The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

So here we are again. Back in the land of bloodless vampires and shiny waxed werewolves. Yes, we are back in the world of Twilight…

The story continues with Bella (Kristen Stewart) embracing her transformation from human to vampire and watching proudly as her daughter Renesmee grows at an accelerated rate. Because of this, she is mistaken for an ‘immortal’ or vampire child, which had been outlawed by the ruling Volturi.

Aware that their lives and the life of the Renesmee are in danger, Edward (Robert Pattinson) and the rest of the Cullen family appeal to other vampire clans to confirm that Renesmee is not an immortal and to act as witnesses and allies in their plight.

The Volturi arrive to destroy the child (as well as the Cullens) and a battle commences…

As you can see, not much of a plot and they managed to make that last a whole one hundred and sixteen minutes. 

I shall start with the one good thing in this film. 

Michael Sheen. 

Michael Sheen is AMAZING as Aro, the leader of the Volturi. He acted everyone off screen just by raising his one eyebrow. His performance veered from Kenneth Williams when he meets the child (the child’s name is unbelievably stupid, so I am refusing to use it anymore) to Tony Blair’s fake sincerity when he reads the mind of Alice Cullen. The man was brilliant, he was the only one not taking it seriously and the only time this film was bearable was when he was on screen.

The bad things? I shall start with the actors. Other than Michael Sheen, they were all dreadful, utterly, utterly dreadful. Wooden and totally lacking in any real ability to act. Meaningful glances do not make a good actor. Neither does sighing. Nor does pouting. The screenplay? Dreadful. There’s no point giving your actors meaningful glances to do if there’s no dialogue to back them up. And where’s the story in beautiful people just standing around in beautiful houses? The direction? No real sense of proper direction, so dreadful. The cinematography? Actually not too bad. The battle scenes were very well done and were the only moments when I actually felt any kind engagement with the film. Imagine my disappointment when it turns out to be only an apparition. How I would have loved for all the characters to have died (except for Aro, of course). They also resolved the werewolf to human transition problem that has plagued them in the last few films. Hurrah!

I know that Twilight is an easy target for non-teenagers like myself but there is a more serious issue here. Teenagers, particularly girls, are being exposed to films which perpetuate the myths that as long as you have a boyfriend then its OK, that the idea of having men rule your life should be embraced, that every aspect of your life should be controlled and that you should be prepared to sacrifice everything for your one true love. Is this really what we want our young girls to be seeing? 

It also raises the question that should films (particularly those aimed at young girls) have more responsibility in ensuring that there are more positive female role models? There are very few films with proper female leads that any young girl can aspire to and it is very depressing to think that this could be the only film that a 13/14 year old girl could and would want to see. The values and ideals presented in the Twilight films are not values or ideals that I would want impressed upon any young girl today.

Verdict: Aside from all the points made in my review, the films in this franchise are incredibly dull. A fact that was demonstrated at the packed midnight screening that I attended where a couple of people tried to start an applause at the end… 

The applause didn’t catch on.

Argo

One area of American society that always interests me is the work of the FBI and CIA. So on hearing about this film and the fact that it was based on a true story my appetite was whetted.

The film is based on the aftermath of an attack on the American embassy in Tehran in 1979. The vast majority of the embassy staff were taken as hostages, but six escaped and took refuge in the Canadian ambassador’s home. The ambassador, Ken Taylor (Victor Garber) then tried to devise a plan to enable the Americans to leave the country without being captured by the Iranians.

In the US, CIA operative Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), has been asked to help secure the release of the Americans. Mendez comes up with the plan to create a fake movie, so that he can pose as a Canadian producer, go to Iran on a film location scout and bring back the Americans who are to be seen as part of his film crew.

Despite Mendez’s boss’s reservations, it is obvious that this is the only viable option. Mendez gets in touch with a make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and convinces him to help him with the mission by creating the buzz around Hollywood press about this film. Chambers advises that in order to make everything look as authentic as possible, Mendez needs to have a script and a director. Chambers introduces him to Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) who agrees to be a part of the charade.

The story moves on to show how Mendez gets into Iran and how he convinces the both the Americans and his manager to go along with his audacious plan.

The film is really interesting as it was about an event that I was not aware of and it is the type of story that I really like. The attention to detail is impressive in terms of everything looking like it came from the time of the story. I was particularly struck when the credits were rolling, how uncannily similar the Americans and their actor counterparts were made to look. 

The film was really gripping and tense right up until the last few frames, testament to the subject and  that the film never went down the ‘worthy’ route which so frequently happens. My only reservation is that in some scenes the Americans were outright rude to Mendez, I find it very difficult to believe that this would actually have happened in real life. If someone is risking their own life in order to save yours, I think little more gratitude would have been displayed.

Verdict: A really tense film which shows an audacious, and in places, ludicrous plan in action. Gripping, well acted and directed, this is a very entertaining film that proves that Affleck is developing into quite the actor and director. And the little catchphrase involving the word Argo will stay with you for a while.

Skyfall

Like most 30-somethings, James Bond was an ever present figure in my cinematic life. My dad and I would often watch them on a Sunday afternoon and no Christmas Day was complete without a Bond film to fall asleep to after lunch. Despite this, my interest in Bond is fairly limited, he didn’t seem a particularly ‘real’ character and you always knew that no matter what happened, he would be fine.

My personal favourite Bond was Roger Moore as I felt he brought a fantastic sense of comedy to the role. I lost interest when Timothy Dalton took up the challenge and although I know I’ve watched Pierce Brosnan versions, I couldn’t tell you anything about them.

I was persuaded to watch Casino Royale a while ago and immediately saw the massive improvement which was down to the popularity of the excellent Bourne films. The bar had been raised and Casino Royale more than met the challenge. Daniel Craig had made Bond more human, the story was more interesting and the film was visually very appealing.

Most people would agree that Quantum of Solace was a bitter disappointment, the film made little sense and the franchise looked tired and past it’s best. Moving onto 2012 and the franchise was celebrating 50 years since the release of the first Bond film and the pressure was on Sam Mendes to bring the film back to its former glory.

So Skyfall is a different, but very familiar kind of Bond. He is older, more careworn and is very aware of his increasing age. We find out more about his background and his complex relationship with M (Judi Dench) which shows him in a different light. Bond doesn't have quite the same swagger, the same confidence he had in previous films. I think that this a deliberate attempt by the film makers to show Bond with flaws and weaknesses and it was an excellent way of deconstructing and almost rebuilding Bond that everyone knows.

The story is typical Bond and is so quite unashamedly. There is a fantastic villain in Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) who is a former MI6 agent who holds a grudge against M. The plot is fairly simple and involves beautifully choreographed fight scenes and the necessary explosions. There is, of course, the usual close calls and a brilliant twist near the end that will make most viewers gasp. The film is very well made, fast-moving and holds the attention well.

Although I'm not a massive fan of Bond, the job has been very well done here. It was interesting that so much of the film was set in the UK although I couldn't really see the point of the China section (yes, money I know). But for a 50th anniversary film and all the pressures that creates, it met the challenge.

Some people have been saying that this is the film of the year. I don’t agree at all. This is a great, well-made film but there are no boundaries being broken here, nothing original or ground-breaking. This is a Bond film, albeit a very good one, but it is just a Bond film.

Verdict: A fantastically cinematic film with standout performances from Bardem, Dench and Craig. Although I didn’t think that the film had evolved as much as it could have done, I can completely understand why they wanted to create a film celebrating the 50 years of Bond. I am left wondering where the franchise can go now, the constant references to Bond’s age throughout the film would indicate that maybe the next film would be less action-based which would be a shame in my opinion.

Looper

Science fiction is a funny genre for me. There are some fantastic films representing the best of the genre and then there are some which just leave me utterly baffled and confused…

The year is 2074 and time-travel has been been discovered and made illegal. However, criminal organisations use time-travel to dispose of people they no long want to exist. The people who carry out these assassinations are called ‘loopers’. When the criminal gangs want to ‘close the loop’, they send the looper’s older self to the past to be killed by their younger self. Failing to do this is a death sentence.

The story centres on a looper called Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who amongst other things is troubled by what he does and is making plans for a future in France. He is ready to do an assassination, when he is faced with his older self (Bruce Willis), during a struggle Old Joe escapes and Joe needs to find him and destroy him before the criminal gang kill him.

Old Joe is also trying to find and kill ‘The Rainmaker’ - who is a child that he believes is responsible for the death of his wife who was murdered during Old Joe’s capture.

So from my brief synopsis you can see that it’s a slightly confusing film. The plot is interesting, but for me there are too many strands to the story and once you get past that, it very obvious how this is going to end. In this respect, it is nothing special at all which is a shame as I am a fan of all the main actors in the film.

I particularly like Gordon-Levitt and was blown away by his performance in 50/50 this year, but his performance is overshadowed by what they have done to his face in Looper. They have done some subtle prosthetics to make him look like Willis, but it is very, very distracting because you really aren’t sure if they have done something to his face or if it’s just you not quite remembering what he looked like. Either way, it was an issue and wasn’t especially necessary.

Beyond the prosthetics issue, the main reason that the film didn’t work for me was that there was no engagement, I didn’t care about the characters and thought that the pace was too slow.

I can appreciate that it was brilliantly shot and it looked really good, but I really didn’t ‘get’ this film at all.

Verdict: Excellent performances from all the main actors, but the film didn’t engage me at all and Gordon-Levitt’s prosthetics were an unwelcome distraction. I’m not entirely sure that I’m alone in not totally getting this film judging by the comments I overheard on leaving the screening.

The Dark Knight Rises

If there’s one franchise that has been truly reinvigorated and reinvented in the last decade, it is the Batman trilogy. Under the directorship of Christopher Nolan, this franchise has shown that smart, interesting and intelligent films can come from a comic book.

I’m only going to outline the basics of the plot as I would hate to reveal any spoilers.

The film is set eight years after the The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is a recluse in his home, refusing to see anyone other than loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine). His financial wealth has disintegrated due to an investment in a machine which produces clean energy. Unfortunately as the machine can also be used an a nuclear weapon in the wrong hands, Wayne decides to mothball the project, despite the objections of Wayne Enterprises board member, Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard).

The City of Gotham, however is experiencing a relatively peaceful era, with a number of organised crime participants having been locked away thanks to the Dent Act which was created in honour of Harvey Dent.

However Police Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is finding it more and more difficult to cover up the crimes of Dent, but decides to go along with it.

In the meantime, Bane (Tom Hardy) who is hell-bent on destroying Gotham, begins his reign of terror and control, starting with crash of Gotham’s Stock Market and culminating with Gotham effectively being under military rule.

Another strand to the story involves Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) a cat burglar who entices Wayne out of his self-imposed exile and leads him to Bane.

One of the major flaws of this film (and cinema chains have to bear some responsibility as well) is how incredibly difficult it is to work out what Bane, in particular, is saying. This character has a mask which completely covers the whole of his mouth and the voice is very over-synthesised making it near-impossible for a deaf or hard-of-hearing to be able to follow. Alongside this, you have persistent drumming which is great in terms of building up an atmosphere, but also happens to be at the same tone and sound level as Bale’s speaking pattern when he is Batman.

My fault with cinema chains is that there were too few screenings of a subtitled version of this film. In London, from 9.30 pm on Monday 30th of July to Sunday 5th of August, at one cinema chain, there will be 511 screenings of this film. Of these 511 screenings, only 4 will be subtitled, which is a total of 0.8% of screenings available. There are 9 million deaf or hard of hearing people in the UK, which is approximately 15% of the general population. I am not a deaf/HOH person with a chip on my shoulder, but this does seem to be incredibly disproportionate. I have asked the four main cinema chains to tell me why this is so, unfortunately none of them could come up with a satisfactory answer.

Anyway, off my soapbox and time to review this film.

As you would expect from Nolan, the film flows well and holds your attention for its entire length (a whopping 2hrs 40mins). It is action-packed with some great fighting scenes and the usual slick mechanical inventions, although I thought 'The Bat' was the ugliest fighting machine I’ve seen.

Hardy was great as Bane (despite the issues understanding what he was saying), and for someone who had half of his face covered up, he was incredibly expressive with both his face and his body. All of the other characters were excellently played and although there wasn’t the time to delve deeply into the characters background, they were shown to be fully rounded with backgrounds, fears and hopes.

The story goes off on various tangents which aren’t explained, but it does all tie up nicely at the end. Although, I would argue that the ending was a tad predictable.

Lots of people have asked me whether this is the best of the trilogy and I would have to say that The Dark Knight is the better of the three and it is for a very simple reason. Although you have Bane who is a fantastic physical presence in the film, the disappointment when you realise that he is more brawn than brain is quite immense. I felt that The Joker in The Dark Knight was a much better character, a more interesting role and a more intelligent adversary for the Batman. Obviously that film was totally eclipsed by the performance of Heath Ledger, and despite The Dark Knight Rises being a really excellent ensemble piece, it doesn’t have the standout performance that The Dark Knight has in The Joker.

Verdict: Nolan once again provides an intelligent action film which has excellent performances from all involved. However, issues with understanding Bane and the lacking of a standout bad guy, means that while this is a highly enjoyable film, it’s not quite as good as The Dark Knight. Will be very interesting where this franchise now goes.

The Amazing Spiderman

Although I am not a fan of comic books themselves, I seem to enjoy the film versions. Films such as Superman and Batman have kept me entertained for many years and I recall enjoying the first Spiderman starring Tobey Maguire which was released in 2002. I don’t remember watching the second (which some critics claim is the best) and I never saw the third.

However, I was looking forward to this version, Andrew Garfield is an interesting actor and I have liked everything that Emma Stone has been in recently.

The film is a reboot of the Spiderman origins story and seeks to cast a little more light on the disappearance of the parents of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and in particular the work of his father.

After the disappearance of his parents, Parker is brought up by his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and his Aunt May (Sally Fields). He is a typical teenager in that he has concerns about school, girls and bullies.

The story really starts with the discovery of his father’s briefcase which contains papers which reveal his work with another scientist, the one-armed, Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). The papers reveal how to regenerate parts of the human body using DNA from other animals, specifically lizards.

In order to meet Dr Connors, Parker blags his way as an intern at the company that Dr Connors works at, OsCorp where he finds genetically modified spiders and consequently gets bitten by one of them.

The story goes on to show how Parker copes with his new superpowers in both school and at home. He then decides to meet Dr Connors, to explain who he is and to give him the papers written by his father. The papers turn out to be the final jigsaw piece for Dr Connors being able to create the formula which enable him to create a limb to replace his missing arm.

The film moves on as the formula goes wrong and instead of just creating the missing limb, it takes over the whole of Dr Connor’s body and turns him into very angry lizard hellbent on destructing the city. Obviously the only person who can save the city is Spiderman.

The main problem I have with this film is its complete lack of originality. There is nothing here that I hadn’t seen in other films and this, in my opinion, is its major flaw. The cast are good, Garfield is excellent as the teenage Parker but I did feel that both Stone and Ifans were completely wasted in their roles. Stone had very little to do part from being disapproving at times and Ifan’s villain had no real depth, reasoning or bite.

For me, some of the best films are about good vs evil. This film was very much ‘meh’ vs ‘meh’. The villain was totally lacking in any villainousness qualities, particularly when you compare him to Willem Dafoe in the first Spiderman film, who was excellent. Garfield was great playing the troubled teenager, but less great when playing the superhero and I can’t quite put my finger on why.

As per my film policy, I did not watch the film in 3D, but in 2D. However, I can see that it would have looked great in 3D, particularly the swinging through the streets scenes. But unfortunately this was not really enough.

I love Martin Sheen in anything and he was great as Uncle Ben and it’s been a while since I’ve seen Sally Fields in anything, so it was great to see her too.

Verdict: A hyped-up film that didn’t deliver in terms of original story or providing an engaging villain. A stellar cast that didn’t have too much to work with which leaves a rather disappointing film. A real shame.

Katy Perry: Part of Me

Now, before there are any judgements about why I went to see this documentary, let me explain. I planned on seeing The Amazing Spiderman, but it was sold out so I decided to see this film before seeing The Amazing Spiderman.

My knowledge of Perry is fairly scant, I only really know of her through her marriage to Russell Brand and I only like one of her songs, but I do have an interest in celebrity culture and thought that this potentially could tell me more about life being a pop star.

The documentary is basically following Perry on her mammoth world tour in 2011 and all of the trials and tribulations that that ensues. We see the stresses of being on tour as well as the highs that Perry experiences. She has a very dedicated crew around her and she appears to particularly enjoy the meet and greets with her fans after the shows.

The interesting aspect of the documentary is when Perry’s relationship with Brand breaks down and although we are not given any real reasons for the break-up by Perry herself; her crew make comments alluding that Perry was the person who did all the work in the relationship by constantly flying to wherever Brand was during her days off, the point being that Brand never made the effort to visit his wife.

Another aspect that the documentary shows is Perry’s progression from a christian rock singer to the bubblegum pop princess. It is clear that she found her childhood to be stifling and maybe that explains why at 27, she feels the need to act, dress and look like a teenager.

The documentary aims to show Perry ‘as she really is’ and to a certain extent it does, there is genuine heartbreak when she has to perform after realising that her relationship with Brand is ending. Some sectors of the British press have made a big deal about Perry being shown without make-up which I thought was quite endearing.

However, this is clearly a very controlled documentary and it does show Perry to be a very canny individual and she definitely knows her market. But it does raise the question, how does she move on from being the bubblegum pop princess? She is only a few years away from turning 30 and obviously her target market will also have grown up, where will she go when the bubblegum bubble bursts?

Verdict: Interesting, if controlled, documentary. I didn’t care much for the songs although I did enjoy the concert footage. The breakdown of Perry’s relationship with Brand was very well handled and it is clear that Perry is an ambitious young woman who wants to be a role model to young girls. If I was 12 years old, I would probably have loved this film.