Review of the Year

 
Annually resentive.
 

2013 (2013)

2013

I don’t know about you, but I’ve always been fascinated by the passage of time and years in particular. Nothing has the ability to move us like years do- they can make us laugh, cry, get angry, practically anything on our emotional spectrum. Thing is, I wasn’t looking forward to the now annual sequels to the series-wide reboot 2000 back at the start of the millennium. 2012 didn’t do much for me and so I felt 2013 wasn’t going to be much better. I was both fantastically right and stunningly wrong.

Featuring the biggest cast list in recent memory (around 7 billion), ranging from Hollywood A-Listers to Joe Pleb from down the street, 2013 had a lot of weight on its shoulders. My personal casting highlights were the people I love and like, who made the punishing runtime somewhat bearable. There were also complete arseholes thrown into the mix, who have no idea how to act properly and seemed to be purely there to fuck with peoples’ enjoyment of the experience. Maybe it’s because I’ve seen enough of this series to become slightly jaded, but there seemed to be more of these arsehole characters about than the other type. I especially noticed a theme of selfishness and blinkered self-preservation running through the populace, which troubled me. I hope it doesn’t become a series hallmark as that would be a great shame. I would take this opportunity to review myself as I had a bit part in proceedings, but I feel that after dismissing about 99.999 (recurring)% of the cast, that would be rather gauche.

My biggest problem with 2013 was its tone. It just didn’t know what it wanted to be. There were births, deaths, marriages, divorces, trips to McDonalds, vicious street beatings, sport, natural disasters, human kindness, love, hate, orgies, papercuts and a whole host of other things going on. It started to hurt my head after a while. As selfish and narcissistic as this may sound, I only managed to retain my sanity by concentrating on the little bit I was in, but even that seemed overwhelming at times. As I mentioned before, the total runtime was a serious problem and I felt myself physically ageing during the proceeds. The writing was either brilliant or poor, depending on what bits you focused on. For instance, somebody thought it was funny to call my character a “fat cunt”, which I’m sure you’ll agree has no wit or creative spark to it whatsoever. Undoubtedly, there are some people that find that stuff funny, but it wasn’t for me.

I suppose 2013 is a divisive one. When it comes down to it, your opinion will differ massively depending on the bits you focused on. It’s completely subjective and as such, kind of pointless to review, unless it takes the form of a weird joke posted out of boredom. As a result, I’m not sure what to give it. Still, even if you loved it, there’s no harm in wishing for the sequel to be better. Here’s hoping. Anyway, Happy New Year from The Popcorn Bucket.

to

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

 
Bored of the things.
 

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Here we are. Last big review of 2013. I know I’m a few weeks late on this one, but I was saving Desolation of Smaug for a big IMAX viewing. As always with big seatfillers like this, there have been loud voices on both sides, either shouting its praises from the rooftops or decrying it as the disappointing prequel trilogy for the millennial generation. If you’ve read my review of An Unexpected Journey, you’ll know that whilst I rated the first film, I had my reservations of how the series as a whole was going to play out. Tell you what, it’s a horrible feeling when your fears are confirmed.

“I did not come to steal from you, O Smaug the Unassessably Wealthy. I merely wanted to gaze upon your magnificence, to see if you were as great as the old tales say. I did not believe them.”

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and the rest of their motley dwarven crew are still on their quest to restablish Oakenshield as the rightful King of Erebor, with the gang requiring Bilbo and his sneaky hobbittyness to find the Arkenstone, a mythical gem that will reunite the dwarves. The fellowship encounter the Elves and fan-favourite Legolas (Orlando Bloom) returns to the series, accompanied by new character Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly). Only problem is that the fire-breathing dragon Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) guards the treasure horde where the stone is to be found. For a film called “The Hobbit”, the film doesn’t seem very interested in Bilbo this time round, choosing instead to focus on Thorin’s plight and Gandalf hobbling around doing magical shit.One of my problems with the first Hobbit was that Freeman’s Bilbo was a more complete character than the wide-eyed Frodo so you really felt it when he was sidelined and underused. DoS takes this a step further, having long stretches where he isn’t doing much and becomes a poorer film for it. As with the first film, things are padded to buggery, with every subplot and side quest given the same focus as the main narrative. The cast are fine, with Freeman still impressing as Bilbo. I even liked the film-fabricated Tauriel, with Evangeline Lilly doing well as what could have been an eye-rolling attempt at a kick-ass female. The little love triangle between her, Legolas and the only other conventionally attractive dwarf Kili (Aidan Turner) is pretty decently done, all things considered.

It’s hard to not be at least slightly disappointed with Desolation of Smaug. It’s not a disaster, but it’s not great either. I had my misgivings about the decision to turn The Hobbit into a trilogy of Lord of the Rings lite films and that’s still a problem. The Hobbit is a kids’ book. It’s nowhere near the epic that Lord of the Rings was. Put simply, this film is only tangentially related to the source book. It ain’t Tolkien’s Hobbit. Taking damn near nine hours to tell a simple tale is bad storytelling, plain and simple. Imagine if your Mum or Dad took hours to read you a bedtime fairytale as a kid, telling you the origins of every single little thing and making up plot additions on the spot. It would be a very unsatisfying experience and you wouldn’t fall asleep with a smile on your face, safe in the knowledge that the good guys won and the bad guys were defeated. It’s basically the same here. I remember seeing The Two Towers and being frustrated that I had to wait a whole damn year for the next part. Now, I really don’t care as much. I’ll see it, but it feels like more of an obligation rather than an anticipated experience.

People have been arguing that these Hobbit films shouldn’t be compared to Lord of the Rings, but I can’t see that argument at all. The fucking films want you to think of LotR throughout, with the same characters appearing regardless of whether they were in the book or not, little references to the original trilogy and so on. One of my problems with the first one is that it seemed scared to be taken on its own merit, using the love that people had for the existing series to justify its own existence. Thankfully, that whole “accept me!” vibe isn’t as full-on as it was, but it’s still there. Prime example being Gandalf discovering the empty tombs of the Ringwraiths. It’s just needless busywork for his character to be getting on with. It doesn’t add anything other than another tenuous link to LotR. It reminds me of George Lucas’ desperate attempts to link his prequel trilogy to the original Star Wars films, forcing thematic links and parallel scenes on audiences until they couldn’t take any more. Don’t get me wrong- Jackson, Fran Walsh and the team aren’t anywhere near that bad, but they’re teetering at the top of same slippery slope.

I still think Peter Jackson and his team are bloody brilliant. Despite all the crippling compromises, DoS does manage to be entertaining in fits and starts. There are some real stand-out action bits and some slick character interactions. The world building is just as good as it ever was. Laketown is a treat and has the added bonus of having Stephen Fry popping up as mayor. The same care and attention to detail that permeated the original trilogy is still there, but it’s in service of a baggy, unfocused story that insists on making a (lonely) mountain out of a molehill. There’s nothing here to really rival the first film’s “Gollum riddles” scene, but Bilbo’s scenes with Smaug are enjoyable, even though they’re stretched out longer than they need to be (noticing a pattern?) The one scene that everyone’s talking about is the barrel sequence where Bilbo and the dwarves escape imprisonment by taking a barrel ride down a raging river whilst pursued by angry orcs. It’s a hell of a lot of fun and the action is innovative and entertaining. It certainly comes at the right time in the story as my attention was flagging at that point, but it won me round. It feels fresh and exciting, which is something the film needed more of. Most of the other action bits we’ve seen before. Spiders? Well, we had the intense Shelob bit in Return of the King. Swordfights with orcs? All the films up until this point. Legolas being a badass archer whilst simultaneously looking like he’s advertising hair products? You get the picture. Also he skateboards on stuff more, as if to try and make that awesome but ludicrous bit in Two Towers sit better.

“Dragonfire and ruin, that is what you’ll bring upon us! He cannot not see beyond his own desire!”

Truth be told, I walked away from Desolation of Smaug deflated. I’m no expert on the book, but by my calculations, there’s not much more of it to go, so the third film might contain even more padding and treading water. It’s overlong and stretched too thin. Whilst I consider the extended versions of Lord of the Rings to be the definitive ones, I’m looking forward to the inevitable fan edit of this trilogy that whittles down all the bullshit into a solid tale about Bilbo Baggins.

Pain & Gain

 
Lame & Shame
 

Pain & Gain (2013)

Like a fly to shit, I always get incredibly curious when there’s a bad buzz about a film. It would be an understatement to say that there has been some dung flung around this one, with it appearing on several “worst of the year” lists. Michael Bay’s name has become synonymous with low-brow lunkhead pandering and sickening excess and with mostly good reason. I’ve spoken about it many times, but I often find myself speaking up for the guy. I really enjoy the Bad Boys films, I love The Rock, I don’t mind Armageddon and I actually rate the first Transformers. Having said that, I haven’t liked any of his output for years. As you may have garnered from my oh-so-fucking-witty standard reviewer pun above, Pain & Gain doesn’t break that brown streak.

“The events you are about to see took place in Miami, Florida between October 1994 and June ’95. Unfortunately, this is a true story.”

Purportedly based on a true story, Pain & Gain tells the story of Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg), a personal trainer who “masterminds” a criminal plot to seize control and ownership of all of moneyed businessman Viktor Kershaw’s (Tony Shalhoub) assets. Along with gym buddy Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and muscled God fearing Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson), the trio kidnap Kershaw and set about their scheme, which soon turns very ugly. I used the term “purportedly” very deliberately as whilst it’s being sold on the “this actually happened” angle, minimal internet research shows that this is third-hand information, the script being largely based on a series of magazine articles about the “Sun Gym Gang”, inviting a lot of opportunities for Chinese whispering and dramatisation, if you catch my not-at-all subtle drift. The cast is a mixed bag. We have seasoned veterans like Tony Shalhoub, Ed Harris and Peter Stormare being reliably brilliant, but fighting the limited script every step of the way. Dwayne Johnson, who is one of my favourite people ever, manages to be the only amusing presence and does a damn good job of selling his conflicted role, even if the script once again raises its ugly head and puts him in a box he can’t quite bust out of. Mark Wahlberg and Anthony Mackie are bland as hell and give you no reason to invest anything in their characters. Rebel Wilson also makes an appearance, but is solely used for cheap yuks, which pretty much sums up the film as a whole.

The real story behind all this is a truly shocking one, saturated by greed and grotesque violence. Handled correctly, it could make an amazing dark comedy filled with hubris. Unfortunately, Michael “Sledgehammer” Bay is at the helm and as such, things that require a deft touch and sensitivity are fucking annihilated by his juvenile style and gratuitous nature. The main drive of the film is pointing and laughing. Everything’s a target. Our stupid bodybuilding trio, fatties, homosexuality and women in general are all in the firing line and it gets very tiresome very quickly. It’s fine to show how meatheaded our criminal trio are, considering they thought they could pull off a complicated scheme and walk away clean, but Bay overplays his hand on everything. Despite the main targets being the gang, Bay still manages to glorify the terrible things these people did. He insists on bombastic shots like super slo-mo or that 360 degree shot going in and out of rooms, with the camera moving through glass and walls (similar to the way he shot the Haitian gunfight in Bad Boys II). It’s just too much for this sort of story. There’s even the hackneyed “walking away from an explosion” shot. Thing is, at this point in the film, they’re in the process of murdering someone. This style is fine when in a film where action sequences are the point, death doesn’t matter and bullets are liberal, but with something like this it jars massively. One could argue that the film is being satirical with its shallow, showy presentation, aping the way the main gang would picture events in their heads, but when the film contains testicle jokes and other easy yuks, I think even someone playing devil’s advocate wouldn’t have much ground to stand on.

I would love to see the original script. The screenplay was written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, the writing duo that brought us the Narnia films, Captain America and Thor: The Dark World .Their past work has been well-structured and often really quite good, so forgive me for thinking that some of the Transformers-esque humour in this film didn’t come from them. My guess is that Bay just couldn’t resist chucking in his trademark cheapseats gags to appease his thick jock demographic. Anyone with a working brain stem could have told you that not only were the gags terrible, but the very notion of putting them into this sort of film was an atrocious idea as it fucks with the tone and comes across as incredibly insensitive and monumentally disrespectful of the real-life happenings. The film keeps banging on about the American Dream and being “a doer” so much it reminded me of F&F 6‘s woeful attempts at theming. I read the gobsmacking source articles and there are completely untapped veins on drama contained in there and the potential for an absolute barnstormer of a film. What we’re given is like a 12 year old’s interpretation of the events, one who skim read the articles and got hung up on pointless details, like Doorbal’s impotence from steroid abuse because teehee his dick doesn’t work.

“Why’d you make me do that to you, Victor? I have responsibilities! Jesus Christ himself has blessed me with many gifts! One of them is knocking someone the fuck out!”

It isn’t all bad. As I said, there are some casting high points (The Rock is once again the MVP) and I must say, the film is structured and paced rather well. In some ways it reminded me of the Coens’ Burn After Reading, which had a similar set-up. If this had been a fictional tale like Burn After Reading, it may have got away with some of this shit, but Bay takes great pains in reminding you that this actually happened, even going so far as having “this is still true” flashing up on the screen during one of the film’s more “out there” moments. He needs restraint. The whole thing being shot like a hyper-edited MTV show really doesn’t help matters. With Pain & Gain, Bay has proved his critics right a thousand times over when they baulked at his ability to direct anything more sophisticated than giant alien robots beating the shit out of each other. I appreciate the fact he tried something new, but this definitely wasn’t the way to go about it. Let’s not get carried away here- it’s not the worst film of the year. It’s not even the worst Michael Bay film. It’s just morally bankrupt, tonally FUBAR and generally empty, which some could argue is worse than any of the crap in Revenge of the Fallen.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

 
Black Christmas
 

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

As every other reviewer covers their personal favourite Christmas films at this time of year, I felt duty bound to talk about one of mine. I could have picked any of the plethora of Christmas classics ranging from It’s a Wonderful Life to Elf, but just wasn’t feeling any of them. I was going to do Die Hard, but I think the whole “Die Hard is the best Christmas film ever” stuff is played out and stale. Luckily for me, the brilliant Shane Black loves Christmas and it features heavily in nearly all of his films. He even made summer blockbuster Iron Man 3 all festive an’ shit, one of the many problems whining nerds had with what I think is one of the best superhero films ever. I was introduced to this film a few years ago and it was a revelation. It’s not only one of my go-to titles for this season, it’s one of my favourite films period. Whilst it enjoys some notoriety, it’s still not reached the “required viewing status” I feel it deserves. So, if you’ll indulge me, allow me to wank lyrical about Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

“You don’t get it, do you? This isn’t “good cop, bad cop.” This is fag and New Yorker. You’re in a lot of trouble.”

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang tells the story of Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.), a chancer thief who gets whisked off to Hollywood to screen test for a film. Whilst in Tinseltown, Harry reunites with his highschool crush Harmony (Michelle Monaghan), also an aspiring actor. Harry goes on a ridealong with private detective Gay Perry (Val Kilmer) to research his part and the pair get embroiled in a murder mystery case with twists and turns abound. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is often seen as the film that kickstarted RDJ’s renaissance and put him on a path to the top of the A List. It’s blindingly obvious to see why. He’s genuinely fantastic as Lockhart. We all know that he can handle fast paced, witty dialogue but there’s a brilliant nuance to his performance. What could have easily been a smug, too-cool-for-school type arsehole of a character in the wrong hands becomes a three dimensional person you care for thanks to RDJ and Black. Same goes for Michelle Monaghan who is the heart of the movie for reasons other than the patronising one of her simply being a woman as seen in most shitty films. She’s initially portrayed as a standard unattainable dream girl for our hero to pine after, but things run so much deeper than that. Monaghan is the best she’s ever been and really gives as good as she gets as Harmony. She’s truly multi-faceted and ends up incredibly endearing. I dare you not to fall in love with her. Val Kilmer has recently become a bit of a joke on the Internet, especially after playing Batman in ’95, which is a crying shame. He damn near walks away with this film, despite the stiff competition from RDJ and Monaghan. Gay Perry is one of the most complete and memorable characters I can think of. He gets nearly all the best lines and acts as a sarcastic mentor to Harry. I can’t get over how damn good he is in this film and as such will always defend him when it comes to people slagging him off.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang‘s script is a goddamn masterpiece. It’s tighter than a miserly drum. It’s like a wonderful kind of metronome. Set-up, pay off, set-up, pay off. Even seemingly incidental things end up playing a part later on in the narrative. Nothing is there by chance. That’s not to say it’s mechanical. There are plenty of great interactions, endlessly quotable lines and brilliant character beats. The murder mystery shenanigans aren’t really the film’s focus, although it is the goal our leads are working towards. The characters actively drive the plot, rather than the plot dictating their actions. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang ends up being a satisfying watch because it knows how to tell a good story and has the confidence to play around with conventions. It takes basic pulp novel noir clichés and has fun with them.The fast-paced funny dialogue is the film’s bread and butter and it’s as smart as a whip. It’s densely written. It reminds of The Simpsons, not in the sense of humour as such, but more in the way that I’ll find myself laughing at different lines on each rewatch. The way that Black plays with words (including a discussion on the difference between the usage of “badly” as an adverb) is just preaching to my personal choir. The writing is delightfully meta too. We have Harry narrating the film and cocking it up, forgetting to show scenes etc. He will occasionally stop the film and spool it back to show us a plot-important flashback.There’s even a scene early on which ends with Lockhart remarking on how expositional and functional it is.

What makes a good Christmas film? If you asked that question you’d get a thousand different answers from a thousand different people. In my book, a Christmas film has to have genuine affection for the season and feature goodwill and love (in some form). It’s a short list, but I’ve seen films featuring Santa Claus, elves and all the other Christmas shit you can imagine fall at one or both hurdles. Using my self-imposed criteria I think Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a great Christmas film. Our heroes don’t really get into the spirit of things because they’re often in danger or pursuing clues but you can tell there’s a love for the traditions. Christmas makes a great backdrop for stuff like this partly because it makes the dark shit seem darker due to the irony of the setting and partly because it makes the cheery parts more genuine, tying in to the general sense of fun and goodwill. I’m surprised (but actually kind of glad) that more films aren’t set at Christmas for these reasons.

“Well, for starters, she’s been fucked more times than she’s had a hot meals.”

“Yeah, I heard about that. It was neck-and-neck and then she skipped lunch.”

I would usually go into spoiler territory here and discuss my favourite scenes and the like, but as I said in my opening paragraph- it’s not exactly the most widely seen film out there (although I’m guessing that RDJ’s profile over the past couple of years has helped with that). If you’re sick of mawkish animated crap or shitty films in general around this time of year, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is just the ticket for that. Even if you have seen it, it’s always worth a rewatch.

Snobbery, Actually: In Defence of Romantic Comedies

I’ve been preparing my end of year stuff and maybe one further review, but I felt compelled to write after my various social feeds blew up with mocking guffaws and gleefully typed smuggery. So, this article has been doing the rounds lately. I’m not here to tear down a writer far more talented and successful than I am or anything. It’s a well-written, funny piece that raises some decent points. I read it as satirical, but judging from the reactions, people are taking it dead seriously. In any case, I can’t shake the feeling the big picture is being missed, either by the writer or the people sharing it as a long-awaited kick to the ribs of a film they don’t like.

I don’t mind rom-coms at all. In general, they have a simple tale to tell and unspool a familiar yarn to a satisfactory conclusion. I have a problem with bad rom-coms that don’t even try to tell a proper story, but Love Actually isn’t one of them. It’s not the greatest, but it’s decent enough. The article keeps banging on about a lack of female personalities and points the finger at Richard Curtis, who fucking dares to have a penis:

“None of the women in this movie fucking talk. All of the men in this movie “win” a woman at the end. This goddamn movie.”

“This is a movie made for women by a man.”

Thing is, this is pretty much all rom-coms, regardless of main character focus or gender. Y’see the main narrative thrust of a romantic comedy is that character A and character B will get together, but not before they deserve that relationship. Character A must undergo a personal transformation to be worthy of Character B’s love. Or vice versa. The relationship is the prize, not the person as such. Yeah, it’s stupid and childishly simplistic, but that’s what people want. Sometimes, Character A will realise two-thirds of the way through that they just had to be themselves and ride a self-esteem engine to Relationship Town. This is barely one step above the “believe in yourself” bullshit a lot of kids’ films trot out. These aren’t soul-searching thinky pieces and as such, don’t do well when coldly dissected. Plus, that whole “made for women by a man” thing- why can’t Curtis to be taken to task on his own merit (or lack thereof) rather than his gender? A lot of female-focused rom-coms are written by women and are completely fucking terrible. Having the corresponding genitals to your audience does not make you able to write good characters of either sex.

Love Actually does have a problem with its female characters, for sure. It also has a problem with its barely-there male characters too. Romantic comedy characters are sketched in the broadest terms. They are very rarely complex, realistic or grounded. Y’know why? Because rom-coms exist for the purposes of projection. You are meant to identify with the lead and project yourself onto them so that when they finally hook up with their dream fella/ladyfella you are satisfied by proxy. It’s cathartic. What you’re basically watching is a live-action cartoon, filled with exaggerated people with amplified emotions. You are happy that your avatar has got their dreamboat and you walk away with hope the same will happen to you. Most rom-coms go for the low-hanging fruit. “Here’s our heroine!”, they simper, “She’s clumsy and quirky and awkward in social situations!”. Pfft. Name me one person who doesn’t think they’re any of those things. There’s normally some artistic flair thrown in for good measure, because every bastard who has ever lived would like to think that they’re creative in some capacity. On the flipside, if our lead is a guy, he’s usually too much of a manchild who totally doesn’t want to get tied down, bro. These characters are the equivalent of a daily horoscope i.e. detailed and complimentary enough so you think it relates to you, but vague enough so there’s some wiggle room and can apply to as many people as possible. It’s safe escapism. It’s like fast food- empty calories, but good to indulge in once in a while.

Rom-coms are comforting. If the endless sequels, remakes and adaptations that made up the list of this year’s highest grossing films didn’t tip you off, people like knowing what they’re getting. I was chatting to my grandmother about some short story she’d read in one of her magazines. It consisted of a woman who moves to a new area, gets to know the handsome town vet (after saving a kitten in the snow). There were various misunderstandings (and maybe something to do with him getting over a dead wife, I can’t remember) but eventually they fell in love and got married. Of course they did. I was rolling my eyes until she concluded the story by saying “It was lovely.” in such a warm and genuine way, I felt like a real rat bastard. I realised that’s what it should be like. It’s the same reason I actually quite like the Fast & Furious series (quick shameless plug), I’m not there for the fucking turgid dialogue or threadbare story, I’m there for the goddamn vroom-vroom. The audience knows what it wants. As I said before, that’s no excuse to not tell a good story or to half-arse it, but it’s a handy framework to build your project on.

So, that’s what I have to say about that. Bringing it back to Love Actually, you can’t not award at least some points for a film that features this track. You just can’t.

Fast & Furious 6

 
Flat out action, stalling script
 

Fast & Furious 6 (2013)

Catching up on a few odds and ends from 2013 before I launch into my first yearly roundup thing. First on the list- Fast & Furious 6 (or Furious 6 according to the movie’s title screen). I wasn’t a fan of the F&F series initially. The first one was fine, but the dire sequels and willful stupidity of it all turned me right off the franchise. I started paying attention to it again when Fast 5 defied all expectations and managed to be damn entertaining. Maybe I’ll review the whole series at some point when I hate myself enough to sit through 2 Fast 2 Furious and Tokyo Drift again.

“You’ve got the best crew in the world standing right in front of you, give them a reason to stay.”

In F&F 6, we catch up with our apparently lovable group of crooks, scattered across the globe and enjoying their big payday from their last heist. Brain O’Conner (Paul Walker) has just become a father, Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) is living a quiet, sunkissed life of retirement etc etc. All of that changes when the hench DDS agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and his new partner Riley Hicks (Gina Carano) recruit Toretto and his crew, with the promise of full pardons for all, to catch an even more dangerous criminal outfit, led by a man named Shaw (Luke Evans). Toretto and his team must stop Shaw from getting his hands on some chip that is worth a lot of money and will do something bad if in the wrong hands (I honestly can’t remember exactly what, despite watching it last night). Just when you thought the plot couldn’t get thicker, it turns out that Toretto’s GF, Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) is not only alive, but is (gasp!) working for the other side. Cue lots of high-octane action and gruff mumbling. Maybe I’m being unfair and slightly too snarky with my plot synopsis, but it really is a case of “Tab A into Slot A” in terms of action moviemaking. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as I was hardly expecting subtlety and nuance from a film like this. I bought a ticket for the same reason many others did- for the wicked sick car action. Having said that, the story was shockingly perfunctory. Dwayne Johnson is still the charismatic MVP, but Vin Diesel, Paul Walker and the rest of the gang do well. Gina Carano is a nice addition too. Luke Evans is a passable baddie, although the film could have done better with him.

Let’s get this out of the way- the action is top-notch. No series does car porn better than F&F and 6 continues that streak. The sequences are over-the-top ridiculous fun. From the opening race (which reminded me of a better shot version of Quantum of Solace‘s opening gambit) to a brilliant tank sequence and culminating in a huge runway chase, it’s all high quality dumb entertainment. The cars move with balletic style and precision and it’s genuinely thrilling stuff. Much like Fast 5, there’s some genuine innovation amidst all the roaring engines and close-ups of the drivers looking determined. Even the hand-to-hand combat is decently done, with proper choreography in play and being decently shot to boot. I also dig the fact that it mostly takes place in London, even though the film can’t resist chucking in a snooty Englishman. The point being is that I was enjoying all the stunts an’ shit. It’s just a shame that the connective tissue holding the action beats together is as weak as it is.

I’m a big advocate of dumb fun. A script doesn’t have to be full of highbrow Oscar Wilde-esque lines to get a thumbs up from me. I love Michael Bay’s magnum dopus Bad Boys II, for instance. The lines and gags in that film are just barely above giggling at tits and basic toilet humour but I still laugh. I wanted this film to be complete guilty pleasure, rather than just constantly flirting with being one. I want the whole series to be better, which must show that I actually care enough about them to want improvement.  F&F 6‘s script is a clunky mess. Not only do we have hackneyed-as-shit elements like plot-convenient amnesia being played dead straight, but the film doesn’t know how to handle any kind of joke. It really isn’t that hard to be funny, or at the very least hiring someone who is. There’s a basic theme running through the film that Toretto’s bunch are more like a “family” than a bunch of friends. This is opposition to Shaw and his team (presented as the nega versions of our heroes, in a helpful scene where a character flat out observes it) who take a more clinical approach to the group and chop and change members without any kind of sentiment. The ultimate message being that because our lads and lasses love each other, they will triumph when all is said and done. The film subtly conveys this by repeating the word “family” about 20 goddamn times and having forced scenes of joviality and camaraderie. Look- I know this is for the plebs, but come on. It needs to try harder than that. Repeating the same word over and over again isn’t theming. It’s a Sesame Street skit.

Chris Morgan’s script is by far the film’s biggest failing. Checking out his IMDB page, I was surprised to see he was credited for the rather well-written Wanted. Turns out he had four (yes, fucking four) other writers helping him on that, so maybe that’s the answer. He needs professional help. The dialogue scenes and bits where the plot was apparently going on ended up being a tedious slog until the enjoyable pedal-to-the-metal stuff kicked off again. There’s no reason why it has to be that bad. It has to be said that I also barely gave a shit about any of the characters. Letty’s reappearance was just a thing that happened and everything that occurred after that was just as predictable as you’d expect. Just imagine an F&F film where you actually cared about the characters, which would in turn add some proper tension to the impressive setpieces. It’d be great right? The series has thankfully dropped most of the boring street racing stuff in lieu of big heists and the like. I just need it to go the extra mile and tighten up the writing considerably. If this is all there is, I can probably make peace with that, but the thing that this franchise taught me is that it’s never to late to buck up your ideas. Hopefully by the time F&F 7 rolls around, the script will have been overseen by someone who knows how to actually write and not just drool on the keyboard.

“Somebody do something! I’ve got a tank on my ass!”

I’ve read a lot of nasty reviews of this film, criticising its loose grip of concepts, reality and especially physics. I get the feeling these people are missing the point. I’m completely fine with insane leaps of logic if the film is fun enough and this one is, albeit fitfully. I’m intrigued to see where they go from here for two reasons, one, I’ll be interested to see how they get around the sad, untimely death of Paul Walker and two, the awesome credits sting which promises at least one golden reason why I should slap some money down for the next installment.

Frozen

 
Deep & slick & even
 

Frozen (2013)

Kids’ films, be they good or bad, are interesting in their own right. I’m always up for finding out the overall message and themes they’re trying to bring to the younglings. The very reason for kids’ films existing is to teach children big, adult concepts in a safe, entertaining and consequence-free way. Think of all the childrens’ films that feature death, loss and despair. It’s a hell of a lot isn’t it? That’s why I normally toddle off to the nearest cinema to check out these films. They’re uniquely fascinating. Having said all that, Frozen didn’t interest me in the slightest, with its eye-rolling trailer that focused on an annoying talking snowman, unfunny slapstick and whimsy out the arse. However, I then heard the positive word of mouth and decided to see for myself. I was already constructing the review in my head in case it did turn out to be great, intent on decrying the trailer for completely underselling the film. Turns out EVERY goddamn reviewer had the same idea and ran with the “Hey, it’s not so bad, guys!” angle. Here’s the important part though – turns out we were all being played like an orchestra of particularly gormless violins as this Forbes article argues. Well, damn.

“The snow glows white on the mountain tonight/
Not a footprint to be seen/
A kingdom of isolation and it looks like I’m the queen.”


Frozen follows two princess sisters, Anna (Kristen Bell) and Elsa (Idina Menzel). Through some quirk of fate, Elsa was born with the power to control and create ice and snow, an ability that is seen as more of a curse than a blessing. After she accidentally hurts her sister, she locks herself away from the world and Anna, who is cured at the cost of having her memory of Elsa’s powers wiped. Anna and Elsa’s parents (the last two people aware of what Elsa can do) die at sea, the pair grow up and Elsa has to face becoming Queen of Arendelle. During the coronation celebrations Elsa’s powers get the better of her and she flees, opting for a life of isolation rather than one of persecution and fear. During her very public display of her powers, she unwittingly sends Arendelle into a permanent winter and strands all the citizens and visiting dignitaries inside the snowy kingdom. Anna sets off to find Elsa with the help of Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), his reindeer Sven and the trailer-ruining Olaf (Josh Gad), a snowman accidentally brought to life by Elsa’s magic. The voice cast are all great, with a special mention going to Idina Menzel as Elsa who gave me actual goosebumps as she belted out some of the film’s best songs. Kristen Bell also gives a likable naive and classical Disney princess turn as Anna.

One of the signs of a bad review is someone who just regurgitates the plot with no real attempt at analysis or critique, so I usually try and keep the plot summaries brief. Thing is, I feel that Frozen needs that long intro above as it not only gives you some needed context, but it gives you an idea of the sheer volume of things it’s bringing to the table. Whilst it meanders a bit at times, the basic story is solid. It’s practically a parody of the classic Disney tale of a princess meeting her Prince Charming. I’ve read stinging criticisms of Disney’s portrayal of love and empty promises of a “happily ever after” for everyone. Frozen seems to be a response to that. It’s the Scream of Disney films i.e.  it takes a sideways look at established conventions and reinvigorates the genre at the same time. In a similar vein to Pixar’s Brave which had a mother/daughter relationship at the heart of things, Frozen is all about the sister/sister dynamic. It’s a hell of a lot more relatable than finding “the one” and as such manages to tug at the heartstrings more effectively.

Most of my fears brought on by the trailer were unfounded. I even started to like Olaf, a snowman who dreams of summer and hot weather, unaware of what happens to frozen water in heat. He’s still a goofy, kiddie-centric character, but this film is for them after all. The two princesses angle is handled very well and nowhere near as twee and retch-inducing as I thought it would be. They’re presented as actual people, rather than statuses and it’s goddamn refreshing. You just get where they’re coming from. You feel for the innocent Anna who, to her mind at least, has been shut out by her sister for no apparent reason. You feel for Elsa too, having the heft of responsibility weighing her down as well as a tremendous fear of her abilites. She’s half Rogue from X-Men and half Carrie from er…Carrie.

Frozen is a deliberate return to the spirit of Disney’s run of great films in the ’90s, complete with Broadway style musical numbers. Nothing’s worse than a crappy kids’ film that forces you to listen to some terrible dross written by a hack musician on their fag break. Thankfully, Frozen has some true belters. They’re not all instant classics – the troll song “Fixer Upper” in particular felt like it belonged in a different, shittier film. However, when they hit- they hit big. Elsa’s number “Let it Go” is truly fantastic, Menzel’s voice coupled with the gorgeous animation gave me actual chills- not the fake kind that most reviewers got to merely service a groaner pun. Every time Disney comes out with a decent film, people trip over themselves and start sputtering about a “Disney renaissance” and the House of Mouse being back to its best. Thing is, if they keep this up and continue marrying great songs with messages deeper than “love is nice”, I think these knee-jerks might be on to something.

“Hi, I’m Olaf and I like warm hugs!”

The film has its flaws, don’t get me wrong, but on reflection they don’t seem to matter as much. Frozen is exactly what it needs to be. It’s a smart, funny film suitable for all ages and contains songs destined to feature in lists of “Best Disney Songs Evarrr!”.Getting back to that overall message and the point of kids’ films I rambled about in the first paragraph. I think Frozen should be commended for having an overall message that won’t leave the little girls and boys watching it with a head full of sugar-coated nonsense about romance and entitlement. It’s got a realistic, down-to-earth message to it and a more relatable take on love in general. It’s simply a great film. Recommended.

Earth’s Mightiest Xeroxes: The Unfortunate Legacy of The Avengers

“We’re surrounded by shitty knock-offs!”

I’ve spoken before about studios learning the wrong lessons from box office megahits and trying to apply said lessons to whatever franchises they have, whether it suits or not. In the past few days, it’s been announced that Wonder Woman will appear in the still untitled Batman vs Superman film. The first trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 also hit, giving us not one villain as previously thought, but multiple bastards to deal with as well as massive hints at an expanded universe to come. Plus, we have X-Men: Days of Future Past and as of yesterday, X-Men: Apocalypse in the pipeline, the former promising an all-star mash-up of the established cast of the original trilogy with the swingin’ ’60s versions of the characters from First Class. I should be dancing about my room, yelling about how we live in the golden age of comic book films, but I can’t shake the feeling we’re in danger of having some monumental clusterfucks on our hands.

I’ll take them on in order. Firstly, that whole Wonder Woman thing. I’m happy that she finally gets to make an overdue appearance, but I’m pissed off that she’ll be playing third fiddle to Bats and Supes. Obviously, I have no idea how much she’ll appear in the film, but I’m pretty sure she isn’t going to be taking too much attention away from the two beefy boys. I’ve said it before, but D.C.’s attempts at creating a cinematic universe to rival Marvel’s are a fucking mess. Wonder Woman deserves her own film, not just a glorified cameo. Yeah, they may do a solo outing later on, but my guess is that they’ll be steamrolling ahead with all this Justice League stuff for the foreseeable future and are only cramming Ms. Prince in because people expect some form of introduction to the character before the big team up film, thanks to the groundwork laid by The Avengers. Warner Bros. are grasping at straws and forming a film completely out of knee-jerk reactions. All it is is a shaky response to Marvel’s throwing down of the (Infinity) gauntlet.There’s nothing to go on so far apart from internet tittle-tattle and scant announcements, but I can already feel my caution starting to overtake my anticipation. As with all these entries, I want them to be good and would be delighted if they turned out that way, it’s just I feel that Man of Steel 2: Bruce and Diana Too is not being given the care and attention it needs. We’ll see.

Onto my pet subject: Spider-Man. I’m being honest here, I haven’t had high hopes for this one at all. The first one left me angry and it seems they have no interest in righting their wrongs. Some terrible CGI, rubbish dialogue and the baffling return of bullet time aside, there are more troubling things contained in the trailer below:

If you haven’t spent whole stretches of your life dedicated to the adventures of a smartass, spandex-wearing teen like I have, let me fill you in on what’s going on. Around the 1:14 mark, there are some recognisable villain hallmarks to be seen in the background, namely Vulture’s wings and Doc Ock’s tentacles. It seems like the trailer’s setting up the appearance of The Sinister Six, a supervillain group, pretty much the anti-Avengers, who team up to take down their common arachnid enemy. The roster has changed over the decades so it’s tough to say which line-up they’ll go with, but they could have given us the answer in this trailer and have Doc Ock, Electro, Lizard, Vulture, Rhino and the Green Goblin for their sickening sextet. If you’d have told the 10 year old me that not only would there be loads of Spider-Man films one day, but one featuring The Sinister Six, I think he would have flipped his lid. Thing is, adult me has been hurt before by Spider-Man 3 and more pertinently, The Amazing Spider-Man. Marc Webb et al have already showed they don’t “get” Spider-Man and it’s only going to get worse. I would have liked to have seen at least one more film where Spidey takes on a singular villain without the constraints of being shackled to a spider origin story before we barrel in to a big “event” picture. Having multiple villains can work, but only if a deft touch is used. They couldn’t even handle The Lizard on his own without ballsing it up, so I doubt that they’ll be able to handle three in this sequel and six in future films. They’re trying to run before the can walk. Christ, they can’t even wallcrawl properly yet. I will say this though- Dane DeHaan looks like he’s nailed Harry Osborn and I’m looking forward to see where he takes it.

The X-Men franchise is the one I’m least worried about. I believe in Bryan Singer. Whilst I would have liked another film focused on the First Class lot, I think Days of Future Past is going to be good. Singer cares about character and will hopefully be able to balance all the spinning plates. Besides the time-twisty adventures planned, there’s still a Wolverine sequel to come and spin-offs in the form of an X-Force feature, which could possibly set up a spin-off of its own in the form of a long-awaited standalone Deadpool film. There’s even talk of merging the X-Men and Fantastic Four universes, creating a Fox branded take on the Marvel universe. It’s pretty damn likely to happen too. As you may have noticed- everyone has to have their own version of The Avengers paradigm by law, apparently. If you’re still with me at this point and your brain hasn’t dribbled out of your nose, good on you.

I think the thing that annoys me is the reactionary nature of it all. Studios see the opportunity to sell 5 times as much merchandise and have jumped all over it, not taking time to figure out what made The Avengers good. It’s a fucking miracle that The Avengers worked at all and they need to respect that. In my opinion, they hired the right guy for the task. Joss Whedon had a history of making ensemble things work, from his stint as a writer on the X-Men comics to his TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly. He has a great knowledge of team dynamics and has a wonderful inclusionary way where you as the reader/viewer/whatever feel like part of the team and share in their triumphs and losses. The lesson to be learned isn’t “Team-ups are in right now. Let’s copy The Avengers and cram as many fucking characters in as the screen can hold and set up our next 70 films”. It says a lot that The Avengers doesn’t work nearly as well as a standalone film as it does as a sequel to all of Marvel’s “Phase One” films up to that point. I realise they’re all rushing these things into production and trying to strike whilst the iron’s hot. Here’s the thing- that particular iron cooled a while ago, it was struck at peak heat to the tune of a billion dollars, and if I may stretch this metaphor to near-breaking point, it might be a better idea to focus on creating their own iron doodads fit for heating purposes. Marvel Studios doesn’t and shouldn’t have the monopoly on superhero team-ups, but it went about it the best way, took its time building the foundations and has already started manufacturing a second iron thingamajig (sorry, I’m swear I’m completely done with that analogy now). I think that’s the lesson that studios should be taking away from the success of The Avengers. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to team up with several other crappy little movie blogs and together, we’ll write the biggest and bestest review you ever did see. Be sure to buy the tie-in video game where you get to play as me and struggle to get over a handful of daily views!

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

 
Districtly brilliant.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

 

I was pleasantly surprised by the original Hunger Games. After a misguided advertising campaign sold it as “the next Twilight“, I wasn’t exactly pawing at the multiplex doors to be let in. However, I ended up really enjoying it and bought all three books soon after. It’s an intelligent sci-fi series that has a lot to say, but doesn’t beat you round the head with it. The main character, Katniss, is a strong female lead without being a ballbuster, is involved in a love triangle without being a soppy, boy-obsessed milkdrip and generally is a fantastic role model to anyone reading or watching her adventures, not just the target demographic of young girls. Also, whilst I do like the film, can we stop with the “Battle Royale with cheese” shit now? Hunger Games has so much more going on than BR ever did and, to my mind at least, even does better with the central conceit. For those of you sputtering with indignation right now, knocking over all your “kawaii” desk decorations to write me an essay on how wrong I am about the cultural significance of this scene or that bit of dialogue, please do not underestimate my apathy.

“Remember who the real enemy is.”

After basically giving the system a one-fingered salute (or more accurately, three) at the end of the last Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) return to District 12 rich and famous, living a life of wealth in Victor’s Village, a walled community built for Hunger Games winners. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) fears an uprising from the districts as Katniss has inspired hope and revolution with her very public defiance. He turns to new gamesmaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) for help and the pair conspire to tear down the symbol Katniss has become. They eventually settle on a “Quarter Quell”, a special games made up of past winners, to prove that no-one is safe from the Capitol’s wrath. Catching Fire is solid film, although in terms of basic story beats its pretty similar to the first. It wisely focuses on the social unrest and revolutionary aspects of Panem, rather than just being happy to trot out the death and violence of the games again. It does what all good sequels do and improves on practically every aspect of its predecessor. Jennifer Lawrence is still fantastic as Katniss, giving the sort of layered performance that’s incredibly rare in this type of film.The previous games have taken their toll on her and she has some real PTSD stuff going on. I warmed to Josh Hutcherson more in this film than I did in the last one. He’s still the weakest link in a great cast, but he’s serviceable, with the script affording him more depth. In fact, there’s a real effort to dimensionalise what were previously one-note characters. Elizabeth Banks’ Effie who irritated me in the original, actually comes across as a proper character this time round. Sutherland’s President Snow has a lot more genuine menace about him too, with some fascinating glimpses into his personal life. Of the new blood, Sam Clafin is fun as Finnick Odair, especially when he has the lovable mute grandmother Mags (Lynn Cohen) on his back, Yoda style. Felix Leiter himself Jeffrey Wright is incredibly likeable as technical whiz Beetee and makes a great double act with Amanda Plummer’s Wiress. Jena Malone simply steals scenes as the angry, axe-wielding Johanna Mason, right from her impromptu elevator strip onwards. Ol’ reliable PSH is predictably brilliant too.

The film takes a surprisingly long time to actually get to the titular games. A lot of time and effort is spent getting the audience up to speed with the current state of Panem and the shady government dealings going on behind closed gilded doors. None of the book’s nastiness has been skimped on here. Whilst the first Hunger Games felt toothless and compromised at times, this feels legit brutal, bruv. There’s public floggings, executions, grevious injuries- the lot. There may have been a few CGI blood shots edited out, but I doubt there’s a proper uncut version waiting in the wings for when it comes to shiny disc. I got the feeling Lawrence was pushing the rating to breaking point, rather than shying away from it like Ross.

Weirdly, the one film Catching Fire reminds me of is Back to the Future Part II. Whilst there are no hoverboards (much to my disappointment) it does share the same spirit of messing with the established framework of the first film and toying with audiences’ expectations. As I said previously, the story beats are the same as the original Hunger Games, but they all have neat little twists on them. For instance, instead of smiling and waving at the cameras when the tributes are brought in via carriage, Katniss and Peeta are instructed to remain stoic and defiantly ignore the crowd this time round. When the interview segment gets underway, instead of playing the game and speaking in cloying “just happy to be here” sentiments, all the tributes are working different angles to try and get the games cancelled by swaying public opinion, be it by admission of anger at the system, tearfully telling the insanely enameled Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) about a love back home or Peeta’s inspired whopper about him and Katniss. It’s clever stuff, make no mistake.

Most of the problems with the first film have been ironed out. The direction from Francis Lawrence is a lot more assured than Gary Ross’. Whilst Ross had an overreliance on shaky cam to obscure the nastier stuff, Lawrence uses it sparingly, which is a great relief for those of us who are fans of seeing what’s going on. The production budget has been upped considerably too, with some amazing futuristic vistas on display and a greater look at the decadent Capitol. The writing also got worked over, with Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt replacing Ross, Billy Ray and series author Suzanne Collins. The quality of the writing has been upgraded from “passable” to “actually pretty damn good”. Characters no longer awkwardly blurt out motivations or thoughts and . In fact, if I may compare it to Twilight for a moment, this is what the Twi-films should have been doing when it came to sequels, instead of aggressively sticking to the god-awful writing and terrible special effects, all the while upping the product placement and soundtrack shilling. The Twilight films showed nothing but open contempt for its audience. All the gains from the first Hunger Games feel like they’ve been plowed into this one to make it the best film it can be.

“Katniss Everdeen is a symbol. We don’t have to destroy her, just her image. Show them that she’s one of us now. Let them rally behind that. They’re gonna hate her so much they just might kill her for you.”

I think that’s the one thing that’s holding Catching Fire back from 5 star Valhalla. Everything else has been brought up to scratch, but the limitations of the source material are starting to show.  The first book is genuinely great, but the quality then acts on a sliding scale right through to the end.The film stops frustratingly short of the climax of the book, but I understand what they’re going for. My only concern now is that Mockingjay was my least favourite book and they’re making two damn films out of it. This could be the series highpoint. This is the series’ Empire Strikes Back. It’s darker and more confident in what it wants to do. It’s bloody brilliant. Highly recommended.

Gravity

 
Astronaut for the faint of heart.
 

Gravity (2013)

As I’ve discussed before, I hadn’t really been paying attention to Gravity until it released its first amazing, minimalist trailer. Suddenly, it was my mission to see this film and the long wait between U.S. and U.K. release dates, peppered with extremely positive word of mouth, coupled with the fact it was burning up the box office Stateside, was agonising. Despite describing my frothing excitement a mere line ago, I actually saw it over a week ago, but I found myself in the position of not quite knowing what to say about it all, so I did the brilliant thing of umming and ahhring over it and procrastinating until it’s past the point of relevance, because that’s what all the best film critics do. Anyway, (sort of) finally made up my mind now. Hey, at least I’m open about it. You wouldn’t get that sort of honesty from the stuck up “what I say goes” dogmatic tossers in the press.

“It’s going to be one hell of a ride.”

The basic story of Gravity concerns Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) who is sent on her first space exploration mission to test some smart science-y type thing. She’s accompanied by veteran astronaut and anecdote machine Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), but they soon run into trouble as a deadly band of space debris, moving faster than Superman with the squits, slams into the space station and bollockses things up. Now, Stone and Kowalski have to battle the elements in one of the most inhospitable environments imaginable and the whole thing becomes a fight for survival for a chance to return to Terra Firma. Gravity has some fantastic things going for it. There’s a scene from the opening of Connery Bond film You Only Live Twice where an astronaut gets his lifeline cut and just drifts away into the inky nothingness of space that really stuck with me as a kid and the concept is no less terrifying here. Helplessly spinning into the void and being completely exposed to the chaotic space elements is a brilliant idea and certainly something that had my heart racing. It taps into one of those fears you probably never knew you had. It’s like Jaws in space, but don’t bloody quote me on that. Both Bullock and Clooney are stunt cast to save time and do admirably in their parts. It’s easy to forget how good they both are, especially Bullock, who tends to get a rough time when it comes to weighing up her contributions in other flicks. I’m a big fan of director Alfonso Cuarón, who did the brilliant and often overlooked Children of Men back in ’06.

So, what about all this indecision I mentioned in the opening? Well, on the technical side of things, Gravity is brilliant. I’m not just talking about the impressive special effects, although they are worth writing home about. Structurally, it’s a solid film, with the characters and pace just right for the story it wants to tell. The thing is, I just didn’t feel it as I kept getting hung up on a number of elements. Firstly, the dialogue was pretty damn mediocre. I could have done with a more naturalistic take on the whole thing as talking about what they miss back home and the pros and cons of space life has been done to death and certainly done better elsewhere. They didn’t talk like real people, which I found to be quite distracting. Secondly, stop me if you heard this one before- a lady has to battle some ungodly horror in space, mostly alone, has a scene where she strips down to her undercrackers and leads a film thick with themes of motherhood and taking responsibility for one’s own life back on Earth. Now, I’m pretty sure that Cuarón has seen Alien, like 98% of all humanoids with eyes have, so that became an issue for me too. That’s not to say Alien should have the monopoly on such things, but it was handled with a defter touch back in the late ’70s. There are some great moments though and if you do manage to catch a last gasp screening, by sure to watch the short film companion piece when you get home, which ties into the film nicely and is very well done.

I saw the IMAX 3D version of Gravity and I felt it was worth every extra penny. I can’t imagine it working nearly as well on DVD. To me, Gravity belongs to the same camp as Avatar in the way that they both work better as Disneyland/Captain Eo type experiences than they do as actual films. The effects and the zero gravity stuff are jaw-dropping and well worth seeing on the biggest screen possible. The 3D is used to great effect and I didn’t tire of seeing dimensional things floating about inbetween the actor and the camera. It sidesteps one of the biggest problems of the gimmick (i.e. making big things look small) by its space setting where making things like the various space stations and astronauts look smaller doesn’t matter because they’re in the vast, seemingly endless vacuum of space. I would say that the 3D actually enhanced the viewing experience for once, which, if you’re keeping score is about four points to 3D and eleventy billion to Team 2D.

“You’ve got to learn to let go.”

By the time it was all over, I walked out entertained. It’s a thrill ride whilst it’s on, but on reflection it may not hold up to actual in-depth thought and dissection. I’ll reserve final judgement until it comes out on Blu-ray, stripped of its bells and whistles, because fun as it all was, I think the big-screen experience may have been making up for a lot of the film’s shortcomings. It’s been a while since I was this foxed when it came to the final judgement on a film and I haven’t decided if that’s brilliant or annoying yet. Time will tell.