Category: Film Reviews

Starring: Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy), Rinko Kikuchi (The Brothers Bloom), Idris Elba (Prometheus), Charlie Day (Horrible Bosses), Burt Gorman (The Dark Knight Rises), Ron Perlman (Hellboy)

Director: Guillermo Del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth)

Writer: Travis Beacham (Clash of the Titans) and Guillermo Del Toro

Runtime: 2 hours 12 minutes

Release Date: 12 July (US, UK)

In a world where Hollywood is mainly churning out sequels, remakes and adaptations for use as blockbuster fodder, Pacific Rim is an original idea. One that has a familiar story and takes obvious influences from many areas, but original nonetheless. It’s a risky move to put this much money into such an outlandish idea, especially when there’s little established fanbase to fall back on. Is this a gamble that pays off, or does it crash harder than a dead monster impacting on hard ground?

Pacific Rim does a great job of quickly and interestingly establishing the world and history of the film. The backstory and environment is dense with detail, but it never manages to feel overwhelming or ridiculous. This is a living, breathing world and a very fun playground with plenty of potential for expansion. The plot is formulaic for sure, with plenty of story and character clichés. But it all gels together because the world is so well-defined and characters fleshed out enough that you don’t mind. As much action as there is in Pacific Rim, there is plenty of drama and character to back it up. Of course, comparisons to Michael Bay’s Transformers films are inevitable, but Pacific Rim doesn’t fall into the same traps those films kept falling into. Our characters are likable and engaging; archetypes for sure but not so blatantly. These characters are the centre of the action instead of just people to run away from it. There’s no military mumbo-jumbo to distract you, no out-of-place comedy in the middle of the destruction. When the film gets into action gear, it is exhilarating, refreshing and, most important of all, comprehensible. Combine all that with terrific pacing that makes a two-hour plus movie feel like a breeze, and you’ve got yourself a fun time at the multiplex.

Charlie Hunnam takes centre stage as protagonist Raleigh Beckett and he does a fine job, but he is honestly the least interesting character in a sea of colourful supporting roles. Rinko Kikuchi (having finally grasped the English language after her mute role in The Brothers Bloom) is an engaging actress with a strong character to back her up. It is great to see a film with a male/female duo where the connections and conflicts doesn’t stem from romance, and Hunnam and Kikiuchi make a believable partnership when on screen together. Idris Elba is his awesome self as usual, barking orders and being all mentor-ish, and gets to make a brief badass speech that rivals President Bill Pullman from Independence Day. Del Toro regular Ron Perlman also makes a brief but brilliant appearance that is cemented by his ridiculous choice of wardrobe. But the real scene-stealers (other than the all the robots and monsters, of course) are Charlie Day and Burt Gorman as a pair of screwy scientists that are constantly at each other’s throats. They provide the comedic relief for the film, and in the hands of lesser actors it could have fallen into Skids and Mudflap territory. But Day and Gorman put their all into it and they are both excellent whether together or apart.

Guillermo Del Toro is one of the most unique and interesting directors working in the biz today, and he has finally been given enough of a budget to go all out crazy. All the promise shown in Pan’s Labyrinth, Blade II and the Hellboy movies has paid off and, whilst not as Del Toro-y as his previous works, his signature is clear on every single design. The robots and monsters (sorry, Jaegers and Kaiju) are all uniquely designed, taking clear influence from their forefathers but never feeling like rip-offs. The special effects are some of the best in recent memory, and there is a lot of it. Whilst practical effects are used when possible, the CG is so good that you often forget that these machines and creatures don’t exist. The cinematography and editing, whilst occasionally being a little too close for comfort, do a good job of letting the action flow and it is always clear what is going on. Top it all off with great sound design and a riveting score from Ramin Djawadi, and that is what you call technical excellence.

Pacific Rim is what every summer blockbuster should be: loud, ridiculous fun, but with thought and effort behind all the special effects. Following in suit of last year’s The Avengers, this is a film that takes its ridiculous premise and runs with it to great effect. Other than some occasionally janky storytelling and structure (seriously, the government thinks the best idea is to shut down the giant robots that have mostly been effective against the threat and quickly set up a flimsy, unreliable wall?), this is the kind of movie Hollywood should be making. Now we just have to hope it makes enough money for the studios to pay attention. God help us all if Grown Ups 2 manages to beat this at the US box office.

FINAL VERDICT: 9.5/10

Starring: Mark Ruffalo (The Avengers), Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network), Woody Harrelson (Zombieland), Isla Fisher (Wedding Crashers), Dave Franco (Warm Bodies), Melanie Laurent (Inglourious Basterds), Morgan Freeman (Oblivion), Michael Caine (The Dark Knight)

Director: Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk)

Writers: Ed Solomon (Men in Black) and Boaz Yakin (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time) & Edward Ricourt

Runtime: 1 hour 55 minutes

Release Date: 31 May (US), 3 July (UK)

Movies about magicians are pretty popular these days, such as The Prestige and The Illusionist. I guess we are all just fascinated with looking behind an art that is shrouded in mystery. Does Now You See Me bring any new tricks to the table, or is it old hat?

What Now You See Me does best, like any good magician, is keep you interested and on your toes. Considering the subject matter, the conclusion of the film could be absolutely anything. You’ll certainly have to suspend your disbelief, even when they’re explaining the “logical” explanations for everything, but the solutions are often so ingeniously ridiculous that you can’t possibly predict them. While this create a good amount of tension and suspense, helped by good pacing and witty dialogue, I found the final reveal a little lacking and somewhat confusing. I didn’t see it coming, but it almost came out of nowhere and I hoped it would find a more fulfilling or at least bizarre conclusion. The film also suffers from an unclear protagonist: am I supposed to be rooting for the magicians or the FBI? Considering their motivations and their likeable banter, you’d think we’d want to root for the magicians but the film doesn’t spend enough time with them. I guess this is because the FBI are the audience perspective in that they know as much as we do and following the magicians would reveal too much, but it’s hard to root for people we don’t know that much about.

The film boasts an impressive cast, but it is so star-studded that several of them feel underused. Ruffalo and Laurent get the most focus, but they’re the least interesting characters in the entire movie. Eisenberg, Harrelson, Fisher and Franco work well together, but as I said before you don’t get nearly enough time with them. Freeman seems to be having fun, but Caine doesn’t get much to do and is just there to serve the plot. Smaller but recognisable actors Michael Kelly and Common play fellow FBI agents, but their parts are so small you wonder why they even bothered cast names.

Louis Leterrier is known for his dynamic approach to camerawork, and that shines through here. The camera is constantly moving, even during simple scenes, and if it isn’t moving it’s probably on a crane or a helicopter. The film is as flashy as a magic show, with bright lighting, music and visual effects. The few action scenes in the film are handled well (bar some odd editing decisions), especially a fight between Ruffalo and Franco that feels like if Jason Bourne suddenly wielded the power of Dr Strange.

Now You See Me is fun but flawed summer fluff. There are certainly moments of greatness here, but the execution falters too many times. Despite my many issues, I did have a good time watching the film and was going to give it a higher rating, but that ending just sandbagged it for me. If you were sold on the trailers for the movie, you’ll probably have a good time. But if you’re a nitpicker, you’re going to have a field day with this one.

FINAL VERDICT: 7/10

Starring: Seth Rogen (Pineapple Express), James Franco (127 Hours), Jay Baruchel (Tropic Thunder), Craig Robinson (Hot Tub Time Machine), Jonah Hill (21 Jump Street), Danny McBride (Your Highness)

Writers/Directors: Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg (Superbad)

 

Runtime: 1 hour 47 minutes

 

Release Date: 12 June (US), 28 June (UK)

 

This summer, the comedy giants from both sides of the pond have decided to make a movie about the end of the world. Whilst Britain’s The World’s End doesn’t bow for another couple weeks, This Is The End is here to show us what would happen if a bunch of celebrities tried to survive the apocalypse.

I don’t think most fans of Seth Rogen movies go because of the plot, but the set-up here is unique and well executed. Instead of focusing our attentions on the survival of the underdogs or the bad-asses, our main characters are a bunch of slacker actors with a complete lack of survival skills. The film is full of constant humour of all kinds, though most of it centres on exaggerating or reversing the public view of the celebrities in the film. There are constant references to the actors’ previous films, whether positive or negative, and it’s good to know that even these guys can take the piss out of themselves. The film also deals with many scenarios from similar apocalyptic films, but always manages to put a humorous twist on the proceedings. The movie even manages to squeeze in the tired exorcism scene, but actually manages to make it work. Rogen and Goldberg have managed to construct a very tight film here; one that holds up and moves at a good pace despite being mostly relegated to one house. I can’t talk about much else without spoiling the fun, but just know that if you like the movies of any of these actors involved, you’re probably going to enjoy this.

None of the actors in This Is The End are stretching their muscles too much, but they honestly don’t have to. They all have clearly good chemistry between them, and they all have unique relationships with each other. The particular stand-outs in the main cast are Robinson and McBride, who flat-out steals every scene he’s in; even if you hate McBride (and I usually do), you’re going to love his stuff. The film is also full of other cameos, some of which are more extended than others. Some like Emma Watson are a bit more fleshed out, but certain great comedians like Paul Rudd and Aziz Ansari are only one step above blink-and-you’ll-miss-‘em. But out of these smaller roles, Michael Cera owns it. He is probably the most changed from his usually public persona, here portrayed as a coked-up jackass and I only wish he had more screen time.

Comedies of this nature don’t usually have technical aspects that are worth talking about, but there’s some very interesting stuff going on here. The cinematography (done by Brandon Trost of Crank 2: High Voltage fame) is much more vibrant and interesting than anything else put out like this. Henry Jackman’s score is great, and the music selections are used for great humorous effect; it even manages to make Gangnam Style interesting again. Visual effects aren’t usually that great in comedies of this style, but this film deals with a lot more crazy stuff than those other films and I don’t think they’ve put enough money into them. Whilst some stuff looks OK, other parts feel like they were ripped from a cheap PS3 game.

This Is The End is the funniest comedy I’ve seen so far this year, and is a good time for anyone who enjoys this type of movie. It’s clear that these guys were just having some fun making a movie, and that fun they had translates onto screen perfectly. With a bit more polish and some added crazy, this could have been even better. But as it stands, I don’t think you’ll find anything funnier in cinemas right now. That is until The World’s End comes out.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

Starring: Brad Pitt (Moneyball), Mireille Enos (Gangster Squad), Daniella Kertesz, James Badge Dale (The Grey), David Morse (The Green Mile)

Director: Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace) 

Writer: Matthew Michael Carnahan (State of Play) and Drew Goddard (The Cabin in the Woods) & Damon Lindelof (Prometheus)

Runtime: 1 hour 56 minutes

Release Date: 21 June (US, UK)

 

Zombie movies. Much like the undead, these movies just won’t stop coming. But World War Z (extremely loosely based on the book by Max Brooks) is Hollywood’s biggest attempt so far to cash in on the zombie craze. But does big money really make a better movie, or is it just going to get caught in the shuffle?

If there’s one thing World War Z does well, it is establishing the world. The first act of the movie does a good job at setting the atmosphere of the recently begun undead epidemic and treats the situation in a serious, realistic manner. The majority of traditional zombie lore is intact here, but the film also throws out some intriguing new ideas that keep things interesting. This is a refreshing outlook on the genre; most zombies movies these days are either about showing as much gore as possible or taking the piss, so it’s nice to see the material to be used for different purposes. Unfortunately, the second act of the film takes a large dip. It becomes a series of repetitive encounters: Brad Pitt goes someplace, finds out some info, s*** hits the fan and he has to escape. Luckily, the film’s third act is stronger but noticeably much more small scale; instead of the grand open landscapes infested with undead, the final act is limited to one building with only a few dozen zombies. But surprisingly, this is when the movie is at its best. It just goes to show you that no matter how much money you have, less is more.

Where World War Z mainly fails is in the character department. The actors in the film all do a fine job with the material given to them; it’s just a shame that none of them have very interesting characters to work with. Brad Pitt is a charming and likeable actor, and manages to find a good balance between everyman and bad-ass. But we never find out too much about him as a person, and his only motivation (to get back to his family) is simple and weak. His wife and children don’t do much of anything during the film, and even the movie forgets about them for long stretches. Most of the rest of the cast come in and out, with no one consistently staying the movie before they die or lose their purpose to the plot. It makes it hard to feel attached to anyone when they have so little screentime that there’s no time to give them any kind of interesting personality. The film’s bigger names after Pitt, such as David Morse or Matthew Fox, play bit parts that could have been played by anyone. Great zombie movies of the past relied greatly on the strength of its characters to carry the movie whenever zombies aren’t on screen, and it’s a shame World War Z doesn’t bother to do this.

Considering this film is rated 15/PG-13, don’t expect much gore. This surprisingly doesn’t affect the film too much, as the zombies here are scary not because of their bloodlust but more because of their numbers and ferocity. The way the zombies move in large swarms, evocative of an army of ants or locusts, makes them a completely new but equally frightening foe. The film uses a mix of practical effects and CG to bring the creatures to life, and both are done exceptionally well. The scale of the picture is impressive, taking many opportunities to show masses of infected crawling across the decimated landscape. It’s a sight most zombie movies can only dream of. The film’s score is dark and brooding, very similar in ways to John Murphy’s work on 28 Days Later. However, the cinematography is borderline annoying a lot of the time. The film seems to be have been shot mostly handheld, leading to a lot of shaky cam during action scenes. This, combined with some choppy editing, makes a lot of the action a little hard to watch. I’m guessing this was done to add intensity to film as well as a way of shying away from showing gore (a method previously used to the point of tedium by The Hunger Games), but it just took me out of the movie.

World War Z adds some good ideas to a genre that really needs them, but fails to make me really care about what’s going on. Considering the genre has always dealt with surviving as a team despite people’s differences, and the way the film wants to paint this bigger picture of a world in peril, the film doesn’t seem to care too much about the characters in this environment. What that leads to is an enjoyable but cold picture; one that has its moments but never reaches the heights of its more modest ancestors.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 6.5/10

Starring: Henry Cavill (Immortals), Amy Adams (The Master), Michael Shannon (Premium Rush), Russell Crowe (Gladiator), Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves)

Director: Zack Snyder (Watchmen)

Writer: David S. Goyer (Batman Begins)

Runtime: 2 hours 23 minutes

Release Date: 14 June (US, UK)

Superman has had an interesting career in the film industry. Richard Donner’s Superman was the first film to translate a comic book to the big screen and do it well, setting the standard for all to come and still holds up to this day despite its occasional lapses into goofiness. Superman II was enjoyable as well, but III was bad and IV: The Quest for Peace is arguably the worst superhero film ever made. After taking leave from the movie world for a while, Bryan Singer brought the hero back in Superman Returns to mixed results from fans (I, personally, think it’s pretty good and anyone who still feels differently should probably give it another shot from a different perspective). But how does Man of Steel fare? Does it soar to heights never reach by its predecessors, or is The Man of Tomorrow yesterday’s news?

The film’s story covers the basics that everyone and their dog knows about the story of Superman, but introduces enough new ideas and twists on familiar elements to keep it fresh. But on the whole, this is a fairly familiar plot on both a superhero and science-fiction level. It’s well done, but anyone can see the general direction this film is going in. The first act of the movie feels a bit jumbled, moving too fast and throwing so much exposition in your face that some may get lost in the shuffle. But by the time Kal-El dons the familiar blue tights, the film gets itself on the right track and works from there. The filmmakers have been making it clear they wanted to make a Superman that was more relatable and made more sense in a modern context. On that level, they’ve succeeded admirably. The events surrounding his reveal to the world and how they react fits with reality and the times we live in. But for a film that crosses the two hour mark, the lack of character development is disappointing. We get a general idea of who Kal-El and Lois and Zod and Jor-El are, but there is so much more they could have done but just don’t. What’s there is good but needs more built on top of it. Instead, Snyder fills the rest of the runtime with action spectacle. Good action, yes, but action doesn’t hold a candle to a well told story and fleshed out characters. The final act of the film is so packed with non-stop action that it starts to lose its lustre and becomes a bit stayed. After many complained that Returns was boring and needed more action, they’ve overcompensated and made a film with far too much action and a lack of patience.

Man of Steel boasts an impressive cast, and they all perform well with the material. Cavill looks the part as Superman, sounds the part and, thankfully, can act the part. He’s no Christopher Reeve, but who is? He certain embodies the character much more than Brandon Routh did (and I liked his performance). Amy Adams is a perfect fit for Lois Lane, providing that spunky charm and sheer determination the character is known for, though her romantic chemistry with Cavill feels a little too spontaneous. Michael Shannon is an imposing General Zod and he is clearly enjoying the opportunity to go crazy, but he lacks the menacing stoicness that made Terence Stamp’s Zod such an iconic villain (that and Shannon never gets to say “KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!). Antje Traue is a big surprise as Faora (basically the same character as Ursa from Superman II), often outshining even the mighty Shannon at points. Russell Crowe has more screen time than you’d expect and provides Jor-El with much more depth than the great but disinterested Marlon Brando did. Everyone else is good, but none really stand out as much as the aforementioned five.

The film’s marketing has been mostly presenting this film as a sombre, emotional piece more in line with a Christopher Nolan film. Don’t let that fool you. This is a Zack Snyder film, and that is plainly obvious from very early on. Whilst he does manage to avoid using his usual tropes, Snyder does rely heavily on his visuals and that is where his influence is mainly felt. Snyder has made the decision to shoot the entire film handheld, one that gives the film a very raw feel that mostly works to film’s advantage but does occasionally fall into the shaky-cam trap. Hans Zimmer’s score is suitably bombastic and fits the tone of the film, but nothing still beats the classic John Williams theme (my favourite film theme of all time). The production design emphasises the alien nature of the Kryptonians much more than previous adaptations but to mixed results. As cool as some of the technology looks, some of it comes across a bit silly (I’m looking at you, Kryptonian Supreme Council of Stupid Hats).

Man of Steel is nothing groundbreaking. It’s fun popcorn entertainment, just with a bit more effort and thought put into it than your average summer blockbuster. It sits on par with Superman Returns for me, but they are both good movies for completely different reasons. I know they were going for a completely different feel from the previous films, but I can’t help but feel that the original Superman is still the superior film. If this is to be the beginning of the DC Cinematic Universe, they’ve made a good start but next time around they need to calm down and tell a story more through character than through action. In their attempts to make Superman more modern and badass, they’ve lost what Superman truly represents as a character and what set Donner’s original film apart from every superhero film that has followed it: heart.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Chris Pine (Unstoppable), Zachary Quinto (Heroes), Benedict Cumberbatch (War Horse), Zoe Saldana (Avatar), Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead), Peter Weller (RoboCop)

Director: JJ Abrams (Super 8)

Writer: Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman (Transformers) & Damon Lindelof (Prometheus)

Runtime: 2 hours 15 minutes

Release Date: 9 May (UK), 17 May (US)

 

Back in 2009, JJ Abrams’ Star Trek made the franchise cool again, and converted many such as myself from novices to casual fans. And they did it by paying respect to the original material; they modernised it but they never for just the purpose of making it as modern and marketable as possible (AKA The Bay Method). Now before Abrams jets off to revitalise the OTHER major sci-fi franchise, he has brought us Star Trek Into Darkness. Does this adventure take the Enterprise to heights where no Trek film has gone before, or is it just an illogical disaster?

Abrams is one to always shroud his films in mystery until release, and with this one he has very good reason to. In keeping with that, I will avoid revealing the many, many twists and spoilers. All you need to know is that the plot, while simple, is incredibly well paced, full of great action set pieces and bursting with wit. Once the pieces fall into place, the second half of this movie is a non-stop roller coaster. But the film also makes plenty of time for character too, with plenty of development and intrigue for the major players. The relationship between Kirk and Spock, whilst touching on territory explored in previous Trek films, is wonderfully played out here and anyone even vaguely familiar with the franchise will get a kick out of how they twist with their relationship. The film’s main advantage over the original, though, is the presence of a memorable and effective villain: Cumberbatch’s John Harrison. I can’t say much more without getting into spoiler territory, but this is one adventure you must experience for yourself.

Recasting these iconic roles for the first film was a difficult task, but they managed to pull it off flawlessly and they only get better in this film. Those who felt Chris Pine didn’t quite fit the shoes once worn by William Shatner should be convinced by his performance here; he has the charisma, the swagger and the authority all nailed without losing that roguish charm. Quinto is still awesome as Spock and his chemistry with Pine is through the roof. The rest of the crew all get their moments to shine (though Anton Yelchin’s Chekov does draw the short straw on screen time), with Karl Urban’s Bones and Simon Pegg’s Scotty being my personal standouts. In terms of new blood, Peter Weller and Alice Eve are good additions to the cast but I feel they should have had a bit more screen time, especially Eve as Carol Marcus. For such an important character in Trek history, I felt she didn’t quite do enough to fully justify her presence. I guess they’ll hopefully expand her role in future tales, but for now she does impress with the little time she has. But the true stand out is Cumberbatch. Not since Ricardo Montalban’s legendary portrayal of Khan has the Enterprise faced such a difficult threat, and Cumberbatch owns every moment with a villain who is both ruthless but also sympathetic.

JJ Abrams’ style is divisive, but one that is at least original. Those who found his overuse of lens flares in the first movie are unlikely to be swayed, but those who enjoy his visual flare will find Into Darkness a beautiful piece of work. The scale is so large and grand with constant camera movement and incredible design work, but it manages to never distract from the emotion of the story. Michael Giacchino’s score continues to impress with both the original compositions and the updates of old themes, and the special effects are seamlessly integrated into the action.

I didn’t think I’d see a summer blockbuster this good after Iron Man 3 blew me away, but Star Trek Into Darkness is another winner. Whilst it lacks the surprise and innovation of the first outing, it more than makes up for it with larger stakes, better-defined characters and a great memorable villain. Only a slight imbalance in screen time for smaller characters stop this from being a perfect summer film, but this is still one to watch for sure. Mr Abrams, you’ve served the Enterprise well. Your transfer to the Rebel Alliance better be at least as good as this.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

Starring: Robert Downey Jr (Tropic Thunder), Gwyneth Paltrow (Se7en), Guy Pearce (Memento), Don Cheadle (The Guard), Rebecca Hall (The Town), Ben Kingsley (Gandhi)

Director: Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang)

Writer: Drew Pearce & Shane Black

Runtime: 2 hours 10 minutes

Release Date: 25 April (UK), 3 May (US)

 

It’s hard to imagine that only a few mere years ago, Iron Man was considered just a B-list superhero and Robert Downey Jr was a washed-up actor. Now, one stands amongst the most famous and popular of them all, and the other is one of Hollywood’s most desirable and well-paid actors. After the game-changing first film, the good-but-not-great sequel and the mega-smash that was The Avengers, where could the adventures of Tony Stark possibly go next? Well, Iron Man 3 is upon us and it answers that question in the most satisfying way anyone could possibly imagine.

By now, the superhero movie formula is pretty well-established, and is one that even the best of its genre follows to a T. Iron Man 3 eschews all of that and goes in a completely different direction, veering more into the territory of an espionage thriller than a sci-fi blockbuster. Whilst the grand stakes are smaller than those found in The Avengers, the emotional stakes are much higher and equal out to a payoff that is just as emotionally satisfying. Whilst The Avengers was mostly an excuse to smash a bunch of superheroes together (and it did so in perfect fashion), Iron Man 3 is much more of a character piece, delving much deeper into the character of Tony Stark and focusing more on his emotional journey than him trying to save the world again. Despite spending a fair majority of the film out of the suit, the film remains an absolute joy to watch; a testament to how endearing the character of Stark is that we can enjoy him taking out bad guys using his smarts rather than just his gadgets. The main aspect we have to thank for all of this is the fantastic script; anyone who knows Shane Black knows that he has a knack for witty dialogue, a skill that is perfectly tailored to Downey’s portrayal of Ol’ Shellhead. He and Drew Pearce have crafted a story that full of great character moments and witty banter, but have also managed to provide something that the first two films seriously lacked: a truly kick-ass climactic showdown full of all the thrills you want out of a summer blockbuster. Top it all off with pacing that never lets up, a satisfying wrap-up on both a story and character level and a brilliant post-credits scene (c’mon, you knew one was coming), and you’ve got everything you could possibly want from an Iron Man movie. If this is the last solo Iron Man movie ever made, it is a great place for them to call it quits. They’ll probably keep making more of them, but I would not be sad if this is the last we ever see of Mr. Anthony Stark.

The role of Iron Man is one that Downey has to credit for resurrecting his career, and he continues to bring his A-game as always. Everything that comes out of his mouth is pure gold and you can never take your eyes off him. But his performance has been greatly improved by some sense of subtlety. Many, including myself, found the way Stark was portrayed in Iron Man 2 as so OTT that he started to become obnoxious. That has thankfully been “ironed out” (get it?) and we have a protagonist that we can attach ourselves to emotionally as well as laugh with. Returning players Paltrow and Cheadle get their moments to shine too, providing solid chemistry with Downey and getting to kick some ass as well. The new blood to the franchise is also very welcome. Pearce’s villain is genuinely threatening and an equal match for Stark in more ways than one, and much closer to how Hector Hammond should have been played in Green Lantern. Rebecca Hall, whilst not getting the most screen time, does well with what little she has. But the stand-out here has to be Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin. His portrayal of Iron Man’s comic book nemesis is one of the most surprising and inspired characters to grace the superhero movie in years and steals every scene he is in. Whilst some nerds may call it disrespectful to the source material, I’d call it absolute genius. Seriously, not even the most fanatic of comic book fans will see this coming.

On a technical level, Iron Man 3 also knocks it out of the park. The action scenes on display here are very creative and a joy to watch, most notably the much-publicized freefall sequence. The cinematography here is also near-flawless and the editing compliments it well to make a cohesively enjoyable visual experience. All of that and a cracking score that evokes classic spy films, and you’ve got the technical perfection to enhance an already great film.

Some may find the following statement to be hyperbolic and overenthusiastic, but f*** it: Iron Man 3 could quite possibly be not only the best Iron Man film, not only the best film Marvel has put out so far, but may even be the greatest superhero film ever constructed. After The Avengers increased all expectations of the genre, this film somehow managed to top the spectacle of seeing all these heroes fighting together by focusing on what is truly important: just telling a good story with interesting characters. Iron Man 3 accomplishes on many levels what The Dark Knight Rises tried to do and ultimately fell short of; it tops its predecessors by not actively trying to, and focuses on what actually makes these movies so great in the first place and lets all the spectacle flow out of that instead. Shane Black has finally proven himself as a big budget director, and I expect him to be suddenly getting a lot of work after this. If Iron Man 3 does not end up being in my top ten films of the year, it will have been a bloody amazing year for cinema.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10!

Starring: Jane Levy (Fun Size), Shiloh Fernandez (Red Riding Hood), Jessica Lucas (Cloverfield), Lou Taylor Pucci (Carriers), Elizabeth Blackmore

Director: Fede Alvarez

Writer: Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues

Runtime: 1 hour 31 minutes

Release Date: 5 April (US), 18 April (UK)

 

I have to start this review by stating that I am a huge fan of the original Evil Dead trilogy. The Evil Dead was one of the defining horror movies of its era, jumpstarting the career of the legendary Sam Raimi. Evil Dead II is the film that all horror-comedies should be compared to (and is one of my all-time favourite movies). Army of Darkness, whilst losing its focus on the horror and becoming more of a fantasy film, is still immensely enjoyable and is easily one of the most quotable movies in existence. The idea of remaking such a horror classic is a worrying thing, especially given the track record of horror remakes in recent years. Does Evil Dead (no The this time) break the mould, or should you just watch the original instead?

On the most basic levels, this follows the premise of the original film in several key areas. However, the details have all been changed. Whilst some would call this sacrilegious, I’m glad the film isn’t just a retread of what we’ve already seen. The idea that they are there to help one of them get over a drug problem is an interesting aspect of the story, at first calling into question whether this is all just in Mia (Levy)’s head whilst also giving another reason why they don’t leave at the first sign of trouble. The problems really set in with the execution of it. After a gorily fun but ultimately pretty pointless prologue (that I can only guess is here so something horrifying happens at the beginning), the film takes a long time getting to the meat of the movie. This would be more acceptable if this time was spent getting to know the characters, but we don’t. With the exception of Mia, we get about five minutes to get to know the characters, and then most of them don’t really develop beyond that. I get that the characters in the original were hardly the most developed and interesting group of people, but times have changed; you can’t get away with having just basic cardboard-cut-out stereotypes and then expect me to care. This could have been saved if the dialogue was at least witty and memorable, but most of it just seems a bit stiff. The film seems so afraid of falling into camp that it just sucks all the humour out of the story and we are left with something that lacks a fully functional heart. The movie moves slowly at first in attempt to build tension, but spends so long doing so that it just becomes tedious. Once s*** starts to hit the fan, things peak up considerably but again it takes itself so seriously and tries to convince me to care when the film hasn’t earned it. Despite some great moments spread across the film, it doesn’t keep up the momentum enough to stay constantly enjoyable once the gore starts literally flowing. For all us Evil Dead aficionados out there, there are many references to all three films, and thankfully they never feel too forced. Oh, and there is something for the fans after the credits but it so short and unsatisfying you might as well not bother.

The acting in the original The Evil Dead was hardly anything to rave about; even the great Bruce Campbell had yet to truly develop his shtick at that point. The cast here is similarly serviceable for the most part, but Jane Levy is the standout here. She was the only one who actually seems to having some fun whilst also putting her all into every aspect of a character that is only who actually has any dimension. Whether she’s a stressed-out drug addict, a possessed b**** with serious schizo tendencies or a demon-fighting badass, she wades through the material and truly stands out. No one else even comes close to delivering a performance as good as Levy, and for the most part are just there to be attacked by demons or become them. Fernandez does the best he can with the material, but the character of David (who constantly, even in the most bizarre and dire of situations, always says “There’s got to be a logical explanation to all this!”) makes so many questionable decisions that you know it can’t end well for him. Pucci’s Eric is similarly afflicted with dumbass syndrome, not bothering to tell anyone that what is happening is detailed in The Book of the Dead until it is far too late to be of use. Lucas and Blackmore are pretty much pointless to the plot, but do get some standout gore moments that make their presence worth it in the end.

The main selling point Evil Dead has been touting has been the gore, and it does not disappoint at all on this front. This isn’t some pussyfied PG-13 nonsense; this is the real deal. It’s bloody, it’s disgusting and, best of all, it’s all done practically. This is how horror movies used to be done and should be done on a spectacle level, and several moments (even ones similar to scenes from the originals) had me wincing. Scenes from the originals, such as the possessed hand and the infamous tree scene, have received new touch-ups that are suitably gut wrenching. All of this gore, combined with some killer sound design, makes for a technical display that literally nails it. Raimi is known for his inventive cinematography, and whilst the film does well at imitating that style, it still didn’t feel right. I think this is because the film was shot digitally; considering they’re going old-school on pretty much else, I think it would have made more sense if it had been shot on film.

The Evil Dead remake is a bit of a mixed bag. Whilst the effects are spot-on and Levy gives a performance that could define her career, the film never quite nails what made the originals such classics. It is still worth a watch for both Evil Dead fans and fans of horror in general, and is one of the better remakes out there. Hopefully, it will gain enough traction to get newcomers to the franchise to check out the originals. Talk of a sequel is already underway and, despite my issues with this first attempt, I’m interested to see what they do with it. But if anyone over at Tri Star or Ghost House is reading this (which they’re probably not, but hey can’t say I didn’t try) here’s my one big note to you: get some new writers. Alvarez definitely has potential as a director, but as a writer he is lacking. Let him stay on to direct, but get someone else to come in and pen the screenplay. Maybe then we’ll get a movie worthy of the cult status of the originals.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 6.5/10

Starring: Gerard Butler (300), Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight), Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption), Rick Yune (Die Another Day)

Director: Antoine Fuqua (Training Day)

Writer: Creighton Rothenberger & Katrin Benedikt

Runtime: 2 hours

Release Date: March 22 (US), April 17 (UK)

 

Olympus Has Fallen is the first of two films being released this year concerning an attack on the White House; the latter being Roland Emmerich’s White House Down. Whilst we won’t know the verdict on that one for another few months, what about this first effort?

Many have summed up the film as  “Die Hard in the White House”, and they’re not lying. The tone, the characters, even certain scenes feel they’ve been taken straight out of the John McTiernan classic. That and Air Force One. Whilst I can accept these similarities, it would be easier to if the film didn’t take itself so seriously. The film is so patriotic and jingoistic, it would make Michael Bay blush. After a decent opening sequence, the film then takes way too long to get going with the main plot and doesn’t spend nearly enough time with Banning (Butler) as we should be for a protagonist. Once Banning gets inside the White House, things begin to pick up but constantly stall as we keep cutting back to people sitting in rooms talking about what they should be doing. The film lacks any personality and doesn’t give enough depth or emotion such a critical event. When you resort to introducing characters by having their names pop up on screen so we know who’s who, you have officially failed as a storyteller. And when the film finally reaches its finale, it borders on completely anti-climactic. There’s really not all that much to say about the plot of Olympus Has Fallen. It’s so bland and generic that I’m starting to forget what I saw just mere hours ago.

After a long string of terrible romantic comedies, Gerard Butler has returned to the action genre where he truly belongs. And I never thought I’d say this but it is true: he single-handedly saves this movie from being completely unwatchable. Butler is the only actor who plays the movie like it should be: witty and self-deprecating. He often channels Bruce Willis’ performance in Die Hard, but makes it his own and delivers some pretty decent one-liners (“Let’s play a game of go f*** yourself. You go first.”). But he also manages to bring the drama when required, as demonstrated in an excellent phone call scene between him and his wife (played by a mostly pointless Radha Mitchell). But as said before, he has nowhere near enough screen time. Everyone else in the movie is either under-acting or over-acting. Aaron Eckhart feels as though he should be doing more than he actually is, Rick Yune gets to look smug and evil a lot (which he isn’t bad at) but not much else, Morgan Freeman looks bored as if he shot all his scenes whilst on lunch break from shooting Oblivion, Melissa Leo does nothing but serve as a human punching bag, the list goes on and on. For a film that centres on such a massive event and with such high stakes, I just don’t give a s*** about anyone but Gerard Butler.

But even with a cookie-cutter script and mostly bland performances, Olympus Has Fallen’s main failings come on the technical spectrum. Every single bad trope you find in modern action movies is here. Shaky-cam? Check. Choppy editing? Check? Extreme close-ups? Check? Most actions scenes taking place in poorly lit areas? Double check. What action is comprehensible looks pretty decent, but most of the time I was just left squinting and wondering what just happened. Combine that with an overdramatic score and visual effects that look average at best and downright terrible at worst, and you’ve got yourself one big clusterf*** of technical issues.

Whilst marginally better than A Good Day to Die Hard (mainly because it doesn’t have a reputation to keep up), Olympus Has Fallen is still a generic and often boring action picture. Only Gerard Butler makes the movie watchable, and if a lesser actor played this role the film would be absolutely awful. Considering the man is also a producer on this, Butler really needs to find a better action vehicle for himself but he has at least proved he still has the chops for this kind of movie. Even so, I’d rather he continue doing trash like this than see him in another movie with Katherine Heigl.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 3/10

Starring: Tom Cruise (Collateral), Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption), Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace), Andrea Riseborough (Welcome to the Punch), Melissa Leo (The Fighter)

 

Director: Joseph Koskinski (Tron: Legacy)

 

Writers: Karl Gajdusek (Trespass) and Michael Debruyn

 

Runtime: 2 hours 6 minutes

 

Release Date: 10 April (UK), 19 April (US)

 

Oblivion tells the tale of Jack Harper (Cruise), a droid repairman working on a post-apocalyptic Earth. But things aren’t all as they seem as he gets thrown into an adventure that reveals the truth about the world and himself. Is Oblivion a new sci-fi classic, or is it much less intelligent than it suggests?

The film’s plot is well told and thought out. The world is interesting and has an original visual aesthetic of a dead Earth. The film is, at first at least, a slow-burner, bringing to mind more traditional sci-fi films like 2001. But by the third act, the film strays more into modern sci-fi tropes. By no means is this a bad thing; in fact, once the curtain had been pulled back on exactly what is going on I really got into the movie. There are enough twists in the movie for it to remain intriguing, though some are obvious even from the first few minutes if you’re paying attention. The film’s epilogue is a little confused and feels like there might have been some studio tampering there, but otherwise the plot makes sense, moves at a decent clip and remains entertaining throughout. The main problem with Oblivion is that it isn’t as original as it thinks it is. Whilst the film does tackle many of its sci-fi concepts in its own way, so many of them have been done before. Elements are clearly taken from several other sci-fi films such as Total Recall, Moon, WALL-E and Planet of the Apes (I’ll let you figure out what those elements are). There are some interesting new ideas that I found fascinating, but I can’t reveal them for spoilers sake. Eventually it got a bit tiring going “Oh, it’s like_______”, and I was hoping the film would have some new ideas beyond the visuals.

Tom Cruise still manages to keep going making blockbuster after blockbuster despite most men of his age either retiring to dramas or joining The Expendables. Love him or hate him, he always gets the job done and does exactly what you want from a protagonist. He doesn’t exactly go beyond the material he’s working with considering the archetypical nature of his character, but he works as a hero that has enough humanity to get behind his motivation. Morgan Freeman isn’t in the film as much as the marketing wants you to think he is, but he gives the performance you’d expect from him. Olga Kurylenko fares decently, but she lacks enough charisma for her to truly stand out for such a pivotal character. Andrea Riseborough gives the breakthrough performance here, bringing what could be such a typical character beyond the material and make her role as memorable as she possibly can. I can’t say much of Melissa Leo for fear of spoilers, but her Southern drawl got grating by the end of the film.

Whether you liked or loathed Tron: Legacy, I think we can all admit it looked beautiful. Director Joseph Koskinski brings that same visual eye to Oblivion, making a gorgeous looking picture out of a desolate landscape. The design of everything feels very slick and stark, blaringly standing out amongst the grimy setting of much of the film, though I will say that much of it would have felt more at home in a video game like Mass Effect or Portal. The cinematography is stupendous, the sound effects blisteringly rocky, and the visual effects are seamlessly integrated and feel much more natural than most blockbusters of this ilk. The film’s score is very reminiscent of Daft Punk’s score for Tron: Legacy, the tone of which definitely works here as well. Koskinski is obviously much more of a visual director than one of actors, but when everything he does looks this pretty it’s hard to complain.

In the end, Oblivion is a gorgeous piece of cinema that excels in the technical department, but falters in creating a truly original story. Despite some uncredited work from the great Michael Arndt (who will tackling sci-fi again soon with Star Wars Episode VII), the plot here just feels too much like an amalgam of other ideas. Well-executed and well-implemented ideas, but unoriginal ones nonetheless. I think this film will be as divisive as Tron: Legacy was but, as a defender of the aforementioned film, I think I sit on the positive end of the spectrum despite my complaints. Koskinski has a bright future in the film industry; he just needs to find a script that clicks to use as a sturdy foundation, and then use his visual imagination to build upon it.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10