Lucy

Year: 2014 

Genre: Science Fiction

There is an urban legend that suggests that the human race only uses 10% of our brain capacity, with the remaining 90% remaining locked away and untouched. What would happen if as humans, we could access 100% of our brain? What could we do? What would be capable of achieving?

Enter into the ring Lucy, played by Scarlett Johannson. Lucy (we never find out her surname) is living with her ex boyfriend in Taipei. She is tricked into delivering briefcase containing the mind bending drug CPH4 to a Chinese mafia boss in an upmarket hotel. He forces her to be a drug mule, but when the bag bursts in a fight, the drug enters Lucy's bloodstream and she develops superhuman mental powers. 

So what of the film itself? The main problem with 'Lucy', is that quite ironically, it only uses 10% of it's premise, and so many other films have done what it itends to do better. Neil Burger already explored the 100% of the brain storyline with his 2011 film 'Limitless'. The flat, emotionless character Johansson plays in Lucy is limp in comparison to Bradley Cooper's struggling writer in the aforementioned. The 'Matrix' style elements of the film are also hugely disappointing, with little or nothing being made of the fact Lucy can manipulate objects with her mind and bend the laws of physics. What the audience is left with, is a protagonist who makes people float to the ceiling and do little or nothing more. 

So, if you go into the cinema expecting a modern day Matrix style film like we did (and as trailer suggests it is), you will come out feeling disappointed. That isn't to say 'Lucy' is a bad film though, as there are some gorgeous special effects that compliment the latter half of the film's dream like sequences. It is quite evident that Besson borrowed heavily from Nolan's 'Inception' for inspiration in these parts. 

I can't help but feel that if Luc Besson had used more than 5% of his brain, and gave the audience the action sequences they came to see the film for, 'Lucy' would be more of a box office success that it turns out to be. The trailer is misleading, and most of the audience will leave the auditorium feeling a little cheated I suspect. 

So what does Lucy get? 3.5 stars. Worth catching, but I would for the DVD. 

The Inbetweeners 2

Year : 2014

Genre: Comedy

Originally released in 2011, 'The Inbetweeners Movie' holds the record for the highest grossing opening weekend a comedy film has achieved in the UK, taking 2.5 million . It stayed at number one in the charts for four weeks, by which point it's box office takings had reached over 40 million pounds (yes pounds, not dollars). It parodied young Brits abroad perfectly, and anyone who has ever been on a lads/lasses holiday in their early twenties will have been able to relate to what happens to Will, Jay, Neil, and Simon in Malia.

Even though talk of a sequel was always always hush hush when the cast where interviewed, the monumental box office takings ensured that it was almost inevitable. Fast forward three years, and we have the inventively titled 'Inbetweeners 2'. This time set in Australia, Will, Simon, and Neil go out to visit Jay while he is working in a Sydney club as 'DJ Big Penis'. What follows is a similarly structured, not
quite as funny re hash of the original.

The film's location becomes a problem from the outset, as the lads are shoehorned out their familiar UK backdrops into somewhere wholly unfamiliar to the majority of the target audience. It doesn't work anywhere near as well as it should, and strips away an potential for jokes that a UK backdrop or Mediterranean holiday would allow for.

Characterization is hugely unbalanced, largely due to the fact there is only one female lead this time round, up and coming Brit actress Emily Berrington (Simone from 24 Season 9). The complete lack of any other female characters removes all of the warmth and emotional resonance that was evident in the original, and will more than likely alienate the fifty percent in the audience. I also felt the Australian stereotypes in the film were so hammed up they became almost xenophobic and potentially offensive.

Ultimately though, it's just not as funny as the first one. The humour just isn't there. There is literally nothing to compare to the now iconic club scene of the original. The film rapidly becomes a series of 'gross out' jokes, and relies far too heavily on profanity to get laughs rather than intelligent set pieces which was always the strong point of the tv show. Sequels rarely ever live up to the quality of the original, and 'The Inbetweeners 2' is no exceptional to this rule.

Worth a watch, but don't expect to come out of the cinema with the nostalgic feeling like you did in the first one, because you won't.

Three stars.  

     

Hercules

Year: 2014

Genre: Action

The Greek legend 'The 12 Labours of Hercules', is a series of episodes that have a lot of cinematic potential given the advanced computer generated imagery techniques available to modern directors. Done in the right way, they could showcase some pretty epic battles on the big screen. Slaying the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra, obtaining the girdle of Hippolyta, Queen of the Amazons, or capturing the Erymanthian Boar. It's almost like the screenplay and script are already written, and all they have to do is get the right people for the job. 

Sadly, 'Cliffhanger' director Renny Harlin got there first this year, with 'The Legend of Hercules'. Harlin made what is largely considered to be one of the worse adaptations of the legend in cinematic history. If the origins of the character have already been explored so recently, where is there to go? 

This Summer's Hercules, is Brett Ratner's (Rush Hour / Prison Break) big screen adaption of the graphic novel 'Hercules, the Thracian Wars', and refers to the labours of Hercules in the opening scene but that is pretty much the last the audience hears of them. The protagonist has already completed his twelve labours by now, and is leading a band of mercenaries which include Ian McShane crowbarred into the plot for comic effect and Ingrid Bolsø Berdal who seems to be there for no other reason than balancing the books gender wise. 

I found the plot to be unnecessarily hard work, with awkward twists and confusingly complicated turns throughout. Little is made of the main character's potential, or his mythos, with set pieces comprising of watered down '300' esque battles that if you have seen aforementioned, were done so much better by Zack Snyder and Gerard Butler. Dwane Johnson plays Hercules competently, with his sheer steroid enhanced physical size giving gravitas to a character that needs an actor with huge stage presence. Lets be honest though, it's hardly a role that requires someone with a Shakespearean background. 

I found little going for the film and left the auditorium disappointed. That's not to say others didn't enjoy it though, as there are plenty of 7/10 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes if you care to look. 

2 out of 5 stars. 

Carrie

Year: 2013

Genre: Horror. 

'You were warned never to push Carrie to the limits. Now you must face the consequences'

Hollywood seems to have an obsession in recent times with remaking some of the horror classics from the 70's and 80's. Sadly, their quality is usually entirely inferior to the original. There are exceptions of course, but in most cases, few have managed to capture the tone of what many regard to be horror's golden years, 1975 - 1985. 

Being a long standing fan of the genre however, and after what seems like an eternity of reviewing big budget Hollywood blockbusters, I thought it was about time I got my teeth back into some low budget horror and caught up on a couple of films I missed out on last year

So here were have the most recent of these remakes, 'Carrie', a modern take on the 1976 Brian de Palma film adaption of Stephen King's first novel that was released around Halloween last year. For those unfamiliar with the story, Chloë Grace Moretz plays Carrie White, a timid 17-year-old teenager who is abused by some unrealistically cruel contemporaries and an obsessively evangelical Mother played by an excellent Julianne Moore. As the story progresses, Carrie gradually discovers she has telekinetic powers, and gets pushed to the limit on the night of her school's prom by a humiliating prank. 

So has Kimberly Peirce improved on the De Palma original? Almost a shot for shot remake, she treads very carefully as not to annoy fans of the book and the core horror enthusiasts alike. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the movie is very low on actual scares, the only real unnerving scenes featuring Moore as Carries's self harming abusive Mother. Consequently, the film predominantly becomes a vehicle for teenage angst, and the dangers of cyberbullying. Is this a bad thing? I suppose we must applaud Peirce for rocketing Carrie into the 21st century (You Tube features in one scene) but she seems to have forgotten this is ultimately a Stephen King story, and when held up against the likes of 'It', 'Misery', and 'Pet Sematary', falls flat on its face when it comes to genuinely scary moments. 

Grace Moretz is also wooden to the point of being robotic in some later scenes, but I suppose you could put this down to acting experience as Sissy Spacek was some five years older than her when she played the character in 1976. 

If you've seen the original, there is no need to sit through Pierce's modern interpretation of 'Carrie'. If however, you've never heard of the character, or were born some twenty years after the release of the 76 version, you may find enjoyment in her story, albeit a not very scary one. 

An unsatisfying 2.5 stars, but probably 3.5 if you're a bit more in the age range of the target audience. 

Non Stop

Genre: Action / Suspense

Media / Year: 2014 DVD release

Passing under the radar fairly covertly upon it's cinema release earlier this year, 'Non Stop' has just had it's DVD release in the US. As it was something we had originally planned to go and see at Star City, I decided to check it out in the comfort of my own home with the added bonus of no kids talking all the way through.

Following on from the events of 9-11 and United 93, where the USA consequently put Air Marshals on both it's external and internal flights, Liam Neeson is stationed on a long haul flight from the USA to London. The story follows that there is a terrorist on the plane that will kill someone mid flight every 20 minutes unless a significant amount of money is transferred to their bank account asap. Only Neeson knows of this threat, and he has to find out who it is.

So lets start with the good. Liam Neeson plays gruff, late in their career ex-military special agents very convincingly. Look no further than 'Taken' for evidence of this. Neeson's character in this film is very much the same as the aforementioned and he doesn't fail to deliver this ruggedness to the audience. Also, as ninety nine percent of the film takes place on a plane, the inherent claustrophobic elements add to the suspense and this is maintained pretty much up until the last act when Hollywood spectacle kicks in and reality goes completely out of the window (and I mean COMPLETELY). Julianne Moore provides a decent enough supporting role but is never really tested as are the rest of the cast.

Now for the not as good. 'Taken' was a surprise landmark action movie where Liam Neeson seemingly reinvented himself and took his career down a new path. Sadly, those looking for 'Taken' on a plane will be left disappointed. It also falls a long way short of Wes Craven's sleeper success 'Red Eye' (2005) where Cillian Murphy did stuck on a plane with a maniac significantly better. As I also mentioned earlier the final act take far fetched to a whole new level and we really are expected to throw our beliefs of what could (and does happen) at 30,000 feet completely out of the window.

'Non Stop' is a worthwhile watch, and if your in the market for a Liam Neeson actioner, it does the job. It just about gets up to cruising altitude, but falls short of previous works that do the job it's trying to do significantly better. Don't expect the earth, and you won't feel let down.

2.5 stars.

X-Men Days of Future Past.

Year: 2014

Genre: Superhero / Comicbook 

Before the trailers were on for this I decided to look up exactly how many X-Men films there have been, and when the first one came out. Lets face it, it feels like they have been around for forever and day. IMDB says the first one came out in 2000, and I reckon there has been five or six in total (if you count the couple of Wolverine spin offs). So yeah, if this feels like the umpteenth X-Men film, that's because it is. 

Essentially a handing over the baton vehicle for the franchise, the film's plot borrows heavily from the first Terminator and involves Wolverine travelling back in time to prevent the manufacture of sentinels; huge twelve foot tall robots that intend to wipe out mutants and humans with mutant DNA to create a utopian society. The time travelling element allows the actors from the earlier films to appear in the same film as those from 'First Class', and you pretty much end up with every single person who has ever played a mutant all together in one film. This though, is not such a bad thing when you consider McKellen and Stewart look like a pair of pensioners ready for a retirement home.

'Days of Future Past' is easily the best of the series. As always, Hugh Jackman is goes off the alpha male scale as Wolverine, and is sufficient enough eye candy for any ladies in the audience that have been dragged along by their sci-fi fan other halves. The rest of the cast excel in their roles and provide sufficient enough reason to pursue yet another sequel. In particular, I felt Michael Fassbender single handedly trounced Ian McKellen's Magneto and then some.

There are some great set pieces, and without going into too much detail there is one particular scene with Quicksilver that is true cgi mastery. The film chugs along at a decent pace and is pleasingly coherent given that it's a time travel movie. It isn't drawn out, and the 1970's backdrop ensures at no point does it become too far fetched and rely too heavily on special effects to convey it's message.

Make no mistake, 'Days of Future Past' is all about the characters, and a great set of actors make for a great movie. Easily the best of the series (and slightly surpassing First Class, which was great in it's own right), you could do a lot worse than catch this on a rain sodden English Summer afternoon.

4.5 Stars (would have been five if Hugh Jackman hadn't used so much just for men)

Godzilla

Year: 2014

Genre: Summer blockbuster

Before we talk about anything to do with the film, Cara wanted me to tell people that director Gareth Edwards used to be a student at North Warwickshire and Hinckley College (where she works). Small world eh? 

Anyway, on with the film...

I never watched the Japanese originals, so I'm not going to pretend I have an indepth knowledge of 1950's popular culture. I've never even seen the 98 version all the way through to be honest. Consequently, I came to this film with my only real experience of the character being the Godzilla / Godzooky cartoon we used to watch in the late 70's. 

So how do you pad out the plot of a twenty minute cartoon into a two hour film? Herein lies the problem. The first half of the film is very much plot building and character development. You dont actually see anything of Godzilla until at least two thirds of the way in, which in a two hour film is a LONG time to wait to see the main attraction. This aint Jurassic Park. Don't go into it expecting to see Godzilla in the first five minutes, or you will be very dissapointed. 

When he does finally arrive, Godzilla is a cgi triumph, and the battles with the muto's (massive unidentified terrestrial objects) are nothing short of epic on the big screen. The aforementioned seem very much modelled on the aliens in Independance Day, and conversely  Godzilla has an almost puppy dog eyes look about him, something I didnt expect but was a nice touch nevertheless. 

Being a Breaking Bad fan I was dissapointed how little screen time Brian Cranston was given in the later stages of the film. His performance and stage presence was far superior to Aaron Taylor Johnson, who to me seemed wooden and bland in comparison. 

Fans of the original will relish the nuclear themed sub plot, but for majority, this will go over your head. Also, at two and a bit hours, I felt it could have been quite a lot shorter. Niggling problems though for an up and coming director that has trounced the 1998 remake hands down. 

A reasonably enjoyable 3 stars 

The Amazing Spiderman 2 (2014)

Year: 2014

Genre: Action / Adventure / Comicbook

So it's 2014 now, and Sam Rami's original interpretation of the character came out in 2002. If my maths is correct, that makes for a grand total of five Spiderman films in the last 12 years. Is this overkill? Well, yes and no.

Marc Webb's 2014 Spiderman is supported by CGI and special effects that finally do justice to the abilities of the character. There were very few moments throughout the whole film whereby you could immediately tell the action had moved from actual actors to computer generated ones. This is in stark contrast to Rami's 2002 original where on several occasions the transition to the rubbery CGI in several of the action sequences was painfully evident.

In addition to this, Andrew Garfield seems far more suited to the lead role than Tobey Maguire ever was in the original trilogy. His fresh, charismatic approach to the character successfully banishes any memory that fans might have of Maguire's painfully embarrassing street dancing in the original Spiderman 3.

Andrew Garfield is supported by an excellent Emma Stone in the role of Gwen Stacey (his girlfriend before the introduction of Mary Jane Watson in the original comics). The chemistry between them works works very well (probably because they are a couple in real life) and the moral dilemma complicating their relationship is central to the plot. Stone is also far more likeable than Kirsten Dunst, not to mention easier on the eye.

Visually the film is stunning, with the set piece battles in Times Square between Spiderman and Electro showcasing just how far special effects have come in twelve years. Spidey's swinging around New York city almost becomes fairground ride like at some points, and you genuinely get a feel of what it would be like to be able to do it yourself.

So is it overkill? Strictly speaking, we didn't need another Spiderman film so soon after the original trilogy ended on the bog standard third installment. In that sense, Spiderman's 2014 installment is nothing we haven't seen before, albeit with special effects that have come on leaps and bounds since the 2002 original.

However, it's because of that monumentally better CGI, and a set of characters that end up being far more likeable, that Webb's interpretation of Spiderman works.

An enjoyable four stars. Recommended.

Captain America, The Winter Solider

Year: 2014

Genre: Action / Adventure / Comicbook

Marvel films seem to be ten a penny these days. A year doesn't go past where one of the big Summer blockbusters is either a Spiderman sequel, Wolverine related, or something to do with Tony Stark. One thing you can guarantee though, is that the producers are passionate about the source material, and the quality of these films is always up there with the best of them. The Winter Soldier is no exception. 

Where as the first films showed us how Steve Rogers came to be Captain America, and was set around the time of WW2, Winter Soldier is set firmly in the present. If like me, you felt that Avengers Assemble was a little too 'Michael Bay' ish for it's own good, Winter Soldier also has it's feet firmly on the floor when it comes to the action sequences and set pieces (albeit the last twenty minutes or so). As Captain America has no real super powers as such, there's plenty of old school style fist fights and car chases, which are very well choreographed and give the film significantly more realism than say the Avengers or the countless recent Spider Man sequels. 

Chris Evans does very well in the lead role, and is supported by Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow in yes, 'that' black catsuit which any red blooded male will find reason enough to watch the film purely based on how tight it is. The chemistry between them works, and when Falcon joins the action, I found Winter Soldier a lot more enjoyable than any of the Iron Man films, or Avengers Assemble for that matter. 

Overall, an excellent addition to the Marvel franchise, that has eye candy throughout for both the ladies and the lads who go and see it (can I mention that catsuit once again please???? )

An easy five stars. Highly recommended. 

The Lego Movie, by guest reviewer Cara Clarke

Year: 2014 

Genre: Animation

The parameters of this review are that it should be readable within five minutes, so I’ll forgo a prolonged introduction and jump straight in…

Avoiding any spoilers, the storyline has a twist at the end which explores the link between the real world and the Lego world. This neatly explained the background of the characters and attempted to convey a moral to the film in terms of the creative value of Lego to a child’s development. The ending also suggests that Lego can advance family bonding between parent and child. In short, the film was a not-so-subtle advertisement singing the joys of Lego which would have you believe it could save the world. However, this was not entirely unexpected – it is a film based on a branded toy; of course it will showcase it in the best possible way.

Despite this, the film can be enjoyed in various ways. Children will enjoy the animated action and seeing Lego figures they have at home come to life on the big screen. Adults may draw parallels with the storyline and a wider picture of governmental oppressions within society. I did wonder if this ‘deeper meaning’ was merely a thinly-veiled attempt to appease parents by disguising the main core of the film – advertising toys to children. In the end I decided it didn’t matter. I chose to watch the film without thinking of hidden undertones, double meanings and real world parallels, and chose to enjoy it as a simple cartoon.

My favourite section of the film was set in Cloud Cuckoo Land, a place made of rainbows and clouds where only fun and happiness exists. As a girl who likes pink and sparkles, I’d quite like to live in a place like that! Conversely, my favourite character was an old piece of Lego, the 1980s spaceman who struggled with post-80s technology. A nice piece of nostalgia, he was scuffed and tatty with a broken helmet, just as the Lego of our youth would be if we still had it today. The film was rated U, and stated that it contained ‘fantasy violence and very mild language’. I wondered how bad language could be incorporated into a film about Lego. A character accidentally standing barefoot on a piece would definitely incur a swearword or two. But no, the use of bad language is indeed ‘darny darn darn’ mild.   

Jokes are packed into this film, most of which will only be appreciated by the adults watching it. The characters are enjoyable, the plot is fun – it’s a nice piece of escapism. We saw the film in 3D and I must say I can’t recommend this. 3D technology isn’t integral to the storyline in the way it is for Avatar or Gravity. Yes, it was exploited in various scenes with bullets whizzing past and towers of Lego blocks tumbling, but was it worth the extra £3 on the ticket price? No. Being a glasses wearer I had to do the double-glasses-whammy-thing, which makes me look ridiculous. Not good.

3/5 stars

About Time

Year: 2013
Genre: Romantic Comedy / Drama
 

'At the age of 21, Tim discovers he can travel in time and change what happens and has happened in his own life. His decision to make his world a better place by getting a girlfriend turns out not to be as easy as you might think'.

Cross 'Four Weddings' with 'Groundhog Day', and you have Richard Curtis's latest movie, 'About Time'. Aimed predominantly at the American market, the film follows Domhall Gleesons's character Tim's ability to go back in time to perfect the pulling technique and lines required in his pursuit Rachael McAdams character Mary. 

As in previous Curtis works, the English stereotype is cranked up to the maximum as we see Tim's family live in a perfect idyllic Cornwall countryside mansion and spend their afternoons having picnic by the sea. Little or nothing is seen of the middle / lower classes but then again I suppose we have Benefits Street for that now, should it take our fancy. 

The chemistry between Gleenson and McAdams is believable, and works perfectly. Gleesons Father / Son scenes, played by an excellent Bill Nighy are also noteworthy with the melancholic second half of the film suggesting no amount of travelling through time can take away from living for the moment instead of trying to change the past. 

If you fancy something different from the recent swathe of recent heavy going best Oscar contender films, this may well fill the gap. Never overly sentimental in it's message, both sexes will enjoy this, and it makes for a refreshingly comfortable couple of hours viewing. 

3.5 Stars

Dunk.