Friday 30 January 2015

American Sniper

Image Source: Wikipedia
Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: Village Roadshow Pictures, Mad Chance Productions, 22nd & Indiana Pictures and Malpaso Productions
Director: Clint Eastwood
Producers: Clint Eastwood, Robert Lorenz, Andrew Lazar, Bradley Cooper and Peter Morgan
Scriptwriter: Jason Hall
Main Cast: Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller
Released: January 16 2015
Running Time: 132 Minutes
Certificate: 15

American Sniper, a true story based on American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History by Chris Kyle, is a difficult movie to summarise. It has an equal amount of praise and criticism for very different reasons. As a viewing experience, however, one cannot deny that the film is thoroughly engrossing, even if some of its messages can be somewhat misleading.

We start with Kyle, played by Bradley Cooper, at the heart of war, seemingly about to decide whether or not to shoot a mother and child who are potentially armed. After a flashback to Kyle's childhood, which sees his father explain when and when not to defend the honour of another person or group of people, the story fast-forwards to more recent times when Kyle, a cowboy, decides to enrol in the US Navy, with a keen desire to protect his country.

Along the way, he meets Taya Renae (Sienna Miller) who he eventually marries and has two children to. In the meantime, however, both are shaken up by the 9/11 attacks and, at Kyle's wedding party, he and fellow servicemen are informed that they are being sent to Iraq. This begins Kyle's military experience, and leads to the aforementioned opening scene.

Before we move on, I want to point out a flaw. If you are unfamiliar with American history, the precious scenes would have you believe that terrorists from Iraq were responsible for 9/11 when that is not the case. The war on terror began after 9/11 in late 2001; American forces entered Iraq in early 2003. It is likely that the September 11 footage was included to show that Kyle was more motivated to defend the honour of his country, but the way in which these scenes are presented suggest that entering Iraq was America's answer to 9/11, which is simply not true.

So, we return to the opening scene where Kyle is in a tough position: the mother and child may be armed, but can he really kill them? As the movie rolls on, Kyle earns the nickname of "Legend" for the number of deaths he causes, which in turn makes him the deadliest marksman in US military history. However, situations such as this and other similar instances cause Kyle to feel a greater amount of remorse, which in turn eventually causes him to feel cold and just get on with it because, as his fellow servicemen remind him, he's just doing his job.

In the meantime, the war itself has a greater impact on his emotions. Each trip to Iraq sees Kyle edge closer to death, whilst seeing catastrophic scenes (some of which he has to bring about) which haunt his mind, and seeing some of his colleagues seriously wounded and killed.

Add to that the pressure put on his family, particularly his wife who feels that she will never have the old Kyle back to look after their growing family, and you have a real struggle for his strong character. Yes, he's doing his job for his country, and is doing very well, but the psychological effect it has on him is enormous. Can he get out in time to survive? Without giving too much away, the film has a shocking conclusion, but one has to see the film in its entirety to truly feel the impact of its ending. (If you know the story of Chris Kyle, then you will know what to expect; if you don't, wait until you see the film before you try to find out more.)

As stated, the film is very gripping and Cooper does a tremendous job as Kyle, as does Sienna Miller as Taya; however, it does have some flaws. Besides the aforementioned confusion over the link between 9/11 and Iraq, there is also a problem with how Iraq and Iraqis are portrayed. At no point does the viewer receive any information on why the Iraq war happened (as stated, someone with no knowledge of history would assume the direct cause was 9/11). This was a war which many have described as unjust, both at the time and today, and regardless of whether the war should have happened or not, that the justification is not explored feels like a whitewash, especially when words like "savages" are used to describe the Iraqis during the movie (and in the film, we very rarely see any Iraqis who are not on the enemy's side in some way). The scene when an injured serviceman thanks Kyle for saving his life is touching and does remind the viewer that the Americans were trying to do the right thing, but is it really true to hint that all Iraqis were villains?

As the "Legend" nickname suggests, the film seems to glorify killing, even the killing of women and, most shocking to see, children in the name of war. Whilst Kyle's inner torment is apparent, it's as if the overriding message is "Well, they're just doing their job, even if it means killing women and children." This glamorises the act of war despite the horrific effects it has for so many involved. Combined with the earlier mixed messages, this can make people believe that the movie is a big example of American propaganda, despite showcasing Kyle's psychological damage.

For this reason, this has invited comparisons with Inglorious Basterds (2009), a fictional movie in which the Nazis create a propaganda film on a sniper who killed many people - much to the joy of fellow Nazis watching it, but to the haunting dismay of Fredrick Zoller, the sniper who actually played himself in the promo film. The horrors of conflict are not explored; it gives the impression that killings which are deemed necessary for a country to achieve its goals are not only justifiable but something to celebrate. Unwanted comparisons to the Nazis maybe, but the message from American Sniper is very similar - and unlike Basterds, this movie is based on true events.

American documentary maker Michael Moore has also commented on Sniper, saying that director Clint Eastwood may have confused Iraq with Vietnam in his storytelling, although the greater story involving Moore and this film came from his criticism of snipers in general, calling them cowards in relation to the death of his father during the Second World War. This has drawn much criticism in response; but needless to say, American Sniper has drawn a significant amount of detraction.

Which is not to say that this is a bad film. I was completely drawn into this from the beginning to the very end, and whilst Kyle seems like just another American patriot at the beginning, as the plot progresses, one truly cares for him and is desperate for him to get home in one piece. If you are undecided about whether to see this, I strongly suggest that you do; however, the mixed messages about the cause of Iraq, the lack of acknowledgement over its justification and the feeling of American propaganda prevent this from being a true classic. Had these issues been addressed, I would give American Sniper the highest possible recommendation.

Overall Rating: 8/10 - Very Good

Superman: Man Of Steel

Image Source: Wikipedia
Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: DC Entertainment, Legendary Pictures, Syncopy and Cruel and Unusual Films
Director: Zack Snyder
Producers: Charles Roven, Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas and Deborah Snyder
Scriptwriters: David S. Goyer
Main Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Ayelet Zurer, Christopher Meloni and Russell Crowe
Released: June 14 2013
Running Time: 143 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

Back in 2006, we were introduced to an update of the Richard Donner classic Superman from 1979. This seemed the easy route to take the Superman franchise after the success of Christopher Nolan’s re-imagining of Batman (starting with Batman Begins, 2005). However, the film bombed in the box office and the story was bland and flat. Since 2008, Marvel and Disney have taken over the superhero world with their multi-movie collaboration with the Avengers that has left DC and Warner Bros. very jealous and lagging behind. So, they turned to Christopher Nolan and David Goyer (Blade Trinity, 2003) to revamp Superman and the Justice League. They both wrote the story for Superman: Man Of Steel, while Goyer carried on to write the script. Nolan left to become head producer and employed Zac Snyder (300, 2006) to direct his re-imagination of Superman.

To begin with, this is a major improvement from Superman Returns. However, it is not without its faults. I am personally not a big fan of Snyder; he is a good action director, but when it comes to character development and storytelling, he falls flat on his face. His bigger concern was making the film look good: Snyder said very early into production that this was going to be his most realistic-looking motion picture, as he shot it on film and in native 2D, which in post-production was then converted over to 3D.

Anyway, onto the movie itself. This is not actually the complete re-imagination that some people wanted, as it follows the same story as the comics and the original movie. What differentiates this from its predecessors is the telling of the main story. We get flashbacks to Clark Kent’s (Superman) past, which for me was the most interesting part of the film. The first two acts brilliantly set up the finale, which in turn will ultimately let you down.

You can really feel Nolan’s influence in this story with character development: the story arc with Kevin Costner, who plays Clark's earth father, is brilliant. Clark is torn between wanting to show off his powers to help people, while his father wants him to rein it in as the world just isn’t ready for a superhero yet. This does tie in with certain parts later on in the film which brought about a satisfying conclusion.

So, why does the ending disappoint? Well, the one thing I look for going into a Superman film is the moment when you want to stand up and cheer, which the first two Superman movies both had. Unfortunately, this lacked such a moment. Don’t get me wrong: the action still had some special moments, one example being when he is defending his mother (Diane Lane), but overall the action was one big bang for special effects and noise. Which while watching this on an IMAX screen is undobtedly special, it gets a bit dull upon second viewing.

On the whole, the casting is very good. Henry Cavil (Immortals, 2011) is a good Superman: he mixes the balance of superhero and human very well, and you do care and feel for his character. Amy Adams (American Hustle, 2014) is a step up from the last Lois Lane we were given; however, she isn’t anything special and the chemistry isn’t really there between the two lead characters. Michael Shannon (Boardwalk Empire) is very good: he has a creepy, dark tone, which is the complete opposite to Superman, and he uses his facial expressions really well.

However, Kevin Costner steals the show as Clark's father. It’s unfortunate that he only really sees an hour of screen time, but when he is on-screen, you are drawn to his presence. The conflict he has with a young Clark Kent is fascinating, and something we had yet to see on the big screen, which is part of the reason why it was the highlight of the film. To see the emotion of not just Superman or Lois Lane but of the two most important people in his life was really refreshing and a nice touch.

The intention with this movie was for Superman to come back with a bang. He has done that, but not in the way many would have hoped. Yes, this is a good film; no, it didn’t re-define Superman or the superhero genre. It did give us a solid base for many more films to come, beginning with Batman vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice in March 2016. If you are a fan of Superman, this will appeal to you, but the franchise has yet to reach the levels of Marvel and their introductory movie Iron Man.

Overall Rating: 7.5/10 - Good

Thursday 29 January 2015

The Naked Gun: From The Files Of Police Squad!

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Paramount Pictures, the
film publisher or graphic artist.)
Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Production Company: Paramount Pictures
Director: David Zucker
Producer: Robert K. Weiss
Scriptwriters: Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Pat Proft
Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan
Main Cast: Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, Ricardo Montalbán, George Kennedy, O.J. Simpson and Nancy Marchand
Released: December 2 1988 (US) and February 10 1989 (UK)
Running Time: 85 Minutes
Certificate: 15

I am personally a huge fan of comedies, and the Naked Gun trilogy is one of my absolute favourites. As such, when I decided to re-watch the first Naked Gun for the purpose of a review, I was slightly nervous in case my own nostalgic memories of the movie may have hindered my viewing experience or, at least, influenced my review. Fortunately, I need not have worried: the whole film is one gigantic gem.

To set the stage, this movie is an extension of the previous cult TV series Police Squad! Leslie Nielsen remains the star as Lt. Frank Dreben, but two roles have changed: his main detective partner Capt. Ed Hocken is played here by George Kennedy, and Det. Nordberg is now played by O.J. Simpson - an awkward casting in hindsight, although the trilogy would be over before this was an issue.

Unlike the short episodes of Police Squad, this is a feature-length movie (obviously) which has several story arcs, but two are most dominant: the possible attempt by Vincent Ludwig (played by Ricardo Montalbán) to arrange an assassination of Queen Elizabeth II during her visit to Los Angeles, with Dreben continuously trying to find evidence of such a plot with ridiculous results; and Frank falling in love with Ludwig's associate Jane Spencer, although their romance encounters a few bumps along the road.

There are a couple of other storylines of note, which include Nordberg's difficulties to recover from a previous attack (that being said, some of these problems are hilariously due to Frank's own incompetence). It all comes down to a major baseball game where Dreben knows a murder attempt is likely - but trying to convince Mayor Barkley (played by Nancy Marchand), who doesn't want anything to do with Frank by this point, that the plot is genuine, and more importantly Frank's attempts to get involved so that he can try to prevent the assassination attempt, present challenges that seem impossible for him to overcome. His methods are totally daft and riotously funny - but will he succeed?

The plot sounds simple, but it works very well; however, the real strength of this movie is in the slapstick comedy. If you have never seen this film before and plan to watch it, you will be laughing from the first minute to the last at a variety of physical and verbal quips. It is a film that isn't very violent, doesn't have too much swearing, only has occasional sex references - and, yet, this film should be a draw to adults who simply want to have their funny bone tickled.

Central to the humour is Leslie Nielsen. I was a big fan of his work, but it is in the Naked Gun trilogy that he shines brightest. He brings to life the character of a police detective who is bumbling and often causes more harm than good, yet we never feel rage or apathy towards him. He always has good intentions, he comes across as a genuinely nice and polite man (a rare breed amongst police characters dealing with deadly criminals), and in the end, somehow or someway, he nearly always makes good on his promises.

But what really makes the Dreben character, and Neilsen's portrayal of it, is the very frequent humour. His one-liners come thick and fast, made funnier by the 'that was odd but I won't question it' facial reactions of those in his presence at the time, and, most importantly, his own deadpan delivery of these quotes. There are so many that they tend to have you still laughing by the time you hear another one. I could provide a list of the best jokes, but instead I'll let you watch the film; I don't want to spoil lines that, during the movie, will frequently give you the giggles. In fact, you'd probably have to watch the film several times to hear all the jokes, since you'll probably miss some due to the sound of your own laughter.

As stated, Neilsen is marvellous in this role. Some comedy actors sport an expression that says “I'm funny and I know it.” Not Neilsen: he is funny - really funny - but he approaches the role of Dreben as an actor playing a comedy character. This means that despite the sheer daftness of his lines and situations, he never once looks like he is dying to laugh; he manages to keep a straight face and a calm, confident delivery throughout, as do his fellow cast members. Best of all may be Neilsen's range of facial expressions, from utter confusion to disgust to my favourite, his 'everything's great' grin; that smile alone would be enough to have an audience laughing wildly. If you don't believe me, watch him and you'll soon agree. The casting of Neilsen here and in the original Police Squad! series is superb as he is a constant shining light in what was the greatest role of the career.

The supporting cast also put in strong performances. Priscilla Presley plays the Jane character well: she is emotional but not overly so, she reacts to ridiculous situations in the same, understated way that Frank does, and while she plays second fiddle to Dreben on the humour scales, she does have a few funny lines or situations herself which are all her. Frank's fellow police officers are good too, and even Jeannette Charles, who plays the Queen, delivers a humorous visual of Her Majesty joining in a Mexican Wave whilst the rest of her entourage do not. But make no mistake about it, Leslie Neilsen is the absolute star of this motion picture; he takes a funny film and, with his character and performance, elevates it into all-time great territory.

The film is produced by David and Jerry Zucker and Jim Abrahams, which explains the daft situations and slapstick comedy as silly humour is their forte, but they do it well as evidenced here. In this case, they not only include intentionally stupid jokes and visuals but also standalone moments which, in another context, may lower the tone of the production but, here, they fit in well. From a tiger attacking a baseball player in an archive video to Dreben hanging off the edge of a building by a statue's, er, member, this movie delivers so many different situations that are produced perfectly and are almost all hilarious that you will struggle to find a favourite moment because there are so many contenders.

Overall, then, The Naked Gun is as good as I remembered it all those years ago (if not better since I now get some gags that I didn't understand when I was younger). It is a classic 1980s comedy which hits far, far more than it misses with its humour. The premise is simple, the jokes are often and at times outrageously funny, and although it is by its very nature a daft film, it makes enough sense to leave one feeling satisfied with developments and with the conclusion. But it is the career performance of Leslie Neilsen in his greatest role as Lt. Frank Drebin which takes this from what would have been a really funny film anyway to a truly perfect comedy (as evidenced by the rating below).

Overall Rating: 10/10 – Perfect

Monday 26 January 2015

The Wolf Of Wall Street

Image Source: Wikipedia
Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Production Companies: Red Granite Pictures, Appian Way Productions and Sikelia Productions
Director: Martin Scorsese
Producers: Martin Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio, Riza Aziz, Joey McFarland and Emma Tillinger Koskoff
Scriptwriter: Terence Winter
Main Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner, Jon Bernthal, Jon Favreau and Jean Dujardin
Released: December 25 2013 (US) and January 17 2014 (UK)
Running Time: 180 Minutes
Certificate: 18

It was a bitter and cold evening when I was asked to see a new movie, and not just any movie, but The Wolf Of Wall Street, the new, highly anticipated film from Martin Scorsese (Shutter Island, 2010; The Departed, 2006). I had seen the trailers, which did entice me a little; however, the running time of almost three hours slightly diminished my enthusiasm. Still, I did go and see it, and I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.

The film is a true story about a young stock broker named Jordan Belfort, which covers his life and times, from his early days on the stock market to becoming one of the most powerful men in New York. The film angles its point of view from Jordan, played wonderfully by the ever-growing talent that is Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, 1997). This has struck controversy, which I will get onto a little later.

This film follows the narrative pattern that you would find in a Scorsese movie: for example, as is the case with many of his other films set in New York City, the lead protagonist is ultimately the victim of his own power, and therefore he usually loses everything by the end of the film. That's the case here too, but that doesn't reduce the entertainment provided, which explains the five Oscar nominations for this motion picture.

The opening scene of the film tells you everything you need to know about what to expect over the next three hours. It opens with our main character Jordan Belfort snorting cocaine off a young model, and the film continues in the same vein, in all honesty. The story does take many twists and turns along the way, which I expected with a long run-time. The strange thing for me was that everything in this film is about excess; from the money to the drugs to the girls, it is all about wanting more and more, and yet I never found myself hating or disliking the character like I thought I would when I had seen the trailers. This man is everything that I despise about rich self-centred people, but I still wanted things to work out well for him when I was watching the film. Maybe this is because he isn’t born into wealth and has to work his way to success, albeit illegally.

To be honest, I’m not sure whether it was DiCaprio’s performance or the directing by Scorsese, but I was interested in what was going to happen next to these characters. Jonah Hill is passable in this film; I’m not his biggest fan (I personally don’t understand all the fuss around him being funny, since most of his jokes revolve around his weight), but he is bearable in this movie. Margot Robbie plays Jordan's second wife, and she plays the role well, but you don’t miss her when she is off-screen like you do with DiCaprio.

When this film was released, the critics slammed it for glorifying the life of a criminal who made his money by cheating other people out of theirs, and then spending it all on cars, boats, houses, booze, drugs and hookers. I understand where the criticism comes from, as this movie really does glorify the whole thing, but within the context of the movie, it works. If you are disgusted by these kind of people who exist and are the reason why the economy collapsed, then don’t waste your time viewing this film. It is meant to be a comedy drama that, at times, makes light of everything Jordan Belfort did, but there are also points in the film which are very serious, such as the moment when Jordan hits his first wife Naomi. This is been edited to make the moment even more sinister, and is shot to make it as dramatic as possible.

In actual fact, my main issue with this movie is that, as is the case with many long films, it feels like it lasts thirty minutes too long. I enjoyed myself for two and a half hours, but then my body was telling me that I've seen enough. That's not to say that the final half-hour is poor, but the movie as a whole could have been shortened and the overall story wouldn't have suffered as a result.

“My name is Jordan Belfort; the year I turned 26, I made 49 million dollars! Which really p---ed me off because it was three shy of a million a week.” This line in the trailer really does sum up Jordan Belfort, who after losing everything is now a rehabilitee, and a lecturer on how to become a good sales pitcher. That’s the one thing the movie does get across well about Jordan: his main passion is sales, and this skill is seen in abundance from the beginning.

To conclude, The Wolf Of Wall Street is brilliant at what it aims to do, which is to glorify the life of a rich criminal (perhaps to maximise the impact it has on Jordan when he loses everything), and the performance from DiCaprio is Oscar-worthy; however, the running time does let it down by the end.

Overall Rating: 8/10 – Very Good

The Theory Of Everything

Image Source: Wikipedia
Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Focus Features and Universal Pictures
Production Company: Working Title Films
Director: James Marsh
Producers: Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lisa Bruce and Anthony McCarten
Scriptwriters: Anthony McCarten
Main Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Charlie Cox, Emily Watson, Simon McBurney, David Thewlis and Christian McKay
Released: September 7 2014 (TIFF) and January 1 2015 (UK)
Running Time: 123 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

Right now in Hollywood, it is awards season. The Oscars are fast approaching on February 22, and films are jostling to be winners.

One such movie is The Theory of Everything, which has been nominated for five Oscars, including Best Actor for Eddie Redmayne. The film is a biopic of the theoretical physicist Stephan Hawking, and was developed from the memoirs of his ex-wife Jane Wilde Hawking. The film had it world premiere back in September 2014 at the Toronto International Film Festival, and it received brilliant feedback. From there, it has been nominated for the Golden Globes and the Oscars.

If you are looking for a movie about the science of Stephan Hawking, his achievements and his working background, well, this isn’t the film for you. The film’s primary focus is the relationship he develops with his girlfriend-come-wife Jane, while motor neurone disease begins to slowly degenerate his abilities. It is a heart-breaking story, yet one that ultimately leaves you feeling uplifted by the end, because of the struggle he has faced and continues to faces, and everything he has overcome, to still be around today.

There is only one place to start in this review, and that is the performance by Eddie Redmayne. He allows the character to completely take over his performance; there were times during the film when you really can’t tell the difference between the real Hawking and Redmayne. It’s not a simple role at all: he has to act as if he is playing different characters from beginning to end. In fact, because this movie was not filmed in chronological order, it makes it even harder for him to show how he has physically degenerated down the years. We see the disease begin to take effect, right up to the present day difficulties that Hawking endures. The highest praise I can give Redmayne is that, at certain points in the film, you can’t imagine this character being played any other way because you are so engrossed by the different stages of his condition at those moments. The performance by Felicity Jones, who plays Jane, is also brilliant: while the film does focus on Hawking and his disease, it also does a fantastic job of showing the emotional impact it has on his friends and family, especially his wife.

The story moves along at a pleasing pace: you never feel that they are over-exposing certain parts of his life, but they delve into a suitable amount of detail that you feel like you know enough about the history of his life. I must admit that I knew very little about motor neurone disease before going to see this film; now that I have seen this movie, I am much more knowledgeable about the physics of the disease.

Before filming, Eddie Redmayne would meet with Stephen Hawking to find out little details about his life and to look at some of his mannerisms. The rest of the cast are very good, but they allow the central characters to shine throughout. As stated before, the focus of the film is Hawking’s love life as opposed to his scientific work, which has attracted some detractors. But, in my opinion, it gives the film a more powerful narrative and an increasingly dramatic climax than if it had focused solely on the science. As much as this is a love story, the science is approached and is more than just a minor plotline. Stephen’s theory of black holes and the beginning of the universe are prominent components of the story, as they change how the world viewed Hawking and made him a man to believe in.

For a love story, I felt that the film could have been a bit more emotional; if some scenes had been a little longer and been more focused, then we may have felt more emotion towards the characters. That being said, the ending of the film is very uplifting thanks to a powerful final speech by Hawking.

Overall, I believe that this film is a fantastic blend of science, love and tragedy. As much as the disease retains the focus of the audience, the relationship between the characters through each stage of his illness must be applauded as well. Eddie Redmayne is the outstanding performer of the movie and, to me, should be the favourite to lift the Oscars for Best Actor and Best Performance. The Theory of Everything is an enjoyable film for all the family, which will leave you feeling uplifted, inspired and sympathetic at the same time.

Overall Rating: 8/10 – Very Good

Sunday 25 January 2015

The Dark Knight Rises

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Warner Bros., the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Warner Bros. Pictures

Production Companies: Legendary Pictures, DC Entertainment and Syncopy

Director: Christopher Nolan

Producers: Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan and Charles Roven

Scriptwriters: Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan

Main Cast: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Morgan Freeman

Released: July 16 2012 (NY) and July 20 2012 (UK & US)

Running Time: 164 Minutes

Certificate: 12A


Back in 2003, a little-known director named Christopher Nolan (Insomnia, 2002) began working on the reboot for the Batman franchise that Warner Brothers had been waiting for. At this time, Nolan had only made a couple of feature films, all of which were very low budget; however, they were all well-received at the box office and by critics alike. And so he and David Goyer (Man of Steel, 2013) set about the task of drawing up a new way to tell Batman’s origin story and a new theme for the franchise.


In 2005, Batman Begins was released, and it was a huge success; this was the film that all Batman and comic book fans alike had been waiting for since the dreadful Batman Forever (1998). And after that came arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time with The Dark Knight. The film will forever be remembered for the performance of the late Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain, 2004) as the Joker, rightfully earning himself an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 2009.


So it’s understandable that the announcement of the most recent installment in the franchise was greeted with mass excitement. Before the confirmation of the Dark Knight Rises, the Internet had been awash with speculation about the title, whether Nolan would direct it, and who the villain would be portrayed by. Now, I am reviewing this retrospectively; it has been almost three years since this film was released. I still remember the day I went to see it for the first time: I queued up early, having already pre-booked my tickets online. And, fortunately, the movie lived up to the hype as I shall now explain.


To begin with, the story picks up eight years after the Dark Knight, and it is really interesting to see where the characters are at this point; they are still struggling to cope with the actions and decisions made eight years earlier. Bruce Wayne had become a recluse within his own home, and therefore Batman hadn’t been seen since the death of Harvey Dent/Two Face. However, there is a dark force coming to Gotham in the form of Bane. Batman must come out of retirement to fight the evil Bane and protect his beloved city.


Now, I am not going to give any more of the story away in case you haven’t seen it already. Because this was the final installment, and that this was emphasised by Christopher Nolan from the beginning, fans speculated about whether Batman would live, die or pass on the baton onto someone else. The film is around two hours and forty minutes, which is an awfully long time; yet the movie is so enthralling that the time passes by very quickly; you are so engrossed into the story and the images on-screen. Part of the reason concerns production. Along with the Dark Knight, Nolan decided to film certain scenes in this film in the IMAX format. These scenes look fantastic on the big screen; Nolan is a master of the IMAX camera, and it really helps the movie, especially in the action scenes with the Bat and Tumbler fight complex.


Running concurrently with all the fighting is a very warm story that runs deep through the majority of the characters. The theme of the movie is hope: despite everything that happens in the film, the characters cling onto Batman as hope, and at times even Bruce Wayne looks up to Batman. This movie has to deal with a number of story arcs coming to an end, and occasionally it does seem to be juggling too many plates at once, but they all come to a deserving and worthy end that fans should feel comforted by.


The casting and acting is brilliant. Each actor brings something different to their character. Tom Hardy as Bane was a good choice: Hardy is a method actor, and so he gained around 40 pounds to make sure he was big enough to play Bane. But it is his eyes that steal the show: for the majority of the film, he wears a special breathing mask that covers up everything other than the eyes (which puts a lot of pressure on the scriptwriters to tell the story when you can’t see the lead villain’s mouth). Tom does a fantastic job and, in particular, he deserves a lot of credit for diverting us from the fact that Heath Ledger is not here to play his role, and instead he gives us a completely different and totally believable and threatening villain; a villain that can even stand toe-to-toe with Batman in a fight on a number of occasions.


However, it is Anne Hathaway who steals the show this time around. A lot of fans complained beforehand that she wasn’t good enough to play Selina Kyle and that she wasn’t fit enough for the role. But credit to Anne: she went through six months’ worth of prep in the gym before shooting and closely studied how cats move. She is perfect for the part: she doesn’t allow the suit to overtake her on the screen, and she brings a new look and style to a very well-known character. She is by far the best part of this film.


In addition, the cinematography is absolutely fantastic, and that is all down to Christopher Nolan’s brilliant cinematographer Wally Pfister (Transcendence, 2014). Every shot looks visually stunning on a large canvas, and this allows colours and sound to really fly off the screen.


Overall, The Dark Knight Rises was a fitting conclusion to the greatest comic book trilogy of all-time, and maybe even the greatest trilogy of all-time period. The climax left me feeling satisfied, the action was enjoyable, and the story was interesting from beginning to end. A worthy end to a classic trilogy.


Overall Rating: 9/10 – Outstanding

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: 20th Century Fox, the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: 20th Century Fox

Production Companies: Chernin Entertainment, Scott Free Productions, Babieka and Volcano Films

Director: Ridley Scott

Producers: Peter Chernin, Ridley Scott, Jenno Topping, Michael Schaefer and Mark Huffam

Scriptwriters: Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine and Steven Zaillian

Main Cast: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Mendelsohn, Sigourney Weaver and Sir Ben Kingsley

Released: December 12 2014 (US) and December 26 2014 (UK)

Running Time: 150 Minutes

Certificate: 12A


For a number of years now, I have become less excited each time I hear that Ridley Scott (Alien, 1979; Blade Runner, 1982) is directing a new feature film. His last couple of films have been average at best; for example, Prometheus (2012) had so much promise, and was a film I had been looking forward to as a massive Alien fan. However, it did not live up to expectations; it was not a bad film, but it wasn’t a particularly good one either. I was also let down by Robin Hood (2010), amongst his other recent works.


Which brings us onto his new film, Exodus: Gods and Kings. I felt this was a very cheesy title, probably given to draw in crowds since a film about Moses, God and the Ten Commandments probably wouldn’t be too popular with the average modern-day movie goer. This film is a remake/modern adaptation of the 1958 film ‘The Ten Commandments’ (Cecil. B DeMille), which starred Charles Heston as Moses. This time around, it is Christian Bale (The Dark Knight, American Hustle) as Moses. Originally, he was wanted as Noah for Darren Aronofsky’s Noah (2014), but ultimately filming schedules clashed and he opted for this biblical epic instead.


To begin with, the casting in this film is a little erratic. The leads are played brilliantly by Bale and Edgerton (Warrior), as you would expect from such experienced actors. However, the performances of the supporting cast are very forgettable, and this includes Sir Ben Kingsley (Shutter Island, Iron Man 3). This is partly down to the script favouring action over story, in my opinion, which in the case of Kingsley just doesn’t do an actor of his ability any good.


Casting has been heavily criticised for this film. I won’t go too much into racial politics and so on, but the idea that all the main characters are played by white American or British actors and that all the slaves were played by black American actors made me feel very uncomfortable. I understand that at the time slavery did exist, but it seems like the movie is trying to hammer this point home, which is slightly unsettling. Ridley Scott has claimed that this film would not be financially viable without white actors, which has led to discussions of whitewashing and structural racism in Hollywood … but we’ll move on.


At 150 minutes, the running time is fine; I didn’t feel the need to keep checking my watch to see how much time had passed. That being said, one could tell that it had been 150 minutes long. The opening scenes are fast-paced and introduce the characters really well. But then the movie becomes less enjoyable: the middle section is really boring and easy to forget, despite being pivotal to the narrative, to the point where I just couldn’t find myself caring about the characters at this point. And some scenes are simply not effective or progress too quickly. For instance, at one point in the film years pass by, and it isn’t explained very well at all. One minute, Moses is meeting a young woman for the first time and flirting with her, but then in the next scene they are married, and just as quickly they then they have a child. I understand about moving the film along, but maybe it would have been a little more interesting to show their love a bit more? Not only was this rushed, but when he leaves to help his people, you should care that he is leaving his family behind, but because of the rushed nature of the marriage and parenthood, I really didn’t care at all. I knew her for fifteen minutes and then she was gone again. How am I meant to feel an attachment to a lady in fifteen minutes?


On-screen, I mean?


The film does pick up steam as it heads towards its climax, as the two lead actors come together again. The plagues of Egypt form the highlight of the movie, in my opinion; on the whole, they are done really well, and whilst some were more disgusting than others, they all make an impact in their own way. That being said, the plagues are done fairly quickly so they perhaps does not hit the audience emotionally in the way that they should. A key problem I do have about this film is when we see the parting of the Red Sea by Moses. Now, I am a believer in Christianity and God, but I am a little skeptical on whether Moses really did part the sea. But in this film, I was still hoping to see an incredible CGI effect for this moment that would look fantastic on the big screen, which would make me sit back and go “Wow!” But it didn’t happen. The way that this was handled was really dull and disappointing and, if I hadn’t already read the story of Moses, the chances are that you wouldn’t have even noticed it happening. It looked more like the tide went in and then just came back again a couple of hours later, so this was a big let-down.


To be fair, the CGI is actually really good in this movie. I believed everything that I saw; everything seemed to look realistic enough. I am not generally a fan of 3D films; I feel they are a waste of money and, even when a film is shot in 3D, I still don’t feel the benefit of them. Besides, they give me a headache. So, if you do go to see Exodus, don’t watch it in 3D!


To conclude, the best thing I can say about Exodus: Gods and Kings is that it has been hard to write this review, but only because I had forgotten most of what happened. It does not stand out for me as a 3D film, an action film or a drama. It tries too hard to do one thing that it forgets the basic elements of an interesting story and script. The story of Moses is really interesting; unfortunately, this film’s adaptation of it is not.


Overall Rating: 5/10 – Average

The Blind Side

Image Source: Wikipedia
Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Companies: Alcon Entertainment and Fortis Films
Director: John Lee Hancock
Producers: Broderick Johnson, Andrew Kosove and Gil Netter
Scriptwriter: John Lee Hancock
Main Cast: Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw, Quinton Aaron and Kathy Bates
Released: November 20 2009 (US) and March 26 2010 (UK)
Running Time: 129 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

The Blind Side is a 2009 semi-biographical sports drama film, based on the upbringing and career of American NFL star Michael Oher. The film was written and directed by John Lee Hancock (Saving Mr Banks, 2013; The Rookie, 2002), and is based on the book by Michael Lewis entitled ‘The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game’. The film was nominated for many awards, and picked up the Best Film prize at the Academy Awards and at the Teen Choice Awards. Sandra Bullock also received special praise for her performance, picking up an Academy Award for ‘Best Supporting Actress’ and a Golden Globe in the same category.

Now, I am not going to lie: I have not got a clue about American football. I do not know how to play the game, I do not know the rules of the game, I do not even know any of the major stars in the game. It is something that has never interested me and, when I have seen it on television, either at Wembley Stadium or in its natural home of the USA, quite frankly it has bored me. So when I discovered The Blind Side, I had my reservations about it. I knew that it had done very well during the awards season, and I admire the work of Sandra Bullock in other films (Gravity, released in 2013, and Speed, released in 1994, are two such examples); however, I was still unsure about this movie. In the end, I finally decided to give the film a chance, and I am very thankful that I did. This carries a number of different emotional story arcs that effectively convey into the overall plot of the film; for that reason alone, it is a must-watch for any film fan. Notice that I did not say sports fan! Yes, the premise of the film is about American football, but that pales into insignificance when you watch the emotional entanglement of the Tuohy family as they battle to help a young man find his feet in a world that has never been fair to him nor has it provided him with an opportunity to shine.

Sandra Bullock is fantastic in this movie. Her character, Leigh Anne Tuohy, starts out as a focused interior designer who works very hard. She is married to her husband Sean Tuohy, played by country singer Tim McGraw (Friday Night Lights, 2004). They have a happy family with two children: a young boy named Sean Jr. “S.J.” Tuohy, portrayed by Jae Head (Hancock, 2008), and 16-year-old daughter Collins Tuohy, played by British-born actress Lilly Collins (The English Teacher, 2013). The opening act introduces us to these characters during a volleyball game between two schools. This scene was designed to emphasise the family’s rich sporting background. On the way home, they pass by Michael, or ‘Big Mike’ as he is referred to initially. Leigh Anne feels sympathy for him, and decides to invite him back to their family residence.

To be honest, this was my major disagreement with the plot-line: yes, the narrative is based on true events, but the entire family welcome him in, basically with open arms. Surely, there must have been some resistance from the husband or daughter about letting a stranger stay in their home. In my opinion, they could have covered this in a little more depth. However, it is a small gripe that does not disrupt the flow of the film nor does it take one’s attention away. I am a big fan of the BBC film reviewer Mark Kermode, and he said something about a film once that really stayed with me. His comment was: “If you are watching a film and you start wondering and thinking about what should be in the film, whether it is realistic of the characters to do a certain action, then you do not have a care for the characters in the film. You are more interested about other things than what is actually on the screen.” Despite my reservations about the aforementioned scene, at no point in this film did I feel like that; I was completely engrossed from beginning to end.

By the middle act, The Blind Side it is trying to pull a number of different yet interlinked story-lines along. You have the struggle of Michael trying to fit in at his new adopted home, during which time he is trying to get good grades so he can go off to college, and he is still trying to impress his school football team. In the meantime, Leigh Anne is trying to find Michael’s true mother and to learn where he originally came from. This could cause complications for the viewer and become difficult to follow; however, this is not the case. The movie has a seamless flow to it that keeps you interested without too much actually happening on-screen. As the film rolls on, Leigh Anne instills confidence into Mike to try and make sure that he can become the very best at American football. Now, Leigh Anne isn’t in any need of extra cash, so from the beginning you are aware that her motives for helping Michael are different, and I believe that is what helps the movie to stand out; what are Leigh Anne’s motives?

By the time we reach the climax, the film has followed the usual routines for this genre; the problem has been solved, and cue a celebratory montage. However, one question is thrown at Michael which, in turn, is thrown to the audience, and suddenly the conclusion is not all what it seems. What is that question? Now that would be a spoiler, as it makes one reflect over the events of the film and make you decide your own feelings on the situation, partly because the question is essentially left unanswered. We are left to assume that her motives are positive, although that doesn’t necessarily mean that the lady on whom this is based made her decisions for the same reasons. All I will say is that it relates to an affiliation to a certain college football team, which is foreshadowed during the volleyball game from the opening scene. Despite this unanswered question, the ending provides enough satisfaction that you will probably not be wishing for a sequel, but part of the movie’s strength is that the tale is told so well, and the ending is conclusive enough that no sequel is necessary. I certainly found it to be 129 minutes well spent.

Overall, I believe that The Blind Side was a real success. It drew me in, and I am a UK resident with no knowledge of or interest in American football. And at times, I was inspired by what the Tuohy family did for Michael and, in turn, what he did in return. This movie is fantastic at what it aims to do, which is to bring you into this perfect American family and take you on the same journey as Big Mike himself.

Overall Rating: 8/10 – Very Good

Saturday 24 January 2015

Interstellar

Image Source: Wikipedia
Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Paramount Pictures (US) and Warner Bros. Pictures (International)
Production Companies: Legendary Pictures, Syncopy and Lynda Obst Productions
Director: Christopher Nolan
Producers: Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan and Lynda Obst
Scriptwriters: Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan
Main Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Bill Irwin, Ellen Burstyn and Michael Caine
Released: November 5 2014 (US) and November 7 2014 (UK)
Running Time: 169 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

“Do not go gentle into that goodnight, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light.” A sentence that encapsulates the entire movie of Interstellar and its themes.

To begin with, Interstellar is a science fiction film written and directed by Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, 2008; Inception, 2010). This is Christopher Nolan’s first film since he completed his Dark Knight trilogy. Personally, I am a huge fan of Nolan’s work: I have enjoyed every single film Nolan has directed or written, from The Following to Insomnia to The Prestige, as well as all three Batman films. And then there’s the mind-blowing Inception which is an absolute must-see for anyone unfamiliar with the movie.

And so we come to his latest project, Interstellar. Prior to its release, there was been a lot of mystery surrounding this film, which I like: I personally love walking into the cinema and not knowing anything about the plot or the characters, which is exactly what happened when I went to see this movie for the first time. To show how much I enjoyed it, I have seen this film three times already (no mean feat for a movie lasting nearly three hours) and twice in IMAX which we will get onto a little later.

The casting in Interstellar is of a high standard, with actors such as the resurgent Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine and Matt Damon. For all the scientific elements and for all of its stunning production qualities, this is ultimately a film about love. But don’t confuse this with a romantic comedy; we’re talking about the love and connection between a father and his daughter, who builds up resentment towards her dad after losing touch, but never loses the love she has for him, nor does she 100% lose faith that someday they will be reunited.

There is a line spoken by Anne Hathaway’s character Amelia which is: “Love is the one thing that can transcend time and space”. And that is the true focus of this film. Yes, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) has a mission for NASA and is aiming to save the future of the human race, but his underlying mission is to get back home to see his daughter before it is too late. You feel this while watching the film; you feel that time is slipping away, which begins to affect certain decisions they are making whether for good or bad. Yet you feel every emotion that Cooper does; you the audience feel very attached to both father and daughter, because the exposition of the film is handled brilliantly by Nolan.

The opening of the film focuses on Earth’s plight and the struggles humanity is facing; the world is running out of food and needs to either find a new home or find a new way of creating food. Meanwhile, NASA have been working in secret to find a way to save the world, and their answer lies within a number of habitable planets outside of the galaxy, with the intention being to move everyone off Earth and to the new planet. However, they must find the right planet first, and that is a task assigned to Cooper and his team. They pilot the space craft through a worm hole put there by more intelligent beings from the future. While Cooper is in space, his son Tom and his daughter Murphy grow up but, given the circumstances by which Cooper had to leave his family, Murphy chooses not to speak to Cooper for over thirty years, due to how much it affected her that her father had to leave. That being said, she does want to help and she too realises that time is running out fast. Tom, on the other hand, is more at peace with the situation and becomes a farmer and a father of two children, one of them whom is dying at a young age. Only then does he become insecure and then resent his father for not being there. Both Murphy (Jessica Chastain) and Cooper are fighting against time and space to save the world but, more importantly, for them to see each other again.

What makes Christopher Nolan so unique is his ability to make the picture the forefront of his films. By this, I mean the visual image on-screen which is sometimes more important than the dialogue being spoken, at least from a production standpoint. He is a keen advocate of IMAX cameras; now, for those unfamiliar with the term, I went to see this film in IMAX, and I have to admit that I was blown away by the picture quality and the sound. It adds a completely new visual and audio experience to what is already a brilliant film. The special effects in this film must also get a mention because they are stunning. A lot of these effects were done in camera, and the entire spaceship was built on a motion set, so the actors knew what buttons to press and what they were working with. This really does give the film a more organic feeling that most of the time you will not get with a science fiction film.

Interstellar as a whole is very entertaining, interesting and educational. You really have to pay attention to the science being discussed on the screen as it becomes very important once the film reaches its conclusion (which, incidentally, I will not spoil, although the ending has been criticised by some). Personally, whilst I felt that its key messages could have been explained a little more clearly at the climax, I still found it a fitting way to end the movie. For me, Interstellar is as good as perfect in every aspect, which is why I have given it the highest rating possible and why I expect it to make an impact at the 2015 Oscars.

Overall Rating: 10/10 – Perfect

Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance)

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Fox Searchlight Pictures, the
film publisher or graphic artist.)
Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributors: Fox Searchlight Pictures
Production Companies: Regency Enterprises and Worldview Entertainment
Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Producers: Alejandro González Iñárritu, John Lesher, Arnon Milchan and James W. Skotchdopole
Scriptwriters: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. and Armando Bo
Main Cast: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Edward Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan, Emma Stone and Naomi Watts
Released: August 27 2014 (Venice), October 17 2014 (US) and January 1 2015 (UK)
Running Time: 119 Minutes
Certificate: 15

If you had seen the trailers, Birdman, released in the US in late 2014 but being released as one of the first big movies of 2015 in the UK, may not be the film that you were expecting; however, the story that it does provide is engaging enough that it should satisfy moviegoers.

Birdman sees Michael Keaton play washed-up Hollywood actor Riggan Thomson, whose previous fame had been derived from Riggan playing the role of (yes!) Birdman in a superhero franchise years earlier; however, his only goal now is to re-launch his flagging career through the art of theatre. His personal pet project, a Broadway three-nighter of Raymond Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” which he is writing, directing and starring in, is viewed as his last chance to show that his versatility and body of work lie beyond the realms of Birdman, a task made more difficult by the frequent criticism within Riggan’s mind (and sometimes in his line of sight) by the Birdman character.

As distracting as these cutting comments are, though, the greater troubles for Riggan come from his fellow cast members, including method actor Mike Shiner (played by Edward Norton), who causes a variety of problems in previews yet manages to become the most-talked actor of the production; Riggan’s girlfriend Laura (Andrea Riseborough), whose presence is made more awkward by that of Riggan’s ex-wife Sylvia (Amy Ryan); and his daughter Sam (Emma Stone), whose drug habits and growing relationship with Mike disappoint and devastate Riggan on both a personal and professional level.

As if Riggan’s woes weren’t unbearable enough, he learns that well-renowned New York film critic Tabitha Dickinson (Lindsay Duncan) plans to give his show a savage review regardless of its quality on the night, her explanation being that an inexperienced theatre actor like him should not be sullying the reputation of Broadway with his attempt at a production. After much soul-searching, from personal turmoil to acts of near-professional suicide, Riggan decides that the only way to solve his problems is to end the final night of the show’s run with a bang – but can the high risk truly justify the potential rewards?

The plot-line sounds dramatic and at times heart-wrenching, and there are a number of very dramatic scenes; however, Birdman is actually a black comedy which manages to deliver humorous quips and visuals throughout much of the story, including moments of graphic violence and even during an attempt by Mike to make a sex scene with Lesley (Naomi Watts) more realistic by trying to convince her that they should have sex for real due to him being erect (which is made more comical by Mike’s subsequent relationship with Sam).

That being said, the true story of Birdman is one of a failed actor’s last chance to be a somebody, or else risk being forgotten altogether. It is a tale that I am sure many former thespians can relate to; the difference here is that Riggan’s world is crumbling around him at the same time, which clearly affects him, yet his sole intention is to make his final performance on-stage be impactful enough that it would make up for all of his problems.

The tale is made more plausible because of the acting of all involved. Indeed, all involved deliver strong performances, especially Michael Keaton whose portrayal of Riggan in the last-chance saloon of entertainment whilst surrounded by a dysfunctional personal life is utterly believable; many have said that Keaton’s work here is a career performance. Special mention must also go to Edward Norton, who is both a figure of admiration and hatred at various if not simultaneous points, and who could not be more convincing as an actor who thinks on the spot about what lines and actions would be most effective – even with a capacity crowd looking on.

I would be more remiss not to make note of the actual production of Birdman. Emmanuel Lubezki, cinematographer, stated that the movie was filmed (in and around the St. James Theatre in New York City) to try and look like one continuous shot, and it is; although scenes clearly change, and day turns into night before our very eyes and vice versa, to the naked eye the entire movie comes across as one very long scene. It’s an effective tactic which takes some getting used to at first but feels natural as the movie progresses, and is actually logical when you consider that during the average person’s day, what they see really is a long-running scene rather than a series of mini-scenes. That being said, I could not watch many films in their entirety in this way – it’s a hard adjustment when you next come to watch something which does have traditional cutaways – but it works very well here.

There is much to like here, but I did find some elements confusing. Riggan’s previous and current relationships are hard to follow, including a sudden announcement which later proved to be false that Riggan would be a father; the Birdman tie-in, as stated, is prevalent enough yet on the whole insignificant that it may have misled those who watched the film expecting a superhero plot-line; and while I won’t spoil the ending, I can say that some aspects of the conclusion are somewhat odd and even contradictory.

Overall, though, Birdman is definitely worthy of one’s time and captures one’s interest throughout, with you almost begging Riggan to overcome the mounting odds come the final performance of his production. Certain arcs of the story are confusing (perhaps because of the use of one continuous shot which may have eliminated what could have been explanatory scenes) and it may require more than one viewing to truly understand it, but it delivers a unique cinematic experience and plenty of strong performances to ensure that, whilst it is not in the same vein as the superhero franchises which I originally believed it would be akin to, Birdman is a thoroughly engaging movie whereby its most identifiable elements position it to stand as its own as a one-of-a-kind production.

Overall Rating: 8.5/10 – Excellent

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

Image Source: Wikipedia
Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributors: Paramount Pictures (US) and Warner Bros. Pictures (International)
Production Companies: Comedy Central Films, Braniff Productions and Scott Rudin Productions
Director: Trey Parker
Producers: Trey Parker and Matt Stone
Scriptwriters: Trey Parker, Matt Stone and Pam Brady
Main Cast: Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Mary Kay Bergman and Isaac Hayes
Released: June 30 1999 (US) and August 27 1999 (UK)
Running Time: 81 Minutes
Certificate: 15

When it debuted on Comedy Central in the States back in 1997, South Park was a revelation. At a time when cartoons rarely pushed the envelope, South Park used crude humour and shock tactics, along with some pretty funny dialogue and situations, to provide a truly groundbreaking television show. It wasn’t afraid to mock celebrities, companies, religions, or even itself; its initially poor animation would be a subject of its own ridicule in the years to come.

Whilst ratings were at their peak during the earliest years of its run, the show has grown into something more akin to political commentary through the most asinine yet hilarious storylines imaginable, resulting in a far more polished and entertaining programme. The initial elements which made the show stand out (strong language, sexual themes etc) are now taken for granted by viewers, even though they are laid on thicker than ever. Any episode from the last few years would probably have sent some people bonkers, had they been aired in the late 1990s. Which, ironically, provides the plot for its motion picture, South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut, released in 1999.

The story is based around the boys (Cartman, Kyle, Stan and Kenny, for those unfamiliar) sneaking in to see the new Terrance & Philip film, which features strong language and a ton of innuendos which the kids start using as part of daily conversation. As more and more people see the movie, and start casually swearing (more than usual), school staff and parents are shocked at how the film has influenced the children, and begin lambasting and protesting against Terrance & Philip. Cue the arrest of the two Canadian TV stars (T&P, again for South Park newbies), the reactionary killing of the Baldwins, and the resultant decision for the US to go to war with Canada, including the planned execution of Terrance & Philip at a USO show. Giving away further plot developments would spoil the movie for those who haven’t seen it, but I can add that there are a number of secondary storylines, the most notable being Stan’s attempts to “find the clitoris” as he looks to win back Wendy’s affections, who seemingly has a new boyfriend in Gregory. Oh, and Satan and Saddam Hussein plan to take over the world.

As this film was created during the early years of South Park’s run, it relies a lot on the shock tactics which initially made the programme stand out, albeit pushed to a new height (all swearwords are unbleeped, sexual innuendo is fairly consistent and stronger than it had been previously in the show, etc), and less on political commentary, although it becomes obvious that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are using the film’s theme to generally comment on the reaction to its own programme; namely, those whose reactions to a provocative TV production are over-the-top end up doing more harm than good with their attempts to censor material that they find offensive.

Music was used heavily in this film, a lot more so than what South Park fans had been accustomed to. At the time, this seemed like a bad idea beforehand; but most songs were in tune with the plot-lines, and many either provided witty one-liners or were comedy gold, for reasons ranging from the language used to the ridiculous voices and humorous visuals. In fact, a number of the songs are fondly remembered today as being some of the funniest or most memorable musical numbers ever in any movie. Of course, the show has since incorporated music to such an extent that the songs are usually hilarious for the aforementioned reasons, so in hindsight any concerns that the film would drag because of its large use of music were unnecessary.

Watching the film again, all these years later, obviously provides a different perspective than when I first saw it, but the two experiences have one important thing in common: both then and now, I found the movie to be hilarious. It bursts into life with the Terrance & Philip movie, and from there the number of funny, clever or simply hilarious quotes and moments is vast. Watching it in modern times obviously alters one’s reaction to certain scenes; for example, the prevalent use of the f-word is far less shocking now than back then, and as the show routinely uses unbleeped swearing nowadays, the fact that strong language is used so often and is uncensored in the movie doesn’t have much of an impact. The animation is a bit rough-around-the-edges, but by no means a distraction; as stated, South Park’s animation would often be made fun of by the show itself (including in this film). I was surprised by how quickly scenes flowed; at times, I was almost out of breath due to how fast lines were being delivered. The other slight downside is that some of the show’s funnier characters in later years either play a minor role (Randy Marsh, Butters) or had yet to be introduced, so they aren’t present at all (Timmy, Jimmy etc).

But without question, one comes away from the film feeling positive. The show uses a number of simple themes which, in fact, had already been used or touched upon in the series beforehand, and creates an unforgettable animated experience. The one-liners, the musical numbers, the ridiculous situations, the simple yet massively detailed animation, the self-parodying, the heavy yet clever use of adult themes – everything comes together brilliantly, and the outcome is what will probably be the funniest animated movie that you will ever see. I would expand further but you really have to see this film to appreciate how funny some moments are. For first-timers, I will simply advise you to watch out for the T&P movie, the scene where Cartman is fitted with a V-chip, and a musical number about Canada; chances are that you won’t easily forget them.

Fans have been clamouring for a sequel since then, with the nearest thing being the hugely enjoyable three-parter Imaginationland from Season 11. Trey and Matt have often pointed out how exhausting the production of this movie was and its knock-on effect on the TV series, and given the amount of problems they encountered during the process (including plenty of confrontations with Paramount Pictures over the movie’s rating), they have publicly stated that if there ever was a second film, it would most likely close the series as a whole. It would be great to see a proper follow-up one day, though, especially given how the programme has evolved since the movie was released at the close of the 20th century.

Overall, then, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut doesn’t have quite the same impact as it did back in 1999, but it remains a hugely enjoyable movie that will have you repeating one-liners, and maybe even one or two of the songs, for a long time to come. If you’re a South Park fan then you’ve probably seen it at some point, but even if you’re not, you really should see what stands out as one of the all-time great animation experiences.

Overall Rating: 8.5/10 – Excellent