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...

Movie Review - The Babadook: An unsettling chiller with brains and heart

It's almost Halloween, and most people will be looking for a spooky horror to give them thrills and chills; so it's the right time to unleash Australian-made Horror 'The Babadook' at cinemas.  Ostensibly it's the tale of a grieving woman, struggling to cope with her troubled 6 year-old son, who are both terrorised by a supernatural presence.  But this film actually touches on subjects deeper and fears more primal than shadow figures, darkness and things that go bump in the night.

Because of this, if you're after a horror that will make you jump, scream then laugh like you're in a fairground attraction then you will find this slow paced.  This is a film that takes time to draw you in to the lives of Amelia (Essie Davis), who has never fully recovered from the loss of her husband in an horrific accident, and as a result struggles to bond with her son Samuel (Noah Wiseman).  These two central performances are quite fantastic: Davis conveys melancholy, despair, exasperation, and mania so effectively that there are times your heart is breaking for her, only to have her terrify you slightly in another scene.  Henshall gives one of the best performances I've seen from a child actor in any film - his is a genuine one that is believeable and sympathetic, even when the character is most troubling his mother.  Never does the film have him be 'cute' or precocious - as a result his fear and concern when he and his mother are threatened are believable.

"If it's in a word, or in a look, you can‘t get rid of The Babadook..." Children‘s books have never been as scary!

Given the subject matter so far you'd be forgiven for thinking I'm describing your typical depressing drama, but this film establishes such a bleak and unsettling tone even before the supernatural begins to menace Amelia and Samuel.  Almost entirely shot in very muted colours, the fact that many characters are dressed in black (even at a child's party) contribute to a funereal atmosphere.  It also makes their house feel increasingly oppressive and inescapable towards the final act of the film as the titular spook really makes its presence known.

Although many horror directors work to the maxim 'show, don‘t tell', Mister Babadook is mostly kept in shadows and darkness - and works all the better for it.  The film elicits a tremendous sense of fear in quite primal ways, having the monster move in, and seemingly made of, silhouttes and the dark.  Couple this with minimal but suitably creepy sound design, and there are a number of scenes that, if you were ever afraid of the dark corners of your bedroom as a child, should give you chills.  These scenes certainly brought me out in something of a cold sweat!  This is further reinforced through the acting - there are times we only see the characters reacting to the spook, and their horrified, terror-filled expressions completely sell how frightening Mister Babadook is. 

This film makes great use of those childhood fears we've all had - monsters under beds, or in closets, or in the shadows.  What do you mean, some grown ups still do too?

But a surprising amount of the terror in this film comes not just from the supernatural, but from the behaviour of the lead characters.  Initially the film adopts the perspective of Amelia, making the peculiar episodes and monster fixation of her son seem as scary as they are unmanagable.  But this shifts the other way, and we see the way that she is unable to deal with the haunting from Samuel's perspective, and her behaviour becomes a source of terror.

In this respect the supernatural aspects of the film might not, in someways, be satisfying for viewers who want a literal interpretation of the events.  There is a strong subtext about mental health, and for me this only heightened the terror experienced by one of the characters, as well as giving the film a surprisingly heart-wrenching aspect.

A multi-layered script, excellent direction, impressive cinematography and two remarkable performances are the core to this fantastic horror film.  Without relying on gore, cheap shocks or jump scares, this film creates an unsettling and downbeat atmosphere that feeds in to a chilling and frightening final act.  It mixes the supernatural with very real fears that many people experience everyday.  It may well haunt your thoughts for sometime after watching it; it certainly has mine.

Trailer Reaction: Avengers Age of Ultron

Well, hold the front page.  Following a leak (which Marvel Studios amusingly blamed on HYDRA), the Teaser for Avengers: Age of Ultron showed up on-line today.  Now, if I was to write about my actual reaction to this trailer, it would be very difficult to find the words that convey the gibbering, excited noises I was making as I watched this, combined with a kind of drooling.  Instead, this is more of an 'analysis' of what's on display, and why (if justification was ever needed) a lot of people are getting very excited about this film.

Firstly - Ultron is unveiled:

The Avengers need a suitably big threat to make them unite, and a genocidal robot, with an army of drones, should do it.  It had already been confirmed that Tony Stark creates Ultron - supposedly to help the Avengers - but the AI goes all Skynet on them, and decides that the cause of all humanity's problems is, well, humanity.  But I don't think that anyone expected Ultron to be so damned creepy!  He's creepy in his initial form above...

And even in the final shot, where he's fully formed, his lines are delivered with such menace by James Spader it's impossible not to be creeped out!

On top of that, it won't help the Avengers that Ultron is pretty much indestructible (in the comics he's made from every comic/sci-fi writer's favourite fictional metal, Adamantium) - this shot gives a hint of it, but it's not clear whether this is during some attempt to destroy him, or when his final form is being forged.

Secondly - the team will be made to hurt:

Joss Whedon promised he would find ways to hurt the team in this film, and there are shots that indicate they're well on the back-heel - check out the sullen poses in this shot (which appears to be in a Quinjet); Banner looks especially distraught.

There's hints that the team itself will fracture somewhat, as we get a shot of Thor grabbing and lifting Tony Stark by the throat, and also Iron Man taking on Hulk (more of which further on).  But there are suggestions that the Avengers have well and truly met their match - the motionless body below appears to be Thor, and Ultron appears to have found a way to break Cap's apparently unbreakable shield...

There have been all sorts of rumours about what happens to Hulk in this film (I won't comment on them here as I've been trying to avoid them), but this shot depicts an almost tender moment between him and Black Widow.  Is this before or after his fight with Iron Man?

Third - new friends; and foes???

The mid-credits scene from Captain America The Winter Soldier indicates that new characters Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver are the result of HYDRA experimenting on people using captured Alien technology.  This shot indicates that they won't just be working with HYDRA, but also with Ultron...

But at some point they could end up fighting alongside the Avengers - this shot seems to show Quicksilver taking out an Ultron Drone to aid Captain America:

Interestingly, they've chosen a different tack to portraying his powers compared to the approach taken in X-Men: Days of Future Past; this one is slightly more stylised, perhaps, with the flashes of slivery light (can you see what they did there?) that follows him.  This depiction looks like it might be more in keeping with the look of the character from the comics - but some people might not take to this version due to the great job by Evan Peters in the X-Men film (especially my wife, it seems).

But these two aren't the only new characters - Hydra are still around, led by Baron von Strucker (who we saw briefly in The Winter Soldier's mid credit's scene).  Judging by this shot, Hydra are still packing plenty of fire-power to test our heroes...

And finally we get a glimpse of Andy Serkis, who for a change won't be doing mo-cap.  No details of his character - will he be a help to The Avengers, or a hindrance???

Fourth - HULK BUSTER!!!!

This is a HUGELY fan-pleasing element to introduce - in fact it makes me sad that due to the rights issues, we're unlikely to ever see any of Hulk's legendary punch-ups with Wolverine or The Thing.  But we finally get to see Iron Man's 'Hulk Buster' armour, and they have a big scrap in Johannesburg (there were reports earlier this year that they were shooting this scene there).  But why?

Anyway,  Hulk Buster armour - yayyy!!

Hulk vs Iron Man - coooool!

Fifth - Ballet?!?

We can only speculate as to what part this plays in the plot.  IS this how Ultron plans to subdue humanity - by forcing all to take part in classical dance?  Is this a cover for a secret HYDRA plan??  Did Joss Whedon just feel like including some Ballet lessons in the film???

Well, all will be revealed at the end of April for us UK folks (sorry, America)!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go back and watch this trailer again.

And again, and again, and again...

Could Iron Man being in Captain America 3 actually be a BAD thing?

Wow, three posts in a week! Don't know what's got in to me! Anyway,  regular visitors to my blog will be familiar with my fandom of Marvel Studios' output, and how I like to idly speculate and comment on their future slate; well some news emerged this week that I've felt compelled to comment on...

After dropping some not-very-subtle hints that he's been in talks with Marvel Studios about reprising the role of Iron Man beyond his current contract (Avengers 2 & 3), word finally slipped this week that Robert Downey Jr will be in the next Captain America movie.  The title for this hasn't been announced, but recently the directors of this year's Captain America sequel 'The Winter Soldier' stated that fan's minds would be blown when they found out who was going to be in it, and that the title of the sequel would give away what it is about in a big, big way.  Well, since the news about RDJ being in the next Cap movie came out it has also been reported that this movie will cover one of the most dramatic arcs in Marvel Comic's recent history: Civil War.  (For the sake of brevity, you can read the summary of this story at all number of websites like this, this or this.)

Previously, despite many people expressing a desire to see this arc put on film, it seemed unlikely it would happen: after all, Spider-man is pretty central, and Fantastic Four and Wolverine also feature prominently - none of which can be portrayed in a Marvel Studios movie due to their rights being with Sony and Fox respectively.  Add to that, the Civil War arc is a pretty dark one, and ultimately has a depressing conclusion - the assassination of Captain America.  Whilst that element is one I don't think Marvel Studios should shy away from portraying in some way at some point in one of their films, I personally have felt that they'd have been better choosing elements of this story and working them in to one or more of their movies.  But if reports are to be believed, Captain America 3 will be strongly based on this story.  And I must admit, I'm worried.

I'm not worried about the handling of this particular story arc - Marvel's handling of their own characters and stories has been successful so far, and given the quality of their last five films (okay, maybe not so much the recent Thor, but that did have strong points!) I think we can trust that they will handle it in a way that is as effective, satisfying and entertaining as these films.  No, what has got me worried is that it has been reported that Robert Downey Jr has negotiated himself a far bigger role in the next Captain America movie than was originally planned.

'But Robert Downey Jr is GREAT as Tony Stark/Iron Man!' I hear you cry - yes, you're right.  You can argue that without his performance in the first Iron Man film, Marvel Studios would not have gone on to have the success they have since enjoyed.  The charisma he brought to the role was part of what made the first Iron Man such fun, and he is without doubt an immense box-office draw in the role. It is impossible to to imagine anyone else playing him, and if he will continue in the role beyond the next two Avengers films he's contracted for (Age of Ultron and the next sequel), that in itself is a good thing. 

If rumours that RDJ argued his way to a bigger role in Cap 3, what does this mean for Cap's story and character arc?

However, if the reports of 'fraught negotiations' are true, then I believe there are some implications for how Marvel Studios have been doing things. Bear in mind, this is the studio that, whilst giving their directors and stars a certain amount of creative freedom, still has a very set plan for their films. Look at what happened with Ant-man and the departure of Edgar Wright; he apparently wanted to do a standalone film, but Marvel Studios (I think it can be argued rightly) wanted a film that was part of their universe - so Wright parted, despite spending almost 8 years on and off working on it. This demonstrates how focussed Marvel Studios are on their plan for their characters and their films.

But despite this, RDJ can apparently argue his way to a bigger role in a film that isn't even his own. Again, I'm not going to debate storylines or characterisation - as I've said, going on their track record, I trust them to pull that off.  My concern is that Marvel can apparently be swayed to alter their plans at the demands of one actor. Especially when the film in question is ostensibly a Captain America sequel; if more room is being made to accommodate RDJ as Stark, how will this leave room for the plot and character threads that 'Winter Soldier' introduced like the redemption of Bucky, or Cap's friendship with Falcon? I am concerned that this could be the first time Marvel Studios have made a compromise that effects the portrayal and development of one (or more) of their characters - one of the strengths that has put them ahead of some other movie studio's comic adaptations.

Despite the potential problems, this story could be the Superhero clash people remember in 2016, instead of that other one...

Also, this may set a precedent where other compromises start to be made on other films, further eroding the character and story focus and thus the high standards that have so far been a mark of their films.  If these reports are true, and RDJ's contract negotiations do indicate the start of worrying compromises, then there's no small irony that there's a parallel with the arc apparently being put on film:

In the comic, it is the hubris and stubbornness of Tony Stark that ends many superhero alliances with cataclysmic results for the Marvel universe; whilst the actor that portrays him could potentially undermine the Marvel movies with his own hubris and stubbornness, perhaps leading to their decline.

I sincerely hope that this doesn't turn out to be the case and it must be said, a lot of this is based upon rumour and speculation at the moment. When Marvel Studios finally officially announce the title of Captain America 3 things may be clearer. But hopefully they'll still continue to do right by their characters, AND maintain the high standards of their films. 

Movie Review - '71: Taut, gripping and brutal thriller shows British cinema can rival Hollywood

The opening scene of '71 features recruit Gary Hook (Jack O'Connell) in a Boxing Ring, trading blows with a fellow recruit, while their Drill Sergeant shouts at theme to "Take it, and give it back."  If this order was an indication of how Hook responds to the ordeal he endures over the course of the film, this would be a typical action movie - almost 'Die Hard' in Northern Ireland, during 'The Troubles'.  One where Hook would be a 'hero' who gets bloody and beaten, but fights his way out through 'bad guys' to safety; but '71 is in fact a tense, gripping, and brutal thriller.  It is one that, despite the politically charged setting, offers no easy explanations or picks sides.

We follow Hook through a brief montage of training, then see his Platoon ordered to Northern Ireland to assist "the deteriorating security situation there".  Before offering his younger brother (who still lives in an orphanage) reassurances that he will be alright, he and his squad mates are shipped over to Northern Ireland.  When they are called out to support local Police in a search for arms in a Catholic area of the city, the similarly-green commanding officer turns down full riot gear, stating that they don't want to give the local people "the wrong message" - they're there to protect them.  This, it goes without saying, is a mistake, and as the Soldiers are transported through a maze of terraced streets, roads blocked by burnt-out double decker buses, the atmosphere grows increasingly ominous.  When the search turns in to a riot, Hook is separated from the rest of his Platoon who have made a hasty withdrawal from the situation, and he is pursued by IRA gunmen through the disorientating warren of streets, uncertain who is friend or foe.

Private Hook (O'Connell) is a young soldier, thrown in to a conflict situation he doesn't understand, not knowing who or why he's in conflict with...

This film expertly creates a spiralling feeling of dread, before hammering at full pelt in to this tense and frightening chase sequence.  From this moment it is brutal and uncompromising in its depiction of what must have been an undescribably awful time for the people of Belfast - beatings, shootings, and a bombing are among the harrowing scenes; and in between we learn of the fears of the ordinary people of the city who - regardless of their Religious heritage - are in constant fear of being targeted by para-militaries, police, or British Army.  Again, this film doesn't sermonize on the rights or wrongs of anyone involved in the conflict - but it must be said that no one-side comes away from this film looking good in anyway, whether they be Republican, Unionist, or British.

O'Connell is an actor who has gained a lot of praise this year for his performance in 'Starred Up', and in the few scenes early in the film before he and his Platoon get to Belfast he impresses with the understated way he makes Hook a relatable young man.  He certainly has leading man looks and a certain charisma, but it must be said that once the film moves to Belfast and things go bad for Hook there isn't time to admire the acting - other than follow his way through the city as breathlessly and nervously as he does, pursued and fearful.  This film does juggle a number of characters and plot strands - you have British Intelligence headed by Captain Browning (Sean Harris, surely one of the most under-rated character actors in Britain at the moment); an IRA which is beginning to splinter and threaten to fight amidst themselves, represented by David Wilmott's Boyle and Killian Scott's younger, more militant Quinn; and a Protestant lad who wants to carry on the fight just because his dad was killed by the IRA (Corey McKinley).  The film might have become unfocussed once these various players are brought in, but it just about manages to keep Hook's perilous and fraught attempts to get back to his barracks central.  Partly because, just like Hook, you're not sure who he can trust, and are aware that a potential killer could lurk - literally - around the corner.

This film is unflinching in its portrayal of the grim and sometimes brutal nature of the conflict in Northern Ireland...

This film might be too bleak and brutal for some people, and some may find the ending not quite satisfying: there is no resolution to many of the films plot strands, but any film depicting this messy conflict that tried to make one would feel false and disrespectful.  Instead this is a film which, I think, urges us to consider soldiers from Britain and other countries that are (whilst still only just young men or women) dropped in to war zones elsewhere in the world, without understanding the full nature of or reasons behind it - or even who is their ally or their enemy.  This film certainly invites comparisons with conflicts where our soldiers have been deployed in the last 40 years.

Though this film does not shy away from depicting the bleak and brutal nature of the messiest conflict of recent British history, it is one of the most gripping and effective thrillers to come out of this country in some time.  It is haunting in a lot of ways, not least because it doesn't settle for an easy explanations.  It also shows that Britain can make tense and compelling thrillers that are on par with the best Hollywood can offer, on a fraction of the budget.  It's the sort of film that makes you hope that the director Yann Demange and its stars can go on to bigger things in the future.