Fantastic Four – Richards Reckons Review

The Fantastic Four. They were Marvel Comics’ premiere superteam – a mish-mash of powered peeps all coming together as a collective to bust crime and fight evil, all the while giving themselves a rather arrogant title (“Fantastic Four”? Why not hedge your bets and call yourself the Qualifiable Quartet and just wait for other people to deem you fantastic?). The foursome, who comprise of Reed Richards aka Mr Fantastic (Señor Stretchy), Sue Storm aka Invisible Woman (Seethrough Sue), Johnny Storm aka The Human Torch (Sizzle Supreme) and Ben Grimm aka The Thing (Sedimentary Sasquatch – see, I could totally rename all of them with some assonance to boot), are no strangers to the big screen and this is third iteration in total, making them close to Spider-Man in the reboot wars. Their rights belong to Fox, who now want to make them fit in with their X-Men universe for some future crossover glory further down the line, so it’s important to note that this ISN’T anything to do with the Avengers and co despite what the Marvel logo may make you think.

This time it’s directed by Josh Trank, who played cleverly with the superhero concept as a whole in his 2012 debut Chronicle. It stars a cast of Hollywood’s young rising stars in the form of Miles Teller (Reed Richards), Kate Mara (The invisible Woman), Michael B. Jordan (The Human Torch) and Jamie Bell (The Thing). It’s from the producers of X-Men: Days of Future Past and even Matthew Vaughn, director of Kingsmen: The Secret Service. Everything is in place for this film to be a cracker – a stalwart tentpole movie of the modern superhero genre.

Alas, it’s not. It’s a befuddled, stumbling mess.

The issues mainly lie with its absolutely staggeringly ill-considered approach to tone and pacing. The studio has obviously seen the light-hearted approach that Marvel Studios takes to its movies and the conversely dark/gritty approach that DC hope to have with theirs and tries to be both at the same time; with sequences that have the odd quip or two which fall on their respective bottoms or heavy-handed attempts at pathos which never really go anywhere or mean anything. It goes between these two gears like a pair of sugared-up children on a see-saw. As for the pacing, the film doesn’t know where to spend its minutes wisely. There are random and ill-judged time-jumps; characters disappear for scenes at a time (forgetting the nature of an ENSEMBLE movie); their evolution into working together and becoming a team is rushed through an incredibly underwhelming climax.

As for the story, parts of it are genuinely laughable – and not intentionally. The reason for the crew going on their doomed space journey in the first place is quite frankly ridiculous (especially the way that Ben gets involved too). You may think that a film that includes a man that can stretch like his last name was Armstrong is a strange place to complain about ridiculousness but in story terms it just bypasses any natural logic.

The actors really do try their best with the material that they’re given but are constantly shortchanged – the person who suffers most is Toby Kebbell and his character Victor Von Doom. In the comics, Doom is one of the most powerful and villainous baddies out there – here he is simply a “wake up sheeple!!!!11!!!11!”-style conspiracy theorist who has a little accident in space and turns into a bog standard deranged baddie with a completely illogical (as well as unexplained) plan and the appearance of an action figure dipped in silver nail polish and coloured in with splashes of a mint gel pen.

Overall, this reboot is a bland and uneventful experience that reeks of studio interference, something evidenced by the erratic marketing (the irritatingly obvious fact Fox paid popular Twitter accounts to tweet about it as well as the confusion of tone between trailers aren’t exactly good indicators here). There are positives here as the performers put in their all and the effects for the most part are pretty good (the use of mixing their powers in the end could be a lot worse), but mostly this film tries to be every kind of superhero movie and fails at being any at all.

<insert your own pun/joke about it being called Fantastic and it not being so Fantastic at all here>

Ant-Man – Richards Reckons Review

 
Ridiculous. 
Unrealistic. 
Tiny.

No, this isn’t a list of things that my sexual partners have said to me at some point or another, but some of the buzzwords that Ant-Man has had slapped onto it like the cinematic version of something in a reduced section of a supermarket. “A man who can turn into an ant?!” the befuddled ask, well, befuddledly. When they are corrected and told that actually the suit allows the wearer to shrink in size and grow in strength while giving them the ability to talk to ants, that makes it worse. “That’s completely stupid! Why should I waste my hard earned dosh on that?! I could buy at least 3 limited edition Des Lynam coasters with that money!”

Peyton Reed picks up the somewhat troubled reigns from Edgar Wright to direct this adaptation that’s been in the works for ants years (assuming they’re very long). The plot concerns Michael Douglas’ Hank Pym, an aging scientist who discovered “Pym Particles” (the wonderstuff that makes organic matter able to shrink) back in the day and used them to fight bad guys before retiring and creating his own company Pym Technologies. Cut to the present and his former protege Darren across (an un-wigged Corey Stoll) has taken over and is planning to weaponise the technology, so Pym and his daughter Hope (an off-island Evangeline Lily) seek to shut him down – and who else better to put in the admittedly dangerous Ant-Man suit than recently released cat burglar Scott Lang (an un-newsreader Paul Rudd). Heists and height-based hijinks ensue aplenty. 

Marvel are well aware of the tall tale they’re telling here, and get the self-deprecation out of the way pretty early on to focus on the fun and actually quite “badass” (I hear the kids say this word so I thought I’d give it a whirl) facets of the character. If they’d have attempted a dark, Nolanesque take on Ant-Man that obviously would not have worked so the trademark “Marvel is fun” approach is in full effect – naysayers and defectors will no doubt complain and use the word “samey”, but actually it is a great fit for this character. The point of view of the world being suddenly magnified is used for some fantastic physical comedy and some of the most inventive and best looking set pieces that Marvel has ever put out. The regular “MCU third acts all being the same” could not be more wrong here (you’ll also never see keyrings quite in the same light). 

The cast here are firing on all cylinders; Paul Rudd is a charming addition to the ever-increasing roster and is distinctive enough to not feel like a snarky Tony Stark/Star-Lord rip off, which in other hands he could’ve been. Evangeline Lily isn’t physically given a lot to do but emotionally has got a lot of manoeuvring and does it very well; the pair of them have great chemistry with Michael Douglas as a threesome (not like that, come on, grow up). I feel some are being harsh on Stoll who brings vim and vigour to the megalomaniacal Marvel villain role. It could be argued however that Michael Pena steals the show here with his endlessly optimistic criminal Luis – he has a couple of chances to reel off some brilliantly complex Edgar Wright flavoured dialogue. 

Ant-Man isn’t a perfect movie, with some pacing and continuity errors (including one so obvious I can’t believe it was allowed), but on the whole this has everything you could possibly want in a movie experience, with great characters, some awesomely inventive setpieces (Thanos the Titan? More like THOMAS) and a script that crackles with comedy (thanks to a strange Paul Rudd + Adam McKay/Edgar Wright + Joe Cornish hybrid that works better on paper than you think it might). There are connections to the further MCU that feel developed and comic-like rather than screaming “CASH IN” (the crossover with another Avenger being a particular highlight), but Ant-Man works extremely well as a standalone superhero/heist movie, so don’t worry about not having an encyclopaedic knowledge on the Avengers and co. While Wright would’ve made a film that was a tad more zippy and frantic, Reed has done a great job with the troubled production and lack of fan enthusiasm he was given. In the mean time, just sit back, relax, try to forget about all the ants you’ve ever massacred in your life and prepare to feel small (in the best way possible). 

The Imitation Game & The Rewrite – Richards Reckons Reviews

A Game and a Rewrite in today’s post. It reminds me of when I was doing my dissertation, but with a bit less crying and a bit more self respect. A bit.

Right, let’s kick off with a film that’s not actually out for another WHOLE MONTH! (I know, right?!). We’ve got Halloween and fireworks until you can see The Imitation Game, but heck, that won’t stop ya reading what Richards Reckons (please, please don’t let it stop you).

Unlike Monopoly, Hungry Hungry Hippos or any of that ilk, this game has a plot, based on real life; the film follows Alan Turing (Benedict “Cool-As-A-Cu” Cumberbatch), a skilled mathematician who, along with an array of intellectuals (sort of like a brainy, British Avengers), was recruited during World War II (don’t worry, you don’t have to see the first one to understand what’s going on) by the military and secret service to break the supposedly uncrackable enigma code being used by the Germans to relay information about attacks and other military intel. The film follows Turing throughout his life, including his difficult teenagehood, his difficulty with the other codebreakers, the creation of his machine “Christopher” and his hideous mistreatment by the government due to his homosexuality.

So before I get to anything else, know this; Cumberbatch’s performance is masterful. He captures and fully realises this character and all his strengths but also his flaws. He shows the callousness that the character can have at times, thinking with cold hearted, for-the-greater-good logic rather than his heart (don’t worry, it’s in a different way than Sherlock); but also handles the emotive side of him being an utterly broken man very sensitively without being too over the top – conveying his feelings in just a look or an intake of breath. Similarly, Alex Lawther deserves a special mention for his performance as the young Turing, who also has to deal with a fair share of grief too; the control over his mannerisms in relation to Benedict’s performance is also fantastic, making you feel like you’ve really gone in a time machine to see his youth rather than it being a separate actor. The rest of the cast is also wonderful, with standout moments from Mark Strong, Charles “May I Have This” Dance, and Kiera Knightley in particular as Joan Clarke, a woman who Turing grows an intellectual affinity with who has to also combat the sexism at the time.

If you’re expecting a full codebreaking lesson from this film (I’m not sure why you would but each to their own), I’m afraid you may be a bit disappointed. Quite how Turing’s machine works and the intricacies of what it does is never explained in great detail, but it doesn’t matter really; the film instead focusses on the possible consequences and the magnitude of the work they are doing rather than the actual work doing on. Something that is apparent though is Turing’s love for the machine who he names Christopher (never has a man loved a machine more; it’s like a more moving Tony Stark and JARVIS, or more socially acceptable me and Wall-E). His love for the machine is an emblem for the love for his work; and it’s his work that could win the war.

Compared to other films that have a very heavy amount of secrecy and espionage (cough Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy cough), The Imitation Game actually deals with who is keeping what from who quite well, keeping it coherent for the audience at all times. The narrative too is also very clear on the whole, though in parts the jumping around in his timeline can seem confusing. The dialogue too is smooth, engrossing and at times poignant, and not as dense as it perhaps could be; meaning the characters are easier to connect with, although there are some quite unexpected emotional moments that seem to come out of nowhere, in particular between Alan and Joan (is it bad I keep typing “Alan and Lynne” out of habit?); though it’s better than this way than being predictable. It’s also a surprisingly funny film too, especially observing Alan’s almost autistic reactions to the world around him and how people communicate with one another.

The Imitation Game is very clear Oscar bait (a true story wartime period drama can scream Oscar), but that doesn’t make the film any less moving, compelling or wonderfully performed. Director Morten Tyldun has put together a very impressive and moving film that in other hands could be cold or dense. I have read some controversy that the film tries to steer away from Turing’s homosexuality, but I think this is a bit poppycock; it does not paper over it in any way, and the emotional punches to do with his mistreatment as a result of his sexuality feel just rancid and heartbreaking. You’ll be so pleased that the story of this man who not only was one of the fathers of modern technology but was also horribly mistreated by the country he saved has been finally told, and with such gravitas and respect too.

Right then, time I think for a Rewrite. Or, rather, THE Rewrite, starring England’s own Hugh Grant. Here he is, being Hugh Grant.

The Rewrite was written and then probably rewritten with a plot, the plot being this; Keith Michaels (Hugh Grant) was once an academy award winning screenwriter, but has of late not found a great amount of luck nor money in the hills of Hollywood. His agent suggests teaching screenwriting at a small university in Binghamton University (apparently a real place and not in any way affiliated with Matt Bellamy’s son); due to his lack of money and lack of literally anything going on in his life, he agrees, but it’s not as much of a cakewalk as he thinks it’s going to be…

As you may expect, this film doesn’t contain Hugh Grant doing anything new whatsoever really; it’s Hugh Grant being Hugh Grant, but a bit older. It’s very clear that this film is written specifically with him in mind in the title role; it’s written and directed by Marc Lawrence, who has never directed a film without Hugh Grant in it (it’s true, check it out), so it’s safe to assume that rather than the actor fits the mould for the character, the character fits the mould for the actor. Now, if you like Hugh Grant’s normal shtick of being a charming-but-aloof-and-quite-grating British man then there’s no reason for you to object to this; but it would be nice for him to do something that maybe wasn’t quite so… Hugh Grant (‘Hugh’ and ‘Grant’ don’t look like words anymore, do they?).

Keith, while also being very Hugh Grant-y, can be a bit of a dick at times, complaining about female empowerment and there being too many “kick ass girls” in Hollywood, and exploiting his students for his own gain; such as judging them purely on what they look like rather than their talents when it comes to class admission, treating them like mail order gawk objects. But this is swept under the rug somewhat as he is showered with praise regarding his most well known film that seemingly everybody loves (is there such thing as a film that EVERYBODY loves?!); it’s mentioned so often you start to groan every time it comes up (which it does, A LOT).

Some of the characters on the side (such as the students) would be instantly forgotten as caricatures of one joke if they weren’t so well performed, with one character’s last name being Bai only to serve as a “go either way!” punchline. Annie Q puts in a great Aubrey Plaza-flavoured deadpan cynic performance, and Andrew Keenan-Bolger also adds a degree of vulnerability to a role centered around a guy being obsessive about Star Wars. However, there is a criminal underuse of the wonderful J.K. Simmons, playing a surprisingly meek authority figure who gets emotional about his family almost constantly. In terms of performances, I would say this movie’s strongest point is Marisa Tomei as Holly; an older student who works almost constantly while studying and raising her kids. She adds a degree of quirkiness and enthusiasm to an admittedly underwritten role; coating it in kooky chocolate like a digestive biscuit (sorry, I’m hungry again).

It’s quite a patchy affair that has charm in some areas but drags and feels very forced in others, and there aren’t that many laughs either. I particularly enjoyed the way that it progressed with the story alongside the students’ scripts, but their creativity is kind of shunted aside for more Hugh Grant flavoured romance which ultimately doesn’t amount to anything. Plenty of people find it likeable, and while I didn’t find it perhaps as charming as others did, it’s not offensive in any way; just don’t expect too much from it…

 

 

 

Dracula Untold & Life After Beth – Richards Reckons Reviews

Richards Reckons Untold. Life After Richards Reckons. Both of them sound like a hellish, horrible reality – but luckily, Richards Reckons is still being told, and we are all still living life DURING Richards Reckons, so it’s not true. Phew. Let’s reckon some movies and not contemplate that fun necropolis.

 

So then, first off, Dracula Untold. There is a plot here to be, er, told (rather contradicting its title but if it was left untold it would probably be a blank screen, and that’s no good for anybody, is it?), and here is that very plot that I can confirm is told; Vlad The Impaler (Hollywood’s newest Welshman Luke Evans) is a Transylvanian prince whose people faces the threat of Sultan Mehmed (Dominic Cooper) taking their young boys (including his son) to raise as soldiers for his army. Luckily, earlier that week, he encountered the demon Caligula (Charles ‘May I Take This’ Dance) at Brokentooth Mountain a week earlier, who he makes a deal with; become a vampire temporarily for three days with lots of basically superheroic powers (becoming an almost LITERAL Bat-Man) to defeat Mehmed with, but must resist drinking human blood in order to become human again.

I found out after this film that this is intended to be the first in a new shared universe (which are now order of the day again down in Hollywood land thanks to Marvel’s incredible success with the idea) of Universal Monsters; filling them with monsters such as the Mummy, the Wolf Man and Frankenstein; like an Addam’s Family style Avengers. In retrospect, it does sort of make sense; kicking it off with an origin story of one of the most recognisable of the heroes (Dracula acting a bit like Iron Man here in that respect, but literally no other ones), and having one of the most sequel baiting endings I have ever seen; which, by the way, ends in a way that doesn’t wholly make sense and with a line that seems like it was only put in because the screenwriters thought “oh, that would sound like SO cool”.

The fact of the matter here is that the story doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense. He stumbles upon Brokentooth Mountain (that would be a great name for a dentist surgery, wouldn’t it?) by chance and finds a monster inside; which is fine, but he then assumes they have the powers that he needed to defeat the armies. While it admittedly gets better as it goes, the beginning can actually feel quite boring at times; just plodding along in this fantasy Eastern Europe setting with wandering glances into exposition until the inevitable powers come along. When they do come, you’re glad; they make things far far more exciting, and I must admit that actually some of the battle sequences in which Vlad is using the powers against the (for some reason blindfolded) enemy soldiers are actually quite spectacular and exciting, with some Predator-style POV shots and impressive use of the classic using-millions-of-bats-as-a-giant-fist technique, which just isn’t used enough these days is it?

Apart from that, though, there isn’t really too much going on for this movie. The performances certainly don’t set your world on fire, though you can tell that Luke Evans as Vlad (who does a British accent for some reason when surrounded by his Transylvanian-accented people) is doing the best with what he’s given – though he never shows any signs of being as truly evil as the legendary Dracula, though in an effort to make the protagonist as likeable as possible you can see why they didn’t. Samantha Barks, playing Vlad’s wife, is almost screaming for more interesting things to do in this movie. Charles Dance is also an amazing actor who is completely wasted in this role, appearing in two or three scenes as a plot catalyst/exposition machine and yet pretty much stealing the show. Dominic Cooper’s performance suffers massively from him a) looking like that minor British celebrity Rylan Clarke after wandering onto the set of Clash of the Titans and b) having an accent that sounds like a Borat and Cheeky Girls mashup. I suspect there was a lot more of him left on the cutting room floor, as his villain is incredibly boring despite that description.

So there we are; Dracula Untold has some good things in it, such as some fangtastic (sorry) action sequences, and certainly isn’t terrible, but it could certainly be improved by better characterisation of pretty much everybody and a better narrative. If they want to kickstart this into a shared universe franchise they need to do a lot more with ol’ Vlad and the other characters to warrant them more interesting in their other incarnations.

Now then, time for some Life After Beth.

 

After Beth, Life suddenly has a plot, and that plot is this; Zach (Dane DeHaan) is utterly heartbroken after the loss of his girlfriend Beth (Aubrey Plaza), who died due to a snakebite while hiking alone. They had been arguing before she died and he feels awful about never reconciling with her, and deals with this guilt by occasionally seeing her parents Maury (John C. Reilly) and Geenie (Molly Shannon). One day he comes by the house and sees the impossible through the window; Beth is there, roaming the halls. They are reunited but it does not take him long to figure out that something is seriously up here, and eventually realises the truth; Beth is a resurrected zombie.

Once again, before I get to my review, I must warn you of something that happened during my screening that may have taken me away from the film slightly (because, apparently, I can never ever have a normal cinema trip ever again). I once against started to notice something weird going on in my screening; the fire exit door near the screen kept opening mysteriously and a figure watched the audience, not the screen, a few minutes at a time. This was repeated a few times until eventually the figure walked out, looked around a bit at the audience, then walked out into the foyer. It doesn’t sound like much but, for some reason, it freaked me the F out, so it’s possible I missed a couple of bits of the movie while trying to figure out just what made this guy tick.

Anyway, back to the OTHER side of the screen. Adding another title to the growing romzomcom subgenre (of which Shaun of the Dead remains the best, JUST SAYIN), Life After Beth has a very dry and deadpan tone, married with the cinematic style of a quirky indie movie. This, combined with the admittedly quite outlandish, bizarre and dark subject matter, means that Life After Beth will absolutely definitely not be everyone’s cup of hot beverage. It’s not quite as laugh-out-loud (or LOL as the kids say) as you think it might be, with the humour coming from the dark and often surreal tone.

The film makes an effort too to make its zombies and its situation unique. They don’t just rise and THEN want to eat you; they rise and firstly find their way back into their old lives; they run, talk, become incredibly horny and argue; they even find soft jazz calming and addictive. After this, of course, they have a hunger to eat real life human people and near invincible, but I liked the fact that they added a new spin to their zombies on this instead of sticking to the usual blueprint. It also doesn’t focus on the general zombie uprising and how society is coping with it; that is going on in the background, only giving us slithers of details about the extremity of how the local neighbourhood is dealing with it. I admire its cojones in this respect for both having this amount of detail in its gradual descent to hell on earth in the first place, and restricting it to the background and allowing the characters to be the forefront of the film.

The performances too are all pretty good; John C Reilly and Molly Shannon add real desperate character to their roles which in other hands could be in danger of being quite boring (Zach’s parents, on the other hand, do suffer from this affliction). Anna Kendrick too, though in it very briefly, always lifts the screen when she appears on it (not literally, that would be a bizarre trick). Dane DeHaan is fantastic as per usual in his role as the most sane person in this weird world, being both rational and desperate to believe that his girlfriend has been resurrected with no problems whatsoever; however it’s the first scenes in which he is visibly stricken with guilt where his acting chops truly get to shine (do chops shine? If not, he makes them shine because he’s so damn good an actor). Really, the titular Beth is the one in the spotlight here, and Aubrey Plaza plays the role perfectly; admittedly it seems the role is written directly for her deadpan persona, but she does it so very well you forgive her for a bit of typecasting. She is also insanely creepy as her mortal state devolves, whispering almost demonically, growling and scratching while retaining her charm.

In all, Life After Beth is very dry, deadpan and dark (alliteration is for cool kids) and so will not be to everybody’s tastes. However, if you enjoy dark and fairly surreal humour and fancy yet another different take on the rom-zom-com subgenre, Life After Beth is for you.