THE GIFT. REVIEWED.

The Gift (2015)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 1 hour 48 minutes

Directed by- Joel Edgerton

Written by- Joel Edgerton

The usual rule with horror movies is that if they come out in the summer, albeit in this case - late on in the summer, they aren’t expected to be that good hence them not being released in the prime horror season i.e. the weeks surrounding and including Halloween. The Gift though is probably the best horror movie to come out in a very long time and that’s because it doesn’t just rely on jump scares: it is a genuinely brilliant psychological thriller. The horror is chiefly created through what we assume, not what we see and that technique only works if the film has an antagonist who is not only truly frightening but also an emotionally complex character in their own right.

The Gift sees successful, young couple Simon (Jason Bateman) and Robyn (Rebecca Hall) move to LA to make a fresh start following the traumatic loss of their unborn baby. There they run into Gordo (Joel Edgerton), a childhood acquaintance of Simon, who is eager to become good friends with them despite their dismissive attitude towards him. This develops into Gordo becoming seemingly obsessed with Robyn, something she doesn’t seem to mind but infuriates Simon who tells Gordo to leave him and his wife alone. This triggers a switch in Gordo whose harmless fixation takes a sinister turn which leads to a dark secret from Simon’s past being revealed.

The film relies on the three central characters to be fully fleshed out and appear real for its effect to be properly realised. It does this in a way that serves both the intensity of fear as well as the plot; the characters’ believability naturally makes the film more scary but the fact that we are set up with an instant idea of who we think these characters are only to be continuously surprised as we learn more and more about them enhances the dynamic of the film’s story. We are constantly doubting ourselves over who the real villain of this movie is and, with each dose of perfectly placed information, we are left with a completely different outlook on the film as a whole and particularly the characters which keeps the film fresh but also has us constantly switching allegiances and altering our opinions on everything we have seen before. This results in us feeling that we still don’t really know these characters, or the full extent of their story, even after the movie has finished which seemed impossible after the film’s opening made us think that we had the very same characters completely sussed. But, this feeling of ignorance somehow leaves us more satisfied than we would have been if we were made aware of everything there was to know; this is largely the reason the film is as good as it is. All of this points to very good writing.

This is not the only way the quality of the writing is showcased though. While the opening is establishing what will eventually be proved to be false identities for the main characters it is also ingeniously planting clues that we don’t realise are as important as they end up being at the end of the film. Pretty much everything that makes the film’s end so chilling is given to us almost subconsciously in the first fifteen minutes of the film so that when we are watching the final revelation we are suddenly thinking back to all of those supposed irrelevancies and putting them all together to make the horror of the final scene ten times more disturbing than it already is.

My only major gripe with this fil is that is decides to include two or three jump scare that, despite being superbly incorporated, weren’t necessary and end up taking away from the psychological fear that was so brilliantly conveyed just by resorting to the easiest way to make people scared. Don’t get me wrong, jump scares when used well are fantastic ways to generate a strong, visible response from the audience but there is a time and place for them and this movie had the chance to prove that you can make a truly great horror movie without them. It doesn’t stop the film from working in the way it does but it doesn’t add anything that was really needed and I would have preferred to see the film without them if only to show that horror can be scary without jump scares.

Overall, an incredibly chilling horror film that achieves real psychological fear through a great script and excellent acting. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes for its entirety and delivers an ending that is as unpredictable as it is brilliant.

Final Rating. Four Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?ref=bookmarks

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

MAX. REVIEWED.

Max (2015)

Rating- PG

Running Time- 1 hour 51 minutes

Directed by- Boaz Yakin

Written by- Sheldon Lettich and Boaz Yakin

A film that has no genre, no real structure, and no idea what it’s trying to achieve yet somehow manages to be quite an entertaining watch. The film is essentially about relationships and, despite all of them being implemented in as clumsy a way as you possibly imagine, they at least give the film some heart, even if it is a horrible synthetic heart made in a lab.

When Kyle Wincott (Robbie Amell) is killed during military service with the US marines, his war dog Max is left to his family after it becomes apparent that he acts in a hostile manner to everyone bar Justin (Josh Wiggins), Kyle’s younger brother. Justin at first is reluctant to accept the responsibility of taking care of Max and struggles to get him to respond to any commands. His attitude soon changes though when he meets Carmen (Mia Xitlali) who, unsurprisingly given her debut scene sees her proudly flaunt a ‘paw’ tattoo and a dog themed bike helmet, is somewhat of an expert at training dogs. This new partnership works wonders and Max becomes as obedient as a dog can be. The film then appears to have got all it can out of that particular story arc so has Justin discover an illegal arms deal so that a new story, that sees Justin, Max and co. become a team of wannabe crime fighters, can begin; a story that takes the form of an unintentional bastardisation of Scooby Doo.

The film struggles right from the outset to find a tone/genre and stick to it. The entire film has a somewhat serious undertone yet takes several guises, most notably as an upbeat coming of age story and a caper-filled crime fighting adventure. Because of this, we are never entirely sure what kind of reaction the film is trying to get out of us and are therefore left struggling to react at all.

The story itself is full of conveniences that completely rids the film of any feeling of genuineness that it may have otherwise had. This is mostly embodied through characters suddenly changing their minds about things without any sort of motivation or reason which comes down to bad writing more than anything else.

The characters, with the exception of Justin, are all very one dimensional and by the end of the film you feel they haven’t evolved in any meaningful way apart from Justin’s father (Thomas Haden Church) who simply decides to act out of character for one moment which eventually leads to him having a major attitude change by the end of the film.

Overall, it is a film that is riddled with problems but at times it manages to still be a fun watch. It could have been much better if it found and stuck to a single identity rather than trying to appeal to multiple demographics through multiple identities; a tactic that almost never works. But, on a positive note, it is probably the second best film with Max in the title that has been released this year so at least it has that going for it.

Final Rating. Two Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?ref=bookmarks

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - ROGUE NATION. REVIEWED.

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)

Rating- 12a

Running Time- 2 hours 11 minutes

Directed by- Christopher McQuarrie

Written by- Christopher McQuarrie

Tom Cruise is out once again to disprove the film’s title in Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation. It’s another action-packed outing for the IMF that delivers in every way we have come to expect from this franchise.

We begin, shortly after an exhilarating opening mission involving the much publicised scene that sees Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) hanging on to the side of a moving plane, with Ethan and co. being given the news that their Impossible Mission Force (IMF) is being shut down due to their unorthodox methods of espionage. But, this doesn’t stop Hunt going on the Ethan for Solomon Lane (Sean Harris), the evil leader of the rogue organisation: Syndicate. This mission seems impossible enough but without the resources and support usually available through the IMF, Ethan faces a challenge that enters a new realm of impossibility.

The long and short of it is that the film is just as good as any other film of the franchise and, in many ways, even exceeds them. Its many action sequences are all very well-orchestrated and all reach high levels of tension and excitement whilst being broken up just the right amount by appropriately comedic moments. Basically, it has all the ingredients of a great summer blockbuster.

The only real issue with the film is that the illusion of Syndicate is more interesting than the reality of it. The leader Solomon Lane is particularly underwhelming with the best moments of the ongoing fight between the IMF and Syndicate involving henchmen rather than the villainous leader of the organisation.

Overall, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is a very good action movie that delivers in all the ways you want from a movie of its type and Tom Cruise continues to prove that he is still the action star and is showing no signs of letting that slip any time soon.

Final Rating. Four Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?ref=bookmarks

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

INSIDE OUT. REVIEWED.

Inside Out (2015)

Rating- U

Running Time- 1 hour 34 minutes

Directed by- Pete Docter and Ronald Del Carmen

Written by- Josh Cooley, Pete Docter, and Meg LeFauve 

Pixar is a company with such a good track record that every film that they put out is immediately put under immense pressure to live up to its predecessors. So, the fact that Inside Out has received an almost unanimously positive reception is enough of a testament to the film’s quality. But, while it certainly is a good film, I personally don’t think it is of that standard of the greats that this studio has produced in the past.

Inside Out focuses on Riley (Kaitlin Dias), a young girl who is remarkably happy almost all of the time, but more predominantly the five characters who live inside her head and control her emotions; Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Fear (Bill Hader). When Riley’s family move from their idyllic Minnesotan home to a rundown little house in San Francisco coincides with Joy and Sadness getting lost inside of Riley’s head, Riley begins to act out in ways she never has before; a direct result of Anger, Disgust, and Fear being left in charge of her emotions. The majority of the film then focuses on Joy and Sadness’s journey to get back to the central control centre of Riley’s brain and return her to her usual emotionally balanced self.

The opening sets up the concept of the film very quickly but then encounters a problem because of that. It takes about ten minutes for the film to sufficiently convey how the emotions work inside people’s head but the outside world’s timeline is not ready for their story to progress for another twenty minutes or so. This results in us being beaten over the head with the, albeit interesting, concept until Riley’s character reaches a point where losing control of her emotions makes sense. But, once that point is reached, the film gains a clear objective and becomes more entertaining both inside and outside of Riley’s head.

The comedy works most of the time, despite a few jokes that don’t quite hit as they are supposed to, with most of the funniest moments coming via the emotions trying to control and react to situations happening on the outside. But, in there lies another issue with the film: the emotions react to Riley rather than the other way around. The emotions are supposed to be in control over everything that Riley feels but a lot of the time it appears that the emotions are only making decisions based on how Riley is already acting. However, they do manage to continue their impressive feat of making the comedy accessible for both children and adults; it is not so often a so-called ‘kids’ film can include a China Town (1974) reference.

So overall, Inside Out is a good film but is only par for a Pixar production. It is not a Toy Story (1995) or a WALL-E (2008) but it is not a Cars 2 (2011) or a Monsters University (2013) either; it’s just good, but not great.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?ref=bookmarks

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

SOUTHPAW. REVIEWED.

Southpaw (2015)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 2 hours 4 minutes

Directed by- Antoine Fuqua

Written by- Kurt Sutter

A film about a boxer at the top of his profession who loses his success in spectacular fashion only to slowly fight his way back to the top hardy sounds like an original concept and in truth Southpaw isn’t a film that smacks of originality but it still manages to stay entertaining throughout.

Fresh from his most recent defence of his light-heavyweight title, Billy Hope (Jake Gyllenhaal) is on top of the world. His wife Maureen’s (Rachel McAdams) attempts to keep him grounded seem to be working until an altercation with would-be-title-challenger Miguel Escobar (Miguel Gomez) ends in her accidental death. This triggers a downward emotional spiral for Billy, one that sees him lose everything he cares about and any chance of recovery seems almost impossible.

The film starts in great fashion. Not only is it fast-paced and entertaining but it also establishes the main characters well in the process. The film then coasts off this initial energy up until the point of Billy’s fall from grace. This period of the film is captivating to watch but reaches a point that you start to think that if this carries on for much longer it will become too depressing to remain entertaining. Fortunately, before it crosses that threshold, the film takes a turn that provides a much needed pick up.

This turning point is triggered through the introduction of Forest Whittaker who puts in an unsurprisingly great performance as veteran coach and former boxer Tick Wills. But, the positive turning point his introduction sparks coincides with the film sliding into cliché and everything from that point becomes predictable. It wasn’t as if everything that came before that was wildly unpredictable but the potential was still there for something unexpected to happen up until this moment. The performance of Whittaker and particularly Gyllenhaal, who gets better and better with each film he stars in, keep the film captivating through this last leg of the film through and it probably finishes in as much of an uplifting way as it can considering the dark, depressing nature of the events of the second act.

It’s a film that takes the stereotypical redemption story and sets it to the unoriginal backdrop of boxing but is still entertaining mostly due to the brilliant acting; it surely confirms Gyllenhaal as one of the best actors of this generation. All in all, an entertaining retelling of a story we have seen before.

Final Rating. Four Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

FANTASTIC FOUR. REVIEWED.

Fantastic Four (2015)

Rating- 12a

Running Time- 1 hour 40 minutes

Directed by- Josh Trank

Written by- Simon Kinberg, Josh Trank, and Jeremy Slater

It’s been eight years since the Fantastic 4 were last on the silver screen but now, after no demand for them to return, they have returned. This reboot aims to put a more serious spin on the characters we already know in the hopes that it will cleanse our minds of the campy incarnation that preceded it. In that respect it succeeds but in every other respect it falls rather flat.

The film begins with five young misfits, consisting of three young scientists, Reed Richards (Miles Teller), Victor von Doom (Toby Kebbell), and Sue Storm (Kate Mara), along with Sue’s brother Johnny (Michael B. Jordan) and Reed’s friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), conceiving and building a machine that allows instantaneous, inter-dimensional travel.  But, when the bureaucratic Dr. Allen (Tim Blake Nelson) denies the kids the chance to use the machine that they built, they decide to use it anyway. They arrive on a planet, later named ‘Planet Zero’, where they discover a supernatural power that quickly becomes volatile. As they attempt to escape, von Doom is consumed by the power and assumed dead while the others are attacked by it just as they begin their journey back to Earth. Upon their return, they realise they have all been affected by this power in different ways. Reed can stretch his limbs like rubber, Sue (despite not actually going with them) is hit by a blast of energy on their return and therefore can turn invisible and create force fields, Johnny can safely set himself on fire and fly, and Ben is now giant and made of rocks…

Surprisingly, this is easy to look past as we already know how ridiculous the origin of these characters are and, considering the nature of comic movies, we expect going in that we are going to have to suspend our reality to an extent. Where the film fails though is that it spends almost an hour and a half of its one hour and forty-five minute run time establishing the characters, their relationships, and the acquisition of their powers. Then a quick fight scene is squeezed in just before very tame tease for a sequel closes out the movie. Usually, I think that comic book movies run a bit too long for what they are but in this case the film would have been improved with an extra couple of scenes to heighten the threat of the villain, when he finally arrives, and for us to get to see the Fantastic 4 actually fight together as the Fantastic 4 for more than five minutes.

The film’s set up was actually pretty promising but the fact that the payoff was so underwhelming makes it so that the promise that was there was not realised and so it didn’t seem worth while in the end. But, even the film’s ‘opening’ had its flaws despite, and regardless of, its promise. The most predominant of these flaws was that it focused on the least interesting aspects of the story; the parts that were interesting, such as the characters learning to control their powers and the government’s desire to use their powers as weapons in military exploits, were brushed over and teased before mostly taking place in a period of time that we transition through via a ‘one year later’ caption. But, there was plenty of screen time spent trying to establish a connection between the characters, a connection that comes across as very forced as none of the actors/characters seem to have any real chemistry with each other.

The film eventually introduces the main villain in Dr. Doom who appears to be all powerful, with his ability to cause people to explode a particularly handy trick for a bad guy to have. At this point we think that our heroes are going to have a really tough time beating this guy but alas the final fight between them is incredibly underwhelming with all the threat that this menacing figure had possessed apparently being all used up in his debut scene. Shortly afterwards the film ends with a whimper and with an audience almost in unison proclaiming, “was that it?” and, unfortunately the answer is yes.

The only saving grace is that the characters themselves have the potential to be interesting and perhaps they would be able to flourish in a sequel. But, despite a sequel reportedly already in the works, it would not be a surprise if this franchise was nipped in the bud at this early stage. So, overall a film that promises much but delivers little and only succeeds in bettering its predecessor through its predecessor being really, really bad.

Final Rating. Two Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Rating- 15Running Time- 2 hours
Directed by- George Miller
Written by- Nico Lathouris, Brendan McCarthy, and George Miller

Ever wondered what a live action Wacky Races with a 15 certificate would be like? With Dastardly leaving behind his purple hat and jacket and replacing it with a radical new hair style and a scary mask? And with the character of Muttley being portrayed by about a hundred crazed lunatics all with their own cars? And with all of the other racers teaming up and riding together in a turbo-charged tank?

Probably not…

But you’ve got it anyway with Mad Max: Fury Road.

The film is set in a dystopian future where the necessities of life are in short supply (most noticeably water), women are oppressed to the point where they are used almost exclusively for the purposes of breeding and milking (yes, milking), and pretty much everyone works for an evil tyrant called Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne). Furiosa (Charlize Theron), an all-action, one-armed woman, sets out on a dangerous mission to escape the clutches of Joe and return to her homeland. But, as soon as they become aware of her escape attempt, Joe and his army of loyal followers violently and relentlessly pursue her. Along the way, captive Max (Tom Hardy) manages to break free of his chains and teams up with Furiosa in her daring attempt to out-run, and out-gun, the crazed mob that is constantly on her tail.

The world of the film is such an unusual and strange one that it would probably take at least two hours of screen time to properly explain it all. So, the doesn’t even attempt to fully establish the world but instead starts with a five minute explosion of exposition before getting straight into the action and saying to the audience “just enjoy the spectacle and anything you pick up along the way in terms of the intricacies of the world is a bonus”. This is true of the story of the film as well; we are not actually told what the aim of Furiosa is until about 45 minutes into the film and even then it’s very brief. We are left to discover for ourselves what the plot of the film is whilst watching the non-stop action that 90% of the movie consists of. Everything we know about what makes a good movie suggests that this shouldn’t work but, in this case, it does and if the film was presented in any other way it would not nearly be as good as it is.

One of the first rules of movie making is to ‘show, don’t tell’ and Mad Max: Fury Road does this to the extreme. What better way to establish the wackiness of the film’s world than to show it, what better way to portray the madness of the characters than to show them in action, what better way to convey the action genre than to subject you to it relentlessly for two hours? It’s a brave approach to almost completely omit the first act of a movie as we have come to expect that when we sit down to watch a film the first 15 minutes at least will be there to establish a foundation that the rest of the film builds upon so, when that isn’t there, the potential exists for the audience to be thrown off a little. Certainly, as I was watching the film for the first time, I was still waiting for some sort of exposition even after the 20 minute long initial car chase then, when I finally realised that there wasn’t going to be any, I just enjoyed the film as it was and ended up admiring the choice not to spoon-feed the plot to the audience but to let them figure it out themselves, which isn’t a difficult task as all the information is clearly presented as the film progresses but it is not something we usually expect from a film.

But, while this approach worked for this film, it is not a style I expect or want other films to try to imitate as not only does it require a lot of variables to go in your favour (i.e. great acting, thrilling action, impressive editing, stunning visual effects) for the film to work without the usual formula but if every film was like this it would lose its special appeal and it would quickly become stale. After all, there is a reason why every other film we see has an almost universal structure and that is because it is a way of presenting a film that can be reused without becoming banal.

Overall, Mad Max is a fast, loud, action-packed film that delivers everything an action film should without getting dragged down in a superfluous story. The acting is brilliant all round, especially from the two leads (Hardy and Theron), and even with its crude, streamlined approach of movie making, it still manages to convey a powerful message. It is not, however, a style of movie that will become a universal success for years to come, and maybe that’s a good thing; this was a breath of fresh air and if films came out every year that were just like it then that ‘air’ would get crowded and loose its freshness – keep this style exclusive for this franchise and the sequels should be as entertaining and successful as this.

Final Rating. Four Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

BIG GAME. REVIEWED.

Big Game (2014)

Rating- 12a

Running Time- 1 hour 50 minutes

Directed by- Jalmari Helander

Written by- Jalmari Helander

The idea of the President of the United States being lost in a forest while being hunted by a group of terrorists seems so ludicrous that there’s no way it could be anything but entertaining, throw in the fact that the President is played by Samuel L. Jackson and you’ve got a film well worth a watch. And, while Big Game may not deliver everything a good film should, it is entertaining nonetheless.

When Air Force One is hit by a missile the President is forced to evacuate, via an escape pod, before the jet comes crashing down. He lands in a forest in Finland where he is found by Oskari (Onni Tommila), a young Finnish boy who is on a trial of ‘manhood’ where he is to survive on his own and prove himself a worthy hunter; his main motivation is to impress his father, a highly respected figure amongst his people. The two of them team up and attempt to escape the forest before the terrorists who attacked Air Force One can find them.

The first half an hour of the film is somewhat tedious with the establishment of Oskari’s character taking just a little bit too long meaning we don’t actually see Samuel L. Jackson on screen until about 20 minutes into the film which, considering he’s the film’s major selling point, is probably too long of a wait. It naturally takes a much shorter amount of time to set up his character when he finally does appear though as all we need to know is that he’s the president and he’s Samuel L. Jackson, we don’t need any extra information to know what that entails. This scene is used though to set up the character of Morris (Ray Stevenson) who is the President’s head of security. We learn through some very on-the-nose dialogue that he has recently taken a bullet for the President and he is being forced to retire after this final exploit. I believe the line actually said by the President is, “I know you took a bullet for me and are being forced to retire after this” or something close to that. You have to credit the writer there; that may not have been the cleverest or most natural way of giving us that information but, by God, was it ever efficient.

The last part of the film though is wildly entertaining because it is so ridiculous that it is amazing. The President and Oskari continually find themselves in unbelievable danger only to find some absurd way to get out of it at the last minute. Many of these, especially the final one, are so comical and borderline slapstick that they are almost Naked Gun-esque but the only problem with them is that they seem out of place which they really shouldn’t considering the nature of the film. The problem is that the creators of the film decided to implement an all too serious through-line that stops these comical events from reaching the heights of their potential effect. Which is disappointing because otherwise these scenes would have been enough to make me want to watch the film again but, as it is, one watch is enough.

Overall, Big Game is an entertaining film but has problems finding its tone and style resulting in both the comedic and dramatic aspects feeling out of place. It is the type of film that a group of friends would watch when they are wanting to just switch off and watch a film that doesn’t require anywhere near full attention.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON. REVIEWED.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Rating- 12a

Running Time- 2 hours 21 minutes

Directed by- Joss Whedon

Written by- Joss Whedon

It’s time again for everyone’s favourite team of superheroes to fight against an evil being who is focused on destroying all of mankind due to their slightly off kilter morals and shaky reasoning. No, it’s not the X-Men. No, it’s not the Guardians of the Galaxy either… it’s the Avengers. Remember them? Well, you should because you’ve been constantly reminded of them ever since they successfully defeated a non-human lifeform who threatened the fate of all of humanity three years ago… and now, they’re ready to do it all over again.

Of course by now we expect nothing less than for the heroes we have seen on screen many times before to face a challenge they have faced many times before to save all of us regular humans, who we seem to be seeing less and less of in cinemas because, as we all know, we as vulnerable, emotionally complex humans are boring. We demand god-like beings, failed science experiments and crazy mutants… I mean crazy ‘genetically enhanced humans’… to be flying around and shooting lasers from any available orifice or we want our money back! Luckily, that’s exactly what we get.

The film focuses on Iron Man’s (Robert Downey Jr.) vision to create a robotic creature (Ultron, James Spader) that can essentially save the world whenever something comes to threaten it so that the Avengers don’t have to. He and Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) a.k.a. The Hulk attempt to create this robot but appear to fail only for it malfunction and animate itself as a figure of evil. Ultron initially appears to believe that the Avengers themselves are the biggest threat to the safety of Earth so aims to eliminate them but he eventually comes to the conclusion that all of mankind needs to be wiped out as they are the problem in his eyes. So, it is up to the Avengers to defeat Ultron before he succeeds with his plot of global annihilation.

All in all, Avengers: Age of Ultron is an enjoyable film. Its action scenes are just as entertaining as those in its predecessor but seem to have more purpose rather than just a fight for the sake of fighting. It also cuts out the hour long setup of characters we already know that the first one had and puts us straight into the action, which is a good thing in my book. But overall it sticks to the same formula that has been successful for Marvel since Iron Man (2008) and, while they are still making money, they have no reason to divert from this formula.

So, as we have come to expect by now, there are many flaws apparent in the film that we allow ourselves to ignore because as long as the film is enjoyable it doesn’t really matter that some of the dialogue is poor or that some of the characters seems to come to conclusions that make little sense. But, there is one thing that even the most diehard fan of the films is still irked by and that is the villains. Marvel have a track record or producing villain after villain that has a one dimensional reason for wanting to destroy the world and who we never truly believe will pose a threat to our hero or heroes. In Ultron though at last there is a villain whose reasoning is almost justified and we can actually see where he is coming from but he wants to kill us all so we know he’s bad and has to die. He is still not a great example of a villain but by Marvel’s standards he may as well be Hans Gruber. The fact that he speaks with jokes and sarcasm also make him more entertaining than anything we’ve seen from the Marvel Cinematic Universe in terms of bad guys before.

And, while I’ve already mentioned that we overlook most of the films flaws, it’s hard to accept the romance that sparks (I say sparks but the way it is written into the plot we would believe that this is something that has been coming for a while) between Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and The Hulk. It comes very much out of left field and seems very forced. It would have almost been better for them just to turn up and say “we’re a couple now” as at least then we would know it is something that has happened between films and we are not left questioning whether or not it is a relationship that had begun to develop before the film or whether it really is just that sudden.

The introduction of the Maximoff twins (Quicksilver, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Scarlet Witch, Elizabeth Olsen) was not a disaster but it wasn’t that successful either. They do initially fall into the category of one dimensional villains that I previously mentioned and their back story of their parents being killed is hard to take seriously with the fluctuating accents that we are told it through. It was always going to be hard for Quicksilver in particular with the same character being used to such great success last year in X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and with that in mind Taylor-Johnson does a pretty good job. Scarlet Witch is mostly just dull until around the last act of the film despite her being the key instigator for most of the Avengers’ problems in the film’s early stages.

Probably the best aspect of the film though was Hawkeye who, after his disappointing showing in the first Avengers, completely stole the show in this one. He was funny, heroic and relatable. In essence, he was everything a good protagonist is meant to be. It makes me want to see a superhero film where the hero isn’t an all-powerful being with a vulnerability that is shoehorned in but where we follow a naturally flawed human that we can relate to while all this amazing, supernatural stuff that is a staple of the superhero genre goes on around him.

Overall, it’s exactly what you expect from a Marvel film and while I believe it slightly betters its predecessor due to its lack of over exposition and the presence of a half-decent villain, there is not much between the two. An entertaining watch that satisfies as you experience it but don’t think about it too much afterwards as the flaws will begin to become obvious and its entertainment value will start to diminish rapidly.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

BIG EYES. REVIEWED.

Big Eyes (2014)

Rating- 12A

Running Time- 1 hour 46 minutes

Directed by- Tim Burton

Written by- Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski

Big Eyes is the true story of a woman who painted portraits with big eyes who married a man who told big lies to get a big prize (money and fame), his betrayal made her wish he would big die and she began to big cry but not before saying her big byes and cutting all big ties. Now in Hawaii she became big wise and sued the big guy for all of his big lies, the jury ruled in her favour and she let out a big sigh.

The story of Margaret and Walter Keane is a fascinating one and this film presents it in a charming way but there were some scenes that detracted from the interesting nature of the overall piece simply because they were so dull. The reason for this is simple: there wasn’t enough content for a 105 minute long movie. The story may be intriguing but there just isn’t enough there for feature length film. I feel that the only way the film could have maintained consistent captivation is by straying away from fact and adding some fiction to it. Space Jam (1996) did this and I don’t think anyone can argue, with any real conviction, that it wasn’t anything but successful. The creators of Space Jam realised that, while the story of Michael Jordan retiring from basketball to become a baseball player only to then change his mind and go back to basketball is an interesting one it is not worthy of its own film, so naturally they added the Looney Tunes to the story and it became 88 minutes of pure inspiration and exhilaration. Big Eyes should’ve taken note.

But because of the lack of a sufficient plot the film relied heavily on the performances of its two leads and they didn’t disappoint. Amy Adams was brilliant; she managed to capture Margaret Keane’s assured love for art as well as her overall frailty as a person, which becomes more prominent as the film progresses. But, as in pretty much every film he’s been in, Christoph Waltz completely steals the show.

He continues to add life to a film that had all but run out of any meaningful story and goes some way to completely redeeming the film of all its faults with the final scene of the movie. Here he is at his comedic best as he insanely tries to defend himself in court against his wife in a futile attempt to maintain his false dignity.

In the end though, it is not enough to save the film from its faults and while it is entertaining in parts it is outweighed by the remainder that is little more than filler.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

BIRDMAN. REVIEWED.

Birdman (2014)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 1 hour 59 minutes

Directed by- Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Written by- Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo

Michael Keaton in a wacky costume and mask? That can only mean one thing!

Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah…

…Birdman?!

That’s right. Keaton plays a twisted version of himself in the form of Riggan Thomson, an actor famous for portraying a superhero who attempts to break away from his typecast by writing, directing and starring in a stage adaptation of Raymond Carver’s ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About Love’. Along the way he faces problems in the form of Mike Shiner (Ed Norton) – a super pretentious method actor brought in to play one of the show’s leads, his not-so-rehabilitated drug addict daughter (Emma Stone), a stubborn critic (Lindsay Duncan) with a mission to get the play cancelled and his own personal demons that take the form of his superhero alter ego: Birdman.

The first thing to point out is that the film is technically well made. Its fluid camera movements and consistent percussive soundtrack gives it a very holistic feel and serves to emphasise the frantic nature of the run up to the play’s preview showing. Its technical achievements are only overshadowed by the acting of all the main stars that gives life to the characters that, in the end, are the make and break of the film; if the characters didn’t seem authentic and real the film would have fell flat on its face due to its very character driven style.

But for me the film was more interesting than enjoyable. It was not a film where I was ever bored but I was rarely entertained; I watched with intrigue. The best moments of the film are the ones in which Thomson makes reference to the current state of superhero films in Hollywood and how they pale in comparison to the originals i.e. him. Obviously this is an amusing nod to Keaton as Batman but he was not the original Batman, Adam West was. I couldn’t help wondering what the film would have been like with West as the lead instead of Keaton. It would have definitely taken a completely different tone, probably one the director didn’t intend, but it would have made it a lot more humorous to say the least. Riggan’s emotionally unstable character would have seen much more real simply because of the way West naturally acts. The script wouldn’t need to change at all to accommodate him either and the thought of Adam West attempting to act in a serious, dramatic play is a thought that alone induces laughter. But that is just my wish and would perhaps work as a summer comedy movie but not a film released right in the middle of the Oscar season, so it would be harsh to judge the film based on that idea especially with how brilliant Keaton was in the role.

However, the film seems in many ways to me like a westernised version of Big Man Japan (2007) and both films are very similar in terms of quality as well: very average. The key difference between the two films lies in their respective endings. First of all, Birdman is without doubt, in my mind, a scene too long but despite what I feel the actual ending scene, more specifically the very last shot, gave me the initial reaction of a slightly amused smile. The more I think of it though, the more I can’t get my head around the ending, I have a few theories as to what it might mean but all have their flaws. There is nothing ambiguous about the end of Big Man Japan though and it did more than induce a smile; it made me laugh out loud. It ends on a delightful twist that is one of the best endings to a film in cinema history, despite the overall quality of the film not being that great. Perhaps comparing Birdman to an obscure Japanese film to make my final judgement on what many believe to be the one of the best films of the year is unfair…

…but that is what I’ve just done.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES. REVIEWED.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Rating- 12A

Running Time- 2 hours 24 minutes

Directed by- Peter Jackson

Written by- Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro

Whether you like the first two Hobbit movies or not, it is almost universally accepted that they are very much underwhelming compared to the Lord of the Rings films which they are inevitably likened to. In my opinion, the first Hobbit film was very slow starting but began to redeem itself towards the end, its successor was much better as the plot advanced in a much more progressive manner and the action set pieces were much more of what I had expected from the Hobbit films. I expected that this positive trend would continue and that the third film would be the best of the trilogy.

In short, I was wrong.

The trilogy as a whole suffers from the issue that many expected would be its main problem which is that they attempted to turn one book into three films. Because of this it is one story split into three which resulted in the first film being nothing but a first act, the second film – the second act, and the third film is most definitely a third act and solely a third act. This means that none of the films have a contained story which results in none of them being as satisfying as perhaps they could be.

The Battle of the Five Armies begins at a rapid pace. The cliff hanger at the end of the second film is resolved within minutes of the opening to this film and that then signals the beginning of probably the most tedious part of the film. It consists of various different parties (the men, the dwarves, the elves, the orcs… Gandalf) all constantly proclaiming words to the effect of ‘there’s going to be a war’. And then, with possibly the least surprising turn of events in cinema history, there’s a war.

The war? Ridiculous and too long. The battle scenes in The Lord of the Rings films were brilliantly executed. They were lively, action-filled and progressed the story all at the same time, this pales in comparison. It quickly devolves into a bunch of guys whacking each other and it not being clear who’s supposed to be fighting who and when a purpose is introduced so is Azog: The Pale Orc (Manu Bennet) which is, as the previous films indicated, only a bad thing.

This guy gives Marvel a run for its money in terms of terrible villains (and I mean that in the worst way possible). When he is first introduced in the Hobbit part one he came across as an overly CGI’d blob of an orc with a stupid, one-dimensional vendetta. I hoped at that point that he was just a ‘filler’ villain who was there to add danger to the film with Smaug the dragon not to be introduced until later in the story. So the fact that he is still a prominent part of this film and, as it turns out, the main antagonist of the entire trilogy, is frustrating to say the least.

After the battle eventually ends, so does the film. Well not really but there is not a lot of a conclusion after the fight, maybe a response to the complaints levelled at the final Lord of the Rings film that its conclusion was far too long. This film goes too far the other way in my opinion though and after spending almost eight hours following the journey of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) a hasty return to The Shire and a quick fade to the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring is less than satisfactory.

Defenders of the trilogy will say that it is unfair to compare them to the Lord of the Rings because they are two different stories that adopt different styles and that the Hobbit trilogy itself is a very good series of films. But, while I agree that overall it is a good trilogy of films, they invite the comparison and to be honest they don’t hold a candle to any of the Lord of the Rings films. If they didn’t want the comparison to be drawn they shouldn’t have made Peter Jackson the director, they shouldn’t have hired Howard Shaw as the composer, they shouldn’t have begun the trilogy with Ian Holme and Elijah Wood, they shouldn’t have included Legolas (Orlando Bloom) in a prominent role or Saruman (Christopher Lee), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and the Nazgul in probably the best fight scene of the trilogy. It seems to me that they tried to recreate the magic of the Lord of the Rings but failed and have in the end only succeeded in reminding the audience of how much better they were by including all of the elements I have just listed.

So overall, this is the worst film of the three and therefore failed in saving a trilogy that was still very much redeemable. I had my doubts before the first film was released that splitting it into three films was a mistake and I am now adamant that I was right. It perhaps would have been too much of a task to condense it all into one film but it could have easily been a two-parter and I believe that it would have been a much more successful format.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com