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!