action movie.

There are other distracting quibbles along the way. Whoever decided that Legolas should be the most over-powered badass of all time should be fired (preferably with a gun). Any threat towards him becomes utterly meaningless when you know he can perform a Mortal Kombat finishing move and move on. His fight scenes are the equivalent of watching your friend stepping on an ant, if that ant was a 7-foot-tall CGI orc. The opening action scene is grossly underwhelming and rather hard to follow. Smaug gets approximately 5 lines in the entire movie! I’m not kidding; the main antagonist of the last film has fewer lines than Bard’s blank slate daughter.

This may sound like a pretty negative review, but let me reassure you: I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Is it a great film? Not even close. Is it a highly entertaining, emotionally resonant and subtly political (in terms of the power of greed and the distrust and maltreatment of the poor by the enormously wealthy) film that had me wiping away tears three times? Definitely. Jackson doesn’t try to gain new fans, he aims for the ones he already has. And that’s perfectly fine by me.

Five-Word Verdict: Go to the toilet beforehand

Score: 3.5/5*

*3/5 if you are not a Middle Earth fan

Dolphin Tale 2 Review

Dolphin Tale 2 Review

There's a common saying in the movie-going world: "It's just a kids' movie". This mind numbing phrase is often used to defend intellectually vacant family films. As you can already tell, I truly despise this saying. Making a film for kids isn't an excuse to slack off, it's a responsibility to try harder. The entertainment we consume as children vastly inform the adults we become and to pass up on effort despite this is nothing short of ignorant. Don't get me wrong, Dolphin Tale 2 isn't quite The Boxtrolls (heaven knows we don't need two of those in the space of a month), but it's so, so damn close...

Inspired by the true story of rescue dolphins Winter and Hope, the film follows the staff of Clearwater Marine Aquarium and the drama in and outside of the pool. Characters =, who all seem scientifically designed to be as uninteresting as humanly possible, including teenagers Sawyer (a perfectly fine Nathan Gamble) and the beyond-irritating Hazel (Cozi Zuehlsdorff, equally unbearable). Harry Connick Jr is a pleasantly charming as aquarium boss Clay. Morgan Freeman and Austin Stowell (notable only for looking suspiciously like Sean Maher from Firefly) round out the serviceable adult cast. But, the real stars are Winter and Hope, playing themselves in the film, whose endearing acrobatics and distinct personalities give much-needed respite to the insomnia-defeating proceedings

The writing is truly exceptional – in its awkwardness. Writer-director Charles Martin Smith has clearly never met or been a teenager before. Sawyer and Hazel’s supposedly fledgling relationship is utterly unconvincing and portrayed completely in silences. Seriously, if you’re taking writing advice from Twilight, you have a massive problem. When the characters decide to end the hilariously awkward silence, we are treated to the least subtle writing outside of an ink-covered hammer. Almost every single line of dialogue is either an exposition dump or a clear, defined explanation of exactly what the audience should be feeling at that given moment. Come on, Smith, give the kids some credit!

The direction is more made-for-TV than most actual made-for-TV movies. There’s nothing particularly wrong with it, but there’s even less of merit. Smith’s approach seems to be “Right, you say your lines and I’ll find somewhere you’re not standing to put the camera. What, try to do something interesting or different? You’re fired! Wait, you’re the camera man, aren’t you? You make a valid point. Welcome back. With benefits.” No one’s face has been cropped and there’s none of the dismal editing that so plagued Magic in the Moonlight, but would it have killed Smith to have tried?

Dolphin Tale 2 is the perfect example of a bad kids’ movie coasting on the fact that no-one expects any more of it. The thing is: we should. A world where a film made for children isn’t assessed on the same grounds as other films purely because of its audience is one I don’t want to be a part of. The animals and decent performances prevent this from becoming any worse innocuously unengaging. But, that really isn’t enough…

Five-Word Verdict: I like dolphins. Not this.

Score: 2/5

Magic in the Moonlight Review

Magic in the Moonlight Review

I have long rejected the notion that one’s own place in the world has no bearing on one’s enjoyment of media. In my view, someone’s current circumstance, beliefs or even general mood is just as important to their view of a specific piece of entertainment as the piece’s objective quality. It would be remiss to claim that someone in a long-term would not be predisposed to relate to, and thus enjoy, a film such as Before Midnight more than a bachelor in the mid-20s. This is the very reason we have concepts such as target audience and stereotypes. To deny that personal situation has any effect on consumption is, if nothing else, a falsehood. I say this, as a nominal “film critic”, because this fact is one that will either make or break your enjoyment of Magic in the Moonlight. To discuss this in the context of the film would be to reveal its biggest secret, so I would suggest seeing the film and deciding for yourself. I, personally, rather enjoyed it…

Woody Allen’s latest film details the adventure of Colin Firth’s jaded magician Stanley, who travels to Southern France to debunk beautiful spiritualist Sophie (the ever-engaging Emma Stone). Inevitably, they form a timid romantic attachment, despite seeming to be complete polar opposites. Allen is aided by a game cast, with Firth in particular hinting at complexities not found in a surprisingly stilted screenplay. Hamish Linklater manages to scrape some dignity from a role that literally boils down to “play the ukulele and sing badly”. Marcia Harden stays just the right side of idiotic as the impossibly naïve Mrs Baker. The film, however, belongs to Eileen Atkins as Stanley’s wearied Aunt Vanessa. Her warm smile and comforting voice serves as a perfect counter to Firth’s pessimistic and occasionally cruel Stanley.

Allen’s direction is enjoyably subdued, focusing on long takes and wide shots of the astoundingly beautiful French coast. His great work is occasionally marred by some truly awful editing choices. Editor Alice Lepselter apparently doesn’t understand that in a dialogue scene, each character should seem like they’re in the same place as the other. Repetitive shot-reverse-shot exchanges are both distracting and emotionally distant. There are at least two instances in which the definition of the term “audio dubbing” is stretched to its very limits. Believe it or not, dialogue should match up with a character’s lips. Honestly, look it up. Interesting stuff…

The film is, if anything, tonally awkward. Allen can’t seem to decide if he’s making a fairy tale or a Mike Leigh movie. The message, whilst I certainly subscribe to it, comes far too late to really make an impact. The end-of-second-act twist is perhaps the single most jarring thematic shift I’ve ever seen.

If this sounds overly negative, I should stress that I did enjoy Magic in the Moonlight. The performances are excellent, the pace snappy and cinematography beautiful. Whilst a mismatched script and poor editing prevent this from being anything other than enjoyable fluff, sometimes enjoyable fluff is just what you need...

Five-Word Verdict: Woody, this isn't quite magic

Score: 3/5

Meatspace Pilot Review

Meatspace Pilot Review

I deem it necessary to preface this review by saying that William Carlisle, creator, writer and director of the Meatspace pilot, is a very talented critic. His reviews of Doctor Who (as MrTardis) and general releases (as TrillbeeReviews) are consistently entertaining and informative. Unfortunately, from the evidence of this pilot, that talent does not extend to writing for television.

Meatspace follows the lives of four university students over their time in higher education and their ever-changing relationships with each other and the online world they have grown accustomed to. This episode depicts filmmaker Jamie (John Ferguson), writer Lydia (Della Maylan) and nuisance David (Cayde Sleeth Wilding) as they slowly convince flatmate Megan (Chloey Rose) to open up about her incredible singing voice. Meatspace, we are told by at the start of this episode, refers to the physical world, as opposed to cyyberspace. Carlisle, however, appears to be writing about somewhere else entirely. The world shown in this pilot is not the world you or I live in, and nor do the characters speak or act like it is.

The characters are likable enough, but fail to escape the confines of their stock characters. Jamie is the nice guy. Lydia is the sassy girl. David is the slob. Megan is the shy girl. You've seen these characters a hundred times before, and performed much better. Wilding and Rose are the standouts, generating a couple of decent laughs (a scene based around a Jenga game is excellent) and one particularly touching scene near the end. The other two leads are complete cardboard, expressing minimal personality and even less humour. 

The direction is sufficient, although lacking in creative flair. You really don't get a sense of Carlisle's specific style or personality. The scenes are staged capably but are in no way outstanding. It honestly feels like anyone could have directed this. His writing, though, is where he, along with the rest of the episode, fall flat. Nothing seems natural, especially in the comedic scenes. The attempts at emotion are let down by forced, overly expository, dialogue and an apparent lack of human understanding.

A minor issue, but I found the lighting to be overly intense in some scenes, distracting from the dialogue. Other technical aspects work well, though. The sound mixing is especially impressive given the budget. The dialogue and background noise merge perfectly , creating a crisp (I've just made myself hungry, I'll be right back)...

...sound track. 

Whilst there are certainly aspects of Meatspace to appreciate, especially a few of the performances, this experiment is ultimately a failure. I definitely see potential in the concept (see more on this here: https://www.facebook.com/MrTARDISreviews?fref=nf) and if the writing improves, I can definitely see an enjoyable version of this show appearing on our screens soon. For now though, I'll pass...

The pilot will be broadcast on the TrillbeeReviews YouTube channel at 21:00 BST on 5th September

Five-Word Verdict: Effort does not equal quality

Score: 2/5

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes Review

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes Review

What was surprising about director Rupert Wyatt's Rise of the Planet of the Apes was not that it was extremely successful, rather that it was excellent. A smart, thrilling and fast-paced action movie, utilising incredible motion capture technology to create jaw-dropping ape effects. The main surprise in Matt Reeves' sequel is that it improves on it's predecessor in every way...

Dawn follows a growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar is threatened by a band of human survivors (led by Jason Clarke's Malcom and Gary Oldman's Dreyfus) of the devastating virus unleashed a decade earlier. They reach a fragile peace, but it proves short-lived, as both sides are brought to the brink of a war that will determine who will emerge as Earth's dominant species. Unlike Rise, and what ultimately gives Dawn the upper hand, there is no clear cut villain. There are flawed individuals on both sides but all with understandable motivations behind there inevitable actions. War is treated as an inevitability, a horrifying end to the means of this story. 

The performance capture work has vastly improved, almost to the point of photorealism. Andy Serkis leads the apes as Caesar, an Ocar-nomination worthy performance of surpressed rage and wisdom. Toby Kebbel is truly threatening as bad-egg-ape (?) Koba, whose scars present themselves both physically and emotionally. Jason Clarke and Gary Oldman both provide strong support, but this is ultimately the apes' story.

The Planet of the Apes franchise has always prided itself on social commentary, often focusing on racism, religion, the legal system and the environment. For Dawn, however, writers Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, make a brave, inevitably controversial plea for gun control. Almost all of the conflict in the movie are, directly or otherwise, caused by the excessive use and trust of guns in modern America. It's a strange move, sure, but one that instantly sets the film apart from all other blockbusters, especially the military recruitment video that was Transformers 4. There is even some Holocaust imagery towards the final act, a terrifying reference to the power all-consuming hate can have over people. 

Along with the ground breaking performance capture work, Reeves has curated stunning technical aspects. From Michael Giacchino's primal, thrilling score to Michael Seresin's starkly beautiful cinematography, every aspect works to create a larger, greater whole. Special mention must also go to James Chinlund's fantastic production design, whose blend of modern technology and organic structures is a sight to behold.

If there is a fault, it is inherent in the material. We all know how this ends, so there is a sense of predictability that occasionally robs the film of its full potential. An over reliance on coincidence and convenience is often noticeable, especially in one of the worst character decisions this year. A few human characters are given short shrift, especially Malcom's wife and son (with decent work from Keri Russell and Kodi Smit-McPhee).

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, despite undeniable flaws, is an intelligent, complex and incredibly satisfying blockbuster and one of the best films of the year. With the inevitable third chapter already in development, this franchise is one of few I'm happy will stick around. Just as long as it doesn't revolt...

Five-Word Verdict: Far better than the title

Score: 4/5

Transformers: Age of Extinction Review

Transformers: Age of Extinction Review

To write a full review of Transformers: Age of Extinction would be to give it far more credit than it deserves, so I'll give the worst film of the year this:

This movie made me hate Stanley Tucci.

Seriously.

Five-Word Verdict: An intolerable exercise in ennui

Score: ½/5

How To Train Your Dragon 2 Review (w/ Fault In Our Stars + Edge of Tomorrow)

How To Train Your Dragon 2 Review

I'm making up for two spectacularly delayed reviews with an early one. You're welcome, I guess? Anyway, here are my mini-reviews for Edge of Tomorrow and The Fault In Our Stars

Edge Of Tomorrow: A wickedly inventive and utterly engrossing blockbuster, boosted by excellent performances from Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt and Bill Paxton. Whilst it crawls up into the foetal position in the final act, this feels like a complete rebirth for summer cinema. 4/5

The Fault In Our Stars: Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort recover from the abysmal Divergent to provide stand-out performances in this melodramatic but effective teen romance. 3/5

_________________________________________________________________________________

Dreamworks Animation have been on something resembling fire as of late. In Kung Fu Panda 1/2, Monsters vs Aliens, How To Train Your Dragon and Megamind, they have created some of the greatest CG animated features of the century. Now, with the follow-up to their 2010 masterpiece, they have produced a sequel worthy of a Night Fury. And your kids, just mind the fire!

The sequel takes place five years since Hiccup and Toothless successfully united dragons and vikings on the island of Berk. The now inseparable pair journey through the skies, charting unmapped territories and exploring new worlds. When one of their adventures leads to the discovery of a secret ice cave that is home to hundreds of new wild dragons and the mysterious Dragon Rider, the two friends find themselves at the centre of a battle to protect the peace. The conflict puts pressure not only on Hiccup (a Jay Baruchel) and his father Stoick (Gerard Butler - whose opposing views add an impressive thematic depth), but Toothless also. When a new threat comes in a disfigured from of Drago Bloodfist (Djimon Hounsou)

Director Dean DeBlois has assembled a fantastic ensemble cast to give life to his rich, layered characters. Jay Baruchel is at his likable best as the newly grown-up Hiccup, as well as selling the emotional scenes with aplomb. Gerard Butler discovers emotion and manages to inflect it into his voice (a bizarre concept, I know). Hiccup's team of dragon riders, including Jonah Hill and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, all do their best with somewhat underwritten roles. Djimon Honsou and Kit Harington provide great support as suprisingly complex villains. The standout, however, is Cate Blanchett as a Princess Mononoke-style environmentalist dragon rider with a shocking (if you haven't seen the trailers) past. 

The animation, as you might expect, is truly breathtaking. DeBlois and his artists have crafted jaw-dropping vistas and intricate character designs with expert skill. The care taken on the art is just as evident in DeBlois' screenplay. He develops each character with such aplomb and grace, the lack of an Oscar nomination would be sinful. Most impressive is his handling of Hiccup and Toothless' relationship, with one hell of a second-act hammerblow. Whilst the cause of the twist is a little too convenient, the places it takes both characters is not only brave, but unheard of in a family movie.

As is the nature of the flying beast, not everything works. A subplot of Fishlegs and Snotlout vying for Tuffnut's affections. It's as unnecessary as the RoboCop reboot, it's exactly as interesting. As in, not. As mentioned earlier, the villains are very one note.Whilst Drago gets by on being the strangest animated character since Jack Skellington, Eret crumbles under the weight of uselessness.

How To Train Your Dragon 2 is one of the most pleasant and surprising pleasant surprises in recent memory. With beautiful animation, fascinating characters and a thematically deep narrative, Dreamworks have created an incredible animation that truly *ahem* soars...

Five-Word Review: How To Make A Sequel

Rating: 4/5

X-Men: Days of Future Past Review

X-Men: Days of Future Past Review

Before we start the review, I think it's important to address the super-powered elephant in the room. Yes, the sexual assault allegations made against director Brian Singer are heinous. No, they in no way affect my opinion on his new film. 

I love X-Men. I've grown up on the first two and they mean a lot to me. X2, along with Star Wars, is the movie that got me interested in the art of film. Which is why I'm glad to announce that X-Men: Days of Future Past is not only one of the best films of the year, but one of the best comic book movies of all time. It's no Dark Knight, more Hellboy II...

The film, based on the Chris Claremont comic of the same name, follows The X-Men, as they send Wolverine to the past in a desperate effort to change history and prevent an event that results in doom for both humans and mutants. If the film was in the hands of, say, Brett Ratner (the worst human being in the history of terrible human beings) we could have ended up with an unfocused and rushed disappointment. Luckily, Singer holds a clear artistic vision and his experience with and passion for the material is evident in every frame. What we're left with is a morally complex and thematically rich film, one that truly transcends its genre.

Singer has assembled what is perhaps the greatest ensemble cast in a comic-book movie. Seriously, this film's like The Expendables of, you know, good actors. From the future, old favourites such as Patrick Stewart's Xavier, Ian McKellan's Magneto, Halle Berry's Storm and Hugh Jackman's ultimate bad-arse Wolverine return with franchise-best performances from all. The revelations, however, are the First Class returners. James McAvoy gives a genuinely Oscar-worthy performance as the broken, self-destructive Xavier. Michael Fassbender is at his usual best as the conflicted Magneto. Nicholas Hoult clearly discovered the art of expression between First Class and DOFP, as he gives an impressive turn as Beast. It is Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique who is the standout, and not just because I'm in love with her. She provides a jaw-dropping performance to rival that of Heath Ledger's Joker. If there was anyone yet unconvinced of her talents, they will be easily swayed by the finale. Game of Thrones' Peter Dinklage is also superb as the somewhat underwritten Bolivar Trask, a mutant-fearing businessman looking to capitalise on post-Vietnam paranoia. 

Other characters, such as Shawn Ashmore's Iceman and Ellen Page's Shadowcat, are slightly left by the wayside, but still do the best with what they're given. The new mutants, too, fail to make much of an impression. I'm still no wiser as to what Bishop's powers actually are. Something about being awesome, I guess? The only newcomers to register are Evan Peters' Quicksilver and Fan Bing Bing I-Would-Kill-For-That-Name's Blink. Quicksilver gets the films standout action scene, a sequence of such stylistic invention and creative ingenuity, it would be a sin to spoil it. Blink also gets some incredible Portal-style set pieces.

The X-Men series (the good ones at least) have always prided themselves on social commentary and allegory. Here, Singer seems to focus on 1930s Germany and, in the opening future scenes, the Holocaust. In terms of visual metaphors, the opening shot of mutants being herded and piles of dead bodies serve as chilling reminders of man's capacity for villainy. In terms of morality, Singer and scriptwriter Simon Kinberg draw on ideas of addiction, redemption, hope and forgiveness. These ideas culminate in an astonishingly moving confrontation between the young Xavier, Magneto and Mystique, featuring one hell of a Nixon. 

Days of Future Past is perhaps the most ambitious comic-book film since The Dark Knight, willing to completely reverse the franchise's previous continuity, finishing with a mind-blowing final scene worthy of the moniker "game-changing". Without giving anything away: Kelsey Grammar! 

Whilst X-Men: Days of Future Past still suffers from the franchise's Kryptonite: too many characters, it makes for hugely satisfying and deliriously entertaining viewing. One can only wish for Singer to stay on to lead the franchise into the brighter future promised here. If nothing else, he has left a fantastic blockbuster, one that will be treasured for years to come. Let's just hope those years don't entail giant robots killing everyone...

Five Word Verdict: Back To The Promising Future!

Score: 4½/5

Godzilla (2014) Review

Godzilla (2014) Review

Gareth Edwards' debut film, Monsters, is an incredible piece of filmmaking. A smart, character driven and allegorical subversion of the classic monster movie. It currently ranks as my 8th favourite film of all time, ahead of The Godfather. So, when I heard Edwards would be directing the big-screen return of Godzilla, I was over the fire-blazen moon. I was, perhaps mistakenly, expecting a masterpiece.After seeing the finished product, I am disappointed. Don't get me wrong, Godzilla is no Les(hit) Miserables. It's more... God(damn good) Zilla.

Godzilla (2014) follows the world's most famous monster as he's pitted against malevolent creatures who, bolstered by humanity's scientific arrogance, threaten our very existence. We follow Joe and Ford Brody (a balls-to-the-nuclear-safe-zone-wall Bryan Cranston and crushingly dull Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a father and son pairing, left estranged by a family tradegy 15 years prior. After another family tragedy (these guys can not catch a break), Ford must leave his wife and child (Elisabeth Olsen, a bizarre mix of apathetic and likable) to join the fight and save San Francisco. Sounds like the set-up for a fun, Pacific Rim-alike action flick, doesn't it? Unsuprisingly, Edwards has higher ideas in mind (where else?)...

The original 1954 Gojira was intended as an allegory of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, with the titular monster representing "the bomb". Edwards' reboot follows in the original's massive footsteps, this time creating images and scenes reminiscent of the Fukushima disaster in 2011. One scene in particular seems a direct nod to the accident, and is perhaps one of the most heart-wrenching and emotionally ambitious scenes in any modern blockbuster. If you don't cry, you're either lacking a heart or a giant lizard. Another key touchstone is, inevitably the 9/11 attack. I saw you rolling your eyes! Yes, it's you I'm looking at! Don't give me that excuse! Ahem, excuse me. In any other blockbuster, your groans would be justified, but for a franchise that prides itself on allegory the images are a perfect fit. 

A common complaint leveled at Monsters is "there's not enough action and explosions because I'm too dumb to watch anything not produced by Michael Bay, duh". Luckily, for the less demanding audience member, there are some truly excellent action scenes. Edwards has a keen eye for scale and this may be the first time that Godzilla has felt like a force of nature. The creature design is also a highlight, with some incredible detail and many delightful touches. 

Edwards chooses to tease the audience with brief glimpses of the monsters, before the big reveal an hour in. He has cited Jaws as a key influence for this technique (which also explains the surname Brody) Steven Spielberg expertly used the power of suggestion to build tension and anticipation for the shark. It worked marvelously and is a key reason Jaws is remembered as a classic to this day. What made Jaws so special was that, even with Bruce out of the picture, it is a seriously engaging movie. The audience is still riveted by the character dynamics, island politics and numerous subplots. Unfortunately, Edwards fails to create quite the same effect. The problem here is the script by newcomer Max Bortenstein.

Bortenstein's script fails at making most of his characters engaging. Bryan Cranston's Joe gets the best backstory and emotional core, but is exits early on. The only other highlight is Ken Watanabe as Dr Serizawa, a Japanese scientist inflected with Watanabe's usual grace and power. The two main characters, Taylor-Johnson's Ford and Olsen's Elle, are as interesting as wet tissues. Olsen scrapes by on natural charisma, but Ford is so uninteresting, Taylor-Johnson has no hope of redemption. Given Edwards' desire to stage the colossal events from a human perspective, his film falls foul to the underwritten nature of his characters. What we're left with is a somewhat cold and distant movie.

What the film lacks in character depth, it makes up for in themes and messages. The key idea behind Godzilla (2014) is encapsulated by Serizawa's line "The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control, and not the other way around". Godzilla isn't a monster, he's nature's way of restoring balance. Sadly, this is reversed in the truly terrible closing moments in which (without giving too much away), the tititular character is presented as something of a hero. Not only is this ridiculous in it's own right, it completely negates the overarching theme of the movie.

Overall, Godzilla is a smart, effective blockbuster that suffers from an amatuerish, occasionally laughable script. But, Edwards' keen eye for direction and the excellent turns from Cranston and Watanabe make it an intriguing and entertaining movie with some smart ideas. It's not quite on the same level as Monsters, but neither is The Godfather...

Five Word Verdict: The disappointing, yet impressive, sibling

Score: 3½/5

The Wind Rises Review

The Wind Rises Review

To call a movie released in May "film of the year" is a somewhat risky move. However, given that The Wind Rises currently sits as my favourite movie of the ten-nies (?), it's a fair assumption. Make no mistake, The Wind Rises is a masterpiece. A movie that comes along once every five years (or so) that changes the way we look at movies and, well, life in general. It takes a lot to achieve that level of power and majesty. As it turns out, it takes Hayao Miyazaki...

The Wind Rises is a highly fictionalised tribute to the life of Jiro Horikoshi, the man who designed Japanese fighter planes during World War II. Miyazaki also draws heavily from the works of Tatsuo Hori, whose prose inspired the title and serves as a prelude to the story. Along the way, Jiro experiences the Kanto earthquake, economic depression, the tuberculosis epidemic, the breakout of WW2 and the tragic reality of first love. So, no lovable woodland creatures this time...

The first thing I must mention is that fans of Miyazaki's earlier work may be put off by the serious, meditative tone he brings to his final film. When soot gremlins hit the fan, they hit it hard. Thankfully, Miyazaki has lost none of the awe and wonderment that makes his work stand out. He is perhaps the only director alive today who could make you delight in the curvature of a fish bone or emotionally invest in a vehicle (take note Cars, just don't come back). 

This sense of majesty is mirrored in Joe Hisaishi truly breathtaking score. Hisaishi perfectly captures Jiro's childlike energy, as well as complementing the dramatic moments with virtuoso skill. His score, along with Miyazaki's ever-stunning imagery create a superb blend of solemnity and playfulness.

The voice cast, too, is extremely impressive. In the English dub, Joseph Gordon-Levitt provides his usual blend of likability and vulnerability that makes him the perfect star. Emily Blunt, as Jiro's lover Nahoko, makes a compelling case that Edge of Tomorrow may not, you know, suck. Stanley Tucci is on top form as the deliciously flamboyant Caproni, the Italian engineer who corresponds with Jiro through a series of wonderously realised dream sequences. Martin Short is genuinely hilarious as comic-relief Kurokawa, Jiro's grumpy and overbearing boss; who happens to be a dwarf. Special mention must go to Werner Herzog as Castorp, whose soothing tones and welcoming voice are sure to make him a fan-favourite.

Luckily, all are dealt a pack of aces in Miyazaki's most realistic and sombre screenplay to date. Jiro, for instance, isn't your typical hero. He isn't particularly charismatic or even special, other than his naive and uncynical worldview. He's simply a good man, trying to do the right thing. The supporting players are a richly-drawn and memorable gathering of well rounded, deeply human individuals. Even for a movie filled with daydreams and pure happen chance, The Wind Rises is the most natural and emotionally resonant animated movie I've ever seen.

A lot has been made about the supposed politics behind the movie, with some claiming Miyazaki glorifies the Japanese military. This is, for lack of a better term, utter bollocks. The film isn't about World War II, or even Jiro's inventions. It is the tale of one man's dream and the growth he must go through to achieve it. It is an ode to creativity, the rush of invention and the thrill of seeing your creations take shape. Caproni even says: "Airplanes are not tools for war. They're not for making money. Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality" Saying this movie is about World War II is like saying 2001 is about a giant fetus floating in space.

The Wind Rises is also the director's most personal film to date. There does seem to be a autobiographical element, with Caproni telling Jiro before his retirement "Artists are only creative for 10 years" If you know the background of the production, this line registers as an interesting nod. Miyazaki at first didn't want to make an 11th feature, planning to create a manga version of The Wind Rises. It took producer Toshio Suzuki to convince him to make it into the film we have now. Perhaps Miyazaki is saying filmmakers are only creative for 10 movies? If so, he couldn' be more wrong...

The Wind Rises is an indisputable masterpiece, a heartbreaking tale of the cost of creativity. It's a movie you'll walk out of wanting to do something, even if that something is sitting on your arse and writing a review of it. A beautiful, philosophical movie that truly transcends its format, becoming something else entirely: art. If this is to be Hayao Miyazaki's final film, it is the perfect swansong to a perfect director...

Five Word Verdict: A powerful, essential modern masterpiece

Score: 5/5

Blog Update

Goodbye and Hello

This is a public service announcement:

I am no longer using this blog.

This is another public service announcement:

I am now making reviews on YouTube.

I'm going to stop doing these public announcements, they're not very efficient.

Anyway, I have decided to move on to YouTube reviews. There are several reasons, mainly greater potential audience and more contact with other critics. I will be uploading scripted Month Round-Ups of films I saw that given month. I will also make longer, more in-depth reviews of older films. If you have any video suggestions, please do leave them in the comments below!

Lastly, I would like to thank anyone who is reading this. You are awesome. Period.

Until the next time: ciao.

PS: That is the extent of my Italian, sorry Mario.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier Review

Captain America: The Winter Soldier Review

Frequent Arrested Development directors Joe and Anthony Russo faced two big challenges when signing onto Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The first was taking the comic equivalent of a wooden spoon and making him half-way interesting. The second was getting fans back on board after the heinous Iron Man 3, dull Thor: The Dark World and, well, Agents of SHIELD. Thankfully, they have achieved both. Well, almost...

The Winter Soldier is a sequel to both the original (read- meh) Captain America and the wildly better The Avengers. The film takes place directly after the latter, as well as incorporating several characters and themes from the former. The film follows Steve Rogers as he struggles to embrace his role in the modern world and battles a new threat from his own past: the Soviet agent known as the Winter Soldier. He must join together with Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow (who kicks so much arse, you'll be walking out the theatre in a wheelchair) and Samuel L Jackson's Nick Fury (who is basically Samuel L Jackson with an eyepatch) to take down The Winter Soldier and his employer, SHIELD director Alexander Pierce (a hammy but fun Robert Redford). 

This being a Marvel Phase 2 movie, there are plenty of plot twists along the way. Hell there's even a twist that untwists a previous twist (?). Thankfully, the Russos never lose track of easily the best element of movie, the identity of The Winter Soldier. Not only is this mind blowing in and of itself, it opens a vast landscape for character development. How can Captain America fight [insert spoiler you already know if you use a magical thing known as the internet]? This is really the hook of the movie; Captain America's questioning of SHIELD, his allies and even his place in the world.

None of this would matter without a strong cast, and the Russos have garnered the best ensemble to date. Chris Evans is uniformally perfect as our hero, managing to inject a wealth personality from the most vanilla character since vanilla. Johansson is once again on top form as the Buffy-alike superspy. Jackson is at his awesome best. Redford puts so little effort in, he's indescribably compelling. Anthony Mackie's Falcon is an excellent, if underused, addition, compensating for our hero's blandness with a wit and charm sure to make him a fan favourite. Other new additions are sadly either perfunctory or distracting. Frank Grillo's SHIELD agent Rumlow is entirely forgettab- What was I saying? Emily VanCamp's Agent 13 is also spectacularly useless.

For a film directed by blockbuster newcomers, The Winter Soldier features the best action of the year so far. Special mention must go to a first-act car chase between Fury and a SWAT team, which manages to be thrilling, tense and funny at the same time. Whilst the opening shaky-cam-a-thon is in no way helped by 3D, it certainly sets the tone and pace of the entire film. Then, we have the finale...

Blockbusters are famed for falling at the last hurdle, and The Winter Soldier does nothing to change this. I'm all for ending a movie with a massive climax, but when your finale has 5 alternate subplots happening at the same time, you know you have a problem. The smart decision would have been to have the big "plot" climax at the end of the second act, and focus on the deeply personal Captain/Soldier for the last 15 minutes or so. It's such a fascinating road path to follow, but the alternate threads dilute it into a mild diversion. And, for me at least, the movie goes a few twists too far. The Russos seem to feel the need to load the film with as many beats as superhumanly possible. These attention grabbing missteps again seriously dilute the most interesting and fresh idea the filmmakers have. It never veers into Iron Man 3 territory (something's coming, I promise), so that's a plus I guess?

Captain America: The Winter Soldier perfectly encapsulates everything that's wrong with modern blockbusters (convoluted plot, over reliance on mythology, forgettable side characters) and what needs to be salvaged (witty dialogue, fantastic acting, thrilling action). It is something of a self-contradiction. Luckily, the pros just about outweigh the cons, making the Captain's latest adventure a fun, diverting appetiser for Guardians of the Galaxy...

PS The post credit scenes are squeal inducing

Five Word Verdict: A return to almost form

Score: 3 ½/5

Need For Speed Review

Need For Speed Review

What do Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Super Mario Bros. and Silent Hill all have in common? They are all successful video games adapted in horrible movies. Now, we have a new franchise to add to the list. Okay, Need For Speed isn't Resident Evil awful, but it is still pretty awful.

The film follows Tobey Marshall (Aaron Paul, whose big movie break is yet to come), a working-class car racer (*cough* oxymoron *cough*) on a revenge path towards Dino Brewster (Bradley Cooper, who really needs to fire his agent). Two years ago, Brewster framed Marshall for the death of Pete (Harrison Gilbertson), who is also Dino's girlfriend's brother. Upon release from prison, Tobey joins forces with British car-expert-or-something-person Julia (Imogen Poots, who is apparently only capable of "scared dog" and "ogling teen") and drives from New York to California to enter an illegal race organised by Michael Keaton's exposition machine Monarch. Dino is, of course, also in the race and plans to take Tobey out before he can expose the truth of Pete's death. Does that sound convoluted and needlessly complicated? Good, that's because it is.

I have always said that you need two things to make a good action movie: a likable, interesting protagonist and exciting, memorable action scenes. Die Hard is a great example of this. John McClane is possibly the most relatable action hero ever put to screen and the action by John McTiernan is crisp, clear and intense. Need For Speed on the other hand, fails spectacularly at both. Paul does what he can with what he has, which is a main character whose most distinguishable feature is his driving ability. The script never allows him to show any range, the only two emotions shown are stoic and stoic.

As for other characters; Dino is too cliched to be of any note, Julia can't decide whether she's a plucky Brit or a damsel in distress, Keaton makes as much of impression as a pencil to a brick. and Tobey's motley crew of mechanics are entertaining but entirely forgettable.

The race scenes are perhaps the film's biggest let down. For a film that advertised itself solely on "Look kids, cars going vvroom! Pretty cool, huh? Buy the games too!", I'm already struggling to remember anything other than lots of noise and shaky cam. The 3D is, unsuprisingly, pointless and adds nothing more than an extra charge for admission. The repetitive and entirely meaningless POV shots serve as more of a distraction than anything else. And, as with so many movies nowadays, the action never feels like it matters. You don't care about the characters, so why should you care about what happens to them?

There are flashes of inspiration, though. The way one of Tobey's sidekicks leaves his workplace is funnier than the highlights of most modern comedies and the slow-mo occasionally serves a purpose. The action is competently, if unimaginatively, shot. But, for the most part, this is just another soulless cash grab not long for the cinematic landfill.

Five Word Verdict: Play the video game, instead

Score: 1 ½/5

What did you make of Need For Speed? How does it compare to the games? Let me know in the comments below. My next review will probably be Labor Day (should have a "u", just saying) next weekend. Also, look out for my first article on What Culture very soon! See you next time.

Page Update and Awesome News

Page Update and Awesome News

Hi guys! This is just a quick update on some very exciting news! If you follow me on Twitter, you probably know what I'm about to tell, but I'm finding it hard to sink in myself, so here we go.

I am now a registered contributor to the entertainment website What Culture!

A little background: What Culture employ writers on an application basis. Applicants must provide a sample article and brief summary on why you would make a good contributor. An email I received soon after application states that less than a quarter of applicants are ultimately successful. Once a contributor, you can link your account to PayPal and earn 40p per 1,000 views.

Firstly, I find it astonishing that I was accepted. This is just a hobby, and the fact that these guys rated me in the top 1/4 of applicants is truly humbling. It's also important to note that I didn't apply for the money. I have no interest in getting paid for something I do in my spare time, but the fact that they offer this is a testament to the website.

And yes, I will still be posting on here regularly. Next up will be Need For Speed. I'm seeing the movie tis afternoon, so expect a review either tonight or tomorrow morning. I hope to see you then!

X2 (2003) Review

X2 (2003) Review

X2 is, in many ways, a perfect sequel. It expands the universe, develops characters, provides more spectacle and has a reason to exist. It is also, in similar ways, a perfect movie.

X2 is the follow-up to the wildly successful X-Men (which I reviewed yesterday and will presume you have seen) and continues the story of the X-Men, a group of mutants who protect the human race despite the other side rejecting them. A new threat emerges in the shape of William Stryker , an excellent Bryan Cox (the actor not the annoying scientist on BBC 2), who plans to wipe out all of mutant-kind. This means Wolverine and co. must team up with Magneto for the common good.

Forcing the opposing sides to join together is a stroke of absolute genius. It adds a palpable level of tension to every scene. You never know if and when either side will turn against each other. This also allows those characters largely ignored in the first film to take bigger, more important roles. Mystique is revealed to be more than a drone following Magneto's every order. By temporarily making Cyclops a bad guy, Bryan Singer gives his and Jean's relationship a little room to breathe. Storm, however, is still largely ignored.

The new characters are worthy contributions. Stryker is a terrible, cruel man, but is believable enough to work. Thankfully, he's actually given a reason to hate mutants other than being a [insert expletive]. Nightcrawler is probably my favourite character in the X-Men universe, and fits right in here. His power is what makes him cool, his personality is what makes him great. He really is an everyman. Kind, thoughtful and funny yet scared and lonely. Stryker's bodyguard, Yuriko, is the only one who fails to make much of an impression. She is very cool and serpentine, but is given next to no time to become an actual character.

Something notable about X2 is just how slow it is in comparison to the original. It's never boring, though. The time between the action is well spent. As well as the aforementioned character development, we get some interesting moral discussion. A great example is the brief sequence at student Bobby Drake's house (a pre-Smallville Shawn Ashmore), whose parents have only just found out about his mutation. Whereas X-Men drew inspiration from the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, X2 shifts focus to gay rights. "Have you tried not being...", genetics vs experience, prejudiced families. These are things millions of young gays experience on a daily basis. You have to hand it to Singer, he really knows how to discuss big topics in a subtle, intelligent way.

 X2 is truly magnificent. It may suffer similar problems to the original i.e. a few characters aren't given a fair share of growth and sometimes trying to cram too much in for it's own good. But, as an thoroughly entertaining and intelligent ride, you can't beat the darkest, most ambitious and (in my opinion) best X-Men film to date...

Five Word Verdict: Empire Strikes Back with mutants

Score: 4½/5

What do you make of X2? Am I just a naive fanboy? Let me know in the comments below. My next review will be of Need For Speed, coming next weekend. The Last Stand review will be up in a couple of weeks, whenever I have a break in schedule for new movies. See you next time!

X-Men (2000) Review

X-Men (2000) Review

Welcome to a new segment in which I take a look at all the X-Men movies, ahead of Days of Future Past. In today's review, I examine one of the best: X-Men (2000).

I had a strange childhood. Christopher Reeve's Superman wasn't my hero. I never looked up to Michael Keaton's Batman. I grew up on X-Men. And it was awesome. Now, 14 years since the film's release (and my birth), does it hold up to my nostalgic memories? Not quite, but it comes ever so close...

For those who have been living under a rock for 14 years, X-Men is the story of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, in the role of a lifetime), who upon helping fellow outcast Rogue (Anna Paquin, whose bizarre Texan/Canadian/Alien accent doesn't detract from an excellent performance), is taken in by Charles Xavier (a masterful Patrick Stewart). Xavier is the head of a school for mutant youngsters, most of whom are runaways, rejected by their families and friends. The school, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. The lower levels reveal the headquarters of the X-Men, a team of older mutants, protectors of mankind from Magneto (the great-in-everything Ian McKellen).

Magneto is really where the film excels. A Holocaust survivor, he has an inbuilt hatred of humans. So, when a bill for mutant registration surfaces in Congress, lead by a surprisingly layered Senator Kelly (Bruce Davison), it gives him an excuse to enact a plan to spark a war between human and mutant-kind. The great thing about Magneto is that you really understand where he's coming from. There are times, in fact, where I was actually rooting for him and his sidekicks (who we'll get to) to succeed. He's the definition of a compelling villain!

That sentiment is defeated by the depth and likability of the heroes director Bryan Singer chooses to focus on. Wolverine is a perfect anti-hero, a man willing to use his powers to win a quick buck (in one of modern cinema's greatest character introductions), but ultimately has a heart of gold. Rogue is also fascinating. She is the main emotional "in" for the audience, a young woman feeling lost and afraid in a seemingly hateful world. Her father-daughter relationship with Wolverine is at the centre of the entire film. Xavier is also fantastic, infected with the gravitas that only Patrick Stewart can bring to a role. As with Magneto, you completely understand where he is coming from.

Something I hadn't noticed until recently was the intelligent, deftly handled social commentary. The main parallel I picked up on was the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. The Congress speeches are very reminiscent of the period. "Are [insert minority] dangerous", "Should we let them integrate with children?" "Can they be trusted". The great thing about this is that it's never in your face. You either don't pick up on it and find the movie entertaining, or read the subtext and enhance your viewing experience. It's very reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that Batman Begins wouldn't have happened if it weren't for X-Men.

Where it fails, unfortunately, is with the supporting characters. Trying to fit a wealth of character development into a rollicking 90-minute screen-time is a tall order, and one that Singer never rises to. A romantic subplot between Wolverine and Jean Grey arises from one sticking a needle in the other. Cyclops and Jean's relationship is about as interesting as porridge. Storm is given one scene with an ailing Senator Kelly, which sadly descends into a CGI demo before it can get half-interesting. Mystique, whilst being bad ass, is barely given anything close to a personality. Toad and Sabretooth have less dimensions than a straight line. 

The score, also, is disappointing. The main theme is a dull, forgettable elephant fart. I re-watched it last night, and am already struggling to recall a single chord. The Rogue/Wolverine theme is the only slightly memorable piece.

Despite it's flaws, X-Men stands tall as a superior, high-minded 90-minute thrill ride. If you like your superhero movies with a little more meat to chew, I strongly suggest checking this out.

Five Word Verdict: An intelligent, if overstuffed, blast

Score: 4/5

What are your thoughts on X-Men? Are you excited for Days of Future Past? Let me know in the comments below. Be sure to check back tomorrow for my review of X2: X-Men United. As always, if you enjoyed this, you can follow me on Twitter (@The_Hamster_Boy) and let me know any of your article suggestions. See you next time!   

The Book Thief Review

The Book Thief Review

There is an innate issue with reviewing The Book Thief. To call it a disgustingly exploitative mess seems like beating a dead horse. I am, however, pathologically terrified of horses. So, here we go...

I admit, that last paragraph was extremely hyperbolic. That doesn't change the fact that I really didn't like this movie. It's not awful, but it could have been so much more. Based on the best-selling novel of the same name (which I have not yet read), The Book Thief is the story of Liesel (played by newcomer Sophie Nelisse) who travels to live with foster parents (Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson) on the eve of World War II. We follow her and her new family as they live through the war and abet a Jew (Ben Schnetzer).

Herein lies the problem that plagues The Book Thief. It is quite possibly the most sugar coated view of war ever put to screen. There are a handful scenes depicting violence and cruelty, sure, but none that come anywhere near the to show the true extent of the atrocious hardship undergone by millions of people across Europe. These scenes seem more of an afterthought, a distraction to the real plot. The film is much more interested in giving us a cute, family friendly two-hour library advert. 

So, it fails as an accurate depiction of war, but what about the story it actually wants to tell? Unfortunately, it largely stuffs that up as well. I think the main issue is that Liesel really doesn't go through a journey. She starts the film as a nice, kind girl and ends it as a nice, kind girl who can read. It's hard to get behind her story when their really isn't one. A possible romance between classmate Rudy (who frankly comes off as a tween-age pervert) suffers serious underdevelopment. Max is far too perfect to be relatable and is eventually revealed to be nothing more than a plot device. 

I did, however, enjoy the time spent with the the fosters. Rush and Watson give good performances and the way they constantly bounce off each other is easily the most realistic thing the film depicts. Watson (a great actress) is sadly given the role of a pantomime villain for a large part of the film. Rush (also very talented), on the other hand, is the only character that actually feels like a real human being.

In the last 15 minutes or so, the film delivers on what I'd hoped for. It is too late though, as I was left cold by what should have heartbreaking. These characters are so thinly drawn that when they suffer extreme hardship, I was looking at my watch; waiting for the lights go up.

The Book Thief is not awful, just painfully dull and unengaging. There are flashes of brilliance, but these are rendered meaningless by my extreme indifference during the third act. The talent involved and strength of topic make this one of the most disappointing cinema experiences I've had in a long time.

Five Word Verdict: An awkward hug from mediocrity

Score: 2/5 

What did you think of The Book Thief? How does it compare to the novel? Let me know in the comments below. My next review will be of an older, but relevant, film in a new segment leading up to a hotly anticipated release. You can find out whatever the hell that last sentence meant on Saturday 8th. As always, be sure to follow me on Twitter (@The_Hamster_Boy) and comment any article suggestions. See you next time!