THE WOLVERINE. REVIEWED.

The Wolverine (2013)

Rating- 12a
Running Time- 2 hours 6 minutes
Directed by- James Mangold

Written by- Mark Bomback and Scott Frank

Hugh Jackman may think he’s a well-respected actor for all of the many wonderful and varied roles he has played throughout his career but the fact is that nine out of ten people know him only as Wolverine. This doesn’t seem to bother him though as he’s back as everyone’s favourite mutant loner and, judging from the after credit scene, this isn’t the last time he will don the spiky hair and metal claws. But should we be excited by this or should we start packing away our Wolverine action figures and put to rest the time when he was by far the coolest superhero in existence? Well there are many signs to suggest that we are witnessing the redemption of the adamantium filled emo after his very poor outing in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) all but ruined the character. 

The film was surprisingly good and definitely surpassed my expectations. Those of you who read my review of Man of Steel (2013) will know that I had just about lost patience with comic book movies so it was to my great surprise that I left the cinema with a positive feeling rather than one of great anger and frustration. But why did this film make me feel this way? Quite simply because it steered clear, in the main, from any of the clichéd routines of recent comic book movies. This almost didn’t feel like a comic book movie at all which, in my opinion, is a good thing. Rather than focusing on Wolverine’s powers it focused on his weaknesses, both emotionally and physically, which made him as relatable as a guy with indestructible metal claws can be. This isn’t the first time this side of Wolverine has tried to be played upon, X-Men Origins: Wolverine was entirely built around this premise but failed due to a lack of empathy because of the introduction of characters we had never met before yet are expected to know exactly how Wolverine feels about them all without any sort of explanation. This film doesn’t suffer from this though as all of Wolverine’s emotional pain is conveyed through Jean Grey, a character we already know, and the great guilt he feels for his part in her death i.e. killing her. While most of us don’t know what it’s like to be forced to live an eternity with the burden of someone’s life weighing down on us, we still fully understand what he’s going through and the film is built around this.

But, guess what, it is ruined by a final battle scene that would fit perfectly into any comic book movie. But not this one. I was so happy that the film was able to steer clear of any stereotypical comic book movie action scenes that seem to be way over the top and make your enjoyment of the movie plummet, but it didn’t last. The final fight scene has far too much going on at the same time; at one point it seemed that Wolverine was fighting three different villains at the same time and none of it seemed to make sense, it wasn’t until it was a clear one on one fight that I was fully aware of what was going on and even that seemed stupid. This unfortunately spoilt the film to a huge degree for me and it may not have been the only negative aspect, the character of Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova) seemed out of place and easily replaceable, it was the only one that I wasn’t willing to overlook.

There is also the expected ‘cheesy’ dialogue at times which is not necessarily detrimental as comic books are built with cheese, or paper, one of the two. But I think this film manages to incorporate the cheese with a heavy layer of crackers which makes it so that the one-liners don’t go too far despite seeming out of place in regards to the narrative, making the line “I am Wolverine” less groan worthy than it should be.

So overall, despite enjoying three quarters of the movie, the final quarter of the final fight scene was enough to render this movie slightly above average when it could have been so much more. Having said that, the after credit scene was enough to get me excited for the next film and went some way erasing all of the bad scenes of the movie from my find but didn’t manage it completely unfortunately.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?bookmark_t=page

Twitter:- @VelcroFace
Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

THE WORLD'S END. REVIEWED.

The World's End (2013)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 1 hour 49 minutes

Directed by- Edgar Wright

Written by- Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright

The third instalment of Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright’s Blood and Ice Cream trilogy is upon us and fans of the first two thirds of the series will not be disappointed. I though am not a big fan of eitherShaun of the Dead (2004) or Hot Fuzz (2007), I don’t dislike them I just don’t find them as funny as everyone else seems to. But nevertheless The World’s End is a decent enough movie and will be thoroughly enjoyed by those who enjoyed its predecessors.

The comedy in the film is of the style expected from a Pegg/Wright movie and even I, despite not ‘getting’ their type of comedy, came close to laughing on a sparse few occasions. This is better than it sounds and judging by the laughs received from fellow audience members I imagine that a lot of people will find this film very funny. That’s about all I can say regarding the film’s humour as it’s hard to talk about what made it funny when I didn’t actually find it that funny myself but, as I’ve previously mentioned, you’ll enjoy the comedy of the movie if you enjoyed the comedy of the previous two films.

Something I can talk about is the way the film has been put together in terms of its cinematography. Overall, the film is well made. There was clearly a lot of work done in post-production (which is surprising for a British comedy) most of which was successful. The Requiem for a Dream-esqueediting for the pouring of pints (i.e. rapid close up shots of the beer leaving the pump into the glasses with exaggerated sound effects) was a clever way to repeat a similar scene many times without it becoming boring. And you know that annoying buzzing sound your computer/TV makes when you are about to receive a call/text message on your phone? No… well it sometimes happens trust me. That sound is played whenever the protagonists are close to the enemy ‘blanks’. This is subtle yet acts as an indicator that something isn’t quite right even before the ‘blanks’’ evil nature is revealed and also alludes to the technological aspect of the enemies. But all of this good work is somewhat overshadowed by the absolutely terrible editing of the fight scenes. The rapid jump cuts that plague every action sequence in the film ruin anything that is trying to be achieved in said scenes mainly because the viewer is fighting a migraine caused by the pointless editing technique. It manages to protect itself from the ‘Dark Night’ disease where you can’t even tell what is going on or who has the upper hand in the fight and even if it did succumb to the metaphorical virus the rest of the film acts as a vaccine due to its relatively slow nature. What it does do though is take you out of the world of the film which detriments the enjoyment of the film as a whole even if it does give you the chance to pick up the bag of jelly babies you had earlier dropped on the floor. You are safe in the knowledge that you are missing nothing important as the film fails to progress and the troublesome gelatine toddlers continue to evade your grasp.

The dynamic of the five protagonists is by far the best aspect of the film though. The only way we are able to like the central character of Gary King (Simon Pegg) who is an archetypal twat is through the knowledge that the other four acknowledge his twatiness which allows us to identify with them and therefore share in their negative feelings towards Gary. So when they begin to show some compassion and understanding towards Gary we feel it too because we are still on their wave length. This is a very effective method but I would suggest that it is unintentional. I may not be giving enough credit to Pegg or Wright as they are no doubt accomplished writers but I think they thought that the humour and familiar vibes that emanate from Gary would be enough for the audience to come around to him. I doubt it would’ve been and even if mistakenly done so they do manage to make a likeable bastard which is something many film makers have failed to do in the past so they should be given praise for that alone but they do more than that. They make not just Gary likeable; they make the other four equally likeable through their various humorous qualities and general dislike of Gary. No matter my feelings towards Pegg or Wright, which to honest are none existent, I must admit they can create good characters that the ‘average joe’ can identify with which can only be considered a success as their target audience is the average man.

I find myself reluctant to give this film an overall rating as while I don’t agree that all comedy is subjective this style of comedy definitely is and while I consider the film average at best I am sure others will thoroughly enjoy it. However, I can only give my opinion and that is that the film was only mildly funny and for a comedy that isn’t good enough so, despite other aspects being fairly accomplished, I can only give the film three stars.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?bookmark_t=page

Twitter:- @VelcroFace
Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

THE INTERNSHIP. REVIEWED.

The Internship (2013)

Rating- 12a

Running Time- 1 hour 59 minutes

Directed by- Shawn Levy

Written by- Vince Vaughan and Jared Stern

The Internship. More like The Internshit. I know what you’re thinking: That was a terrible, terrible pun but rather unfortunately that was by far funnier than anything in this film. That speaks volumes for a film that was billed as and tried so hard to be a comedy.

The film started off like any comedy of this type would: poorly. The difference between this and most of its contemporaries is that this failed to get any better. The entire story of the film became obvious from very early on which a lot of the time isn’t necessarily a bad thing particularly with regards to a comedy movie but considering how poor the film promised to be one could only hope that there was a huge surprise around the corner. There wasn’t. The film continued as I hoped it wouldn’t but expected it would which resulted in me letting out an audible cheer when the film finally finished.

The one slightly redeeming quality was the acting of the two main stars – Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughan. They somehow managed to make the central protagonists somewhat likeable which, believe me, was no easy task. I almost felt sorry for them; their efforts were always going to be futile with the awful quality of writing they were working with. But that feeling was halved when the end credits began and I saw that Vaughan himself co-wrote the film; he dug the whole that he was trying to escape from. With the sympathy I had briefly felt now 50% gone I had the chance to evaluate the acting of the film overall and it’s more bad news. Pretty much every character was portrayed with some of the most over-the-top acting I have ever seen. I have often heard people say that a particular character is ‘punchable’ meaning that they are so annoying that you physically want to hit them in the face and apart from Wilson and Vaughan (and the cameo performance of John Goodman) I would attribute this tag to every character in the movie. Remember when I started this paragraph stating that this was the ‘redeeming quality’ of the movie? The pure negativity of the words that followed should have made you realise how lowly I rate this film. If my defence of a film is almost completely derogatory to said film then it probably tells you that the movie is pretty awful.

Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised. I had heard nothing but bad things about this film. Bu there is one thing I would like to put straight: this film isn’t just a ‘two hour advert for Google’. I had heard this a lot before watching the film and I can confirm that this is completely untrue, the film is one minute short of the two hour mark.

So in conclusion, in case you didn’t catch my drift, you should definitely see this movie. It’s a decision that you definitely won’t regret, it’s an instant classic. Whoops. I inserted the conclusion for a different film by mistake. But don’t worry if you insert each individual word from this summary into an opposite dictionary* you will get my real feeling towards this film. Actually, I’ll do it for you…

Inappropriately out commencement, out dislike I did release your guide, I shouldn’t doubtfully be blind that…

Alright, forget that. The film is bad. That’s all you need to know.

*If you don't know how to access an opposite dictionary just do a quick Google search and you should find one...

Final Rating. Two Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?bookmark_t=page

Twitter:- @VelcroFace
Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY. REVIEWED.

Monsters University (2013)

Rating- U

Running Time- 1 hour 44 minutes

Directed by- Dan Scanlon

Written by- Dan Scanlon, Daniel Gerson and Robert L. Baird

The long wait is finally over. The much anticipated return of James P. Sullivan and Mike Wazowski is finally here…

Hey!

Wait a minute!

Since when did Sully style his head hair into a small quiff?

And when did Mike start wearing braces?

Oh… I see. The film is set several years before the events of Monsters Inc. (2001) and follows our two beloved nut bars while they study at university.

The title makes much more sense now.

But can it be done? Can Pixar recreate the formula that made Monsters Inc. such an incredible movie? The answer is no. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie, just not nearly as good as its glorious predecessor.

Monsters University attempts to recapture all of the elements that made Monsters Inc. so successful. They worked the plot around the relationship of Mike and Sully, they used the same kind of humour and they tried to create a strong emotional response from the audience. But then why wasn’t the film as good as the original? Simply because they didn’t fulfil any of the above criteria to the standards previously set.

There were a few laughs but nothing as funny as “put that thing back where it came from or so help me”. It was also emotional at times but there wasn’t anything that tugged on the heart strings quite like Boo. And they ever so slightly changed the dynamic of the Wazowski/Sullivan partnership to render it slightly less fun.

It’s an almost unnoticeable change but nevertheless it stops it from reaching the heights of Monsters Inc. The film’s central character is Mike rather than Sully. This isn’t too much of an issue as they are together most of the time anyway but I couldn’t help feeling that I wanted to know more about Sully’s back story, regarding the huge pressure he is under to live up to his family name, rather than being subjected to Mike’s rather obvious underdog story. Mike’s story isn’t a bad one but the fact that Sully doesn’t appear until about 15-20 minutes into the film took me out of the comfort zone created by the original film. More often than not being taken away from what you expect is a good thing but in this case it was somewhat unwelcome and unnecessary.

The film did have a decent enough plot though and the character relationships all seemed real. But I felt that there was something missing. Something to tie the movie together. And I feel that that something was a song. Some of the best Pixar movies contain a memorable song, usually written by the great Randy Newman, that brings all of the aspects of the movie together. Think It’s the Time of your Life (A Bug’s Life, 1998), When Somebody Loved Me (Toy Story 2, 1999), If I didn’t have you (Monsters Inc.) and We Belong Together (Toy Story 3, 2010). All of these songs create atmospheres that capture the essence of a particular scene or the movie as a whole. The songs don’t just exist, they become one with their films; it’s hard to think of Toy Story (1995) without thinking ofYou’ve got a Friend in Me. But Monsters University didn’t have a song like this, it was void of any songs other than instrumentals that, despite being great for their purpose, didn’t carry the same wholesome feeling that was apparent in previous Pixar films and this in my opinion was detrimental to the film.

You may have noticed that this review seems to be almost entirely negative but that’s only because I can’t help but compare it to its predecessor. This may seem unfair but it’s only natural. The truth is it is a good movie and I would recommend it but I have come to the realisation that the best thing I got out of this film is that it made me want to watch Monsters Inc. again. All in all it’s a good movie but it fails to step out of the sizeable shadow of its predecessor.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?bookmark_t=page

Twitter:- @VelcroFace
Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

BEHIND THE CANDELABRA. REVIEWED.

Behind the Candelabra (2013)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 1 hour 58 minutes

Directed by- Steven Soderbergh

Written by- Richard LaGravenese

Upon seeing the trailer for Steven Soderbergh’s Behind the Candelabra I was left intrigued if not confused. From it I gathered that it would be a light-hearted biopic of famous pianist Liberace. After seeing the film I realise that my expectations were somewhat off the mark.

The film, first and foremost, is not a biopic of Liberace but is more of a character driven drama of the relationship between Scott Thorson (Matt Damon) and the famous entertainer. This allows for the film to adopt an interesting style; it is light-hearted on the surface but is surprisingly dark when delved into. This is epitomised through the character of Liberace (Michael Douglas) himself. His outwardly warm exterior hides his covertly cold style. This doesn’t become obviously apparent until close to the end of the movie but is alluded to throughout. There is a shot near the beginning of the film, during the scene in which the pianist is first coming on to Scott (please enunciate), where Scott stands in front of a window and in the reflection Liberace slowly approaches, the dynamic of the shot makes him seem like some form of monster from a classic horror movie closing in on his pray. There are many shots like this and the more the film goes on the more we feel on edge as it seems at any moment Liberace could completely ruin Scott’s life. This more than anything else is what makes us empathise with Scott and this is probably the greatest success of the movie.

Where the film falls down though, in my opinion, is the lack of humour. I realise that the makers were attempting to make a drama and not a comedy but I couldn’t help feeling that the film would have benefitted from more genuinely funny moments. It is not a film void of all humour, the character of Dr. Jack Startz (Rob Lowe) is particularly comedic, but other than that there isn’t really anything that would make you laugh or even smile. It is debatable as to whether the film really needs to contain any truly funny moments but I feel that it would have transformed the film from an average drama to a very good all round movie.

In fact the only thing keeping this film watchable is the excellent performances of both Douglas and Damon. They are both established actors and so maybe it should be expected but you do truly buy into both of these characters and understand their emotions and that’s a tribute to the acting rather than the script which is flimsy at times. And the good performances don’t stop at the two lead roles; this is a film carried by its acting, Dan Aykroyd’s performance as Liberace’s agent is in particular fantastic.

All in all, I feel that this is a decent film that could have been much better but also could have been much worse. I would say it’s worth a watch but I’d be lying unless you’re a big fan of Liberace or find entertainment in deciphering complex clues to unlock hidden characteristics. So if you’re a fan of famous pianists (careful) or an aspiring psychiatrist you’ll probably enjoy the movie but for everyone else it’s probably worth a miss.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?bookmark_t=page

Twitter:- @VelcroFace
Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

MAN OF STEEL. REVIEWED.

Man of Steel (2013)

Rating- 12a

Running Time- 2 hours 23 minutes

Directed by- Zack Snyder

Written by- David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan

We live in time where it seems every other movie is based on a comic book character and in Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel we see the return to our screens of the figure head of all comic book characters: Superman. But is it a welcome return? In short, no.

I was always under the impression that it would be impossible to make a truly good Superman movie because the central protagonist is void of any real weakness (except for kryptonite but the idea of every enemy Superman faces possessing this extremely rare element seems farfetched) and like its predecessors Man of Steel fails to address this fundamental issue. But this was expected as if you try and change the traits of the character to make him more vulnerable you are likely to have an army of comic book ‘nerds’ (the majority audience of the film) knocking angrily at your door each equipped with a strongly worded letter of complaint. But even with looking past this basic flaw the movie still failed to excite me.

When I first heard that the film had been co-written by Christopher Nolan I was left with the expectation that he would try and put a gritty spin on the king of cheese, which we all know is Superman, or maybe it was something I saw on a Burger King menu one time, either way it left me confused and hungry for something else. In truth this film wasn’t gritty but instead attempted to add a dark edge to Superman (emos rejoice) and this was largely successful because the contradictory cheese that I expected was hidden by the odour of boring perfume*. By that I mean that there were cheesy moments but they were largely glossed over with explosions and inexplicably loud noises. But despite Snyder and co. ‘succeeding’ in this aspect they failed in every other way.

While watching the beginning of the film I kept saying to myself “they’ve made a mistake here, if they feel the need to have a tedious character establishing scene then they should do it in the middle of the film not the start; you don’t want to lose your audience from the get go”. The gentlemen next to me then asked me to shut up so I kept that thought in the confines of my mind but it was a thought that stayed with me until the final twenty minutes of the film (see running time at head of page to receive full impact of that statement). It seems that the creators of this film were so fixed on avoiding the pitfalls of the past they forgot about the most important thing: entertainment.

But does that bother modern day cinema buffs? Well considering the rave reviews Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master (2012) received I would argue that entertainment is towards the bottom of their ‘good movie criteria lists’ they carry in their pockets at all times to reassure themselves that their opinion is correct. But what might bother them is the fact that Superman (Henry Cavill), the greatest hero of them all, is a really shoddy hero in this film. There is a line spoken by Superman’s father (Russell Crowe) during the film that goes something like “you can save her [Lois Lane]; you can save all of them”. Well it seemed like he failed to hear the latter part of that statement as he only tended to show his heroic traits when his fancy woman was the one in danger. Not only did he ignore the desperate plights of the citizens of earth but he caused a lot of it himself.

The first action scene in the film, which occurs about half an hour in (no, that is no typo) sees Superman dart, evil General Zod (Michael Shannon) in tow, into a busy petrol station causing it to explode. No one bats an eye lid for these unsuspecting casualties but we can let Superman off just this once can’t we, I mean he seems like a swell guy – well no we can’t – why? Because he does it again about five minutes later. Using the same darting manoeuvre as before (yawn) Superman crashes through the roof of an equally busy restaurant this time General Zod’s loyal sidekick (Antje Traue) is the intended victim. But, hurray, no one appears to be injured this time – not physically anyway. Imagine if you were the owner of that restaurant. It would take you a good few months to get up and running again and what will you do for money during that time? The fact is you wouldn’t have any incoming money and would struggle to afford living costs but does Superman care? No, he’s busy locking lips with Lois Lane (Amy Adams). That’s just the way it works in Metropolis; Superman gets the girl, restaurant proprietors get the noose ready. Indeed it seems to be Miss Lane who gets all the perks of having Superman around. As the final battle approaches its ‘dramatic’ conclusion we see plenty of average Joes fending for themselves under a pile of rubble as the epitome of danger dawns upon them in the shape of a giant, destructive space ship. A couple of moment later Lois Lane falls off a plane (I own all rights for potential nursery rhymes) and Superman drops everything to speed to her rescue. That’s democracy for you.

Overall, Man of Steel is a poor movie, even when compared to the unrelenting onslaught of comic book fodder that is being thrown at us one reel at a time. It seems to be a recurring theme at present to disregard entertainment, characterization, plot etc. for over-the-top CGI explosions and ridiculous dialogue and this is a prime example of just that and despite my low expectations going into the film, I was still left disappointed.

*boring perfume refers to perfume that doesn’t smell of anything

Final Rating. Two Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?bookmark_t=page

Twitter:- @VelcroFace
Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com