Independence Day: Resurgence

Posted on June 26, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

“Get ready for a close encounter, bitch!”

They’re back! 20 years on from the aliens first visit they are back. This time, with a bigger ship which is apparently 3,000 miles wide. Only one man can save the day – David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum). Well not really, there are many other people who come into play but yet again the thinking woman’s crumpet steals the show (I acknowledge the fact he is old enough to be my Grandfather but choose to ignore/embrace it). Whilst this sequel does not desecrate the first film, or taint it in anyway, it’s neither better nor worse than its predecessor. And, considering how dark things seem in news and politics at the moment, this may just be the escapism everyone needs.

In the twenty years since the first alien attack Earth has changed completely. All of the world’s nations are united with a level of global peace never seen before. Instead all of the world is working together, using the alien technology that was left behind, to build the Earth Space Defense (ESD) programme. Overseen by President Lanford (Sela Ward), General Adams (William Fichtner) and Director David Levinson, its figurehead is Dylan Hiller (Jessie T. Usher playing the step-son of Will Smith’s absent character). When visiting the ESD base on the Moon, and squaring up to old friend/rival Jake Morrison (Liam Hemsworth), an alien mothership attacks the moonbase and heads straight for Earth. It’s a call to arms for old faces – such as President Whitmore (Bill Pullman) and Dr Brakish Okun (Brent Spiner) – as this could just be Earth’s final stand.

This is a sequel that is full both of pretty awe-inducing spectacle and amusing cheesiness. From the above headline, a line uttered by Jessie T. Usher without any hint of irony or knowingness, to every line uttered by Judd Hirsch as Mr Levinson Sr this is a film full of enough laughs to entertain. Considering the amount of death and devastation that occurs (I gave up trying to estimate the death toll) there is still enough comic relief that you do manage to leave the cinema smiling. In case you didn’t get my oh-so-subtle hints I loved every scene featuring Jeff Goldblum – he has got the nerdy/cool thing nailed! – and his quasi-science.

This does lead me to my main issue with this sequel. Promo material and comments from many of those involved in the film have discussed how this is Independance Day for the new generation. It’s a pointless thing to aim for for two reasons. A) I was two when the original film came out. Does that mean ‘It’s not for me’? B) The best thing about this film is the use of the ‘old’ cast. It is their scenes that are the highlight, not just for purposes of nostalgia but also in terms of character and entertainment. Jessie T.Usher gets sidelined by Liam Hemsworth who is playing a ‘maverick’ who is so bland and vanilla. The actress playing Hemsworth’s fiancee Patricia Whitmore (Maika Monroe), the daughter of the original film’s president, gets to some cool stuff but still needs to be rescued in the process. Travis Tope as Charlie Miller, best friend of Liam Hemsworth’s character, is a great addition in terms of comedy, although he is rather too fixated on a character who looks pretty gets about four lines (Angelababy playing Rain Lo).

Furthermore, the plot itself magpies (it’s my polite preference to steal) a lot from a wide range of other sources. From Alien, to 2001, to Close Encounters and even Deep Impact. In many ways it’s quite a distracting element to see so obviously the ‘influences’ of a film. There’s also the fact the film starts off so big – destruction of several continents big – that manages to be so large it’s almost ineffective. We are starting to see what could easily be described as a type of fatigue from audiences in terms of big explosions – it’s no longer shocking seeing a big screen explosion of a national/international landmark. Sometimes smaller works better. I think that’s why I enjoyed the second half of the film far more than the third. When the battle occurs within a slightly smaller radius, the many different sub-plots start to connect together, and the jokes are flying, that’s when this film really hits its stride.

All in all, this does the job. It’s more than entertaining enough, looks great and doesn’t require too much brain power. Perfect way to while away an evening.

Gods of Egypt

Posted on June 25, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

If you like so-bad-that-it’s-good then this is for you.

Writing a review of this film seems semi-futile as Mark Kermode did such a a good job with his (click here for his vlog post) but I’m going to give it a go. Mainly because although I agreed fully with everything Mark says in his review we have one difference, I bloody loved how ridiculous and brainless the film is. It’s the level of awful bomb movie that you don’t see very often, that ends up being hilarious by by taking its failed spectacle far too seriously. I genuinely think this has the potential to be a cult classic – turned into drinking games and quote-alongs, so unbelievable and propestrous that it has to be seen.

In an alternate version of Ancient Egypt the world is flat and ruled by Gods who live amongst humans. They also happen to be twice the size physically of the mere mortals and bleed gold not blood. On the day of the coronation, with Osris (Bryan Brown) abdicating and giving the throne to his son Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), Osris is killed by his jealous brother Set (Gerard Butler). Set then strips Horus of his eyes, which contain all of his power, but stops himself from killing Horus as his nephew’s lover Hathor (Elodie Yung) offers to be his slave if Horus is spared. Instead Horus is exiled and Set becomes a tyrannical leader of Egypt. Bek (Brenton Thwaites) is a mortal thief who has little belief or faith in the Gods but when his girlfriend is killed, Zaya (Courtney Eaton), Bek makes a deal with Horus. If Bek helps Horus regain his eyesight and therefore power Horus will help bring Zaya back from the dead.

I don’t know where to begin with this one. There are so many things wrong with this film that somehow end up being so right. Literally from the opening credits, the title page, I snort-laughed. Somehow director Alex Proyas has managed to make even the title page pretentious. It then continues from there. We have a voice-over narrator (an often ill-used device resulting in cheesey-ness) who happens to be an older Bek (again the element of foresight in narration ends up being rather cloying) who explains things in a way that somehow manages to be condescending AND stupid. The script as a whole is so stupid that I feel that to be accurate I must refer to it using quotation marks – the ‘script’ and ‘story’ is so kitsch and pantomimic, full of pointless non-sequiturs that either go nowhere. This is pure B-movie territory with a big blockbuster budget ($140 million budget in case you were wondering).

Where that money went? Well I’m not quite sure. It’s certainly not on the special effects which are dire. Truly and utterly awful. Every scene is a green screen disaster. The decision to make the gods twice the height and size of the humans may have seemed novel during pre-production but in execution ends up being awfully brilliant. My personal favourite (another snort-laugh was emitted at this point) had to be when Horus is in the bath and the human women are helping him. It’s hard to describe, or to truly reflect the brilliance of the moment, but everything about the scene is uncanny-ily dreadful.

It could have been the cast. We’ve got GOT Danish heartthrob Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Gerald Butler and even Geoffrey Rush – who must have been on set for about a day to film his scenes then scarper off. I feel like I should give Coster-Waldau some credit for his performance, for the most part he tries admirably to deliver the dire dialogue and when he doesn’t he still seems to embrace the dross. Managing to say such lines as ‘I can understand killing for a throne, but this is madness!’, ‘I’m sorry that the corpses of my parents have inconvinced you.’ and ‘It’s lettuce!’ with a straight face and a desperate will to make them effective makes for a truly hilarious experience. His buddy partnership with Thwaites as Bek is memorable only for Coster-Waldau as Bek both as a character and Thwaites portraying him is dreadful. Bek is a total Mary/Gary Sue , utterly perfect at everything he tries to do. Except for speaking dialogue, he’s pretty awful for that. In fact the only things I wrote down in regards to his performance after seeing the film is ‘eyebrows’. There’s some serious eyebrow going on here.

Gerald Butler plays Gerald Butler. His performance stands out like a sore thumb as whilst everyone else speaks with this strange hyper-English accent he speaks in his Gerald Butler roar. It seems a dark day to be saying this but he does manage to out-act everyone he is on screen with. My favourite performance however was Chadwick Boseman as Thoth, providing us with a character who personifies the strange campness of the entire film. However, as a consequence, I fear I will end up taking his portrayal as Blank Panther a lot less seriously. The moment that really summed up just how bad this film was going to be was the appearance of Rufus Sewell, a man who can actually act but has recently spent his career in this type of Hollywood underworld cinema. Considering he is the in the film and providing the kind performance full of knowingness and campery that we’ve come to expect from him, it’s truly amazing that the film’s director seemed surprised at the film’s reception (click here for more).

To conclude I will finish with my top five lines of the film as I genuinely feel the level of absurdity the script reaches may be beyond words. It’s a shiny big disaster with weird oddball moments and brilliantly bonkers.The acting is lacklustre, the story mediocre but the film is impossible to resist. If only it were half an hour shorter (it’s 127 minutes long) then this would be a perfect awful movie.

5) Set: Behold the fate of those who stand in my way. I will bring them reckoning!

4) Horus: I don’t need any more worshippers. Tributors that rot and stink. Get out! Unless you’ve got wine…

3) Ra: When you stray from your past, you grow weak.

2) Horus: The dead don’t speak to the living

1) Ra: Normally when a bird lands on my beat I kill it, before it can shit.

Film quality:

Film enjoyment levels:

Alice Through The Looking Glass

Posted on June 5, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

Disney provides a sequel that no-one actually asked for

Alice Through The Looking Glass is, quite literally movie-making by numbers. The end-product is tick-boxing, almost as if it is following a guide called Pretending To Be Weird For Dummies, but it was only ever made due to the admittedly very large numbers of the first film. Six years ago Alice In Wonderland made a worldwide total of $1,025,467,110 at the box office. It currently ranks at number 23 of the highest grossing films worldwide. It’s therefore not unsurprising that this film was made, though the fact it took six years to get it done is and the fact its sequel film is equally mediocre is no excuse at all. Interestingly Alice Through The Looking Glass was predicted to earn $55–60 million from its opening weekend but instead earnt only $27 million. Alice In Wonderland earnt $116 million in its opening, a difference with its sequel of 70%. Considering it earnt so much money Alice In Wonderland had a frosty reception with critics and audiences alike. Clearly the people sat around the table who greenlit Alice Through The Looking Glass cared more about getting money out of its audience as opposed to actual enjoyment or satisfaction. Deciding to see ATTLG was due to curiosity and to quote the 1951 animated Alice In Wonderland, “Curiosity only leads to trouble.”

Alice (Mia Wasikowska) has spent the past three years sailing the high seas upon her father’s beloved ship ‘Wonder’. Alice returns home she finds that her family’s finances are so poor that they will have to either give up ‘Wonder’ or the family home. It’s at this point that Absolem (Alan Rickman) in the form of a butterfly calls her back to Wonderland. The Mad Hatter/ Tarrent Hightopp (Johnny Depp) believes that his family may actually still be alive. No-one else believes him which is causing him to fade away. Alice must use a time travelling device stolen from Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) to save Hatter. Old foe Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) wants the time travelling device for a different reason, to get revenge on her sister White Queen (Anne Hathaway). Will Alice succeed in her mission to save Hatter, will she be intercepted by Time or will Wonderland be destroyed forever through her trying to change time?

SPOILER ZONE (SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU WISH TO AVOID SPOILERS) The main problem with this film, its fatal flaw if you will, is that so much of it is so utterly pointless. Time tells Alice from the outset that she can’t change time. But she tries anyway, for an hour of the film’s running time, only to find out that she can’t and in the process may have destroyed Wonderland for ever. Not only does it lead to feelings towards Alice akin to my current view of Bran from Game Of Thrones ( I still can’t hear the phrase ‘Hold The Door’ without nursing an internal sob) but there’s also an ironic feeling of having had your time wasted. Time is established as a villain who accent-wise seems to be impersonating Arnold Schwarzenegger yet arguably (this may have come about due to my less than satisfied feelings towards this film) he was surely trying to do the right thing? Alice is the one who nearly destroyed everything, yet she is the one lauded and celebrated from stopping it happening..?

Anyways…the big problem that Alice In Wonderland had was that it tried to be weird. The ridiculousness of Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter personified this problem with a truly grating performance. Mercifully he has less screentime in this one but it is still enough to make you wince and feel slightly creeped out. It’s a combination of make-up, costume , performance and vocal choice that I just do not understand. Wasikowska is wonderful as Alice, an actual wonder to watch in a land filled of synthetic versions of it.In fact I’d argue the film’s best moments are when Alice is bringing that wonder into the real world – how society views her with such ill-regard and her brief stay in the ‘care’ of female hysteria speicliast Dr Bennett (an underused Andrew Scott) are moments when the film feels real fresh and lacking the self-consiousness that lingers of the rest of it.

A surprising appearance of Richard Armitage as King Oleren reminded me of Middle Earth and how Peter Jackson managed to create a fully fledged world that athough different from ours seemed equally real. That has not happened with AIW or ATTLG. Instead we’ve been given two films that try to be quirky and strange yet are truly not – neither film has heart to it – and are instead synthetic manifestations of it. The first film may have succeeded on trying to profiteer from the ‘strange’ but the huge defeat of its sequel suggests that people have learnt their lesson. On a grander scale it’s hard not to ponder what this huge loss means for future Disney films. Nearly all of Disney’s upcoming slate is of remakes or reimaginings as they seemed to be safe entities with a pre-sold audience. Just a few weeks ago with Jungle Book (click here to read my review) Disney proved it could do it well. But after this, I’m not so sure now. Hollywood has taken an approach of putting all of its eggs (monies) into one safe basket (a film based on a book/previous film) yet the scale of ATTLG box office after numerous others may require a change in thinking.

A huge budget and elaborate sets yet no-one appears to have worried about the plot. It’s a mess.

The Neon Demon

Posted on June 2, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

“Beauty isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.”

Where to start? Yesterday I had the privilege, courtesy of Little White Lies film magazine, to attend a preview screening of Nicolas Winding Refn‘s The Neon Demon, at the very schmancy Soho Hotel with my friend Galia. The film is not released until June 24th in the States and not until early July in the UK. However the film had its international premiere at Cannes last month which led to a substantial amount of reviews. As it stands on June 2nd the film has a rating of 6.8/10 on IMDB and 47% on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s looking like The Neon Demon is not going to be the new Drive (7.8/10 and 92% respectively) and there’s one really good reason for that. Refn’s return to LA is with a film that confuses depth with emptiness, mistakes meaning with vapidity and chooses style over substance. The result is an exploitation movie disguised as art, smothered with layers of pretension.

16 year-old Jessie (Elle Fanning) has just moved to Los Angeles. No-one appears to know or care that she is there. Jessie knows she is beautiful, She also knows that beauty is dangerous and that other women would kill for it. After her first photoshoot with amateur photographer and potential love interest Dean (Karl Glusman) Jessie is befriended by makeup artist Ruby (Jena Malone). Ruby offers to be the friend Jessie so desperately needs yet Ruby’s other two friends Gigi (Bella Heathcote) and Sarah (Abbey Lee), models only slightly older than Jessie, view Jessie instead as threat and competition rather than a new-found friend. It soon seems like everybody in LA wants a piece of Jessie, her beauty is admired and envied in equal measure – but what will it end up costing her?

What rather infuriates me reading back the plot summary I have just written is that I have made the film sound fun. It isn’t really. Moments of the film are, when the film casts a satirical eye on LA and the modeling industry, but when the film loses focus and Refn seems busy being self-congratulatory about his own brilliance – that’s when you see the film for what it really is. Vapid and empty. I’m sure it would be easy to argue that was intentional, a reflection of the 21st Century’s perception of models and beauty (blah blah yah yah)… but no.

Prior to the film’s screening its director and lead were invited to talk about the film and answer some questions (picture courtesy of Galia). Refn said, and not for the first time in the promo for this film, that ‘I wanted to make a film about the 16-year-old girl inside me’. This resulted in awkward stifled guffaws from an audience who hadn’t yet seen the film. For the first half of the film there are instances where you can see very loosely what he means by this. Jessie’s interactions with casting agents (Christina Hendricks), auteur photographers (Desmond Harrington) and wildly miscast ‘scary’ motel owners (Keanu Reeves) explore the vulnerability of the young in an industry that can be so parasitic and vampiric. It is during this period that the cast really shine. Fanning possessing an ethereality – an otherness that draws yet repels – Malone unnerving as a metaphorical wolf in friends clothing, Heathcote and Lee wonderfully cold as Jessie’s rivals.

It is these more conventional moments that are some of the most engaging. They are intersected with moments that are more exploratory and ‘artistic’ (read: rather deluded and self-indulgent). These moments are overlong, assaulting the senses in a way that should be poetic but instead aggravate. However the soundtrack during the entire film is phenomenal – throbbing away and pumping tension into each scene. And, it must be said, the use of colour and lighting during these moments and the film in it entirety is truly extraordinary. Refn’s color blindness means that his use of colour must alway be in high contrast so he can see it (fact courtesy of Galia). The use of lighting and colour within each of these sequences establish then reflect the tone and ongoings in each sequence. It’s almost as if his use of colour reflects the dichotomy of the human experience…. (sorry I had to try at sounding like a proper film critic!)

It’s the film’s second half that gives into Refn’s epicureanism, resulting in the film becoming even less of a narrative (there wasn’t really one to start with) and more a spiral of ‘well that escalated quickly’. Things get weirder, even weirder, and then weirder yet. It is these moments that are the most problematic. I like weird. I am weird. But I need my weirdness in cinema to be purposeful. I don’t need to see a character deepthroating a knife without purpose nor a character performing necrophilia on a dead model again without purpose. Don’t even get me started on the shower sequence. I’m not the only one of the audience of about 50 of us who felt this way. The gasps and intensity of audience focus hugely shifted at this point, with the grosequeties accompanied by laughs of disbelief instead of the intended wonder.

These scenes have resulted in extreme horror from The Daily Mail (quelle surprise) with headlines such as “Coming soon to a cinema near you: Grim film featuring murder, cannibalism and lesbian NECROPHILIA that even shocked Cannes is now set for British screens” and “Has cinema ever been so depraved and the censors so amoral? CLARE FOGES on the extreme violence, cannibalism and lesbian necrophilia in new film The Neon Demon” These headlines are ridiculous for two reason. 1) I’m sure anyone who has seen a solid amount of film could name you films more graphic than this one. 2) Such headlines would give its pretentious twonk of a director an egotistical thrill and further fuel his perception of himself as some sort of revolutionary. He’s not worth it.

The film favours an approach of Message over an actual storyline, choosing to drift between scenes as opposed to following a narrative and having loose outlines as opposed to actual characters. The more extreme moments are so needless they undercut everything that has occurred prior and throw any perception of The Message out of the window. If Refn wanted to criticise the modelling industry these scenes confuse The Message completely. Initially the film relies on the perverse pleasure of being voyeur of the voyeurs (we watch the watchers watching the watched) whilst pointing out the dark side of the industry. Yet once the aforementioned silliness occurs it is is almost like we see the film for what it really is – a mastabororty experiment where Refn gets to sadomasochistically annihilate his inner 16-year-old girl.

There are images and messages galore on offer within The Neon Demon, but the majority of these are like gaudy baubles. Beautiful to look at but totally empty.

Bad Neighbours 2

Posted on May 8, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

A surprisingly knowledgeable and at times rather progressive comedy

It started with a tweet. On Thursday evening movie magazine Little White Lies tweeted about its review for Bad Neighbours 2. The review as written by Elena Lazic with the tweet reading ‘I went long on the unexpectedly progressive, feminist and funny Bad Neighbours 2’. Now, as anyone who knows me, that’s the kind of click-bait that gets me hooked into reading. The review itself is wonderfully written – very reflective and articulate. Hopefully this review lives up to the one that inspired the film-watching and subsequent review! Post-watching I firmly agree with Miss Lazic’s review – for Bad Neighbours 2 is full of surprises. Most of them good and approvingly well-informed of gender politics.

Mac Radner (Seth Rogen) and his wife Kelly (Rose Byrne) are expecting their second daughter so decide to put their house on the market and move into the suburbs. A married couple with a young child place an offer putting the property into escrow – for the next 30 days the potential buyers can drop in at any time and have any inspections they wish undertaken before they confirm their buying of the property. For the next 30 days Mac and Kelly need for everything to stay the same, no big changes which will scare off the buyers. What’s more than unfortunate is that their new neighbours move in on day 1 of 30 – and their neighbours are the college’s newest sorority. Kappa Nu has been newly founded by Shelby (Chloë Grace Moretz), Beth (Kiersey Clemons) and Nora (Beanie Feldstein). The trio united and formed the new sorority as they disagree with sexist legislation that prevents the existing sororities form having parties and were disgusted by the sexist antics of the fraternity party they attended. War is soon declared between the ‘old’ couple and the sorority girls, with ex-Frat boy Teddy Sanders (Zac Efron) leading the girls into battle.

In the mid 2000s the term ‘Frat Pack’ was coined to describe a group of Hollywood actors – this group included Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Jack Black, Vince Vaughn etc.Then came the “Apatow Chapter” (named after writer/director/producer Judd Apatow) which Bad Neighbours 2 lead actor Seth Rogen was a part of. The majority of the films generated from these unholy alliances could not/should not be labelled as displaying any feminist traits. In fact one would be hard-pressed to name just one of these films that featured a single positive representation of women. That’s part of the surprise that comes from watching Bad Neighbours 2.

Many of the early parts of the film, and intermittently throughout, discuss modern issues of equality in an outstandingly sympathetic and understanding manner. The double standards of the rules about sororities not having parties is not actually fictionalised by the film – it’s not a actual law but it is a national mandate decided by those who govern the nation’s leading sororities (read this excellent Washington Post article for further insight). This film appears to be Hollywood’s attempt to address the issue and it does so rather well. The female trios decision to form their own society in which they can go against the system is reinforced when they attend a Frat party – a party in which they see sexist treatment of women being accepted as a norm with an atmosphere akin to that of a hunting ground with men stalking what they view as walking vaginas. It’s a cleverly written scene which is nowhere near as heavily-handed written as it could have been.

The issue soon takes the backseat for the battle between the two generations/neighbours – during which very little that is new or of much interest. But what does remain on screen are portrayals of women who have a certain spark, a fight within them, that most Hollywood comedies assigns to its male characters. Ordinally the female figures on the screen are resigned to being love interests or purveyors of gratuitous nudity. As annoying as Shelby gets, and she does get pretty annoying, she remains a character who is female, who is interesting and possesses some semblance of a personality. It is scary to reflect on how rarely such a female figure makes it onto the big screen. Bryne is also given a role that is rather atypical for Frat Pack movies – a wife who is not presented as some sort of shrieking harpy. She appears to be as fun-loving as her husband and they comes across as equals in their relationship – they are proper partners in crime.

Aside from the ensuing pontification on equality, I did release a fair few chuckles watching this film. Some of Efron’s speeches were delightful, his dancing rather exquisite and his slapstick guffaw-inducing. At only 92 minutes long the film is a more than amusing way to while away an afternoon or evening. Plus the more conversations it stirs up about portrayals of gender the better!

Captain America: Civil War

Posted on May 1, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

Is this Marvel’s greatest hour?

To start, let’s kick off with a bit of a retrospective. In 2008 Iron Man surprised the world – a superhero film packed with action, warmth and wit was a relatively new concept. The fact this one had a brilliant storyline along with making a hero most people outside of comic book fandom did not know/care about into someone they wanted to see even more of – that was the truly incredible thing. Skipping ahead several movies we then arrive at Avengers in 2012 which managed to bring the Earth’s mightest heroes together in a way that gave the entire ensemble space to shine. Captain America: Winter Soldier shook things up in 2014, showing that comic book movies could be more than just punch ups. They could come a espionage thriller editions too. Last year’s Age Of Ultron was ultimately a disappointment (though not in terms of box office) as it was too po-face and side piece-y. Now, one week ahead of the USA, we have Civil War. Civil War fixes the problems of Age Of Ultron, takes the smarts of Winter Soldier, the high-stakes suspense of Avengers and the character driven focus of Iron Man. In many ways it is one of the best Marvel movies yet, but is it really the five star perfection the majority of reviews are touting?

One year after the events in Sokovia – Steve Rodgers/Captain America (Chris Evans), Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Wanda Maximoff/Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) and Sam WIlson/Falcon (Anthony Mackie) are in Nigeria trying to prevent the theft of a biological weapon. In the process Wanda loses control of her powers and a building is destroyed, killing several people. It’s the final straw and the governments of nation’s from around the world demand that the Avengers be held accountable for their actions. The United Nations puts forward the Sokovia Act which would put a governing body in charge of monitoring and policing the world’s growing inhuman population. Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is in favour of signing that act as he has become all too aware of the consequences of their past actions. Steve, having become distrustful of government after the fall of S.H.I.E.LD, firmly disagrees. When Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), Steve’s childhood friend who was tortured by H.Y.D.R.A and forced to become an assassin, becomes involved what was once a a fracture becomes a break – forcing the Avengers to take sides. United they stood tall but when divided who will be left standing?

This film is pretty superb. It balances humour with action, characterisation with big set pieces, superpowers with humanity. The end product is pure cinematic escapism, with some big questions being posed along with some laugh-out-loud gags. For instance that age old mantra from Spiderman’s Uncle Ben ‘With great power comes great responsibility’ – if you are the one in possession of great power and you do not use it (however unintentionally) responsibly, who should you be accountable to? If you are capable of destroying cities, constantly having to make life or death decisions, should you have permission? All of Marvel’s past films have led to this point, where tough unanswerable questions slot in with huge/gigantic/speculator action sequences.

However, going somewhat against the tide here, I don’t think it’s perfect. Though its ambition is admirable and mostly successful it is a watching experience akin to going to your favourite restaurant, having your favourite meals but for some reason there is a delay between courses. There are some wonderful/brilliant/extraordinary moments, but then there is a bit of waiting around before the next wonderful/brilliant/extraordinary moment. In many ways this just goes to show just how could the wonderful/brilliant/extraordinary moments are, that they are of such a high caliber that the momentum cannot be maintained. It could also be a by-product of the film’s running time, which clocks in at 147 minutes. Going back to my eating-out analogy perhaps the portion size is overly large, the chef’s eyes were bigger than my belly, and that skimming a bit off the plate may have made for a more satisfying experience.

Saying that does not ignore or take the shine away from the incredible fest that this film offers. It may just be Marvel’s most mature film yet, displaying its spectacle and smarts with great confidence. The central debate is hugely topical – so much so that Batman V Superman featured simillar just a few weeks back. But this film is the antithesis of the fatally flawed BVS:DOJ (which confused dark with murky). Civil War has an edge to it – the Airport fight-out sequence between the two newly-split allegiances easily earns a place in top five scenes in a Marvel movies. Then there’s the new depths added to RDJ’s Tony Stark, a man who seems to be enjoying the continuing evolution of his character. His authority plays a role in his relationships with his fellow Avengers, in his fraternal alliance with Steve Rodgers and most excitingly hints at what looks to be a legendary rapport with the latest incarnation of Spiderman (Tom Holland). Holland is a breath of fresh air to the franchise – he’s cheeky and full of energy, a blend of nerd and cool which neither of the previous film versions seemed to capture. The brewing mentor/mentee relationship between he and Tony Stark is one to truly get excited about.

Without question this is the best Avengers movie yet – even if the name itself doesn’t lend itself to that. By having the pre-colon say Captain America it almost implies it is a stand-alone movie. It’s not. Although it is Cap’s conflicted conscience which drives the majority of the plot the film is made by the ensemble. Is it the best Marvel movie yet? Instinctively, after great internal battle, I have to say no. In terms of viewing experience I rank Guardians of the Galaxy far higher and in terms of cerebrality Winter Soldier wins. However, this does not take away from what a spectacular is for the most part. It never feels overstuffed, joyfully introduces new heroes and pays great tribute to our existing heroes.

The Huntsman: Winter’s War

Posted on April 4, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

A fantasy with just enough farce to make it fun

I doubt there are many people who have spent the past four years desperately counting down until the sequel of the rather mediocre Snow White and the Huntsman. The film was lacking entertainment and personifies Hollywood’s serious issue with getting ‘dark’ confused with ‘murky’ and deeply frowning viewed as the only way to articulate inner torment. Now we have the prequel/sequel sans Snow White aka. Kristen Stewart (after a certain scandal involving the film’s director Rupert Sanders) who realistically is not much of a loss as she spent most of the film biting her lip. A new threat befalls the kingdom and the Huntsman is called in to help, after we learn more about his mysterious backstory.

Many years ago evil queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) murdered her way through the land to rule the kingdoms, with her powerless sister Freya (Emily Blunt) by her side. Freya falls in love, something her sister is against as love is a foolish distraction, and has a daughter. When tragedy strikes Freya’s powers are activated (think Elsa-from-Frozen-type powers) and she moves away to take control of her own land. She decides that she must have her own unique army and orphans the children of a village. The children are brought to her castle and taught the one commandment of her rule, that love is a sin. Years pass as the children are trained and moulded into true Huntsman but two children, her two best, break her one rule and fall in love. Eric (Chris Hemsworth) and Sara (Jessica Chastain) marry and try to flee but are caught in the process. Freya the Frost, as she is now known, places a great wall of ice between the pair to separate them. Sara appears to be murdered and Eric is thrown into a nearby river to be swept away. Seven years later, after the events of the previous film when Snow White killed Ravenna, Eric is called on by Snow White’s close friend William (Sam Claflin) to stop the Mirror being intercepted by Freya.

You do not go into films like this with a closed mind. They require a deep suspension of disbelief, with any concepts of logic or reason needing to be locked away for 114 minutes. If you do this you will find this film to be a serviceable and entertaining lark. It would be easy to list all of the flaws within this film but doing so would ignore how relatively entertaining it is.The script is truly mediocre, full of boulder-sized clunky exposition and mawkish sentiments. In fact a bingo or drinking game could be formed based on all the lines/phrases that are uttered about love (‘love is a sin’ ‘love doesn’t conquer all’ ‘love is not a fairytale’ ‘you reek of love’ etc.) There’s a line about wet-never regions which shows how uncertain the filmmakers are about who their audience actually is. Liam Neeson is on needless and grating omniscient narrator duties.

If you can ignore that, which I know is asking for rather a lot, what is left is a host of charming performances going above and beyond to make the lifeless script fun. Chastain is a fantastic new addition, being far more kick-ass than her running in heels stint in Jurassic World. Hemsworth is as charming as we now expect from him, mugging about and having fun. I doubt there is little I wouldn’t watch if he was in it. Blunt and Theron are solid and borderline-stirring in their villainous portrayals, making some truly dreadful lines sound half-way believable. Complex issues aside about people playing dwarves the four dwarves who aide the Huntsman on his journey (Nick Frost, Rob Brydon, Alexandra Roach and Sheridan Smith) are great fun and a joy to watch.

It’s not going to win any awards and will most likely be forgotten by the end of the month. It also does not deserve nor need a sequel (instead I would propose a new series called ‘Let’s watch Chris Hemsworth do things’ where we watch Hemsworth do a variety of activities and charm us all). BUT, it is an entertaining enough farce with just enough camp and laughs to fill a dull afternoon/evening.

Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice

Posted on March 26, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

Meh. Vanilla. It’s okay.

The three statements above are the three different ways I’ve answered the question, ‘What did you think of Batman V Superman?’ in the past 14 hours. Although there are aspects of the film that are good and entertaining that is just what they are, aspects. The film overall is a bloated disaster – 151 minutes of too many ideas fighting for screentime which end up being incoherent and underdeveloped. Instead of a typical review, in which my thoughts on the film would be as nonsensical as the film itself, I’m going to use a list to let my great ideas have an organisation and a flow (lesson to the film-makers there…)

The good

The visuals

Aside from Cineworld at the o2 Arena screwing up the calibration of the sky superscreen (having forced the audience to watch all the ads, trailers and 25 minutes of the film with only one eye open as the projection was out of focus, they then decided to stop the film and spend 15 minutes reformatting before restarting the film. Cineworld have done not anything to compensate for this screw up and literal headache) when watching this film you can see where the money went. In fact, I suspect that is what director Zack Snyder wants us to do. The fights are big and brash, the costumes and special effects are spectacular. The cityscapes are breath-taking (if of debatable geography). In terms of big screen spectacle, it’s all here. Some sequences appear straight out of a comic book in terms of iconography and style, such as when Superman arrives at a Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) celebration and he is being aligned as a Messiah-eque figure.

Batman

Whilst I was initially in the ‘Say No To Ben Affleck as Batman’ camp, I did begin to change my mind when the first trailers and posters arrived. As a lover of Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns I could see how Affleck’s portrayal would be most similar to Miller’s Batman. A Batman who is aged, haggard and embittered by battle.(The image below shows the film’s main link to the 1986 seminal comic book.) For the most part in this movie it works. Affleck is charismatic enough as Bruce Wayne and imposing enough as Batman. It’s almost a shame that he didn’t get his own standalone movie prior to this one to fully establish his character, though perhaps the decision to open this movie with yet another retelling of the Wayne shooting/origin story indicates to us that a standalone Batman movie may have possessed little originality.

Wonder Woman

I don’t think it is a spoiler to say that Gal Gadot plays Wonder Woman/Diana Price. The trailers gave that one away long ago, yet the film treats it as though it is a secretrading by hinting then having a big reveal that is slightly unnecessary. Though she may not look exactly like the Wonder Woman from the comics I used to read (she’s rather slim-line in comparison to the Golden age version) she does possess a lot of power and successfully shares the screen with her male counterparts (as opossed to having them steal the limelight). The moment when the three are first united did induce a real Fangirl moment for me, seeing the Trinity together. In fact I would happily argue that she steals the show from the broody boys…

Easter eggs

There are many moments in this film that are for the fans, moments that casual fans may get but not appreciate or may not even ‘get’ at all. I’m not going to state them fully here, just in case you’re reading this and want to avoid spoilers, so I’ll write them out but fill in the gaps. I liked seeing ………… in the ……….. I also loved the use of …… to show …………. Finally, the appearance of ……….. in the ……….. was an excellent yet subtle touch. These three aspects alone got me more involved in the next film than the film I was currently watching. By the way, there ARE NO AFTER CREDITS SEQUENCES. Don’t sit through all the credits it’s pointless (Hey Sam if you’re reading, yes I am referring to you here!)

Soundtrack

I don’t think you can go wrong with a Hans Zimmer soundtrack.His collaboration here with Junkie XL is immensely successful. The score for this film is beautiful and emotive, something I would actively choose to listen to outside of watching the film which I don’t often think/do. My personal favourite is the rather aptly-named ‘Is she with you?’

The bad/ugly

Superman/ Lois Lane

I know it’s cool to hate on Superman, but I am quite fond of him. To some he may represent archaic ideas of patriotism, but so does Captain America and that guy walks around wearing stars and stripes. Yet Dupes has never had the cinematic renaissance that Batman has had twice (1989 and 2005). The 1970s/80s films are enjoyable yet of their time, Lois and Clark was entertaining yet cheesy, and Smallville was ocassionally good if rather tween-y.In more recent years, Superman Returns was long and dreary whilst Man Of Steel was interesting yet lost its audience in the overlong battle-heavy final sequences. Batman V Superman is not his movie either. Poor Henry Cavill spends most of the movie showing off his range of emo frowns. It’s that or rescuing Lois Lane THREE times. It’s all Amy Adams gets to do in the movie, which is a real shame as she is an incredible actress playing a character with incredible potential.

Dreams

Of all the time-wasting nonsensical moments in the film, it is the dream sequences which really stand out for all the wrong reasons. There’s no entry point into them, you’re suddenly immersed in them with no idea of what is going on in them. Then the character wakes up and the audience is even more confused abiut what is going on. If the plot was more coherent it would be less problematic, but as the plot is so stodgy and indecifrable the moments just confuse as opposed to enhance what is going on in the main event.

The plot

Speaking of the plot, very little of it actually makes sense. Motivations are blurred from the outset with very few that are actually convincing or believable. It feels like this is a Batman movie forced in with a Superman movie, the story jumps between one then the other without any link. Moments drift, storylines are picked up then dropped and things happen without explanation. I’m going to stay intentionally vague on this one to avoid further spoilers. Let’s just leave this with saying that everything is miscalculated and heavy-handed. Ultimately it’s a very hollow 151 minutes of things happening for little reason or care.

‘Hello darkness my old friend’

A schism has formed over this movie between critics and fans. As someone who considers themselves to be both, I think the main argument over the ‘darkness’ of this film is flawed. I’ve read a lot of reviews talking about how this film is ‘too dark’ and fans retaliating with ‘the comic books are dark, it’s how it should be’. My answer to this? No. Yes some of the comic books are dark. Alan Moore’s The Killing Joke, Jim Starlin’s Death in the Family and Jeph Loeb’s Hush (to name but three Batman story arcs) are dark, haunting and Gothic. Christopher Nolan‘s Batman trilogy is dark, haunting and Gothic. Batman V Superman is not dark, haunting and Gothic. It’s murky and shallow. Its darkness is artificial and synthetic. It’s a wannabe-emo in contrast to the aforementioned masterpieces. It pouts, moans and frowns. It tries to make important statements and points but these are empty and ill-informed. It’s like wearing a band t-shirt when you don’t really know the band (one of my biggest pet peeves). Having your actors grimace and setting most of the action at night, fighting for ‘what is right’ does not a maketh a ‘dark’ movie. A coherent plot, one with depth, does.

Lex Luthor

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor appeared like a strange choice since it was first announced. This was embraced by Zack Snyder who promised great things, new take on a classic archvillain. In the comic books Lex Luthor is a charismatic business magnate who is physically powerful and formidable. He is shown to be a true threat to Superman. Charismatic, powerful and formidable are not phrases one would associate with Eisenberg. So perhaps this would be a refreshing new take on the character? Nope. It’s Jesse Eisenberg playing Heath Ledger playing the Joker as Lex Luthor. He is weedy, has daddy issues and rambles. Everything he says is either shouted or mumbled. His hand mannerisms are twitchy and strange, dominating each frame. This man is no threat but a nuisance who gets in the way. To use his performance as an analogy for the entire film – it’s devoid of depth and is ultimately lacking.

Hail, Caesar!

Posted on March 10, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

All Hail Hollywood! And, all Hail the Coen Brothers!

1951 was a bit of strange time for Hollywood. The studio system was starting to shift and the oligarchic owners were starting to lose power. Rather understandably its stars were getting fed up of being owned by the studios. The studios got to decide what they would be starring in, who they would be working with, what they looked like and even who they were dating. The post-world war two boom had begun to grow to a standstill and film-makers weren’t quite sure what the people wanted. Some classic films were made that year (A Street Car Named Desire, Alice In Wonderland and The African Queen, to name but three) as were a lot of terrible movies from every genre and hybrid-genre you could possibly think of. If the people don’t know what they want, adopt a ‘throw-everything-at-them-and-see-what-sticks policy’. It’s these issues that make the era a perfect setting for a movie. It’s also the reason that the Coen brothers are the perfect men for the job.

The life of the head of production at Capitol Pictures is not an easy one. In 27 hours Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) must handle one drama after another. First there’s the lead of his series of synchronised swimming epics (Scarlett Johansson) who’s both pregnant and unmarried. Then there’s the all-singing and little-talking cowboy(Alden Ehrenreich) who is forcibly being made to transition from Westerns into thespian drama, much to the bitter frustration of his new luvvie director (Ralph Fiennes) followed up by a check-in on the latest musical starring multi-talented (Channing Tatum), dodging the four preying eyes of gossip columnist twins (both played by Tilda Swinton) and most importantly finding his A-list star (George Clooney) who has disappeared from set. Maybe his job offer from the aviation industry isn’t that unappealing after all…

First I want to state that this is not a perfect movie. Its pacing is off, and the entire film feels like a series of rather delightful misadventures as opposed to one overarching narrative. That fact will put some people off (although that doesn’t really explain/justify the 16 people who walked out of the screening I attended). But for others, including myself, this fundamental flaw is in fact another reason to cherish the movie as surely that rhythm or tone of chaotic mayhem is how life working in the dwindling studio system would have been. What is also allows the Coen brothers to do is duel-handily poke fun at the farce-like-ness of this period of time, and also lovingly embrace it.

Each set-piece is beyond stunning. Every single costume is stunning, with every single character feeling like a tribute to a by-gone era. The synchronised swimming sequence featuring a giant, mechanical whale reinforces the notion that this is THE Dream Factory. The loving pastiche theme continues with Channing Tatum’s ludicrously inventive tap dance and singing number, where he and a dozen sailor lament their going on door as ‘We Ain’t Gonna See No Dames.” However, speaking from personal preference, it’s Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle the Cowboy-turned-actor who totally steals the show. When considering the talent (ahem, Brolin, Johansson, Finnes and Cloonney!) this is truly no mean feat. Doyle is the perfect blend of dim but charming. His attempts at ‘serious’ acting are utterly charming but it’s his date with Carlotta Valdez (cheeky nod to Hitchcock’s ‘Vertigo’ there!) , an up-and-coming Latina actress that will win the hearts of the nation. His accidental wooing of her is pinch-his-cheeks and say ‘nawww’ levels of adorability. He is definitely one to watch.

Although the ‘star of the show’ may not actually steal the spotlight (as hopefully outlined and justified above) it’s Clooney’s storyline that solidifies the fact that this film is not throughway fluff. His ‘journey’ whilst held hostage provides much reflection on the nature of Hollywood ideology, a subliminal critique of the industry by reflecting on the very nature of entertainment, the ugly work that goes into creating what we view as such beauty…but that’s a discussion for another day, (ideally in a pub, with a drink in hand!)

For now, I’ll leave you with this. For those of us who are nostalgic for a time we never lived (I’m including myself in this category) there’s escapism and incredible tributes to the past. For cinephilles there’s subtle reflection on the ugly/beautiful process of cinema-making. There’s also romance, lots of humour and Channing Tatum signing (who knew he had the voice of an angel!?!)

If you’ve got a spare hour and forty minutes this is a film well-worth your money. Enjoy!

The Revenant

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Charlotte_Sometimes

12 Oscar nominations – but just how good is it?

Leading the pack with 12 nominations from the 88th Academy Awards is ‘The Revenant’. Often that information is not necessarily an indicator on how much the general public will like it, but how much a small committee (who may not have actually watched all the films) liked it or think it deserves mention. Happily, in this case, ‘The Revenant’ is worthy of most of the acclaim it is receiving. The film is starkly beautiful yet bitterly bleak. It’s uncompromising and devastating, leaving the audience in a state of emotional destruction. However, it’s not perfect. It’s overlong, losing much of the audience about two thirds in, more of an endurance test than entertainment and certain aspects are not as good as the film (or the awards committee) seem to think it is. To break this down further, whilst remaining spoiler free, I will divide this review into 5 sections- each guided by one of the nomination categories.

Performance by an actor in a leading role: Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Revenant”

Poor Leo. It is a truth universally acknowledged, then laughed at, that DiCaprio is the bridesmaid of the wedding ceremony that is the Oscar’s. Always the bridesmaid, nominated six times, yet never the bride. It’s fair to say, after watching ‘The Revenant’, that he really deserves this one. There’s not only what he clearly must have gone through behind the scenes, the below freezing weather conditions, and what was required from him, a man on the edge of death crawling back in the name of vengeance, but what he manages to achieve with the performance that surely must put his name inside that envelope. His rage at what has been done to him and his family pours out through every pore, exposing it with every look, gesture and expression. He truly makes everything that happens to him, not matter how seemingly unbelievable it is, seem real and dragging us along with him for the bitter journey.

Performance by an actor in a supporting role: Tom Hardy in “The Revenant”

Now this is a bit of a strange one. Having known that he had been nominated I spent all of Hardy’s screen time analyzing his performance – looking for that moment or reason that explained it. But neither moment nor reason came. He’s good, yes, but it’s Hardy in weird, strange and rambling mode. The performance is pretty one-dimensional and rather one-note, supplying little reason for the audience to care for what happens to him. Also at times his speech enters into Bane-levels of incomprehensibility. Compared to the other four candidates in this category (Christian Bale in “The Big Short”, Mark Ruffalo in “Spotlight”, Mark Rylance in “Bridge of Spies”, Sylvester Stallone in “Creed”) Hardy seems almost shoe-horned in. If the academy really wanted to acknowledge supporting performances in “The Revenant” it would be far better acknowledging either Domhnall Gleeson or Will Poulter, both of whom provide performances far deeper than Hardy’s.

Achievement in cinematography: “The Revenant,” Emmanuel Lubezki

Yes. What makes this film so successful, every event so brutal, is that all occurs in a manner that is oxymoronic. The camera dances across the landscape, panning, tracking and weaving across the wondrous yet terrifying unknown that is capable of much beauty and brutality. You’re lulled into a false sense, admiring the scenery, then you’re shocked back to realising just how dangerous this world is. Without this, the film would be far less memorable or emotive.

Achievement in costume design: “The Revenant,” Jacqueline West

Whilst costume is great in this film, this award needs to go to “Carol,” Sandy Powell, for which the costume really captured the era and the mood.Through costume alone it made every character, from speaking roles to walk-ons, feel real with an enriched back not matter how seemingly unnecessary they were . With “The Revenant”it was the cinematography over costume that created the overarching tone.

Achievement in directing: “The Revenant,” Alejandro G. Iñárritu

To bring such emotion out of a cast, as with this film, a director must be extraordinary. The power Iñárritu’s cast generate tells just how magnificent he is. My only criticism would be that the implied power and complexity of the final act is not as powerful or complex as he may have intended.

All in all, “The Revenant” is more than worth watching. It’s an experience that needs to be experienced on the big screen. However, it’s not light-hearted entertainment or those who are easily shaken. An impassive musing on man’s plight which does not shy away from harsh realities.

Charlotte Sometimes

Goes To The Movies

hollywood