Movie Review: The Gunman

Sean Penn is The Gunman

The Gunman released in March 2015, based on the novel The Prone Gunman by Jean-Patrick Manchette and filmed in Congo; Africa, Spain and London. We shadow Sean Penn as main character Jim Terrior, who’s an ex-assassin on his revisit to the past’s horrific tribulations and to it’s now consequences.

Jim Terrior is seen to be very intelligent and tactical but still pulls the trigger on Congo’s minister of mining and has to leave his beloved Annie who is played by Jasmine Trinca. After 8 years, when the commotion has calmed down he returns but after being attacked and nearly killed Jim makes his journey to London to find out why someone wants him dead and if it’s because of the dreadful crime he committed years ago. He starts to reconnect with his old assassination team and he finds that the love of his life Annie has hopelessly fallen into the arms of Felix (played by Javier Bardem), who is selfish and is the reason Jim had to originally flee from Congo. Jim discovers that Felix still has connections in Africa and all hell breaks loose. To add to all of the trauma that Jim is going through he is told by the doctors that he has post-traumatic stress disorder after feeling unwell and having blurred vision the doctor states “Take care of your mind” but aren’t you surprised he struggles to?

With high expectations Penn’s efforts are undoubtable considering this is his first starring role in a few years it does seem strange to suddenly see him very muscly and bronzed and although Sean Penn is a great actor and very respected, let’s be honest he isn’t Liam Neeson is he? That’s all down to director Pierre Morel who also directed the brilliant film series Taken. After having watched all of the Taken films as has the majority of the nation, we’re probably biased to Liam Neeson and the film would’ve certainly had a different twist if he was the main character, Jim, especially with Liam Neeson’s deep and mysterious voice.

The visual aspects of the film are very high contrast as you would expect and the music dramatic. As bits were filmed in Barcelona it included an interesting chase at a bull fighting stadium despite Catalonia banning the sport back in 2012.  It’s not the worst action film you will watch but the script is quite dull which is surprising because it does have some talented actors in it but at least the film does what it set out to do and you’ll be sure to be hanging at the edge of your seat.

Movie Review: The Fault in Our Stars

Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort in The Fault in Our Stars

Based on the 2012 bestseller by John Green, The Fault in Our Stars explores the amusing, exhilarating and tragic lives of two people who merely appreciate being alive and in love.

We follow the female protagonist Hazel (played by Shailene Woodley), an extraordinary teenager who is diagnosed with thyroid cancer as she goes on to meet and fall in love with the male protagonist Gus (played by Ansel Elgort). They share a sharp wit, a disdain for the conventional and most of all a love that takes them on a remarkable journey. What makes their affiliation more powerful is the fact that they met at one of their cancer support groups. The movie, as well as the book, sets out to inspire you to appreciate being healthy and alive, but most of all it sets out to make you cry and definitely succeeds. Although the plot is not based on a true story the film still relates to many children who are faced with such shocking lifelong illnesses.

Director Josh Boone films between America and Amsterdam, with places including Pittsburgh Hospital being included in their list of locations. As so much of the filming had to take place in such physical and relatable environments such as a hospital and a church the audience were able to feel more engaged. In each location something unexpected happens that the fans can hold on to and this is what holds the movie together. When Gus and Hazel visit the Anne Frank House, the audience and the characters are overwhelmed with emotion as they share their first kiss in one of the most sentimental and historical landmarks in Amsterdam. Although this seems an odd set for the star crossed lovers to share their first kiss and a huge risk for the director to involve in the movie, one is forced to connect their suffering with the suffering surrounding them.

In such an emotionally powerful movie it is hard for the audience to stay fixated throughout, as the plot seems so predictable. However the well-connected cast seemed to achieve this, with their realness as they managed to seem and act like normal teenagers, who face other everyday problems other than their cancer. Shaliene Woodley manages to keep the audience sympathising with her character due to her honest, blunt and dark humour. Likewise Ansel Elgort manages to make the audience fall in love with him prior to winning over Hazel. As mentioned above the plot seems predictable from the beginning; however something which makes the movie even more admirable is the fact that you think you know what is going to happen but there remains one last twist as the movie ends.

Movie Review: Avengers – Age of Ultron

Robert Downey Jr. is Iron Man in The Avengers: Age of Ultron

2012’s Avengers: Assemble was a summer monster, it broke a ton of records and was one of the most successful melding of franchises ever. Joss Whedon managed to write a script that somehow wasn’t cluttered, despite featuring 6 main characters, along with a rich supporting cast. This year Whedon is back, after another Captain America and Iron Man film, comes Avengers Age of Ultron.

With the character’s back stories and personalities already sketched out during the first movie, Whedon is free to jump right into the action here, and that 30 minutes of slow build up in the first movie is thankfully not here anymore. The movie opens in the middle of an action scene, with the avengers together attempting to storm a base in a frozen wasteland. Immediately in this scene the main conflict of the movie is established, Captain America’s loyal oath to protect with the avengers as long as he is needed, and Tony Stark’s need to create so he can retire and presumably continue to do Tony Stark stuff.

During the raid on this base the team encounter two mutants, one of which can move super quick and the other seems to be able to move stuff with her mind as well as influence people somehow? Her powers aren’t really explained but she’s a decent enough character and develops well as the movie goes on. The team are aiming to recover Loki’s staff from the first movie and successfully get it. Tony Stark and Bruce Banner start to experiment with the staff and Stark finds out there is an artificial intelligence in the stone that can be harnessed to bring peace to the world, unfortunately for the avengers, the AI turns hostile and decides the only way that there can be peace in the world is through the extinction of humans.

What separates this movie from the first is the amount of time given to small character moments. In the first movie it was all action showpieces, and relishing the fact all these stars were on the screen at once, but here the characters are all given time to grow. There’s a great moment with Hawkeye’s home life explored and he’s arguably the main character in this, closest to the audience as he’s just watching these superheroes and demi Gods act around him. There’s some useful expansion of the universe too, with Andy Serkis’ character sure to be a part of the Black Panther series, and ‘The Vision’ a character I’m sure the heroes will have to deal with again. Age of Ultron may not have the great, fist-pumping moments of the original, but it develops these characters into more fleshed out beings, Whedon knows better than most about needing us to feel something for the characters – what they desire, what they fear and how they deal with the conflicts of the two, Avengers is another huge testament to that.

Movie Review: Child 44

Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman in Child 44

Based on the 2008 novel by Tom Rob Smith, Child 44 has an intriguing premise, fascinating setting and a great cast. Unfortunately none of these stop the film from being a turgid, confused mess.

We follow Tom Hardy as Leo Demidov, an orphan in the 1930s, a solider in the 40s and now an agent for the secret service in the 50s. The films begins with the phrase ‘There is no murder in paradise’, for the citizens in Russia, there is no such thing as murder, an ironic belief given the sheer amount of murders carried out by the secret police. When a child murderer kills Demidov’s best friend’s son, he starts to investigate. Of course the secret police don’t want the citizens thinking there’s a serial killer on the loose, so Demidov, and his wife, are sent away, left to find the killer in exile.

Director Daniel Espinoza shoots his film in an autumnal colour range, 1950’s Russia is a place where bright colours don’t exist, the film is de-saturated and when in the films second half, Tom Hardy’s Leo Demidov moves to a bleak industrial town, black and brown dominate the screen, characters are hunched over and the town resembles something out of a nightmare. Visually, the film is spot on. However, your suspension of disbelief is constantly broken due to an incredibly poor selection of accents. Gary Oldman is the main culprit here, there are scenes where it almost sounds like he forgot to use an accent in the first place. Throughout all of this, Tom Hardy gives a good performance, he’s got the physical attributes to make his character a perfectly believable, intimidating officer and the acting chops to handle the more subtle parts of his role.

Richard Price, who wrote the movie doesn’t seem to know what he wants the movie to really focus on. Price famously wrote for The Wire’s 5th season, so it’s not as if he doesn’t know how to deal with disparate character arcs, but here the characters here aren’t strong enough to support their own plot threads. At one point the movie seems to be focussing on Demidov’s wife and their relationship, but all of a sudden she turns into a passive character and we’re back to the ‘child serial killer’ theme, towards the end, once we meet the killer the film seems to want to focus on Demidov’s past and how both he and the killer are two sides of the same coin. It’s confused, muddled and it means none of these conclusions have any sort of resonance. There’s a good movie buried in here, but there’s too much going on, and Child 44 simply ends up being more boring than bad.

Movie Review: Furious 7

Vin Diesel and the late Paul Walker in Furious 7

Furious 7, the last of the Fast and Furious franchise was the second highest grossing film of 2015, something very rare for a sequel. As one of the highest grossing franchises out there, the thrill had to be stepped up for the last movie. Each film the cars, the competition and the challenges have got bigger. The latest installment did manage to out-do the previous films, due to its huge following and its blockbuster cast. However what made Furious 7 even better, were the stunts and the non-stop action.

The movie was emotional for the viewers who have been watching the series since 2001, as Paul Walker passed away during the filming. The passing of Paul Walker added more pressure to the film as there are so many fans who were devastated and unfortunately the filming hadn’t ended. But this did not distract the viewers from the explosions and the commotion that took place in the opening scene. The character’s life stories were already exposed in the first movie and therefore the director James Wan was able to jump straight into it with an explosion at the main character Dominic Toretto’s house in the first scene. We follow the team as they take on a brother of a previous terrorist they defeated. A government representative offers to help the team in exchange for their help in rescuing a computer hacker who has been kidnapped.

The movie is filmed between America, Tokyo and Abu Dhabi, locations the cast had not been to previously. What makes these movies each so different is the location, as it constantly changes, which offers something new to the viewer. Abu Dhabi was a great choice of setting, with its modern towers, blue sea, white sand and most of all their interest in super cars. One of the most thrilling parts of the movie is the stunt which shows Vin Diesel’s character crashing a Lykan HyperSport (one of the most expensive cars in the world) out of one of the top floors of the Etihad Towers, the car hovers across Abu Dhabi and then smashes through a window of a neighbouring tower.

Although throughout the movie you are glued to the action on the screen, this does not distract from the plot or the passion of the film. Throughout the movie the focus is not on Paul Walker, which makes it easier to focus on the plot. However the movie ends with a recap of Paul Walker and Vin Diesel’s characters in all of the previous movies, leaving the viewers with a reminder of their relationship over the past fourteen years and we are left with the words “in memory of Paul”. This was a good way to end the film as it focuses on what the public would want and what was fitting for a series based on such a strong friendship.

Movie Review: Ex Machina

Director Alex Garland debut Ex Machina

Alex Garland’s directorial debut is an ambitious project that hits the mark on most of what it sets out to do. Partly a tense thriller, partly a rumination on what it means to be human and 100% sleek SciFi, Ex Machina (2015) stars Oscar Isaac, Alicia Vikander  and Domhnall Gleeson as, respectively, the arrogant God-figure, his mysterious and restrained creation and the everyman unaware of the forces he’s toying with. The minimalist cast and cold, claustrophobic setting combined with the tight plotting will leave you glued to the edge of your seat right up until the explosive (not literally, mind) ending.

What was supposed to be a quiet week-long meet up session with Caleb’s (Gleeson) idol (Nathan, expertly portrayed by Oscar Isaac) turns into a series of increasingly meandering and potentially life-threatening mind games. There’s a risk a film so small and unassuming, built on a small cast and on a lot of dialogue, could take a turn for the bland but Garland plays off the disjointed set pieces against each other with skill and a genuine directorial flair. There’s a lot of tension generated simply by limiting the setting to a couple of rooms and corridors and even when Caleb is promised full liberty of movement there is a sense of invisible barriers that he must navigate.

While the acting retains a high standard throughout, the enigmatic black hole around which the story gravitates and the real standout, is Alicia Vikander as Ava, Nathan’s very own Pygmalion project. Deeply believable in each of the kaleidoscope of roles she embodies, Ava shines as both victim and puppet master, vulnerable prisoner and cold-blooded aggressor and, most of all, dazzlingly human while still undeniably an automaton. This last part, the question of Ava’s real nature, is where the film unfortunately lets itself down by attempting to provide a clear-cut answer when so much of her characterisation and narrative arc up to that point was spent setting her up as unknowable, a liminal trickster of sorts, straddling the lines between categories.

There is an underlying current of disapproval at her actions in the climax of the film and dread towards the ultimate outcome of her creation which places her savage desire to survive in the firmly undeserved category of calculated cruelty. However, when contrasted with Nathan and Caleb’s attempts to own her, this should come across as more relatable and humane than portrayed. In failing to keep the tension going between the two sides Ava had been navigating for most of the movie there is a lot of depth lost from the film’s ultimate philosophical dilemma.

Still, even with its ultimate turn towards the more tired tropes of AI speculative fiction, Ex Machina manages to shine as a tightly plotted thriller and relatively intriguing take on the nature of the android capacity for humanity.

Movie Review: The Duff

Mae Whitman is The Duff (Designated Ugly Fat Friend)

A bit of an anachronism in the age of the YA dystopian adaptations, The DUFF (2015) draws inspiration from the plethora of 90s films chronicling the dog eat dog intricacies of high school life in America. For the most part, it remains a quite charming romp through the familiar tropes and tools of the trade but it never veers too far off the beaten path, to its ultimate detriment. While it feels comforting and safe it never quite reaches the heights of, say, Mean Girls, to pick a more recent example.

A tale of the usual moral lessons updated for a modern audience, The DUFF follows Bianca (Mae Whitman, of Avatar the Last Airbender and Scott Pilgrim fame) as she tries to shake off the eponymous label (Designated Ugly Fat Friend), find some confidence, meet cute and find her happy ending. The film’s attempts at subverting and playing around with the various cliques and clichés are quite clever and earnest enough not to fall into the saccharine feel-good trap of the genre. Bianca’s friends (Skyler Samuels and Bianca Santos) are reasonable, kind people who treat her respect rather than the manipulative queen bees you’d expect, Wesley (Robbie Amell) is charming enough in his own right, the make-over sequence is a silly affair with none of the pomp and self-importance normally given to it. To be certain, The DUFF has its own brand of quirkiness that is sure to appeal to teens and adults alike.

However, it is not without its flaws. For one thing, the social media angle is quite confusing and unfocused as well as quite shoddily inserted in the overall narrative. The film doesn’t seem to know whether it wants us to seriously analyse the intersection between bullying, self-image and new media or if it just introduced it because it’s the fancy gimmick du jour (see Chef for another instance of this trend). There’s also a baffling element of inauthenticity that permeates the script throughout. This is not just about the lack of depth or weight to any of the characters (yes, even intelligent and relatable Bianca feels more like a prop for the audience to project on than an actual person). The language feels stilted and unreal which is surprising considering that the book it’s been adapted from was written by a then-teenager.

Some concluding thoughts: not by any means terrible or even bad, quite the contrary. However, its use of traditional narrative conventions as a crutch against what one can only assume was a fear of financial failure ultimately drags it down, along with its somewhat muddled moral message and mishandling of what could have been an interesting look at bullying and humiliation in a digital age.

Movie Review: Boyhood

Ellar Coltrane in Oscar Nominated Boyhood

Following the recent Oscar nominations I have embarked on a quest to at least get through the big nominations before the actual ceremony, a task which might end up feeling more like a chore than ever before. Things the Oscar likes: white men doing great things while looking pained and/or white actors and/or white boys growing up to be white men and/or token black man nominations (token because it’s highly dubious that Selma managed to land a Best Picture nomination while earning nothing in the acting or directing sections). And, in a shocking twist, Wes Anderson. But if we’re really being honest here, the king of indie doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to win anything as glitzy as the Best Picture award. Neither do the other nominees, which mostly seem to have been thrown in there to pad out the fight between Birdman and Boyhood.

With that being said, let’s discuss Boyhood (2014). The early buzz around this centred around the fact that Richard Linklater chose to film this in the closest approximation to real time possible. By having the production team reunite every year for a little bit of work on the project and then disband until the following year, Linklater managed to infuse his creation with a soft naturalism that would have been difficult to capture otherwise. Or so the critics say, as they swoon and sigh at this bold new direction in cinema. And it’s true, there is something to be said for the concept behind this and for the willingness to push the medium. Linklater deserves recognition for this, no matter what the end product looks like. Accusations of the method being ‘gimmicky’ have no place here, he seems honest whenever discussing his intentions and vision. However, and this is a big however, what his experimental approach doesn’t mean is that a good film emerged out of his toils.

Going back to that claim of naturalism, the tone of this is all over the place. Just like life, one could argue. Not a film, then, one could shoot back. Naturalism in itself does not excuse the lack of an artistic voice. Is this a Dogme 95 exercise in bare-bones filmmaking? Is this a fictionalised autobiography? Does it rely on coming of age tropes or does it eschew them completely? The film certainly doesn’t seem to have the answer to any of these questions. Linklater’s grand artistic statement on life seems to be that it happens, which is neither new nor packaged in an innovative way. It takes a lot of self-involved navel gazing to take on the meandering trappings of art house cinema and commodify them to such an extent that they’re as bland and tasteless as week old bread.

What Linklater has achieved is not some intuitive exploration of childhood in America. It’s the cinematic equivalent of those ‘Only 90s kids will understand this’ images people send to each other in an effort to confirm that, yes, indeed, their formative years were not a collective hallucination. To rely on pop culture cues and varying hair lengths to mark the passing of time, to use elements like going to university and peer pressure while simultaneously playing coy and explaining that your film is not a collection of the usual coming of age high points is not only lazy filmmaking but intellectually dishonest as well. In all its self-centred glory, Boyhood comes close to an earnest portrait of childhood in, well, a certain kind of America but perhaps not in the way Linklater intended.

Preview: Jupiter Ascending

Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis in Jupiter Ascending

One of the hottest blockbusters to grace our screens this year will be the latest science fiction offering written, produced and directed by the Wachowski’s (of The Matrix and Cloud Atlas fame). Due for release on July 18, Jupiter Ascending tells the story of an unlucky young Russian immigrant named Jupiter Jones – played by Mila Kunis – who scrapes a living by cleaning toilets, until the day she encounters Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), a genetically engineered interplanetary warrior turned whistle-blower who is sent by the King of the Universe (Eddie Redmayne) to kill Jupiter.

All of a sudden, Jupiter’s life is turned upside down. Born under the twinkling stars of the night sky, it turns out she has also been living under the watchful eye of an unfriendly intergalactic intelligence. Her unique genetic signature means she is fated for a much loftier destiny than spending her life as a toilet cleaner and now, with the help of Caine Wise, she must try to escape the murderous clutches of the King of the Universe and take her rightful place as leader.

A sweeping science fiction tale which leaps from star-studded galaxies to the streets of Chicago, Jupiter Ascending will boast spectacular effects, courtesy of visual effects maestros Dan Glass and Oscar winner John Gaeta, who worked with the Wachowski’s on The Matrix trilogy. As well as Kunis, Tatum and Redmayne – who you may remember from Les Miserables – the film’s cast list is studded with other international stars such as Sean Bean (who portrayed Boromir in the Lord of the Rings movies), Douglas Booth and James D’Arcy. Behind the cameras, the director/producer siblings have been joined by other big-name industry talents, including the likes of editor Alexander Berner, production designer Hugh Bateup and cinematographer John Toll, all of whom have collaborated with the Wachowski’s on previous projects.

Returning to the Wachowski’s favoured themes of revolution and the capabilities and possibilities of the human race, Jupiter Ascending is sure to be a thrilling journey and will probably echo the dynamism and cutting-edge technology of the Matrix films, while trying to sell us a similarly spectacular and decidedly otherworldly plot (in more ways than one). The film is projected to do quite well at the box office, particularly overseas, and is lined up to be one of this summer’s biggest hits, guaranteed to pull in audiences with its star-studded cast and a storyline which may not be entirely original, but reaches for the stars nevertheless.

Movie Review – Exodus: Gods and Kings

Christian Bale as Moses in Exodus: Gods and Kings

Exodus: Gods and Kings is the newest film in director Ridley Scott’s repertoire and, unfortunately, it is ill suited to a December release. It’s such a convoluted, messy affair that the only good place for it was the January post-Oscar season wasteland or, alternatively, under the tsunami that passes for a parting of the seas in this iteration of the Exodus story.

Much has been said of the dubious casting policies involved in its making but having finally seen the end result I find it hard to build up enough emotion for outrage. Yes, the lily-white leads prance across the screen in what looks like the GDP of a small nation’s worth of bronzing powder. If this were a better film one could passionately argue about under-representation and the need to have non-white actors in prominent roles and, certainly, all of those are valid points. But this is not a better film. It’s so far away from being, even, an honest film. It has so much difficulty figuring out what it wants to be that the casting seems less like institutional racism at work and more like complete and utter disinterest in making this work on any level. Scott’s cynical comments about his casting process now look positively matter-of-fact instead of reactive, petulant and mean.

And even the clumsiness of it all (the casting, the script, the disappointing climax) could have been overlooked had this at least embraced its campy, overambitious nature. It could have been a fun, majestic romp through a classic story but for a film called Exodus: Gods and Kings there’s surprisingly little in the gods department and the kings aren’t all that impressive either. Is Moses acting on behalf of a hallucination? Is he the real deal? He couldn’t tell you and the film certainly can’t seem to make up its mind. Such scepticism in a Bible-inspired story needs fine-tuning and skill to pull off and Scott seems to have neither to spare. “Was Moses just a confused shepherd?” is not the kind of question that can be answered or, in fact, even asked by a film that also features Ramses waxing poetic on the economic realities of slave emancipation while doing his best impersonation of an Ayn Rand cut-out.

On top of that, the flip-flopping tone is also juxtaposed with actors who, bless their hearts, are doing their best with a script so wooden you’ll be tasting sawdust in your mouth for weeks to come. If anything, the criminally underused supporting (and unsurprisingly token brown-ish) cast comes out all the better for not having a lot to do in this. There is something dignified in the way they mostly stand on the sidelines as the bad film whizzes past them. And, oh, how it whizzes. What made DeMille’s The Ten Commandments (1956) work was its grandiose sense of purpose, its commitment to the spectacle. What made The Prince of Egypt (1998) work was its emotional core, the relationships and struggles and human touch in the midst of mystical revelation. Exodus: Gods and Kings misses the mark so mind-bogglingly completely on both fronts that it can’t even attain the coveted title of so-bad-it’s-good for itself.