Category: Film Reviews

Starring: Chris Pratt (Parks & Recreation), Will Ferrell (Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues), Elizabeth Banks (The Hunger Games), Will Arnett (Arrested Development), Liam Neeson (Taken), Morgan Freeman (The Dark Knight)

Writers/Directors: Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs)

Runtime: 1 hour 40 minutes

Release Date: 7 February (US), 14 February (UK)

I know what some of you are thinking. “They made a movie about LEGO? Hollywood has officially run out of ideas!” And to that I say “Calm down!” Every concept has the potential to make a great movie, and remember that this comes from the same guys who brought us Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and 21 Jump Street, two other properties that seemed pointless to make movies of but they both turned out excellent. And I’m overjoyed to report that The LEGO Movie is even better than you could possibly imagine.

The basic plot of the movie is your standard Joseph Campbell tale: ordinary guy is discovered as prophesised saviour and goes on adventure to save the world. If you’ve seen Star Wars, The Matrix or other such films, you know the drill. But the film is very much aware of how clichéd it all is and takes every opportunity to take the piss out of itself. Every familiar aspect of this type of story is commented upon and ripped to shreds, pointing out how tired this formula whilst celebrating it at the same time. And that self-awareness applies to every aspect of the film. The filmmakers clearly know that the idea of making a LEGO movie is somewhat ridiculous, but take full advantage of it and utilise the license to the fullest. Whilst the base story is familiar, all of the elements surrounding it are ridiculous, inventive, and ridiculously inventive. That and the film is just gut-bustingly hilarious. Every moment is packed with jokes, often multi-layered ones, and a good majority are guaranteed to make you laugh. Whether it’s a funny line, an inventive use of animation or just one of the many surprise cameos, I’d find it hard to believe that anyone could come out of this movie without laughing at least once, and anyone who does clearly never had a childhood. And the jokes aren’t just for the kids; The LEGO Movie has plenty of gags for all the children-at-heart watching as well, making it a wonderfully enjoyable experience for everyone. It even has a layer of social satire, commenting on how our world has become controlled by the media and the questionable nature of authority. The film wraps this all up with a hearty message about the joys of imagination and creativity that seams perfectly with the child-like nature of the movie. It’s when what could be just a silly kids’ film goes that extra mile to be more than what it is on the surface that you know that you’ve got something special.

The cast of The LEGO Movie is jam-packed with talent playing a multitude of characters, but they aren’t great just because of who’s playing them. It’s great because these characters are so memorable that the actors just add to how great they are. Chris Pratt’s Emmet embodies that standard ‘insert-yourself-here’ protagonist, but fills him with such life and humour that you can’t help but like him. Think Neo mixed with Philip J. Fry, and you’ve got the jist of Emmet. Will Ferrell is wonderful as the evil Lord Business, balancing menacing and comedic to perfect effect. Elizabeth Banks’ Wyldstyle is honestly one of the best female characters in animated film history: strong and intelligent but without stripping her of humour or her femininity. Will Arnett constantly steals the show as Batman (yes, you read that right), filling the film with awesome amounts of deadpan that perfectly plays against his dark persona. Charlie Day’s Benny the Spaceman is like a shot of adrenaline, injecting his trademark fast-paced delivery into the character. Liam Neeson’s Good Cop/Bad Cop allows him to play both an exaggerated version of himself and the complete opposite of himself that are both hilarious to behold. Morgan Freeman’s Vitruvious is the perfect parody of the mentor figure (and most of the characters Freeman plays in general) and his serious delivery just adds to it all. Alison Brie’s Uni-Kitty is one of the cutest things ever to exist and Nick Offerman’s Metalbeard is a lot of fun too. All of these characters are unique and colourful, all with their own ticks and jokes that keep the film lively. And on top of all of that, there are loads of cameos of varying degrees that are sure to please the most dedicated of LEGO-maniacs and nerds in general. I won’t spoil them for you here because the trailers haven’t, but trust me they will please immensely.

If being funny and creative wasn’t awesome enough. The LEGO Movie is a technical marvel too. Taking a nod from the thousands of LEGO shorts you can find on YouTube, everything in the movie has been created out of LEGO. Yes, everything. Not just the characters and locations, but all of the explosions, lasers and even the water is made out of LEGO. The way they’ve made the CGI move and flow like stop-motion is seamless and engrossing; you will lose yourself in how gorgeous this movie looks. The music is also very catchy, especially the film’s ever-present theme “Everything is Awesome”, which will stay stuck in your head long after you leave the cinema. And fitting too, as no film’s theme has better described the its own quality.

It may seem a bit much to gush about a film so early in the year but I can’t help it. The LEGO Movie is a flawless piece of entertainment. It combines the fast-paced tenacity of Edgar Wright, the satirical edge of Paul Verhoeven, the warm message of any Pixar production, and all held together with the limitless imagination of a child. This is a film clearly made by people who grew up with and loved LEGO, and have done their utmost to capture that sense of creativity and wonderment anyone has found themselves in when playing with them. Phil Lord & Christopher Miller have again proved themselves to be wonderfully gifted filmmakers and I wish they could take a shot at every property under the sun because I know they’d do a good job of it. It is an instant animated classic, and in the years to come I’m sure it will be looked back on with fond memories and inspire others to follow in its path. Whether you have kids or not, go see this movie immediately. It is guaranteed to make you smile, laugh and reminisce of a simpler time. I could go on and on, but I’ll stop to let myself catch my breath. But in case you didn’t get it: THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME!

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10!

Starring: Joel Kinnaman (The Killing), Gary Oldman (Tinker Tailor Solider Spy), Michael Keaton (Batman), Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction), Abbie Cornish (Limitless), Jackie Earl Haley (Watchmen)

Director: José Padilha (Elite Squad)

Writer: Joshua Zetumer

Runtime: 1 hour 58 minutes

Release Date: 7 February (UK), 12 February (US)

Let’s make this very clear: Paul Verhoeven’s RoboCop is one of my all-time favourite films. It has a classic story, OTT violence, is immensely quotable, and it’s all wrapped up in a nice bow of social satire. And like every classic movie nowadays, it’s now got a remake. Like many fans, I was initially wary. Why touch a classic when not only is it still good but still relevant? But, ever the optimist, I wasn’t going to demonise the product until I saw the entire thing. So strap in, because I’ve got a lot to say about this one. Dead or alive, this movie is getting reviewed.

To list the amount of changes made here would basically involve telling you the plot beat-by-beat, so I’m not going to do that. Some may read that statement and call blasphemy but to me, the best remakes take the core idea of the original film and build something new. I don’t want to watch an exact copy of RoboCop with a new cast and flashier effects (I’m looking at you, Kimberly Peirce’s Carrie). If you have to remake a film, I want to see something new done with the idea. Luckily, the filmmakers are smarter than this and have indeed crafted a different movie. Much like how Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) has enough of himself remaining to consider himself human, the remake of RoboCop has just enough elements of the original to make it seem like RoboCop. The plot itself does touch on a lot of the key beats of its ancestor, but changes enough to keep it fresh. Whilst I could certainly see where elements came from, there were also plenty of new ideas to stop me from knowing exactly where it was going. The film is well paced and doesn’t get dull, but on strictly a plot level it isn’t exactly revolutionary. Where the film shines is when it deals with the moral questions of putting a man inside a machine. Can he still live a normal life? What is his state of mind when he finds out? How much can he be controlled? Should he be controlled? All of these and more are brought up and it does add a layer of brains to the proceedings; it somewhat reminded me of ethical questions posed in more recent sci-fi like District 9 or Moon. The film is now as much about Murphy coming to terms with his predicament and trying to remain human as it is about avenging his own attempted murder. It’s an element that was glossed over in the original and whilst what they do with it does work, unfortunately the film doesn’t focus on it enough. Half of the movie is taken up by all the hubbub inside OmniCorp and, whilst this is where we get a lot of that ripe moral questioning, it takes away focus from our protagonist. For periods, the film seems to be as much about Dr. Dennett Norton (Oldman) and his moral dilemma as it is about Murphy. What is there is good, but the film feels a bit bloated and could have done with some streamlining. In terms of social satire, it is still there but not quite as blatant as the original. Most of this commentary is relegated to Pat Novak (Jackson), and whilst all of his bits are entertaining as they lampoon extreme conservative media, they factor very little into the narrative. The film’s other main jab is at the way corporations are run; how everything is about marketing, getting out the product out on time, and shrugging off the serious problems to do so. It’s these elements that help elevate the film past being just another blockbuster and, whilst it lacks the balls of the original film, it makes up for it in brains.

Choosing a new RoboCop must have been a daunting task. Finding someone who brought that subtle charisma and humanity that Peter Weller brought to the part couldn’t have been easy. Luckily, they decided to go in a slightly different direction. Joel Kinnaman’s Murphy is given much more opportunity to emote, and during these scenes he does well. There is a scene where Murphy, having just discovered what has happened to him, tearfully asks for the plug to be pulled on him. Completely immobile, Kinnaman has to deliver this scene using only his face and he surprisingly pulls it off despite how off-putting the visual is (I won’t spoil it, but some may find it chuckle worthy). This time around, Murphy slowly loses his humanity and as it goes along becomes more and more like the stoic, emotionless RoboCop that Weller’s was initially like. I enjoyed this element, as it both gives Kinnaman some range and again brings up those ethical issues. Whilst Weller will always be the true RoboCop, I respect Kinnaman’s efforts. The rest of the cast is filled with a team of all-stars, and for the most part they don’t phone it in. Gary Oldman’s Norton has been likened to Victor Frankenstein and it is an apt comparison. He is a man trapped in a situation that he’s struggling to control, a man who questions his orders but reluctantly goes along with them. Oldman’s presence not only gives the film a sense of respectability but he holds the emotional core of the film during the stretches where Kinnaman is absent. Michael Keaton’s Raymond Sellars serves a similar role to Ronny Cox’s Dick Jones, but is nowhere near as much of an out-and-out villain. Whereas Jones was all about staying on top, Sellars is a man who is trying to be the best he can be and just goes to far. Samuel L. Jackson channels Rush Limbaugh and other similar journalists to good effect in his performance but he feels a little underutilised, as do Jay Baruchel and Jennifer Ehle in their fun but small roles. Abbie Cornish gets a lot more screen time than her counterpart in the original, but I found her chemistry with Kinnaman was seriously lacking and she spends most of the movie crying. My only big casting problem has nothing to do with performance but I found it extremely puzzling: why is Lewis now a dude? Michael K. Williams is a fine enough actor, but why is Lewis now a dude? I guess you could argue that “well, the part of Lewis doesn’t need to a woman”, but that was the point. Lewis didn’t need to be a woman, but the fact that she was made her stand out more as a character than just being the partner. And if they really wanted to change Lewis to a guy, don’t call him Lewis. Other than Murphy, it’s the only name from the original that’s been kept anyway so what’s the point? It’s a change that does nothing but potentially piss off fanboys.

A lot of fuss has been made about how this new RoboCop is PG-13/12A when the original was a hard R/18, and after watching the film it is somewhat distracting. But thinking about it, I do think it is more than just a way of creating a larger audience. Verhoeven’s RoboCop was a comment on the amount of violence in movies at the time; it was about taking the American action movie and amping it up to ludicrous levels. That isn’t the goal of the new RoboCop, and so the tamer violence is still noticeable but it didn’t infuriate me (though I’m sure it’s not going to stop people from complaining). But what the action lacks in blood and guts, it makes up for with scale and speed. José Padilha’s work on the Elite Squad films shines through here, as the action scenes do have a good frenetic energy to them and the advances in technology since 1987 allows for the action to become extravagant. The new design of the RoboCop suit also drew some criticism, and this is a case where I do heartily agree. It is especially annoying because initially he does have an updated version of the original suit and it looks great. But then they stick him in that all-black number and it just looks dull. I get that it’s probably closer to a proper military product and the film does somewhat acknowledge the issue, but the new suit is just aesthetically unappealing. The music for the film is mostly pretty standard, but I do have to admit that the re-orchestrated version of the classic RoboCop theme put a nice big smile on my face.

And now comes the moment of truth. The moment where I cause sighs of relief for some and fits of rage from others: I like this new RoboCop. Is it as good as the original film? F*ck no! The original is a classic piece of cinema history and it always will be. But is this new RoboCop trying to be the original? No, it’s not. It takes the core concept of the original and does its own thing with it. It has some good action scenes, a mostly solid cast, some interesting and topical thoughts about where our world could be heading, and it also throws in some good references for the die-hard fans. It’s a different film and should be treated as such. Will all the fans be pleased? No, but that’s the nature of things. There are those willing to accept change and those who are not. If you love the original, it’s still there and as great as ever; the presence of this new one doesn’t mar its legacy in the slightest. But if you’re curious and go in knowing you’re in for something different, you may come out pleasantly surprised like I was. It’s not perfect, but just consider how much worse it could have been if not placed in the hands of people who care enough not to fart out a homogenised and pointless film. My only advice to them at this point: if you make a sequel, keep Frank Miller as far away as humanly possible.

FINAL VERDICT: 7.5/10

Starring: Matthew McConaughey (Mud), Jennifer Garner (Juno), Jared Leto (Requiem for a Dream), Steve Zahn (Out of Sight), Denis O’Hare (Milk), Michael O’Neill (Transformers)

Director: Jean-Marc Valée (The Young Victoria)

Writers: Craig Borten & Melisa Wallack (Mirror Mirror)

Runtime: 1 hour 57 minutes

Release Date: 22 November (US), 7 February (UK)

The subject of HIV is a very sensitive one, and one that has been covered several times in films such as Philadelphia and The Hours to name a couple. So the subject matter isn’t exactly an unexplored territory. But Dallas Buyers Club isn’t just a film about AIDS. It’s a film about trying to help others, fighting for what you believe in, and becoming a better person in the process.

Dallas Buyers Club is based on a true story. That doesn’t mean it’s 100% accurate, but what movie is? The important thing is that the film works not just as a story but also as a great character piece. Ron Woodruff (McConaughey) isn’t always an easy to like guy. At the start of the film, he’s a rude, ignorant, homophobic cokehead. It would be easy for the film to pull the “sympathy purely because of illness” card, but it doesn’t. What Woodruff lacks in common sense he makes up for in sheer determination to survive, and that determination leads him down a path away from death and towards saving himself and others. It’s a well-written story full of strong emotional moments, but also manages to sprinkle in enough levity to stop depression from kicking in. I only have two main flaws with the film. Firstly, I felt the antagonists were portrayed a little too one-dimensionally. They seemed far too aggressive and ignorant, almost as if they wanted to make sure people died. I know it helps make Woodruff’s plight that much more difficult, but these people seem a tad too negative to be real. Secondly, I though the ending felt a bit rushed. After all this build-up, the film quickly wraps itself up with little time to linger on the events that have just passed. Then again, I guess the fact I wanted the movie to keep going is a sign that it was doing something right.

It’s hard to believe that just a few years ago, Matthew McConaughey was written off by most people as a dumb Texan pretty boy who seemed allergic to shirts. Now, he’s giving great performance after great performance, and his role here makes his spectacular work in Mud seem like a warm-up act. It’s not just the physical transformation he’s gone through that is impressive. Its how charming and likable McConaughey manages to make this guy even when he’s still a rotten scoundrel. Even during these early scenes, you get a sense that deep down inside this guy has a heart, and when he comes around it just makes it that much more powerful. It’s one of his finest performances and is very worthy of its Academy Award nomination. But for as good as McConaughey is, Jared Leto gets just as much time to steal the show. He has gone through an even more drastic physical change, but he truly inhabits the character of Rayon and makes every moment seem pitch perfect. Leto gets a lot of great emotional scenes, a particularly good example of one is when he goes to visit his estranged father, and every single one of them makes you say, “Give this man an Oscar”. The rest of the cast seems pretty low-key compared to McConaughey and Leto, but they all perform admirably. This is probably the best I’ve seen Jennifer Garner in a while, and she does get a few moments to herself that really work. Steve Zahn is good whenever he’s around, but he’s only in the film sporadically and doesn’t do a whole lot. As said before, I found the antagonists a bit much but Denis O’Hare and Michael O’Neill do well with what they’re given and make these somewhat stereotypical characters seem presentable.

There’s not much to talk about in the technical department other than the make-up, which is fantastic. The way McConaughey and Leto’s characters slowly shift in health throughout the movie is astounding; they truly look like they are decaying right on camera. It certainly helps make the film more convincing and believable.

Dallas Buyers Club isn’t a revolutionary film, but it hits all the right notes to be enjoyable mainly thanks to the wonderful efforts of Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto. In less deft hands, this could have been a trite drama full of pull-at-your-heartstrings moments that fail to connect. But luckily the film is smarter than that and lets the affliction drive the character rather than the other way round.

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

Starring: Ty Burrell (Dawn of the Dead), Max Charles (The Amazing Spider-Man), Ariel Winter (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), Allison Janney (American Beauty), Stanley Tucci (The Hunger Games)

Director: Rob Minkoff (The Lion King)

Writer: Craig Wright (Lost)

Runtime: 1 hour 32 minutes

Release Date: 7 February (UK), 7 March (US)

I’m not sure how many kids today (or many adults for that matter) remember Mr. Peabody & Sherman, the main characters from Rocky and Bullwinkle segment Peabody’s Improbable History. Except maybe that time they showed up on an episode of The Simpsons (“Quiet, you!”). But Dreamworks SKG have decided to create an animated adventure about the dog and his boy travelling through time for educational purposes, so here we are.

Mr. Peabody & Sherman has a lot of the tropes of your standard kids’ film. It’s got bright colours, fast animation, pop culture references, toilet humour, you know the drill. But luckily, this isn’t one of those films that completely rely on the clichés. There is a decent story here, one that is somewhat hackneyed at points, but it’s got a good heart and does get across a genuine message about parenting. The humour works for the most part as well. It maybe relies on a few too many puns, but even their overuse and lameness is pointed out. But when the jokes hit, they really hit. During the entertaining climax where all these historical figures end up in the same place, there are some really funny moments (even though many of them will go over the kids’ heads). The film also doesn’t ignore the original show’s purpose of being educational, providing some basic but fun information about the historical periods they visit without bogging the fun down (on a side note, I find it funny that the depiction of the siege of Troy here is probably more accurate than it was portrayed in the movie Troy). It’s really great when a film doesn’t pander to kids and actually teaches them something, and Mr. Peabody & Sherman does it better than most. My main problem with the film is the villain. I hate it when villains are just mean for no real reason other than the plot says so and have nothing outside of that, and the character of Mrs. Grunion (Allison Janney) is just that. She isn’t even allowed to be funny; I’m okay with a one-note bad guy if they are at least humorous in some way. But nope. She just goes about being evil because we need some kind of threat to Peabody and Sherman’s relationship because the plot says so. It didn’t need to be done this way, and every time Grunion showed up I just groaned.

Other than the humour and the history, a big reason the film works is because of the strong voice cast. Ty Burrell does a good job as Mr. Peabody, playing the genius dog that could be best summed up as a combination of Sherlock Holmes and Buckaroo Banzai. Max Charles is endearing and sweet as the somewhat dopey Sherman; it’s rare that a child actor gets to be in an animated movie when they could easily hire an adult, but Charles sounds professional enough that it seems genuine. The way he and Peabody play off each other works really well, especially considering their voices were probably recorded far apart. Ariel Winter’s Penny could have easily been a clichéd know-it-all bully, but the film is luckily smarter than that. The burgeoning relationship between her and Sherman works and luckily they don’t go too far with it. The rest of the voice cast is fun as well. Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann are entertaining as Penny’s parents, Stanley Tucci is having fun as usual playing Leonardo Da Vinci, and then there’s the old reliable Patrick Warburton as Agamemnon. Come on, when is Warburton not worth a laugh? Even Allison Janney looks like she’s trying, but ultimately it’s the script that fails her.

Dreamworks SKG’s animation has always had a much more cartoony feel to it that its contemporaries, but for this type of film it works. It’s not exactly jaw dropping, but there’s certainly nothing to complain about. The major standouts in the animation are an early escape scene during a visit to the French Revolution, and an action beat during the Troy segment that amusingly riffs on 300. All the characters look well designed and are very expressive, helping the comedy stay amusing. The musical score by Danny Elfman isn’t exactly memorable but it certainly helps keep things flowing.

Mr. Peabody & Sherman is an entertaining animated film that does just what it needs to. It’s got a good heart, a great cast, and throws in some history lessons to sweeten the deal. It’s not a groundbreaking piece of work worthy of high praise but if the kids want to see it, you could do a lot worse than this.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Oscar Isaac (Drive), Carey Mulligan (The Great Gatsby), John Goodman (Argo), Garrett Hedlund (Tron: Legacy), Justin Timberlake (The Social Network)

Writers/Directors: Joel & Ethan Coen (Fargo)

Runtime: 1 hour 44 minutes

Release Date: 6 December (US), 24 January (UK)

The Coen Brothers are very unique filmmakers. Often imitated but never duplicated, their films stand against the usual conventions of cinema but, through some strange magic, almost always come through looking great. But like many, they aren’t perfect and can fumble the ball. Is Inside Lleywn Davis another one of their classics, or should this be filed with such missteps as the remake of The Ladykillers?

Inside Lleywn Davis, like many Coen Brothers films, isn’t particularly focused on plot. Instead, it is about character, particularly our titular one. The week or so we spend in the life of Lleywn Davis (Isaac) isn’t particularly eventful; you could almost imagine he goes through this same cycle over and over again, and the film somewhat suggests that with the symmetrical structure it has. But again like most Coen Brothers films, the film remains interesting because of all the colourful characters and situations he finds himself in. It is ultimately a film about much life can suck when you try to follow a dream, enough to the point it can make that dream seem undesirable, yet the path remains inescapable. It’s a depressing but humble message; one that shows you the problems of this lifestyle but never outright tells you it isn’t worth it.

Oscar Isaac has been lurking around in supporting roles for several years now, always delivering a great performance even when stuck with sub-par material. Finally given a chance in the spotlight, he doesn’t disappoint. Llewyn Davis isn’t the most likable of characters, often completely unlikable, but Isaac’s performance keeps you on his side. He is a fallible man; one whose poor life isn’t completely his fault but he doesn’t do much to help. He remains sympathetic enough to be interesting, but flawed enough to not be boring. The rest of the cast is sporadic in appearance, even when played by recognisable faces, but all deliver the goods. Carey Mulligan gets to play outside her usual wheelhouse and astounds with a performance full of vitriol and expletives. John Goodman has a small role that is provides some of that trademark Coen humour, and its always nice to see that F. Murray Abraham still exists. Garret Hedlund gets across a lot whilst doing very little; his stoic role as Goodman’s valet is often humorous because of how little he does. Justin Timberlake isn’t in too much of the movie, but when he’s there he does well. I think Timberlake is actually much better when playing a supporting role, and considering how his last few attempts at being a leading man played out, I think he should stick to being a second banana.

Usual Coen Brothers DOP Roger Deakins was too busy filming Skyfall when this film was made, but regardless Inside Llewyn Davis looks beautiful. The way the film captures winter is just astounding; you can feel the cold breezing onto you as you watch. As a film about music, you’d hope that the film delivers some good songs and luckily it does. Isaac does all his own singing here, and he’s adept enough at it that it comes across as believable. The songs themselves are catchy in that country music way, though they do clog together in the mind afterwards. As Davis himself quips: “If it was never new, and it never gets old, then it’s a folk song”.

Inside Lleywn Davis isn’t one of the Coen Brothers best, but it is far from their worst. It features all of their trademarks and remains an interesting ride throughout, though it doesn’t quite rank up there with the classics like The Big Lebowski or O Brother, Where Art Thou?. But considering how large a collection of films they’ve made, it must be getting pretty hard for them to top themselves every time. I hope they keep on filming, for whatever strange method they use to make their films, it works.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight), Bill Nighy (About Time), Yvonne Strahovski (Mass Effect 2), Miranda Otto (The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers), Jai Courtney (A Good Day to Die Hard)

Writer/Director: Stuart Beattie (Collateral)

Runtime: 1 hour 33 minutes

Release Date: 24 January (US), 29 January (UK)

With all the repurposing of vampire and werewolf stories in Hollywood, it’s about time that Frankenstein’s Monster got some time to shine. And who more appropriate to bring him back to the forefront than some of the team that brought you the Underworld movies. If it wasn’t already clear to you, I, Frankenstein is not high art. But is this good trash or bad trash?

For a film as ridiculous as this, it’s surprising that it actually is quite reverent to the original Mary Shelley story. But after a brief prologue recapping the classic tale, the film follows the path of outlandishness and never returns. This is by no means is a bad thing; I’m perfectly fine with the idea of putting The Monster (or Adam, as he’s referred to in the picture) in the midst of a sci-fi action film, even one as absurd as this. The problems are much more deeply laden. Firstly, the film’s logic is vague and inconsistent. For example: Adam gets told off by the gargoyles for killing a demon in an alleyway, saying that he’s being reckless and that their struggle should be kept secret. Yet minutes later, the gargoyles and demons engage in a huge battle with hundreds of combatants jumping and flying about in the streets of…whatever city the story takes place in (I guess somewhere in Europe, but they never really establish it and no one speaks with a European accent). Yeah, I’d hardly call their methods discrete. The film pulls stuff like this constantly and it’s hard to believe in what’s going on if the logic of the story doesn’t make sense. Which leads into the film’s main problem: it takes itself way too seriously. I don’t expect it to be taken as a farce, as many of these types of films (such as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter) are amusing because they take themselves seriously. But there’s treating a ridiculous story seriously, and then there’s believing that a ridiculous story is serious, and I, Frankenstein falls into the latter category. Even the smallest amount of acknowledgement into how stupid this is isn’t made, even when there were plenty of opportunities to do so. Take the character of Dr. Wade (Strahovski): when Adam reveals himself to her or tells her of this secret war between gargoyles and demons, there are ample windows where they could have thrown in some self-deprecating acknowledgement of how crazy it all sounds. But nope, everything is taken with a stone face. This seriousness has the effect of making the film dull and causes the pacing to drag. If no one in the film is having fun, why should we?

Aaron Eckhart is a fine actor, and why on earth he chose this picture is a puzzle I can’t solve. But to his credit, he’s trying. He takes this preposterous script and he sells you on it. He’s hardly a charming protagonist, but where the script fails Eckhart manages to hold it up. But I swear, Adam jumps through so much glass in this movie that he often more resembles the Kool-Aid Man than Frankenstein’s Monster. Everyone else though just looks lost. Mirando Otto and Jai Courtney are decent actors, but here their seriousness and intensity make it look more like they’re in some mediocre Shakespeare production. Yvonne Strahovski is stuck in a seriously underwritten part, and her relationship with Adam is dry and unclear; are they supposed to have some kind of intimate relationship? Bill Nighy seems to be the only one who knows what kind of film he’s in and delivers the same amount of ham you’d find in the Underworld films he was in. Speaking of Underworld, Kevin Grevioux has a small role here, and goddamn is his voice deep. He makes James Earl Jones sound like Mickey Mouse.

In this genre, the visuals and action have to carry a lot. And whilst I’m deeply grateful that this isn’t another shaky-cam fest, the action scenes aren’t that impressive. Most of them are a CG extravaganza of gargoyles flying around and demons exploding into flames, and the few that aren’t are run-of-the-mill. The CG itself can look decent enough from a distance, but when viewed up close looks more like something from a video game, and not a particularly good one. The production design is pretty weak, especially the design of Adam himself. There are so many things they could have done to make The Monster look unique, but here it’s just Aaron Eckhart with a bunch of scars. Really imaginative work there, people.

I, Frankenstein isn’t the train wreck that it’s 5% on Rotten Tomatoes suggests. It’s bad, but not awful. The potential for a goofy but fun movie is hidden somewhere in here, but the lack of logic, hammy acting and lacklustre design and effects leave you with a movie that won’t frustrate you but won’t entertain you much either. Perhaps next year’s version of the story brought to us by Paul McGuigan and Max Landis will present a much more entertaining Frankenstein tale.

FINAL VERDICT: 4/10

Starring: Chris Pine (Star Trek Into Darkness), Kevin Costner (Man of Steel), Kenneth Branagh (Valkyrie), Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Carribean)

Director: Kenneth Branagh (Thor)

Writer: Adam Cozad and David Koepp (Spider-Man)

Runtime: 1 hour 45 minutes

Release Date: 17 January (US), 24 January (UK)

Hollywood certainly has an obsession with branding these days and, whilst it is starting to get annoying, I get why they’re doing it. Studios want to make films with preset fanbases so they don’t have to spend valuable marketing money telling you who someone is. I’m not too familiar with the character of Jack Ryan (I’ve seen The Hunt for Red October and nothing else), but from that little experience I can say that Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit does seem like an example of this trend: stamping a recognisable name on an otherwise basic genre flick in the hopes of attracting a bit more attention. And considering this was based on a script that originally had nothing to do with the late Tom Clancy’s work, that assessment comes fairly close.

Shadow Recruit isn’t based on any of the Jack Ryan novels, instead acting as a Casino Royale-style origin story for the character. The casting of Chris Pine alone should tell you this is a modern update with no connections to the efforts of Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford or Ben Affleck. The attempts at modernisation seem somewhat trite; the film opens on Ryan as a college student watching 9/11 on the news, and this is what inspires him on his path that leads him to becoming a CIA agent. What should come off as character development and motivation just seems laughably jingoistic. When the film finally gets to the main plot, it’s pretty disappointing. I know at this point doing the whole “take over the world” plan is cliché, but seriously? Playing with stocks? That’s your big evil scheme? I know that it’s going to lead to riots and economic collapse, but on paper it doesn’t sound that threatening. And from there we get your standard brawls, car chases, staring at screens intently whilst waiting for stuff to download, etcetera. There’s some interesting moments, like when Ryan and Cathy (Knightley) have to act like a troubled couple in order to distract Cheverin (Branagh), but for the most part it’s pretty paint-by-numbers.

Pine is a perfectly fine actor; he’s hasn’t done anything that really wows me, but I’ve yet to see him be terrible. And here…he’s OK. He does what the script says believably, and near the end he does show more signs of intelligence that remind me of Baldwin’s portrayal of the character, but for the most part he’s your standard hero. The rest of the main cast is impressive and provide serviceable work, but the main problem I found is that none of them had particularly great chemistry with Pine. Costner is your typical no-nonsense handler who occasionally gets in on the action, but the attempts to create a connection between him and Pine fall flat. Branagh seems to be more playing a villain out of a James Bond or Die Hard flick, and whilst he does that well, him and Pine’s few moments of “witty banter” are lifeless. Keira Knightley, struggling through her role with an off-puttingly fake American accent, gets the closest to connecting with Pine but I feel it was the script that was failing them more than their acting skills.

When it comes to this sort of picture, you’ve got to at least nail the action scenes and provide at least one setpiece moment. Unfortunately, Shadow Recruit really fumbles the ball here. Not only are all the action scenes pretty standard, the poor cinematography and editing ruin what remains. How many times do we have to say this before filmmakers get it? Shooting action scenes really close up and then over-editing them into frames of WTF doesn’t make your action scene intense, it just makes it incoherent; not every filmmaker can be Paul Greengrass. A particularly egregious example of this comes early on in a helicopter crash that is so choppy that I swear you could add random irrelevant images in between the frames and it would make about as much sense. It’s not quite Armageddon bad, but it comes close. Branagh has proved he can handle action reasonably well enough with the first Thor movie, so why he went for this overused, incoherent style is baffling.

I wouldn’t call Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit a bad film. It’s just not special in any way. The story isn’t that engaging, the characters underdeveloped, the action scenes muddled. It all feels less like a film and more like a product; a generic store-brand version of a movie you can get for much better quality if you look a bit harder. It isn’t annoying or terrible or even insulting. It’s just bland, bland, bland.

FINAL VERDICT: 5/10

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception), Jonah Hill (This Is the End), Margot Robbie (About Time), Kyle Chandler (Super 8), Matthew McConaughey (Mud)

Director: Martin Scorsese (The Departed)

Writer: Terence Winter (Boardwalk Empire)

Runtime: 3 hours

Release Date: 25 December (US), 17 January (UK)

Money is a potent object. And with money often follows power. And that power then leads to more money. And so and so forth. The Wolf of Wall Street is an examination of how that vicious cycle can create both incredible highs and life-wrecking lows. It’s a film that follows a trail of excess that flows so far it runs up the walls, and every time you don’t think it can get any crazier, it does.

The Wolf of Wall Street is, more than anything, a character study. It is about Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio), and his life is certainly one rousing story full of sex, drugs and the stock market. In many ways, it is your typical rise and fall tale: man comes in with a plan, revolutionises the system, becomes filthy rich, abuses the power that comes with that, comes out poorer but wiser. But like all great tales, it’s more about the journey than the destination, and Belfort’s journey takes some wonderful detours into depravity. This film is 3 hours long, and nothing you’ve seen in the trailers can prepare you for how jam packed this movie is. Every single line is sharp and witty, and every single one is delivered in the perfect way to maximise the drama or comedy of any given moment. For the most part, it works beautifully. All I can really say negatively about it is that there’s often too much. Don’t get me wrong, every scene is memorable and every line of dialogue is golden, but there is so much material bursting out the seams here that it causes the film to bloat unnecessarily at moments. It’s hard to think that an even longer version of this movie actually exists. And for any of those people complaining about “these people are terrible and we shouldn’t be glorifying them”, get your facts straight. This isn’t a movie you should live your life by. It’s a movie that shows how crazy life can get, and paints its characters as amoral, often ridiculously so, characters. Much like 2013’s other true-life tale of debauchery gone wrong Pain & Gain, you’re supposed to laugh at these guys, not with them.

Leonardo DiCaprio has come along way since being the pretty boy from Titanic, and in recent years has become a truly brilliant actor. His performance as Belfort is one of his best, one full of exuberance, energy and lunacy. You may not like this guy, but you certainly have to respect him. As usual, Scorsese has assembled a cast bursting with talent whether in small or big parts and every one of them does well. Jonah Hill as Belfort’s right-hand man Donnie is entertaining at every second, utilising his years of comedy experience to create one sick son of a b*tch. Margot Robbie is a revelation as Belfort’s femme fatale of a wife, who is just one of the hundreds of women in this film who bare all but she’s got the acting chops to back it up as well. Matthew McConaughey, Jon Favreau, Rob Reiner, Jon Bernthal, Jean Dujardin, Joanna Lumley, Ethan Suplee; this list goes on. I do not have time to go through everyone in this humongous cast, so I’ll just sum it up by saying everyone knocks it out of the park.

The cinematography on display is gorgeous, full of sweeping shots that just emphasise that lavish nature of the picture. The choreography and scale is truly shown off in several scenes, such as a yacht in one hell of a sh*tstorm or a scene on a plane that redefines the standards at The Mile High Club. The editing is perfectly paced but not always precise continuity wise; a quirk I keep noticing in editor Thelma Schoonmaker’s work. The soundtrack is full of period hits from the late 80’s/early 90’s, and every song is perfectly chosen for each moment.

Martin Scorsese is a master of cinema, and every time he decides to make a movie people pay attention. And with every movie, he reminds you why he is a master. The Wolf of Wall Street is another example of his greatness. It may cover some ground the director covered in Goodfellas or Casino, but nothing in those pictures can match up to the mania on display here. It deserves every piece of awards buzz it’s been getting and provides more memorable scenes and quotes to add to any cinephile’s lexicon than I can count. It’s certainly a long haul, but you’ll be glad you were along for the ride.

FINAL VERDICT: 9.5/10

Starring: Chiwtel Ejiofor (Serenity), Michael Fassbender (X-Men: First Class), Benedict Cumberbatch (Star Trek Into Darkness), Lupita Nyong’o, Paul Dano (Prisoners), Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

Director: Steve McQueen (Shame)

Writer: John Ridley (Three Kings)

Runtime: 2 hours 14 minutes

Release Date: 18 October (US), 10 January (UK)

The subject of slavery is always a touchy one. It’s hard to believe that such atrocious acts were committed, and not that far in the past either. Films that touch on slavery aren’t exactly rare, but 12 Years a Slave really does stand out from the pack because it comes from (surprisingly rare) perspective of a slave; one who really existed, and one whose tale is truly unjust. Writing this review is very tricky: not just because it touches on sensitive subject matter, but because it is very hard to put to words what this movie did to me. I’ll do my best but, if it isn’t clear to you by the end of this article, I’ll just state the fact of the matter now: 12 Years a Slave is a masterpiece.

As said before, this is based on a true story; how much embellishment this story has had in its translation to cinema is unknown to me, but from the looks of it I’d say very little. The story of Solomon Northup (Ejiofor) is a true tragedy from beginning to end; he is as sympathetic as you can get, and what this man endures and sees is nothing short of horrifying. If you’re looking for an uplifting tale that balances the misdeeds with plenty of silver linings, you are looking in the wrong place; The Help this ain’t. It is pretty much just watching this man’s struggle through its downs and not-quite-as-downs, and it is just fascinating to behold. That is, when you can bare to watch it. So many scenes are incredibly difficult to watch for a variety of obvious reasons, and those squeamish amongst you will certainly feel the terror. I don’t know what much else to say. It is just one of those films you need to see for yourself to truly understand. If I had any complaints, I’d say the flow of time is a bit unclear and the resolution is a bit quick, but nothing else. And those few complaints quickly get washed away in a sea of magnificence.

12 Years a Slave boasts one of the most impressive casts I’ve seen in a while, and there is not a single weak performance amongst them. Ejiofor is an actor whose been popping up for quite a while now doing excellent work whether in serious drama or fantastical blockbuster (heck, he was the only thing that made 2012 watchable), and it’s about time he got to headline a film. And boy is it one mighty performance. This is a role that is sure to make Ejiofor a major league player in Hollywood for some time to come, and deservedly so. Every inch of his performance is oozing with despair and torment; you can just feel how much this man wants out of this situation and you will feel everything he feels. But everyone else puts in their A game as well, whether they play fellow slaves or the most detestable human beings imaginable. Michael Fassbender truly transforms into an utter monster here as he relentlessly torments and provokes his “property”, and his wife (Sarah Paulson) is just as cruel in a much more cold and vindictive way. On the other end of the spectrum, Lupita Nyong’o is a revelation as the constantly abused Patsey who often outshines Ejiofor on the emotional spectrum, and I’m sure she too will find a lot of work after this. Even the smallest of roles are filled by top shelf actors: Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano, Brad Pitt, Paul Giamatti, Scoot McNairy and Quvenzhane Wallis to name a few. All of them are in the movie for very limited periods, and in that amount of time all of them put in as much effort as they would if they were the star. Never have I seen such an impeccable cast in a motion picture, and I applaud them all for their efforts.

Steve McQueen (for the last time, not THAT one) has a background in art, and that really does show in his work. He is a particular fan of long continuous takes and, whether moving or static, he and cinematographer Sean Bobbitt have crafted one beautiful looking piece of cinema. Every shot looks finely crafted and the infrequency of edits adds to the sombre nature of the piece. The production design and costumes are fantastic, and the make-up work done to make all these slaves look beaten and abused is incredibly well done. Hans Zimmer provides a riveting score as always, but I didn’t always appreciate it. This is a film that works best when quiet and moody, and I sometimes felt his compositions felt a little too bombastic; as if we needed a reminder that this film is serious business. That and I felt the score sounded too similar to some of his other work (I swear, half the time I just thought he reused the score of Inception).

12 Years a Slave is one of the few films this year that nearly moved me to tears. I left the screening of this totally overwhelmed, thinking about what I had just witnessed. It is possibly the most beautifully tragic films I have ever seen, it is sure to win some major awards, and is a big contender for my favourite film of 2013. It is certainly a film that I highly recommend you see, but go in knowing that you will most likely come out of it seriously depressed.

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10!

Starring: Christian Bale (The Dark Knight), Amy Adams (The Master), Bradley Cooper (The Hangover), Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker), Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games)

Director: David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)

Writers: Eric Warren Singer (The International) and David O. Russell

Runtime: 2 hours 18 minutes

Release Date: 13 December (US), 1 January (UK)

One running theme found in several 2013 releases is the theme of excess. Michael Bay’s Pain & Gain and Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street (which I have yet to see but will soon) both touch on this, as does today’s subject American Hustle. All of these films are also based on true events, all of them follow characters that aren’t exactly the most pleasant of people, and all of them are made by well-established filmmakers with very unique sensibilities. So the question is: does American Hustle rise or fall?

Whilst plot does play a role in American Hustle, I don’t feel like it’s the main priority of the filmmakers. It is a film much more focused on its characters and its themes; the main one of which being the idea of identity. All of the main characters in the picture don’t exactly like who they are and the state of their lives, and through the course of the film they all strive to be someone they are not to either positive and negative consequences. And when the film does let these characters fly and express themselves, this is where the film does shine. Russell is really great at getting performances out of his actors, and that combined with the script and the cast does create some truly wonderful moments. The problem I found though is that, whilst these moments are well done and give some good insight into the nature of these somewhat unhinged people, it does tend to distract from the story. The film’s pacing drags constantly, causing the film’s long runtime to feel really noticeable. The film also seems uncertain who’s our main character and whom we’re supposed to be rooting for. The film utilises narration from multiple characters (something Pain & Gain did to much better effect) and, whilst again providing a good look into these peoples’ psyches, it makes it hard to pin whose story this is. I’m hard pressed to figure out what they could’ve cut to keep things moving because there is some really good stuff in here, but the film could have done with a good trim. It is a prime example of having too much of a good thing and how that eventually damages the quality of a film.

Russell has assembled a mighty fine cast and all of them elevate the film’s caliber. Bale once again proves how much he’s willing to torture his physique in order to inhabit a character, and his portrayal of Irving Rosenfeld stands up as one of his best. Bradley Cooper commits as well, providing a whole different kind of crazy that balances well with Bale. Jeremy Renner’s turn as the sympathetic nice guy caught up in this mess is great, as is Louis C.K.’s role as Cooper’s FBI overseer; anytime him and Cooper share a scene it is golden. But it’s the women of American Hustle that steal the show. Amy Adams’ performance is easily one of her finest, a character who most well defines the film’s fixation on identity crisis. The way she flits between emotions, accents, the men in her life; it all adds up to create probably the most interesting character in the movie. And then there’s Jennifer Lawrence. Do I even need to tell you that she’s awesome? She is somewhat repeating her shtick from Silver Linings Playbook, but with enough of a twist that it remains fresh. Much like Bale, you will find yourself annoyed with her but you’ll want to keep coming back for more.

The film captures that 1970’s aesthetic perfectly, but unlike many other films it never really glorifies the era; quite the opposite in fact. Whilst the production design and costumes all look authentic, they do have a certain grotesque quality to them that I’m pretty certain is intentional. On the plus side of it, the costumes provide plenty of opportunities for Amy Adams side-boob. The cinematography certainly feels authentically 70’s, but Russell continues to use the “zoom quickly on people’s faces” trick from Silver Linings Playbook that I found both distracting then and distracting now; do I need to made the Wayne’s World joke again? The soundtrack to the film is also very enjoyable; a scene where Lawrence sings along to Paul McCartney’s “Live and Let Die” is a particularly enjoyable musical moment.

American Hustle has all the trappings of a great movie: it’s got a wonderful cast, a talented director, provoking themes and strong production values. But for some reason this stew doesn’t come together well. It’s a film full of great moments that don’t feel structurally sound together. It feels like Russell got so lost in how fascinating these characters are that he forgot about the story. In many cases, a film can ride off the strength of the characters when the story is weak, but I don’t think the story here is weak but merely underused. The Golden Globes has had trouble figuring out if this was a drama or a comedy, and now I can see why: it’s a bit of a mess when you really think about it. American Hustle is certainly a picture where the whole is certainly worth much less than the sum of its parts.

FINAL VERDICT: 7/10