Get On Up, Paddington & Horrible Bosses 2 – Richards Reckons Reviews

A soul legend, a bear legend and, er, a Kevin Spacey (who is, ya know, a legend) cameo appear in this instalment of Richards (legend, if I do say so myself) Reckons in a whole host of reviews. Sorry, I’ve said legend too many times and now it doesn’t seem like a word anymore…

Anyway, right, Get On Up.

So, like many musical biopics, Get On Up is about a musical hero, and the hero in this case is the godfather (no, not that one) of soul James Brown, played by future Marvel superhero Chadwick Boseman. It follows the man from his humble roots living in the woods to international superstardom, focussing on his ascent in musical history and his relationships with longtime contributor Bobby Byrd (Nelsan Ellis), his agent Ben Bart (Dan Ackroyd) and his various bandmates and partners over the years.

The film isn’t exactly told in chronological order; in fact, it jumps around all over his timeline like a grasshopper on a pogo stick. Now, much like a grasshopper on a pogo stick, this works some of the time and sometimes it does not; indeed, the first time we see him is in the late 80s holding a shot gun at a small conference, demanding to know who used his loo. It’s not an obvious place to start, but it’s an intriguing one, leaving you wanting to know quite how he got to that level. The device of a flashback flashforward structure is a mixed bag but it makes the film feel as dynamic as the man himself.

It ticks all the boxes of a good musical biopic; including parts of the story being related to real world events, such as Vietnam and the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King being thrown into the mix. But what elevates this above a solid but standard fair is the not so much performance but inhabitation of James Brown by Chadwick Boseman. Everything, from his dancing to his movement to his voice and mannerisms is absolutely spot on. It’s an astounding role played astoundingly; the role of a slightly unhinged hero is one that actors would cherish to play, and Boseman does it so so well it’s hard to imagine anybody else doing it.

Speaking of unhinged, if I had a criticism of the movie I would say that it does somewhat paper over some of the cracks of the negative parts of his characters. He treats some of the women in his life appallingly, including domestic abuse; the film shows this happen but then doesn’t focus on how she feels about it, or even his guilt about it. It also shows his terrible treatment of some of his bandmates, but never really focusses on the repercussions of this; it just kind of shows it happening and then moves on. That said, the film could easily have omitted all these elements altogether and made Brown a completely clean hero, which would feel both wrong and inauthentic.

The musical numbers in this film too are also fantastic, using original James Brown recordings to great effect in conjunction with some wonderful choreography. But as I say the blistering performance from Chadwick Boseman really does steal the show here and separates, as well as elevates, Get On Up to another level. If you’re a fan of not just soul but music at all, get on up off your computer and see it when you can!

The next station is Paddington. Change here for joy, warmth and heart.

Based on the classic Michael Bond creation, Paddington is a modern retelling of the classic tale, which goes a little something like this; a young bear (Ben Wishaw) lives in Darkest Peru with his Auntie Lucy and Uncle Pastuzo (Imelda Staunton & Michael Gambon). One day, there’s a terrible earthquake, and his Auntie Lucy suggests that he go and find a new home in London, because they “know how to welcome new people there”. So off he goes to London, but doesn’t quite find the warm reception he was anticipating. At Paddington station, with a label around his neck saying “please look after this bear”, the Brown family (including Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins) find him and decide to take him in. From there, fuzzy chaos ensues.

There’s been a lot of pseudo-controversy surrounding Paddington recently. FIrst about Colin Firth’s “conscious uncoupling” (a term coined I believe by Chris Martin’s failed marriage) from the project; Colin Firth was originally meant to be voicing the little bear himself, but decided along with the creative team that it was best to part with the project. Secondly, the BBFC rated the film as “PG” rather than “U”, which caused a massive stir (not helped by newspapers, certainly) due to “sexual references”; it has since been changed to “inneundo”, which is a small downgrade, but it wasn’t as if before this Paddington was wearing a bra and eyeing up Mr Brown like a toyboy. So in the face of this swirling controversy, people were worried about quite how this national icon was going to be portrayed on screen.

It gives me great pleasure to say that Paddington is an utter delight; like a big, warm hug of a movie, almost like getting a cuddle from the bear himself.

The reason it works so well is down to a sweet, marmalade-like mix of features. Firstly, the bear himself. I mentioned earlier about the conscious uncoupling by Colin Firth from the movie, and in a way actually I’m glad because I now cannot imagine him having any other voice apart from Ben Wishaw’s. It’s got everything that Paddington needs; warmth, sweetness, versatility – it has everything in spades. Colin Firth’s voice would feel too aloof and not playful enough. The animation of the bear himself is phenomenal, giving him so much presence and emotion in the movie and none of that dead eyes that other animated characters have suffered from in recent years. Director Paul King of Mighty Boosh fame does a fantastic job of placing Paddington firmly as the focus of every scene, and making him not seem out of place at the same time.

The writing too is genuinely funny for people of all ages, with archetypes, references and puns galore for the adults and gloriously (not annoyingly) silly jokes for both regular sized kids and big kids. The plot too is easy to follow for kids; there is a protagonist, yes, in the form of Nicole Kidman as an ardent taxidermist, but she isn’t any more terrifying than perhaps Cruella de Vil is to kids. There are scenes that are sad and scenes where Paddington is in danger, but these scenes are absolutely necessary for a family film so that there are bits where the kids can root for Paddington instead of watching him stumble through life (as entertaining as that is!).

It’s a warm hug of a movie, with an underlying political message of acceptance and the “welcoming British” which, in a time of UKIP and rows about immigration, is a wonderful thing to see. It’s a love letter to the character, and to British charm and wit. Please, PLEASE take your children to see Paddington over Nativity 3: Dude Where’s My Donkey? this Christmas; it deserves it so much more, and is a better experience for everybody on pretty much every front. And temptation of suicide would be far, far lower with Paddington…

And finally, time for Horrible Bosses 2.

These Horrible Bosses have a plot, and that plot is this; Nick, Kurt and Dale (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day) are back, and have had an idea for an invention since we last saw them trying to murder their bosses. The invention is the “shower buddy”. They go on the telly with their idea and get noticed by Burt and Rex Hanson (Christoph Waltz and Chris Pine), Burt being the owner of a big billionaire company who want to distribute the “shower buddy” – however it turns out that Burt gleefully backs out of the deal and rips off their idea, leaving them $500,000 in debt. Obviously miffed by this, they cook up a scheme to kidnap Rex and hold him to ransom, demanding their money back. But, as with last time, things don’t go to plan.

As with all sequels, your level of acceptance of Horrible Bosses 2 will teeter down to whether or not you liked the first one. And in this case your level of tolerance with Charlie Day’s voice (mine is higher than perhaps some folks’ is). It is by all means not going to convert anybody new to the franchise, and it has just the same level of filthy gags, comic ineptitude and some admittedly quite funny cameos from major stars such as Kevin Spacey, Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Anniston. It’s so similar in fact that it bears the question quite why this one was made; dollar signs are the answer here, of course, nothing more.

That said, I have seen worse comedy sequels in my time. Quite how absolutely hapless and stupid Dale and Kurt are while coming up with these schemes is certainly entertaining to watch, and some of the phonetic jokes are better than the pointlessly filthy ones. I for one can find a rude joke quite funny and have a high tolerance of them, but the same thing again and again and again can get a bit tiresome. Still though, there are enjoyable things to be found in Horrible Bosses 2, such as the admittedly quite slick editing (they love a good montage) and entertaining sequences, even if it is farfetched and ridiculous. The cameos from old horrible bosses Kevin Spacey and Jennifer Anniston do feel like they’ve been blu-tac’d on to the plot somewhat for the sake of having them back, but they’re JUST ABOUT enjoyable enough to warrant them being there. There’s also a nice role in there too for Jonathan Banks (aka Mike in Breaking Bad), essentially playing the same cop role as ever, but he plays it so well that hey, I ain’t complaining.

So with Horrible Bosses 2 there are a few laughs in there for returning fans of the first film, and some enjoyable sequences and cameos, but the feeling of “… what was the point of this again?” can’t quite escape from your mind during the running time. However, there are certainly worse comedies out there.

Mr. Turner, Ouija, Horns & The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman – Richards Reckons Reviews

Some paintings, a board, some horns and Romania. Anybody would have thought that’s a blurb of a novel about a Romanian minotaur living in an art gallery trying to make it as a skateboarder, but alas, it is not (I’ll work on that later though as a stocking filler for 2015).

Let’s kick off with Mr. Turner.

While it sounds like the biopic of a substitute maths teacher, it is not; instead, it’s the Mike Leigh directed biopic of J. M. W. Turner, one of Britain’s most prolific painters in the 19th century. Weirdly, the film doesn’t have a plot as such; it simply follows Turner (Timothy Spall) at the height of his career and final 30 years of his life, as well as his relationships with his father (Paul Jesson), his housemaid (Dorothy Atkinson), the aristocracy, the Royal Academy of Art and Mrs Booth (Marion Bailey).

Rather aptly for a film about one of the best painters in British history, the film itself looks beautiful. Each frame is lovingly crafted and carefully coloured much like a painting; it’s no accident that door frames and window frames are used consistently as borders of the shot, like the frames of a painting (how’s that for meta, eh? A film about art, which in itself is art, looks like art). Cinematographer Dick Pope won an award at Cannes for this film and ruddy rightly so too; the shots are so incredibly classy and rich that it feels like you are in a gallery.

The film also has some staggering performances in it, not least by Timothy Spall. He is absolutely phenomenal as Turner; he inhabits a persona of assured arrogance yet vulnerability; a flawed genius dedicated and passionate about his work, and dealing with criticism and praise in various different ways. He behaves somewhat unusually; saying things by snorting and grunting more than with actual words, and varying between confidently striding or meandering through his life; between visiting brothels and the aristocracy. He is by no means a morally absolute protagonist either – he uses and abuses his landlady for sex when he wants to, while she retains adoration for him regardless of this mistreatment. But shades of grey are interesting, and while it isn’t the most overstated performance, it’s sure to win awards and astonish. There are brilliant turns from Marion Bailey too as the lovely Mrs Booth, the lady that Mr Turner decides to live with incognito (although obviously not THAT incognito seeing as the film knows about it… Just sayin’).

A sure awards contender, the script is also wonderfully crafted, with dialogue fresh from the 19th century without it being too dense. However, if I was being especially critical, I would say that it is a bit too long. It can feel somewhat indulgent at times, with scenes that don’t have any overall effect on the narrative lasting for a very long time (the older lady next to me actually kept falling asleep and snoring aloud, only to be jolted awake again by her tutting cinemagoer friend). The skeleton of the film is very good, as are the occasional bits of fat in there, but there is a bit too much narrative fat that can drag it down.

Potent, beautiful and amazingly well performed, Mr Turner won’t be for everybody’s tastes but is a true awards contender and a brilliant if indulgent look at the life of a unique artistic genius.

Speaking of, er, genius (ahem), let’s talk about Ouija.

Ouija is the heartbreaking true story of Dr John Ouija, a man who dedicated his life to finding a cure for children’s illnesses. Only joking, of course it’s not; it’s a horror film about a haunted house, of course! Best buddies Laine (Olivia Cooke) and Debbie (Shelley Hennig) have known each other all their lives, doing the regular girls do, like playing with ouija boards with one another (apparently they’re toys in America, as evidenced by the fact this film is PRODUCED by Hasbro themselves). In the present day, Debbie has been dabbling with the board again and ends up hanging herself with some fairy lights (a criminal waste, in my opinion). Wanting to talk with her, Laine begs her friends and sister to do a ouija board to try to contact Debbie in the afterlife; but, surprise surprise, it’s a terrible idea and awakens all sorts of spirits in the house…

So, yes, this is exactly what it sounds like; a jumpscare fest and nothing more, really. It does the regular checklist of things that modern horror films do; haunted house, basements, JUMPSCARES, attics, dolls, JUMPSCARES, creepy kids, gore, JUMPSCARES, being dragged away by an invisible force, burning ancient objects… did I mention JUMPSCARES? Nothing really resonates with the audience as being truly creepy or disturbing; it’s just a series of jolts (some of which, admittedly, are quite effective – some of which completely are not).

While it’s adequately short at around 90 minutes, parts of it still do feel boring and run of the mill, with scenes in which you can tell that nobody is in danger. You can tell that the actors, while giving it their all, are a bit bored by the whole affair as well and don’t really put too much into it; there’s a real lack of emotion and clarity to a film that involves so many supposed suicides of teenagers. The writing is also pretty poor and the plot convoluted and illogical; with more plot holes than a swiss cheese block that’s been violently attacked with a Black & Decker implement.

All in all, Ouija doesn’t add anything new to the genre unfortunately and serves a poor example of modern, quiet quiet JUMPSCARE horror cinema.

Now it’s time for Daniel Radcliffe getting horny (ROFLMAOLOL) in Horns.

Daniel “Harry Potter” Radcliffe plays a (frankly amazingly named) man called Ig Perrish, a musician from a small town in America. His beautiful girlfriend Merrin (Juno Temple) is horrifically raped and murdered, and Ig is suspect (and therefore public enemy) number 1. During this persecution by the media and townsfolk, he wakes up one day to find horns poking out of his head (don’t you just hate it when that happens?). These horns give him strange powers, such as people revealing every single horrible secret and desire they have to him and the ability to read minds. He uses this ability to try and track down Merrin’s actual killer, clear his name and get revenge.

Horns has been taking a bit of a critical kicking as of late, which I think is slightly undeserved. Horns has its problems of course – one of which is an uneven tone, which swerves between black comedy, sugary romance and full on supernatural and a bit silly. I love it when films contain multiple components and genres, but only when it feels like they gel well; in Horns, however, it feels like they are rustily changing gear rather than smoothly gliding through the scenes like fine narrative silk. There is also the ending, which as well as offering no redemption or explanation for a film that makes you so interested in looking for one, also is silly to ridiculous extremes and almost loses all of its credibility.

Apart from these aspects, though, there is a blackly fun film to be found, with some dark laughs and insight into the dark human condition and its impulses. The performances of Daniel Radcliffe and Juno Temple are particularly fantastic too; with Radcliffe’s accent being flawless and convincing, and his character portraying both desperation to full on badass anger effectively. It’s just a shame that the ending and its tonal confusion is letting it down.

Horns does not deserve the critical kicking it’s getting, as it can be darkly fun in areas, but it is far from perfect. A flawed slice of dark fun.

And finally, it’s time for The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman (the film, not the absolutely fundamental demise of a man named Charlie Countryman).

So the plot behind this necessary death is this; Charlie Countryman (Shia LaBeouf) witnesses the death of his mother in hospital, and is visited by an apparition of her almost straight away afterwards (convenient, eh?). She tells him to go to Bucharest, because it “sounds specific” (which is, you know, reason enough? I guess?). So he catches a plane to Bucharest and meets a man, who promptly dies next to him. He tracks down her daughter Gabi (Evan Rachel Wood) at the airport, who he almost instantly falls for. But she has a dangerous ex-husband in Nigel (Mads Mikkelsen), who is a real rotter of a man, and does not take too kindly to Charlie intruding into Gabi’s life…

Oh, and also, Rupert Grint and James Buckley turn up too for some acid trip style sequences. Just thought I’d mention it.

I spoke earlier about Horns being a mixed bag, but this is a mixed bag with the strange ramped up to 11. It’s an utterly bizarre dark love story, and while that sounds good in the outset, it isn’t really. It tries to be dark and edgy with its violence but ultimately fails and feels incredibly silly; not even Mads Mikkelsen can bring any sense of being grounded or realistic to the pointlessly violent Nigel character and his endless list of henchmen. Shia LaBeouf apparently was actually on acid in a lot of the scenes where drug trips were required, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he was all the time during the filming of this; he constantly looks doe-eyed and sweaty. That said, his performance could certainly be a lot worse, but unfortunately is not enough to save the film.

There is also the matter of a tacked on subplot involving Rupert Grint and James Buckley’s characters (James Buckley’s is almost a carbon copy of Jay, except not as inherently innocent). While it was an enjoyable aside (and mad to see these three men together in the same film), there is certainly a feeling of “errr… why?” to it all. The surreal nature of the film doesn’t help this either, as it ultimately amounts to a fairly empty and pointless experience.

The subway chase sequence is, however, very good. Seek that out if you can. Lovely use of slow motion. But apart from that, Charlie Countryman is a bizarre movie that feels incredibly flimsy and “for the sake of it”.

The Babadook & Alexander and The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day – Richards Reckons Reviews

A gruesome twosome for you today (well, one far more gruesome than the other, I suppose, unless you have a strange fear of Steve Carrell) on Richards Reckons, both about people having really quite terrible, horrible, no good, very bad days. Some considerably more than others…

First up on the bad day list is The Babadook.

SO then, The Babadook may go bump in the night but it does so with a plot, don’t you know, that plot being this; Amelia (Essie Davis) is a frazzled Australian mother, trying to cope both with the death of her husband and her difficult 6 year old son Samuel (Noel Wieseman). Samuel picks up a book from his shelf for Amelia to read to him at bedtime one day called ‘Mister Babadook’. Like a good mum, she starts to read to him, but notices that it’s an incredibly disturbing pop-up book about a creepy, sinister figure who preys on anybody it chooses. Samuel begins to see the Babadook everywhere he goes and his behaviour becomes more and more troubling, as Amelia slowly realises as the sanity of herself and her son starts to slide that the Babadook may not be just a book…

Okay, so you may remember in my review for Annabelle that my main criticism of it was that it was nothing in any way new, and is simply mildly scary down to being quiet-quiet-quiet-quiet-LOUD NOISE (or jumpscares as they’re known in the trade); scaring you and jolting you for a second but not lingering with you for any length of time (if you don’t remember that, feel free to scroll down and read it after saying “previously, on Richards Reckons…” to yourself).

The Babadook is the complete opposite of this.

The Babadook is INCREDIBLY disturbing. Its frights and chills don’t come from sudden jumps (though there are a few very effective ones), but instead the lingering sense of dread and its surreality. There is a nightmarish quality throughout the whole film (though particularly in its second half as it is quite a slow burner) that means, as an audience member, you are constantly unsure of what is going on; what’s real, what’s fake, who’s awake, who’s making that noise; even, at points, who is still sane. It is a very bizarre film which does not comply by any other rules of horror films or indeed reality; it, like the Babadook himself, is its own entity, creeping slowly into your consciousness and your fears; indeed, as Samuel says, “it wants to scare you first…”.

As I mentioned in that previous paragraph, it is a bit of a slow burner, but that makes it all the more effective. We are introduced to the main characters and their situation slowly rather than rushing it in; the film wants you to get to know its characters and their dilemmas before allowing the fear and supernatural eeriness to seep into them. If you are looking for a conventional “house being haunted by a ghost demon” (because ghosts are unpopular now since Paranormal Activity, it’s always gotta be demons) narrative that is ever so popular these days, you won’t find it here; it’s a completely different beast, acting in a completely different way. Amelia does what we would all do in this situation before things turn darker; asking for help, losing sleep over what is going on, generally not being an absolute horror-protagonist-idiot, making her even more relatable. But that ability to relate slips further and further away from the audience as her sanity is slowly peeled like an apple, making the audience more and more uneasy. The characters are portrayed astonishingly well by Essie Davis and Noel Wieseman; both of whom acting vulnerable and disturbed in equal measure all the time, as well as dealing with the heavier more dramatic elements of their relationship to incredible effect. Freud would have an absolute field day analysing their relationship…

As for the titular Babadook himself, he is terrifying. He looks like the demented cousin of both a Tim Burton creation and a Noel Fielding creation put into a blender. He reminds me a bit of the Judderman from those beer adverts in the 90s; sometimes moving like a stop motion character, sometimes near gliding across the floor; people in the screening I was in audibly whimpered at the sight of him. And we never really get a true glimpse of what he looks like in full, leaving a lot to the imagination, for your mind to fill in the blanks in the pant-wetting sight you see before you. The amazing sound design helps with this too, ramping up the tension and giving odd little noises in the background that can make even the smallest creak seem terrifying. The lighting, composition and even the design of the furniture gives the impression that the monster is always there at all times; once again, to quote Samuel (in the film, not the incredibly wise Samuel Richards); “you can’t get rid of the Babadook”.

In summary, then, director Jennifer Kent has done an amazing job here. The Babadook is a psychological horror that certainly won’t be to everybody’s tastes with its surreality and darkness, but it’s a truly intense and terrifying tale into things that go bump in the night and the psyches of those that hear said bumps. If you want to be scared this Halloween, make sure The Babadook is the film you see, as it gives you the willies in such an intelligent way (steady).

Next up, the astoundingly titled Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (which is still a better title than Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice).

 

So then, Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (or AATTHNGVBD as I’ll know abbreviate it too, but even that feels like writing a short essay) is a day with a plot, and that plot is this; Alexander Cooper (Ed Oxenbould) is a 12 year old scamp who almost constantly down on his luck; at school, he’s accident prone and the other kids don’t like him so much, and at home he can be ignored by the rest of his family, who all seem to have much better luck than he does pretty much all the time. On the eve of his birthday, he makes himself an ice cream sundae at around midnight (terrible idea for his sleeping habits but there we are) and wishes that his family would experience a day similar to what he experiences all the time. The next morning, things start to get chaotic for the rest of the family, and Alexander tries to hold them all together…

This is the kind of plot description that can make adults groan because it’s from Disney, centred around a child and sounds a bit juvenile; it therefore could be all gooey and childish and not funny for adults. It is indeed fair to say that it is a family orientated movie, but there is a some enjoyment still to be had by adults here too. Steve Carrell and Jennifer Garner play Alex’s parents, both of them not exactly doing anything absolutely revolutionary with their performances but not underplaying them either; they fulfil their roles of stay-at-home-dad and workaholic-mum very well, with charm and warmth. Ed Oxenbould too has good comedic timing for such a young actor, and has a pleasant screen presence; though the film would pretty much wholly fall apart if this wasn’t the case.

The comedic setpieces, though somewhat slapstick, play out nicely and all contain things that the whole family can enjoy. It’s nice to see a family comedy that isn’t an animation, in fact; something involving real people in a real family dynamic is a surprisingly refreshing thing to see on the cinema screen these days. The chemistry between the family members is all good too, making their exchanges believable and more slick. There are some funny moments to be found here too, and some surprising cameos from the likes of Dick Van Dyke, Tammy 1 from Parks and Recreation (playing a different character obviously; that would be horrifying to see in a family movie) and Donald “Childish Gambino” Glover. Though, again, none of them do anything that particularly changes the rulebook on family comedy, it’s still enjoyable to see them and they do their duties reasonably well.

In all, then, AATTHNGVBD isn’t terrible, horrible, not good or very bad at all; but by no means is it absolutely amazing – it’s completely fine, but nothing more. It’s a warm, fuzzy affair which will amuse the young ones as well as the older ones in your family, though I wouldn’t recommend going out of your way to see it otherwise.

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.

The Equalizer & What We Did On Our Holiday – Richards Reckons Reviews

EXTRA! EXTRA! Richards Reckons is doing two reviews again! Read all about it! I know, I know. It’s a news story that is gonna change your life.

We shall start with The Equalizer.

Talk to the hand, ‘cos the face ain’t listening!

Though it sounds like it follows a mathematics based superhero, The Equalizer is not about a mathematics based superhero. Instead, it is about this; Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) is a man who lives a very calm life working at a hardware store in Boston; he’s friendly, polite, doesn’t like bad language, willing to help his co-workers etc. He also can’t sleep and spends a lot of time in a 24 hour diner reading, where he meets Teri (Chloe Grace Moretz), a lady of the night with some pretty horrible bosses. She’s put in the ICU by her bosses, which sparks Robert’s vigilantism attitude and killing-machine abilities from his past, leading to a one man war against the Russian mafia (who are almost all tattooed, fact fans).

I should mention that, once again, this was not a regular trip to the pictures for me and it may affect my judgment somewhat – instead of somebody breaking their arm and me heroically helping them like last week, this week the projector packed up the middle of a tense chase sequence, leading to an unplanned interval and a viewing of the same chase sequence twice. So, er, yes, bear that in mind.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua, The Equalizer is a modern remake of the 1980s TV series also named The Equalizer, with Edward Woodward as the titular Equalizer Robert McCall. Denzel Washington’s Robert McCall is a mix between MacGyver, Sherlock and Bryan Mills – with the ability to slow-mo examine people, make a weapon out of almost anything and… well, kick arse, frankly. But he’s also rather polite too, which is nice. Denzel Washington is brilliant in this role, and is great at all these things; being a killing machine and a sympathetic nice guy at the same time actually quite convincingly. Don’t get me wrong, the violence is ridiculous and cartoony, but the character perpetrating said violence is quite convincing. Chloe Grace Moretz also adds a nice, human and vulnerable spin onto a character who otherwise would be there just as a catalyst for McCall to go into Equalizer mode.

As a result of this central performance by ol’ Denz, when a scene comes by once in a blue moon that Robert McCall is not in, they are rather boring as a result. The baddies in this have little to no character whatsoever apart from all being tattooed and horrible – they are just caricatures of evil baddie mob men or Boston corrupt cops, who seem to not know any other word than the F word. I suppose in the long run it’s a good thing that we can’t get attached to these people who are essentially fodder to be equalized, but still; something different in the mix would have been nice.

The first and final acts of these film I actually rather enjoyed; the build up to McCall going into killer mode again in the first half and the rather ingenious finale based almost entirely in a Homebase-esque location (which I really rather enjoyed, it reminded me of Shoot Em Up in places). The middle of the film however is quite baggy, long and convoluted – focussing on the hierarchy of the Russian mob by adding in random bad guy characters that we don’t necessarily care about and making things a bit more confusing than they need to be. It also misses out some scenes that it would have been fun to see, instead focussing on the aftermath. There is also the final scene which sets up the rest of a potential series of films sticking to the old Equalizer legend, which is interesting but feels a bit out of place in relation to what you’ve just seen happen for the past couple of hours.

All in all, The Equalizer is big, silly action with a portion of OTT and items-based violence and a fairly boring and generic plot, married together with a great central performance by Denzel Washington, who is really what saves the film from being run of the mill. If there’s a sequel, which it is clearly gunning for, then count me in. Don’t expect too much from it, mind; you won’t find much in the way of substance here, but you may find a bit in the way of fun.

Now then, onto What We Did On Our Holiday (as in the film, not literally a blow by blow account about what I did on my holiday – that’s another blog for another day).

What We Did On Our Holiday goes a little something like this; Doug McLeod (David Tennant) and Abi McLeod (Rosamund Pike) are a soon-to-be-divorced married couple with three children who are taking a trip up to Doug’s childhood home in the Scottish Highlands to celebrate his father Gordie’s (Billy Connolly) 75th birthday, with his extremely uptight brother Gavin (Ben Miller) and his very quiet wife Margaret (Amelia Bullmore – or Sonja to Alan Partridge fans).

This is a film from the makers of the hit BBC show Outnumbered, Guy Jenkin and Andy Hamilton – indeed, it is written and directed by them too. You can very much see the DNA of Outnumbered in this film – the technique of allowing kids to improvise their own dialogue is rather genius and surprisingly plays as well on film as it does on television, providing more of the films laugh out loud moments. Indeed, this is probably the closest you will ever see to an Outnumbered movie. The film is so close to its DNA that some of the beginning scenes (set in a suburban London house – sound familiar?) genuinely feel strange without Hugh Dennis or Claire Skinner or any of the regular kids.

The Outnumbered humour is there throughout the first half (including some extremely familiar situations travelling on a motorway), however in the middle the plot takes a rather dark turn that you won’t see coming. That is to say, you won’t see it coming before you go into the cinema (unless you’re some sort of soothsayer, and if that’s the case why are you even going to the cinema in the first place?) – pretty much from the first scene, you know that this turn is probably going to happen. This almost completely jolts the flow of the film. It’s still funny, but a bit less so as it deals with a rather morbid subject matter in a frivolous way that doesn’t really ever feel like it works. The film then becomes centred around this turn, and so never quite recovers to glory era of the very funny first half; it’s still funny, but the laugh out loud moments become more separated and parts of it more tragic.

Billy Connolly is wonderful in his role as Gordie, a very cheeky grandfather who loves his grandkids more than anything; he clearly relished and loved playing this role, and it’s a love that the audience can feel too. David Tennant and Rosamund Pike are both good too as the exasperated parents of the kids trying to deal with the breakdown of their marriage in a humane way. Special mention should also go to Emilia Jones as the oldest child Lottie, who has to deal with both her parents divorcing AND lying about it, as well as her siblings generally being younger siblings, and copes in her own way by writing everything down in her little notebook; she plays it very well, seeming like a 10 year old who is sweet yet feels jaded by life already. The relationship between her and Gordie is the beating heart of the film.

Overall, the film could be funnier in my opinion (especially having loved and enjoyed Outnumbered for many years), but if you’re a fan of Outnumbered it certainly is funny enough to warrant going to see. What We Did On Our Holiday is trying to be touching as well as funny, but succeeds more at the latter rather than the former.

Magic in the Moonlight- Richards Reckons Review

Whoa whoa whoooaaa, it’s magicccc! Or is it?

Magic in the Moonlight is the new Woody Allen romantic comedy, continuing his streak of being as productive as an advent calendar factory, providing a film a year coming our way with, er, doors in it with Christmas based chocolate behind them? Maybe that analogy doesn’t work… I blame advent calendars being in the shops already.

ANYWAY, Magic in the Moonlight not only has magic in the moonlight but it also has a PLOT in the moonlight, and that plot is this; set in the 1920s, Stanley (Colin Firth) is a successful magician who performs under the moniker Wei Ling Soo around the world. In Berlin, he’s approached by an old friend of his called Howard (Simon McBurney), who asks him to join him on a trip to the French Riviera to meet a rich family who have been charmed by the mystical Sophie (Emma Stone), who he thinks may truly possess the ability to talk to the dead and clairvoyance. Stanley being a famous skeptic, he agrees to go with him to meet her, and finds himself lost for words by her abilities.

This film is set in the 1920s, and indeed feels like a movie actually SHOT in the past – from the dialogue to the setting to the plot to even the soundtrack; it feels like an older movie that’s been dipped into a sauce of modern technology (sorry, I’m hungry). As you can expect from the setting, the director and that description, it looks magnificent; the French Riviera is portrayed magnificently, with huge vistas and landscapes that echo paintings or postcards.

HOWEVER (all capitals for emphasis), just because this feels like an old-timey film does not by any means make it a good film. It may look brilliant and beautiful, but Magic in the Moonlight did not make me feel brilliant and beautiful (not that it was its mission). What I’m trying to say is that I had quite a few problems with this film. Before I go into them, this is obviously just my opinion and I think I am in the minority here, so of course take them with a pinch of salt.

Firstly, the dialogue in this film is some of the clunkiest I think I have ever seen. Some may think that this adds to its old-fashioned charm, but for me it really did not have this effect; some of the dialogue is so on-the-nose or so obviously undisguised exposition that it made me feel cold. In fact, it feels like the script was rushed, almost as if Woody wrote the lines that appear in the film as mere narrative functions with what they’re trying to convey with a note next to them saying “CHANGE THIS TO SOMETHING ELSE LATER”, but then never got around to adding his Woody Allen magic (hehe, get it?) to it. Other critics have said that the script feels rushed, and with the dialogue it really does feel that way.

Another piece of evidence for this is the plot itself and the relationships within it that feel far too rushed. Stanley remains very very skeptical for a very long time with no signs whatsoever of changing his mind, until one point where he utterly changes his point of view within a moment, without any sort of progression. Stanley forgives somebody for doing something quite bad to him very quickly afterwards, which feels extremely odd for his character. There is a twist in this movie but it’s a twist that personally I saw coming a long, long way off. I don’t want to spoil anything but towards the end of the movie, there’s a particular relationship denouement (see what I did there, with the French word?) that feels absolutely undeserved. Again, some may feel that this adds to the old fashioned feel of it, but it all personally rubbed me up the wrong way and made me disconnect from the story.

 

There are also a couple more details that grated on me the whole way through; firstly, the soundtrack. The soundtrack starts off as fitting in with the old-timey aesthetic and feels very in place as a nice touch, but then it gets extremely repetitive and grates and grates and grates and grates; feeling especially jarring when quite a serious event occurs and an upbeat 1920s jazz band starts playing to accompany it. Secondly, Stanley himself. I’m a fan of Colin Firth as an actor and I think he’s great, and it’s no fault of his that Stanley is massively unlikeable. He’s arrogant, aloof and so up himself he could be using himself as his own puppet. The fact the character switches in his opinions so quickly as said above only makes it worse. He also doesn’t ever change his personality at all to get any sort of redemption or become a better person – he remains the same, bitter bastard until the end. The screen also has the annoying-in-a-wholly-different-way Brice (Hamish Linklater), a man who is utterly infatuated with Sophie and likes to show this by generally creeping around nearby, playing an incredibly irritating ukelele singing sycophantic songs at her.

Sophie herself, the wonderful Emma Stone, is by far the highlight of the film; she plays the mystifying, beautiful yet quite shy and vulnerable Sophie very well. On the whole, there are certainly more offensive films out there, but Magic in the Moonlight feels extremely rushed, at times grating and ultimately amounts to nothing. It looks beautiful and has some great stars really giving their all to these roles, but Woody Allen certainly has a lot, lot better in him.

Hector and the Search for Happiness – Richards Reckons Review

There’s a joke about the word “happiness” I’d love to put here but I unfortunately won’t for deux reasons; 1) because it’s phonetic and this, in case you haven’t realised, is in print and b) they actually use it in the film. Basically, the word “happiness” sounds like a male sex organ. Worth it, eh?

Enough organ jokes, down to business. Hector and the Search for Happiness is a British comedy drama film (made by no less than 6 production companies), and the plot will follow after this cheeky semicolon; Hector (Simon Pegg), a psychologist who lives in a lovely flat in lovely central London with the lovely Clara (Rosamund Pike), decides that he for some reason doesn’t like his life and needs to set out on a trip around the world alone to investigate and research what happiness is, for the sake of himself and for the sake of his patients.

Similarities between this, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and Eat, Pray, Love will all be made because, like those films, it involves somebody travelling the globe, often to more rundown areas, in order for them to truly appreciate their own life.  As you can tell from the title and the concept, we follow Hector for quite a lot of the 120 minute run time – and played by Simon Pegg, it’s safe to assume you are in safe hands… er, safely. Or, at least, that’s what I thought, being a fan of the Peggster’s work for many years (thus earning the ability to call him “Peggster”). And, yes, Ol’ Si in areas does give it his all, with waterworks in all the various places they need to be.

 

But the fact of the matter is this; Hector is, in parts, actually an incredibly unlikeable lead character. Within days of being away from his girlfriend, he cheats on her without any regret whatsoever (and in fact suggests that this could be a “key to happiness”); after being in impoverished Africa, he celebrates the fact that he is on 1st class on the plane; he also has a tendency of being incredibly smug. Of course, I understand that not all protagonists are likeable or moral, but it certainly doesn’t help that he’s not even immoral in an interesting way like Don Draper, Walter White or Big Mac from Casualty (only joking, he’s a hero).

It’s filled with pseudo-philosophy and moral lessons that just feel so forced and whimsical it puts you off the whole thing as they appear in scribbled handwriting and little doodles on the screen. They’re exactly the sort of thing you write in a little book in stylised writing in your teens, then find it under your bed years later and cringe to death by how little sense they make; for example, one of them is “people who are afraid to die are afraid to live”, or “happiness is sometimes not knowing the whole story :(“, which appears as his little moral lesson as he sees a pimp drag off and beat a prostitute he had slept with the previous night. Poor him, not knowing the whole story. It’s just one of the occasions in which he feels sorry for himself and the audience pretty much wholly disagree with him.

 

There’s also an absolutely bizarre shift in gear to a very dark place about 5/9ths of the way through that really doesn’t work; maybe it would as a particularly dark denouement, but at that time it just seems oddly placed, like a nihilistic tortoise in the pilot’s seat of a helicopter. In fact, a lot of the pacing is erratic and jerky (perhaps the previous simile doesn’t apply here) – it certainly feels like a very long 120 minutes, and not a very funny one either.

There are also a lot of very good actors in this that are completely wasted – among the criminally under-used are Toni Collette, Stellan Skarsgård, Jean Reno and Tracy Anne-Oberman, all of whom only play very two dimensional characters. Rosamund Pike too suffers from, I suspect, her scenes being cut short – this may go some way to cover her character’s very strange mood shifts over the course of the Skype calls, which I sense are not on purpose. 

 

All of these are the ingredients of a particularly lacklustre and irritating end result, full of stereotypes bordering on offensive, overly fluffy and whimsical segments and “redemption” that doesn’t feel deserved at all. Simon Pegg gives it his all but the central character is burdened with terrible, unlikeable decisions and a central relationship that doesn’t quite make sense. The search for happiness certainly is not found in a screening of this, lemme tell ya (ZING!).

 

 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes – Richards Reckons review

The rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise sparks strange reactions in people. It’s similar to Marmite; people either really love it, or it really rubs them up the wrong way (not that there is a right way to rub marmite up you…). “Monkeys!? Talking?!” The naysayers scoff. “No thanks, I like my films realistic, like Inception or Jumanji!”. With cinema being the fantastical escapism it is, genetically modified apes who can say the odd word isn’t really the most outlandish thing out there, so this particular gripe seems a bit odd to me. I mean, look what it’s done to poor Gary Oldman.

The poor man is CRYING.

Anyway, the plot is as follows; after an epidemic of simian flu (think swine flu but a lot, lot worse), the population of the human race has been significantly reduced, especially in San Francisco – there’s a small colony of gun-toting people being led by Gary ‘Sirius Black’ Oldman’s Dreyfus and Jason Clarke’s Malcolm, who are running out of fuel and power quickly (‘Murica!). On the other side of the bridge, over in the forest, Andy Serkis’ Caeser has set up a colony and a family of his own; with old friends Maurice and Koba. When a human accidentally kills an ape, tensions run extremely high between the two sides of evolution, and all out war is ready to break… *dramatic noise*.

They always say the night is the darkest just before the dawn (I’m not sure who the aforementioned “they” are; mainly people trying to reassure their friends that everything’s going to be alright after they’ve dropped their chips or something). In this case, with the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes coming after the Rise of said Planet of said Apes (which doesn’t really make sense to me – surely you rise after your dawn? I do anyway, but that’s another story), that’s not entirely true. While the first certainly had its emotional and dramatic moments, this instalment carries a lot of darkness and tragedy at its core. The plot feels Shakespearean – with betrayals, confrontations and tragedies that pack punch after punch after punch. It keeps a strongly straight face throughout the entire runtime, making the apes even on horseback seem genuinely frightening rather than jarring or bizarre; in fact, some scenes are surprisingly brutal. There is no “this is the good team and this is the bad team” going on here; you root for either side to win this war.

The humans are great characters – especially the portrayal of the tragic figure of Dreyfus by Gary Oldman, whose has one of the most moving scenes with an iPad I have ever seen. But, make no mistake, however – this is Andy Serkis and company’s show through and through (and through). If he isn’t nominated for any awards for his realistic portrayal as genuinely torn and troubled ape, there will be ape-style riots in the streets (even if it is just a one man riot by me wearing a Primark onesie). He adds depth, character and tragedy to what could, in the hands of others, be a cartoonish role; this also applies to those playing Koba, Maurice and Blue Eyes. This is, of course, down to the folks at Weta FX too – the apes are amazingly well rendered and realised, seeming both sympathetic and dangerous simultaneously; and with so many of them populating the screen it’s an absolutely astounding (yay alliteration!) spectacle. It’s an incredibly exciting glimpse into the future of cinema.

Matt Reeves, whose past credits include Cloverfield (another love of mine), does an astounding job of putting the story together, with thrilling and impressive setpieces and camerawork – including a sequence in which Malcolm has to infiltrate an ape-ridden building to take a medkit all in one incredibly tense long tracking shot, and an ape gleefully riding on a tank, again in one shot, while looking at all the carnage around him. When tension is needed, it delivers; when emotion is needed, it delivers; when chaos is needed; it delivers. It’s hard to think of a level at which this film does not deliver, in fact; it’s one of the films of this year, certainly. If you can get past the talking apes, that is…

I would, however, strongly recommend you watch the first film before this one as close as you can before going to see this (because you MUST go and see this). I know that sounds stupid, but Caeser’s journey is even more important to you after you’ve seen where he came from and how he grew up, and you care about him all the more for it. Plus it makes you wish Tom Felton was in this instalment too so he could get beaten the stuffing out of again…

Long live the Planet of the Apes, and long live Caeser.

TLDR; One of the films of the year. Go and see it ASAP.

PS: I really have tried my best to cram a Monkey Tennis reference into this review but it was very hard, so here’s a pic. Aw.

 

 

A Million Ways To Die In The West – Richards Reckons Review

WARNING: This review contains the word “juxtaposes”.

The first thing to say about this film is this – it REALLY made me want a moustache.

Really really.

There’s a whole song about how classy and wonderful they are, plus Neil Patrick Harris has one and celebrates it like a medal of valour. I mean, LOOK AT IT;

Damn suave mother-effer, that one.

Anywho, A Million Ways To Die In The West is the latest film offering by Seth MacFarlane, otherwise known as ‘Mr Family Guy’ or ‘Captain Ted’ (because he made those things). This really is a pet project for him; it’s directed by, produced by, written by and starring Mr MacFarlane (writing and starring in a film in which you get intimate with Charlize Theron, you cheeky devil…), meaning it couldn’t have more of his personal stamp on it unless it literally had his name branded into every frame like a cow’s bottom. Which would have been quite pertinent, actually…

The plot is as follows; Seth plays Albert Stark (no relation to either Tony or Sansa), a sheep farmer who has a rather modern awareness of how dreadful the American west is and is therefore a bit of a coward; so much so that he loses his Amanda Seyfried flavoured girlfriend for not wanting to be part of a duel. Charlize Theron’s Anna rides into town and, after he saves her from a bar fight, agrees to help him win her back. The plot from there is pretty by numbers and, with the removal of the Western setting, anybody who has ever seen a rom-com with this plot can guess what happens next.

One of the first things that strikes you about A Million Ways To Die In The West is how unexpectedly good looking it is (much like when people first meet me too). The colouring of the vast desertscapes along with the sunsets and dusty rocky canyons look beautiful. You can easily make a checklist of everything in the Western genre and tick each one off as you watch the film (although don’t do that because you won’t be able to see what you’re doing and will have to put on a light to see and then everybody in the cinema will hate you and maybe spit at you), but that’s not to say that it doesn’t look staggering. I take my cowboy hat off (literally – I’m wearing one as I type this) to Seth and the rest of the photography team for directing such beautiful Western vistas.

What one might expect from a film set in the West is an extended Family Guy/American Dad episode; zany, fast-paced, stuffed and overflowing with gags (both hit and miss), with a tendency of mocking everything left, right and centre in both a satirical way and a plain crude way. That description, by the way, is not a slight on Family Guy and American Dad – I really like both – but it’s what you’d think you’d get from this film. With the exception of one absolutely bizarre and surreal sequence (you’ll know exactly which part I mean when you see it), on the whole, that isn’t exactly what you get. Like Ted was, in areas A Million Ways (I’m shortening it to that because I frankly can’t be bothered to type out the whole title over and over, though I used even more energy typing out this explanation, damnit!) is surprisingly sentimental and sweet. The scenes between Anna and Albert (and there are a LOT of them) can actually quite lovely, however some may find it a bit too sweet and overkill-ish due to just how many there are, like a minigun firing sugar and marshmallows.

A Million Ways’ humour works best when it juxtaposes the genre and setting of the Wild, Wild West (not the Will Smith film) with modern day attitudes and standards of society – for example, one of the funniest throwaway lines are Stark and Giovanni Ribsi’s character commenting on a child playing with a stick and ball with arguments that echo modern day arguments about videogames almost verbatim. It does well to ridicule the ridiculousness of it all from a modern lens and how death is almost around every corner, whether accidentally or through duels. And, for me anyway, it passes the 6 laugh test. The characters that populate this world, too, are funny but mostly one note, such as Sarah Silverman’s prostitute who has Christian values when it comes to premarital sex; a funny joke, certainly, but that’s all her character is. Liam Neeson, too, is simply an utter utter bastard (needlessly killing an old man, hitting his wife and threatening to kill a dog – the trilogy in the bastardry in cinema) and nothing more. Seyfried is given even less to work with, apart from acting bitchy and defending her eyes. Seth himself though, acting for the first time in front of the camera rather than in mo-cap or in a recording booth, is a good onscreen presence – he’s likeable and, on the whole, not as cartoonish as you expect.

The overriding problem with A Million Ways is far, far too much toilet humour. Don’t get me wrong, in small doses it can be funny, but there’s a cacophony of Fart and the Gang jokes in here that just feels lazy and feels like Seth and the writing team could do a lot better, with one scene of this kind that goes on for far, far too long. It’s no surprise that the makes of Family Guy etc bring you this kind of thing, but it just feels like it brings the rest of the film down and feels unnecessary. If you can get through all of these jokes and the bum notes (no pun intended… kind of), there’s an enjoyable film to be found here, especially for people who know and love the Western genre. 

Oh, and there are a cameos too, both of famous faces (blink and you’ll miss Ewan McGregor) and, most hilariously, a couple of fictional characters (if you have the internet you’ll know about one of them, but the other one I’ll leave as a surprise…).