Director: Steven Spielberg
Release Date: December 26^th, 2011
Lead Actor: Jamie Bell
Running Time: 107 mins
Genre: Adventure
Nation: USA
Budget: $135 million

Review by Fraser Green

A film that shows signs of hope in its creative opening credits, quickly comes crashing down in this dead-boring adventure film. The Adventures of Tintin stars Jamie Bell (Billy Elliott), Andy Serkis (Rise of the Planet of the Apes), Daniel Craig (Casino Royale), Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz) and Simon Pegg (Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol).

Tintin (Jamie Bell) and Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) set off on a treasure hunt for a sunken ship commanded by Haddock’s ancestor. But someone else (Daniel Craig) is in search of the ship.

It may be shocking to read the opening statement of this review, but it’s true, the once master of the Hollywood adventure film, Steven Spielberg, brings us a film putting him – and I assume the Tintin comics – to shame. The opening credits being the best aspect of the film, as my best mate pointed out, shows how bland the rest of it must have been. Before I go on to hammer this film to the ground, I must say, one cannot go past the brilliant motion-capture technology used. The life-like nature of the film is very impressive, and it is still, as always, well-constructed by Spielberg with eye-catching visuals. It is everything else that lets it down. The script has its areas of amusing moments, but this is nothing to sustain and entire film. The story is very pedestrian, and unbelievably lazy on how it progresses, how the protagonists move from one place to the next. Someone new to Tintin, like me, cannot understand how every turning point is greeted with ‘oh, that must be it!’ or ‘I remember everything now’. Is this part of his character? If so, it is not established. It was pure rubbish – it may work for kids, sure, but adults need to be impressed too. Pixar manages it, so why can’t one of the most successful filmmakers of Hollywood do it? To Spielberg’s credit, it seems like a script issue, but someone with his experience and power over the film should be able to make changes.

As mentioned, the story is very lazy, and you never feel engaged. It is simply characters realizing things under their own will, followed by an action sequence. And the cycle continues throughout, failing to be thrilling. The action is very impressive and creative at a lot of times, but never truly original. Tintin comes off as a cheap rip-off of better films that have already been made, such as Indiana Jones and Pirates of the Caribbean. Come to think of it, the opening credits are a photo-copy of Catch Me If You Can. The central missing element to the film, is its deep-seeded character. There is no emotion, and no moral dilemma Spielberg is so famous for. Sure, some mildly amusing interactions which highlight starkly different characters is evident throughout, but this is a formulaic element of any adventure containing opposite protagonists. Overall, Tintin is a grand disappointment, which seems to promote alcoholism in quite a strong manner.

The motion-capture technology is undoubtedly impressive, but The Adventures of Tintin is a bland, largely pathetic attempt at an adventure film that feels like a mis-mash of other, better big-budget successes. A lazy, unthrilling and very unengaging farce from Steven Spielberg who manages to omit emotion and morals from the film. Rather than teaching children about morals, it seems to say that alcoholism is a good aspect to figuring out life.

Critical Analysis Rating: 45/100

My Rating: 1 and a half stars

Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Release Date: December 25^th, 2011
Lead Actor: Meryl Streep
Running Time: 105 mins
Genre: Biopic
Nation: UK
Budget: $13 million

Review by Fraser Green

The film will be mixed with those who experienced the government of Thatcher, but it rides on the terrific central performance. The Iron Lady stars Meryl Streep (Doubt), Jim Broadbent (Another Year), Anthony Head (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and Olivia Colman (Hot Fuzz).

A look at the life of Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep), the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, with a focus on the price she paid for power.

Making a film such as this was always going to received mixed feedback, and let’s be honest, Maggie was not the most popular person in the world. She governed the UK through a time of massive upheavel – I know, all politicians have it hard – but it is the difficult circumstances that stood before her the film focuses on, circumstances that may have been easily overlooked. What I found interesting about the film, is its approach to the biopic – it explores quite a number of different themes, and director Phyillda Lloyd does this with such ease the audience is unaware it is happening. I personally felt within this film’s boundaries, and understood the character of Thatcher, however my evaluation of her is influenced largely by the film, and not real-life experience. Film is for personal expression, and for a difficult subject to shed a light in to the shadows – The Iron Lady ticks this box. The use of power, masculinity and individuality are all negotiated well by Lloyd, it was certainly no easy task. I was right with the film’s meaning. Most of this credit though, must go to the striking performance of Meryl Streep – she totally captivates the role of Thatcher, turning a figure, into a person. More importantly, in to a woman, a modern woman, and a touching one for that matter.

Luckily, Streep is able to salvage most of the film from its narrative deficiencies. The plot is very uneven and the time-shifting element is quite distracting at times, but seems to level out as the film progresses. The editing copes well as Lloyd continues her ease, but ultimately, the jarring nature of the script can seem to omit, or gloss over, topics we crave to go further in depth. On the plus side, it does allow the audience to think, and the film covers a range of themes.
The Iron Lady could benefit from a smoother, less uneven narrative structure, but the powerful and captivating portrayal of Thatcher by Meryl Streep is enough to carry the film on its own. Even if it can gloss over some themes that require more depth, it is an interesting, original and creative look at an important historical individual, directed with ease by Phyllida Lloyd.

Critical Analysis Rating: 71/100

My Rating: 3 and a half stars

Director: Lars von Trier
Release Date: December 15^th, 2011
Lead Actor: Kirsten Dunst
Running Time: 136 mins
Genre: Drama/Arthouse
Nation: Denmark/Sweden/France/Germany
Budget: $7.5 million

Review by Fraser Green

Pleasant viewing is not the aim here, as with most films by Lars von Trier, but it engaging with the depth of serious depression with interesting result. Melancholia stars Kirsten Dunst (Spider-man), Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland (Mirrors), Cameron Spurr, Jesper Christensen (The Debt), Stellan Skarsgard (Angels and Demons) and Alexander Skarsgard (The Science of Sleep).

Two sisters (Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg) find their already strained relationship challenged as a mysterious new planet threatens to collide with the Earth.

It is hard to review a film of an ambiguous nature. It is a character study, and a look of depression and destruction, possibly surrounded by declines in femininity and masculinity when the modern world is removed or suppressed. The main problem I found with the film, is the complex lack of empathy I had for any of the characters. As Trier leaves out the reason behind the chronic depression, we fail to have any perspective other than the ‘now’. This limited perspective highlights irrationality rather than emotional characters. Even the child, usually a sign of innocence, is largely void without connection to the audience. Despite this, it does have some fuel for thought. Trier’s claustrophobic direction – well-balanced with open-ended meaning and, occasionally, wide spaces – pulls the audience in to the world of the film. The use of the planet is an interesting metaphor and engaging for Trier’s arthouse twist, used more for some interesting inclusion rather than provoking anything extraordinary. Sure, it is ambiguous, so you can come up with personal interpretation, but it is not to the extent one will take away with them. It’s best left in the cinema – we experience it, and that’s it. Having said that, I am not chronically depressed, so it may have strong meaning for some people.

Melancholia is a mixture of beauty and depression, depth and shallowness – the characters are hardly likeable and its overdrawn nature causes the film to feel far too self-indulgent for the audience to care. However, Lars von Trier creates a film world that we feel physically isolated in with the characters – you are there and not in the cinema, but on screen with them – with a visual beauty and strong performances to maintain engagement throughout. It is a profound vision that is somehow engaging with a continuous sense of beauty amongst the destruction. The plays on sexuality beyond the contemporary world are subtle inclusions that are more than welcome.

Critical Analysis Rating: 73/100

My Rating: 3 stars

Director: Brad Bird
Release Date: December 15, 2011
Lead Actor: Tom Cruise
Running Time: 132 mins
Genre: Action
Nation: USA
Budget: $140 million

Review by Fraser Green

What the fourth Mission Impossible instalment lacks in character and depth, makes up for in spectacle and style. The film stars Tom Cruise (Collateral), Paula Patton (Déjà Vu), Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker), Simon Pegg (Hot Fuzz), Ving Rhames (Dawn of the Dead), Michael Nyqvist (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) and Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton).

The IMF is shut down when it’s implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin, causing Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his new team to go rogue to clear their organization’s name.

For me, the Mission Impossible franchise has never really delivered a massive buzz. Brian De Palma’s original propelled action with character and was a solid film, with John Woo’s action extravaganza following several years later – plenty of action but little on anything else. J.J. Abrams’ attempt in 2006 had plenty of style and clever scenes but dragged things out too long and became bolted down in its rather uninteresting love story. Brad Bird, making his live-action debut, omits the third instalment flaws and pumps up the style and technology. By technology, I do not mean visual effects – I’m talking about the impressive ‘gadgets’ (to put a James Bond spin on it) the characters use in aid of their missions. This is the element I find most interesting in these films, and this time round is no exception, blending humour, action and entertainment in one. The intrigue the film’s plot suggests seems somewhat void, and Bird gives a sense of ‘glossing over’ what is trying to an in-depth story, creating some redundant characters and awkward moments of heart that should never even been attempted.

The most astonishing aspect of the film, are its thrilling sequences. It is not your normal Hollywood action film where everything explodes and mindless action dominates everything. Sure, the sequences have a sense of ‘mindlessness’ about them, but they are controlled and tense. The whole Dubai sequence, from the panning shot across the desert to the clearing of the sandstorm – about 40 minutes of the film – is spectacular. Watching it in IMAX maximises your experience with several scenes being shot with the amazing IMAX cameras – it will, quite literally, take your breath away. My disappointment from the film comes from its glossed over plot and remedial attempts at character. Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol is an action-thriller worthy of its time for one thing – to thrill and entertainment, even it has its flaws. The Dubai sequence is brilliantly choreographed.

Critical Analysis Rating: 65/100

My Rating: 3 stars

Those who see the film in IMAX will be treated to the first 6 minutes of The Dark Knight Rises, scheduled for release in July 2012

Director: Tom Six
Release Date: December 1^st, 2011
Lead Actor: Laurence R. Harvey
Running Time: 84 mins (87 mins uncut)
Genre: Horror
Nation: Netherlands/UK/USA

Review by Fraser Green

If it’s disgust you are looking for in your spare time, then go no further – frustrated writer-director Tom Six presents his sequel to the cult horror film, The Human Centipede. The sequel stars Laurence R. Harvey, Ashlynn Yennie (The Human Centipede) and Bill Hutchens (Juncture).

Inspired by the fictional Dr. Heiter, disturbed loner Martin (Laurence R. Harvey) dreams of creating a 12-person centipede and sets out to realize his sick fantasy.

As much as Tom Six wants to believe his film is a sentimental work of horror, what I see is a frustrated director who has been misguided in the film industry, falling down the horror genre path. Although, some people may call his genre of film something other than horror. The issue is, under the surface, Six has a sense of style – he shoots the film well and the gloomy, gritty visual style adds to the atmosphere. Everything else though, is totally void. The attempted social commentary comes off silly and redundant but I admire the effort even if it is not anything new – it was just unexpected. Six seems to be pre-occupied with the notion of sending the audience in to a state of disgust, as he pointed out in a recent interview. Where the first film was surprisingly restrained but still had many issues, the sequel goes all-out with scenes you wouldn’t even expect. This seems to destroy any attempt at a story through the ideally-clever metanarrative, as well as the rather troubled nature of the character development (let alone the characters themselves). I couldn’t help but feel the overly obtuse nature of clear plot holes throughout the film, but the ending may suggest a reason otherwise – an ending that seems totally un-creative in this day and age. Nonetheless, although Six attempts to explain these ‘plot holes’ (apparently!), their frequency breaks any sense of engagement with the world of the film, which is the sensation he is aiming for when considering the visual style and cinematography. You seem to question the film and point out its inconsistencies, rather than fall in to a state of abject – exactly what the genre attempts to do. Then again, I mentioned it may be more than horror, however Six disagrees – he identified the film as ‘horror’ after it was rejected for release in the UK and several scenes for leaked online.

Buried underneath, The Human Centipede II shows that director Tom Six has a (perverse) sense of style about his work, but the void, overt and disgusting nature of his material makes any hidden messages seem utterly redundant and irrelevant, simply going for nauseating the audience. He certainly achieves this here making is seem like an excuse with the lack of an interesting story or coherent character. His shooting method and gritty visuals indicate that he can be artistic if he wanted, but chooses not to be. Ultimately, it fails, and the stupidity does not help.

Critical Analysis Skills: 39/100

My Rating: 1 and a half stars

Oh and did I mention I watched the cut version? See the uncut version of the film at the Nova Cinema, in limited screenings.

Director: George Clooney
Release Date: November 24^th, 2011
Lead Actor: Ryan Gosling
Running Time: 101 mins
Genre: Drama
Nation: USA
Budget: $12.5 million

Review by Fraser Green

A conventional beginning is quickly suppressed as director George Clooney delivers a political-drama only heartbeats short of a near-perfect film. The Ides of March stars Ryan Gosling (Drive, Lars and the Real Girl), George Clooney (The American), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt, Moneyball), Paul Giamatti (Shoot ‘Em Up), Evan Rachel Wood (Across the Universe) and Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler).

An idealistic staffer (Ryan Gosling) for a newbie presidential candidate (George Clooney) gets a crash course on dirty politics during his stint on the campaign trail.

There was a point in this film where I thought to myself, this has the potential to be a 5-star film. Unfortunately, the beginning was the way it was – it is surprisingly conventional and quite pragmatically directed by Clooney. After the first 15 minutes or so, everything that is stunning about the film begins to emerge, including the complex story. My lack of knowledge on American politics made it hard to engage with in the opening stages, but once the treachery starts (oh I’m sorry, did I give something away that the title doesn’t suggest?), the unique ‘perfect-film’ feeling started to emerge. Clooney’s direction is sublime, handling a very adult, mature and intelligent story that maximizes all of its character’s, showing depth in their interactions, reactions and decisions, toying with the horrifying themes of politics – individualism triumphs in its most negative ways, and politicians succumb to their passions and narcissistic nature at the expense of rationality and their position in light of the nation. Even the ending manages to address the moral dilemmas of our lead character played stupendously by Ryan Gosling, without being at all heavy-handed. The cinematography is brilliantly handled, conveying meaning through visuals and suggestion, with effective audio mixes and music to build tension. What got me the most, is the sympathy we feel for Gosling’s character – it was totally unexpected, as well as the juxtaposing of highly potent themes people seldom think about, yet is so important in their lives.

Despite finding The Ides of March hard to engage with in its early stages due to my lack of knowledge on US politics – or politics in general – the brilliantly unhinged cast, cleverly convoluted story and adult tone boost the film is seriously absorbing depths. Clooney handles the film with intelligence and an appropriately restrained style, with the root of tension spurring from a battle between power, politics and the nature of individualism – who is it all really about? Most of all, this is a very, adult film – finally something refreshing from Hollywood.

Critical Analysis Skills: 87/100

My Rating: 4 and a half stars

Director: Bennett Miller
Release Date: November 10^th, 2011
Lead Actor: Brad Pitt
Running Time: 134 mins
Genre: Drama/Sport
Nation: USA
Budget: $50 million

Review by Fraser Green

Six years after his last feature film Capote, director Bennett Miller brings to life another true story that hides behind the glory and glamour that drives the sporting industry with Moneyball. The film stars Brad Pitt (Inglourious Basterds), Jonah Hill (Superbad), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Capote, Doubt) and Robin Wright (The Princess Bride).

The story of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane’s (Brad Pitt) successful attempt to put together a baseball club on a budget by employing computer-generated analysis to draft his players.

Soppyness, sentimentality and cliché have been suppressed and avoided on any and all levels by director Bennett Miller in Moneyball – this is the overarching strength consolidating the audience’s attention. The ‘behind the scenes’ story is a refreshing take on the sporting drama, and for people who know very little about baseball, this is the ideal film to watch. This was my problem from the outset – in the opening stages of the film, I found it hard to understand what the characters were talking about, due to my lack of knowledge on the game. But once the story emerges, Miller’s direction coupled with Brad Pitt’s beautifully balanced performance allows clear communication between screen and audience. Genuine character and resilient editing techniques provide the means to propel the action forward. Some may find it long, but I was totally locked in thanks to Pitt’s performance, as well as strong support from his cast. Great to see Jonah Hill take on a more committed film instead of his often stupid ‘comedic’ roles.

The film does not give in to cliché at any point, particularly in its dying moments when, even then if it did, would have been excused due to the solid nature of the entire film, but Miller holds his style upright. If you are not familiar with baseball, it may take some effort to engage with the film in its early stages, but thanks to director Bennett Miller’s solid hand, effective editing and a committed performance by Brad Pitt in the lead role, Moneyball truly absorbs and intrigues.

Critical Analysis Rating: 81/100

My Rating: 4 stars

Director: John Madden
Release Date: November 10^th, 2011
Lead Actor: Helen Mirren
Running Time: 113 mins
Genre: Thriler/Mystery
Nation: USA
Budget: $20 million

Review by Fraser Green

Director John Madden attempts an impossible feat, and although it may have many inconsistencies, he does a great job at moulding a competent thriller. The film stars Helen Mirren (The Queen), Sam Worthington (Avatar), Jessica Chastain (The Help), Marton Csokas (The Bourne Supremacy), Jesper Christiansen (Casino Royale) and Tom Wilkinson (The Ghost Writer).

Retired secret agents Rachel (Helen Mirren/Jessica Chastain), Stefan (Marton Csokas/Tom Wilkinson) and David (Sam Worthington) have been venerated for decades by their country because of the mission that they undertook back in 1966, when the trio tracked down Nazi war criminal Vogel in East Berlin. At great risk, and at considerable personal cost, the team’s mission was accomplished – or was it?

The film starts out very disjointed and vague, and takes a while before the audience can actually get on their feet. I don’t see this as a bad method of making a film, but when the audience is so disengaged that they are simply trying to figure out the characters, you may have a problem. Luckily, thanks to some firm direction and an easing pace of its story, The Debt finally becomes interesting – the withheld information starts to become valuable. Some tense scenes and strong character bonds link everything together, but again, its narrative paradigm pulls apart what Madden has achieved. Mirren is predictably dedicated in her role, yet even with her presence at the end, we can’t help but feel a void sense of conclusion – there isn’t anything thought-provoking about the film other than ‘lying’, which it was setting itself up to deliver. Instead, it went for a very ‘thriller’ oriented ending, albeit with a sense of maturity, but simply functioned to bring a ‘conclusion’ to its story. Its purpose becomes clear, to thrill and by very mysterious. The problem: it’s disjointed nature sucks out the true mystery feeling the film’s story obviously possesses. Nonetheless, it isn’t a ‘bad’ film. It is competently made by Madden, and the actors are fine with some clever cinematography and well-constructed sequences. It set itself up for a whole lot more, and didn’t deliver. The underlying themes and content are the source of the problem, not to mention its narrative progression.

It may disjointed in the first 30 minutes or so of the film, much like Sam Worthington’s ‘Australian/Ukrainian’ accent, but director John Madden overcomes the problematic narrative structure with some genuine character, fittingly isolated plot and tense sequences for a thriller that achieves what it is meant to do. Any message it is trying to convey to its audience is quickly swept away with the somewhat void conclusion.

Critical Analysis Skills: 66/100

My Rating: 3 stars

Director:

Review by Fraser Green

Andrew Niccol is one of my favourite critical contemporary directors, who blends sociology and science to create a horrifying vision. Although he manages it with In Time, it acts more as a Hollywood chase film. The film stars Justin Timberlake (The Social Network), Amanda Seyfried (Chloe), Cillian Murphy (Inception, Sunshine), Johnny Galecki (The Big Bang Theory) and Alex Pettyfer (I Am Number Four).

In a future where people stop aging at 25, but are engineered to live only one more year, having the means to buy your way out of the situation is a shot at immortal youth. Here, Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) finds himself accused of murder and on the run with a hostage (Amanda Seyfried) – a connection that becomes an important part of the way against the system.

Niccol’s vision of a future where time is currency can have its origins traced to today – the entire point of his films. Urbanisation, late capitalism, genetic engineering (which he rightly leaves off to the side in this film) and the vast division of class and crime as hyper-inflation result due to scientific progression and expanding societies. The film has a simple value at its core – immortality. It sounds great, but would we really want to live forever? This theme also has a pragmatic element – population will simply become too large, what at first seems to be the point of limiting age, actually becomes something more as humans live through the reality. This core theme is what leaves the audience to decide whether the protagonists’ really are doing the right thing. But it may be undercut through the love story that develops, which although is well told, performed, and not too overdone, feels like it shifts focus away from what the audience cares about. But back to the core theme, it governs the film and acts as a ‘backdrop’ alongside urbanization and hyper-capitalism, which I mentioned earlier. It is what makes the film’s progression and narrative remain interesting – the constructed future society and concept of immortality – as it largely moves along as a typical Hollywood action-thriller, which is quite disappointing from Niccol. There are characters, they are developed, there is an issue, and a goal must be attained – it is fairly simple, but the themes are what keep it critical. Although this formulaic narrative structure annoyed me, the intelligence in the film more than makes up for it.

Timberlake gives a faithful performance in the lead role, with Seyfried and Murphy providing solid support. There are some beautiful shots to be seen, but I felt the cinematography was too wrote most of the time, only becoming creative at very rare moments. The score was effective, but there were some horribly clichéd sequences here – I tried to ignore them. I predict critics may accuse the film for its retreat to formula and cliche at various stages, but I find this is overcome largely by intelligence, a great concept, theme of immortality and Timberlake’s performance.
In comparison to writer/director Andrew Niccol’s earlier work, In Time falls short a great deal as it resorts to a fairly typical Hollywood chase-film formula, but it is elevated by its critical blend of sociology and science, a core theme of immortality and the performances of Timberlake and Murphy. But yes, admittedly, it is very heavy-handed.

Critical Analysis Rating: 70/100

My Rating: 3 stars

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
Release Date: October 27, 2011
Lead Actor: Ryan Gosling
Running Time: 100 mins
Genre: Thriller/Arthouse
Nation: USA
Budget: $15 million

Review by Fraser Green

Another driving film this year can only be one of the last things we want in 2011, but director Nicolas Winding Refn delivers a thrilling small-budget thriller that injects an arthouse element to an action format. The film stars Ryan Gosling (Crazy, Stupid, Love), Albert Brooks (The In-Laws), Carey Mulligan (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps) and Ron Perlman (Hellboy).

A Hollywood stunt performer (Ryan Gosling) who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.

The above description is the best guide to use to understand the type of film this is. It is a small-budget heist film that engages with arthouse cinematography and stylized violence. Do not let the advertising and the title of the film fool you – do not expect Fast and the Furious or Gone in Sixty Seconds. Expect something much, much better. Ryan Gosling delivers an awesomely engaging and subdued performance, reminding me of classic Clint Eastwood – perfectly balanced. Some people may accuse the film of being simplistic and quite predictable, but the story is not what matters – it is about the ‘moment’, and director Nicolas Winding Refn captures this beautifully. He emphasizes the character’s interpretations and experiences of reality through stylized cinematography, violence and lighting. Some of the most powerful moments are captured in slow-motion and stylish cinematography, creating character depth with the absence of words, capitalizing on sharp lighting and powerfully effective musical score. From the enormously tense and clever opening sequence that changes the perspective of a get-away with stupendous results, Drive is totally absorbing, approaching material and situations in the left-field manner. Admittedly though, some viewers will find it too slow and textually null with the absence of meaning in language.

Drive’s plot is simple enough, but the way it’s delivered is what elevates it to great heights. The film’s stylised action, violence, aesthetically provoking visuals, sharp cinematography and subdued, but powerfully effective lead performance of Gosling, show Nicolas Winding Refn is a director to be reckoned with.

Critical Analysis Rating: 84/100

My Rating: 4 stars

Director:

Review by Fraser Green

The low-budget phenomenon for Paramount pictures has reached new box-office heights with Paranormal Activity 3, despite relying on a now-obvious formula for the franchise. The film stars Chloe Csengery, Jessica Tyler Brown and Christopher Nicholas Smith.

In 1988, young sisters Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) befriend an invisible entity who resides in their home.

Before I start to criticize the film, I want to commend Paramount for its fantastic advertising campaign, and a path most film companies should follow. The footage shown in many of the trailers and television spots for Paranormal Activity 3 have not ended up in the film, heightening the element of surprise when in the cinema. The iconic imagery within high-concept trailers is easily recognizable when watching the film, and using largely ‘cut’ footage for the advertising has worked to Paramount’s benefit. But although the fact something ‘doesn’t happen’ in the film, to me, may have made me tense in expectation, and bask in the clever approach by Paramount rather than engaging with the film itself. I found myself smiling, rather than cowering in my seat, but even if I had not seen any previews, I don’t think I would’ve been on the edge of my seat like I was back in 2009 with the first Paranormal Activity.

The third film relies too heavily on the formula of the first two films, raising the question as to why the ‘demon’ has kept repeating its actions over the years on the same family and not just get straight to the point. Sure, the jolts and shocks are jumpy, but still predictable – if the low-frequency audio stream wasn’t evident, I doubt the effect would be the same. However, having said that, I did like the way the filmmakers played with the audio, changing it round and using to great effect. Despite knowing something was going to happen, after all, it still made my jump a few times! The slow burn tension disappears as the film progresses, particularly once you realize the obvious blend of the first two films. Director Joost and Schulman still manage to create some clever surprises of their own, but the plausibility also seems to diminish as it engages with an absurd story revelation. The lack of external intervention makes it hard to believe. It should’ve remained with the innocence of the two young girls rather than move away from it – it was much more absorbing.
The third Paranormal Activity installment feels too much like a blend of the first two films in one, without much of a story to sustain it. However, despite some predictable scenes and the formulaic nature, the film offers some spine-tingling and jumpy frights.

Critical Analysis Rating: 58/100

My Rating: 2 and a half stars

Director: Jon Favearu
Release Date: August 18^th, 2011
Lead Actor: Daniel Craig
Running Time: 118 mins
Genre: Western/Sci-Fi
Nation: USA
Budget: $163 million

Review by Fraser Green

A film that has all the right names behind and in front of the camera goes against all odds of its sub-genre to end up…with the rest. The film stars Daniel Craig (Casino Royale), Harrison Ford (Raiders of the Lost Ark), Olivia Wilde (Star Trek), Clancy Brown (The Shawshank Redemption) and Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2).

A spaceship arrives in Arizona, 1873, to take over the Earth, starting with the Wild West region. A posse of cowboys (led by Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford) and natives are all that stand in their way.

A year-long marketing campaign with names like Craig, Ford, director Jon Favearu (Iron Man series) and producers Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard seem like the perfect receipt for a great blockbuster film. It is also ambitious heading in to a sub-genre that seems to fail consistently – Wild Wild West, one of the biggest flops in history, and last year blink-and-you-miss-it Jonah Hex which only managed to gross a 5^th of its $50 million budget at the box office. This wild card hasn’t payed-off, and it feels awfully bland for the players involved – it simply just isn’t that absorbing. The storytelling is rigid and it unfolds to be a typical, goal-oriented Hollywood film that doesn’t really change or make use of anything special. Made for $163 million, it doesn’t feel very grand either – most of the time is devoted to endless moving about, not much character depth and action scenes, which aren’t hugely impressive.

There isn’t really much to talk about here, as there honestly is not much substance. To the film’s small positive side, uniting cowboys and Indians against a common cause – the aliens – was a nice play on the classical Hollywood western, providing a sense of freshness. Craig is competent enough in lead role, making the most out of the limited scope of his character, and Ford injects some humour and is always good to watch in his old age on screen. The best efforts of the two lead actors cannot lift Cowboys & Aliens above the repetitive blockbuster standard it so comfortably sits. On paper, Favearu’s film may look good, but on screen, it simply feels bland with a lack of faith in any sort of solid storytelling, topped off with less-than-energetic action scenes.

Critical Analysis Rating: 55/100

My Rating: 2 stars

Director: Rupert Wyatt
Release Date: August 4^th, 2011
Lead Actor: James Franco
Running Time: 123 mins
Genre: Sci-Fi/Action
Nation: USA
Budget: $93 million

Review by Fraser Green

A long-dead franchise, that made its last attempt 10 years ago with the poorly-received remake of the classic original, Rise of the Planet of the Apes does everything a prequel is suppose to do – reboot the franchise. The film stars James Franco (127 Hours), Andy Serkis (The Prestige), Tom Felton (Harry Potter series), Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire), John Lithgow (Shrek) and Brian Cox (X-Men 2).

An origin story set in present day San Francisco, where man’s own experiments with genetic engineering lead to the development of intelligence in apes and the onset of a war for supremacy.

The above plot outline makes the film to robust and over-the-top, but in fact, it is quite nuanced. The film tells the story of Caesar, a genetically enhanced chimp, who is in the private care of scientist Will Rodman (James Franco). Once inevitable problems arise in keeping a chimp living among a human neighbourhood, he is taken away to a shelter. The film moves between the next phase of genetic engineering, as well as the eventual integration of Caesar in to the ape community he is now situated. The film is downright involved in many themes of human nature, human society, scientific testing, genetic engineering and, unpredictably, animal cruelty. Most of the film is largely told with little or no dialogue – the audience if left to understand the action through the performance of Andy Serkis as Caesar. This is the highlight of the film, and shows ‘true filmmaking’ at its peak, where visuals are given more importance than words. As there is the intricate link between audience and screen, strengthened through Serkis and the animal cruelty/human aggressiveness dichotomy, we ultimately end up on the side of the apes. This brings me to one or two issues.

The film is overly one-sided as it seems, and may be too heavy-handed for some viewers. I don’t disagree with the position that human beings are fierce, self-serving and flawed beings that are powered by technology, but it gives the genuine human characters in the film little meaning by its conclusion. Franco’s character feels somewhat subverted, despite acting in all the right ways, making his half of story feel redundant, questioning half of the running time of the film. But still, the story is largely with Caesar, and Franco’s character can be read as a subject, or victim, to the overpowering structures that exist in human society. His survival is due to his sense of morality and love – evolution has made his species redundant, not him. But still, as the focus is on Caesar, the aforementioned feeling still exist somewhat.
A film that breaks the grounds of the Hollywood mainstream stage, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is powerfully compelling, intelligently crafted film that showcases a mesmerising performance from Andy Serkis to bring forth emotional linkage, as well as a marvel in motion capture special effects. Rupert Wyatt’s evocative direction gives a film that appeared an instant failure in its marketing something audiences can savour at the end of the 2011 blockbuster season. Despite its issues, they can be qualified and compromised through is thorough complexity.

Critical Analysis Rating: 78/100

My Rating: 4 stars

Director: Joe Johnston
Release Date: July 28^th, 2011
Lead Actor: Chris Evans
Running Time: 124 mins
Genre: Action/War/Superhero
Nation: USA
Budget: $140 million

Review by Fraser Green

Marvel’s superhero onslaught continue with the last, appropriately entertaining, entry before The Avengers hits screens in 2012. The film stars Chris Evans (Sunshine), Hayley Atwell (The Duchess), Hugo Weaving (The Matrix), Tommy Lee Jones (Men in Black) and Stanley Tucci (The Devil Wears Prada).

After being deemed unfit for military service, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) volunteers for a top secret research project that turns him into Captain America, a superhero dedicated to defending America’s ideals.

With some less-than-impressive titles to his directing name, Captain America wasn’t appealing with Joe Johnston at the helm, responsible for Jurassic Park III and The Wolfman. Where Thor (another Marvel 2011 film) resulted much higher than expected, Captain America impressed, but not overly so with its heavy-Hollywood tone and overly patriotic nature. The film is entertaining to an adequate level, with solid all-round performances and a decent attempt to give the film a human centre. But under the simple good vs. evil premise, there seems to be too much of a juvenile feeling mixed with patriotism on the ‘America’ (i.e. ‘good’) side of things, creating an uneven progression. The evil and appropriately stylized aspect of the film is handled with authenticity and powered by Hugo Weaving’s sometimes hilarious performance as Red Skull, but it isn’t matched by the Captain’s side – he is restricted in his movements. It may be hard to understand, but I can’t help but feel as if there is an uneven feeling whenever the audience is viewing the ‘good’ of the film.

To shed a bit of light over the shadow I have just cast, this is easily Johnston’s best film in years. Solid action and some clever sequences show he is making a film that has been matched appropriately for him. Injecting adequate humour and getting the best performances out of his characters, his job is done much better than previously seen. It may not be much, but considering the ‘mainstream-ness’ and annoying aspects to the film, it is quite an achievement. The film also has a cool visual style, and the overall tone is a great throwback to classic action films from the likes of Spielberg and the James Bond series.
Captain America: The First Avenger certainly rides along with a sense of unevenness and annoying patriotism, but its solid cast, nostalgic throwback to classic action films and energetic progression make for a decent entertainment rollercoaster. The mythology of the Marvel universe also adds to the fun and feel of the simple ‘good vs. evil’ film.

Critical Analysis Rating: 65/100

My Rating: 3 stars

Director:

Review by Fraser Green

The concept is promising, and the actress is fitting, but Bad Teacher never really lives up to its marketing hype. The film stars Cameron Diaz (Charlie’s Angels), Lucy Punch (Hot Fuzz), Jason Segal (I Love You, Man) and Justin Timberlake (The Social Network).

A comedy centered around a foul-mouthed, junior high teacher (Cameron Diaz) who, after being dumped by her sugar daddy, begins to woo a colleague — a move that pits her against a well-loved teacher.

This review is not very long, and it is for a very simple reason. Bad Teacher is, in a word, ‘bad’. Its simplicity doesn’t allow much room discussion, and can be summed up very briefly.
Cameron Diaz is more than welcome in the energetic lead role, but Bad Teacher suffers from an overly derivative and pointless plot, with a script largely devoid of humour and overly stylised characters that are more weird and uncomfortable than funny. It doesn’t exactly paint the best picture for contemporary women in the traditional ‘female’ occupational role. Diaz cannot salvage the film despite her best efforts. My recommendation, watch a better film with a similar, ‘rude’ and ‘adult’ angle. Get your hands on Bad Santa (2004) with Billy Bob Thornton – its odd humour matches its rather bizarre plot. Done.

Critical Analysis Rating: 40/100

My Rating: 1 and a half stars

Director: David Yates
Release Date: July 13^th, 2011
Lead Actor: Daniel Radcliffe
Running Time: 130 mins
Genre: Fantasy
Nation: UK/USA
Budget: $250 million

Review by Fraser Green

An epic voyage finally comes to an end, and an end that will, admittedly, be missed. Deathly Hallows: Part II stars Daniel Radcliffe (December Boys), Emma Watson, Rupurt Grint, Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges), Alan Rickman (Die Hard), Helena Bonham Carter (Alice in Wonderland) and an array of fine, British talent.

The final chapter begins as Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupurt Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) continue their quest of finding and destroying the Dark Lord’s (Ralph Fiennes) three remaining Horcruxes, the magical items responsible for his immortality. But as the mystical Deathly Hallows are uncovered, and Voldemort finds out about their mission, the biggest battle begins and life as they know it will never be the same again.

Generally in Hollywood filmmaking, ‘conclusions’ to film franchises tend to be overdone, action-heavy, overproduced with little regard for story, ideas or characters. I say ‘conclusion’ with caution, as these franchise never seem to die, but are resurrected in some shape or form. After being very disappointed with the last two installments of the Potter series, I am happy to say that the ‘epic finale’ lives up to its name, and people won’t be disappointed. Directed with style and gusto by David Yates for the fourth consecutive time, he manages to blend sweeping spectacle, fantastic cinematography while maintaining (or even improving) character depth. Nothing really came as a surprise to me considering everyone around me, from when the books were released, told me what happens. But having said this, the film is still quite moving in many sequences, and although the ins-and-outs may not be totally understood by an audience unfamiliar with the books (such as myself), what is understood is the thorough examination of the main characters, namely Harry and Voldemort.

I’m proud to review the film, as a ‘film’, not as an adaptation of a novel. As a film, its really is, very good. Certain scenes show artistic merit on behalf of Yates, even if it may differ from anything in the book. What is important to remember, is the decision comes with a reason, and the reason was not made to intentionally disappoint. There isn’t really much to say about the film, other than it is immensely satisfying as a finish to one of the biggest entertainment franchises in history. Sure, the film has its issues of cheesy scenes and occasional awkward acting from younger members of the cast. The heart and ‘wonder’ or the original films in the series may be gone as darkness prevails, but the ‘darkness’ never seemed to work for me….until now. Deathly Hallows: Part II finds the right balance. Best of all, it is not overlong like the other films, so the decision to split the final novel worked.
A huge improvement over the last two instalments of the series, Deathly Hallows: Part II is a hugely satisfying conclusion to a popular series. Director David Yates manages to blend special effects and spectacle with genuine character producing a very thrilling and beautifully shot, epic conclusion that defies Hollywood standards.

Critical Analysis Rating: 79/100

My Rating: 3 and a half stars

Director:

Review by Fraser Green

The third film in four years of this popular franchise cannot seem to move beyond the deep formula that has guided the entire series – Decepticons cause havoc to planet Earth. The film stars Shia LaBeouf (Disturbia), Rosie Huntington-Whitley, Josh Duhamel (Life as We Know It), John Turturro (Anger Management), Patrick Dempsey (Grey’s Anatomy), Frances McDormand (Fargo) and John Malkovich (Burn After Reading).

The Autobots learn of a Cybertronian spacecraft hidden on the Moon, and race against the Decepticons to reach it and to learn its secrets.

From the outset, Transformers 3 looks good – Michael Bay blends history and fiction effectively, using real-life footage of the Apollo era as well as the great spectacle of modern computer effects to insert a massive wreck on the Moon. From then on, the film is largely downhill, with some perks. The character is missing, the performances are sub-par, but most noticeably, the script is very flat. Arguably, this doesn’t give the actors much to work with, but Huntington-Whitley is simply terrible regardless. The plot as been mended to give it a more unique feel, but we can never really get in to it as the series – and Michael Bay for that matter – continues the iconic derivative style. The film constantly goes off course, and to little effect this time round, and there is no character to sustain it. The most intriguing character relationship was between Sam and Bumblebee, brilliantly thoughtful in the original, but Bay opts for the highly clichéd love story between Sam and an implausibly ‘perfect’ girlfriend, in which he has scored two from two, without ever have a past girlfriend (from what we can figure out).

So, ok, we soon figure out that the Decepticons are back to cause some crazy shit yet again. Ah yes, this reminds me of something, but I can’t remember…oh! That’s right! Transformers 1 and 2!! Wow the screenwriters have been busy. Having this same formula storyline also ruin any authenticity that the franchise may have – if the same thing happens, and characters keep returning, then what was the point of the plus $450 million of production budgets for the first two films for? I think I’ve made my case, but let’s think about some positives. Well, the action is undoubtedly exhilarating, and probably some of the best staged, most grand and cinematic experiences I’ve had for generic Hollywood action films. But at two and a half hours, it feels pointless to even care. Despite the action, the scenes are filled with a surprising lack of continuity and clear understanding that one may receive from say a Christopher Nolan film.
Exhilarating action, but Michael Bay’s hour-long finale cannot cover up below-par performances, an un-lively script and derivative progression. Even the change in plot elements may be dressed up and show promise early on, but in the end, it… simply follows the same formula – evil Decepticons are yet again causing havoc for Earth. The eventual clichés just make you cringe, but not as much as Rosie Huntington’s shocking performance – the final action scene is something to behold, but after 2 and a half hours, you cant help but focus on your headache, even without the 3D! If there is any good in this film, it is unfortunately cancelled out by the bad that surrounds it. My rating is still quite generous, but it is largely to the feel I received from the finale of the film – you feel right in the middle of it, despite the idiosyncrasies.

Critical Analysis Rating: 44/100

My Rating: 2 stars

Director: Paul Feig
Release Date: June 16th, 2011
Lead Actor: Kristen Wiig and Rose Byrne
Running Time: 125 mins
Genre: Comedy
Nation: USA
Budget: $32.5 million

Review By Fraser Green

Picked as her best friend’s maid of honor, lovelorn and broke Annie (Kristen Wiig) looks to bluff her way through the expensive and bizarre rituals with an oddball group of bridesmaids.

Bridesmaids may be overly derivative, but the film is carried by the performances of its great cast – especially that of Kristen Wiig – some genuine character examination and a frequently hilarious script. Rose Byrne also expands her horizons by taking on a role out of her career norm in playing the stuck-up maid of the group.

Critical Analysis Rating: 69/100

My Rating: 3 and a half stars

Director:

Review by Fraser Green

Coming off his success from the 2009 reboot of Star Trek, J.J. Abrams manages to take an alternative turn on the sci-fi genre, even if he can’t reach benchmark heights. The film stars Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler, Elle Fanning, Ron Eldard and Riley Griffiths.

After witnessing a mysterious train crash, a group of friends in the summer of 1979 begin noticing strange happenings going around in their small town, and begin to investigate into the creepy phenomenon.

The film has been described by it’s makers as a ‘human story and monster movie in one’. That pretty much sums up Super 8, and the rest is elevated under the guise of J.J. Abrams. He directs with a certain amount of gusto, making the film higher than others treading similar territory. And this is the main problem, very little here is new – what is new, is through the imagination of Abrams, and the audience actually cares about the characters. For a good hour and a half, the film is brilliantly made, but the last half hour does suffer under Hollywood convention, even if it is above the norm. The linkages become somewhat harder to make and the depth takes back seat to spectacle. Having said that, the spectacle is visually satisfying, and a reminder of similar classic films. Super 8 is matched by the throwback in nostalgia, which some people may read is all the film is about, to no obvious end. It serves more as the mechanism for the humour, and the character story takes the heavy lifting. Here is the next issue – the ‘monster’ is seldom in the film’s main focus.This is fine, but in the final act, it dominates the screen with – albeit quite brilliantly directed – action scenes. Instead of keeping it in the backdrop, it is thrust forward, intertwining the film’s key human centre with, arguably, not the best result.

The performances are a great deal of the film success – young Joel Courtney is simply brilliant in the lead role. There is raw emotional power in the film. Sure, it has all been explored before, and does not extend or create something new, but it is actually felt, something Hollywood fails to do time and time again. Mixed in with solid direction, well-choreographed action and a decent amount of humour, the film is largely satisfying.
Super 8 certainly doesn’t tread any new ground with its – eventually – conventional Hollywood narrative, but writer/director J.J. Abrams provides the film with a raw, emotional centre lifted by performances from Kyle Chandler and the brilliant young Joel Courtney. Its nostalgia can be distracting if you take it too seriously, but directed with thrilling and visual gusto by Abrams, its successes are enough to overshadow the flaws that do exist, particularly with the final act, where the ‘monster’, largely a backdrop for the film’s central themes, is unnecessarily thrust forward to dominate screen time.

Critical Analysis Rating: 74/100

My Rating: 3 and a half stars

Director: Matthew Vaughn
Release Date: June 2nd, 2011
Lead Actor: James McAvoy
Running Time: 134 mins
Genre: Action/Fantasy
Nation: USA
Budget: $160 million

Review by Fraser Green

For the second time in 2011, Marvel Studios have managed to bring hope the Hollywood action blockbuster, and topping previous franchise entries with X-Men: First Class. The film stars James McAvoy (Wanted), Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds), Kevin Bacon (Footloose), Rose Byrne (Insidious, Sunshine), Jennifer Lawrence (Winter’s Bone), January Jones (Unknown), Nicholas Hoult (A Single Man) and a cameo appearance from Hugh Jackman (X-Men).

In 1963, Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) starts up a school and later a team, for humans with superhuman abilities. Among them is Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender), his best friend… and future archenemy.

First and foremost, I must congratulate 20^th Century Fox for taking the plunge in giving director Matthew Vaughn creative control over the film. Vaughn’s prowess can be seen throughout the entire freature, playing differently against Bryan Singer’s slick style, and shows a massive improvement on the over-produced Brett Ratner and Gavin Hood editions to the series. Fox is always know for over-producing their films, but they have hit the mark just right here. Moving on from the architecture of Vaughn, the film is set with the perfect backdrop – the height of the Cold War in pre-Cuban Missile crisis period, the story weaves around real-life events. The story has basically written itself. Vaughn deftly blends history and fiction, and the script is focused on the relationship between Charles and Erik, posing affecting moral motivations with social/political questions, critiquing the ideals of liberty, shedding light on humanity and evolution. A lot to think about.

It is this deep character that supports the film to run for the longest of the series – well over 2 hours, whereas the rest were lucky to reach anywhere beyond the 100 minute mark. The minor relationship in the film is somewhat interesting, but in light of the key focus, it almost feels as if screen time is sacrificed, highlighting the probability that there may be too many characters in the film. As seen above, it is certainly an ensemble case. Both McAvoy and Fassbender are fantastic in their respective roles, with Fassbender quickly becoming one of my favourite actors in recent times. The audience now understandings the complexity behind each character. There are some spots of shallow acting here and there, mostly from the child actors. However, I found Kevin Bacon to be the most inconsistent, particularly when his villainy feels unnecessary.
Apart from a small shaky start with child actors, X-Men: First Class reigns as the most mature entry in to the franchise under the direction of Matthew Vaughn. His creative control is used brilliantly, and his film has a self-written story, where Vaughn deftly blends history and fiction, focusing the script’s effort in the character relationship between Charles and Erik. Featuring well developed political/social/ideological questions and satisfying action, the highest accomplishment comes from the film’s insight to understanding the complexities behind its two leading characters.

Critical Analysis Rating: 79/100

My Rating: 4 stars