Gravity (2013)

This film is so good it gave me a panic attack. Seriously. There is so much tension coming and going throughout the film that, by the end, it all became a bit much and I got a bit… hyperventilatey. I can’t really say specifically why without spoiling things but suffice to say, my greatest fear is drowning, with that slow inevitability of being trapped inside something that’s filling up with water. Shudder.

But that’s not what Gravity is really about. What it’s about is demonstrating what good actors George Clooney and Sandra Bullock really are. Playing two astronauts (cosmonauts? What’s the difference? ), Clooney and Bullock are separated from their shuttle (which is irreparably damaged) by a large debris shower. We watch as they attempt to a) stay alive in the deeply inhospitable environment of space, and b) find some way to return to Earth when everything seems to be broken, or without fuel.

Gravity is also about affording us the opportunity to spend a couple of hours enjoying some spectacular views. The scenery is incredible, and the cinematography immense. The plot is simple but it works really well and there is only one ever so small part where Hollywood kicks in and it all gets a bit cheesy. It’s only one line really – you’ll know which one I mean.

Whether you enjoy space films or not, and I’ve sat through enough to know that, in general, I don’t, Gravity is spectacular and wonderful and definitely should be seen on a big screen with loud music and potentially 3D (if you like that sort of thing). Whether it would be as good with a baby screen and small speakers at home I don’t know.

The Fountain (2006)

If pushed to state a favourite director, I would have to say Darren Arronofsky. Black Swan is very high up on my top films ever and Requiem for a Dream is unarguably incredible. I haven’t seen The Wrestler yet. Director aside it doesn’t really seem something I’ll like and I don’t like Mickey Rourke’s face. Pi I feel might be a bit difficult, and so I’m putting it off. Noah, though I am looking forward to immensely, but unfortunately it’s not released until next year. The Fountain therefore offered the logical next foray into Arronofsky’s work.

Set at three different points in time it follows a couple in their search for the tree of life. Merging Myan legend with bible stories and science fiction the separate stories link together frequently to give continuity to what otherwise could be a bitty film.

The original intention was apparently for the film to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. While Blanchett would of course been fantastic, I think the eventual casting of Rachel Weisz is perfect. Hugh Jackman too was cast well and took on a role very dissimilar to anything I have previously seen him in. A combination of period costume and space travel is a long way from Wolverine. He does it very well though and managed to make me forget that it was him, which is impressive with three roles to play.

I’m still not entirely sure whether I liked this film as a whole piece. It took me a little time to get into, and perhaps it was a little too surreal in places. There were also some aspects which I didn’t feel I understood sufficiently to appreciate their full meaning.  There were many points however when I was completely bowled over and fully involved in and loving everything I was watching. Throughout The Fountain grabbed my emotions and did with them what it wanted which, when it comes down to it, is all I’m really looking for in a film.  I’m left with the overall feeling that I did like it, although I think that that will be cemented with a second viewing, this time more prepared for what I’m about to watch. 

Monsters University (2013)

Disney owes a lot to Pixar. The use of computers has completely and permanently changed how animated films look and feel, and has allowed a visual complexity which was impossible with traditional animation methods. As well as this, Pixar has completely changed what we expect from a film plot these days. Retold fairy tails or children’s books like Beauty and the Beast, Hercules, or The Jungle Book just don’t cut it anymore, and targeting a film at children is now no excuse for overly simple story-lines  As Rauld Dahl knew, children like to be scared, and they like to laugh, and soppy doe-eyed women being rescued by princes doesn't really manage that. Take Up! as an example – the hero is a grumpy old man and I know some adults reduced to tears by the opening montage. That would never have happened twenty years ago.

Because as old as it makes me feel, it is almost twenty years since Toy Story was released. I loved it, I still do and very surprisingly I loved the sequel, the uninspiringly named Toy Story 2. Even more amazingly, Toy Story 3, released much later, was also pretty damn good, although nowhere near the brilliance of the other two. Other Pixar enthusiasts and I have often disagreed over the best Pixar/Disney film to date, and I know many people rate Finding Nemo above any of the Toy Storys. Hopefully they’ll be pleased with Finding Dory, due for release at the end of the year. With any other production company I’d wonder how they could remake the fish looking for a fish story without overt and tedious repetition but, while there will be many a reference to Finding Nemo I’m sure, I have no doubt that it will stand alone as a solid film.

The same can be said for Monsters, Inc. and Monsters University. Again, a completely new story and one which I don’t think many people saw coming. The idea that the monster lurking under the bed, or in the wardrobe, has a life outside scaring kids and is doing it for a purpose other than just to be mean is fantastic. It’s also something that kids can relate to, just as they can to the idea of their toys coming alive when they’re not in the room or the secret exciting lives of insects in A Bug’s Life (although for my part I did prefer Antz).

Monsters University sees Monsters, Inc.’s heroes Sully and Mike during their training to be scarers. Naturally nothing goes to plan and the two find themselves in a scaring competition to secure their places in the programme. Many of the favourite characters from Monsters, Inc. are present, along with some great new ones. Helen Mirren voices the fantastically intimidating Dean Hardscrabble and I loved ‘Squishy’, a fellow student who is ridiculous and adorable. While I won’t say that it’s flawless this film made me so happy. There’s so much you can do with animation and the Monsters platform really lets the animators have fun. The visual complexity mentioned earlier is also present and most apparent with Sully’s fur – there’s so much detail there – it’s a beautiful thing. 

Dreamworks Animation needs to sort itself out and come up with something new and exciting. There’s only so much they can flog the Shrek franchise, as good as the original film was. I hear Puss in Boots 2 is due for release later this year – that’ll make at least 6 in the series. Then there’s Madagascar 1, 2 and 3 (plus ‘The Penguins of Madagascar and potentially a Madagascar 4 on the way); Kung Fu Panda 1 and 2; and How to Train Your Dragon 1 and the soon to be released 2 and 3. Enough with the sequels!

Go Pixar!

Cosmopolis (2012)

Oh God what a load of crap! I don’t mean any offence to anyone involved with this film but I did not enjoy it. Pattinson is wooden and seems to suit his on-off relationship with whats-her-face Stewart – he has only one facial expression the entire time I’m sure. Maybe I’m missing the point but how does a taxi ride take all day? How can so much happen and yet nothing happens! He meets up with people multiple times throughout the film – they seem to manage to get stuff done between scenes, all he does is sit in a car going from one end of town to the other.

Whether they’ve missed key details of the plot out, or whether I just wasn’t concentrating through boredom, doesn’t matter. I’m fairly convinced that none of it makes sense and is pretty pointless.

Waste of time. I had vague hopes for Pattinson being better than Twilight but apparently not. Bel Ami, then this. That’ll do. 

Now You See Me (2013)

I don’t like magic. That is, I don’t like magicians in my face picking on me and making me look stupid. I get embarrassed and I don’t like feeling embarrassed. This being a film, I considered myself safe.

Now You See Me is about four magicians who come together as The Four Horsemen – a spectacular Vegas show incorporating various aspects of magic whose grand finale involves the robbing of a bank in Paris. This stunt of course lands them in trouble with the FBI and Interpol, who don’t take kindly to the theft of many millions of Euros and spend the entire film trying to work out how on earth they did it when they were clearly in Vegas the entire time!

While it started well, and there are some quite clever bits, the use of ‘magic’ very quickly gives way to the use of CGI and lighting effects, which as common as they are in modern entertainment made it much less impressive. I would also say that that’s cheating to use CGI for magic tricks but perhaps that’s what modern illusions are – I wouldn’t claim to be an expert. It seems a bit easy compared to the subtleties of slight of hand or misdirection though.

Now You See Me is an entertaining and fun film. Most importantly, it’s harmless. There’s nothing really special about it but it entertained me on an otherwise boring mid-week evening. Jessie Eisenburg (The Social Network) wasn’t too annoying, although he played his usual awkward geeky character. Michael Caine was quite cool. Morgan Freeman was very cool. Mélanie Laurent played her usual sweet ‘not as stupid as I look’ French blonde girl and I think it’s a shame that that’s all she really is in this. Inglorious Bastards and Beginners – both fantastic films – gave her more to play with and a real character to get into. Everyone else was a bit negligible, which is a shame for Mark Ruffalo (Avengers Assemble, Shutter Island) who is supposed to be one of the main characters. It’s a shame for Isla Fisher also whose role seemed to boil down to ‘hot girl in a fish tank’. Maybe the success of Gatsby will let her choose some more interesting parts in the future.

My only one big problem with this film is my usual big problem. This film is about slick stunts, cool bank robberies, and the odd car chase. It doesn’t need any more than that. So why the half-arsed attempt at a love story? It’s not done properly and it’s completely unnecessary. Grrr!

World War Z (2013)

Zombies are not my usual cup of tea, but I have enough male friends who have put time and effort into refining their own ‘zombie plans’ to have half-formed one myself. What seems to bring these semi-regular discussions to a close, usually without resolution, is disagreement on the capabilities of the zombies we would be battling. One used to be able to out-run the things as they dragged useless limbs behind them at a snail’s pace, but apparently that is no longer the case. Why the nature of this potentially imminent undead foe should have changed, just because a few films have decided to up the anti, is not a question I feel like asking; mostly because I would have to listen to the response.

Not being particularly inclined to discuss them, I have no great desire to watch films about them. An exception I will make is Zombieland, which is humourous enough for me to enjoy, zombies-and-all. It also provides me with ready made rules for surviving any similar apocalypse so that I don’t have to think of them myself. Thus I am spared from succumbing to a terrible zombie death by a simple failure to ‘check the backseat’ or by forgetting to employ the ‘double-tap’.

Despite a general dislike for the genre, I went to see World War Z at the cinema, and found it was really rather good. That’s not to say I enjoyed it all – I don’t go for panic-attack inducing films all that much, which is why any horror I watch tends to lean to the gory or creepy (Saw, Let the Right One In), rather than the jumpy. World War Z definitely makes you jump, and the luxury of 3D makes the jumps that much bigger.

What World War Z did manage, was to make me believe that this is what might actually happen, were such a horrific disease to develop (it seems always to be caused by a disease these days). Everything’s fine one minute and then boom! Zombies everywhere. These were particularly fast acting zombies mind, 12 seconds from bite to zombie and full sprinting ability. That doesn’t take long to spread. It shows military responses and emergency roof-top evacuations; loss of cities or even whole countries to the evil undead enemy. Survival seems to be down to a combination of not just what you know, but who you know. So I’m dead then.

World War Z primarily follows Brad Pitt and his family as they attempt to leave a hugely congested and increasingly zombie-ridden city and get to safety. As an ex-UN employee Pitt naturally ends up the hero, flying around the world to discover the source of the zombie disease, and attempting to find a cure. Thus we see zombie battles in many different environments which removed any of the tedious repetition that is almost a certainty with a theme so simple yet repeated so many times. That said, the standard supermarket scene with looting and fending off rampant zombies is very much present.

Both the highlight, and for me the least enjoyable scene, is the end where Pitt the hero deliberately faces the zombies head on, in the final push for that elusive cure. Quietly sneaking past zombie after zombie with very little in the way of protection or weaponry you want to hold your breath to prevent any noise from revealing his presence to the unsuspecting zombies that surround him. When I say it was the least enjoyable, I just mean for me. It’s amazing; I’m just of a nervous disposition apparently. During this time we see some good zombie close-ups and can study their mannerisms. Once dormant (if deprived of humans for a while), there’s a lot of twitching and shuddering and moping about, rather than the full attacking sprint that we see during the rest of the film. It’s creepy and terrifying, but hugely fascinating and for that reason too you’re willing them to remain dormant and unaware of a healthy human’s presence.

From this, I assume they can’t smell. I don’t know if that’s a tactic commonly used by zombies – the ability to smell healthy people but I suppose that would put pain to any chance of sneaking past. Let’s hope it’s not something I ever have to consider.

The only drawback was a slight comic aspect to the twitching (if you choose to see it), which reminded me of the guy in the Rowntree’s Rip’ems advert – the one dressed up as the blue bird. Unfortunately that advert was played in the cinema just before the film, otherwise maybe I wouldn’t have made the connection.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

I’m not sure how it came about that I was eagerly anticipating The Great Gatsby. I have no great love of Baz Luhrman although I very much enjoyed Romeo + Juliet when I re-watched it a couple of years ago. Without the giggly Leo-loving schoolgirls or the class-room setting (which ruins any good film/book/play) I found the direction exciting, lively, and evocative. Moulin Rouge on the other hand I’ve tried to sit through twice and spectacularly failed both times – I think its crap. I’ve heard very little about Australia. I imagine that’s because it’s quite meh (6.6 on IMDB) and no one has any real opinion about it. Perhaps I’m wrong.

Anyway, either Luhrman has burrowed into my ‘like’ category of directors without permission or there were other forces at work. Possibly it’s that external influences have given me a fondness for all things vintage recently, possibly it’s because I discovered the existence of the film project as I was reading the book, or possibly it’s the actors. I really quite like Carey Mulligan, despite Never Let Me Go and Shame (both disappointing) and Leo really is a very impressive actor when he wants to be, as I was delightfully reminded recently by Django Unchained.

Maybe it was just good marketing.

Whatever the reason, my excitement as The Great Gatsby was released was stupid. Having previously read the book I should have been prepared for an otherwise perfectly good film that made me angry because they changed the colour of a pair of gloves (or some other such insignificant detail). However, I wilfully ignored my previous discussion of film vs. book I had only hours-since written in my Life of Pi blog and continued to be hyper-levels of excited until I actually took to my cinema seat.

It was awesome. I say this with some hesitation. What I mean to say is the view, the scenery, the music, and the glitter, all combined with gratuitous use of 3D made for a spectacle that inspired awe and wonder. This film is all about the visuals, and it does it ever so well. Everything was so good to look at and so good to listen to that I came out of the cinema thoroughly happy. However, that’s not to say that it is a great piece of cinema. As a film it wasn’t flawless and if I wanted to delve deeper I could find a lot of problems to grumble about. This is one to definitely take at face value and indulge in the many many cocktails, the flowers, the costume and the music. The modern music apparently – that surprised me and I think it worked really well, although I know others disagree. The use of Alicia Key’s Empire State of Mind I think was silly – Sex and the City 2 monopolised use of that song when it was released in 2009/2010, and it has been played to death since. Other than that, it was fantastic.

Looking at it at a superficial enjoyment level (which I don’t think does it a disservice), I could think of 4 flaws in the entire film, all of which are pretty trivial:

1. Use of Empire State of Mind (part II), however briefly.

2. One too many ‘old sport’s from Gatsby – I know it’s his thing but a few of them were a bit clumsy.

3. The framing of Tobey Maguire in the final Gatsby-Carraway scene. It just looked a little odd.

4. I can’t actually remember the forth. It was probably something petty to do with the party/soppy bits of plot ratio. Too much soppy.

All in all, pretty good. I’m not sure if I’ll bother seeing it again unless the screen is big and the stereo of a good quality. It needs it.

I should also mention Daisy Buchanan’s diamond ring. Possibly the fanciest and nicest piece of jewellery ever – I’ll put one on my birthday list.