Lucy

It’s dominated the American box office for several weeks and now it’s finally arrived in the UK. We see Scarlett Johansen as the supernatural sort-of superhero Lucy in this action packed science fiction film. It could be safe to say that this film has been highly advertised and they’ve done their best to make sure that Scarlett is not their biggest selling point, there are lots of reasons to see this film apart from the lead. While they have successfully proven that this film is supposed to have more to boast about than their main protagonist, the advertising has come to be my main problem with it.

Let’s focus on what’s good first. The plot revolves around a woman whose name is, believe it or not, Lucy (didn’t see that one coming). After having an experimental drug infused with her body she gains enhanced physical and mental capabilities, however there is a problem. Her cerebral capacity is increasing and as her powers get stronger, she and everyone else can only guess what happens when she reaches 100%. There is quite an element of suspense with this, it manages to keep the thrills and tension up as much as it can, which you would expect it to do with this setup.

The pacing is also done quite well, the engineered plot is good for most of the film. It’s also slightly reminiscent of Kill Bill. The violence is not nearly as high and the action is not nearly as adrenaline pumping and yet eccentric at the same time. But it has a similar concept, a strong female character goes on trip of revenge to track down who did this to her. Scarlett Johansen does a very good job in getting the main emotions across, she goes on a nice development from reluctant to confident and obsessed. Morgan Freeman, you know what to expect from him, and they’re the only performances that stand out, the rest are sadly a bit too forgettable.

In one sense as well Lucy is a very unique story, it puts a nice spin on the genre of sci-fi, superhero and action all at the same time. You could be forgiven for calling this film more of a guilty pleasure. After all what are the main ingredients, beautiful woman, lots of action. The directing is quite admirable as well, the camera is constantly moving in a fast and quick pace to match the high octane nature of the plot.

But now we get to the bad stuff. My main issue with the film is that it was advertised as a thriller, an intelligent one at that. But as I said before it simply isn’t, the concept is quite simply Kill Bill, but the bride has superpowers in this one. Lots of action all tied together with a silly plot would be fine on its own. But I have a feeling that it is not what you went to see either. The start is like a thriller, trust me the way that Lucy gains her powers is shockingly violent, not by standards of really violent film like, again, Kill Bill. But it does excel the levels that you were expecting for this film, with the scenario and the event itself, the characters behind it. It lives up to the expectations of a thriller, but from there it goes down a bit.

As well as this, the film spirals out of control too much as well. The plot continues to move forward at a good pace but this film ends up trying to be too any things at once. It starts as a thriller, becomes an average action film, then turns more to science fiction, there’s even an element of time travel. After that there’s a revenge story, and culminating with an explorative look at what it means to be human, and then the human perception and then a look at information and the future and ambiguity. It all feels like it’s too much. In another kind of film this would be alright and a good feature, but in this kind of film it feels unnecessary and overly-complicated yet too simple at the same time.

But at the end of the day, this is certainly unlike anything else you’ll see this summer. It does have a worse audience rating than critical rating but I think there’s a reason for that. Like I said before people thought this was a full on thriller, it isn’t. The trick on how to enjoy this film is to use a different mind-set. If you go in expecting a usual action flick with a feisty super-powered heroine then Lucy will not disappoint.

Result: 6/10

The Expendables 3

I have always found it difficult to offer a summary of any kind on the Expendables series. What should I say, if you’re considering watching this then what do you expect from it? It’s a film made up of your favourite stars from the 80s and 90s. It’s all wrapped up by a screenplay from Sylvester Stallone and with one gunfight and explosion after another. What do you think a film like this is going to be like? If you want to watch this film then you want to see an action film that should be coming out of the 1980s but is enhanced with various CGI elements. If that is what you want then this is what you get.

Two is regarded as the highpoint of the franchise for one simple reason, it’s fun. Yes it can be cringe worthy at times but still, I can’t be the only one who chuckled at the ‘I’ll be back’ conversation between Willis and Schwarzenegger. However, this one is not only more depressing than the second film, it’s more depressing than the first as well. The one that promised an ensemble of iconic action heroes and gave us nearly two hours of Stallone and Statham and nearly two minutes for Willis and Schwarzenegger.

This one suffers a similar problem, too many iconic actors are given too little screen-time. I wouldn’t mind if they only had a few lines of dialogue but were visible in the background as if they were actually part of a team. But no, it doesn’t. The reformation of these agents that were apparently gathering for a ‘final mission’ in the first film means that this instalment does not feel climatic or tense in any remote way. Instead it just feels more like a random sequence of explosions and shooting. The plot is as weak as you can get in an action film, so the entire film is a rather messy blend of action and uninteresting dialogue.

There are a few highpoints of the film. One of them is Mel Gibson, whatever you think of him as a person and his political views he is undoubtedly amazing and captivating when on screen. His no nonsense approach to playing the villain is certainly a more magnetic performance than Stallone’s no nonsense approach to the hero. There are a few thrills on offer but the toned down violence means that you can’t take the film seriously at all. But at the same time it tries to act like a serious film which means it can’t be fun when it needs to be, and it can’t be serious when it needs to be. Simply put, it tries to kill two birds with one stone, but misses completely.

Even the action and chase sequences become repetitive, not just left over from the first two films, but by the end it’s almost a de-ja-vu-like experience of the start of the film. They really appear to have used all of their tricks here, and all they can do to try and prevent the film becoming, god-forbid, sensible for a minute or two. It’s been fun and wild with a few laughs along the way but this group of retired mercenaries really have overstayed their welcome here.

A few cheap thrills and a star studded cast certainly cannot compensate us for the faults littered throughout this film. The problem comes from the weak plot, watered down rating, and not enough screen time to go around. However, as I said before what else do you expect from this film. On the basis of what you see if what you get, you can’t get much better.

Result: 5/10

The F Word/What If

Daniel Radcliffe is proving to be quite an accomplished young actor just three short years since the end of Harry Potter. Some will argue that his success is hinged, and will always be, on his role as the boy wizard. But I have to disagree, and this film offers a good argument for that. Based on the play Cigars and Toothpaste this romantic comedy follows Wallace (Radcliffe) and Chantry (Zoe Kazan) as they struggle to not become friends with benefits and something further, as Zoe is already in a happy relationship and Wallace does not want to force a hurtful break up.

Some of you may be thinking though, surely a slight change in plot will struggle to make this film stand out. So many rom-coms have become utterly forgettable and very formulaic, in some ways this one isn’t an exception. We certainly aren’t straying from our familiar comfort zones. Take a look at the first fifteen minutes of this film, what do you think will happen. You’re probably right. The traditional American girl meets British boy characterisation is here, apart from the fact that she’s Canadian.

But there are plenty of redeeming features to make up for the rather formulaic narrative. There is a genuine and believable chemistry between the two main stars. Radcliffe and Kazan both bounce off of each other very well whilst clashing when they need to. The characters are given quite a rough time of it, emotionally at least. This means that we’re always interested in what happens and unsure what we really want for them. Although the ending may be predictable, you’ll have to keep guessing whether it will be portrayed as a happy or depressing fate for these people.

It also appeals very well to the mid-twenties target audience. The fast paced humour mixed with traditional yet still very entertaining style of humour creates a witty and smart as well as being unusually self-conscious for a film in this genre. It reminds me of two things, firstly this entire romantic comedy style is associated mainly with Richard Curtis, director of Four Weddings and a Funeral, Love Actually and About Time. He does this genre better than most and can always put a nice spin on it.

As well as the similar humour this observation leads me onto another point. It’s also quite reminiscent of 500 Days of Summer. While I may mock the plot slightly, like I said before while the narrative may be predictable, the emotional impact of the film is unusually difficult to predict. It’s feel good most of the time, as a film like this needs to be, but it also becomes hard-hitting at the right moments. The fact that these characters actually want to be friends purely to maintain the status quo, and that they get along so well as friends makes you wonder if they might have dodged a bullet. After all, as films have repeatedly taught us, Love can hurt.

It’s a welcome change of acting style for Radcliffe, proving he is far more than a one trick pony. And with the Curtis style humour and slightly, but not by much, original plot, The F Word/What If has proven to be a sweet and charming flick for those lazy nights out.

Result: 7/10

Normally that would be the end, but I would also like to briefly offer my condolences to family, friends and fans of actor and director Richard Attenborough who passed away this week. Among an incredible career are roles in the 1996 version of Hamlet named by many, including this site, as the finest adaptation of Shakespeare in cinema. He also starred in The Great Escape and Steven Spielberg’s stunning Jurassic Park. As well as this Attenborough directed a number of successful films such as Chaplin, A Bridge too far and Ghandi, winner of eight Academy Awards. 

     

1923-2014

The Inbetweeners 2

It’s the biggest opening of the year so far. Blockbusters like Guardians of the Galaxy and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes have been knocked off the top spot of the UK charts as audiences favour our equivalent of American Pie. The series of the Inbetweeners has become quite a cultural phenomenon in Britain, it’s popular among the teenage audience, and this is set to be the last instalment of the series.

Well I should start by saying that this film is fantastically funny. It manages to succeed in the first area that a comedy film should, it makes you laugh. The main question I should be asking though is, is it better than the first one. Well, that’s a very good question indeed. The sequel has the same brand of comedy but manages to avoid falling into a mess of predictable scenes. Nearly everything is unexpected and hilarious as a result.

If you enjoyed the series then you will enjoy this, it’s paced quite nicely as well. It manages to keep the plot and humour running simultaneously with no let down in either at any point. Too many comedy films sacrifice one of these in the process of creating a credible film. But instead it maintains a good balance of both. It is a real contender as 2014’s funniest film.

However, there are flaws. The pacing is moderately good, but the film still feels a bit like a feature length episode of the series. The Inbetweeners will always remain a great series, but as a film it risks falling into the average category. The entire film lacks a certain ambitiousness that would separate it from a normal episode. It’s impressive how they travel further and experience the world on a greater scale, even in the last few minutes. But the effect is in the details. Apart from being in Australia a lot of the antics are similar to those in Britain, they take advantage of the larger landscape as much as they can, but apart from that it feels like the budget has been stretched. I don’t want to be thinking that with any film.

It can also be said that the emotional ark crafted in the first film was better thought out. The character development effected every character and time was taken to include all of them in the story. In the sequel however, one character’s story holds the main focus of the plot, with another smaller one circling around it. Another that takes just ten minutes to complete and there’s no time at all left for the fourth. For the first film a good amount of time was devoted to all of the characters, equally taking the burden of the plot.

But don’t me mistaken. This is very funny and very entertaining. Who cares if there’s no underlying narrative, you will get exactly what you want to see when you see this film. The series is embodied very well, admittedly too well at times. But nevertheless, these four bumbling teenagers all captured our attention on the small screen, and what better way to bow out on the big screen in the land down under.

Result: 7/10 

The Rover

It’s a common misconception that debut films are always going to be second best. Tarantino proved us wrong with creating Reservoir Dogs, as did George Lucas with American Graffiti. They also have a good knack of leading on to much greater things, in both of those examples the directors went on to create some of the greatest films of all time (Tarantino directing Pulp Fiction and Lucas directing Star Wars). So I always look forward to debuts and second films, especially the possibilities that they open, and I found myself in such a situation with Animal Kingdom. It was a theatrically layered and unexpectedly good, and the debut film of David Michod.

His next film The Rover follows a man tracking down a group of thieves in an apocalyptic Australia. This is dangerous territory, the second film can lead to great things, but also spell disaster. This thriller has a very minimalistic writing style to it, but this can work brilliantly if carried out correctly. There is quite a lack of psychological and character complexity, the plot means that there isn’t much room to expand on the initial scenario that we see at the start of the film.

However, it manages to make up for this with some impressive performances. The production design is very admirable as well, creating an apocalyptic wasteland effectively and simplistically. Guy Pearce uses his usual silent but strong persona to create a rather menacing protagonist. Admittedly he’s not much of a relatable character, it’s understandable what this character does but we don’t share or connect with his emotional turmoil. Robert Pattinson offers an enjoyable performance, especially when compared to some of his previous projects, he successfully portrays a once innocent character who is forced to take desperate measures to ensure his survival in an every-man-for-himself-world.

Combined with Pearce’s hard as nails character they form quite an interesting duo. In many ways the setting of this film is more interesting than the actual plot or characters. The economic collapse that has virtually destroyed the world seems like an interesting idea. In many ways though, this can be seen as a problem. All great films of this genre have had a more interesting factor than the setup. Can anyone actually remember the cause of the carnage in Mad Max, not really. But who cares about that? We’re treated to some spectacular action sequences, design, characters and of course Max, who’s mad. Sadly The Rover can’t quite match any of those elements, it’s good, but not memorable.

However, for now the film has a very appealing nature to it. Everything feels real and detailed, like I said before Michod has had a challenge with this film, but he has directed it very well. The cinematography is striking and the production of this wasteland is very effective, making good use of the Australian landscape. I would also highly recommend the original soundtrack, it works very well with the desolate scenes. However it lacks the emotional depth and spectacular action (maybe it’s not meant to be an action film but it would need to be much smarter in terms of story to pull off no action) to make it stand out.

Result: 6/10

The Congress

Taking a leaf out of the book of Japan, it seems that making big budget, emotionally draining, artistic animated epics is really starting to seep into western film culture. Now we find a futuristic animation science fiction drama mixed with some live action as well. Robin Wright is getting too old and has too little talent to sustain her career as a classical actress. No this isn’t some random attack on an acclaimed actress, in the Congress she plays herself with a son who has a degenerate mental condition. She agrees to be virtually purchased so her career may continue as an ageless avatar.

Well firstly the film achieves the no-easy takes of blending the surreal and serious very well. This is the big advantage of animation, the way to manipulate the images to make the bizarre yet beautiful creations flourish with life and achieve and underlying dark note. However the Congress seems to use it the opposite way. The whole concept remains as the main absurdity whilst tha actual animation is grey and bland. It creates a good effect, if not slightly surprising to start with. It’s grounded momentarily with live action sequences, but once we leap into the future we see the animation take control, just as the synthetic world does in the plot.

The film is an obvious satirical parody. The plot allows a few caricatures of famous celebrities to pop up, including Tom Cruise, who claims to be handing out supplies to kids in Africa. It is very unusual in the way it becomes a satirical commentator though. It verges on being dark comedy but also comments in a way that makes it just, confusing. The surreal element tries to overpower the commentary and the two end up in some kind of battle that makes it difficult to know whether it’s an actual sequence essential to the plot or a random detailed critique of society. It’s quite strange and you feel lost within the mess of surreal sequences and already rather complicated story.

This has been caused by a lack of narrative throughout the film. I have to praise the actors as they all make a great performance as both physical characters and voiced talent. But unfortunately it’s blended together in absurdity and dramatic depth. Despite a colourfully bland style of animation that makes the synthetic themes the film perfectly match the visuals, there’s no defining plot to match this.

The theme supplies a lot of the potential for a colourful film here. It raises some good questions concerning the image of an actor rather than their own talent. Mentioning Mr Cruise again, it’s safe to say that his face can often prove to be worth more money than any new film he may star in. Earlier this year Edge of Tomorrow was known as ‘that one like Groundhog Day, but with Tom Cruise’. These questions are confronted, and certainly there is an element of ambiguity to allow the viewer to decide.

Surreal science fiction satire was what we were expecting to find with this film. It should have been an animated version of Brazil. But instead it tries to keep a hard hitting plot between the absurdity and the result is a rather confusing scenario. Though you can admire the animation and acting, it fails when it comes to plot and a sense of direction.

Result: 5/10

Welcome to New York

The true story of a New York entrepreneur whose sexual appetite eventually leads to his downfall, wait a minute… no, it’s not directed by Martin Scorsese and it’s not the Wolf of Wall Street. You do feel sorry for this film, coming up against something so similar and with so much more credit. I’m not saying this is automatically bad, but it’s main competitor had Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill and at the helm was one of the greatest directors of the last fifty years, in fact possibly of all time.

Anyway, as similar as it is this is not the Wolf of Wall Street. So we can’t spend this revue simply stating how brilliant Martin Scorsese is. Also because there is a considerable gap between the two film, and the Wolf of Wall street is no longer in cinemas, I won’t compare the two films against each other as if they’re actually competing because that just isn’t fair.

Like I said before, the film is based on a true story. It follows the scandal involving Monetary Fund President Dominique Strauss-Kahn and his arrest for sexual assault. Obviously the names have been changed, the lead character is now called Devereaux but the film is already facing self-censorship by the French Government, lawsuits from those portrayed in the film, and reviews express complete disgust. Also, I don’t mean to spoil anything but in this adaptation he is guilty. There’s no hint of ambiguity or difference of opinion, it’s 100% fact that he committed the crimes that he is charged with.

Also it certainly draws your attention to the fact that sex is a large part of this film early on with quite an… interesting shall we say, montage. Let me say then, although I previously promised not to compare this to the Wolf of Wall Street, if you thought that was outrageous the prepare for something in a completely different league with this. It’s main man Gerard Depardieu gives a larger than life performance. It definitely is the jewel of this otherwise chaotic film.

The plot doesn’t feel as clear and there doesn’t appear to be any intelligent thought in it really. I mean, this is an issue that people will have varied feelings about, whether it’s specifically about the case on which the film is based on or the bigger picture behind this. Instead though it decides not to trust the viewer’s intelligence and instead tells them exactly what to think. I’m not saying that there’s nothing to condemn when it comes to sexual assault (I could get some very angry comments if I did). But I am going to go back to Martin Scorsese to prove my point, Goodfellas and Wolf of Wall Street were based on proven crimes but they still allow the viewer to decide if the ending is good. These people are now living average and normal but morally right lives, is that a good thing. You decide. Welcome to New York portrays a crime that was never proven, and also tells us what to think anyway.

Another thing, this film really feels like it wanted to cause controversy. It went into cinemas looking for a fight, and now it’s found it in the form of lawsuits and censorship. I really don’t know what to make of it, I am completely stumped as to what to do. It’s rowdy and raunchy with no real sense of direction or proven historical accuracy. I need help, if anyone has seen this film and can think of a verdict of some sort please comment, and the best argument will be our verdict.

Result: Um, do you know, we don’t/10