SPECTRE (THE FILM’S BLAND VERY BLAND)

James Bond may very well be the most successful fictional creations in literary history. Whilst not every missions the super spy has embarked upon has been a rousing success (Thunderball, The Man with the Golden Gun and more recently Quantum of Solace) Bond has always managed to return and remake himself. I was a big fan of Casino Royale, underwhelmed (as most were) by Quantum of Solace and a big fan of Skyfall. So my hopes were high that Spectre would keep up the high quality of Skyfall. Sadly whilst there are impressive set pieces Spectre fails to live up to the high standards set by its predecessor. It all starts out well with a highly stylizes sequence at the day of the dead in Mexico with a nice call back to Live and Let Die with its voodoo chic look. After this stylized impressive opening, we follow Bond as he follows a mysterious message from M (Judi Dench) his late mentor. It’s around the halfway mark that things begin to seriously fall apart with a plot that goes nowhere (even for a Bond Movie!) Some truly cringe worthy dialogue (again even for Bond movie). Not even the presence of Christoph Waltz as the arch nemesis can save the film, defeated not by Bond but by a very shaky script. Even the action is lacklustre with long periods of talking killing any tension and ensuring that pace of the film slows to a snail’s pace. Let’s be clear it’s not that film is terrible or without merit but that it simply fills the nice of a decent action film and not the lofty heights that we have come to expect from Bond. Daniel Craig has said publically that he does not intend to return for another film (although a large amount of cash might prove the antidote for that) Perhaps the filmmakers should take this opportunity to go back to the drawing board. I think this would be a shame as I like Craig’s Bond and feel that this creation of the character still has potential. FINAL VERDICT 6/10 Entertaining but it could have been so much more.

SAN ANDREAS

The disaster movie genre is one that has long fallen into something of a rut,not that that they can’t still be fun, but once you’ve seen one you can safely say you’ve seen them all. As an example of this let’s see if San Andreas ticks some of the common boxes. Let’s see, we have Dwayne Johnson as a single dad – check. A cowardly stepfather who fails to step up at the moment of crisis – check. An expert (Paul Giamati) who is there to stare into the camera while making dramatic statement – check. A family who reconnect through a natural disaster -check. This is not to say of course that the film isn’t enjoyable, the effects are very nicely done and there is genuine ingenuity in gradually turning San Francisco into a warped jigsaw puzzle (one of my particular favourites is a Navy warship wedged bridge-like between two buildings) and the tsunami set piece is very well done. Nor are the clichés themselves wholly without merit- although that merit may not be what the filmmakers intended. It’s difficult not to laugh (and quite a few of the audience viewed the movie did) at dialogue delivered with such patent sincerity with such ‘oh so serious’ expressions. Some of the highlights have to be Blake (Alexandra Daddario) and Ben (Hugo Johnston-Burt) sharing an out-of-nowhere, and yet still somehow completely predicable kiss. And Ray (Dwayne Johnson) and Emma (Carla Gugino) stopping in the middle of the chaos to analyse why their marriage fell apart. I suppose my main problem with San Andreas is that it takes itself far too seriously, there are moments of dry humour and cheesy puns that it really feels the film could have used more of. Final Verdict 5/10 enjoyable but it doesn’t do anything to shake up the disaster movie genre.

STALINGRAD

When it comes to telling the story of the decisive history-altering Battle of Stalingrad then you would think that a Russian film would capture the true essence of the story. After all, surely native filmmakers could captures the raw emotion and human tragedy involved on screen? Sadly, the answer in this case is no. Right from the very start there are problems, we get a framing story - the purpose of which is seemingly to tie the film in to the modern age. Now I’m not an expert on Russian culture but I would guess that the impact of World War 2 and Stalingrad is still pretty well known. From this framing story we get a narration that runs through the film giving us the characters’ backstories in the most melodramatic manner possible. Another tactical misstep comes in the film’s battle scenes. In an effort to make these sequences stand out the director seems to have taken a page out of, of all people, Zach Snyder’s book. As the film 300 existed in a strange comic-book-come-to-life-like-reality, the bursts of slow motion during the action scenes worked within the film’s context. Why anyone thought the same would work here is beyond me, you can’t go from your comrades sitting brooding about their pre-war lives to scenes with them bayoneting enemy tropes in almost music video style slow motion. The scenes themselves are quite good they just don’t fit in with the rest of the movie. This is shame because the performances are generally good ,the actors are giving their all, however, much like the hard-pressed Russian army on the front lines, unsupported by good script or solid direction. FINAL VERDICT 4/10 fails to live up to either the scope or the human drama of the story it’s trying to tell.

SPY

SPY The spy genre is one that is rife for, and has been, effective parodying, and for the first few minutes it looks likes Spy might be following this vein. Jude Law’s suave Agent Fine (yes that’s his name) bungles a mission due to a mistimed sneeze (brought on by a hay fever allergy) it looks promising. Sadly the film soon drops this promising line for more crude humour. Now that is not to say that Spy’s jokes all fall flat, it’s just that there are glimmers here and there of cleverer jokes that show the potential for better. The best of these is the clever riff on Jason Statham’s roles in the transporter and other action movies with the character of agent Ford, an inept blowhard who is constantly going on about his many varied, and highly improbably exploits, but who when his big moment comes gets his coat caught in a door. Another thing about Spy is the constant swearing, now I’m no prude but it gets rather wearying when every second word is a curse word. With comedies I tend to see this as a sign of insecurity -were not sure our jokes are funny enough so we’ll just chuck in lots of swearing. It’s not as if the film’s central heroine Susan Cooper (Melissa Mcarthy) is the really the kind of character that constant cussing suits. On the whole Spy is an enjoyable comedy that, although it misses some opportunities for greater satire, does accomplish its mission of entertaining its audience. FNAL VERDICT 6/10

THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2

I have to admit that when The Amazing Spiderman came out in 2012 I was slightly sceptical, it just seemed like such a cynically quick turnaround after Toby McGuire trilogy. I was, however, pleasantly surprised to find that the reboot was well thought out and (crucially) well-acted and at the very least did much to banish the image of Peter Parker dancing round a club to soft jazz. Andrew Garfield’s Spider Man injects the movie with a good dose of humour and wisecracking which is a very good thing because a lot of this film deals with consequences of past choices and relationship troubles. These two tones could have clashed and made the film feel uneven but luckily director Marc Webb (no really) knows when the jokes and wisecracks need to stop and when they can be advantageous. In many ways this film belongs just as much to Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy as it does to Garfield’s Spider Man. Her choices influence events as much as his and her character makes a nice change from the usual ‘damsel in distress’ types that the character might have fallen into. It helps that Garfield and Stone (sounds like a detective agency) have such great chemistry together and play off each other so well. This also helps with the script’s clunkier moments where corny dialogue can be made less painful when said with some conviction. Facing off against Spidey in this outing is disturbed loner Max (Jamie Foxx) who is given electrical powers in a work accident (and you thought you had a bad day at the office). Foxx’s performance makes sure that once swathed in CGI lightning he does not degenerate into a special effect. As a villain it has to be admitted that he somewhat lacks motivation (he doesn’t even have an evil laugh) but his character is still enjoyable and the fights between hero and villain are visually thrilling. Final VERDICT 8/10 On the whole this is an extremely well made sequel. It remains to be seen if a planned third film can avoid the pitfalls of previous Spider Man films.

SIN CITY A DAME TO KILL FOR (BUT NOT SADLY A FILM TO)

It’s easy to forget how revolutionary Sin City was when it was released now that motion capture techniques have come to the forefront. Aesthetically the sequel keeps the slick visual style of its predecessor - a particular favourite was villainous Senator Roark towering over a stack of poker chips which double for the skyscrapers of the city he lords it over. The core problem is that whilst the film is visually strong, its substance does not match its style. Like the first film different stories are told throughout, sometimes interconnecting. Unlike the first film none of these stories gel the way they did in the original. They feel far more like episodic stories stitched into a film rather than a larger narrative with different stories. This is a shame because the cast all give good performances, Mickey Rourke’s Marv, who was one of the most popular characters from the first film, feels wasted as a third wheel . Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Johnny, a debonair card shark, is let down by his story’s lacklustre ending. Jessica Alba gives a good performances as Nancy Callahan, considering her character was rather boring first time around (looks aside). One of the biggest casting casualties is the absence of Clive Owen despite the fact that his character Dwight is featured. Finally, at a mere 1 hour 40 minutes, the film feels like it ends way too soon. One has to wonder what has been cut and whether it should have been. Or was it a case of stretching the original too much? All in all the film is entertaining but it lacks the punch of the original and feels like it’s lost something in translation from page to screen. FINAL VERDICT 5/10

SOUTHPAW

If all this looks quite familiar, if it seems like we’ve been here before - a boxer who has it all, falling from grace and having family troubles etc then you might just have seen a boxing movie at some point in your life. It’s sad to see a film with such impressive performances squander them by showing lack of effort. Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance as Billy Hope is impressive (although perhaps not quite as impressive as the actor’s physical transformation) as is that of Forest Whitaker (who sadly does not bulk up) and the two spark off each other well with Gyllenhall’s drunken, embittered fighter against Whitaker's calmer, sober trainer. The acting, sadly, is not all above board; Curtis Jackson (aka Fifty Cent) gives a bland performance as fighter promoter Jordan Mains. To be fair to Mister Cent this is not entirely his fault as the character is pretty bland and pointless to the overall story and really just feels like a second rate Don King. The real overarching problem with Southpaw is that it feels like a patchwork of clichés stitched together into a story. Now clichés are not in themselves all bad and the film uses the material that it has effectively with the final fight being very well shot and not coming off as a copy of Rocky or Raging Bull. It’s just that given the aforementioned performances I wish they could have done something a bit more original; give the actors something to really get their teeth into (with the exception of Fifty). At the end of the day Southpaw is a solid entertaining film that holds your attention and gets you invested in the character, it just feels like it had the potential to be more FINAL VERDICT 6/10 it goes to points rather than being a knockout but it’s still standing at the bell