Ex Machina (2015) Film Review

In a year filled with robot movies, it's probably good for Ex Machina, a small budget sci-fi thriller, to come out ahead of the pack and leave its mark before both Chappie and Avengers: Age of Ultron make their big debuts later this year. But whilst it's clearly the smallest film of its type to be released this year, it's arguably the most ambitious in terms of scope and visual effects. Its trailers captivated audiences, and its two male lead are in the public eye as being part of the upcoming Stars Wars: The Force Awakens (which will likely feature robots too), but will all of this account for a strong film? 

Domhnall Gleeson stars as Caleb, a coder working for a Google-like corporation ran by Nathan (Oscar Isaac). When he wins a company lottery to meet the mysterious man and stay at his research facility for a week, he discovers he was brought along to be the human subject of a Turing Test - which was mentioned repeatedly in last year's The Imitation Game. The thing he's testing? Ava (Alicia Vikander), an artificial intelligence with human features but quite clearly a robot. Of course, Caleb is amazed by the notion of A.I and of Ava, but it's clear that something isn't quite right. But is the problem Ava, her creator or Caleb himself? 

It may not be the most original notion that not all is as it seems - it's practically a necessity for films these days - but the way it's done in Ex Machina is really well. For a majority of the film, you expect it to be a certain character, until the carpet is pulled from under your feet and you don't know who to trust. The only snag is that to reach that point you do have to wait for about an hour for that to start, as before that it's a one-sided argument. Perhaps that's where there's some smart manipulation, but if so it's very well hidden. But when the third act and all its twists and turns do eventually turn up, it is a particularly strong area of the film. It won't hold up on repeat viewings, but for what it is on first viewing is thrilling.  

That isn't to say those first two acts aren't engaging though, as it leaves ample time not only for the development of this storyline but also gives us an idea of what all three of these characters are like. Because of how minute the number of cast members are (any additional roles outside of the main three and Sonoya Mizuno are brief if anything) it leaves plenty of space for these characters to be understood by the audience, especially Gleeson as Caleb who guides us through this new world. Gleeson is strong in the lead role, even if his American accent needs some sprucing up, and his character is likable if not a little gullible. Isaac is arguably the both the darkest and the funniest character out of the trio as he keeps things very close to his chest whilst still being relatively lively - the highlight of the movie draws between his explanation of Ghostbusters and his hilarious dancing with Mizuno. The strongest performance has to go to Vikander as the ambiguous Ava, which is helped immensely by the incredible visual effects done on her body. Her movements and speech patterns really sell the idea that she is a robot, and at only one point does she not come across as such (although there is reason for it), but through that performance comes a strong character. Whilst she is visibly a robot - which Caleb question as to why undergo a Turing test if it's clear she's a robot -  you question whether she does actually have the capacity to be human-like, which in turn helps sell this idea. And once that final act comes along, she's all the more interesting and intriguing. 

As a first-time director, Alex Garland does do a pretty good job at presentation, often mimicking other filmmakers to create some wonderful shots. However, there is often an issue with the camera focus, as at times certain areas in the shots look unintentionally blurry which does pull you out of the film. Perhaps he needs a bit more practise before returning for another stab at it, but as a screenwriter he does do a great job. The real kings of the piece are the production team though; not only for the work on Ava's body, but also on the set pieces and locations chosen for the film. In that sense, it is great to look at and does bring this near-futuristic world into something realistic - almost in the same sense as last year's Her. 

Ex Machina may feel like a long journey to get to the great third act, but it’s  journey well-done. The screenplay is strong, the cast excellent and the overall look of the feature marvellous. The first hour does drag as it speeds through the process of Caleb getting there in order to get things started before screeching to a halt, but it doesn't stop this film from constantly entertaining. 7/10. 

Editorial: The Return of Indiana Jones

Yesterday it was reported by Deadline that a new Indiana Jones franchise was in development by Disney - who gained the rights to the infamous archaeologist when purchasing LucasFilm in 2013 - with a brand new star in the lead role in the form of Chris Pratt, who's already a strong name within Disney thanks to the financial and critical success of last year's Guardians of the Galaxy, and as such as earned praise from the majority (possibly as it sounded better than the Ghostbusters 3 casting choice or the look of the new Fantastic Four whose trailer was released earlier that day). And whilst I can't exactly comment on whether a reboot is exactly necessary unlike all those other bloggers out there as someone who hasn't actually seen a full Indiana Jones film (please put down your pitchforks and torches), there is still something to discuss with this news.

To cut to the chase, Chris Pratt shouldn't take on the role. Now it's no secret that I adore the guy; throughout 2014 I thoroughly enjoyed his performances in Her, The LEGO Movie and Guardians of the Galaxy whilst I got to see how he got these roles whilst binge-watching the first six seasons of Parks and Recreation. Heck, I even gave him a Best Actor nomination in my personal Best of 2014 list. My problem isn't that he doesn't deserve the role, it's that he doesn't need it. Not only is he now in two new franchises based around his own character, but this year he's entering the rejuvenation of the classic Jurassic Park series with its upcoming fourth instalment which he headlines. He also has another comic book adaptation in the form of Cowboy Ninja Viking as the main star, and also in a remake of Western classic The Magnificent Seven. He was also in talks for a Knight Rider and Ghostbusters reboot, but those have seemingly fallen through (clearly the Ghostbusters one has), and now he may headline a reboot of one of the most well-regarded trilogies (and Crystal Skull) of all time? It's over-saturation to the point that it could severely damaged the upcoming sequels to LEGO and Guardians, the very films that put him in the public eye in the first place.

You also have to place in mind just how much of an effect Harrison Ford has on the original role. For most, he is known for the infamous role of the fedora-wearing adventurer, and probably would be his only major role if it weren't for his involvement in the original Star Wars trilogy and upcoming new set - which may feature a standalone spin-off. It's understandable why Disney would want to bring the series back to the public eye and do a complete new take on the character, especially when considering the attempts to pass the torch over to one-time Hollywood hotshot Shia LaBouef failed drastically in 2008's Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (it probably didn't help that he was in Transformers a year earlier) and have since been revoked by the general public. If they couldn't handle someone within that same universe taking on that role, how would they react to a complete new take on those stories? Short answer: horribly.

Of course, there is the argument that Pratt looks the part, helped immensely by that single photoshopped image that's splashed upon every news site telling the story. Heck, even I've used it, because it's a pretty darn good picture. He does look the part and may very well be good in the role, and his role as Star-Lord in Marvel Studios' newest franchise being compared to Ford's own roles as Han Solo and Indiana Jones which does help sell his role even more. But just because he's good in that type of role doesn't mean he needs to do the role. He's already doing the role, and will likely do it again later this year in Jurassic World. He doesn't need to do the role again, otherwise he really will become America's answer to Benedict Cumberbatch, who I've already vocalised about doing his Sherlock shtick over and over again.

My advice? Don't reboot Indiana Jones. Leave the character be unless Ford really wants to return (which is unlikely due to his age) and there's a strong enough screenplay, and let Pratt stick to more open roles in both independent films and blockbusters to show just how good of an actor he can be. He's let Andy Dwyer dwell into Emmet Brickowski for The LEGO Movie and it worked excellently, and now he's channelling Star Lord into his upcoming big screen escapades. He mustn't forget to keep to his indie roots in films like Her and other small films, because if he pushes them forward like he is with his big-budget films it could make him all the more esteemed as an actor. Don't play it safe.

American Sniper (2015) Film Review

American Sniper is arguably the biggest dark horse of the 2015 Oscars. With no nominations in any other major award shows, including the Golden Globes, it suddenly got traction when it earned 6 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actor, and its financial success has lead to praise and controversy aplenty. People have argued that its one-sided view of the war has come across as islamophobic, while others say that it tells only half-truths. But while it has had immense success in the home land, how does it come across to non-patriots such as myself? 

The story goes that, following the 1998 bombing attacks, Texan Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) decides to join the Navy, and after being enlisted as a Sniper he goes to Iraq following the recent 9/11 attacks. During his multiple tours, he becomes a legend within both forces for his multiple kills, and begins to change mentally - which wife Taya (Sienna Miller in her second Oscar-bait film of the year) notices during the time inbetween tours. Thus the two hour journey goes, and it is immensely slow. Whilst they do try and speed things up in the final 'battle' between Kyle and an enemy sniper nicknamed Mustafa, the rest of the film is incredibly slow-paced and it led to checking the time multiple times. It may come across as a potentially good story, it's told at the wrong pace and can be jarring at times as you switch between the home land and the war zone. It's also worthy noting that the ending, made to have a emotional punch for the credits, does do the same thing as earlier 2015 release Foxcatcher by having it take place in a different scenario which brings out more alienation than emotion. Whilst they do actually acknowledge the time change, it is still very abrupt and fails in its intended purpose. 

You also have an uninteresting lead in the form of Kyle, who has very little personality to being with aside from patriotic. It could be argued that it's done to show how mechanic he becomes because of war, but apart from his first snipe which is shown in the trailers he doesn't have much change. Admittedly, he was a bit likable, and perhaps that was due to Bradley Cooper giving a good performance (maybe not deserving of a Best Actor nomination, but nevertheless good), but if there was more sustenance to the character than perhaps we could side with his character more rather than follow him about and become the legend he was. His over half was more likable because Miller put in a bit more heart into the role. Granted, she does also lack character outside of 'mother', but there's at least a lot more to her than meets the eye. As for side characters, there aren't really any notable ones. You get the odd soldier who gives his life for his country (one of which causing his platoon to go nuts and go on a bloodshed) but there is a lack of character for this near-immortal squad. And in the case for any Iraqi characters, they come across as either traitor or villainous, with only one family showing some form of care towards our 'heroes'. 

Perhaps the biggest compliment film can garner is Clint Eastwood's direction, as it can often make up for the otherwise bland storytelling. No stranger to war films (thanks to his 2006 double bill Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of our Fathers), he clearly has the right experience in making the otherwise desolate warzone into something which could be construed as eye-catching, whilst scenes that could otherwise be shoved aside for being dull have a bit more to them due to their aesthetics. He is at times let down by the special effects department, particularly during an establishing shot near the end of the film where it looks more like an old video game than an actual location, but he brushes past those parts for a visually nice film. 

Besides from the islamophobia allegations, there has also been some discussion over the fake babies used during the film. Whilst not being a major aspect of the film - they are basically used as props instead - they are noticeable and can often through you out of what should be a major character moment. When considering they do use actual babies at times, it does baffle why they opt for this route, but it's not a major criticism. 

But what is a major criticism is the overall quality of American Sniper. With a script riddled with bad lines and characters which lack actual character, it's hard to imagine that the sniper we see in this film is consider by some an American hero. He might have been in actuality, but none of that is shown in this lacklustre adaptation. I may appear to be slagging off the film, but there are times where the film gets things right. The sad thing is that these moments are overlaid by duller moments which deserve the recognition more. It's one of the weaker films to come out of the Academy Awards, and it's unlikely that it'll earn anything going by its controversy and its actual quality. 5/10.

Trailer Talk: Marvel, Melissa McCarthy and Madness

Big Game

I don't often talk about foreign features, but this one did stick out like a sore thumb through its rather odd casting choice of Samuel L Jackson as the President. There is some comedy, a lot of action and possibly a viewing that could entertain. I wouldn't hold high hopes on it, but if word of mouth is good then a viewing may very well be likely.

Peanuts

A simple retread on the previous festive tease, this is more-or-less the same as before but with all signs of Christmas removed to ensure year-round viewing. Nothing special, but at least you can watch it during summer instead.

Ant-Man

After multiple teases throughout the week, including a smart ant-sized teaser for this trailer, Marvel finally releases footage for the long-awaited feature of the pint-sized hero. And the reaction was lukewarm. Granted, it does fall for the typical formula for a trailer for an action film, but people expected more. As first trailers go, it does well in enticing audiences - particularly in those final moments with Paul Rudd in action - but it does come across as generic, and the comedy is few in number. The future may still be bright for this troubled picture, but it needs to step up its game.

Chappie

The first trailer enthralled, the second trailer not so much. What was a film which looked very appealing for its unique new storytelling for the A.I. tale, it's a pity that this trailer plays things safer by being more apathetic towards Hugh Jackman's prejudiced character, to the point that he becomes cartoony against a robot watching He-Man. It's an odd choice, but the film does still look appealing.

The Voices

What an odd film. Whilst talking animals have become a norm for Hollywood since the 1990s, being used to this degree is an interesting decision. Add the chatty decapitated head of Gemma Arterton and a mental Ryan Reynolds, and you have a film which can easily falter but may have a small chance of being good. Critics seem to be liking it, but it's still debatable what audiences will see in it.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Marvel quickly returns to the fray with the second/third/fourth trailer for their highly-anticipated sequel, and the hype is clearly deserving. Sure, it doesn't give any more insight into the story or show much of Elizabeth Olsen, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Paul Bettany (or even anything), but it still presents itself as one of the must-sees of 2015. Not much new, but it sure does keep the excitement building.

Playing it Cool

This could be 2015's answer to What If, just with a more audience-attainable cast. Yes, much like the Daniel Radcliffe rom-com, this film does appear to have some form of heart and comedic value, even if it will eventually come across as nothing particularly special in the long run. It does look appealing, and with its superhero-centric cast could gain a wider following, but we'll see.

Unfriended

Why on earth is everyone going on about this film? It looks nothing short than cheap. It's scareless, actorless. and just plain dull. The fact that everyone is excited for it makes me fearful for its eventual box office gross...

Spy

Melissa McCarthy returns for another comedy-free comedy as she plays a CIA office worker put in the field when all of their secret agents' identities are revealed. Like many comedies before, this lacks any humour of any form in both the green and red band versions of this trailer whilst the acting is subpar at best. Maybe the only reason it's gotten Brits in a flutter is because Miranda Hart has a big screen appearance - not that it'll mean anything.

Get Hard

This must be a rushed production, as its first trailer only came out a month ago and the film is scheduled for release for March. It apparently has appeal, but I see none of it in this or the previous trailer. Skip!

Everly

Salma Hayek is stuck in her apartment and being hunted. I'm sure she'll end up being invincible as this film looks nothing more than meh. Aside from a few scenes which could be appealing, there's not much going for it.

Whiplash (2015) Film Review

On Thursday, the Academy revealed the nominations for the 87th Annual Oscars, and as such a number of films I've reviewed more recently have come to gain a high amount of praise from critics - whether deserving or not - it has brought about more intrigue about whether these are the best of the bunch in an already excellent year for movies.With January reserved for these films here in the UK, it's been a joyous adventure. But thus far, it's safe to say that Whiplash is the best to come out to date (and with only Selma and American Sniper remaining, it's easy to assume that it won't be bested).

The story? Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) is a budding jazz drummer who wishes to be one of the greats. He finally gets to join the most elite class in the United States, lead by the gritty Terrence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). Unlike a number of other 'Oscar-bait' films, this is its sole storyline, with a minor story revolving around Neiman and partner Nicole (Melissa Benoist) and an integrated family matter, but it's all on the dynamic between Neiman and Fletcher - and it's incredible. It's a story which gets straight to the point from the get-go giving a basic understanding of who Teller is and what he aspires to be, with Simmons opening up from his façade once he finally joins the high-class band, but it doesn't stay to the simple method of keeping Neiman innocent in all this as he does lash out; acting pretentious and self-centred to become almost just as unlikable as his mentor.

There's isn't much with side characters, but there isn't a single bad sport. Paul Reiser as Andrew's concerned single father is great, with his final appearance being somewhat harrowing within the circumstances; Melissa Benoist has a limited but likable role as the potential love interest, disappearing for the majority of the movie but still having presence in your mind; Andrew's fellow drummers are just as intense as he is despite having a smaller amount of screen-time; and finally the rest of the Neiman clan have very brief but prominent appearances, adding to Teller's character swiftly and effectively. 

This is one of the few films, if not the only film, to leave me on the edge of my seat by the end of the film. With every confrontation you feel completely immersed in the action and fearful as what will happen next; it's completely unpredictable and is only pushed further by pretty much everything, whether it be Simmons' performance, the superb direction by Damien Chazelle or the rapid editing of sweaty drummers giving it their all to be the very best and then some and then some more (because it wasn't enough). And thanks to the dark humour which occasionally pops up, it helps calm you down more and prepare for the next bit of all-out tension and fear, and just when you think you're out of the game you get thrown right back into the lion's den. 

If a film can make you tremor, can make you weep or make you scared all in the space of 100 minutes, you have every right to be impressed. Whiplash may very well be one of the best films I've ever seen, and I would absolutely be willing to go for a encore. It’s thrilling, it features one of the meanest (and therefore strongest) roles of the past few years, and there's never a dull moment. This is far more than "a good job" and the makers should consider this show with pleasure. 10/10.