Birdman, The Theory of Everything & Taken 3 – Richards Reckons Reviews

HAPPY 2015 TO YOU ALL, RECKONEES! Lovely to see you again. Did you have a nice new year’s? I like your hair, have you done anything new with it? It suits you, whatever it is.

Anywho, enough of this silly ego-rubbing. We’ve got films to be reviewing. First off, Birdman – or, if you want to be specific, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).

I won’t be specific though, just before it’s longer to type, even as an acronym.

Anyway, Birdman is a motion picture following Riggan Thomson (played by Michael “Batman” Keaton, see what they did there?), an actor who had massive commercial success with the Birdman series of films in which he played the titular character. However, this was 20 years ago and now, as he bemoans, “[he’s] just an answer to a trivial pursuit question!” – he gets vaguely recognised but isn’t working too much. So he decides to direct, write and star in a stage adaptation of Raymond Carver’s play What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. The film follows him and the people around him (including his daughter, played by Emma Stone, and his cast members including Edward Norton and Naomi Watts) for the few days leading up to the grand opening of the play, focussing on Riggan’s cracked psyche and how Birdman haunts him every single day of his life…

Birdman is not a straight forward movie to talk about (which, I know, sounds like a rubbish way to start off a review). In fact, it’s a movie that in some ways is an anti-movie, if you like; rather than constant cutting away during conversation or setpieces, as is movie law, the film is presented for the most part as if it is one long shot; never cutting away, like one fluid motion through a story. In that regard, technically speaking, Birdman is an absolute revelation. There are a couple of occasions in which, if you were feeling particularly nitpicky that day, you could notice points where they could have cut away, but for the most part there is no sign of technical trickery or anything like that; and in that regard, it’s a masterpiece.

The writing is fascinating. It’s a story about so many things, including but not limited to fame, the high/low culture divide, the nature of superhero movies, philosophical and poetic musings on life itself and the state of the actor. Yet Birdman never comes across as pretentious for exploring these areas as it has a dark comedic strain running through it like the jam of a filmic trifle. It’s strangely touching and scathing simultaneously; an example of this being Sam’s (a pale yet amazing Emma Stone’s) soliloquy about human beings trying to convince themselves that they matter when, truly, they don’t. In this same movie, Riggan also gets trapped in Times Square in just his unders. To say that it is a mixed bag would be an understatement, and it does feel as bizarre as it is dynamic, but it also gels together so well in this jazz drumming-scored exploration of Riggan’s broken mind. Michael Keaton is the best he has ever been in this role that is so parallel to his own life, and he uses it to great effect; both Riggan and his Birdman alter-ego could be his echo, and it’s played wonderfully well as he embraces the bizarreness of it all.

Birdman is a film that will rub a lot of people up the wrong way due to how weird and off key it is – indeed, when I saw it, a lot of people came out asking just what the F it was they had just seen. But that is, ultimately, what makes it glorious. The serious themes and reflection on our own culture and the condition of the entertainer, as well as the dark comedy light that it’s shown in (can you have dark light?), are things that I could write on and on and on about, but I’ll spare you. Suffice to say, director Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu will be heralded for a very long time and this film will be studied in the future, and for good reason too – it’s a modern masterpiece. A demented one, but one nonetheless.

Right then, now onto The Theory of Everything (the film, not my theory on everything – that’s something reserved for psychoanalysts).

The Theory of Everything is the expanded story of Simpsons character Stephen Hawking (HAHAHA, come on that’s a joke, I respect the guy enormously). It of course tells the story of the wonderful Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne in a transformational performance), the world famous scientist who studied at Cambridge in the 60’s, where he met the first love of his life in the form of Jane (Felicity Jones). The film follows their relationship as Stephen’s motor neurone disease causes his body to deteriorate, but also follows him as he defies all expectations and becomes one of the greatest scientists the world has ever known.

A spellbinding central performance by Eddie Redmayne is what causes this to transcend the boundaries of the usual biopic. His cheeky and near constantly optimistic characterisation of Hawking is the star at the centre of this movie, making you care about him pretty much one frame into the movie; this of course makes all the funny bits funnier, the inspiring bits more inspirational and the moving bits more, er, movinger. His portrayal of Stephen as a character as well as the intricacies of his examination of his illness is amazing and a true sign of the ascent of a future star.

Felicity Jones, too, is brilliant; making Jane not only a believable presence but also somebody we constantly root for and empathise with. The affect that Stephen’s illness has on her is also what this film is about, and we feel the tug on her heartstrings too as her life pretty much gets consumed by her brilliant husband. The script too is fantastic in going through Stephen’s life at a faster-than-expected rate, but not feeling rushed or like we are missing anything. Much like The Imitation Game, if you are looking for a science lesson from this then you will be disappointed as it does not really go into Stephen’s science too much; just the gravitas that it has and the reaction it causes in people.

It’s a wonderfully sweet and memorable film that caused me to get a lump in my throat (it wasn’t my adam’s apple, I checked) on quite a few occasions. The cinematography here too is wonderful, with beautiful Cambridgeshire shots illuminated by fireworks and lanterns, and the final shots of the film (as well as the heartbreaking final line) sticking with you for a long time afterwards. The Stephen Hawking biopic is just like the man himself; brilliant, moving and a surprising amount of fun.

Finally, it’s Taken 3 time.

Yes, we get to spend yet more quality time with Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) – the most mundanely named action hero in history. In this instalment of the franchise, ol’ Bry is back living in LA, with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) and his ex-wife Lenore (not to be confused with the detergent of the same name. Oh and played by Famke Jassen) living close by. Everything seems happy for a bit. But, all of a sudden, Bryan is framed for Lenore’s murder and is on the run from the police and, once again, is after (for some reason) some anonymous Russian people. So, er, obviously things aren’t so happy anymore…

In Taken, it was the daughter that was being taken.

In Taken 2, it was the ex-wife that was being taken.

In Taken 3, however, it’s the piss that is being taken…

Even by Taken standards, this film doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. People’s motivations, the “twists” that happen along the way, who random people are in the background who just come in to help from out of nowhere… it’s pretty much completely nonsensical. To make matters worse, it seems to be filmed by a person who has just consumed a barrel of red bull and is riding a skateboard while trying to film what is going on – a lot of it is incoherent, with the camera on numerous occasions actually just completely missing the action altogether. It’s edited by that same person too, who doesn’t seem to want to let more than two frames pass by that are the same – even the forced, “funny” conversational bits at the beginning are shot in this way, which makes them even more annoying than usual. Honestly, those bits are cringe mode activators – Liam Neeson straining a smile through the “what the bloody hell am I doing here?” look.

I’m fine with action films being fun and defying the laws of logic and physics by quite some margin, but the fact is that Taken 3 often commits the worst crime in action blockbuster – being boring. Bryan turns up somewhere, leaving it up to our imagination how he snuck in and out, does something relatively innocuous and then leaves. There are some beat em ups and driving and shooting but that is mainly it. Taken 3, even if you are a Taken fan, is really really quite rubbish.

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.

Nightcrawler, Love Rosie & The Book of Life – Richards Reckons Review

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! No, I am not booing you, but rather I am booing AT you rather like a ghost would. For it is Halloween, and for Halloween, here are the reckonings for, er, one dark drama, a romcom and an animated family adventure. Scary times.

Let’s kick off by trawling through the underbelly of nighttime Los Angeles with Nightcrawler*.

There’s a plot here bleeding and therefore leading (if you’ve seen the trailer, that joke makes a lot of sense and you’re probably laughing literally right now) in this film, and here it is; Lou Bloom (a character not so much played by but inhabited by Jake Gyllenhaal) is an extremely driven, persuasive and somewhat odd young man who is desperate for employment, and isn’t afraid to break the law for money. When he witnesses the aftermath of a car accident on the highway, he notices Joe Loder (the mighty Bill Paxton. More films need more Paxton) filming the wreckage. Lou then becomes intrigued by the world of ‘nightcrawling’; filming ‘exciting’ news stories/crimes/accidents in LA and selling the footage to news outlets. He even takes on an assistant (Riz Ahmed) to help him to do so. But as he gets deeper and deeper, he gets more and more desperate for the big stories, and will go to any means to get them…

To find the heart and soul of this film, we must look to Lou Bloom himself. Lou Bloom (it’s such a fun name to type and say) is an unhinged man desperate for work; always willing to tell everybody who even walks past him his skill set, his passion for work, his flexibility in terms of working hours. In short, Lou Bloom is a twisted, dark reflection of the LinkedIn generation; a walking, talking, near grovelling, gaunt CV. He wants to belong and he wants to be the best at what he does, but he has no idea in what capacity yet. The world of nightcrawling meets his sensibilities for having a twisted eye and the ability to manipulate people to get an end goal. When he does get into a position of vague success and takes on his own “employee”, he spouts back all the stuff he’s heard already about work placements; replicating employment jargon as a power play and to swell his own chest up like a proud owl. The heart and soul of Lou Bloom is that of jealousy, darkness and psychopathy; as is the heart and soul of the film itself.

The weird thing, though, is that somehow I wanted him and the film to be nastier and more twisted. Don’t get me wrong, it deals with some harsh subject matter and events in a darkly, hilariously trivial way (the skewed reality that news shows is made shockingly apparent) but I felt there was a step beyond that they did not go to. Now, this may be because to make Lou any more actively deranged would be too far, but it’s a ledge-beyond-the-edge (not the U2 guitarist) I wouldn’t have minded the film going to. Nonetheless, the protagonist and his scheming is what makes Nightcrawler such a great watch; quite what he’s up to, what he’s going to do next and how he is going to react keeps you guessing the whole way through, dealing with everything with internally ice cold, calculating efficiency. Jake Gyllenhaal is magnetising in this role, and this is, quite rightly, his show. Expect his fashion sense, with camera and nasal speaking voice to be replicated at fancy dress parties for a few years to come.

Nightcrawler* looks magnificent, too; it has an almost Drive like sensibility, with the bright shining city lights illuminating the dark stories unfolding before them, echoing the studio lights in the newsroom. The action is frantic where it needs to be, and the dialogue heavily paid attention to and given its due. The tension really does build in some sequences too, especially in (avoiding a spoiler safari here) a certain scene in somebody’s house. There are some scenes in the movie which feel like they can deflate this growing tension throughout the whole movie, but it’s still there, bubbling under the surface like a small but menacing kettle.

If I were to have small little niggling criticisms, I would say that I had a love/hate, hot/cold Katy Perry style relationship with the score; sometimes its guitars and bombast feel like they work, other times they don’t. The ending was also partially troubling for me too; there are parts I liked about it, but also parts I didn’t. This on/off style relationship I have with these components of course do not mean it’s a bad movie at all; a bad movie would make me flat out hate them.

Overall, however, while I’m not as fanatical about the film as I thought it would be, it’s still a very, very good ride; it keeps you guessing and truly plunges you head first into the world of chasing sirens and getting your hands well and truly dirty. Director Dan Gilroy has a hell of a writer/director debut on his hands with this one, and is rightly getting all the attention it deserves. If you like dark drama (if you don’t you’re pretty screwed at the cinema right now if I’m honest…), then be sure to check Nightcrawler* out as soon as you can.

Now onto romantic fluff-fest which has a confusingly placed comma in its title, Love, Rosie.

 

Love, Rosie (ARGH THAT COMMA) is the story of two friends, one a boy (Alex, played by Sam Claflin) and one a lady (called Rosie, funnily enough, played by Lily Collins – daughter of Phil), who grow up together throughout primary and high school, always juuuust missing out on each other. When she becomes pregnant and he moves away to Boston for university, the two try to keep in touch throughout the various events in their lives, but will they eventually get together and admit their feelings for one another?

You’ll remember when I reviewed The Best of Me only last week, I said it was one of the worst films of the year by far. The key point in that review was that I did not like it not because I am not in its target demographic, but because it was so utterly ridiculous and shambolically written it was insulting towards its target demographic. Once again, I am not in the target demographic for this film; extremely masculine and manly men such as myself aren’t in mind when these films are made. However, Love, Rosie is considerably better for its target audience than The Best of Me in a number of ways.

For a start, it is actually quite funny. Towards the beginning, it has quite a liberal attitude to sex and the uncomfortable parts of it that reflects nicely on screen, making the characters seem genuine and down to earth, despite how ridiculously good looking (read in Zoolander voice) they are. I was actually worried that after his turn as the despicable Alistair in The Riot Club it would be impossible for me to ever like Sam Claflin ever again, but he is a suitably charming but bumbling Hugh Grant figure here. Lily Collins as our central character is, too, an extremely likeable screen presence; you root for her the whole way through. It also has genuine character growth and narrative beats that, while somewhat contrived, do actually logically work and don’t feel all that forced; though that does include several weddings and a funeral (golden events in the romcom rulebook), as well as a level of predictability that can make the audience feel like fortune tellers.

Somewhat bizarrely, the thing I admire about the film is also something that it falls over on quite a few times; the timeframe. This film isn’t set over a summer or a year; it’s actually over several years, spanning to a little over a decade. While I respect the narrative choice to cover this amount of time, the film doesn’t really show much physical or mental progression by either of these characters over these relatively formative years of their young adult lives. The fact that they are and always have been in love is of course the common denominator, but there are no real dramatic changes except in terms of marital status; barely a hair moves on them throughout these years.

So, while contrived and a bit formulaic, this is a perfectly fine British rom com that doesn’t change the romcom rulebook, but sticks by it to good but not amazing effect.Though it does have the best use of Lily Allen’s song “F**k You” I’ve seen in a while, if you’re a romantic comedy fan then you will really enjoy this film; if you don’t, then there’s little to find here that warrants seeing it. Though it does of course tell the lesson that you can’t hurry love, no you’ll just have to wait, she said love don’t come easy… (get it? Because Lily Collins is Phil Collins daughter? And he sang that so- never mind…)

And, finally, we have the Guillermo del Toro produced The Book of Life.

 

Books have plots, and The Book of Life, though it sounds like a vague and sweeping title, is no different. In it, we have the story of two best friends Manolo (Diego Luna) and Joaquin (Channing all over your Tatum), who are both in love with their friend Maria (Zoe Saldana). The rulers of the different underworlds, La Muerte (Kate del Castillo) and Xibalba (Ron Perlman), make a wager with one another as to who Maria will marry; with La Muerte betting on Manolo and Xibalba betting on Joaquin. The boys grow up, but Maria moves away. Upon her return, who will she marry, and which post-death landlord will win the bet?

The story is actually more convoluted than that, bookended by a narrative framing device and also involving a town invaded by bandits, bullfighting, a love of music and a magical macguffin (just like my life, really). There is a LOT going on in this film in terms of story, as well as being based on Mexican beliefs about the afterlife; both concepts that very young children may find hard to grasp. Indeed, it can be quite confusing in some instances. But there is still a lot of fun to be had here once you get past the heavy exposition.

The locations, such as the magical fiesta world of the Land of the Remembered, are wonderfully vibrant and beautifully presented, and there are some fun voice performances (Ice Cube has a surprisingly funny turn) and dynamic dialogue for both kids and adults alike. The spirit of fun runs very deep within the Book of Life, presenting grand ideas such as what happens after we die and the nature of death in a jovial and colourful way rather than a heartbreakingly bleak way; indeed, one character at one point groans of the story “What is it with Mexicans and death?!”. Its look is also surprisingly original too, in a cinematic landscape filled to the brim with different character designs; the Book of Life has its own look and style that separates it from the rest.

In all, The Book of Life is perfect half term fodder; a colourful if exposition heavy and flawed family adventure with vibrant characters, a memorable look and fun dialogue.

*NOT the X-Men mutant

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.

Fury, The Judge & The Best of Me – Richards Reckons Review

A tank, a courtroom and a lakeside house in Nicholas Sparks-land. Just some of the many locations I’ve peered into through the cinema screen this week, like a creep outside a window, or like Gomie from Breaking Bad.

Premierely, let’s kick off (no pun intended. Because ‘kick off’ means get angry and fury mea- never mind…) with Fury.

Fury is not just about a film about being jolly well ticked off; no, it is a war film, where quite a lot of the soldiers are somewhat understandably jolly well ticked off. Here’s the plot;  Sergeant Don “Wardaddy” Collier (Brad “Probably-Killed-The-Most-Amount-of-Onscreen-Nazis-In-The-Last-10-Years” Pitt) is in charge of a Sherman tank nicknamed “Fury” (get it? That’s the name of the film!) and its crew, including Boyd “Bible” Swan (Shia “NOT FAMOUS ANYMORE” LaBeouf), Trini “Gordo” Garcia (Michael “Crash” Pena) and Grady “Coon-Ass” Travis (Jon “Shoot You In The Leg In A School Full of Walkers” Bernthal) as they roll through Nazi occupied Germany in 1945. After their gunner gets shot dead, Norman (Logan Lerman), a typist who has no training apart from the ability to type 60 words in a minute, is enlisted. The film follows the tank and its crew as it ploughs through a muddy and wartorn Germany.

Fury is one of those films that is shot and directed in a way that makes you feel like you are there with the characters; that the fourth wall has been blown up by a tank shell, and you’re in there with them. You feel the claustrophobia of tank life (very different to a fish’s tank life); you can almost smell the blood, sweat, grit and mud coming from the environment (reminds me of Glastonbury, in a way). Director David Ayer has done a fantastic job of making the frame and everything in it seem as raw, gritty and murky as the realities of war. The score adds to this in a strange way by at times making the tale seem almost mythical, with operatic singing and grand anthem-like beats. At some point you will almost definitely check for shells, bullet cases and mud on your seat.

Not only that, but you also feel the sense of danger coming across from the screen too. Make no mistake, this is a film that is absolutely brutal; its raw and frankly generous approach to gore and violence strikes a chord with just how much danger these soldiers are in almost constantly. To go along with this savage world, there are also savage characters; every single member of the tank crew at some point shows both sheer aggression and a crippling vulnerability. The performances by these five men are fantastic and three dimensional; rather than some sort of World War II A Team, they are all scared, and cover up their cowardice with a stiff upper lip and aggression. The relationship between Brad Pitt’s Wardaddy and Logan Lerman’s Norman is the centre of the movie and constantly changes. Norman is the closest thing we have to a protagonist and Lerman portrays him brilliantly, progressing from scared and shellshocked about his gradual descent into hell to covering his fear with, well, Fury, funnily enough.

 

When it wants to be, Fury can be incredibly intense, from its gripping beginning in which Norman is introduced to firing from a tank, right down to its fighting-against-all-the-odds climax. If I was to have a criticism of it, however, I would say that there is a definite sag in the middle. There is a sequence in the middle  set in a German house which feels like it goes on for a bit too long and adds little in terms of character development for being that long; it’s a nice touch, but breaks the tension somewhat with a limp, and leaves you wanting them to get back into the tank again.

Fury won’t be for everybody; the brutality of the violence and its characters, along with a strange dichotomy between what seems like ultra realistic and movie-like nature of war, may put people off; but if it’s a tense descent into the hellish landscape of World War II you’re after, look no further.

Next up, my verdit (LOLZ) on legal family drama The Judge.

ORDER! ORDER! *Bangs little gavel thing*. The Judge has been sentenced as a film with a plot, and that plot is this; Defence lawyer Hank Palmer (Robert Downey Jr.) makes a living out of getting slippery bastards out of jail sentences in court rooms in Chicago. One day, while doing just that, he gets a phonecall saying his mother has unfortunately passed away. He goes to the funeral in his old hometown of Carlinville, where he meets his brothers Glen (Vincent D’Onofrio) and Dale (Jeremy Strong), as well as his father Judge Joseph Palmer (Robert Duvall), with whom he has a very bitter relationship. The next day, Judge Palmer is accused of killing a man with his car in the night, which he can’t remember doing and, after some persuasion, it’s up to Hank to defend him.

What I’ve done there with that handy plot summary is include all the plot threads that actually matter, because the main issue with The Judge is that there are far too many going on, slithering through the main tree trunk of the story like vines that don’t go anywhere or get resolved properly. It’s a shame really, as this drags the rest of the film down; worst of all affected by this is Vera Farmiga, who is restricted in a role as an ex-girlfriend of Hank’s who appears now and again to service a romantic subplot that feels extremely unnecessary. She is, however, as brilliant as always, even in this tight role which leaves very little wiggle room. The show is very much the Roberts’ (Downey Jr. and Duvall), as all other characters fade into obscurity in the background, and not really contributing all that much; despite being introduced as if they might.

The Roberts however are both brilliant and utterly watchable together. Their constant bickering with each other and attempting to one-up one another almost constantly in arguments is fascinating to watch, and you’re desperate to find out the history behind it; indeed, so is Hank really. Watching Downey Jr. in a courtroom setting is also great fun, as he is able to play the charismatic lawyer Hank very well (with definite shades of Tony Stark about him; although it is hard to see where Tony Stark ends and Robert Downey Jr begins…). There are indeed some touching and emotion-fuelled scenes between the two of them throughout; a highlight being a very well handled scene where the parent-child relationship is reversed.

However, I felt there was a lack of redemption towards the end of the story between these two characters. It’s a shame as you feel a real lack of closure between them in the end, even though it was building up so well using courtroom scene devices. The reasoning behind the bitterness in their relationship doesn’t really feel strong enough to warrant the aggression within them either, which does not help the feeling of lack of payoff in the climax (come on, grow up).

Overall, there really is a great film in The Judge somewhere; however some trimming of narrative fat, development of characters (and more Billy Bob Thornton too please! Love me some Lorne Malvo) and a better payoff would have helped in spades. It’s a good film, don’t get me wrong; however these aspects really do inhibit it from becoming a great one.

Finally, saving the, er, best til last, comes The Best of Me.

The Best of Me is another movie from the shiny, sunset-tinted white-heterosexuals-falling-in-love world of Nicholas Sparks, which goes a little something like this (stop me if you’ve heard this one before); Dawson (James Marsden and, no, not the one off of the Creek) and Amanda (Michelle Monaghan) fell in love when they were teenagers (when they had the faces of the completely different looking Luke Bracey and Liana Liberato), but due to circumstance drifted apart and worked on an oil rig/got married and had a child (delete where appropriate). 21 years later, they are both summoned back to their hometown after an old friend of theirs dies and, guess what, explore what happened with their relationship (luckily in chronological order so it makes sense for the audience, thanks guys!).

Okay, so I should probably go ahead and say it; The Best of Me is one of the worst films I’ve seen this year. Now, this is not necessarily because it is a romantic drama film from the land of Nicholas Sparks that I am almost definitely not the target audience for; it would be silly of me to dismiss it for that reason. No, there are a plethora of reasons as to why this film is so genuinely, laughably terrible.

 

First of all, it is clichè ridden within an inch of its life. Just think about all the things that are romantic film staples that almost never happen in real life ever; constantly tickling each other, check; knocking at the window in the middle of the night in the pouring rain, check; communicating through written letters, check; defying parents wishes to see each other, check. It also attempts pathos through absolutely pathetic, stock dialogue straight from the “sugary” shelf; an example of this is “how can you ask me to fall in love with you again when I never stopped?!”. Ugh. When it does attempt grit (and, UNBELIEVABLY, it does, through a subplot involving Dawson’s drug dealing biker gang father who looks hilariously like my old landlord), it just feels so stupid, with no threat whatsoever.

But the sugary romance wasn’t truly why I disliked it really; it was mainly because of its absolutely mindblowingly stupid narrative beats that are forced in there in a ludicrous attempt at sentimentality. Not only do these defy logic, but they defy basic storytelling rules AND, in one instance, the laws of physics themselves. These build and build and pile on top on one another like a mass grave of common sense, and are basically there to try to add something more to the admittedly limp and boring story. I’d love to go into a few of these events, but however I can’t due to wanting to avoid a spoiler safari; but needless to say, one “twist” towards the end literally made me, and I do not condone this, whisper “OH F*CK OFF” at the screen in frustration.

Not only all of this, but also the performances aren’t even that good either. Michelle Monaghan and James Marsden don’t even really seem to be trying; James with an understandably constant look of “god why did I agree to this?” on his face as he stumbles through the narrative. Their romance as the adult versions of these characters feels utterly unconvincing too, meaning the building block of the whole film doesn’t really feel stable; prompting even more collapse, like a really shit Jenga block made of sugar and inconsistencies. The teenage co-stars are actually better than the main billed stars, with their relationship feeling less forced and strained. The cinematography is at times beautiful, but, with some very questionable editing choices, that alone is unfortunately nowhere near enough to save this film.

The Best of Me was not aimed at me, of course, but it is frankly incredibly insulting to its target demographic. If you’re a Nicholas Sparks completist, by all means, go for it; but I think you too will feel the way I did. Please avoid this unless you fancy your intelligence being offended.

’71 – Richards Reckons Review

In case you haven’t heard of it, ’71 is not the sequel to a film called ’70, nor a prequel to a film called ’72. It isn’t even the 70th sequel to a film called ’01. Only the Saw movies are really in danger of getting to that level of trigger happy sequelitus.

Nay, ’71 is a standlone British film with a plot, that plot being this; soldier Gary Hook (Jack O’Connell, who played a cook on Skins once, apparently) is deployed into Belfast at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. During what’s meant to be a relatively easy mission escorting the police to raid people’s houses, the streets descend into riots, and Gary gets inadvertently left behind while trying to recover a stolen weapon from a child. He’s then chased throughout the Belfast streets by local gang factions who hate soldiers and have taken over; desperate to get back to his barracks.

It’s genuinely quite hard to type up this review because my fingers are so sore. Why are they sore, I hear you cry? Because during the screening of ’71 I was quite literally doing some serious nailbiting. Though it’s set in a period of time that (disturbingly) actually happened, ’71 has a nightmarish quality to it; taking place in an urban hell where Gary is not safe at any time. He is chased almost constantly through this hellscape with only a few reprieves; being chased is a fear that is instilled within us all since we were kids (especially by clowns at 5th birthday parties. Just me?), regardless of the quasi-political/religious reasons for it, and is why ’71 succeeds in being so tense and, at times, scary.

Jack O’Connell brings real gravitas to this central role, playing incredibly tough but simultaneously incredibly confused and scared of his surroundings that he does not understand. It would have been incredibly easy to make Gary Hook into a John McClane style character who is near invincible and incredibly capable in this fish-out-of-water (with less flapping and less suffocation and probably a better smell) situation, but the film steers away from that; he breaks down in tears at once point due to the pressure and is incredibly vulnerable at almost every stage. It adds to the realistic tone and, with the lack of the normal action hero figure, makes you feel more scared for them.

The film feels incredibly raw and unpolished, with shaky cameras adding to the feel of realism and incredibly fast movement, but at the same time has a nightmarish surrealist quality which taps into innate human fears. At times, it can descend into feeling like a horror film/survival horror videogame, with Hook being pursued by almost everybody all the time and having almost nothing to defend himself with.

If I was to have one complaint about the film, it’s that the army corruption subplot involving Captain Browning (Sean Harris, proceeding to be terrifying in every role he’s ever in ever) feels somewhat unnecessary and actually detracts away from the initial fear of Hook himself. It feels a bit like the writers are trying to make a point about the army and the Troubles that does not quite fit with the rest of the film.

Otherwise, ’71 will absolutely make your buttocks and fingers hurt from all the biting and clenching (you can decide which verb matches which noun) for all of its raw, sheer tension and a fantastically disorientated central performance by Jack O’Connell. See while you can.

New look and new Facebook page!

I’m sure you can see the wonderful new image up the top there, but if not; look at that new image at the top up there! Lovely.

If you’ve been enjoying any of the reviews please give the page a like and show your support – plus you’ll get some exclusive content!*

Page link is here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Richards-Reckons/1489433354641071

*probably

Annabelle, The Maze Runner & Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles – Richards Reckons Reviews

What connects a group of mutated martial arts reptiles, a deadly post apocalyptic maze and a haunted demonic doll? Literally nothing; except the fact that today, you’ll find out what Richards Reckoned about ALL OF THEM.

First up, some creepy goings-on with Annabelle.

*Shiver*

So, Annabelle isn’t just your average doll; she’s a doll with a plot. Her plot is this; in the late 1960’s, husband and wife John and Mia (Ward Horton and Annabelle Wallis – heheh, irony…) are expecting a baby. Mia loves dolls, so John buys her a absolutely f*cking hideous beautiful, rare doll she’s been looking for to add to her collection. That night, a couple of Satanists kill the couple next door and then try to kill them (don’t you just hate it when that happens?), with the female Satanist taking a particular liking to said doll; her blood even drops on it after she’s killed herself, and what other sign of affection is stronger than that? After some particularly creepy events at the house, they throw the doll away and move away after the birth of their daughter Lea. But Annabelle the doll turns up yet again, and they decide to keep her for reasons that are absolutely beyond me; it’s then that the paranormal activity ramps up to insane levels, and Mia must find out what the hell is going on (no pun intended).

Annabelle is a prequel spin-off to last year’s The Conjuring, which was very successful in scaring the living daylights out of most people that saw it. I saw The Conjuring with a group of friends of mine sat in a front room; in contrast, I saw Annabelle in a pretty packed out screening in the cinema. Both of these are ideal environments to watch horror films; in particular Annabelle, because observing and laughing at some of the audience’s reactions are more entertaining than the film itself. The collective groan from the audience when we first saw the doll in her apparently beautiful form was laughable; akin to the noise a parent would make after witnessing their toddler disgrace themselves on the floor of an Asda supermarket. The screams and massive overreactions to the 1000 jump scares are also pretty fun too. So, if you were to see this, I would recommend going to a packed out showing to see it.

On the other side of the screen, Annabelle really has not got much going for it. There is nothing unique, new or special about it whatsoever; every single sequence and scare we have all seen before, and done considerably better at that. Like many horror films of late, Annabelle relies purely on the patented “Quiet-Quiet-Quiet-Quiet-Quiet-LOUD NOISE” jumpscare technique and slowly zooming in on the inanimate face of the admittedly creepy doll to frighten people more than anything truly disturbing of memorable. That is, apart from one scene which really gave me the willies (stop laughing) set in a basement with elevator doors; hats off for that sequence as it did weird me out, but everything else is just half a second jolts.

The scenes in between these scares too are boring; populated with flat characters who make really, really stupid decisions (leaving a baby alone on the top floor apartment while you go to the basement when there’s a demon following it about? REALLY, MIA?!) and just spout out tired, recycled dialogue from other films. My cinema-going companion (who shall remain nameless unless he wants to be named) got so bored of the film he (and I do not condone this behaviour) started reading the Wikipedia article of the plot; READING the plot on Wikipedia was more entertaining for him than actually WATCHING it play out. There was what looked like a particularly gruesome, cruel and heartbreaking twist coming towards the end – which the film would have had serious cojones for having – but it backs out of it almost straight away; which stinks of studio interference.

In all, Annabelle is jumpy and at times slightly creepy but almost entirely unoriginal. There are a few well orchestrated jumpscares in there, but with a drab plot, there’s nothing more.

Now for some running around mazes like a frantic Crystal Maze contestant with The Maze Runner.

The Maze Runner needs a plot in order to keep on running, and here is that plot; Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) wakes up in a box rocketing upwards through a shaft. When he gets to the top, he’s surrounded by other young men; he soon finds out he has entered the Glade, an area of woodland where a community of young chaps live. It’s surrounded by a huge maze, the gates of which open and close every night mysteriously. Despite having groups known as “runners” to investigate the maze during the day, the Gladers know nothing about it, except that it’s dangerous due to its population of large cyborg spiders. When a young woman (Kaya Scodelario) comes up through the box one day, everything starts to change…

If the thought of young adults fighting for their lives in a dystopian post-apocalyptic-event style world sounds familiar to you, then congratulations – you’ve been alive for the past few years. Apocalypse seems to be the new black these days when it comes to the cinema, especially focussed around young people; see The Hunger Games, Divergent & The Giver. Soon enough, Topshop will start selling blood stained cravats and slightly dirty, torn jackets if this trend carries on. But yes, it’s one of the flavours of the day, which why this adaptation coming out right about now totally makes sense. But how does it fare in comparison with the others?

Well, The Maze Runner (which is Richard O’Brien’s nickname – kudos if you get that joke) is a welcome addition to this subgenre, but perhaps isn’t the most memorable. There are some good performances here; especially from Will Poulter playing the institutionalised Gally (the closest we come to an in-Glade villain) and Thomas Brodie-Sangster as Newt – both of whom clash when the vacancy of the Glade leader opens up. Several characters are just exposition machines and catalysts; unfortunately, Thomas himself can fit into this category, as well as Kaya Scodelario’s Teresa, who as the only girl in the film really is given nothing to do. The threat of the maze itself and its Griever occupants (which look like a mix between one of Sid’s toys from Toy Story and a rogue animatronic from an arachnid theme park ride) is well presented and woven into the tale nicely with intrigue as well as dread.

The problem with the Maze Runner primarily is the plot and the level of mystery it sets up. Right from the offset you’re thinking “well, this is certainly an interesting set up, I wonder how they got into THIS one” – constantly questioning how or why this is happening, ramping up the intrigue with every single mysterious item uncovered or circumstance altered. Now, I have no problem with this; I do it all the time when I meet people, making myself seem like an international man of mystery, and therefore far more exciting than I already am. The problem comes when these mysteries and questions about the universe in which the film is set are never answered properly nor satisfactorily; coming straight from the Lost school of answering questions with more questions until your audience turns into a bunch of Inspector Morses screaming that they demand answers, damnit!

So overall, The Maze Runner pales in comparison to something like The Hunger Games (with one emotional beat which is almost a carbon copy of something that happens in said Games, except nowhere near as moving), but has enough going for it in its chase sequences and Lord of the Flies-esque set up, and is interesting enough to be worth a watch, if not just to see some rising British stars in action.

And finally, to complete our menage-a-trois (though what an awful thought that is), it’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

So, as you may have guessed, these Turts have a plot under their shell, and here is it; April O’Neil (Megan Fox) is a reporter at Channel 6 news, stuck with doing rubbish throwaway cheerful stories with her cameraman Vern (Will Arnett) when really she wants to research the spate of crime by the villainous “Foot clan” around New York. When she (pretty much purposefully) gets taken hostage by some “foot” soldiers (haha… ha), she is rescued by some mysterious vigilante figures, who she then follows; it turns out they are four six-foot mutated turtles, who are also ninjas and teenagers – Donatello, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Leonardo. The five of them are then caught up with a plot involving the villainous Foot clan trying to release toxins into New York city.

I’ll hold my hand up and admit; my expectation phasers were set to “very low” before I went into this, even though I try to keep an open mind. Firstly, Michael Bay’s name was attached to the project as producer, which considering his recent work with the Transformers franchise (another American childhood favourite), was a bit of a death knell. I also didn’t have the nostalgia factor particularly going for me as my childhood was relatively turtle-free, except for an incident at Colchester Zoo that I’d rather not go into. I went into this movie thinking it was going to be really, really terrible.

But, in fairness, I didn’t think it was terrible. Well, not as terrible as I first presumed anyway; it’s certainly better than any Transformers sequel. It’s not a great, or barely even good movie but to call it outright terrible would be somewhat dismissive of some of its better qualities.

Firstly, its humour can be a bit childish in areas considering it’s a 12A rated film; which is great for kids, as it gave them something to laugh at (and they did, unapologetically), but anybody older than 9 may not find every single joke funny. There are also a couple of jokes particularly to do with objectifying Megan Fox which feel somewhat uncomfortable – but only a couple. It’s almost like that’s in Michael Bay’s contract for every film that she’s in; that she must be demeaned in some way at least once. Otherwise, some of the turtle wisecracks can be worth a small chuckle or two, as well as Will Arnett generally being Will Arnett and therefore being funny, but it is in no way pant-wettingly hilarious for anybody at any age.

Some of the action sequences too are more entertaining than others. Parts feel a bit run of the mill and crafted out of offcuts from other movies, but nevertheless quite fun; although nothing striking or memorable. There’s a hell of a lot of nearly-falling-off-things as well (seriously, count it, it’s mad). Director Jonathan Liebesman also makes the common mistake of confusing incoherence with fast pace; sometimes the action scenes are very disorientating and hard to follow. On the subject of hard to follow, the plot relies almost entirely on coincidence in most areas; including a reworking of the turtles’ origin story to make them closer to protagonist April, which feels entirely unnecessary and a desperate attempt to create another bond between two sets of characters. The villain’s ultimate plot also makes no sense at all, with Silver Samurai  Shredder being about as charismatic as a brick as the main baddie, but considering we’re looking at four giant turtles and a sensei who is a mutated mouse, you can kind of forgive that.

Overall, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is generally not that great, with a “because destiny!” focussed plot and gags that can fall a bit flat. But with some slick VFX and quite relatable turtle heroes, it’s not overtly, offensively terrible either. This is one for families with kids more than the average moviegoer as it struggles to provide something for all the family; just make sure you if you do go, you leave your brain at the door before you observe the cartoonish idiocy.

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.