Change Your Image
therocksbarneyreviews
Reviews
Spectre (2015)
SPECTRE fits into the classic Bond formula that we all know, but at a cost.
SPECTRE, James Bond's 24th screen outing, is a fantastic blockbuster that unfortunately reverts back to the pre-Daniel Craig franchise Bond formula that we are all used to. Although the film will break several box office records, it will be at the cost of sacrificing the progress the franchise was making since it was rebooted with Casino Royale in 2006. Daniel Craig returns in his fourth outing as Bond, and SPECTRE will confirm to many how great a Bond he has become, be that according to how much muscle he flexes or by how he oozes with the charm, turning it on and off with the flick of a switch. As a suave combination between Sean Connery's sophisticated style and Roger Moore's cheesiness, Craig has managed to craft his own version of Bond, a much more grittier version than any other previous incarnation. In regards to the speculation that this will be Craig's final outing as Bond, the story arc that SPECTRE finally manages to complete would allow Craig to gracefully bow out on a high. However, the film does not make it awkward for him to return, in fact it would make sense considering his love interest at the end of the film, and several will hope that will be the case. Alongside Craig is a Bond cast that emphasises how strong the relationships between the 'Bond family' are. Back in M's classic wood-panelled office, we have a team consisting of Ralph Fiennes as M, Ben Whishaw as Q, Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, and Rory Kinnear as Bill Tanner. In regards to this group, Fiennes and Whishaw are deserved of a second mention. Fiennes does well to fill the gap that Judi Dench left, allowing the film to glaze over her omission, and Whishaw's on-screen chemistry with Craig is splendid. As well as this, the new Bond girls consist of Lucia Sciarra, played by Monica Bellucci, the first 'Bond lady' at age 50, and Madeleine Swann, played by Léa Seydoux. Although both perform well, their characters do not live up to the promises that SPECTRE would be 'revolutionary' in its treatment of women. Bellucci appears on screen for less than a few minutes and although Seydoux's character initially seems like she too may prove to be 'revolutionary', her first few appearances on screen, showing off her character as a strong, independent woman, are brushed aside by Bond because she is 'in shock'. By the end of the film both characters are completely disempowered and blur into the Bond girl canon, although oozing with sex appeal as they go. They join Naomie Harris' Moneypenny, who has now been demoted to being M's secretary. As members of SPECTRE, Dave Bautista plays the silent Mr. Hinx, and Christoph Waltz plays the ominous Franz Oberhauser. Their on screen presences are both well constructed and both actors do extremely well to mould their characters into classic Bond villains. Mr. Hinx is a towering, grunting wall of muscle and Waltz's Oberhauser is a true psychopath and a pivotal character in regards to completing the story arc the franchise has overseen since it was rebooted. In SPECTRE, Sam Mendes, the film's director, has crafted a brilliant film that fits with the tried and tested Bond formula that we are used to. Although several aspects of the film thrive off said formula such as the plot and the Bond villains, the antiquated Bond girls are confined to it, detracting from the reality that SPECTRE is trying to immerse us in. It is ultimately such a shame to see Bond return to a formula that the series seems to have outgrown. But, it is a formula that works and SPECTRE is ultimately an awesome film with Daniel Craig spearheading a cast at the top of their game, several gags that will draw a smile, thrilling set pieces, sexy Bond girls and a fantastically villainous organisation that ties up several loose ends that have been haunting the franchise since it was rebooted.
Narcos (2015)
Why are people not talking about this fantastic series?!?!
Netflix is of course the prime way to engage in any TV binge. Especially when what you're watching is a Netflix Original TV series. Despite having seen a trailer for 'Narcos' go viral on YouTube, I hadn't found many people telling me that I had to go and watch it. Having now made my way halfway into the 10 episodes of series 1, I still don't understand why I haven't found anyone to share my passion for this incredible show with.
'Narcos' is a take on Pablo Escobar and the efforts of the Colombian authorities and US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents to stop him. A notorious Colombian drug lord regarded as the wealthiest criminal in history with an estimated known worth of $30 billion, "the King of Cocaine" is often regarded as the reason why life in Colombia was so bloody.
The series' violence reflects this brilliantly. Each episode is filled with several dramatic, tension- filled stand offs where friends will be talking before pulling guns on each other, DEA agents are continuously raiding cocaine labs, drive-bys are frequent (leaving you nervous every time a conversation takes place in a car) and assassination attempts come out of nowhere leaving the series with a kill-count that puts 'Game of Thrones' to shame.
The truth behind each of these scenes of violence also makes the series stand out. Archival footage is mixed into the plot to emphasise this and it's extremely refreshing to see an actual photo of Pablo Escobar instead of the man who is portraying him, (something which is unfortunately not done in almost any other form of entertainment based on a true story nowadays.) This footage, as well as the use of the main DEA agent's narration, played by Boyd Holbrook, are both extremely well woven into the series threads, taking time to fill viewers in with the specific details instead of throwing them away.
The characters too are well integrated into the series. Drug lord José Rodriguez Gacha, played by Luis Guzmán, and another DEA agent, Javier Peña, played by Pedro Pascal, are both worthy of a mention. However, Wagner Moura as Pablo Escobar is fantastic and testament to such, it's difficult not to like this man, and the show does well to test whether you're comfortable with this or not.
All of this fits into a different narrative in regards to the drugs scene of the 1970s and 1980s. One far away from the cocaine-filled streets of Miami and instead closer to the cocaine labs of Colombia. Here, macho men drug lords reminiscent of Al Pacino's Scarface as well as some of the characters from "Breaking Bad" rule, and always speak in their native language leaving the series littered with extremely satisfying scenes full of Spanish. (Don't worry, there are subtitles.)
Luckily, viewers are slowly catching on to this fantastic series and the fact that series 2 has already been confirmed for next year reassures me how great the content is that Netflix is producing at the moment.
Fehér isten (2014)
(also featuring in The Mancunion), "Barney Weston tells us about the strengths and weaknesses of this Hungarian movie about dogs."
"White God", and known in its native language as "Fehér isten", and Hungary's nominee for this years Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, charts the relationship between a girl called Lili (played by Zsófia Psotta) and her dog Hagen (played by twin dogs Luke and Body). Yet when Lili's father dumps Hagen on the streets because of a new tax on mixed-breeds, although the film attempts to place an equal focus on both Lili and Hagen, the latter's story is much more compelling, and for the first time I've seen in a live-action film, we have a dog as the main character.
At this stage in the film, "White God" shines when Hagen is on screen. With an origins story comparable to that of Caesar's in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", once Hagen is dumped on the streets he is found and trained up to be a fighting dog. From here the familiar canine domestic nature we are all used is beaten out of him. Yet it's in moments like when Hagen wins his first fight, almost killing the other dog in front of him that we can tell that Hagen doesn't like what he's done nor what he's been forced into. For a dog to convey this sounds ridiculous and considering that, it's impossible not to mention how well edited and directed these moments are by Kornél Mundrucźo.
With this in mind, what can't not be mentioned are the moments when this occurs en masse. The film's final scenes are very similar to those from "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", except without the CGI. Watching hundreds of dogs charge down an urban road alongside Lili on her bike reminded me what cinema had been made for. Mundrucźo can't be criticised in regards to these, but what he can be criticised over is how he fits them into "White God" as a whole.
Considering this, as well as how "White God" is ultimately too long, lacks a clear message, and manages to make every human who appears on screen instantly forgettable, the film is generally quite poorly executed. But what shouldn't be criticised is how, considering that anything else close to similar to "White God" is plagued with CGI, Mundrucźo managed to make me come out of Cornerhouse feeling refreshed. Would I recommend "White God" to the average cinema-goer? No. But I would recommend it to anyone who wants to have their faith in cinema restored.
http://therocksbarneyreviews.tumblr.com/
The Interview (2014)
"The Interview" tricked me into wasting time writing this review. How do bad films keep doing this to me?!
Several expected "The Interview" to be quite good considering the media frenzy it caused but amidst rumours that it was all a publicity stunt I personally refused to be drawn into it, although I suppose I have been because I have now watched and am reviewing the film because of that frenzy. "The Interview" though is even far worse than I expected it to be and for me will be remembered as a very black spot on the films Seth Rogan and James Franco have worked together on. It certainly isn't on the same level as their most recent collaboration that was "This Is The End" in my opinion.
But "The Interview" is quite funny at first, I initially chuckled at the film's several "Lord of the Rings" references, but by the end of it I in fact found myself sympathising with North Korea's apparent hacking of Sony Pictures. The film goes from having some decent one liners to childish antics such as Rogan getting his fingers bit off or Kim Jong Un "sharting" on National Television. But then if that's your sort of thing, then yes, go for it.
To be honest, there's not a lot to say about "The Interview" and that is mainly because I'm not going to kick the film while it's already down, because it is a comedy and humour is humour to some and not to others. Bar the frankly unexpected childish antics past the film's half-way mark, the film is just a little less funny than I thought it would be.
I've spoken to quite a few people about this film and their reactions to me ranting on about the film have either sparked a similar set of words coming out of their mouths or ones expressing genuine surprise. As I said humour is humour to some and not to others. I suppose the reason why this sticks out to me as different from Rogan and Franco's previous films is because it provides a new situation, this time as spies, for the hapless pair to be in. Maybe my humour is just changing. What can be praised is the inevitable action that sprouts out from this spy movie, scenes like where Kim Jong Un's face is blown off or when we see a small Korean girl firing a sub-machine gun through the wall blasting 10 or so men away. It's this, and the film's marmite comedy, that earn it its stars, if any.
Selma (2014)
David Oyelowo finally grants Dr. Martin Luther King the cinematic justice he deserves in "Selma"
There are moments in "Selma" when I felt like I was watching Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (played brilliantly by David Oyelowo) himself speaking on screen. Moments that made me want to clap my hands and stand up and cheer in approval of what he was saying. Moments when I was having to hold tears back. And these moments have stayed with me a couple of days after watching the film. These moments prove how timeless the story and issues are that "Selma" presents to us and although it would be difficult not to get these across, "Selma" does so in a way unlike any other biopic.
David Oyelowo, a British actor, is fantastic and it is an absolute scandal that he has not been nominated for the Best Actor Oscar this year. Perhaps the Academy is still tapping themselves on the back for giving "12 Years a Slave" the Best Picture Oscar last year. When Oyelowo is making those speeches that King made to the Selma black clergy it was like I was watching King in the flesh. Oyelowo looks and sounds like King, effortlessly capturing his manner, grace and style and arguably most importantly his faith. Oyelowo simply pioneers the film in regards to performances, obviously helped along by the fame of his real-life counterpart, the other actors and actresses in the film simply revolve around him. This is especially obvious in the scenes where we get to see King and his colleagues deciding how to proceed in Selma. These backstage scenes seem just like how they would have been, providing an interesting viewpoint considering there isn't a lot of material detailing what happened. In these scenes King's colleagues also shine through, Colman Domingo (playing Ralph Abernathy) and Wendell Pierce (playing the Rev. Hosea Williams) are both worth mentioning for their performances. These scenes though do not focus on King and thus do well to emphasise that he was both not alone nor was a God of sorts, but just simply a great man, making him even more relatable and deserved of my sympathy.
Of course "Selma" is a true story and the film sticks to it throughout ultimately doing it a perfect kind of justice. The fact that the film chose Selma as what it was going to cover was a good choice. There was the "battleground" that King decided to use as a means by which to end the struggle blacks had experienced in regards to registering to vote. It's ultimately the moments which have been well documented that are where the film thrives, "Bloody Sunday" for example. But where the film begins to waver is in its half-hearted commitment towards King's personal life and I believe this comes from how we obviously know less about King's personal life then what we know about him as leader of the Civil Rights Movement. It's those scenes where we see King giving speeches or leading the marches through Selma which are the film's best, whereas the hypothesised conversations between King and his wife, and meetings between the C.I.A. director J. Edgar Hoover and President Lyndon B. Johnson really bring the film out of focus.
"Selma" though is ultimately the best biopic I have ever seen. Although I've mentioned that King's personal life for me got in the way of the film, you have to see "Selma", not only because of how, as critic Richard Roeper put it, it's a film that provides a history lesson but certainly doesn't feel like a history lecture, but also because of how the film finally grants King the cinematic justice he deserves with a brilliant performance by Oyelowo.
Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)
If you liked "Kick Ass", you'll like "Kingsman: The Secret Service".
"Kingsman: The Secret Service" isn't quite what you'd expect having seen how the film has been advertised. But for those who might have read the well-acclaimed 2012 comic that the film is based on and from there may have noticed that the film is bringing back the same duo that bought us "Kick Ass" (Matthew Vaughn and Mark Millar), "Kingsman: The Secret Service" may perhaps prove to be less of a shock. The film is most of all a fun one, well-executed by the man whose influence is prominent in it, Matthew Vaughn, the film's director. But Vaughn's style, as seen in the several action sequences that come to define the film are not all that "Kingsman: The Secret Service" is and the rest of it is relatively generic, poor and boring and definitely stands out in contrast to what I remember "Kingsman: The Secret Service" for.
The film's action sequences are each brilliant with one in particular perhaps being the best I have ever seen, where Colin Firth (playing Harry Hart) cuts and shoots his way through the throats and heads of a group of fire and brimstone American, bigot church-goers. The film's ending is also brilliantly shot, unfolding in front of you like a painting. Some have called this style obnoxious, which I understand, but it fits into what "Kingsman: The Secret Service" is, a film with James Bond archetypes that have been cranked up to about level 100, and that are the complete opposite of the James Bond films we are currently used to.
And this is the same for the film's main villain, tech billionaire Richard Valentine (played brilliantly by Samuel L. Jackson) who obviously has a phobia of sorts for blood and a lisp. He dresses in a way that is a relief in contrast to the suits I've seen almost every single James Bond villain play in recent times, instead wearing orange, blue or purple baseball caps with matching outfits of course. When I first saw Jackson on screen I couldn't help but burst out laughing.
What lets the film down is in what happens when Colin Firth isn't killing everybody in the room. Boring archetypal stuff that is a product of what happens when this James Bond parody is trying to be serious for a moment. Moments like when the film's protagonist, Gary 'Eggsy' Unwin (played by newcomer Taron Egerton) is running down corridors with soldiers chasing after him and miraculously seemingly forgetting how to shoot their guns (I mean this scene is painfully poorly shot). It's these moments I suppose that emphasise how Vaughn is not much a director of actors, but more of action and that is where he succeeds here, as he did in "Kick Ass".
Ultimately "Kingsman: The Secret Service" is a good film, and the average member of the audience my age will come out agreeing with me because of how similar it is to what we saw in "Kick Ass", but for the critic that I am slowly becoming several things stood out to me which proved detrimental towards the film's style. However, if you want to see a film that is full of blood and gore with a great soundtrack to keep the pace up, a film that in many ways I found took inspiration from my favourite film of 2014, "Guardians of the Galaxy", then look no further. You don't need to think and you can just be whisked away by Matthew Vaughn along the corridors of Richard Valentin's base, even though there may be the occasional moment when you find the soldiers aren't shooting at, nor running after you.
Whiplash (2014)
"Whiplash" is simply a tense, captivating study all about what it takes, and what is needed, to be great.
"Whiplash" is initially a captivating study about what it takes to be great and what is needed to become great, and it ends as a captivating study about what it is to be great. Miles Teller (playing Andrew Neiman) and J.K. Simmons (playing Terence Fletcher) are both absolutely fantastic in their respective roles and their performances are on par with those I loved witnessing in "Birdman" and they fit perfectly, as "Birdman"'s cast did with that films respective themes, with what "Whiplash" is all about.
Greatness, as I mentioned earlier, is what "Whiplash" is all about. Teller's and Simmons' drive reflect this, and it comes through in their characters. Andrew wants to be "one of the greats" and Fletcher wants to be the man to coach one of them. Yet this is certainly the absolute minimum of what I gathered about this film before I saw it. This kind of drive is in motion about halfway through the film, and "Whiplash" has several twists and turns in it before it finishes. Teller and Simmons develop extremely complex characters and what you come to realise is that what makes them complex is their drive. Andrew for example is an initially very easy character to understand and in some ways, to relate to. We've all wanted to be better and get great at something. But what takes "Whiplash" in a different direction from the one where we see Andrew asking the girl behind the counter at the cinema out is Fletcher. He pushes Andrew beyond "what is expected of him". Watching Teller develop Andrew as a character is a fun ride although Fletcher swearing, slapping and throwing cymbals at him is not so much, but it's all for a reason.
But is it necessary? Fletcher believes so, calling it "an absolute necessity" in a scene where he seems to reveal himself as the grand villain, right beneath our noses this whole time. "Whiplash" asks these questions and it's almost as if the film sprouted from them, not that they came up and were developed as the film continued to shoot. Andrew and Fletcher's relationship is an attempt at answering them, leaving it up to you whether the answers "Whiplash" puts forward are right or wrong. Are Fletchers methods the way forward? Could Andrew harness his talent and be great without Fletcher? Did Andrew have the talent to do such a thing? Is talent even a realistic construct? "Whiplash" asks all of these questions, and puts forward its answers here.
Of course Teller and Simmons are fantastic too and deserve the nominations they are getting. Simmons character is particularly well developed (and funny too) and again it is a joy to witness Teller's development. Neither character can be described really. Simmons seems describable but there seems to be something beneath him that I couldn't figure out and in one scene we see that he isn't quite as tough as he seems to be. What surprises me though is how Simmons keeps winning awards and Teller does not. For me they are both brilliant and one does not outdo the other because in "Whiplash" you come to think of them as entirely separate individuals, and their relationship is instead an eternal one in regards to how it can be applied to several examples and asked whether it is one required for greatness.
What's also worth mentioning is the films score. It's brilliant. It really is just a complete appraisal of Jazz. Drums of course predominantly feature and although the score is not as good as "Birdman"s, again heavily featuring drums, the reason it is not is because the score in "Whiplash" is external and in "Birdman", it's internal, inside the cast's heads. It has meaning and something to do with the film whereas in "Whiplash" it's almost as if Jazz music and the drums in this case are being used as a way by which we can see Andrew become great. It's another eternal concept of sorts.
"Whiplash" is definitely worth seeing and although I wouldn't quite call it the film of the year, it certainly puts forward a good performance in several categories and has done well considering it was shot in 19 days and adapted from a short film. Most should come out saying "Whiplash" was a good film. It's tense and has some good performances in it and asks questions, and talks about, greatness. It's visually tense as well, helped along by slow-motion shots of sweat bouncing up and down off cymbals and blood dripping from a hand. Because of this, it was an utter relief, and felt hard-earned in some respects, to see the films ending.
Wild (2014)
"Wild" has a fantastic story and a good lead in Reece Witherspoon who by the end of the film is seemingly synonymous with the character she plays.
I remember when I was watching "Wild" that I suddenly realised that I wasn't walking beside the films protagonist Cheryl Strayed, but was in fact watching her being played by Reese Witherspoon. But this wasn't just because of how immersive the cinema screen is and how it made me feel like I was experiencing Strayed's story first hand, but it was also how, using Strayed's hike as the guide leading us through the film, "Wild" uses Strayed's internal monologue as a way of letting the audience see what led to Strayed to embark on such a terrific feat. This fluent style matches that of the book the film is based on, "Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail". It was also Witherspoon's performance that drew me in to the film, and by combining that with the inevitable landscape shots that are going to feature in a film like this, I suddenly realised that I had been walking beside Strayed/Witherspoon as the film had gone on.
Strayed's story is tragic, yet from that spouts inspiration. But "Wild" doesn't do it in a way where that is clear, in fact Strayed frequently asks herself what on earth she is thinking doing this. Instead, again by sticking to the style of its source material, "Wild" leaves you realising a day or two later that the past isn't something that is best to discard and forget about, but is instead something that we should take on board and use as a way to become a better person. Again, something that isn't so obvious about "Wild" is how you find yourself rooting for Strayed, but not in the sense of how I was just about resisting the urge to scream out in the cinema as if she was some sort of superwoman, but instead in a way where Strayed genuinely, and deservedly, had my sympathy.
Reece Witherspoon is one of many people to thank for this. She is brilliant in "Wild" and it's great to see her in something rather than, what I thought was her recent work, "This Means War", that cringing spy flick where Chris Pine and Tom Hardy fight over her. Yet what "This Means War" can be thanked for in regards to "Wild" is how Witherspoon doesn't leave that comedy behind and where there is a chance for humour, she takes it, again leading me to laugh out loud, for example in a scene where she is mistaken for a hobo. But then, once I'd finished laughing, I'd be left with an important question about Cheryl Strayed. Is she homeless? These sort of questions give Strayed your sympathy, and deservedly so. Cheryl Strayed, for her story, and Reese Witherspoon, doing justice for Strayed in regards to her story, can both be thanked in regards to this.
We can also thank the film's director, Jean-Marc Vallée, following on from his previous effort "Dallas Buyers Club". Whereas I didn't really like his previous film, I feel that "Wild" was better suited to him. Although there is that same pale shade over the camera as there was in "Dallas Buyers Club", Vallée captures some fantastic landscape shots and what's important to note is how it's not just the scenery that makes them truly fantastic, but it's the subject of them, Strayed/Witherspoon, that does so. Where there is a view of some snowy mountains, we can see a figure making her way down them. Vallée does this in a different way in "Dallas Buyers Club", and it explains why Matthew McConaughey in that film and Reese Witherspoon in this get so much attention for their respective roles. This makes it difficult for supporting actors and actresses to get some of the limelight, but again another strong performance by Laura Dern (playing Barbara "Bobbi" Grey, Cheryl's Mother) manages to take some of it, though not as much as Jared Leto did in "Dallas Buyers Club" last year. But I suppose it is difficult for Dern to take some of the spotlight in a film that does focus on one woman's struggle, whereas "Dallas Buyers Club" focused on that of a whole community.
"Wild" is ultimately a great film and its story, propelled forward by Reece Witherspoon, who by the end of the film I found to be synonymous with Strayed, is both tragic and terrific. Vallée can be thanked for this too. At one point in the film Witherspoon/Strayed comments how she feels more alone at home than out here in the wild. This captures what "Wild" is as a film, and although it doesn't teach you anything directly, it rather encourages you to look at what Strayed did and to try and not find yourself in that position.
Into the Woods (2014)
"Into The Woods" is a great film that leaves you wondering whether you just walked out of the cinema or the theatre.
"Into The Woods" is a musical fantasy film, adapted for the screen from its Broadway equivalent. I know, it didn't sound appealing to me either, but "Into The Woods" is instead actually quite enjoyable
In fact it's actually given be a bit of a craving to see the other musical film you've probably heard of, "Les Miserables". But for "Into The Woods" there are some great performances, the songs are actually quite catchy and the way the film is shot meant I was never quite sure whether I was watching "Into The Woods" on the screen or stage.
In regards to performances, I can't not mention Meryl Streep (playing The Witch), James Corden and Emily Blunt (playing The Baker and The Bakers Wife respectively) for theirs. I'm not normally a fan of Meryl Streep. I've only really liked her previously in "The Iron Lady" but here she is great, playing a well-made character, although the script obviously does the majority of this for her. Although she has a lesser role than the films five main characters she stood out to me as its lead. Corden's and Blunt's characters are both good fun too. Corden himself provides a lot of the comedy for the film, but it's great that he does it not in how he self-deprecates himself as he has done to an extent with his previous work, but in a way that is normal for a Disney film and again, although the script does most of the work for him, Corden does well and this could deservedly be a breakthrough role into Hollywood for him.
Whilst I'm talking about performances, I can't not mention the quality of the singing too. Surprisingly I didn't think there was a single bad voice. There will be, and quite rightly so, no mocking like there was of Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe in "Les Miserables". Each voice is good and it adds to how catchy the songs are. I've got to admit, I found myself walking out of the cinema down the escalator quietly singing to myself the film's opening number, "Prologue: Into The Woods". I also surprisingly found myself with a bit of a smile on my face when Chris Pine (playing Cinderella's Prince) was singing "Agony", although he was pretty poor otherwise.
The singing of course makes you feel unsure, as I mentioned earlier, as to whether you are in a cinema or the theatre and what contributes to this is how the film is shot. There are only two sweeping landscape shots, both of the woods, but the rest of the film is shot in a style reminiscent of the National Theatre Live productions, bar a perhaps more energetic camera. A perfect example of this is when Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen (playing Rapunzel's Prince) were singing "Agony". They sing whilst making their way down a river, splashing around in the water and onto rocks, and the way the camera catches them made me feel like I was in the theatre, close to the stage looking up at what was going on, and this is consistent throughout the film.
What takes the film down a notch is its ending. I of course won't go and spoil anything, but it seems a bit unnecessary. Although there are several lessons to be learnt, there are too many to take in and just when I thought I knew what the film was trying to teach me, in came another lesson. And another. But I suppose this reflects the amount of fairy tales the film packs into it. These morals follow on though from relatively dark events, and it seems that the films ending takes a step back from what we know to be the classic Disney fairy tale and one step closer towards its grimmer roots. (See what I did there?)
"Into The Woods" is a great film, and for those who are not now fans of Disney in general, but perhaps owned every single Disney film on VHS when they were younger, *cough*, this is a fun trip back into childhood for them, but a great film otherwise for anyone else.
Check me out at therocksbarneyreviews.tumblr.com
Foxcatcher (2014)
"Foxcatcher" is good and is led brilliantly by Steve Carrell's performance, but it doesn't seem to deserve the nominations it's getting.
"Foxcatcher"'s true story and ensemble both seem to have a cold and frosty shade of white over them and the film generally has that too, both literally and metaphorically. Bennett Miller's direction reflects this, and the several chilling shots he captures, for me made my experience within that screen.
The film's true story follows Mark Schulz as he trains to win the Gold medal for Wrestling at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, with the help of the multimillionaire John Du Pont. As usual difficult questions are posed and "Foxcatcher" again asks us a question, as so many films do, about America, and as Erin Whitney and Matthew Jacobs point out in their review for the Huffington Post, it is one that acts as "a distant horror story for the 1% percent". The film comments heavily on this with the multimillionaire Du Pont as the man at the fore front of these comments understandably. For example Du Pont almost seems to have the Olympic Wrestling Schulz brothers simply because they form part of his trophy cabinet, as objects to play with at his disposal, which acts as an explanation for the films ending.
But the compelling true story and character study, particularly in regards to John Du Pont (played by Steve Carrell), is the films strength and a fascinating one at that. It will probably be unknown to my generation. But as usual the story told here is different to the one that actually happened and on reading what did happen it seems that the film's director, Bennett Miller, missed out on several details that could have made the story that much better. For example, although the film does pick up on Du Pont's descent into madness to an extent, it doesn't take the opportunity to make it obvious and although I appreciate subtlety I think it would have been even better otherwise. In the true story, Du Pont for example thought that his horses were sending him messages from Mars and he also frequently asked his wrestlers to check his attic for ghosts. This really would have been a test for Carrell and could have contributed to an already stellar performance by him.
The film though is propelled forward by its performances that branch out past what these actors are typically known for, Channing Tatum (playing Mark Schulz) and Mark Ruffalo (playing Dave Schulz) for example. But it is Steve Carrell's performance that manages to break through the story and again what roles he is generally known for, and the hole that he leaves allows for Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo to follow through it, and therefore still deserved of the praise they have received from others. These performances ultimately stop "Foxcatcher" from being defined as good for its story alone. Bennett Miller's direction is good. As I mentioned several of the shots he captured really made my cinematic experience, the best of those featuring Du Pont releasing his horses out into the wild. We see Du Pont's dark silhouette with his hands raised, urging his horses to flee and it looked great on screen.
Although its story is good and its ensemble, headed up by Carrell, is brilliant "Foxcatcher" doesn't bring anything new to the table, and although I didn't expect it to, I did expect it to do more than it did. It's a vague expression to say that and I'm lost for words really in how to describe why I'm not rating the film better, but it's almost as if, thinking about it, the film was saved by its ensemble performances which will explain why so many will have it in their best films of 2015 lists come the end of the year. Ultimately, "Foxcatcher" is a good film and worth seeing, but not one that lives up to the hype surrounding it.
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
"Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" asks brilliant questions, teaches fantastic lessons and brings a new style of cinema to the fore.
"Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" is a simply excellent film. Why? There is a scene in "Birdman" where Riggan Thompson (played by Michael Keaton), who is trying to direct and star in his Broadway adaptation of the Raymond Carver play "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love", walks towards the front of the stage and talks about love, what it is to be loved, and how we all crave that. But is it love we crave? Or, as Sam (played by Emma Stone) puts it, is Riggan confusing love with admiration? These are some of the many wide-ranging questions that "Birdman" leaves you with as you leave the cinema and you thus don't really realise how good the cast, direction, dialogue and score are until you've given up on those questions, realising that they are just too difficult to answer.
The cast is simply stellar in "Birdman", brilliantly led by Michael Keaton in what Variety's Peter Debruge calls the "comeback of the century" and which I agree with him over. However, I'm not sure if Michael Keaton would accept this title, in a recent interview promoting the film he laughed at the concept, yet the comparisons between his career and that of Riggans are unavoidable, he also laughed when this was bought up too. But, to be fair, all I knew of Michael Keaton before I saw "Birdman" was that he had starred in the 1989 "Batman" film as well as in its 1992 sequel "Batman Returns". His career hasn't been stellar and it's a surprise I even knew his name before I saw "Birdman" really
But his performance in this film deserves all the attention he gets and all the awards he is being nominated for. Riggan is a complex character and you are never quite sure about him, how he feeling and how he feels towards others, not only because of how Riggan changes as the film goes on but also because of how that reflects the ever-changing nature of the film, moving from one question or theme to the other without actually leaving it behind, instead leaving it in the back of your mind for you to think about later.
Again, as I said earlier, the rest of the cast is great too. Edward Norton is brilliant (playing the self-obsessed, ego-driven actor who feels more real on the stage than off it, Mike Shiner). But then Miles is so much more than that and again it's hard to put your finger on what or who he is and what he is looking for. Zach Galifanakis (playing Riggan's agent, Jake) who is trying to keep Riggan grounded, is also brilliant and then so is Emma Stone and Naomi Watts (although both seem to be in very familiar roles). I could go on listing actors and actresses but it would just be a paragraph of names. (Last one I promise but Amy Ryan also does well playing Riggan's ex-wife Slyvia.)
But each of these is alleviated, and should thanking him in any of their Oscars speeches, by the film's director, Alejandro González Iñárritu. Alejandro hasn't done many English-Language films before (except Babel in 2006 and 21 Grams in 2003), and considering that, it makes his direction in "Birdman" even more outstanding. Where he really excels is in how "Birdman" is seemingly filmed in one take. These really emphasise how good the acting is in this film, be it a monologue by Emma Stone as she rants at her dad, a take that involves Michael Keaton walking in just his underpants through Times Square, or a scene where Keaton and Edward Norton rehearse on stage. What makes these one takes even better is how the film is almost entirely set in St. James Theatre and you really get a feel for it as you glide around it in these one takes, feeling, seeing and hearing everything that is going on. It truly is an experience. I loved every moment of it and what this ultimately did for me was make me feel like I was part of the production, as if I was being given this behind the scenes look at what was going on. This thrill inspired me to get back into acting, something that I used to do a lot of. What happens with this you as the film goes on, you begin to realise that this is less of a trip to the cinema and more of a trip to the theatre. It's a good mix of both and I can't really imagine it being the same on DVD, although it never is. I will definitely be seeing it again.
Birdman's dialogue is great too and it matches the fast-paced score of "Birdman". Both reflect how unique "Birdman" is and that is where its brilliance lies. Just like how when you are in a production and the curtains come down on closing night you come to think that you really did not want that to end, and I had the same feeling when "Birdman" did. Its cast, score and direction are all what will be directly nominated come the Oscars, but there is no specific award for the questions "Birdman" made me think about, the way "Birdman" made me feel and the lessons "Birdman" taught me.
The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death (2014)
"The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death" is TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE. If you want to see me rant on, then read on.
"The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death" is terrible. Absolutely terrible. I cannot believe that I spent 98 minutes of my life and that the majority of people in that screen had paid money, money that they had most likely WORKED AN HOUR FOR considering how most were round about my age on such ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. Something that has the b****** to call itself a film. The guys who made that film must have been laughing since its release on New Year's Day as much as Michael Bay did when Transformers: Age of Extinction was the highest-grossing film of 2014. Anyway
What really lets the film down is. NO F****** ANYWAY THIS FILM IS SO BAD. The cast is terrible and so is the plot. Man. *sigh*.
I quite enjoyed "The Woman in Black". It had a decent and proved plot, as seen in the original success of the book with the same name written by Susan Hill, and with the stage play, as well as a decent lead in the form of Daniel Radcliffe in his first role since the "Harry Potter" series. BUT, as I'm sure you've already noticed, I THOUGHT THIS FILM WAS TERRIBLE. Such a let-down. The plot of this film is set in 1941 and follows Eve Parkins (played by Phoebe Fox) and her stereotypically stern boss Jean Hogg (played by Helen McCroy) as they are evacuated along with a group of children up north to Eel Marsh House, where the first film was set. Its promising at first but by the end of the film nothings really happened
? Where the plot is somehow possibly a little bit better than terrible is where it introduces the concept that Eve could turn into the Woman in Black or where we see Harry Burnstow (played by Harry Irvine) stopping and having some sort of seizure hallway down the road to Eel Marsh House which is a key plot aspect for about half of the film. I was waiting to know what was wrong with Harry. Was the Woman in Black having his way with him, morphing him into some sort of sidekick? No. Of course not. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE GOOD. Instead, guess what? HE IS JUST SCARED OF WATER. THAT WAS A KEY PLOT FOR HALF THE FILM! And this is just the first half of the film. THE SECOND HALF IS TERRIBLE TOO. From Eel Marsh House to a fake RAF airfield and then back to Eel Marsh House with a load of RUBBISH in between.
And guess what, that's all that seems to be between the cast members ears. RUBBISH. It's what came out of their mouths too. The performances AS YOU WOULD PROBABLY GUESS are also terrible. Everyone is TERRIBLE. The only person I possibly liked was Harry. And that was only because I had a bit of a man crush on him. I mean he was quite a cool pilot. OH NO I MEAN RUNNER OF A FAKE AIRFIELD WHO IS SCARED OF WATER. There are no characters. I didn't care about anyone. Man I mean I wanted Eve to f****** die at the end. Man f*** that film.
The film ultimately relies on jump scares throughout and although I am extremely vulnerable to those there were only about 3 good ones in the entire film and one of them was one of those false ones where this kid with a F****** SAUCEPAN ON HIS HEAD OR SOMETHING DECIDED TO F****** SCREAM AT THE CAMERA. There was 1 that made me jump. And guess what? It was one that was entirely unrelated to the plot with a little girl and an old man just holding a finger to their mouths to the camera. You know what the best bit of the film was? The END. Oh, and the bit where one woman screamed out at a bit of wood falling in the background which prompted the whole audience to burst out laughing. I feel sorry for those who were involved with this film. It was just too bad. And man I liked the first film. The reason I've given it two stars is because of how the film does well to take make it look like it is 1941. But don't worry because the cinematography is TERRIBLE. FOR F**** SAKE I COULDN'T READ WHAT ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS (who was mute) WAS WRITING DOWN FOR THE ENTIRE FILM!
D***** I HAVE JUST REALISED I HAVE BEEN TRICKED INTO WASTING MORE OF MY TIME ON THIS S***** FILM.
The Theory of Everything (2014)
"The Theory of Everything" is propelled forward by its fantastic story and leads. In that order.
If you want a film that is going to inspire you, not with fictional stories, but instead with the use of a true one grounded in reality than "The Theory of Everything" is what you should go out and see right now. It is, simply put, a fantastic, life-affirming film that is propelled forward by its story and its leading roles. In that order. And the rest of the film is pretty good too. But "The Theory of Everything" isn't all about Stephen Hawking (played by Eddie Redmayne) and how incredible his story is. Instead the film is "part biopic, part love story" with the latter telling us about the imperfect marriage between Stephen Hawking and Jane Wilde (played by Felicity Jones).
Eddie Redmayne is fantastic as Stephen Hawking and what is best at how he portrays Hawking getting worse in regards to his Motor Neurone Disease (/ALS). Redmayne starts the film as a young Hawking and we can tell this guy is clever. But it is as the film goes on that Redmayne's performance gets better. Halfway through the film we are looking at a slouched Redmayne, slurring his words and occasionally smiling and by the end of the film we are looking at Redmayne playing Hawking as he is now. In testament to this the real-life Stephen Hawking commented, on seeing the film, that he felt he was sometimes looking back in time at himself. I'm with him. His performance is again, incredible, as incredible as the story he has the privilege to tell. If I don't see him in the running for the Best Actor Oscar come February then I will be surprised.
Felicity Jones performance as Jane Wilde is magnificent too. Although on the surface she doesn't seemingly require the various skills that Redmayne has to delve into, she again does the story and her real- life counterpart justice. Although she starts the film as a student, we come to see her having to raise 3 children as well as look after her husband and you feel that she really is going through all this. Again, the real-life Jane Wilde was impressed with Jones' performance. When I think about Best Actress potential this year, she should also be in the running for the appropriate Oscar.
Harry Lloyd is brilliant as Stephen's university friend Brian too. Although Brian is a mere composite character, he is a brilliant one at that. His attitude is drawn from Jane's descriptions of "Stephen's fellow lodgers and research students" at Cambridge: "They talked to him in his own intellectual terms, sometimes caustically sarcastic, sometimes crushingly critical, always humorous. In personal terms, however, they treated him with a gentle consideration which was almost loving." He could also be in for an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
But it is the story that really propels "The Theory of Everything" forward and it provides for half the reason as to why the films leads are fantastic. The film itself is based on Jane Wilde's 2008 autobiography "Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen", a flattering account of their initial marriage and a significantly different, revised edition of the 1999 autobiography "Music to Move the Stars: My Life with Stephen", a less flattering account of their marriage, sparked when Hawking left Wilde for his nurse Elaine Mason in 1990. (It's worth noting they quietly divorced in 2006 following a 5 year period of rumours over whether Mason abused Hawking, apparently hitting him, throwing him around and even leaving him in the sun to burn for several hours.) The revised edition was sparked by her and Hawking managing to develop a good working relationship with Wilde.
The story of "The Theory of Everything", as I said earlier, is "part biopic, part love story". We learn in the film of how clever Hawking was and how he refused to let his disability stop him from being great, initially managing to overcome the 2 years he was given to live and ultimately managing to become a household name. But this isn't what "The Theory of Everything" is really about. Although the film does give Hawking his due, it's not as if Eddie Redmayne has a bigger role than Felicity Jones. Their roles are coequal and the film thus focuses on Stephen and Jane's relationship, in particular how Wilde had to cope with raising 3 children whilst looking after her husband.
"The Theory of Everything" is a fantastic film with a fantastic story and two fantastic leads. The only problem I had with the film, and it's always there for me when I watch this kind of film, is although it is never boring, you do find yourself occasionally wondering how long is left. But this is not the final thought I want to leave you with. Instead, let me remind you that "The Theory of Everything" is again, a fantastic film and worth seeing if you get the chance. It tells you something that apparently a nurse wiped a tear from Hawking's eye when he first saw the film.
Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)
"Exodus: Gods and Kings" simply doesn't earn its stars.
"Exodus: Gods and Kings" is a perfect representation of its director's/Ridley Scott's career. Hit and miss. Although Scott has done well with "Alien" and "Gladiator" in the past, films such as "Robin Hood" or "The Counselor" haven't. "Exodus: Gods and Kings" unfortunately falls into the latter category. But it's not because of whether it's poor or not, it's because it simply just doesn't earn any more of the stars than I have given it. How the film does earn the majority of its stars is in its visual effects and cinematography. Ancient Egypt looks real/seemingly historically accurate thanks to this (I can't confirm whether it is or not as I have no clue about the era) and we can also praise those in charge of costume, makeup, set in regards to this. All of this made me want to go and read up on everything Ancient Egypt. And it's not just the landscape that looks great either, the film's visual effects and cinematography really shine when we see the 10 plagues, or rather the highlight of "Exodus: Gods and Kings". First comes the river running red with blood, then the frogs, the lice, the flies, the dead livestock, the boils, the hailstorms, the locusts, the darkness and then the death of Egypt's first born. These each looked incredible and I really do mean that. The films visual effects and cinematography are on par with those in "Interstellar" and therefore the best I've seen and experienced since I started reviewing. I really felt like God was having his way. But this is where things turn sour. The use of that one word. God. Obviously he's going to make an appearance in the film. And he is portrayed as a kid, played by the British 11 year old Isaac Andrews. Now, I had no idea how they were going to portray God in this film. And I was surprised when this kid ominously appears to Moses (Christian Bale), speaking fluently and suggesting he go free "his people"/the Hebrews. This works initially. But what begins to develop is this really annoying character. And halfway through the film, it seemed even Moses was annoyed at him. But it is when Aaron Paul (playing Joshua) (yes you read that correctly, and yes he's terrible, stick to the meth Jesse) when watching Moses talking to God sees him talking to nothing, even though it's clear that God is there because of the massive hailstorm in the background, that I realised that Scott is perhaps trying to say something here in regards to God. This is a difficult point to explain. Let me start by explaining how Moses never seems like he really is a Hebrew and I don't recall Moses calling himself a Hebrew at any point in the film. There is no flashbacks to say that Moses is a Hebrew neither. We can only trust what people are saying. Now, for me, this raised a question of doubt in regards to whether God was meant to be seen as real in the film, or as just one of Moses illusions? Let me point out that there is no question as to whether God is real or not in this film. He is meant to be real. Hence the plagues and the sea parting. But to a modern viewer, such as myself, I found myself asking the question as to whether God was real. As to whether in our society we should be praising this petulant kid who wants his way or Moses. I mean, what kind of God would realise 10 plagues like that on anyone? The film poses that question well. So it can be commended for that too. Now, that's all that's good in the film, unfortunately. The rest is poor. Neither Joel Edgerton (playing Rameses) nor Christian Bale save the day. The script is terrible, again not quite living up to its source material. Yet that is, to be fair, all that "Exodus Gods: and Kings" does poorly. The rest is simply below average. It is not a good film. Films have to earn their stars and "Exodus: Gods and Kings" simply only earns 5. OUT OF 10. Jeez.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
A very disappointing conclusion to a trilogy that could have been on par with that of the Lord of the Rings.
"The Battle of the Five Armies" unfortunately lets down the films that come before it in the trilogy that is "The Hobbit". The film's director/Peter Jackson's failure to find the right balance between battle and plot content, which could be attributed to a laziness of sorts, is the reason for that. It's probably also fair to state that it could be attributed to how coming out of the film, I felt that I was the semi-victim of what has now become relatively common in Hollywood, the tactic that is turning a film into 2 or 3, and often labelled as a money-grabbing one. In regards to how Jackson fails to find the balance between the battle and plot content in "The Battle of the Five Armies", contrasting with something he had done so well in "Return of the King", it is almost as if he was hoping that the audience wouldn't notice how little plot the film actually has, by instead packing it with a battle. This really is the films downfall. Even where there is opportunity for Jackson to pack in some plot, I'm referring to the ending in particular here, he doesn't take it. Instead we are left with a film whose second half is mindless, whose violence can be described as that too and just there as a means of filling a third film. Where Jackson does insert plot content, it comes not from the original Tolkien book, which for me was what made the first two films of the trilogy so good, but from God knows where. (To be fair to Jackson a lot of what was in those first two films was not from the book. Yet at least they seemed like they could have been compared to rubbish like the relationship between Tauriel the elf and Fili the dwarf in this film for example!) I suppose it could be argued that I just preferred the quest format of the first two films. The lack of plot content also manages to have had an effect on the relationships audience members had been developing with characters since the start of the trilogy. I found that, by the end of "The Battle of the Five Armies", I did not care nearly as much about the Dwarfs as I previously had. The film's ending again doesn't help here. The battle scenes also do well to bore the audience and detach from not only the film, but also from the relationships that they had been developing. What is the saving grace of the film though, is its first half, up to where the battle begins, the turning-point from which the film begins to go downhill for me. Whilst watching the first half of the film I began to wonder whether I would be walking out of this cinema by the end of the film thinking that "The Hobbit" trilogy was on par with, or perhaps even better than that of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. There were several moments in the first half where I found myself quietly whispering to my neighbour "that was awesome
" whilst demanding fist bumps off him. Even when the battle started, I was excited, and deservedly so. Jackson deserves praise for those battle scenes. I'm sure that if I was to tune into the film at random the battle scene at hand would keep me gripped. But an hour and a half or so later and with the same shots as well as the same battles, I found that my enthusiasm had depleted. What I thought could save the film from there was a decent ending, yet unfortunately this never came. In regards to performances, it's always difficult to stand out in an epic like this, but I felt that although Martin Freeman (playing Bilbo Baggins) and Ian McKellen (playing Gandalf) had both put in good performances previously in the trilogy, this was by far their weakest. The only performance really worth praising in regards to "The Battle of the Five Armies" is Luke Evans' (playing Bard), in what seems to be a coming-of-age story for him. Ultimately, "The Battle of the Five Armies" first half is its saving grace, yet its battle-filled second half, poor ending, and lack of plot content let it down, making it a very disappointing conclusion to something that could have been, for me, on par with the original Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Nightcrawler (2014)
Jake Glyenhaal is outstanding in "Nightcrawler", a film that nails down that today's media has become.
"Nightcrawler" is defined, to the average viewer, by Jake Gyllenhaal (playing Louis Bloom) who's performance was, to me, outstanding. He said in a recent interview in regards to the film "I don't think this experience will every completely go away" and I would be surprised if it left him that easily. Gyllenhaal builds an extremely complex character, reminiscent of Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker in "The Dark Knight" in some ways. This performance is one of the best of the year and his character should be viewed as one of those that I am lucky enough to have seen on the big screen. Like Gylllenhaal I don't think that, for me, "this experience will every go away."
What I also found of interest was how the film made an insightful comment in regards to what today's media has become. This is something that I don't think the average viewer picks up, understanding that the media is this film is twisted looking to make money without principle nor wanting to inform people, the purpose of news (or rather what it should be...) "Lou" is this twisted monster, a personification of today's media. What I did notice was how Kevin Rahm (playing Frank Kruse) acts as the opposite this, standing up for these traditional principals and what news should be. The film does well to make this comment, something that I think most films should try to do, and it hits a fine line in regards to it, something that I think "The Imitation Game" didn't do in regards to homophobia and completely missed the boat on in regards to women rights (see my review on it).
What I can criticise, and its worth noting I only do so because there always has to be some criticism with any film, in regards to "Nightcrawler" is how I found Riz Ahmed's inclusion (playing Rick) a bit unnecessary, the same with the film's ending. I find this in most films and I can never put a finger on it but in some ways I sympathised with the bastards next to me whispering "why hasn't this film ended yet?" Its finally worth noting that Dan Gilroy makes his directorial debut with "Nightcrawler" and that explains some of the films flaws, but I'm not going to criticise him. I mean it his debut, and a bloody good one at that.
"Nightcrawler" is a fantastic film and for me, Jack Glyenhaal was the highlight. 100% deserved of an Oscar Nomination, perhaps a win. What "Nightcrawler" made me realise though was how twisted our media is.
The Imitation Game (2014)
"The Imitation Game" was disappointing. And yes, I'm afraid to say it.
Going into "The Imitation Game", I expected to see what had been cited as the main draws of the film, those being the magnificent story that is told and Benedict Cumberbatch's performance, (playing Alan Turing), apparently worthy of an Oscar, for Best Actor. Yet these draws only half come to define what I thought of "The Imitation Game".
When I look back, I think of how the film told Alan Turing's story and how this man, who had served his country so well, had been treated so badly by it simply because he was gay. Yet I think the film could have emphasised this point better. Again, when I look back to the film, it's not Alan Turing's injustice that jumps out at me, rather it is his achievement that does so. I suppose that's a good thing, but the film could have doubled up as a comment on homophobia as well as on Alan Turing's story.
It's also worth making the point that, as an adapted screenplay written by Graham Moore, having topped the 2011 Black List and based on Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges, the dialogue was poor and I didn't really care about the characters, even to an extent Turing. Of course, responsibility for this also lands with the film's Norwegian director, Morten Tyldum, making his English- Language directorial debut. Yet after the film, I soon found out that the production team was also mainly Norwegian, tarnishing my views of what I thought was a British film and I think that this is such a shame.
What can be praised though is the film's stunning cinematography, for which we can thank the Spaniard Óscar Faura. Those colourful shots of Bletchley Park throughout the seasons did so well to make me think that it was summer again. Yet unfortunately the poor use of CGI to show London's bombing for example, makes up for this. These did well to detach me from what was going on at Bletchley Park and it took me a while back there to find myself re-immersed into the film. I think it would have been better if we had remained at Bletchley Park throughout, therefore not only just allowing for an almost relationship to be built up with the place, but also for us to experience more of those all year round shots.
The second of the film's draws, Cumberbatch's performance, left me wondering what this less charming Sherlock Holmes was doing at Bletchley Park. To be honest, I was almost expecting us to be whisked off into Turing's mind palace at any moment. (I also found Charles Dance's performance, playing Commander Alistair Denniston, similar to his portrayal of Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones.) Yet if this was what Alan Turing was like, the same goes with Denniston, then we can't fault their performances, it's just that for me I found Cumberbatch's performance to be nothing different from what I already know of him on screen. This has become the sort of role that I would associate with Cumberbatch, which I think he should be careful of. Although he does propel the story forward, I don't think his performance is Oscar worthy, especially when compared with what I thought were brilliant performances by Ben Affleck in "Gone Girl" or Matthew McConaughey in "Interstellar" respectively. I can see that Cumberbatch will be at the top of most "Will Win" columns and no "Should Win" columns come awards season.
Keira Knightley's inclusion to be honest bored me and her character made me feel disengaged. Her saving grace came in her performance following Alan Turing's engagement. Before that I found her annoying, although I did find the scene in which she is late for Turing's test and is told that the secretary's applications are on the upper floor of interest. This scene makes a point in regards to our then attitudes towards women, and the film again fails to make a point of this. In general, I felt the performances across the board were mostly disappointing, except Rory Kinnear (playing Detective Nock) mostly because I don't think there was much wrong he could have done.
It pains me to say it and to break from what most are saying, and I can see where they are coming from, but I didn't like "The Imitation Game. Despite Cumberbatch's "not-worthy-of-an-Oscar-performance and the choice of a Norwegian director, what disappointed me most was how I felt the film didn't go far enough in being a comment on both homophobia and women's rights as well as telling Turing's story. For me, the film earns its stars based on how Cumberbatch propels the film forward, its magnificent story, and it's beautiful all year round shots of Bletchley Park, even though each have their faults.
Interstellar (2014)
One of Nolan's best, but watch out Chris.
"Interstellar" is truly an epic, not in the sense of what we initially think of as an epic, for example "Ben Hur" or perhaps even "2001: A Space Odyssey" (a film which it is worth pointing out I haven't seen), but more in the sense of how when I think back to "Interstellar", I think of those visually captivating shots of black, of the unknown and of those desolate landscapes made of water and ice, and how I found myself in awe of them. It is these that come to define "Interstellar". Set in the near future, Earth cannot sustain humanity anymore, and it's worth praising Nolan's subtle view of it, be it seeing the New York Yankees playing on an amateur field or discovering that the Apollo missions were faked to bankrupt the Soviet Union, which Cooper (played by Matthew McConaughey) denies. This scene, whilst allowing for a sense of character development in regards to Cooper, in retrospect seems to be Nolan emphasising how he sticks to the traditional elements of film and he does so more than ever in this film, from building several rooms of a spaceship from scratch to using five industrial fans to create a dust storm, thus attributing even more of the credit for the film to him. Yet as I expected, it proves very difficult for members of this all- star cast to break through both the visually stunning shots and the label of Christopher Nolan, and be noticed. Only McConaughey succeeds in doing so, although Mackenzie Foy (playing a young Murphy) and Bill Irwin (voicing the robot, TARS) deserve mentions, as does to an extent Michael Caine (playing Professor Brand) and his recital of Dylan Thomas' "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night", although I still don't entirely understand its inclusion, leaving big names such as Casey Affleck (playing Tom) and even Jessica Chastain (playing Murphy) "down in the dirt". Interstellar is a quintessentially Nolan film, meant to be seen on IMAX, imposing those classic Nolan themes of love and family whilst asking questions that I have not seen asked before, in this case winding up the scientists, although it is interesting to note that Nolan answers them by playing with several theories, instead of just getting the science completely wrong, as is so common. Yet the film is so Nolan that it takes that extra unnecessary step that Nolan always has present in his work, be it taking the audience to Limbo in Inception or by adding the twist of Miranda Tate (played by Marion Cotillard) turning out to be Talia al Ghul in The Dark Knight Rises. Before I conclude, I think it is important to make this point in regards to Nolan and his (future) works. He has begun, whether he means it or not, to dwarf his own cast and to an extent his own themes and his commitment to traditional film elements. The amount of hype that goes into his films is widespread and if he isn't careful, his future works could take a turn for the worse. As I have already said, Nolan always takes that extra unnecessary step, one that I don't think I would be so sympathetic with if it was another director, yet the brilliance of what comes before it makes up for it, often leaving me in that No Man's Land of whether the film was worth 9 or 10 stars.
Fury (2014)
"If I was to watch the film again..."
"Fury" is a brutally honest depiction of war, following the five man crew of a US Sherman tank during the Allied Army's final push on Germany in 1945. Although it's close to the end of the war, 'Wardaddy' (played by Brad Pitt) points out that "a lotta people gotta die" first, and boy do they in this film, in fact so much so in the final third of the film that it lets it down. Yet as the dead built-up I found myself consistently referencing back to Boyd 'Bible' Swan (played by Shia LaBeouf), telling Norman Ellison (played by Logan Lerman), to wait till he sees "what a man can do to another man" and that is what this film is all about; the horrors of war. The film is obviously anti-war and this is vividly illustrated by the impact of the conflict on the five man crew. We can tell these men are changed men and we see this change in its entirety in Lerman's character, whose performance is commendable here, going from hesitating to kill to enjoying it. These men are broken by war and we see this for example in the moments when Pitt's character goes to take a break from it all with a cigarette in mouth, almost breaking down, and incredibly well-acted. These painfully long shots have impact. It is important here not to forget to mention how well the rest of the crew perform too. What I picked out best of all though was how these men were just as bad as the Nazis, leading me to question whether any one side was worse than the other. The film's director, David Ayer, does well to pose these questions. He also does extremely well in the first two thirds of the film. If I was to watch the film again I would stop at the end of the second third and give it 4 stars, but the film's final third lets it down. The finale is full of blood, guts and glory and, although it is somewhat fitting considering the questions that Ayer poses, did well to detach me from it, leaving me far from caring about the lives, even of the crew members, that were being taken as well as the questions that Ayer had done so well to pose. A tank battle just before this also did well to detach me, with the Nazis suddenly forgetting how to aim, but hey, this is Hollywood. The film's strengths instead lie in its earlier stages, as well as its cast, all doing well to emphasise that war really is hell.