Fantastic Four – Richards Reckons Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifty Shades of Grey – Richards Reckons Review

Fifty Shades of Grey is a cultural phenomenon. Whether you’ve read the book or not (and whether you can admit that you’ve read it or you’re one of those “oh my FRIEND has read it” people), everybody has heard of it and has at least a general idea what it’s about – girl meets rich man who is into BDSM and other kinky little ventures. It sounds saucy with a dash of “oh blimey” and a pinch of “ooh matron” if you’re that was inclined; a sex and lust fuelled erotic romp that took the world by storm, with women (and indeed some men) proclaiming from the rooftops that they were waiting for “their Mr Grey” because he’s “the perfect man”. So when a film adaptation of this sultry collection of bound tree shavings was announced, the world went mad – some with anticipation, some with dread. But how is the end product?

Just in case you want more of the plot, here it is; the superhero/secret-agent-ish-named Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) is an English Literature student who one day fills in for her sick roommate by going to interview extremely wealthy businessman Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). After their initial meeting, Grey appears at the hardware store where she works (like a stalkery, well dressed vampire), and arranges a photoshoot and then coffee. After he finds her acceptable, he asks her to sign a contract; the deal being that she is essentially his submissive sexual slave to be bound up and have his way with her whenever she pleases, and in return she gets, in his words (well, word), “him”. And a nice room with big windows. But is that enough, and will Ana find a “normal” relationship within Christian’s grasp?

Before I get to anything else, I’ll say this; for a film all about lust, urges and sexual relations of the kinky kind, Fifty Shades of Grey really quite boring.

It’s dull. It starts out with really hamfisted bantering between the two ladened with innuendo that is as subtle as an aeroplane with a banner saying “THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX IN THIS FILM!!!!!”. There’s a similar approach to metaphoric imagery – Ana with a Christian Grey pencil near her lips and mouth (essentially that aeroplane again saying “IT’S A SUBSTITUTE PENIS!!!”); Ana quite literally getting wet in the rain after seeing Christian for the first time (that aeroplane again saying… well, I don’t really need to explain that). It’s all a bit in your face, really, preluding what’s to come. When they do come, the sex scenes are few and far between, and when they’re there they lack impact; they’re actually ironically quite constrained, as if THEY’VE been bound and gagged too. All the action seems to happen in the peripheral vision of the camera, and while it’s cut nicely it’s not exactly… exciting, really. I also find it bizarre that the film so liberally shows female nudity but not male – it’s peenophobic, if you will. That’s usually the case but with a film about such sexual freedom it seems so contradictory and bizarre. So if you’re looking for fun or gratification from those scenes, then you won’t find it.

Secondly, there’s little to no chemistry at all between the two leads. Ana seems to do this weird and annoying thing I’ve rarely come across in real life where if Christian Grey blinks or exhales carbon dioxide towards her she seems to automatically bite her lip and have a small sensual reaction to it akin to a When Harry Met Sally scene; maybe either 1) she’s actually got some sort of hyper-orgasmic allergic reaction to his musk or 2) the writers are trying to use it as some sort of shortcut to electricity between them, which doesn’t work. Dakota Johnson, coincidentally, is the best thing about the film – bringing a lot of vulnerability as well as power to the main role.

She doesn’t have a lot to work with here either, with the dialogue being so unbelievably poor that I sighed at a lot of lines. This is almost definitely due to the original author, EL James, being present on set and vetoing any kind of diversion away from the (legendarily poorly written) source material. There are a couple of lines that get laughs that you can just tell are additions because they add spark. When Jamie Dornan is forced to say things like “I don’t make love. I f*ck… hard”, “laters baby” and “I’m fifty shades of f*cked up” (get it? It’s ALMOST the movie title!) it gets giggles more than swoons because of just how badly worded it is, bordering on parody. It doesn’t help either that Jamie Dornan doesn’t really seem like he’s trying with Christian at all – he has money, sure, and is into BDSM (Grey that is, not Dornan, I don’t know him that well), but he has little to no personality whatsoever as Christian Grey.

Which finally brings me to perhaps my biggest problem with the film; Christian Grey himself. He’s a big part of the film, what with his name being in the ruddy title and all. He’s presented as this loveable dreamboat of a man who has it all; money, looks, a nice body (if that’s what you’re into)… more money. But he lacks a personality – and, more than that, his behaviour is absolutely abhorrent. He’s a possessive stalker who just “turns up” where Ana is (whether it’s her workplace, a nightclub, HER HOME or in ANOTHER STATE) as if he’s apparated there (probably from Knockturn Alley) without her consent and often demands sex from her; he physically fights off any other male who even talks to her; he, through the contract, restrains her from her own free will – not letting her drink or eat or go where she wants without his permission. And all of this is presented as if it’s like a charming quirk and part of the BDSM – which it is NOT, at all. It makes his behaviour seem acceptable rather than what it is; creepy, horrifying and abusive.

In summary (or TLDR as the kids say), while it looks good (props to director Sam Taylor-Johnson for trying her hardest from the source material) and nicely monochromatic and has an admittedly very good soundtrack (Beyonce and Haim’s turns are particularly good), Fifty Shades of Grey is a dull and often creepy piece of work featuring two main characters who have no chemistry and varying levels of quality in their performances (Johnson good, Dornan not so). You get the feeling that this is the best they could have gotten without rewriting the dialogue from the source (which they would have done if it weren’t for EL James), but it’s still not enough to leave the target audience or myself satisfied.

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.

Guardians of the Galaxy – Richards Reckons Review

OOGA CHAKA OOGA OOGA OOGA CHAKA

There’s no doubt that this was Marvel’s riskiest venture yet. A big budget filmed based on a relatively unknown comic book series filled with relatively unknown characters and relatively unknown locations? IN THIS DAY AND AGE? ARE YOU INSANE? THAT’S ALMOST AN ORIGINAL IDEA! When those characters are almost all rogues in some way, and with one a raccoon and one a tree, there was plenty of insanity and uncertainty at the heart of this project.

Guardians of the Galaxy tells the tale of Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), a kid of the 80’s who gets abducted by a spaceship (I now cannot type or say the word spaceship without thinking of Benny from The Lego Movie) after his mother tragically dies of cancer. Over 20 years later, he steals a precious orb Indiana-Jones-style from an abandoned planet, without realising quite how powerful it is and who is after it (namely Ronan The Accuser, a Kree terrorist, played by Lee Pace). Through circumstance, he is thrown together and forced to join forces with a rag-tag group of upstarts; including Gamora (Zoe Saldana, making the leap from blue skin to green), an assassin desperate to rectify her ways; Drax “The Destroyer (Dave Batista), a thug fuelled by vengeance and a very literal understanding of metaphors; Rocket (Bradley Cooper. Yes, really), a genetically engineered, fast-talking raccoon creature with a love of firearms, and Groot (Vin Diesel), a sensitive, sentient tree creature with a restricted vocabulary.

As I previously mentioned, this project inherently has risk at its heart. Risk normally has two outcomes, either resounding success or crashing and burning, Busted style. And what is obvious from very early on with Guardians is that it is most definitely the first one.

First things first (I’m the realist), this movie looks phenomenal. Every single frame looks like it has been rendered and pored over with precision and artistic flair, especially with the varying locations – from the shady, steampunk markets of Knowhere (a floating head of a dead celestial, fact fans) to the shiny, modern utopia of Xandar (home of space policemen the Nova Corps; once again, for those fact fans). The galaxy itself looks beautiful, and the different spaceships (oop, there’s Benny again) have enough character to them that you can tell the difference. This movie also involves a lot of motion capture and digital effects for obvious reasons (a real life talking tree wasn’t available at time of shooting), and it doesn’t look cartoonish at any point; you can count the individual hairs and whiskers on Rocket’s face (not literally, nobody has that amount of time, not even me) and can get a real sense of the emotion he’s feeling at any given point (mostly rage). The special effects too look fantastic in every setpiece – the combination of practical and digital effect really does make a lot of difference and a great sheen. The five hours of makeup that Dave Batista, Zoe Saldana, Lee Pace, Karen Gillan and Lee Pace had to endure every day of shooting pays off in dividends – the practical application of makeup rather than the use of CGI makes their appearances more authentic and believable.

The Guardians did not have the freedom the Avengers had to have their own individual movies for us to get to know them all before banding together, so there was an additional challenge here to not only to try and give an equal amount of screen time to each hero, but also introduce them all in an effective way and, actually, the film succeeds in this department. All the Guardians are given three dimensions, and none of them are a caricature simply of their appearance – we for the most part discover their motivations and their character, and it never seems to be crowbarred in in a deliberately expositional way either.

In fact, at times, when it needs to be, Guardians can actually be quite poignant – from its heartbreaking pre-title sequence, you would never think that it becomes the hilarious movie it is. It storms through the six laugh test more easily than many comedy films do; with wordplay and physical comedy everywhere to be found. Its writing is slick and the conversing/sparring between the group really lead to some great lines, with the surprise comedic gem being Drax – lines such as “don’t ever call me a thesaurus” and “I am NOT a princess” are delivered with a brilliant sense of comedic timing and will stick around in pop culture for a long time to come.

Yes, there are very minor plot holes, and the villains are once again not as memorable as the heroes (that said, they do the best with what they’re given), but it’s such an exhilarating and fun ride you just don’t care about those kinds of things. The soundtrack too is fantastic – from the “Awesome Mix Vol. 1” cassette tape of 70s and 80s earworms to the synth/orchestral hybrids that almost commentate on the action. Every actor in this is firing on all cylinders without it seeing campy; Chris Pratt is especially charismatic and remains a magnetic screen presence, while Zoe Saldana provides a great conflicted performance in the form of Gamora. Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel put everything into their voice performances and help to really animate (no pun intended. Ah who am I kidding, of course it was) their characters, who are destined to be fan favourites; but it’s Dave Batista here who is the real surprise, with his comic timing and depth into a truly troubled character.

The Guardians are destined to be remembered for a long time as icons of popular culture. For me, it encapsulates part of why I love cinema; pure, ridiculous, escapism. I’m looking forward to seeing it mould with the other Marvel films later on, but in the mean time, make no mistake – Marvel is still the supremo when it comes to summer blockbusters.