Whiplash

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Sony Pictures
Classics, the film publisher
or  graphic artist.)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Sony Pictures Classics
Production Companies: Bold Films, Blumhouse Productions and Right Of Way Films
Director: Damien Chazelle
Producers: Jason Blum, Helen Estabrook, Michel Litvak and David Lancaster
Scriptwriter: Damien Chazelle
Main Cast: Miles Teller, J.K Simmons and Paul Reiser
Released: January 16 2014 (Sundance Film Festival), October 10 2014 (US) and January 16 2015 (UK)
Running Time: 107 Minutes
Certificate: 15

There are certain films that you make specific plans to see, and then there are those which you don't. Whiplash is one of those that happened not unexpectedly, but by chance. You see, me and a friend attended a special screening of an upcoming film where the identity of the movie would only be known when it begun. And when I saw the name "Whiplash" appear on-screen, I was unsure what to expect. It sounded like a thriller. But it could have been a drama. Or would it be something completely different? And regardless of what genre it was, would it be any good?

The first question is hard to answer. It is a drama, but it has elements of a thriller, and it also has aspects which make it a comedy. And the second question? Well, it is good. Very, very good.

It starts off quite slow as we are introduced to Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller), a student jazz drummer determined to become a master at his craft, a goal spurned on by the direction of his new jazz teacher Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). His skills improve due to the guidance of his tutor, but of greater note is how strict a teacher Simmons is. He uses brutal criticisms to not only push his students to the peak of their powers, but he forces them to the level of tears - Fletcher throws a chair at Neiman as he is getting to grips with the musical number Whiplash in his very first lesson - even to the point where they are performing so hard with their instruments that they are bleeding profusely. And it is so realistic and there are so few camera cuts during the music rehearsal scenes that you wonder how they could have made it look so real. The answer is simple: these scenes were done for real. Well, maybe not quite as ferocious as what we see, but there are few special effects used here; what you see is what you would get had you been on set for the filming of these scenes. It helps that the other students are largely compromised of real musicians.

And Fletcher does not hold back: whatever you think is "too far", he goes beyond that, and then some. His delivery is as intense as could be, his general look and mannerisms exude intimidation, and he looks like he would sooner put a bullet in your throat than let you use it to produce music. In Neiman's case, as he is a drummer, we see his eyes water and his mouth quiver with every brutal verbal shot fired at him by Fletcher as he is rehearsing and attempting to learn new routines with very little practice and with the knowledge that one error results in him being torn apart.

All of that makes Fletcher seem like a truly loathsome man. But, at the same time, one cnanot help but smile - and, at times, laugh out loud - at some of his criticisms. Some of his cutting lines are so unacceptable, so filthy, so far beyond the realsm of acceptable taste in a college environment that you can't help but giggle, even if he is reducing his students to an absolute wreck.

Still, Andrew does improve. Too much, in fact: as he grows in confidence, it crosses over into arrogance as he willingly sacrifices a romantic relationship to pursue his dream to be, as he tells his less interested family, "the greatest drummer who ever lived". But being pushed by Fletcher and his attempts to fight back by standing up for himself result in a car accident that one would assume crushes his dreams. But he gets back up, only to be treated like an afterthought by the uncaring Fletcher. Now, Andrew does fight back, for real, and both are taken away from the environment which turned them into monsters.

However, their story does not end there. A chance reunion leads to them coming to an understanding, and even building something of a friendship as Fletcher invites his former student to perform at a major jazz festival. This is Andrew's chance to prove his talent once and for all. However, will he get the chance, or is Fletcher setting Andrew up for one giant fall? And, once he discovers the truth, how will Neiman respond to what could be the greatest moment, or greatest disappointment, of his life?

The story is very engaging, and there are plenty of twists which ensure that the plot never becomes predictable. The high-drama scenes are as intense as could be, and one cannot help but be mesmerised at what is unfolding on the screen. Fletcher manages to provoke hatred and some admiration at the same time, although the former definitely outweighs the latter; and the same applies to Andrew, only in his case the latter definitely outweighs the former. And whilst Simmons is the undisputed star of the movie as Fletcher - he brings to the role an air of menace, passion and a demand for perfection that, along with his cutting yet at times hilarious insults and his generally high levels of intimdation and intensity, that he becomes one of the most memorable "villain" characters that you are likely to see - Teller is very good as Neiman, and his performance in the final scene can only be described as phenomenal. To explain why would spoil the ending, so I cannot elaborate; when you see it, however, you will come away feeling that you have just witnessed something momentous. All I'll say is, you'll be even more impressed to know this was all real.

Perhaps the greatest compliment that I can give Whiplash is that I was not expecting to see this film, I may not have gone to see it had I known it was a drama based on jazz music, and there are scenes which are a bit slow and even the climax, as spectacular as it is, made for an abrupt ending. Plus, I had not heard of most of the cast beforehand. But even with all that, I found Whiplash to be an extremely compelling movie that I would recommend to anybody. Unlike what I had done, you should definitely make specific plans to see what I consider to be a brilliant film.

Overall Rating: 9/10 - Outstanding

Airplane!

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Production Company: Paramount Pictures
Directors: Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker
Producer: Jon Davison
Scriptwriters: Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker
Main Cast: Robert Hays, Julie Hagerty and Leslie Neilsen
Released: July 2 1980
Running Time: 87 Minutes
Certificate: 15

"Surely, you can't be serious."

"I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."

If ever a piece of dialogue embodied a film, it's this classic exchange from the movie Airplane! For whilst the plot centres around the possibility of an aeroplane crashing, and one's desperate attempts to prevent such a tragedy from happening, the frequent one-liners and ridiculous yet hilarious visual jokes are so funny that the tone of the movie is never anything less than slapstick comedy (fans of the Naked Gun movies, including me, will not be surprised once viewing this film that the Zucker brothers were also responsible for the aforementioned trilogy).

Ted Striker, played here by Robert Hayes, used to be a fighter pilot. Unfortunately, after a bad experience which traumatised him, he now has a fear of flying. But he happens to be a passenger on this flight, which becomes uncomfortable when he learns that one of the air hostesses is Elaine Dickinson (Julie Hagerty), who used to be his girlfriend. They catch up on old times, accompanied by flashback clips (the homage to Saturday Night Fever, a recent film at the time as it was released in 1978, is great), but it becomes clear that past problems remain an issue for both, and their interaction becomes awkward for each as the film rolls on despite Ted's hopes to rekindle their romance.

However, there is a greater problem on the horizon. The menu for passengers consists of only two options, fish and steak, but the fish has given food poisoning to everybody who has eaten it including, worryingly, the pilot and his co-pilots. The illness is identified by Dr. Rumack, played by my favourite comic actor Leslie Neilsen, who humorously says that he avoided the food problem himself by eating lasagna. Still, whilst the problem is identified, it hasn't been solved: the plane is going to crash unless someone else takes control at the cockpit.

But whilst an inflatable autopilot named "Otto" helps, the only passenger with experience of flying planes is Ted Striker, who as noted is nervous enough due to a fear of flying. At this point, though, he's the only hope that everyone has, causing people to panic (including the Statue Of Liberty, who puts her head in her hands at the prospect). Despite having never flown an aircraft of this nature, he gives it a shot, but nerves get the best of him, especially when having to exchange instructions with Rex Kramer (Robert Stack), previously Ted's commanding officer. Add to that his relationship problems with Elaine, and the forecast seems bleak. However, a timely pep talk by Rumack convinces Ted that he has what it takes to finish the job and land everybody safely - but is it too little, too late?

The premise is easy to follow and the side-story of an old romance slowly reforming gives the story a logical structure, but the true entertainment comes from the hundreds - and I do mean - hundreds of physical, visual and verbal gags, many of which are very, very funny, and some of which are classic movie lines. Other images are unforgettable, such as this one of Steve McKroskey (Lloyd Bridges) to the right.

Image Source: Pix Good

Notice anything?

I am a bit biased, but I have to say that Leslie Neilsen is brilliant here as a straight-faced doctor who comes out with some hilarious comments or is simply funny in his overall mannerisms, including a repetition of a good luck message after the situation has been resolved. In fact, this marked the first role in comedy for Neilsen, previously a serious actor (which was another spoof element), who would then go on to become famous for deadpan comedy.

Robert Hayes is very good as Ted Striker, and is believable not only in portraying the Ted character and handling the situations he encounters, but also in making the ridiculous seem genuine. For instance, if somebody says they have "a drink problem", it's unlikely to resemble the dilemma Ted has, but it never stops being funny despite the daftness of it. The rest of the cast are good too: Julie is very good as Elaine, and even minor characters are involved in some very amusing moments, one example being the use of the pilot phrase "Roger" when one of the co-pilots is actually called Roger.

In closing, Airplane! is the perfect spoof of a disaster movie (it particularly lampoons the 1957 film Zero Hour!). It takes a logical storyline and turns it into a comedy classic, not by making the overall plot nonsensical, but by adding a huge amount of great jokes to virtually every scene. You would probably have to watch this more than once to notice them all. And they range from the silly (Dr. Rumack's exchanges) to the dark (such as trying to calm down passengers on a risk-surrounded flight by showing them a movie which includes a plane crashing), but they all have one thing in common: they are very funny and even the oft-repeated lines never get old. If you haven't seen Airplane! in the past, make plans to watch it because it is an all-time great comedy film, maybe even the best comedy ever, so you will love it. Shirley.

Overall Rating: 10/10 - Perfect

The Oscars 2015: And the winners were ...

Image Source: Collide

Written By: Luke Mythen

Another year, another Academy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles. This year, the 87th awards show was hosted by the very enthusiastic and talented Neil Patrick Harris, taking over from last year’s host Ellen DeGeneres. Before the awards, everyone had their own opinions and favourites, ranging from Birdman to The Theory Of Everything; everyone had their own views on who should win. And whether you love these awards or you hate them, they are the peak of an actor's or a film maker's career, they can open doors, and they can allow the unrecognisable to become recognisable. They have also provided us with some of the most famous television moments, from Ellen DeGeneres' selfie with the audience in 2014 to Marlon Brando’s Oscar snub in 1973 when a young American Indian girl named Sacheen Littlefather took to the stage to meet the crowd. If you would like to see this in full, click here.

As with every ceremony, the opening is vitally important. There was an immense pressure on the shoulders of the diverse host, who has previously worked on stage and was most recently in Gone Girl and the television series How I Met Your Mother. The opening was very tasteful, which is a rarity for the Oscars: the song was quick and easy to bob along with, and it was performed well by both Neil Patrick Harris and Jack Black. The Birdman sequence was really something to behold; another historic moment in the history of the Oscars.

The live performances on the night kept the show moving, and provided the audience with a grateful gap between awards. The stand-out performance, however, was the song by the Oscar winners on the night for their original number Glory for the film Selma. It moved a lot of the audience to tears with its message of hope and freedom, the message that Martin Luther King was spreading at this time.

Still, we are not watching the Oscars because we want to see the host all night. We want to see the awards, the victory speeches and the losers' sour expressions. Back in January, we were given the shortlist of the nominations within each category, and a lot of them had already been predicted and expected, but there were some unusual absentees. For example, The Lego Movie, which was a personal favourite of mine last year, was not considered for Best Animation category, although the song Everything Is Awesome from the movie was nominated and performed at the ceremony, with a surprise guest known as Batman. Another strange absentee was Jake Gyllenhaal for his powerful and gritty performance in Nightcrawler. But now is not the time to concentrate on who should and who shouldn’t have been there; all we need to concentrate on now is who won and who didn’t this past Sunday evening.

We shall begin with the most prestigious category, and that is Best Picture. The films nominated were Birdman, The Theory Of Everything, Whiplash, Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Selma and The Imitation Game. All fantastic films in their own right; however, it was Birdman that came out victorious on the night. The field was strong, so it shows how good this year's winner had to be to triumph. You can read a review of Birdman by my colleague Mark Armstrong by clicking here.

The next big category is Best Actor In A Leading Role. Now, this had a lot of speculation before the nomination announcement because the calibre of the past year had been so high. The nominated actors included Eddie Redmayne, Michael Keaton, Steve Carrell, Bradley Cooper and Benedict Cumberbatch. I expected Redmayne to win, and he did. He provided a complete performance in The Theory Of Everything, as we accompanied him on a fascinating journey as Professor Steven Hawking from his time in University to the present day. I remember leaving the theatre that day knowing then that he would win the Oscar for Best Actor. You can read my full review of this particular film by clicking here. As you'll see, my foresight was exceptional!

The last category I am going to divulge into is Best Actress In A Leading Role. The nominations were again fierce and the competition was intense. Those up for the award included Marion Cotillard, Felicity Jones, Reese Witherspoon, Roseamund Pike and Julian Moore. The winner, of course, was the ever-talented Julian Moore for her performance in Still Alice. This is a long overdue Oscar for the actress who in the past has been nominated but was unsuccessful for films including Boogie Nights (1997) and Far From Heaven (2002).

Overall, this year’s Oscars didn’t stand out like many have in the past, as the films up for contention were not big box office smashes, such as in 2010 when the overall income for all the nominated films were over $1 billion. This time around, it was a much lower key event, but the winners were on the whole logical, the host was very entertaining, and the show ran very smoothly. And so I look forward to next year’s event with bated breath.

I conclude with a list of the winners in all categories at the 2015 Oscars. See you on the red carpet in 2016!

Best Picture: Birdman
Best Actress In A Leading Role: Julianne Moore (Still Alice)
Best Actor In A Leading Role: Eddie Redmayne (The Theory Of Everything)
Best Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu (Birdman)
Best Adapted Screenplay: The Imitation Game (Graham Moore)
Best Original Screenplay: Birdman (Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris Jr. and Armando Bo)
Best Original Score: The Grand Budapest Hotel (Alexandre Desplat0
Best Original Song: Glory (Selma; Music and lyrics by John Stephens and Lonnie Lynn)
Best Documentary Feature: Citizenfour (Laura Poitras, Mathilde Bonnefoy and Dirk Wilutzky)
Film Editing: Whiplash (Tom Cross)
Cinematography: Birdman (Emmanuel Lubezki)
Production Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel (Adam Stockhausen and Anna Pinnock)
Best Animated Feature: Big Hero 6 (Don Hall, Chris Williams and Roy Conli)
Best Animated Short: Feast (Patrick Osborne and Kristina Reed)
Achievements In Visual Effects: Interstellar (Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter and Scott Fisher)
Best Actress In A Supporting Role: Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
Sound Editing: American Sniper (Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman)
Sound Mixing: Whiplash (Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins and Thomas Curley)
Best Documentary Short Subject: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1 (Ellen Goosenberg Kent and Dana Perry)
Best Live Action Short Film: The Phone Call (Mat Kirkby and James Lucas)
Best Foreign Language Film: Ida (Poland)
Makeup and Hairstyling: Frances Hannon and Mark Coulier (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Costume Design: Milena Canonero (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Best Actor In A Supporting Role: J.K. Simmons (Whiplash)

Disagree with any of the choices? Leave your comments below!

Nightcrawler

Image Source: Wikipedia
(Copyright: Open Road Films, the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Open Road Films
Production Company: Bold Films
Director: Dan Gilroy
Producers: Jennifer Fox, Tony Gilroy, Michel Litvak, Jake Gyllenhaal and David Lancaster
Scriptwriter: Dan Gilroy
Main Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Riz Ahmed and Bill Paxton
Released: September 5 2014 (Toronto International Film Festival) and October 31 2014 (UK and US)
Running Time: 117 Minutes
Certificate: 15

When I saw the trailer for the movie Nightcrawler, I immediately wanted to see it. A burst of adrenaline, the preview clip looked action-packed, edgy, dangerous - in short, it made the film must-see. I did go and watch it but, whilst there's no denying that it is a compelling film, it didn't quite have the impact that I hoped it would from the trailer.

Nightcrawler sees Louis "Lou" Bloom (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) looking for work in any field, before a chance encounter with a TV news cameraman sees him enter the world of crime reporting, albeit on a very low budget. At first, his attempts to cover brutal injuries are hampered by the experience of his competitors, and due to the quality of his work, the stories he can provide film on are rejected by news channels. But after one particular story, his almost too-good-to-be-true camera shots of the incident act as a breakthrough: his footage is used on a Los Angeles-based news station, and he begins providing similar scoops for the channel going forward.

Lou's career progresses in various ways: he can begin to afford better equipment, and soon hires an assistant, albeit one who acts more as a lookout, in Rick Carey (Riz Ahmed). He strikes up a good working relationship with Nina Romina (Rene Russo), the morning news director. He begins getting better footage of bigger scoops, leading to him earning higher sums of money for his films; so much so that at one point, a competitor attempt to establish a working relationship with him, only to be declined. But, most importantly, his footage becomes more gruesome as he shows a complete lack of conscience and consideration for victims; however, whilst the clips are shocking, the news station itself is struggling, so money triumphs over morals and the footage is shown.

But then comes a major incident: a triple murder of a family with the two assailants escaping. Not only does Lou break the law to obtain horrific shots of the victims, he engineers a series of events to have the police catch the murderers, but whilst filming the high-drama scenes, even if it means endangering the lives of himself and his assistant. Meanwhile, Nina is under severe pressure concerning the approach the channel takes to covering the story, made more awkward when Lou suggests that they must have a romantic relationship for him to keep supplying the station with footage. What will happen, and what (if anything) will happen to Lou?

I won't spoil the ending, but I will say that it felt like one or two crucial scenes are missing. The narrative takes us one way, to believe one outcome, but suddenly the situation somehow seems resolved and we enter a different arc, and then it ends. With one or two additional scenes to cover "How did (insert name) do (insert task)" or "How did he/she avoid (insert crime)", the climax would have made more sense; as it is, I was left wondering "Well, what happened?" I can accept an unexpected ending so long as we are given evidence to support why it was the case, but we aren't really given any.

I said earlier that I was a bit disappointed with the film based on the trailer, and I state here why: the action comes thick and fast in the short promo for Nightcrawler, yet the movie itself does not have that much more action in it. This is more of a cursory glance at the motives of a man who may not be evil but is cold, calculating, uncaring and willing to do anything, without remorse, to achieve his goals. Jake Gyllenhaal is terrific in portraying this character and, from a moral standpoint, you do wonder "How can he do that?" The crime scene visuals are as shocking as you can get, although I can't say such images drive me to see a movie.

So, how to sum up Nightcrawler? Based on my expectations, I was disappointed. Based on what I did see, though, I still found it to be worthwhile. It was dramatic, it was fascinating, it was at times uncomfortable yet compelling - in other words, it was a good movie. The less relevant scenes could have been omitted to include more moments to explain the climax but, besides that, it was a film that largely held my attention. It wasn't as good as I had hoped, but I still enjoyed it and, if you appreciate films that act as physical studies of how some states of mind operate, so should you.

Overall Rating: 7.5/10 - Good

Mike Bassett: England Manager

Image Source: Past Posters

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Entertainment Film Distributors
Production Companies: Artists Independent Productions, Film Council, Hallmark Entertainment
Director: Steve Barron
Producers: Steve Barron and Neil Peplow
Scriptwriters: John R. Smith and Rob Sprackling
Main Cast: Ricky Tomlinson, Amanda Redman and Bradley Walsh
Released: September 28 2001
Running Time: 89 Minutes
Certificate: 15

Released in 2001 as a prelude to the 2002 World Cup, Mike Bassett: England Manager is a spot-on parody of not only the English management set-up, but also of the game in general. But far from being a film that points fingers and criticises, it is a movie that highlights the stupidity and the hilarity of characters, situations and organisations in a manner that should please all football fans.

Ricky Tomlinson is the perfect choice to play Mike Bassett. He has a regional dialect, he says what's on his mind, he looks nothing like a footballer but claims to have a brilliant understanding of the game - in short, he is the common man, which many would argue is nothing like the England manager. But that's why the casting works: he is the polar opposite of how an England figurehead would behave (although some situations are not too dissimilar to those encountered by certain men who have had the job, albeit behind closed doors). Tomlinson is best known for playing Jim Royle in The Royle Family, but he is just as effective and just as funny in this role.

The tale (produced as a mockumentary) begins with the health-induced end of the England managing reign of Phil Cope (humorously accompanied by the newspaper headline "Can't Cope"), and after every top candidate is ruled out or rules themselves out, the FA has to turn to second-string boss Mike Bassett for the top job. His task is simple: one win in the last three World Cup qualifiers and England will grace the main stage. But, instead, the side make a pig's ear of it: two defeats are followed by a draw which is made worse by a shocking penalty miss which would have guaranteed qualification. Fortunately for Bassett, an unexpected result elsewhere in the group allows them an alternative passage to the tournament.

Unfortunately, whilst the road to glory was tough on Bassett, the tournament itself provides more nightmares: an appalling 0-0 draw with Egypt is followed by a heavy defeat to Mexico. On the brink of elimination, and most likely the sack, Bassett is encouraged to turn to alcohol to ease the tensions. This only leads to a drunken escapade, caught on camera, which points an even greater spotlight on him.

Despite widespread calls for him to resign, Mike refuses to step down but, when he is heavily criticised by the media, his response is powerful enough to win back some support from the die-hards. But his future still rests on the outcome of the final group game against Argentina; can his side pull off a miracle or is it bye-bye Bassett?

The plot is enhanced by the number of satirical stereotypes for players in the squad, from the alcoholic playmaker (Kevin Tonkinson, played by Dean Lennox Kelly) to the ultra-aggressive defender (Gary Wackett, played by Geoff Bell), as their troublesome situations are comedic yet true-to-life. This extends to the dugout, as Bassett's assistants include a spineless yes-man (Dave Dodds, played by Bradley Walsh) and an old-fashioned coach more interested in his used car business (Lonnie Urquart, played by Philip Jackson), a clear parody of Graham Taylor's management during his tenure as England boss.

In fact, the pre-World Cup section is largely based on Taylor's reign, from the poor results to the media scourge. Post-qualification, the film focuses on the pitfalls of the job, albeit in hilarious fashion; don't expect Roy Hodgson to swear at his own fans in the same way that Bassett does after the Egypt game. Other elements of the parody, which are nevertheless true, include how the manager's wife Karine (played by Amanda Redman) and son Jason (played by Danny Tennant) can feel the brunt of the national side's poor performances by association with the figurehead, and how the English media builds the team up to knock them down, almost resenting their success. The movie also features several celebrity cameos, such as Pele, Ronaldo (the original Brazilian one, not Cristiano) and Atomic Kitten.

There is a danger with films like this that they will either insult the audience or come across as being too serious. However, the movie is nothing of the sort: it raises some intriguing points about the English football set-up and aspects of life as a manager in this country, but it makes its points and tells its story through a range of truly funny incidents, visuals and one-liners. Tomlinson's half-time team talk when they're losing to Mexico is priceless. His general reactions to the bewildering situations he finds himself in (from the lacklustre training mechanisms to the incorrect team selections which sees lower-league players called "Benson" and "Hedges" included because his squad was written on the back of a cigarette packet) are brilliant.

And even the supporting cast are really funny, particularly Jackson who as assistant manager only has a minor role, but is totally believable and, whilst understated, his restrained delivery is what makes his material work. Something I also appreciated was how it didn't follow the perfect story arc: some developments are a little predictable, but without spoiling the plot, you will realise that it doesn't just go for the simple rags-to-riches-style story. The movie eventually spawned a TV series in 2005 based on domestic management (which I felt was a little disappointing), and rumours continue to suggest that a sequel to the movie is coming soon.

Mike Bassett: England Manager is the kind of film that you want to watch in the run-up to a major international tournament. Alternatively, it is a great football comedy to watch at any time because it is really funny and, whilst it was made in 2001, many of the pastiches are still relevant today. In fact, it is darkly comical that for all the ridiculous incidents that are encountered here, the vast majority are only slightly exaggerated versions of real-life events, characters and situations. So, if you are a die-hard football fan, a casual supporter or just someone looking for a funny British film, an ideal movie for you is Mike Bassett: England Manager.

Overall Rating: 9/10 - Outstanding

Gone Girl

Image Source: Amazon

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Production Companies: Regency Enterprises and Pacific Standard
Director: David Fincher
Producers: Leslie Dixon, Bruna Papandrea, Reese Witherspoon and Ceán Chaffin
Scriptwriter: Gillian Flynn
Main Cast: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry
Released: October 2 2014 (UK) and October 3 2014 (US)
Running Time: 149 Minutes
Certificate: 18

The movie Gone Girl was much talked-about when released. Feminism is a strong theme of the main character's actions, but the discussion was so high that I felt the need to see the film myself. I knew that it was based on a novel of the same name by Gillian Flynn (who also writes the screenplay) and I understood the basic plot, but I still wanted to see it in full. The result: a movie that raises questions of how we judge people based on what they have and have not done, at times confusing and on occasion shocking, but overall very, very compelling.

For the first hour of this 149-minute motion picture, we have two interlinking story branches: one of a man, Nick Dunne (played by Ben Affleck), trying to learn why his wife Amy Elliott-Dunne (Rosamund Pike), has disappeared, with a police investigation looking at what may have happened, and with increasing evidence suggesting that he may have murdered her; and the other acts as an ongoing chronological flashback of the girl's diary entries from when they first met to their marriage to the troubles they faced as a couple and, ultimately, her disappearance.

At first, the presentation hints at one outcome, but you are inclined to disbelieve it; however, subsequent revelations change one's perception of the character and lead you to perhaps rethink what the outcome may be. But then, around an hour in, a curveball is thrown, and the whole picture changes, as does the plot, for no longer is the question "What happened?" - it becomes "What will happen?"

Revealing any more details would spoil the movie, but I can say this: you really do begin to wonder who is the hero and the villain, who deserves sympathy and empathy. These are points to ponder which are difficult to come to a conclusion on. Perhaps only those who have been in similar circumstances can relate to their situation and ultimately be able to pass judgement. It is possible that, when weighing it all up, both central characters deserve to be categorised in the same way, but even then is this a positive or a negative?

Either way, what doesn't require a debate is how thoroughly gripping this film is. Some films take a while to get into their groove but, whilst it does take time to fully get the picture of what is going on here, Gone Girl draws you in almost immediately and holds your attention for the duration. When you think it's a quiet scene, something happens; when you think the plot is someway from being solved, a swerve is thrown in. Where you think the story is going, it suddenly isn't. I will say that the ending, whilst not a letdown, was a bit too open-ended for a film which probably won't have a sequel, but on the whole, the movie is utterly engaging (one particular scene near the end was very shocking, to me anyway), and whilst the long running time may dissuade some from viewing it, I guarantee that you will feel like it is time well spent.

The performances are incredibly powerful. Rosamund plays the role of Amy extremely convincingly, although elaborating on why this is the case will spoil some elements of the plot. Nick Dunne is a multilayered character, who at various points deserves sympathy and disgust. His character is hard to define in terms of it being positive or negative, but it is one that many may be able to at least understand if not totally be on side with, so to speak, and Ben Affleck pulls it off marvellously. Other cast members put in strong performances, but this is a two-person film when it comes to making their roles count.

This is an 18-rated movie due to its very strong language and strong bloody violence (and it gets very bloody at times). I personally felt that the first 75-90 minutes were 15 territory, with scenes in the last hour hoisting it up to an adult rating. I should warn viewers that one thing which isn't mentioned in the BBFC rating classification is the focus on sexual content which at times is heavy, both verbally and physically. This, mixed with aspects already mentioned, make for a strong if at times uncomfortable viewing experience. In short, you won't be offended, but the movie may not be to your tastes.

Some criticisms of the film which have arisen concern are how the movie presentation handles elements of the novel, and how this impacts the events which play out and the perception of characters as a result. Certain scenes from the novel did not make it into the movie, but more notable is how, in Flynn's own words, she "killed feminism" via the way in which events play out. Others had a problem with how the subjects of marriage problems and sexual assault were handled, although as stated, the movie is based on the novel, so any such criticisms reflect the plot of the novel rather than solely that of this film.

In summary, though, Gone Girl is a truly absorbing movie and comes highly recommended. It tells one hell of a story with swerves that at times will have you in disbelief, but are gripping nonetheless. I can't say too much as it would be a real spoiler, but I can say that I am glad I gave into my desires to see this film. And, if you are in the same boat, so should you; you won't be disappointed.

Overall Rating: 9/10 - Outstanding

Ex Machina

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Luke Mythen

Distributors: Universal Pictures (UK) and A24 Films (US)
Production Companies: DNA Films, Film4 and Scott Rudin Productions
Director: Alex Garland
Producers: Andrew Macdonald and Scott Rudin
Scriptwriter: Alex Garland
Main Cast: Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander and Oscar Isaac
Released: January 23 2015 (UK)
Running Time: 108 Minutes
Certificate: 15

Ex Machina tells the story of a computer coder, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), who wins the chance to spend a week at the house in the mountains belonging to Nathan (Oscar Isaac), the CEO of the company he works for. This film is the directorial debut for screenwriter Alex Garland (28 Days Later, 2002), and he sets about telling the story about the complications of robots and their capacity of feeling attraction. The concept as a whole is a very difficult subject to approach; it's hard enough to script feelings for living characters, so writing them instead for an AI and allowing the audience to connect with those feelings is a tricky task.

The film only has three characters, with the two human protagonists portrayed by Dominic Gleeson (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, 2010) and Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, 2015) respectively. As an actor, it is must be very difficult to work with only one actor on a daily basis and to keep each scene fresh and interesting for the audience. But these two actors do a good job maintaining this: there is always an awkward tension between the two that flies brilliantly off the screen, and their contrasting views on the AI really make for an interesting conclusion at the end of the film.

Stealing the show, however, is Alicia Vikander (A Royal Affair, 2012) as the new AI they are testing out. For the most part, her face plays a pivotal role in connecting her character with Caleb. The concept of the Turing Test revolves around the idea that when you are speaking to an AI, you don’t know the difference between an AI and a real human. The story is well-paced, with very little action; however, the social interaction with all three characters allows for a boat-load of drama.

The complex nature of the relationship between the three characters leaves some questions come the climax of the film, as each character (including the AI) has their own motives for their actions, but they are largely resolved by the end. Without spoling it, the conclusion does leave you scratching your head a little, not for a lack of story development but more in terms of searching for logic. I was left wondering why a certain character did what they did when they must have known the consequences of their actions. When you see the film, it is obvious what I am talking about.

The film has some excellent ideas that are delivered very well. It has been shot beautifully and is also written very well. The pacing is good, despite it dragging a little during the middle section for around 15 minutes. This is a must-see for hardcore movie goers, but for a viewer who wants to sit back and relax, it may not be your cup of tea.

Overall Rating: 8/10 - Very Good

Up

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Elaine Yu

Distributors: Walt Disney Studios and Motion Pictures
Production Companies: Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios
Director: Pete Docter
Producer: Jonas Rivera
Scriptwriters: Bob Peterson and Pete Docter
Main Cast: Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai and Bob Peterson
Released: May 29 2009 (US) and October 9 2009 (UK)
Running Time: 96 Minutes
Certificate: U

The first time I saw any visuals of Up was in the trailer when it was just released at the Cannes International Film Festival in 2009, which heightened my anticipation to see it in full. Even though it was reputable for its 3D visual effects, I was more impressed by the storyline between the old man, Carl, and the boy, Russell. In this way, it is not like the classical Disney films, which always focuses on a romance between a Prince and a Princess. However, it still creates that fantastic Disney wonderland for both kids and adults.

A mass of colourful balloons, the old house and the miraculous adventure in the forest conform to the fantasy of fairy tales. But, to me, the moment that is most touching is that which showcases the married life of Carl and Ellie as opposed to the up-and-down journey. This scene is like the animation version of salience film. No words for characters; the story is told by the transition of senses. It is also important to talk about the slight variation of the soundtrack in this scene. The melody is the same, but the beat varies with the atmosphere and with their mood. For example, at Carl and Ellie’s wedding, it is upbeat, but when they realised that they couldn’t have children, it slows down. Because of the excellent soundtrack, Up received the Best Score at the Academy Awards, the Grammy Awards, and the Golden Globe Awards in 2009.

Unlike the romance in fairytale Disney films, where the Prince and the Princess live happily ever after, Carl and Ellie have been gradually getting old. For the family, they put off pursuing their dream, but they didn’t quit. Ellie did not make their dream come true in their lifetime, but is Carl going to make it? That is a clue which the story leaves you with. I actually prefer this kind of imperfect romance: it is realistic, just like the romances of the real world: imperfect, but beautiful.

Films are supposed to involve viewers in the fantastic world, and allow them to escape from the dissatisfied real world to further entertain them. Indeed, escaping happens in the film, as Carl avoids moving from his house to a retirement home and keeps the promise to his wife. He decides to turn the house into a makeshift airship with a mass of balloons, and starts his adventure to Paradise Falls just to keep his promise to Ellie. Nevertheless, the dream is disillusioned: he realises that his hero, the famous explorer Charles F. Muntz, was a devil accused of fabricating the skeleton of a giant bird. Fortunately, they beat the villain and fly back to the city.

Once you are confronted with the situation of dissatisfaction that mirrors reality, you can escape. But it is not a wise choice, as the great world outside is just in your imagination. It might be cruel and evil. The ending implies that the wise choice on handling a tough situation is saluting it actively and bravely.

The great visual effects will entertain audiences, particularly younger viewers. More importantly, though, the reflection and inspiration for the film is the foundation for it to gain a great reputation. The reality in Up is more than worthy to be explored and results in a superb animation picture.

Overall Rating: 8.5/10 - Excellent

The Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Paramount Pictures

Production Company: Paramount Pictures

Director: Peter Segal

Producers: Robert K. Weiss and David Zucker

Scriptwriters: Pat Proft, David Zucker and Robert LoCash

Main Cast: Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, George Kennedy, O.J. Simpson, Fred Ward, Kathleen Freeman and Anna Nicole Smith

Released: March 18 1994 (US) and May 20 1994 (UK)

Running Time: 83 Minutes

Certificate: 12

The third and final entry in the incredibly funny Naked Gun trilogy follows the same formula as the two previous films: a basic, silly yet humorous plotline, with the Police Squad required to prevent a disaster occuring. Along the way is a ton of slapstick comedy, from one-liners to physical jokes to facial expressions. This is seen as the weakest of the three films, although it is still extremely funny and is a more than worthy end to arguably the greatest comedy trilogy ever.

Before we get to the main story, we learn that Lt. Frank Dreben (Leslie Nielsen) and Jane Spencer-Dreben (Priscilla Presley) are now married (hence her name change), but are searching for a spark that will spice up their sex lives, partly because Jane is hopeful that they may be able to have a child (or, as Frank says later on, a "little Frank Junior"; the visual of what he could look like is hilarious). But Frank's spirit is slightly down, partly because, as we see, he has recently retired from the Police Squad. Fortunately for him, his old friends Ed Hocken (George Kennedy) and Det. Nordberg (O.J. Simpson) pay him a visit and explain that they need a little assistance in an ongoing investigation. Frank is reluctant to get involved given his retirement, but does admit that he misses the old job - and, as Ed points out, "(Frank hasn't) shot anyone in six months", to which Frank replies "That's true. Funny how you miss the little things."

So, Frank gets involved, but when Jane learns of his participation, she leaves him. Unusually, Frank tries to cover up his undercover work by suggesting that he was with another woman, but Jane humorously takes no notice and is more concerned with him getting involved in stopping crime again. As the story rolls on, we learn that a new villain (Rocco Dillon, played by Fred Ward) is planning to escape from Statesville Prison and, with the help of his team of cronies, he plans a major incident. To try and stop this, Frank offers to go to jail as a pretend criminal, get on Rocco's side and help him with his plot, with the intention of stopping it from within and alerting Police Squad of what is planned.

Eventually, we discover that the plan is to blow up the venue of the Academy Awards. By now, Jane is back on the scene, but the question remains: how can Frank and co prevent this explosion happening? Their attempts are not as difficult as one may expect in terms of turning things in their favour but, without obtaining the smoking gun, disaster is still guaranteed. A staple of the Naked Gun trilogy is how Frank's efforts to stop a tragedy occuring are ridiculously over-the-top yet riotously entertaining, and this movie is probably the funniest of the three in that regard: if you haven't seen this film, these scenes will provoke almost constant laughter. But the big question is: does the Police Squad succeed in their final big-screen outing? And, despite their trials and tribulations, do Frank and Jane finally get their "little Frank Junior"?

As stated, The Naked Gun trilogy ends in a great way here. Unlike some trilogies which try to resolve ongoing plot mysteries, none are required here: it simply allows the cast to do what they do best, and that's try to prevent chaos in a hilarious fashion. The only real link between all three movies concerns the evolution of the relationship between Frank and Jane and, in that respect, the ending should satisfy. There is a slight weakness in this movie in that, more than in the previous two, the plot at times takes a back seat to comedy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing considering that it is a comedy; however, it does mean that some jokes have that "trying too hard" feel to them, although there are a ton of laugh-out-loud moments.

It's hard to say whether this should have been the end for The Naked Gun or not. This entry proves that there was still a lot of life left in the trilogy; it didn't really feel stale, and the jokes are as funny as ever. But perhaps it was best to let it end while they were still really, really entertaining, and to not let it continue and eventually become a shell of its former self (as was the case for other film series', such as Police Academy). And this allows the Frank Dreben character to go out on a high, or at least a high by the standards of his character and the world that he operates within.

Leslie Neilsen died on November 28 2010, aged 84. It was a great loss to the world of both movie and comedy that such a funny man would leave us, despite his advanced years. And it did feel weird when I first watched these movies again after his death. But whilst we won't receive any further entertainment from Neilsen, we can always look back on his work and savour the moments when he was utterly hilarious. Renowned at first for being a serious actor, the Canadian eventually became the comic actor who we all remember him as. He also shone in other movies, most notably Airplane! But he will be most remembered for his brilliant role as Lt. Frank Dreben in the three Naked Gun movies. Comedies will continue to be churned out, and many will be hilarious, but to this writer, none will ever be as complete a comedy package as The Naked Gun trilogy, and no comedy performer will ever be as funny in a movie setting than Leslie Neilsen as Lieutenant Frank Dreben.

Overall Rating: 9.5/10 - Classic

Spiderman swinging in the right direction

Image Source: Marvel

Written By: Luke Mythen

Finally, Spiderman has returned to where he belongs, MARVEL!

The huge news reveals that Spiderman will now join up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) in phase 3, starting in 2016.

This news will not come as a shock after the Sony email leaks at the back-end of 2014, and after the poor showing at the box office for The Amazing Spiderman 2. This announcement, first and foremost, brings a lot of excitement and enthusiasm that the character had lost even after its reboot in 2012. The fans should be excited: if anyone can make a new franchise work, it is Kevin Feige, the Marvel Godfather; he has turned unknown characters like The Guardians Of The Galaxy and Thor into A-List names for comic book fans.

Spiderman, however, is a different kettle of fish. He is a universally known icon and character that has carried the Marvel comics for 70 years, but can he now integrate himself into the MCU? Most people would say: "Of course, why not?" However, there are some concerns that I have regarding this.

Marvel ultimately don’t need Peter Parker swinging by in one of their films; they will make over a billion dollars this summer with the ‘Avengers Age of Ultron’ and ‘Antman’. So, why bring him back home?

Well, that is exactly it: Spiderman is coming home, having been owned by Sony for many years and having really struggled since 2004, with Spiderman 2 (Sam Rami, 2004) being the last commercial and box office success. Since then, the MCU has evolved into a tornado of successful films, even when the characters are relatively unknown. The idea of Spiderman becoming part of the Avengers for ‘Avengers Infinity War Part 1 and 2’ is mouth-watering to say the least. So, ultimately, the main reason they have brought him back is because they want to, not because they need to.

Sony need this deal more than Marvel. They have struggled directing this series the right way despite new directions, directors and actors. They do still have the final say on production, scripts and casting, but crucially they have the safety net of Kevin Feige, who will help steer them in the direction the character will take.

All sounds good then, so what are the negatives about this news? Well, personally, the fact that Sony still have creative control worries me immensely. Yes, Marvel will be involved and will have the authority to make certain decisions, but ultimately it is still the same company who made The Amazing Spiderman 2 and Spiderman 3 (Sam Rami, 2007). Can Spiderman fit into the universe? It will be difficult for him to share a film as we suspect he will in Captain America 3: Civil War (Russo Brothers, scheduled for 2016). Would he steal too much focus away from the protagonists and the overall story? Yes, he might, but he could also offer a new exciting angle for the franchise to be taken in. His solo film has already caused a bit of a stir after the preceding films all needed their release dates to be pushed back by six months. Spiderman will now be released on the day that Thor 3: Ragnorok was scheduled, so is Marvel saying that he is more important to them than their rock Thor?

Overall, though, this is a win for fans of comic books and, more importantly, fans of the Spiderman comic books. He will provide the Avengers with something that they are yet to explore, and provide Marvel with another platform to dominate at the box office. I am personally happy about the deal, although I still have concerns after the last ten years. But good luck to Spiderman in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. My Spidey senses are tingling with excitement!

Selma

Image Source: Wikipedia

(Copyright: Paramount Pictures/Pathé, the
film publisher or graphic artist.)

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributors: Paramount Pictures (US), 20th Century Fox (UK) and StudioCanal (Australia)
Production Companies: Cloud Eight Films, Harpo Films, Plan B Entertainment and Pathé
Director: Ava DuVernay
Producers: Christian Colson, Oprah Winfrey, Dede Gardner and Jeremy Kleiner
Scriptwriters: Paul Webb and Ava DuVernay (uncredited)
Main Cast: David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, Carmen Ejogo, Andre Holland, Tessa Thompson, Giovanni Ribisi, Lorraine Toussaint, Stephan James, Wendell Pierce, Common, Alessandro Nivola, Keith Stanfield, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Dylan Baker, Tim Roth and Oprah Winfrey
Released: December 25 2014 (US) and February 6 2015 (UK)
Running Time: 128 Minutes
Certificate: 12A

When one thinks of Martin Luther King Jr, the leader of the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the mind immediately recalls the famous "I have a dream" speech from 1963. This new movie about MLK, however, focuses not on arguably the most famous words of the 20th century, but on King's describe in Selma in 1965.

After opening with an unexpected twist at the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize presentation in Oslo, Norway, where King (played by David Oyelowo) is presented with the prize, the plot focuses on the racial prejudice towards black people that at that point remained prevalent in parts of the US, particularly when it came to voting. Whilst King asks then-President Lyndon B. Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) to consider passing legislation that would allow blacks to vote unencumbered, Johnson notes that there are more pressing issues that he has to take care of. (Incidentally, critics have argued that Johnson is portrayed here as someone who just does not want to give King what he wants, whereas in reality their relationship was far more cordial.)

However, not only are blacks not being allowed to vote, but as they protest, they are the victims of racist hate attacks. By 1965, mass matches are planned from Selma to Montgomery which, they hope, will bring about change. They do not succeed at first due to the increasingly brutal response of the state's law enforcement, but as these vicious beatings are broadcast across the country, a growing number of white Americans join their side, which prepares big questions as the film nears its climax: can the addition of white supporters boost the chances of black people getting to vote? Can King himself handle managing these marches? And at what point will President Johnson be forced to recognise that enough is enough and that passing the requested legislation will bring about an end to the tension?

Even if you are unfamiliar with American history (and whilst I was familiar with Dr. King, I did not know the full story behind these marches), you can probably guess the ending, based purely on the way in which the world has changed since the 1960s, a perfect example being the election of the first black US President, Barack Obama, in 2008.

The performances are very powerful (in particular, Oyelowo is totally believable as King), and the scenes are at times excruciatingly graphic. Some will undoubtedly leave you thinking "How could they do this to those people?", which is a sign of how realistic such moments are played out. And the ending should, if not bring a smile to your face, at least make you feel like justice has been done.

On the other hand, I found that the movie dragged; had it been 90 minutes, with insignificant scenes cut, it would have held my attention more, as not a lot happened for large points. To reflect racist views of many Americans in the era, there is a lot of discriminatory language used which may be unsettling to viewers. Some historical inaccuracies have been noted, one of which was touched upon earlier. And some were disappointed that the film focused more on King than the Selma situation itself. Also, the costs of using Martin's speeches verbatim were so high that some important dialogue is changed to avoid paying royalties (this is one reason why we get no reference to the "I have a dream" speech, even as a way of introducing King at the beginning).

On the whole, though, I think Selma is worth seeing. I wouldn't class it as one of the year's finest movies, but the strong, believable performances of the leading cast and the significance of what the story achieved in reality make this a compelling viewing experience.

Overall Rating: 7.5/10 - Good

The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell Of Fear

Image Source: Wikipedia

Written By: Mark Armstrong

Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Production Company: Paramount Pictures
Director: David Zucker
Producer: Robert K. Weiss
Scriptwriters: David Zucker and Pat Proft
Main Cast: Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, George Kennedy, O.J. Simpson and Robert Goulet
Released: June 28 1991
Running Time: 81 Minutes
Certificate: 15

The sequel to The Naked Gun (as you may have guessed given its title), the second Naked Gun film sees the old crew return as they encounter a new yet similar quandary to that of the original picture: the US President at the time, George H W Bush (played by John Roarke), plans to base his recommendation for America's renewable energy programme on the advice of Dr. Albert Meinheimer (Richard Griffiths). This upsets those in the oil, coal and nuclear industries, including Quentin Hapsburg (Robert Goulet). Their solution: replace Albert with their own double for Meinheimer, Earl Hacker (also played by Griffiths, funnily enough). The switch is in line with Albert's energy announcement at the upcoming National Press Club dinner.

However, the Police Squad, led again by Lt. Frank Dreben (Leslie Neilsen), get wind of the plot and attempt to prevent it, whilst at the same time dealing with Hapsburg's hired goons. It all leads to the dinner itself, where their evil plot has to be foiled, but there's a twist: in the event of his plan failing, Hapsburg has a bomb planted to take everybody out, including the President. Once again, it's up to Dreben and co to stop it all happening, but events along the way mean that the Squad may not even get into the dinner. How will they do it?

Frank's romance with Jane Spencer (Priscilla Presley) is renewed here: Jane now works for Dr. Meinheimer, and they reacquaint when Frank explores the possibility of a plot against the good doctor. We aren't told why Frank and Jane hadn't seen each other since the first film, but it does result in this classic exchange:

Frank: "How are the children?"

Jane: "We didn't have any children."

Worryingly for Frank, though, she has a new boyfriend, who is none other than Hapsburg. Frank's attempts to rekindle his love for Jane are again turbulent, but are less prominent than in the first movie, and all involved know whose side they are on by the time of the climax.

The sequel to The Naked Gun is slightly less into telling a story and more about providing funny lines and moments. And in the vein of the first film, there is a wealth of entertainment to be found here. The Squad and Jane are all played by the same cast, so expect the same kind of one-liners, humorous visuals and hammy expressions.

Image Source: Neon Reels

(By the way. this entry into the series also features Frank's all-time best facial, as seen to the right).

I don't want to give too much away, but I will simply say that if you enjoyed the first Naked Gun then you will love this movie. And, if you read my previous review, you'll know that I am a huge fan of the trilogy and of Leslie's work in particular, so yes I found this to be a hilarious comedy, the humour for which still holds up and always will in the future.

I mark it down a smudgeon just because the increased emphasis on humour means that the believability of one or two comedy moments is stretched and, whilst still funny, those jokes feel a bit forced. Overall, though, this is another exceptional chapter in the Naked Gun trilogy which will more than satisfy fans of the original, and fortunately the series wasn't over there, as I will document in a future review.

Overall Rating: 9.5/10 - Classic