Trailer Reaction: Star Wars The Force Awakens

I have a confession.  I went to see 'The Phantom Menace' 8 times at the cinema.  Yeah, madness, I'm sure you‘ll agree; however at the time I was in the middle of a strange kind of depression so that film clearly gave me the escapism I needed.  At the time of their release I also enjoyed the other Prequel films - though now I wouldn't thank you to watch them.  Their flaws are well documented, from story, script, direction and acting.  Even the much-bally-hooed CGI effects haven't aged well.

But that‘s not the biggest reason I've felt nothing but ambivalence towards the prospect of a new Star Wars movie since it was announced.  Each rumour and announcement has failed to evoke the same excitement and anticipation I felt back when the prequels were in development - or that the Marvel Studios movies do now.  You see, I'm still not convinced that the word actually needs a new series of Star Wars films (aside from making Disney more money, that is).  As flawed as the Prequels were, they at least told a story that made sense with the original Trilogy and felt complete: the Saga of Anakin Skywalker and his redemption through his son, Luke.  Beyond that, is there any story that is worth telling?

So when the trailer dropped yesterday I was genuinely surprised at how much I enjoyed it: it brought a huge smile to my face, and at times I had goosebumps.  It has genuinely thrilling moments, and most of all it truly feels like Star Wars.  And this is despite the fact it reveals nothing really: no story, no details on who these characters are, nor what they're doing.

But interestingly the first characters we see are all new ones - despite the presence of franchise stalwarts Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford.  There's a pretty clear message here - these are the people who will be going on the adventures this time.

(All my pics are lazily pilfered from the trailer breakdown Empire Online did...)

First, we see John Boyega in a Storm Trooper uniform.  Is he actually a Storm Trooper?  Or is he disguised as one?  Yes, Storm Troopers feel Star Wars, but I am a little concerned that there are still Storm Troopers (and later, Tie-Fighters) around 30 years after we saw the Empire defeated.  Of course, there are no story details, but perhaps after the deafeat of the Emperor the military resources of the defeated Empire were merged with those of the Rebels?  I hope that's the case, otherwise for me it cheapens the end of the original Trilogy.

Then we see a little Droid - at once familiar but entirely new.  The head is a domed shape reminiscent of R2D2; but the body, whizzing past, appears to be a sphere.  And, boy, can it move!  The message here seems to be it‘s still the same galaxy, but things have moved on.

Next we see newcomer Daisy Ridley, and another image that anchors the film emphatically as a Star Wars movie: with a slightly determined or desperate look (is she being persued?  Has she just seen something and needs to report/warn someone?) she sets of on a speeder.  Again, a familiar Star War image, but given a new design.  In the background we see what appear to be ship parts - could it be that this girl has built the speeder herself from this scrap?  If it is, she's clearly a resourceful and intelligent character.

The next couple of shots sold this trailer for me - because, you see, when I was 5 and first discovered Star Wars, my favourite part above all else was Luke Skywalker piloting the insanely cool X-Wing Fighter and taking part in the attack on the Death Star; at that age, when I grew up I wanted to be an X-Wing pilot.  Here we get our first glimpse of Oscar Isaac piloting - yes! - an X-Wing, here seen flying in a formation, skimming over a body of water.  One of the best thing about the original Trilogy is how it took familiar settings - deserts, forests, jungles, but made them feel exotic and otherworldly.  This shot captures that feel effectively.  But seein the X-Wings really sold this trailer to me, and I could sense a new feeling about this film emerging: could that be a bit of optimism?

Then we see what appears to be (at least one of) the film's villains - is it a Sith?  Well, he has a brutal looking 'Saber with a nasty hilt...  This apparently is Adam Driver, and even though we don't see his face, I loved how this shot shows how his performance will convey him as a potentially classic villain.  He is slightly hunched, stumbling slightly - but when he clearly detects a threat he immediately reacts, and looks very dangerous.

Finally, after that, that familiar, iconic theme blasts from the speakers, as the Millennium Falcon (YES!!!) blasts across the screen.  And what a phenomenal shot that is.  The original Trilogy gave us so many jaw-dropping and ground-breaking shots and visuals, from the opening moment of 'A New Hope' when that immense Star Destroyer slowly sweeps over the screen.  You could argue that the Prequels failed to deliver as much of the same, but the shot of the Falcon in this trailer arguably demonstrates that Director JJ Abrams clearly wants to push the visuals as much as possible, like the original Trilogy did.  This shot is absolutely fantastic as the Falcon zooms round in an arc, flipping from upside-down, to face some on-coming Tie-Fighters.  The camera movies like it's mounted on another ship, struggling to keep up (and not creash whilst doing so!).  You could say that this trailer doesn't deliver anything as provocative and mind-blowing as Darth Maul's double-ended Saber did at the end of the first Phantom Menace trailer - but this final shot was absolutely fantastic, and suggests that, if nothing else, it will look superb (especially in IMAX 3D, I‘m already drooling at the prospect of seeing it in that format)!

As well as this there's a mencaing voice over, which many believe is either Andy Serkis or Benedict Cumberbatch - my money's on the former seeing as he's oficially part of the cast.  But really tying the whole thing together is the sound - with each shot there are snippets of Ben Burtt's definitive aural benchmarks for the trilogy: Imperial Code, droid chatter, the whoomph of a speeder, the familiar buzz of an X-Wing's engine; and of course, the sound of a Lightsaber being activated.  These are used sparingly, but you could have played the trailer without images, and just those sound queues on their own would have been enough to indicate that this film is definitely Star Wars.

So I really enjoyed this trailer.  But without any details of story, am I still ambivalent towards this, and other new Star Wars films?

Well, lets just say, I am feeling cautiously optimistic now.  This film most likely won't be the generational and cutural defining event the originals were.  But it certainly looks like it should be a fun and entertaining trip to the cinema; and that's what Star Wars always has been.

Movie Review - The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part One: Does enough to justify the split in two. Just...

When you consider 'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part One', it is quite remarkable that the biggest controversy is not its surprisingly graphic portrayal of the horrors afflicted upon innocent civilians during war; nor that it is most emphatically an anti-war move, made by a big Hollywood studio, from a country where there are some in power that have a vested financial interest in the continuation and profligation of armed conflict.  No, what has really got people fretting is the decision to split the final novel of the Hunger Games trilogy in two parts.  I can understand this - it is, in some cases, an annoying and unnecessary emerging trend in movie-making.  Even many die-hard Twilight fans were critical of that series' final novel being split, for no apparent reason other than to make more money.  And don't get me started on how disappointed I was in the second of 'The Hobbit' films, which seemed to pad out the running time with countless shots of characters walking from one place to another - there just didn't seem enough content to justify the split to three films.

So, straight off the bat, people are being more critical of 'Mockingjay Part One' than they might normally be, due to that fact.  I will say that, broadly, the film does just enough to justify the split.  Apart from perhaps one or two short scenes, there is little here that feel superfluous - in fact, because the film goes beyond telling the story through the perspective of heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) as in the novels, it allows portrayals of moments which broaden the scope of the series, and gives the growing rebellion in Pan Em a bigger impact on the viewer.  But as this is only half of a book, not everything is tied up in terms of narrative, another cause of concern.  However, to my mind at least, the ending is no less open than that of the previous film in the series, 'Catching Fire', and also involves a clever adaptation and expansion of the source material.  And as the stakes for Pan Em, and Katniss, grow bigger, more dangerous and potentially deadly, it feels like the right place to pause before the second part; especially as this series grows ever bleaker and harrowing.

If that is the elephant in the room, so to speak, how does the film measure up in its own right?  To be fair, I would say a lot of your enjoyment of this will be based upon how invested you are in the fate of Katniss and Pan Em following the previous films, or if you have followed the novels.  This movie broadens the scope and detail of the setting, and includes a number of visually striking scenes - ranging from horrific images of the aftermath of bombing, the tranquillity an abandoned ruin overgrown by wilderness, or the destruction of a dam.  While doing this and introducing new characters such as President Coin (Julianne Moore) who intends to be the leader of this rebellion, the film succeeds in keeping the focus on Katniss.  If the first films were about her survival and efforts to escape from the games, we learn here that she is still trapped - she is only useful to Coin and the people of District 13 as 'The Mockingjay', the propaganda figurehead of the rebellion.  If she realises that she cannot escape this, or the growing conflict, her efforts turn to protecting the people she cares most about.  The underground military bunker that houses the people of District 13, with its seemingly endless central tunnel, grey and dimly lit concrete walls, makes for a suitably oppressive visual metaphor for Katniss' situation.

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is torn between protecting those she cares most about, and standing up with the people of Pan Em against the injustices of the Capitol...

By this stage the established cast, led by Lawrence, are assured and comfortable in their roles.  Some of the new characters are better established than others, but justifiably so: Coin plays a significant role as the President of District 13, and the script cleverly allows her more moments of interaction with Katniss than in the book.  Another welcome addition is Boggs (Mahershala Ali), head of security at District 13 and a capable soldier.  Though a man of few words he makes for a commanding presence especialy in a tense rescue scene that expands upon the novel.  Sadly, with so many characters not all get as much time as you'd like, but overall this doesn't stop the narrative moving, which is just as well.

With so much going on there are a couple of moments that the struggles of Katniss herself almost seem a little lost - as with the novel, the 'will-they-won't-they' romance with Gale (Liam Hemsworth), doesn't do anything but give Katniss another person to fret over.  Also this film has a more deliberate pace than the previous films, and if you've read the book you'll appreciate how most of the 'action' as the story draws to an end is weighted that way.  It's possible to use this as a case against dividing the novel in two (as some reviews have done), but taking things slower works by allowing time to flesh out the brewing conflict and politics of Pan Em; as well as creating space to dwell on some of the surprisingly graphic images of the devestation wrought by conflict.  Aside from at least two repetitive shots of rubble, there doesn't feel to be the padding of the second 'Hobbit' movie.  I'm also sure that when audiences have seen Part Two, they will appreciate having the breathing space of having two parts - because as bleak as this film gets, things do get tougher for Katniss and her friends before they get better.

The film is dedicated to Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who tragically died during the filming of 'Mockingjay'.

For a lot of people, the fact this is the first of two parts precludes a satisfying ending to the film, and yes things are not resolved - however the script expands on a scene that is only desribed second hand, to tense and gripping effect.  This still gives the film a sense of finale, even if it is not a conclusion.  Interestingly, the previous film 'Catching Fire' ended on something of a cliff-hanger - more-so than this film - but few had a problem with that..!  'Mockingjay Part One' is, I would agree, not the best film in the series, and neither is it an easy entry point for those who are new to the franchise.  It does push, however, push it in a new direction; and although some might miss the typical blockbuster action-finale that the Quarter Quell provided previously, this film offers some uncompromisingand thought-provoking scenes addressing the horrors of war.  This alone is one of the reasons that 'The Hunger Games' will be remembered as a vital and timely series.  If it isn‘t apparent in this film, so long as the second part follows the same uncompromising commitment to the message of source material, then next year it should be abundantly clear.

Time for a new regular feature: Monthly Marvel Musings!

Frequent visitors to my Blog (c'mon, I know you're out there... somewhere!) will be aware of my fondness for the output of Marvel Studios.  That is an understated way of saying that I am a huge fan-boy for them who geeks-out with every announcement and movie release..!  From time to time (quite often, let's be honest) I am taken to write about the Marvel Studios movies, discussing trailers, news and speculating pointlessly on their forthcoming releases.  Due to the frequency with which I find myself doing this I decided to make it a regular feature of my Movie blog.  So behold this, the first instalment of *takes deep breath*

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS 

(Yeah, I like alliteration, so what???)

In this month's instalment I will write about my reaction to Marvel Studio's recent Phase 3 movie announcements; look at the up-hill struggle Fox's Fantastic Four reboot is facing to win people over; and speculate about what may take place in the next Captain America movie: Civil War.

Get your Calendars ready - release dates for Marvel Films for the next 5 years!

If you're in the UK, those dates are wrong - we get several of them a week earlier..!

So on Tuesday 28th October at a special press eventMarvel Studios boldly, and to enthusiastic reaction at the scene and across theuniverse internet, announced every one of their Phase Three movies.  I myself was one of the internet throng losing their geeky mind over the prospect of more Thor, Guardians, two new Superheroes joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), and a two-part Avengers sequel: Infinity Wars.  Firstly, it goes to show how Marvel realise they're on to a great thing when they can make a highly fan-fared event out of this announcement, when Warner Bros in contrast put out their DC Superhero movie slate in a shareholders' meeting.  This is only backed up by the fact Marvel can announce films starring less-known characters like Black Panther and Captain Marvel to a flurry of excitement, when DC's slate - which includes major players like Wonder Woman, The Flash and two Justice League films - was met with a far more muted response.

Marvel Studios Head Kevin Feige, with Robert Downey Jr, Chadwick Boseman (who will play Black Panther), and Chris Evans, at the Marvel Event.

Secondly, although there had been rumours about this line-up circulating prior to the event, and the 'Civil War' announcement had some of its thunder stolen by revelations about Robert Downey Jr being cast in it a few weeks previous, it was still genuinely exciting to see what Marvel Studios has planned.  There were some slightly disappointing omissions - for example, who'll be playing Doctor Strange - but it couldn't dampen enthusiasm for these forthcoming films - topped off with the mouth-watering promise that Avengers: Infinity War will see ALL of the MCU characters team-up to take on the plans of Thanos (yes, including the Guardians of the Galaxy, and maybe even The Defenders from Netflix's series).  These are exciting times for fans of Superhero movies, comic book movies, and of just generally high-quality blockbuster entertainment.

In case you've not already added them, you might want to put these dates your diary..!

Fox, Fantastic Four, and a steadily brewing fan back-lash...

A new Fantastic Four movie is due out next Summer, a reboot following two largely derided movies form 2005 & 2007 respectively.  Fox, who have the rights, are keeping their cards close to their chest about it though, only announcing a Director (Josh Trank, behind the successful 'Chronicle' movie) and a cast.  Despite the fact principal photography has wrapped, there has been nary an image or production still circulated - only two bootleg photos of a maquette of The Thing and of Doctor Doom against green screen, both of which were swiftly hunted and taken down at the behest of Fox's lawyers.  But where it gets really head-scratching is that the only other source of any information about the films is from the cast and director, responding to rumours or answering questions in vague, contractually adherent ways.  And with each statement comic fans have been left, to put it mildly, scratching their heads.

The Fantastic Four - pictured here in their 'Ultimates' versions - have been retooled and rebooted in comic format, so I have no problem with changing their ages, or any of their ethnicities...

I'm not going to get in to the issue of changing Johnny Storm's race (Michael B Jordan is right for the role, I don't see the issue) - but other statements have been put out there which have provoked the ire of the fans.  Firstly, Kate Mara's statement that she didn't have to read any comics in preparation for the role, as they weren't 'following any of the comics or comic storylines'.  Then news that the film would be similar to Trank's found footage style used in 'Chronicle'.  And finally, to top it all, Toby Kebbell spoke about the take on villain Doctor Doom he would be playing in this film - gone is the dictatorial ruler of Latveria, instead he's an American computer hacker.

Fantastic Four's talented cast - Miles Teller, Kate Mara, Michael B Jordan and Jamie Bell.  Still no pics of them on set or production stills, this was apparently taken when they were celebrating the finish of filming...

As these broke they were met with various amounts of ire and incredulity from the fans - all of it stemming from an impression that Fox are being unfaithful to the source material in a disrespectful way.  Whether or not this is actually the case is yet to be seen - the film may actually turn out to be a decent piece of work.  But what is interesting is that Fox are making no effort to try and defuse the negative reaction.  There's no synopsis, no pictures, no stills, no trailer - not even a satisfactory explanation as to why they're taking this approach to the characters (beyond 'people didn't like the other films, we assume it was because they were a bit far-fetched, so we decided these should not be far-fetched').  This could be a disaster for Fox, who have clearly spent a lot of money on retaining the license to these characters, on top of the costs of developing and shooting this movie.  Despite the marketability of the Marvel brand (observe how prominent the Marvel logo was on international posters for this year's X-Men film, despite it not being a Marvel Studios movie), there is the chance that negative perception of how the studio is handling certain characters can hurt the film's box office.  There was something of a backlash against Sony's handling of Spiderman following this year's film, to the extent that they've been re-thinking their long-term plans for the franchise - although financially successful internationally, tellingly US revenues were down.  Negative reviews and reactions from fans clearly played a part in this, so it's not implausible that the same could happen with Fantastic Four.

Whatever happens, I can't escape the feeling that however good or disappointing this movie turns out to be, the full potential of Fantastic Four is being wasted outside of Marvel Studios.  It would be, erm, fantastic to see Doctor Doom and Galactus - the franchises biggest villains - part of the MCU; not to mention The Thing's bromance/rivalry with Hulk.  If that ever happens, it'll be a long way off as things stand...

What to (possibly) Expect from 'Captain America: Civil War'  - and what not to.

I might have misgivings about the manner in which RobertDowney Jr has upped his role in this film, but it's confirmed that the next Captain America instalment will be inspired by the comic run of the same name.  I say 'inspired', as (most likely due to licensing) this film can't be a straight-up adaptation - and this is probably just as well, as it's a story in which almost no one comes out of in a particularly good light.  Tony Stark is portrayed as duplicitous and at times heartless, and Captain America is portrayed as slightly pig-headed and needlessly aggressive - neither of which really fit with their cinematic portrayals.  However, there'll be a good deal to take inspiration from; all this has been complicated slightly by the announcement of Daniel Brühl's casting as a villain (who will also be in Doctor Strange, so lots of people think he'll be Baron Mordo), and reports that Crossbones (played by Frank Grillo in The Winter Soldier) will be the main villain.  Add to that they've got to make room for Bucky/The Winter Soldier, because at the end of the latest Cap film he was about to try and find his former friend; and hopefully there'll be more from Sam 'The Falcon' Wilson, Black Widow, and maybe even Hawkeye!

Because the comic relies draws on just about every Marvel comic character - especially ones that aren't in the MCU - I think there'll only be the bare bones of it carried over to the film.  As Tony Stark is involved, it's pretty fair to say it'll be based around the introduction of the Superhuman Registration Act, or some variant of it.  The prompt for this is a catastrophe which kills hundreds of civilians when a team of trainee superheroes take on a team of villains.  I think this will be changed to make Cap more personally involved; perhaps he is leading a team in a similar mission that goes wrong, or maybe he is set up to look like it's his fault - this would justify the presence of villains beyond Stark being the main 'antagonist' for Cap.  Or maybe it's Bucky who is framed, and Cap goes head-to-head against Stark to clear his friend..?

If any, we'll only see a handful of the characters pictured above actually end up in this film..!

I've touched on the licensing rights (Spidey and Fantastic Four are pretty central to the comic, obviously they'll be absent here), but there are a multitude of characters involved in this that Marvel haven't even introduced yet.  At the Marvel Event Feige revealed that Black Panther would be introduced in this film, prior to his own movie, and people have speculated that he'll take the role Spidey plays in the comic: initially siding with Stark and the Registration Act, upon witnessing the lengths he is willing to take to put down those resisting it, he swaps sides.  It'll be interesting to see how they introduce this character, as he won't come with the same level of awareness and emotional draw as Spidey did in the comic.  However if they use this character in a similar way, it's likely the trigger for him to join Cap's side will be the same - Stark will deploy a powerful weapon he can't control, with unexpected consequences.  The details of this might get changed again form the comics, as to be fair it sounds very much like the plot to Avengers: Age of Ultron!  With that in mind, it's might be that Stark himself doesn't have an involvement in this, but it comes from another player in the pro-Registration side.

Although the comics have them using a Thor clone, I think it's highly doubtful they'll use this in the film, but it's plausible there'll be something along similar lines that will have same results as the comic: the death of a superhero.  In the comic it's Goliath, but he's not yet been introduced in the MCU.  This could be the opportunity for them to do something truly shocking and kill-off a long standing but supporting character - but who?  Also, if they don't use the Thor clone, perhaps instead this could be an opportunity for them to introduce Red Hulk to the MCU.  This would make sense, based on what we've seen of Avengers: Age of Ultron (Iron Man takes on Hulk), and the talk of changed roster for that team.  Perhaps coming out of that conflict, Stark or someone else uses the opportunity to try and re-create a new, more easily controlled version of Hulk.  But, being a 'Hulk' it can't be controlled - leading to the death of a super.  That's just pure speculation on my part - though I think it'd be awesome if at somepoint Marvel introduced Red Hulk, but if Marvel Studios want to introduce him, then this could be a good chance to do so..!

The only other thing which I can 100% guarantee we'll see in this film is a great punch-up between Cap and Iron Man.  In the comic there's two, in the first Iron Man has his suit record and counter Cap's fighting moves, in the second The Vision deactivates this function of Stark's suit and Cap gives him quite a beating.  I think you'll only see one fight between these two in the movie, though - but if they take inspiration from the comics it'll be a bruising encounter - not to mention emotionally impacting.  In fact, I expect it will resonate more greatly with audiences than the other superhero face up arriving in cinemas later that year...

RDJ and Chris Evans look ready for their on-screen dust off..!

Besides from that, this will have little in common with the comic - and probably just as well.  I think this is one of the trickiest stories for Marvel Studios to handle, but then again you can say that about each of their films - and they have, in most cases, succeeded emphatically.  That alone gives me confidence they can pull this off, despite my concerns and reservations.  By picking the best elements of the stories, while adhering to the arc of the characters, this could well have the same impact that The Winter Soldier did earlier this year - not only to the MCU, but also critically, financially and in popular culture.

That's it for this month - as the title suggest there'll be more of this sort of thing at some point next month.  Until then, thanks for reading!

Movie Review - The Imitation Game: A no frills biopic, but this tragic and unjust story deserved to be told

The story of Alan Turing is one that is now rightly accepted as an injustice and personal tragedy: a mathematics genius who helped win World War 2 by developing a computer to break the Nazi's 'Enigma Code', in the post-war years Turing was found guilty of Homosexual acts - illegal at the time - and ordered to be chemically castrated.  Only a year following this he committed suicide.  In recent years his contribution to winning World War Two, and that the other members of a team of immensely clever people, have come to light and appreciation of their achievements is widely acknowledged.  At the same time, now that we live in a more tolerant society, Turing's personal tragedy has been acknowledged - in 2013 he was granted a posthumous pardon.  If Turing's story is one underpinned by injustice and tragedy it seems strange that biopic 'The Imitation Game' doesn't seem to evoke this to a greater extent.  It is a solid, if formulaic, film of its type, with a decent cast of quality British actors, it tells the story of Turing and the team at Bletchley efficiently enough.

The period detail is what you'd expect, but what separates this from most WW2-era dramas is the way Bletchley is portrayed as almost being a world away from it; apart from the presence of armed soldiers and the uniform of the WRENs working there, Bletchley is almost an idyll compared to the rest of the country.  There are reminders of the War going on beyond them - shots of burning and sinking ships, the bombed rubble of London in the blitz - but the film rightly doesn't dwell on these images.  For Turing and the team working to crack Enigma, their war is against time - to break the code before it is reset at midnight each day, knowing that each day that passes means more lives lost.  By using the typical war imagery sparingly the film succeeds in never letting the audience lose sight of this.

Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) and the team working at Bletchley to break Enigma - a war against time to break the code before it reset each day...

For a film about what was ostensibly a maths problem, there is little dwelling upon the technical minutiae of Turing and his team's endeavours - probably just as well, as those of us (i.e. me) who aren't particularly good at maths could have been lost.  The emphasis is on personal and relationship struggles, and in this manner it is pretty much a biopic by numbers: there's a couple of montages, there's the bit where Turing's superiors don't understand what he's doing so try to shut his project down, there's the bits where his team don't like him at first and gradually accept and work with him...  Where the film breaks out of this a little is at the moment where Enigma is finally cracked, and the team realises they can't let anyone know they have - because if the Nazis realise, they will simply switch to another code, and the war will carry on as it has been.  This creates a moment of moral  anguish for the team, leading to further involvement in the skulduggery of MI6.

The cast do what we expect of them - Matthew Goode is a handsome, caddish type who is at first at odds with Turing before accepting his way of working; Keira Knightley is a typical plummy, middle-class, well-educated young woman; Mark Strong is an MI6 'spook' who casually and amicably uses lies, half-truths and threats to achieve his ends.  These are all the sort of roles we've seen these actors in before, and whilst they're solid in them, they don't exactly set the world on fire.  But these are supporting roles, and Benedict Cumberbatch is the headliner as Turing himself.  He's been drawing a lot of plaudits for his performance - it's not the most eye-catching I've seen this year, but it is effective and has some affecting moments.  If you've seen any of his work on 'Sherlock' you'll have seen that Cumberbatch can do un-sociable genius who is on the autistic spectrum (most likely) with ease; as well as that I found some of the nervous ticks and stammers he gives Turing a little bit forced, they didn't always feel totally natural.  Where his performance really takes off is in his portrayal of Turing during and after being investigated and prosecuted in the post-war years; he conveys a broken man to quite heart-breaking effect.  It's this point which also redeems the film's use of flashbacks to Turning's formative years at boarding school - while these are well handled (mostly in part to a sensitive performance from Alex Lawther as the young Turing), they don't always mesh with rest of the narrative - until the end of the film.

It's possible to see parallels with his work in 'Sherlock' and this, but it's probably why Cumberbatch was the best choice for this particular portrayal of Alan Turing...

This film does what it needs to mostly effectively, but not really anything more.  Ultimately it succeeds in conveying the tragedy of Turing's story through the best points of Cumberbatch's performance; other than that it doesn't break new ground for the biopic or drama genre.  Yet this is a story which needed to be told, especially in today's context where, sadly, anti-Gay stances are gaining increasing support in different parts of the world.  It is in no small way ironic that many of the anti-Gay movement in Russia most likely owe their entire existence to Turing - if he hadn't have broken the Nazi code, and enabled information to be sent to our Soviet Allies during the war, then it is entirely probably millions more Russians would have perished at the Nazi offensive.

Movie Review - Interstellar: a flawed but mighty beast

 

When a director steps up to a new film after a string of highly acclaimed and financially successful films, and they quite obviously are attempting to make a significant piece of work, you can't fault their ambition; unfortunately, previous success can mean that critics and audiences alike approach the latest film by this director with tremendous, arguably unmatchable expectations.  This is the problem that 'Interstellar' has straight-off; Director Christopher Nolan has been hailed by some as the greatest of his generation, comparisons made to greats such as Hitchcock, Kubrick and Spielberg.  I'll be upfront: 'Interstellar' is not the earth-shattering, definitive cinematic master-piece that many were expecting.  It is, in fact, an effective, realistic and engaging science fiction film, held together by Nolan's film-making talents (and commitment to practical effects wherever possible) and by another great performance by Matthew McConaughey.  It is flawed in a number of respects - there is a touch of self-indulgence that arguably could have been trimmed from it, and the script is -on several occasions - something of an Achilles heel.  These hold the film back from the greatness that many expected from it, but do not spoil it completely.

The film is set in the not-too-distant future, and casts McConaughey's Cooper, a former NASA test-pilot and Engineer now turned Maize farmer.  We're told that, following a war and as a result of the spread of 'blight', the only plant that can now be farmed is this one.  We're told that, due to those that survived the war getting tired of people killing each other, funding was cut for apparently 'frivolous' work such as the NASA Space Programme, and most technology and gadgets we take for granted now are perceived as a similarly unnecessary waste that marks the excess of the 20th Century.  You'll note I said 'told', because at this stage the film does what many directors don't like doing - the usual maxim is 'show, don't tell', and I can imagine there are some who would be disappointed not to see exactly what the devastating effects of this war were, and how the survivors turned things round to an extent.  I guess it would have made for some pretty spectacular (if depressing) visuals to have seen some of that depicted, but this would have taken money away from realising the focus of the story - the journey across space.

Matthew McConaughey anchors the film with another great performance.

Following a mysterious message Cooper and his daughter Murphy (Mackenzie Foy) find the location of a secret NASA facility, and discover that there are still people looking to the stars for humanity's salvation; as environmental decline and the eventual dying out of all vegetation is apparently inevitable, the discovery of a Wormhole (a point at which two separate places in Space, incomprehensible distances apart, are effectively 'joined together') facilitates the search for a planet suitable for sustaining human life.  Cooper is asked by lead scientist (another talismanic turn for Nolan from Michael Caine) to pilot the ship with a team of scientists through the Wormhole and find a new home for the Human race.

This film has lofty ambitions, in terms of how it wants to present a scientifically grounded and visually realistic portrayal of space travel through Wormholes - in that regard it succeeds, quite emphatically.  Nolan's preference for practical effects means that what you see on screen in terms of space-faring vessels, technology and equipment (including two minimal looking yet surprisingly well-designed robots) look like the real deal, especially in some memorable and impressively shot flying scenes.  It has to be said that there wasn't anything here that felt particularly ground-breaking or going in to previously uncharted visual territory; in some respects last years 'Gravity' beat this film to the punch in presenting a detailed and real-feeling trip in space.  Having said that, the robots do steal the show a little - despite their basic and misleadingly blocky design, they have some memorable moments showing they are in fact surprisingly mobile and utilitarian.

Space travel looks especially good in IMAX..

As well as high aspirations in realism and scientific accuracy, the film has similar goals with regards to what it would like to say about human spirit and endeavour; I would say in this regard it is not quite as successful.  This is partly due to a script that doesn't always convince when it isn't stating scientific fact and theory.  To start with, characters tend to speak in grandiose aphorisms ("we are meant to be explorers, pioneers...") which don't always sound natural.  There's also one particular monologue about how love apparently 'connects' people, but it doesn't entirely work due to the context of rational scientific theorising which is the significant focus of the rest of the script.  This is slightly unfortunate as this concept is a significant part of the plot, and in the second half of the film it's a great part of Cooper's motivation; the decision to leave his children weighs heavily on him, in no small part due to his daughter's anger and upset at him leaving them.  If the script doesn't quite sell this aspect as effectively as it should, it is redeemed by the acting, especially McConaughey; one scene conveys this quite emphatically as Cooper views video years-worth of messages from his children and sees them grow up before his eyes.  His simultaneous joy and heartbreak is portrayed so movingly and memorably by McConaughey.  A number of critics have argued that Nolan can't pull off the emotional aspects of this film as well as the colder, logical and scientific ones - even going so far as to say that his other films struggle in a similar way.  I don't think that is entirely true, but in this film it is fair to say this aspect doesn't always work as well.

Another thing that goes against the film slightly is in the way that, during the final act, the film relies on a couple of characters making decisions and behaving in ways that seem to fly against the script's earlier reliance on logic and science.  In one case there is a justification from a line of dialogue earlier in the film, but beyond that it seems this decisions were added to the plot simply to create tension and a sense of 'threat' that the film doesn't necessarily require.  Add to that a finale which raises a few questions, and could possibly have been truncated to better effect, it gives this film a slightly wobbly ending when Nolan's previous films have touched-down quite confidently.

However, thanks to the impressively realised visuals and great acting, especially from McConaughey, this doesn't spoil the film completely.  It just means that this isn't the ground-breaking classic a lot of people were hoping for - it is just a solid, entertaining and at times thought-provoking film.  In terms of Nolan's overall cannon of work I still believe that Inception is his best film - but you could say that this film is part of a series of more personal ones, following on from The Prestige (with its themes of rivalry and brotherhood), and Inception (which had a moving strand about reconciliation, forgiveness and father-son relationships).  It is clear that in this Nolan is reflecting on his own relationship and responsibilities as a father to his own daughter - he could well have dedicated it to her.  Despite the epic subject matter and science that form the basis of this film, it still has a human and relatable core, clearly drawn from Nolan himself, and portrayed so effectively onscreen by McConaughey's performance.

Movie Review - Nightcrawler: the dark underbelly of the American Dream

With his gaunt, sunken features, dark rings from out of which his hungry eyes scan for any opportunity he can seize to improve himself, Jake Gyllenhaal's quietly intense and darkly charismatic perfermance is the key draw to 'Nightcrawler'.  But this film is more than one great performance, it proves to be an effective parable for the dark and discomfiting side of the American Dream - the morally grey, questionable areas some people are prepared to go to 'make it' and become successful.

Gyllenhaal plays Louis 'Lou Bloom, who we meet living virtually hand-to-mouth, stealing scrap metal and trying (unsuccessfully) to talk his way in to employment.  By chance he passes a crash on a freeway and when he is compelled to stop and watch the carnarge he encounters a free-lance news cameraman (the legendary Bill Paxton) filming it, and discovers there is money to be made from finding scenes like these and selling the footage to local news channels.  He sells his first footage to Morning News Editor Nina (Rene Russo), and gradually his success grows.

Apparently there really are people that make a living filming crashes and crime scenes in LA...

The film is centred upon Gyllenhaal as Bloom, and takes a non-judgemental eye as it follows the growth of his 'Video News Footage' company, which is partly down to Bloom's almost sociopathic behaviour; he begins by charming Nina, and his low-paid 'intern' Rik (Riz Ahmed) with his talk about his business ideals and ambitions, but eventually manipulates and bullys them in to serving his interests and desires.  The fact the film does not take an obviously negative portrayal of his behaviour (in fact, one of his most immoral moments is accompanied by an almost 'heroic' sounding theme from composer James Newton Howard) may cause a problem for some people.

However, in the context of the film, Bloom is not the only person making morally quesiotnable choices for their own benefit or profit; whether it is rival film crews, delighting in the tragedy and misfortune of others, or Nina and her news team choosing stories that will create fear and shock amongst the viewers and so keeping them hooked to their news channel.  To an extent Bloom is another facet of an industry exploiting and profiting from sensationalising death and suffering, and in that environment his choices are acceptable - as perverse as they may seem.

News Editor Nina thinks she has a place of power and authority over Bloom - but he manipulates her in a particularly uncomfortable scene...

Gyllenhaal has been gaining awards buzz for his performance, and it is undoubtedly memorable; but he has delivered similarly outstanding work before (he was the best thing in last year's disappointing 'Prisoners'), and after flirting with some so-so blockbusters he is back on form.  Watching this you can‘t help but feel there's even better work to come from him - even if this does garner him awards.

But his is not the only eye-catching role in this film - it must be said that the city of LA itself is a significant character, the glistening lights and neon effectively captured by the cinematography; it portrays a place of dangerous promise, where it is easy to believe people like Bloom would thrive and make their success - in ways the majority of people wouldn't find acceptable...