Category: Film Reviews

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Zoe Kazan (Ruby Sparks), Adam Driver (Inside Llewyn Davis), Mackenzie Davis (That Awkward Moment), Rafe Spall (I Give It a Year)

Director: Michael Dowse (Take Me Home Tonight)

Writer: Elan Mastai (Alone in the Dark)

Runtime: 1 hour 42 minutes

Release Date: 8 August (US), 20 August (UK)

The romantic comedy genre is so stale and predictable at this point that even making that statement is pretty redundant. But, much like the horror genre, there are usually one or two every year that make the concept seem fresh and enjoyable again. I wouldn’t say What If is one of those movies, but is certainly comes closer than most.

What If’s premise revolves around that time-honoured classic situation: the friend zone. Whilst the idea of basing the entire movie around that does seem stale, it does at least view it from a mature and very un-movie like standpoint. There’s no wacky misunderstanding or questionable character behaviour, hallmarks of the bad rom com, and instead the story does take the more interesting route of viewing this situation in a down-to-earth manner. The film does try to evoke classics like Annie Hall and When Harry Met Sally, and though it never reaches the heights of those movies it does at least make a concerted effort. But just because it avoids certain rom com stereotypes, that doesn’t mean it avoids all of them. There are still large plot coincidences to create awkward situations, some slapstick and plenty of cheesy speeches, and even when viewed through the film’s cynical and muddy lens it still doesn’t make them seem any fresher. The film does also drag on too long despite a reasonable runtime, which especially annoys during the more predictable parts of the narrative.

What ultimately makes What If a worthwhile watch is its two lead stars. Daniel Radcliffe seems right at home in this sort of material, able to show a more human and dorky side of himself that his previous roles haven’t allowed. Zoe Kazan is also an enjoyable presence, even if her character is basically a less pixie-like version of her role in Ruby Sparks. Their chemistry together is fantastic, managing to take every bit of the somewhat overwritten dialogue and make it sound like eloquent small talk. By themselves they do OK, but when together the screen lights up. Adam Driver and Mackenzie Davis come off as kind of obnoxious, which is what their characters are supposed to be but it does seem a little overplayed especially given the otherwise grounded nature of the film. Regardless, both of them have their good moments, most notably a scene between Radcliffe and Davis before the latter’s wedding. The cast member I take the most umbrage with is Rafe Spall, mainly due to the somewhat muddled nature of the character’s morality. In the standard rom com, his role would most certainly played for the highest levels of asshole so that the audience wants our hero to succeed that much more. But in a bizarre mix, whilst the script certainly doesn’t paint the character of Ben as an asshole, Spall’s performance does and that ultimately overpowers the words. Honestly, I think a far more ambiguous approach to the character would have made the film so much better, as it would have again ground the film in reality and made Radcliffe’s plight that much more compelling.

What If is ultimately a perfectly decent piece of fluff that thinks it’s more subversive than it actually is. An overall generic and drawn out premise combined with and unfocused tone grates, but is saved by Radcliffe and Kazan’s spell-binding chemistry and a few genuinely touching moments. It’s pretty inconsequential, but if you’re struggling for something to watch on date night it’s not a bad idea.

FINAL VERDICT: 6.5/10

Starring: Chris Pratt (The LEGO Movie), Zoe Saldana (Avatar), Dave Bautista (Riddick), Vin Diesel (Fast & Furious 6), Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook), Lee Pace (The Hobbit trilogy), Karen Gillan (Doctor Who), Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator), John C. Reilly (Boogie Nights), Benicio Del Toro (Traffic)

Director: James Gunn (Slither)

Writers: James Gunn and Nicole Perlman

Runtime: 2 hours 1 minute

Release Date: 31 July (UK), 1 August (US)

Guardians of the Galaxy has always been a humungous gamble since the word go. Its obscurity to the general audience, its irreverent tone, its odd assortment of characters, the fact it is so far removed from the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and is being helmed by such a bizarre and relatively untested director. Why risk millions of dollars on such a wild idea? Well, as Marvel Studios constantly manages to do, it takes that challenge and surmounts it, only this time they do so in a manner deserving of a standing ovation and a victory dance. Guardians of the Galaxy isn’t just a good movie. It is outstanding.

Guardians’ story at its core is relatively simple: big bad wants thing to destroy things, so a bunch of people who don’t like each other have to learn to like each other to stop the big bad using the thing to destroy things. It’s hardly an original story, but on top of that familiar centre is so much more. The pacing is energetic and bouncy, the comedy consistently hits all the right notes, and the film even manages to pack a sweet and powerful heart. The dialogue especially sparkles, with plenty of quotable lines and whip-smart quips. It does everything a great movie needs to do and then some, blending that familiar Marvel flavour with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Firefly and James Gunn’s own wicked imagination. In terms of connectivity to the other films, it’s pretty loose though I’m sure certain elements may become important down the line, and of course stay through the end credits for something that will certainly have the fanboys reacting wildly in some manner.

But what ultimately makes Guardians such an enjoyable ride is its characters. The Guardians themselves are incredibly well defined and performed, so much so that it is hard to pick a favourite. Chris Pratt’s Peter Quill oozes with charisma and wit, mixing Han Solo’s swagger with his own brand of humour; with this and The LEGO Movie under his belt, it is certainly his year to shine. Zoe Saldana is tough but endearing as the cutthroat Gamora, whilst Dave Bautista is a deadpan revelation as the team’s muscle Drax; he also has the distinction of delivering some of the film’s best lines, which I won’t spoil for you here. Vin Diesel does a phenomenal job voicing Groot, especially considering he can only say three words, but Bradley Cooper’s Rocket is certainly bound to be the film’s breakout star. He’s rude, he’s angry, but there’s a surprising amount of depth to his character that is only hinted at and I hope this gets delved into more in the already confirmed sequel. All of the actors have fantastic chemistry with each other, both when arguing and working together; their camaraderie often even rivals the bonds between Joss Whedon’s characters. The rest of the supporting cast don’t get quite as much focus, but they all have their memorable qualities, with particular stand-outs being Karen Gillan’s deliciously villainous turn as Nebula and Michael Rooker doing what he does best as the scoundrel Yondu. If there’s anything a bit lacking in the film, I’d say Lee Pace’s Ronan isn’t exactly that compelling an antagonist. He’s certainly an imposing threat, but most of his scenes lack the sense of humour that permeates the rest of the movie and it would have been welcome if his overt seriousness were at least called upon.

On top of all that, Guardians is certainly Marvel’s prettiest looking film. The attention to detail on all the sets, costumes and props is astounding and really sells these outlandish locales. The action sequences are fantastically well choreographed, filled with the same amount of effort and ingenuity that has gone into the dialogue; most memorable being an early four-way bout on Xandar and a fantastic prison break sequence. The film’s cinematography is colourful and well staged, the editing moves at a perfect clip, the music is packed with both a well composed score and fantastic use of 70’s and 80’s classics, and even the 3-D is worth it. See this movie on the biggest and best screen you can; I saw it in IMAX and the experience was worth every extra penny.

I don’t know how much more I can gush about Guardians of the Galaxy, but this is not one you want to pass up. Even removed from the rest of Marvel’s film catalogue it would still stand as one of the most fun and entertaining blockbusters not just this year but of the past several years. James Gunn has crafted a motion picture packs all of the wonder and heart of the films it is inspired by, and may indeed inspire the young generation in much the same way Star Wars did. It’s my favourite Marvel film so far, my favourite film of this summer as it comes to a close (honestly, I doubt anything in August will top this), and it certainly is vying for that highest of honours: favourite film of the year. What else do I need to say? Go see Guardians of the Galaxy. As the film’s tagline says: you’re welcome.

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10!

Starring: Dwayne Johnson (Pain & Gain), Ian McShane (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides), John Hurt (Snowpiercer), Rufus Sewell (Dark City), Ingrid Bolso Berdal (Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters), Askel Hennie (Headhunters), Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love)

Director: Brett Ratner (Rush Hour)

Writers: Ryan J. Condal and Evan Spilotopoulos (Battle for Terra)

Runtime: 1 hour 38 minutes

Release Date: 25 July (US, UK)

As is film tradition, 2014 again saw the release of two films with similar subject matter, and this year that subject is Hercules (which, I am always quick to remind people, is actually his Roman name, not his Greek one Heracles). The early part of the year gave us Renny Harlin’s The Legend of Hercules, which I have yet to see so I can’t draw any comparisons. That said, this film’s helmer Brett Ratner’s reputation isn’t that better than Harlin’s, so it’s easy to assume that his Hercules isn’t much good either. But judging a film based on the people behind it is hardly fair, so how is the movie itself?

Hercules, in a certain way, is an anti-300. Whereas that film took a historical event and embellished it with fantastical elements, this film takes a mythological character and grounds him in something closer to reality. The idea that Hercules’ (Johnson) back-story and labours were exaggerated is an interesting concept, one that the advertising has been coy about, but I wouldn’t call it a spoiler; I’d say it’s actually more of a selling point and gives the film something it can call its own. In terms of plot, Hercules doesn’t do anything particularly groundbreaking but it tells its simple tale briskly and effectively. The film mainly works because it doesn’t take itself too seriously and has a sense of fun (something sorely lacking from the 300 films). In many ways, it’s less of mythical epic and more like a big budget version of the classic swords-and-sandals movies of yesteryear like Conan the Barbarian and The Beastmaster; simple and silly, but enjoyable. Other than the grounded concept and a decently handled second act twist, there’s not a huge amount different on offer but none of it is handled particularly poorly and the film manages to remain entertaining enough to sustain its brief run time.

Whether in good movies or bad, the man formerly known as The Rock always manages to be a welcome presence. Say what you will about his acting, but Dwayne Johnson exudes charisma and with his physique he seems almost born to play Hercules. Though Johnson’s acting chops aren’t exactly pushed by this role, he does makes a likable leading man and his mere stature provides enough proof that he’s one tough cookie. However, it’s Hercules’ band of loyal allies that make the film. Ian McShane and Rufus Sewell provide some good comic relief, Askel Hennie plays batsh*t insane pretty well and Ingrid Bolso Berdal does stoic badass chick quite convincingly. They aren’t exactly given much depth or development, but their camaraderie and banter does both lighten the proceedings and creates a strong bond between these characters. The rest of the cast are a mixed bag. John Hurt gives exactly the kind of performance you’d expect and Peter Mullan is always a good face to have about, but Joseph Fiennes’ character is underutilised and his performance is hammy, and Isaac Andrews gives one of the most sickeningly cute child actor performances I’ve ever seen; all of his lines are delivered with such precocious wonderment that I just wanted to slap the kid.

Just like its story, Hercules eschews a stylised look and instead goes for a more traditional aesthetic. Whilst this makes it feel less distinctive, it makes up for this with grand production design and well-staged action sequences. The film manages to avoid using extensive CG (which is good because, when it does, it doesn’t always look great), instead creating its sets and set pieces using practical methods whenever it can. It certainly helps add to the old school sensibilities of the film, and though the action isn’t exactly phenomenal it is enjoyable.

Hercules isn’t a film you’d describe as ‘different’, but ‘fun’ does come to mind. It does just enough to justify its existence with its interesting take on the Hercules mythos, good chemistry between Johnson and his team, diverting action sequences and, most important of all, doing all of this with a smile. In an age where all films of this ilk are fairly morbid affairs, seeing one that doesn’t take itself too seriously is certainly a step in the right direction. It’s hardly a must-see, but if you’re in the mood for some mindless fun you could do far worse than Hercules.

FINAL VERDICT: 7/10

Starring: Andy Serkis (The Lord of the Rings trilogy), Jason Clarke (Zero Dark Thirty), Gary Oldman (The Dark Knight), Keri Russell (Mission: Impossible III), Kodi Smit-McPhee (Let Me In), Toby Kebbell (Dead Man’s Shoes)

Director: Matt Reeves (Cloverfield)

Writers: Mark Bomback (Unstoppable) and Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver (Rise of the Planet of the Apes)

Runtime: 2 hours 10 minutes

Release Date: 11 July (US), 17 July (UK)

I don’t think many predicted that Rise of the Planet of the Apes would end up being as good a movie as it was. Despite the swells of other unsuccessful reboots and the stench of Tim Burton’s failed remake still fresh, Rise ended up being both a fun summer blockbuster and a surprisingly smart and tender sci-fi story. Now the adventures of Caesar and his apes continue in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Are apes together strong, or should this movie be darned to hell?

Set ten years after the events of Rise, Dawn is much bleaker than its predecessor, but hope still shines through; by the film’s close, we are closer to where the original Planet of the Apes began but still with plenty of room to grow. The story and setting is far more dynamic and interesting than the first, expanding and adding to the themes explored in Rise, but what Dawn truly nails is something few movies rarely even dare to do: moral ambiguity. Unlike Rise where the lines in the sand were clearer, Dawn’s sense of morals are far blurrier; much like Caesar himself comes to realise, it is not as simple as “apes good, humans bad”. Every character’s motivations feel justified, even when they commit horrible acts, which creates for far more interesting drama and tension. Whereas the initial seeds of the story suggest it could easily become clichéd, the film regularly avoids the obvious and crafts a narrative that is both gripping and exciting. The film is perfectly paced, moving from heartfelt drama to rip-roaring action seamlessly, before reaching a very well-judged ending that is sombre and foreboding yet somewhat hopeful as well.

Andy Serkis is the unrivalled King of Performance Capture at this point, and once again he delivers a fantastic performance as lead ape Caesar. The character has grown from fearless rebel to wise leader, and Serkis imbues Caesar with just as much emotion as any of his human co-stars. All of the other apes are well portrayed as well, but special mention must go to Toby Kebbell for his terrific performance as the blood-hungry Koba. Jason Clarke leads the human cast this time around and, whilst not getting as much focus as James Franco did in Rise, he is certainly more relatable. Keri Russell and Kodi Smit-McPhee do fine work as well, though their screen time is fairly limited. Gary Oldman’s presence is also small, but he squeezes every moment for maximum impact, making what in most movies would be a stock arsehole character into something far more human and understandable; a brief scene where he sees old pictures of his family is heart-breaking and just one of the film’s many great examples of visual storytelling.

The effects that went into creating the apes in Rise were impressive, and the technology has only improved. Whether showing hundreds of them or an extreme close-up on one, the attention to detail done here is astounding; some of Weta Digital’s best work for sure. The film’s production design is well executed, often reminding me of the mossy world of The Last of Us, which combined with the inventive cinematography and Michael Giacchino’s wonderfully classic score creates for an engrossing atmosphere that most films can only dream of.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes does what sequels should do: it takes the concepts of the first film and builds upon it, creating a grander story not just in scale but also in execution. Like Rise, it has everything you want from a summer movie in terms of entertainment value, but also backs it up with smart writing and a good heart. It’s one of the best sequels in recent memory and also one of the best films of the summer. Considering the quality of the films so far, this franchise can take as long as it wants to reach that inevitable moment when George Taylor steps out of his spaceship and into the world of these damn dirty apes.

FINAL VERDICT: 9.5/10

Starring: Ellar Coltrane (Fast Food Nation), Patricia Arquette (True Romance), Ethan Hawke (Sinister), Lorelei Linklater (Waking Life)

Writer/Director: Richard Linklater (Dazed and Confused)

Runtime: 2 hours 46 minutes

Release Date: 11 July (US, UK)

Making a movie can be a very time-consuming process. It eats up your entire livelihood, exhausts your body and mind, but by the end of it you have a product that you can be proud of and show off to the world. Now can you imagine spreading that process over the course of 12 years? Well, Richard Linklater has just finished doing that with Boyhood, which he began filming all the way back in 2002. I’ve been hearing about this film for as long as I have been on the Internet, and the fact that the film has even been finished is an achievement in and of itself. But has this lengthy process been all for naught, or has all that extra gestation made the pay-off that much more sweet?

For a film 12 years in the making, Boyhood is a very simple coming-of-age story. Growing pains, arguments, romance, family, it’s all there. But just because something is familiar doesn’t mean it is bad, and Boyhood manages to be a fantastically told interpretation of classic themes. It’s heart-warming and fun, but it never shies away from the real facts of life and goes to dark places when called for, making it also far more genuine that most films of its ilk. Considering the schedule it was shot on, the story has a very episodic feel to it, with each year have a beginning, middle and end that segue into each other quite flowingly. However, in between those shifts there does seem to be a bit too much dead weight. There are certain scenes and characters that feel inconsequential to the overall story and could have been cut without any major affect on the story. On top of that, I feel the movie had plenty of opportunities to end sooner than it did. Every time I thought the movie would cut to credits, it kept going and going with details that, while interesting, weren’t exactly necessary. The moment it does decide to end on is good, but by that point it feels like a good cap to an overall insignificant section of the film. Despite this though, the film remains engaging and well paced, mainly thanks to Linklater’s strong direction and writing. Whilst both this and the equally lengthy Transformers: Age of Extinction both overstay their welcome, Boyhood does feel far more worthy of the exuberant run time; it needs only maybe twenty minutes of trimming rather than an entire hour.

Seeing actors grow up over the years is something we’ve seen through a series of films such as the Harry Potter franchise, but seeing one grow up during the process of a single movie is a far more captivating concept. Finding a good child actor is hard enough as it is, but finding one who stays consistently good over such a long period of time is a minor miracle, and Linklater has succeeded in that with Ellar Coltrane. From innocent child to despondent teen to young adult, Coltrane manages to give a genuine performance throughout. The character of Mason isn’t always a likable one, especially in his later years, but he always feels like a real kid and never an adult’s interpretation of a kid. Similar praise can be given to Linklater’s own daughter Lorelei, though I feel her character progression was a bit wavier and near the end she slowly drifts out of the movie. But praise must also go to the adults, whose physical changes may be less drastic but their performances are just as excellent. Patricia Arquette hasn’t been this good since True Romance in my opinion, playing one of the most frustrated but sincere mothers put to screen; her final scene with Coltrane in particular being a real show-stealer. Ethan Hawke isn’t in the movie as much, but whenever he is it lights up. Hawke brings a lot of humour and fun to proceedings, and many of the film’s best moments are thanks to him. I was always disappointed whenever he left the screen, but it just made me anticipate his return that much more.

Boyhood is a simple tale told in the grandest of fashions. Even taking away the nature of the production, it is still a wonderful film that tells the story of a boy and his family in the most honest but uplifting way. Perhaps it could have done without some of its embellishments, but overall it works tremendously well and I highly encourage you to give it a watch. The filmmakers spent 12 years making it, so it’s only fair that you give three hours to experience it.

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

Starring: Mark Wahlberg (2 Guns), Nicola Peltz (The Last Airbender), Jack Reynor (What Richard Did), Kelsey Grammer (X-Men: The Last Stand), Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones), TJ Miller (How to Train Your Dragon 2)

Director: Michael Bay (Armageddon)

Writer: Ehren Kruger (Transformers: Dark of the Moon)

Runtime: 2 hours 45 minutes

Release Date: 27 June (US), 5 July (UK)

Sigh. I’m tired, dear readers. I’m exhausted and I can barely comprehend what I’m writing at this moment. I just want to go to bed. Not because I’ve done anything physically stressful. Because I just sat through nearly three hours of Bay-hem and my mind is frazzled. But I’d best get my thoughts out now whilst they’re fresh, because before long most of this movie will have probably escaped my brain.

I’ll give Transformers: Age of Extinction this much: it perfectly captures the sugar-infused insanity of a child playing with his toys whilst rambling some nonsense story he’s making up as he goes. That’s how the plot of this fourth instalment feels: haphazard, thrown together, needlessly complicated, filled with clichés, derivative of every other sci-fi film on the market, and without any sort of internal logic or consistency. As I write this, I got out of the theatre less than an hour ago and I can only recall the barest of plot details because most of the film’s unforgivably brutal runtime is just filled with noise. The movie just refuses to end, bombarding you with everything it’s got even when there’s nothing left to throw. Even with the constant carnage, the film just becomes boring as the plot flimsily connects from one overblown action set piece to the next with only the quickest and laziest breaks for plot exposition and character development. I could go into far more detail, but my brain hurts too much for me to bother. If you’ve seen one Transformers movie, you’ve seen them all, so just expect the obvious but with even more OTT bombast.

The bag-wearing lunatic formerly known as Shia LaBoeuf has finally departed the franchise, leaving the post of “unnecessary human protagonist” to be filled by none other than Mark Wahlberg. Whilst having basically nothing but bare bones to work with, Wahlberg does his best to keep the movie alive but he ends up falling back on a lot of his old tricks; he’s far less obnoxious than LaBoeuf, but also far less dynamic. Nicola Peltz might be the best lead actress of the series so far, but she’s also the least well-written character of the lot. She’s is basically there as eye candy and as something to be rescued; when you’re making Megan Fox look like a better-rounded and more three-dimensional character, you are seriously failing. Equally pointless is Jack Reynor, whose relationship with Wahlberg can basically be summed up as, “I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. Wait, now I like you”. The villains fair a bit better; Kelsey Grammer manages to be a genuinely threatening presence and, surprisingly, the most well defined character. Stanley Tucci is basically playing Evil Steve Jobs (which some may say is the same as regular Steve Jobs), and like in everything he’s in he gives it his all even in the most ludicrous of situations, and also luckily manages to avoid embarrassing himself John Turturro-style. And that’s an impressive feat considering Age of Extinction has some of the worst dialogue I’ve heard this side of a Twilight movie (“Autobots, I vowed to never kill a human, but whoever is responsible for this is going to die.” A bit contradictory, eh Optimus?). As for the Transformers themselves (oh yeah, they’re still in this movie), they just feel like afterthoughts at this point. Peter Cullen still does as good a job as always as Optimus Prime, but the awful dialogue and inconsistent characterisation of the role just ruins it. Bumblebee feels pointless now without LaBoeuf around, John Goodman’s Hound won’t shut up, Ken Watanabe’s Drift is a racial stereotype bordering on offensive, and both Galvatron and the Dinobots are completely wasted. The only interesting new Transformer is Lockdown, a Boba Fett-like rogue with no allegiance and a bad attitude. Pity he gets nowhere near enough screen time.

Do I really need to describe at this point how a Michael Bay movie looks and sounds at this point? Oversaturated colours, sweeping cameras, explosions that look more like fireworks, gratuitous product placement, pervey shots of women’s legs, slow motion, clanging metal, you name it. Bay brought his entire toybox to the party and just threw it on the floor. You know what to expect, you get it in enormous spades, but there is some much of it that the film becomes oversaturated. Do I need to say more?

The first Transformers film is still a guilty pleasure for me; it’s stupid, but not too stupid. This instalment is nowhere near as bad as Revenge of the Fallen (still easily the worst Hollywood blockbuster I can think of), but it’s so monotonous and dull that it makes Dark of the Moon look like a breezy 90-minute romp. The story makes no sense, the characters are bland and/or annoying, the action is just more of the same but bigger, and did I mention that it’s NEARLY THREE HOURS LONG?! If you like the Transformers movies, fine. Go munch on your popcorn and have fun. But I implore everyone: it doesn’t have to be this way. Movies can still be mindless fun and not have to be this insulting. I’m all for movies about giant robots riding on giant dinosaurs that breathe fire and can fly. But you CAN make a movie about giants robots riding on giant dinosaurs that breathe fire and can fly AND give that movie a well-structured story, interesting characters and good balance between action and drama if you just try and put the effort in. The problem is that nobody can be arsed when you can make billions without even bothering with the second part.

FINAL VERDICT: 2.5/10

 

“Mr. Wahlberg, are you hiding Optimus Prime?”

“No, man. We’re not.”

“Is he hiding in that barn over there?”

“What? No!”

Starring: Jon Favreau (The Wolf of Wall Street), John Leguizamo (Ice Age), Sofia Vergara (Modern Family), Emjay Anthony, Scarlett Johansson (Captain America: The Winter Soldier), Oliver Platt (X-Men: First Class), Dustin Hoffman (The Graduate), Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man 3)

Writer/Director: Jon Favreau (Iron Man)

Runtime: 1 hour 54 minutes

Release Date: 9 May (US), 25 June (UK)

Jon Favreau has certainly had one of the more interesting careers in recent film history. After writing and starring in indie classic Swingers, Favreau continued to be a familiar face in movies and on TV whilst transitioning to directing with films like Made, Elf and Zathura, before finally getting a huge break by directing Iron Man and kicking off the Marvel Cinematic Universe with a bang. After dabbling with the big boys for a few years, Favreau now returns to his roots with his newest creation Chef. Is this picture the freshest flick on the market, or should it be sent back to the kitchen?

Chef certainly feels like a very personal film for Favreau. Not just because it has the flavour of his earlier work, but also because the film’s story does mirror his own career in many ways. Not that the metaphor ever becomes grading or obtuse, as Favreau resists the temptation to turn the film into an “I hate critics” anthem the way Roland Emmerich and M. Night Shymalan have done in the past, but it’s hard not to see Carl Casper’s struggles paralleling the flack Favreau received for Iron Man 2 and Cowboys & Aliens (which I personally think are unfairly shat upon). But putting aside any potential deeper meaning, the story of Chef is a simple but heart-warming and effective tale of a man learning to do what he loves no matter what. The film could have maybe trimmed a little fat around the edges, keeping the pacing and timing a bit tighter, but otherwise this is exactly what I want from this kind of picture. Favreau injects a great deal of passion into the film and it shows on screen, making for a sweet and highly enjoyable trip through the culinary world.

Favreau has certainly never stretched too much as an actor, but he’s very good at what he does and here he’s as endearing as ever. That said, when he flips out on Oliver Platt’s character, it is golden; one of the best freak-outs I’ve seen on screen recently. Favreau has also made some good friends during his time in Hollywood and has assembled an impressive supporting cast to liven up the proceedings; standouts being John Leguizamo, who ends up giving one of the best performances of his career, the young Emjay Anthony, who manages to balance that fine line between cute and smart whilst never feeling like a third wheel, and Oliver Platt as probably the best depiction of a critic since Peter O’Toole’s Anton Ego in Ratatouille.

There’s not much to talk about on a technical level here, so instead I’m going to eschew tradition and devote this paragraph to talking about how good the food looks in this movie. In short: I am now very, very hungry. The way the camera lovingly gorges over the food on display here just makes your mouth water, almost like it’s teasing you. I know everyone who’s seen this movie has said the exact same thing, but it bears repeating: don’t see this movie on an empty stomach. You’ll regret it. Not much else to say but if I was working on this movie, I hope this was the stuff they had at craft services.

Chef is a simple but well-crafted and lovingly made dish of a film. I love a good movie about following your passions without worrying about what anyone else thinks, and this is the best film in that vein I’ve seen in quite a while. It can feel a little self-indulgent at points, with the overlong runtime and occasionally invasive subtext, but they’re gripes I can forgive. Much like Chef Casper himself, Jon Favreau has gone back to making the kind of movies he loves and I graciously encourage him to continue his career with this amount of honesty and passion.

FINAL VERDICT: 8.5/10

Here are some quick rambling thoughts on the films I had the opportunity to see at the Edinburgh International Film Festival this year:

---

 

Life After Beth

Amusing and charming little rom-zom-com, though perhaps a little too indie for its own good. Some fun and unexpected performances from Dane DeHaan and Aubrey Plaza and certainly a unique take on the zombie apocalypse, but could have done with some better pacing. If you though Warm Bodies felt too tame, perhaps you might enjoy this take on an undead love story better. 8/10

 

Palo Alto

Yet another Coppola, Gia, has taken up the directing gig, and unfortunately it makes some of Sofia’s worst efforts look like Francis’ best. Adapted from James Franco’s collection of short stories, the film is a meandering contemplation on teen angst but with nothing new or interesting to say about it. The actors try their best and the cinematography is admittedly pretty, but beyond that there was nothing to keep me interested in this flat piece of celluloid. 2/10

 

Intruders (Jo nan-ja-deul)

Fun little Korean horror film. Good use of suspense, location and dark humour. Genuinely didn’t know where it was going, especially the seemingly out-of-nowhere but actually well foreshadowed ending. Perhaps a little too drawn out though; could have been trimmed to speed up the tension. 7/10

 

The Skeleton Twins

Funny and heart-warming dramedy with a warped sense of humour. Some of Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig’s finest work, held together by good supporting work from Ty Burrell and Luke Wilson and a fantastically witty script. Definitely one to watch. 8.5/10

 

Snowpiercer

Bong Joon-ho’s long-awaited sci-fi action extravaganza certainly lives up to the hype, even if it’s not the most original piece of work. Fantastically imaginative production design and action set pieces surrounded by Bioshock-esque satire and some wonderfully broad performances from the likes of Tilda Swinton and John Hurt contrasted against Chris Evans in one of the finest performances of his career. The echoes of Brazil can clearly be heard in this picture along with plenty of other obvious influences, but it has enough it can call its own to be certainly worth a look. Overall, Snowpiercer is just a lot of fun. 8.5/10

 

Castles in the Sky

Inoffensive but ultimately very dry historical drama that feels less like a movie and more like something that would air on BBC Four on a Monday afternoon. Eddie Izzard is perfectly serviceable though I still found his casting somewhat questionable, whilst everyone else is a broad caricature (see Tim McInnery’s performance as Winston Churchill, which basically consists of him jutting his lower lip and slurring his words). Not bad, but not much good either. 4/10

 

Set Fire to the Stars

Interesting if somewhat full-of-itself little film. Gorgeous black and white cinematography, some good performances from Elijah Wood and Celyn Jones, and a few cool scenes both funny and tragic. Found it somewhat unfocused and self-important at points, as the pacing does tend to drag and lengthen a film that isn’t actually that long. Good, but if you want something similar but better, I recommend Kill Your Darlings. 7/10

 

Coherence

Cool and inventive indie sci-fi flick. Grounded but witty script combined with unique and interesting concepts as well as some fun black humour. Saying much more would ruin the fun. I went into this one completely cold, and I think that’s the best way to watch it. If you liked Primer, you’ll probably like this. 7.5/10

 

Cold in July

This one is now in cinemas, and I highly recommend you check it out. Gripping and tense old-school thriller with plenty of twists and a retro synth soundtrack. Fine acting work from Michael C. Hall, Sam Shepard and a scene-stealing Don Johnson. Possibly my favourite film of the festival. Give it a watch. 8.5/10

 

The Anomaly

Noel Clarke makes his directorial debut with this sci-fi action flick with an interesting premise but terrible execution. The pacing is spotty, the script is plagued with forced exposition and on-the-nose dialogue, and whilst the fight scenes are well shot and choreographed, they overuse the “speed up, slo-mo” effect so much that even Zack Snyder would say it was too much. Plus, apparently the only thing you have to do to make your film look futuristic is slap superfluous blue lights on everything. 3/10

 

The Infinite Man

Humorous and touching Aussie sci-fi rom-com; like Groundhog Day set in the outback. Fun use of repeating and altering scenes. Plus, it gets points for being a sci-fi film that actually, you know, uses science. Also a good example of how to make a high-concept film on a dirt-cheap budget. 7.5/10

 

That Guy Dick Miller

Hilarious and informative documentary; a must-see for film geeks. You’ve probably seen Dick Miller in several films and never even knew who he was, and its great to finally see the story behind the man whose been invading our screen for so long. 8/10

 

Hellion

Touching little indie drama. Strong performances from its kid leads, and good supporting work from Juliette Lewis and Aaron Paul, who thankfully proves he can still act (though I think its safe to say he’s better off as a character actor than trying to be a leading man. Sorry, Need For Speed). 7.5/10

 

We’ll Never Have Paris

Hilarious rom com that doesn’t sugar coat the details; one that feels honest and much closer to real life. A fantastically clever script with fun performances from the entire cast, especially leads Simon Helberg, Melanie Lynskey and Maggie Grace. It’s like a date movie for people who don’t particularly like date movies. 8.5/10

 

X/Y

Occasionally interesting but mostly flat. A series of short stories about the modern concept of romance, but rarely do these people’s problems feel more than just the whining of over-privileged twenty-something Caucasians. Some interesting moments and decent performances, but overall nothing much outstanding. 5/10

 

Joe

Nicolas Cage finally goes back to his roots and gives us possibly his best serious performance since Adaptation; it’s like his answer to Mud, some much so that they actually got the kid from Mud. Also a return to form for David Gordon Green, who has finally escaped the realm of bad studio comedies (still doesn’t excuse Your Highness). Funny, poignant and bleak, often all at the same time, any true fan of His Cageness should certainly give it a watch. 8/10

Starring: Shailene Woodley (The Descendants), Ansel Elgort (Divergent), Nat Wolff (Admission), Laura Dern (Jurassic Park), Sam Trammell (True Blood), Willem Dafoe (Platoon)

Director: Josh Boone (Stuck in Love)

Writers: Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber ((500) Days of Summer)

Runtime: 2 hours 6 minutes

Release Date: 6 June (US), 19 June (UK)

As if creating a compelling love story wasn’t already a hard enough task, the concept of trying to craft one where your leads are slowly dying seems excruciatingly difficult. But much like the protagonists of The Fault in Our Stars, this is a film that isn’t afraid of insurmountable feats. It stands tall and does its best to tell the story it wants to tell, and despite the odds it comes out a winner.

As mentioned above, The Fault in Our Stars deals with the sensitive subject matter of cancer. But rather than using this concept for overwrought schmaltz, the film goes for a jovial but grounded tone. The film’s story always tries to look on the bright side of life, but it never tries to sugar coat every moment. Whenever I felt the movie was getting a little too trite, they would always reel it back in and drop some heavy stuff. This balanced approach makes the film feel that much more genuine, for what is love and life but a series of ups and downs? I will admit that I think the film does go on a little too long and could have been trimmed a bit here or there, but otherwise the film feels well paced and structured. It’s a film that manages to hit all the emotional beats it is going for, and that is surprisingly rare for most movies in general these days.

Besides a strong and convincing script, every great love story needs its leads and Fault in Our Stars has wrangled together a winning couple in Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort. The film ultimately belongs to Woodley, who brings a genuine heart to every moment. There was never a second where I doubted her performance, her personality outshining her character’s affliction and hitting every beat with just the right amount of warmth and honesty. I can’t quite say the same for Elgort, whose overeager optimism occasionally made him feel like a person too good to be true. But every time I began to lose faith in him, Elgort would say or do something that just made him endearing enough, and his strong chemistry with Woodley cannot be denied. The rest of the cast works fine as well. Nat Wolff provides some fun relief as the bland Isaac, even though his character’s arc seemed blatantly obvious from the moment he opened his mouth, whilst Laura Dern manages to squeeze in a real genuine moment between her and Woodley near the close of the film. Willem Dafoe’s role is very brief, but as always with Dafoe he is a magnetic presence whenever he is on screen, especially when playing a bitter bastard like he is here.

The Fault in Our Stars is a sweet but genuine love story, one where the heavy subject matter works to its advantage rather than the other way round. The film ultimately works due to Woodley and Elgort’s fantastic chemistry, supported by a well-crafted screenplay and simple but effective direction, managing to keep the schmaltz levels to the absolute minimum. It will certainly be a tearjerker for some, but the film’s final triumphant message means that you shouldn’t be too depressed when you leave the theatre.

FINAL VERDICT: 8.5/10

Starring: Jay Baruchel (This Is the End), Gerard Butler (300), Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine), America Ferrera (Ugly Betty), Craig Ferguson (Kick-Ass), Jonah Hill (22 Jump Street), Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad), T.J. Miller (Cloverfield), Kristen Wiig (Bridesmaids), Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator), Kit Harington (Game of Thrones)

Writer/Director: Dean DeBlois (Lilo & Stitch)

Runtime: 1 hour 42 minutes

Release Date: 13 June (US), 11 July (UK)

How to Train Your Dragon was a humungous step forward for the folks at DreamWorks Animation. After years of providing Shrek and Shrek-like films, the studio proved they could make a more mature animated film that was more about heart than pop culture references. With that said, I was immediately wary when they announced a sequel. The first film worked so well as a self-contained story, and continuing with no purpose other than the allure of the box office is never how a good sequel comes to fruition. But after finally seeing the finished product, my heart rests easy. How to Train Your Dragon 2 doesn’t just meet expectations. It defies them.

The film’s story avoids the easy option of just doing the same film again but bigger, and does what all great sequels are supposed to do: widen the scope of the world and bring the characters on a raw emotional journey with high stakes. Unlike most sequels that play it safe, How to Train Your Dragon 2 takes some pretty big risks with the storytelling, making for a much more thrilling but also darker film. The Empire Strikes Back constantly popped in my mind as the film went on, but in very much a good way. But with that said, the film never looses the heart-warming charm that made the first film so endearing. The humour remains strong but avoids being too cartoony, and that grimmer tone just makes the triumphant moments that much more powerful. The pacing is expertly balanced, moving from character building to action with nary a fault, and because of that there is never a single dull moment to be had. In a nutshell, How to Train Your Dragon 2 does everything a sequel is supposed to do to near perfection.

If I had any fault with the first film, it was that the character of Hiccup was somewhat of a generic kids’ film protagonist: the clever but bumbling neurotic that doesn’t fit in and no one listens to. The character ultimately works thanks to his relationship with his dragon Toothless, and this time around Hiccup has far more to worry about than fitting in. The film is ultimately Hiccup’s coming-of-age story, and the arc plays out beautifully thanks to the strong writing and Jay Baruchel’s vocal performance (on a side note, it was amusing to finally see a film call out Baruchel on his odd voice and mannerisms). America Ferrera gets a little more to do as Astrid than she did in the original, but like with the last film I wish there was more time to develop her and Hiccup’s relationship. Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, T.J. Miller and Kristen Wiig all return also, and whilst they basically do the same shtick they were doing last time, it still feels fresh enough and they remain a fun presence; similar comments can be made about Craig Ferguson’s Gobber. Gerard Butler’s Stoick remains a gruff but appealing character, but is also allowed some true emotional moments as well that round him out in many ways. On the new blood front, Cate Blanchett’s Valka feels like a strong addition and provides a lot of the whimsical moments the series does so well, whilst Kit Harington as Eret is a somewhat inconsequential but fun character to add to the mix (and also a role that finally allows Harington to play someone other than Jon Snow or characters exactly like Jon Snow). Where the film falters somewhat is in the villain Drago, played by Djimon Hounsou. Whilst there is a little bit more to him than just “evil madman who wants to take over the world”, it still never feels quite enough to make him feel like more than just a menacing face.

The first How to Train Your Dragon was lauded for its beautiful animation and incredible use of 3-D, and the same can be said for its sequel. The quality and fluidity of the animation is awesome, rendering this beautiful and varied world in much better detail. Whereas the first film was about impressive fire effects, this one animates water, ice and snow to almost photo-realistic levels; whenever a character isn’t directly on screen, you could mistake some of the environments for reality. The 3-D pops just as much as the first, making those flying sequences just as exhilarating as you remember. The production design remains strong, especially in all of the imaginative designs of the new dragon species, with both them and the locations having a very strong Miyazaki influence to them. Finally, John Powell’s score is just as excellent as his work on the first, providing strong retoolings of the original’s themes as well as some great new pieces.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 is exactly the kind of sequel you want but rarely ever get. The story never feels like a rehash and crafts a narrative that builds upon the strengths of the original, expanding this tale of a boy and his dragon into something far more spectacular. The characters are as endearing and memorable as ever, the action sequences are packed with energy and imagination, and the animation quality is easily the best DreamWorks has rendered to date. Aside from a somewhat weak villain and some minor niggles not worth mentioning, this is everything you want from a sequel, an animated film, and just an all-round great film in general. Ultimately, I think the reason both How to Train Your Dragon films work so well is that they’re not just films for kids. They’re films that anyone can enjoy for all the right reasons, and I think both of them are strong enough to become timeless classics that will be enjoyed for many generations to come.

FINAL VERDICT: 9.5/10