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

ESCAPE PLAN. REVIEWED.

Escape Plan (2013)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 1 hour 55 minutes

Directed by- Mikael Hafstrom

Written by- Miles Chapman and Jason Keller

What do you get when you take Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger and put them in a film together about a prison break? Exactly what you expect. Is that a bad thing? Not at all.

The film takes a little while to get its legs as it tries to set up a story that is a little bit too complicated for what the film, and its audience, requires. But once Stallone eventually partners up with Schwarzenegger the film becomes the fun, action filled, cheesy line producing film that it was always going to be. And in that respect it doesn’t disappoint. In fact it doesn’t disappoint in any respect.

For what it is the film is close to perfection. It delivers everything you want from a Stallone/Schwarzenegger movie. It’s action-packed, funny and convenient: a perfect film to watch with a group of friends. Its only downfall is the fact that they keep trying to shoehorn a storyline in that no one really cares about. This results in the ending scene making little sense, an insignificant factor considering that the dialogue in that scene makes it hilariously entertaining regardless.

Overall, the film succeeds in entertaining its audience and so it is hard to fault it, and I wouldn’t want to. So, while it isn’t going to rock the world of cinema, it is a very good film.

Final Rating. Four Stars.

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

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

FILTH. REVIEWED.

Filth (2013)

Rating- 18

Running Time- 1 hour 37 minutes

Directed by- Jon S. Baird

Written by- Jon S. Baird

Filth is a film I have very mixed feelings for. I didn’t know what to expect going in but after ten minutes I thought that it would be a film that I would really like. I left the cinema though feeling very disappointed and somewhat annoyed. The reason for this is simple: Filth is a film of two halves. It’s just unfortunate that only one of them is enjoyable.

The first half is a brilliant dark comedy. The protagonist (James McAvoy) is witty, juvenile and carries a loveable hatred of the human race. It is particularly entertaining watching him interact with his co-workers at the police department. During this first half a smile was a permanent fixture on my face because it was that kind of film; it was a relatively light hearted, enjoyable movie. So it was to my displeasure that this wasn’t to last as the second half dropped the comedy and just became dark. There were signs that the film was going this way but in my opinion it was too abrupt a change from the first half. The very same face that wouldn’t drop its smile a moment earlier (mine) now took a different form, a form that had only been seen once before and it just so happens that its previous appearance was on the very same day: when the vendor at the cinema’s confectionary stall informed me that  they were out of hotdogs. That’s right. It was an expression of utter disgust. The film lost all of the qualities that had made it so good to begin with and what was left was a mesh of pretentiousness and unwanted darkness. It was more than a little disappointing.

But while the quality of the film’s narrative was inconsistent, one thing remained constant. The performance of James McAvoy. Which was very good. No matter what I think about the film’s tedious second half, McAvoy remained brilliant throughout and while I grew to hate his character, which I’m not sure wasn’t the intended response, I admired how well he played the troubled copper for the film’s entirety.

Perhaps if I hadn’t been so thrown off by the abrupt change in style I may have appreciated what the film was trying to achieve. But the fact remains I was thrown off so that sentiment becomes irrelevant. And while the film was reasonably enjoyable overall, I believe the following anecdote tells you exactly what I thought of the film:

After the film had finished I found myself staring into a bin, a bin that by rights should have had remnants of my hotdog in, and while staring deep into the pile of trash inside, I came up with a phrase that not only reflected upon what I saw before me but also accurately described the film I had just watched: ‘there are elements of filth in rubbish just as there are elements of rubbish in Filth’.

And yes. I realise how bad that was.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

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

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

E-mail:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

RUSH. REVIEWED.

Rush (2013)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 2 hours 3 minutes

Directed by- Ron Howard

Written by- Peter Morgan

Rush was a film that I was only interested in after hearing how good it was from others. Before that I had no motivation to see it as I’m not a huge fan of F1, the Hunt/Lauda rivalry was before my time anyway and Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Bruhl aren’t enough to make me want to see a movie. But I did go to see it based on word of mouth alone and I’m very glad I did. Rush is a brilliant movie and here’s why.

The film is a depiction of probably the greatest F1 rivalry of all time and quite possibly one of the greatest across all sports. But you don’t need to know anything about that to enjoy the film; I had very limited knowledge of it going into the film and I still loved it. Why? Because the film, beneath the surface, really isn’t about that. The fact that the film is based off real life events holds little bearing to what makes this film good; it is all about the two central characters. It doesn’t matter that they are representations of real people, the essence of the film lies in how the two characters develop and evolve because of their relationship with each other. The feelings of the two characters towards one and other are mutual throughout the film; it starts out as jealousy, then hatred and finally respect. With the overall moral being that you can gain just as much from your rivals as you can your best friends, if not more. This is something that is true in real life and this film depicts it perfectly.

Given that the film is largely based on the characters’ relationship with each other it was vital that the acting of Hemsworth and Bruhl was of a high standard or this film just wouldn’t work and, fortunately for Howard and co, it was. I went into the film with a somewhat negative opinion of Hemsworth as I had only ever seen him portray the character of Thor, who I don’t like, so I was pleasantly surprised while watching this film as he was brilliant. He was, without doubt, the shining light of this film. He played the character of James Hunt so well; the good-looking, confident jock with deep lying problems regarding his fears and relationships. I think this film shows that he can break away from the role of Thor whenever he wants to and still be highly regarded and popular amongst cinema goers; he can easily avoid being typecast if he chooses. But Hemsworth’s brilliant performance didn’t overshadow the greatness of Bruhl as Niki Lauda as he was also very good in this movie. He wasn’t someone I knew an awful lot about, I recognised him from Inglorious Basterds (2009) and I enjoyed his performance in that but this film showed to an even greater extent what a fine actor he is.

Overall, I feel that Rush is a film that F1 fans will love and that everyone else will love as well. The representation of the real life events will win the admirations of racing fans and the brilliant performances and character development will appeal to pretty much everyone. All in all, a very good film.

Final Rating. Four Stars.

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

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

E-mail:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

PRISONERS. REVIEWED.

Prisoners (2013)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 2 hours 33 minutes

Directed by- Denis Villeneuve

Written by- Aaron Guzikowski

Prisoners wasn’t a film I had heard much about. I knew it was about a kidnapping of some kind and that it starred Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal – that was the extent of my knowledge. I looked up the running time of the film before going to see it and, I have to say, the fact that it is over two and a half hours long left me a bit sceptical going in. I hold a strong belief that films should only be as long as they need to be and that there are too many films, particularly in recent times, that are unnecessarily long (Man of Steel (2013) for example). But Prisoners doesn’t fall into the category of ‘unnecessarily long’ as its length was justified.

I often sit through films like Man of Steel and think “that scene could have been cut out” or “that shot was held longer that it should have been” but with Prisoners I can’t think of a single moment like that. Every scene had its purpose within the narrative which ensured that the audience’s attention was always focused on the story. I’m not going to lie and use the cliché of saying ‘the film may have been long but it didn’t feel it’ because it was noticeably long but that doesn’t mean it ‘dragged’, it was simply just slow-paced which is fine as long as it grips the audience’s attention throughout. The one section of the film that did seem to become a little sluggish was the latter half of act two but I feel that this was intentional as it seemed to perfectly reflect the characters’ positions; they were in a rut because they weren’t making any progress with the kidnapping case and seemed to be just ‘going through the motions’ waiting for something to come up that looked increasingly more unlikely to ever materialize. So, the length wasn’t an issue.

The best quality of the film is its intensity. It becomes apparent from very early on that it is a film in which anything could happen at any moment and we are left guessing what might come to pass and that leaves us on edge throughout the movie. There is a scene that is so intense that I saw many fellow audience members squirm and wince as they were watching it, it carries an air of unpredictability about it which makes something that you would think is never likely to happen very possible and when teased with it we are left open mouthed.

The one other main positive of the film is the characterization of the two central protagonists. Jackman’s character’s actions are sometimes questionable to say the least but you still find yourself empathizing with him because of the situation he is in, you are left with the question: ‘would I do the same thing in his shoes?’ And even after the film had finished I still didn’t have an answer. His actions remain an ambiguity throughout and that’s why his character is so good’ he represents the ‘everyday man in extraordinary circumstances’ and is a good portrayal of how someone can change so dramatically due to the situation they find themselves in. Whereas Gyllenhaal’s character appeared to be the cool and calm detective that can solve any case and do so without breaking a sweat. So when the case starts to get the better of him he slowly begins to lose his collectiveness and becomes a figure of pure frustration causing him to do things he wouldn’t normally do. The two characters are both people we are unlikely to share many similarities with and yet they are surprisingly easy to identify with which is a credit to the writing; they manage to make us care for characters that haven’t really earned it.

So, all in all, it is the writing that makes this film so good. Mainly apparent in the fact that the mystery of the kidnapping is truly puzzling; it wasn’t until very near the end of the film that I had any real clue as to who kidnapped the two girls. The writers’ do the obvious thing of introducing a couple of red herrings but because of the way the film’s narrative progresses you begin to wonder whether they were red herrings at all which is how all good mystery/detective movies should be; you should always be second guessing yourself and be in a constant state of genuine confusion.

Overall, Prisoners is a very good film that I would highly recommend seeing. It requires plenty of attention but rewards you for it. It contains all the elements of a great detective thriller while also exploring how difficult scenarios affect people in different ways. It is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the year so far so make sure you watch it, if you haven’t already.

Final Rating. Four Stars.

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

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

E-mail:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com