Johnny English Reborn

The fact that I know that I've seen the original Johnny English, but can't remember anything about it probably tells you that it's not a film that has set my world alight.

However, it was a drizzly Sunday afternoon and this was the only thing that I either hadn't seen or was prepared to see...

The story is about former hapless MI7 agent Johnny English (Rowan Atkinson) who after an incident in Mozambique was dismissed from the service.

English then goes on a retreat in Tibet to 'find himself', but is called back to London as he is the only agent that can foil a plot to kill the Chinese Prime Minister.

It transpires that there is a group of three people, two who are MI7 agents and one former CIA-agent who are paid assassins, going under the name Vortex. English needs to find who the group members are and prevent them from carrying out the assassination.

As you would expect, there is the untrusting Head of MI7, Pamela Thornton (Gillian Anderson), the suave fellow MI7 agent Simon Ambrose (Dominic West) and the love interest who is a behavioural psychologist, Kate Summers (Rosamund Pike).

You don't need me to tell you that English succeeds with the inevitable mishaps along the way. Neither do you need me to tell you that English's young sidekick Agent Tucker (Daniel Kaluuya) ends up working out who within MI7 are the traitors, but is dismissed by English.

Essentially, you go into the cinema knowing exactly what is going to happen. Despite this, the film is OK. There are quite a few laugh out loud moments courtesy of Atkinson, but you feel that he is being restricted in this role, which is a shame as he is a brilliant comedic actor.

The jokes are a bit obvious and repetitive, however I have sat through worse films this year.

Verdict: A film that when you are in a cinema full of kids, you find it funnier than it actually is. Atkinson is really not utilised and you know exactly where the film is going and how it gets there... Kids will love it and adults will find a few chuckle moments too.

Anonymous

Shakespeare's work is something that I have always tried to like, but this has not always been successful. Growing up, I studied Macbeth which remains my favourite Shakespeare play, although the best version I have ever seen was one in my local community centre.

When Shakespeare is done well, it is fantastic; one example would be the recent production of Richard III at the Old Vic. When it is done badly, it is dire; a recent production of The Tempest caused the one and only time I have ever left a theatre at the interval and didn't return...

So my opinion on Shakespeare is divided, but I cannot deny the importance of his work and the impact it has had.

The Anonymous trailer caught my eye when I first saw it a few months ago, I love a conspiracy theory and this theory has been around since Shakespeare's time.

Anonymous starts with with Derek Jacobi giving a lecture to a New York audience, explaining the conspiracy theory. The film uses flashbacks to show the life of of Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans) from the age of twelve when he is placed under the guardianship of William Cecil (David Thewlis) to his death.

The young de Vere is clever, artistic and passionate about his writing. Unfortunately Cecil does not share his views and makes it quite clear when de Vere enters his household that he disapproves of these activities.

De Vere goes on to marry Cecil's daughter and is discouraged from writing as it will 'bring shame on the family'.

The flashbacks then show an adult de Vere attending a play in London where he is amazed at the reaction from the crowd and sees how plays can be used as propaganda. Whilst he is watching the play, a young playwright called Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) is arrested for sedition and de Vere uses his considerable influence to free Jonson.

Part of the deal is that Jonson stages de Vere's plays under his name. The first play to be staged is Henry V and the crowd's reaction is overwhelming for Jonson so when they call for the playwright, an actor called William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) steps up to accept the accolades.

The story then goes on show the dealings between de Vere and Shakespeare and leads to a revolt orchestrated by de Vere. The various relationships between de Vere, Queen Elizabeth and other members of court and family are also explored.

A second strand to the film depicts the end of Elizabeth I's (Vanessa Redgrance & Joely Richardson) reign and how the various parties were conspiring to ensure that their man attains the English throne on Elizabeth's death. There is also information about the number of illegitimate children that Elizabeth had and how that impacts the line of succession.

First thing that I should say is that the director, Roland Emmerich, clearly does not like Shakespeare. The Shakespeare character in this film is portrayed as a fraudulent, blackmailing murdering drunk. Not a view that most people would agree with.

However the film is fun with some really good performances, particularly from Ifans, who I've never really rated. He seemed to suit the role of the angst-driven Earl and was very convincing in some of the more sensitive scenes. Richardson and Redgrave were great as Elizabeth, Redgrave particularly relishing the opportunity to play a slightly darker, madder version of the Queen. Thewlis was excellent as Cecil and had a calm evilness which gave the film a touch of coldness.

The sets and background were brilliantly done and gave a very real sense of what Elizabethan England would have been like. 

There are some issues with the film; the flashbacks can be a bit confusing, particularly when involving characters who happen to look very similar. I found it a bit tricky to work who was who and at what point in history. 

Some people have questioned the historical accuracy of the film. My answer to that is that Anonymous is as about as historically accurate as Blackadder. I am aware that the director is a passionate believer in the de Vere theory, but the story just does not hold up. My guess is that if he really did feel that the de Vere theory was true, then this film would be more serious than it comes across.

It is a delicious theory, but I feel that it is just that, a theory.

Verdict: An entertaining film with some interesting theories and some truly 'out-there' ideas. Impressive performance from Ifans (who is actually quite handsome in this film) and a great set. However, the subject matter should be taken with a pinch of salt and the film seen as an extended version of a very good Blackadder episode.

Contagion

I quite like the majority of Steven Soderburgh's work. I loved Erin Brockovich and Traffic, but was not so enamoured with Solaris or The Informant!. However, his films are very stylish and I was intrigued by how he would direct a disaster film.

The story starts with businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) who has cheated on her husband Mitch (Matt Damon) with an old flame whilst on a business trip. She is awaiting her plane home and begins to show symptoms which she thinks are the result of jet-lag.

Once she gets home in Minneapolis, she rapidly deteriorates and dies of an unknown and highly contagious virus. The film then goes into several separate stories. The first focuses on Mitch and his daughter Jory (Anna Jacoby-Heron) and how they cope with the breakdown of society all around them. 

The second storyline is on the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CWC) and Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) who is trying to control the information about the virus to prevent widespread panic amongst the population. 

This leads to the third tangent which is the work of Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), an Epidemic Intelligence Service officer who travels to Minneapolis to research where the disease has spread and how to prevent it becoming an epidemic.

In the meantime, the fourth strand of the story involves Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) who is a World Health Organization epidemiologist who travels to Hong Kong to find out where the virus originated. 

The fifth element of the film concentrates on the methods used to try to find a vaccine for the virus, led by Dr. Ally Hextall (Jennifer Ehle). The final component focuses on freelance journalist named Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law) who writes blogs about government conspiracy theories and uses the way the government has handled the virus outbreak to boost his own profile and earnings. 

There are positives that can be taken from this film; the first is the realism. Many people within the medical research community have confirmed that as far as the science and methodology behind finding a vaccine are concerned, this is fairly accurate. 

Likewise the portrayal of the government agencies has also been praised by those in the know. The fact that the film has decided not to go the way of other disaster movies and either over-simplify everything or over-glamourise the situation should be applauded, and this is what makes it an interesting watch.

I found that the way that the people responded to the virus refreshingly true to life; ultimately people only want to look out for themselves and the ones they love and the film showed this very human trait unflinchingly and without any shame. Every disaster has its heroes and they come in different forms, but unlike other disaster films, Contagion showed the heroes in a very quiet and unassuming way which I found quite appealing. 

I love an opportunity to learn new things and I really did enjoy all the facts that came out during this film. For example: people touch their face, on average, 3-5 times every waking moment and there is a method for calculating the risk of a virus infecting the population. It is nice to watch a film which is backed up by scientific fact.

My main criticism with the film lie with the fact that there are too many storylines. I appreciate that Soderburgh was trying to show the impact of the virus from all angles and while this made the film compelling; it meant that some of the actors were not used to their full potential and some of the storylines just drifted away without a conclusive ending. 

Two storylines in particular were redundant in my opinion; the first being the blogger, which features Law attempting an appalling Australian accent. The second being the Cotillard role which was a shame as I am a fan of her work.

Neither role brought anything to the film and I personally would have preferred other stories be more developed and that there was a more conclusive ending to the film.

Verdict: A fascinating subject which was, in many ways, excellently portrayed in this film. However, it was let down by having too many storylines and a rather 'drift-away' ending. 

It will make you consider OCD as a lifestyle choice and view anyone who has a cold or cough with great suspicion. As a last note, any film that kills off Gwyneth Paltrow in the first ten minutes can't be all that bad...

We Need to Talk about Kevin

As a general rule, I rarely see films that have been adapted from books that I have really enjoyed. One example is Alex Garland's The Beach. In this film, the lead actor was clearly miscast and didn't match my interpretation of the book and too many things appear to have been changed just to meet the audience's approval.

I had very similar reservations about We Need to Talk about Kevin, a harrowing, shocking book which looks at the very taboo subject of a mother not loving her son. However, when I heard that Tilda Swinton was playing the lead, my reservations disappeared. Swinton is on my list of actors who I will
watch anything in.

The story is about the relationship between Eva (Swinton) and her son Kevin (Jasper Newell as the child, Ezra Miller as the teenager). The film is shown in four distinct time period and jumps from one period to another as it shows the life that Eva had before Kevin was born,  when he was a baby, the time as a young boy and when Kevin was a teenager.

The film is essentially a series of flashbacks leading up to events where Kevin commits an atrocity that all parents fear. The flashbacks detail the strength of resentment of both Eva and Kevin towards each other and the hostility that grows as Kevin moves towards adulthood.

The story is told from Eva's point of view; the discontent and emptiness of her life since the birth of Kevin, the frustration of being taunted by her toddler son and the anguish and torment of not being able to connect with Kevin as a teenager.

We see how Eva copes alone after the event, where she is subjected to abuse from people in the town and vandalism to her home and car.

I am deliberately being vague about describing this film as I would hate to spoil it for anyone who maybe hasn't read the book. Needless to say, the film manages to retain the important element of the book which was what makes someone evil, is it nature or nurture?

Quite simply, this is one of the films of the year. Swinton is absolutely mesmerising as Eva. She is one of those few actresses who can say so much without uttering a single word. Her strength in this film comes from being able to show her frustration without being able to show it. Her ability to use her awkwardness to show Eva's pain, anguish and confusion is a masterclass in how to act with your entire body. You feel every ounce of the suffering that she is going through.

The other standout performance is by Miller who is angelic to look at, but behind every smile to his father Franklin (John C Reilly) was a look of disgust or a smirk to his mother. The delicate, layered chemistry between Eva and Kevin was overwhelmingly uncomfortable at times, but so brilliantly done by both actors. A special mention should be given to Newell who plays Kevin as a young boy with a coldness and hostility that you rarely see in very young actors.

I must also commend the casting of Reilly as Franklin. I am no fan of Reilly at all, but he plays the role as Eva sees him which is as someone who she feels is an idiot. Reilly was very convincing as the father who seems oblivious to the relationship between his wife and his son.

The cinematography for this film was outstanding. It has a fantastic art-house feel to it and the colour red featured in pretty much every scene of the film from the jam sandwiches made by Kevin to the red pen that Eva is holding when she finds out about the event. The film is beautifully and skilfully shot which only adds to the already excellent quality of this film.

Verdict: Terrifying, haunting and mesmerising; this is one of the films of the year. Swinton should order that trophy cabinet now as the awards will surely be coming her way...

Midnight In Paris

I've only ever seen a handful of Woody Allen films; Annie Hall, Bullets Over Broadway and Manhattan are my favourites whereas the last one I saw was Match Point which I thought was weak. Every year when a Woody Allen film is released, there is always a critic which declares that 'this is a return to form for Woody Allen'. Until now, I didn't believe them...

The start of the film appears to have been sponsored by the Paris Tourist Board, with what feels like a never ending montage of all the things to see in Paris. Thankfully the film moves on from that to a group of Americans who are in Paris for business. They consist of Gil (Owen Wilson), his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams), and her parents. Gil is a Hollywood scriptwriter, who is trying to break out of that world by writing a novel. Unfortunately he is struggling and hopes that being in Paris (a city that he truly loves) will help him complete his novel.

Gil and Inez are, on the surface, a happy, successful couple; scratch the surface and you quickly realise that they want very different things in life. Gil wants to leave his lucrative job and move to Paris to write, Inez wants to move to Malibu and emulate her conservative parent's way of living. Their situation isn't helped by the arrival of Inez's friends Paul (Michael Sheen) and his wife Carol (Nina Ariandra) who truly are a coupley couple. Paul is a real 'know-it-all' and Inez appears more impressed with him rather than with her fiancee.

Searching for inspiration, Gil starts to walk the streets of Paris at night (something his fiancee and her parents fail to understand), and starts to go back to the 1920's and meets the writers that he so admires. As with these types of films, there is a love interest and lots of backwards and forwards in time.

The film is frothy, entertaining and fun; it is all about nostalgia and how each generation looks to a previous era as the 'golden age'. The film is very frank about the message that it is conveying which is that nostalgia is just a  denial of the present.

Now, I want to say that Wilson was great, and he is certainly well-cast in the role of Gil, however there is something about his voice which grates on me and it seems to be more obvious in this film than in his others. As he is in the vast majority of the scenes, I couldn't get away from his incredibly slow, almost indifferent style of speaking. However, all of the other performances were great. A special mention should be made of Adrien Brody for a fantastically hilarious take on Salvador Dali - truly inspired stuff.

Verdict: A beautifully shot film, with lots of laugh out loud moments and some excellent performances. The music score is gorgeous and the film was on the right side of gentle fantasy. However, Wilson's voice did prove very distracting. Despite this, it really is a return to form for Mr Allen... 

Real Steel

Before I review this film, I must make a confession. When I was growing up, my absolute favourite cartoon was Transformers, so you can imagine my thrill when Transformers finally arrived on the big screen. Yes, Shia LeBeouf is SHITE and there is never any story to speak of and Michael Bay is a vile film director. But there is something about hearing Optimus Prime's voice and seeing the brave Bumblebee make yet another heroic recovery after being savagely beaten that just warms me to my soul and takes me back to being that 7 year old sitting avidly in front of the TV.

We all have films, TV programmes and music that makes us feel that way and they should always be treasured, no matter how 'bad' they are...

And anyway, the third one was better than the second... Honest...

So, we've established that I like a film about robots hitting each other, so when I first saw the trailer for Real Steel, I was incredibly excited...

The story is a classic father-son redemption tale; Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is a former boxer who travels from town to town making a living providing robots for illegal boxing bouts. His past catches up with him in the form of his young son, Max (Dakota Goyo) who recently lost his mother. His aunt (Hope Davis) is keen to adopt him, but his uncle (James Rebhorn) wants to go on a three month holiday, so offers Kenton $100,000 to look after Max over the summer.

Kenton initially wanted to leave Max with close friend Bailey (Evangeline Lily); but after seeing Kenton take delivery of a former champion robot, Noisy Boy, Max coerces Kenton into letting him travel with him to a fight. Unfortunately, as Kenton doesn't understand how to control Noisy Boy, he is soon destroyed by a superior robot.

With his robot useless, Kenton breaks into a junkyard to scavenge parts to help him create a new robot; it is here that Max's life is saved by an old sparring robot called Atom. Max decides to take the robot out of the junkyard and rebuild him. After using parts from other robots, Max convinces Kenton to allow Atom to fight.

The story moves onto to the inevitable World Championship bout with the most feared robot, Zeus.

This is a lovely film that kept the many children in the screening quiet and quite frankly, rapt. Jackman is brilliant as Kenton, who in turn is a real human character in that he has flaws, is incredibly selfish, but sees a chance to 'do something right' by his son. Goyo is also very good as the sensible and stubborn Max. There were many times during this film where the roles of father and son were reversed, with Max looking to the future and Kenton going for the quick buck without thinking about the consequences of his actions.

The film is executive produced by Steven Spielberg and you can see his mark all over the film; from the long glances between father and son to the emotional appeal of Atom.

The robots are truly awesome and unlike Transformers where all the battles are done in quick succession so you can't really work out who is hitting who; Real Steel fight scenes are done slowly, so you know exactly what is going on. The fight scenes are stunningly choreographed and Jackman really does look and move like a real boxer which almost make the scenes authentic.

The film is a tad schmaltzy and I felt that, at times, the film didn't really know what it wanted to be. Was it just a father-son redemption story? Or is it a story about the battles of the underdog? Or maybe it is just a boxing film? It certainly had elements of all three, but never really followed through with any of them. In spite of this, the film has no pretences and doesn't try to be anything other than what it is. It is a film about robots hitting each other, but there is a charm about the film which I found quite endearing.

There was a trick missed with the film not really utilising Atom. Atom was clearly designed to appeal in the same way that Wall-E was, but this was barely used within the film until the last few scenes. That said, having a robot that has a shadow function is a brilliant idea and worked incredibly well in this film. I particularly enjoyed the dancing scenes.

Verdict: A genuinely lovely, feel good film with some stunning choreography. The ending was very well done and not quite what you expect, but enjoyable nonetheless. Good performances all round made for a very satisfying film. Michael Bay can learn a lot from this.

If you have to see one film this year about robots hitting each other, make it this one.

Red State

I'm going to start this review by expressing my disdain for Kevin Smith's previous work; I am the only person I know who doesn't like or get Clerks and I found Cop Out so very dull. Smith as a person or persona really doesn't appeal to me either. He came across as a very petulant child who threw all his toys out of the pram when Cop Out was heavily criticised (and deservedly so). It was only on the recommendation of Dr Mark Kermode, that I begrudgingly decided to watch Red State. And I am very pleased that I did.

The film starts with high school student Travis (Michael Angarano) being driven school by his mum. On the journey, they pass a funeral of a murdered homosexual teenager, which is being picketed by an ultra conservative religious group called the Five Points Church. The church is lead by Pastor Abin Cooper (Michael Parks) and his followers who are all related either by marriage or blood.

After class, Travis meets up with his closest friends, Jared (Kyle Gallner) and Billy Ray (Nicholas Braun). Jared informs the boys that they are going to have group sex with a woman Jared has been talking to on the internet, Sarah Cooper (Melissa Leo). 

On their way to see Sarah, they clip their car with a local Sheriff (Stephen Root) who is participating in a sexual act in his car. The boys drive away and the Sheriff asks his deputy (Matt L. Jones) to find the vehicle and the people responsible for the accident.

The boys arrive at the caravan and Sarah offers them beer spiked with drugs which makes them pass out. When they awake, they find themselves bound with cling film and imprisoned by the church.

The story goes on to involve an altercation with an armed ATF (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - a law enforcement agency in the US) unit which is lead by Special Agent Keenan (John Goodman). 

I had no idea what this film was about before I saw it; all I knew about it was that it was written and directed by Smith and that Goodman was in it. I knew that people had generally been positive about it, but I was under the impression people were comparing it to Clerks.

The first thing I should mention is that although it is billed as a horror, I would say that it was a little more on the side of 'torture-porn'. There are a number of grisly deaths, all involving guns so cue an awful lot of blood and other body matter. The camera doesn't linger on these scenes for any length of time, but just be aware, it's a bit gory. But there are no scares in this film at all.

In general, it's a really good film and certainly the best Kevin Smith film I have ever seen. The story is gripping, although it does go slightly OTT at some points. There is a little too much reliance on the shoot-out scenes and the ending is disappointing, particularly when I read about the original ending planned by Smith which sounded outrageously brilliant. The film is a little messy in terms of cinematography; my guess is that Smith wanted to try out as many different types of shot and decided to leave them all in. 

I loved the subject matter of Church vs State and the fact that Smith was playing them against each other in this film by showing the evils and ills of both. I find the whole cult mentality really interesting and Smith was able to portray the claustrophobic nature, the blind faith and the repercussions of this lifestyle very powerfully.

The real star of the film is Parks as the charismatic pastor. He is full of anger and passion and is so believably evil. It is a fantastically sublime performance. Goodman was very good as the weary agent, unusually he played the character totally straight which complemented the performance by Parks brilliantly. The last scenes that they have together were exceptionally good.

Leo also delivered a cracking performance as we have come to expect of late. It looked as though she especially relished the shoot-out scenes.

Verdict: A really enjoyable film, with some fantastic performances from all involved. It was a tad preachy at times, but the story was interesting and entertaining. Hopefully this is the start of things to come from Mr Smith.

Kevin, you can leave the naughty step and collect your gold star...

POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Film Ever Sold

I am a huge fan of Morgan Spurlock; like most people I was captivated and appalled by Super Size Me, although Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? was a bit of a disappointment, Spurlock is thoroughly entertaining in everything he does.

The aim of the documentary is to fund a film solely about product placement, through brand sponsorship. Spurlock consults with various experts in the field of marketing and advertising to find out how to gain as many sponsors as possible to fund his film, using himself as a brand. The film also touches on how film-makers feel about product placement, an area where they appear to have very little control.

Spurlock showed a glimpse of the slightly darker side of advertising as POM (who paid $1m to be the main sponsor) rejected all of Spurlock's ideas for advertising their product (which were very imaginative). Instead they told him to make an advert disparaging a rival product which, given that it was said on camera, was probably not a great move on POM's part.

There was a interesting, but relevant detour where Spurlock took the film to São Paulo in Brazil, where they had recently banned all outdoor advertising in the city. Spurlock interviewed locals who claimed that this was beneficial to people living and working in the city and surprisingly, the local businesses also seemed to be favour of the ban as it encouraged them to focus more on quality of products and customer service.

The film held a particular interest for me as I studied advertising and marketing at degree level. Although I was aware that product placement exists, I was surprised (and a little saddened) at how much power the various brands have over films with examples given about individual film scenes being tailored to meet a sponsor's demand.

As I have already mentioned, I am a fan of Spurlock's work; I find him very engaging, knowledgeable and passionate about whichever subject he is working on. However, with this particular project, the fact that he was effectively 'bought' by the sponsors meant that he was slightly compromised and maybe wasn't able to give out the message that he wanted to. That said, it was made clear that none of the sponsors saw the final cut of the film, but Spurlock indicated that there had been horse-trading with the companies involved throughout the making of the film.

Verdict: Fans of Spurlock will enjoy this funny, entertaining and thought-provoking film. Any film or marketing student should find it fascinating and any film-goer will unfortunately be able to spot any product placement in any film, no matter how subtle.

A special mention must be made to Mane 'n Tail, a shampoo for both horses and humans which is Greatest Shampoo and Conditioner of POM Wonderful’s The Greatest Movie Ever Sold...

The Debt

Films about the Second World War have always interested me, not so much the battles, but more the way that it completely changed people's lives. From Schindler's List to Downfall to The Pianist; this particular period in world history has been well served. The Debt is slightly different as it is about Nazi-hunters working for the Israeli Intelligence Agency, Mossad.

The story is based in two time periods, 1966 and 1997. We are first shown the main characters in 1997, as Rachel (Helen Mirren) is participating in book launch about her story as a Nazi-hunter. She is asked to read out a passage from the book (written by her daughter Sarah) and there is a flashback to 1966, where the young Rachel (Jessica Chastain) arrives in East Berlin to meet with David (Sam Worthington) and Stefan (Marton Csokas).

They are on a mission to capture Nazi war criminal Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen) – infamously known as "The Surgeon of Birkenau" for his medical experiments on Jews during World War II – and bring him to Israel to face justice. Alongside working on the mission, there is a growing sexual tension between the three main characters that leads to further complications down the line.

Vogel is working as a gynaecologist and fertility expert, therefore it falls on Rachel as the person who has to entrap him. The plan initially works and the doctor is captured, but then two incidences mean that a cover-up is necessary.

Back to 1997, the consequences of the cover-up become more and more difficult for David (Ciarán Hinds) to deal with which leads to Stefan (Tom Wilkinson) and Rachel being torn between leaving the past where it is or telling the truth.

This is a very, very interesting story and all of the actors do a really stirling job; the script is quite tight and there are very few lulls in this film. Some reviewers have pointed out that the older cast members bear no resemblance to their younger counterparts - personally, this isn't an issue for me at all.

However the film really does stretch the bounds of credibility in the final 30 minutes. The only thing that keeps it from turning into a farce is the great acting from Mirren. It really is a shame as the 1966 segments are engaging, tense and brilliantly done.

Verdict: Really interesting story, but the last few scenes are unconvincing and would be seen as laughable if it wasn't for the quality of Mirren. However, the story and the excellent acting makes the film watchable, but only if you can get over the last 30 minutes.