Kick-Ass 2

Bad-mouthed Avengers

The new face of the NRA…

Natasha Preskey reviews Kick-Ass 2, which sees 2010 director Matthew Vaughn pass the reins to Never Back Down’s Jeff Wadlow.

This comic-book adaptation sequel takes a tongue-in-cheek stab at putting ninja minor Mindy Macready through the mill of jocks, super-cliques and clichéd cringes that is (apparently) American high school. Yes, the very same name-taking, C-bomb dropping, super-vigilante who once grinned mischievously as she sliced off limbs and executed bad guys using a car-crusher. Chloë Grace Moretz’s baby-faced assassin won our hearts with her complete disregard of social mores and penchant for killing sprees back in 2010 when she was just eleven. So when we witness her unceremoniously plonked into teenhood and thrust into a less spunky, fetch-free Mean Girls, the ‘WTF’s are fairly unanimous.

Although the initial culture clash between murderess Mindy and her Union J loving peers is good for some laughs, the whole thing quickly deteriorates into a tedious lesson in ‘being yourself’. Predictably, Hit-Girl puts her adversaries (in this case, a trio of vacuous, cardboard meanies) into their place and proceeds to once again, err, kick ass… But this film remains one with an identity crisis. Its foray into teen girl problems lacks direction and its inability to decide whether its hinted central romance is inevitable or just plain weird is a quandary shared by the viewer. The script reluctantly treads ‘necessary’ ground. It plies its teenage female character with mandatory boy troubles and clique dilemmas and washes down its brutal violence with subsequent awkward moralising and discussion of society’s ‘real heroes’.

Kick Ass was cool because it didn’t need to stop and question whether what it was doing was ok. No one ever asked, ‘But isn’t vigilante justice like… bad?’ or ‘Won’t Mindy’s love of killing one day prevent her from functioning in mainstream society?’ or even, ‘Why is an eleven year old girl using the word cunt?’

The original film’s step away from whiney jaded heroes and bloodless, blockbuster violence was what made it great, and its ability to have fun without having to churn out conventional moral messages was refreshing. Kick Ass 2 still keeps up the bloody violence but has lost that fresh, offbeat feel.

The audience can only hope that further sequels won’t chart Mindy’s attempts to harpoon her way into an Ivy League school or comment on the success of a government referendum regarding legalised superhero patrols. Although, ‘Hit-Girl Goes to Princeton’ does kind of have a ring to it…

====VERDICT====

Kick Ass 2 retains much of the bold, brightly coloured fun of its predecessor but fails to deliver the spunk and uniqueness which made the original a keeper. Worth a look for forgettable excitement and a few laughs, but has little re-watch value.

2.5/5

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Once Upon A Time In The South

Health and safety guidelines were poorly maintained during shooting

JJ SAYS:

It’s difficult to know where to start. At its most basic, Beasts of the Southern Wild is the story of Hushpuppy, a young girl who lives with her father Wink in the Bathtub, a small impoverished community beyond the levees of New Orleans. After a prophesised storm hits the flood prone society, Hushpuppy and Wink must find a way to survive.

At its most complex, the movie is a meditation on nature, youth, growing up, human resilience, death, and so much more. The mysterious and vulnerable Bathtub is the perfect backdrop, and is partially responsible for enabling such a wide variety of thoughts to be explored. Its inherent susceptibility to nature allows the movie to change tone quickly, to be both funny and sad, uplifting and sobering, without ever feeling self contradictory or slight in the process.

Quvenzhané Wallis’s performance as Hushpuppy is what really elevates this movie, and I cannot imagine anyone else in the role. While I’ve said the film effectively touches on a vast array of themes, I’m not convinced it could have matched its ambition without her performance. She’s the lifeblood of the film, and so many of the emotions in the film stem from her, she is the one who is so close to nature, growing up, resilient, and ultimately she is the one who has to cope with death and destruction. Her performance is all the more affecting due to the fact we see most of the events from her eyes, meaning that as an audience we often share her confusion and awe. Wallis was only 5 when she auditioned, and only 6 when the movie was shot. Dwight Henry gives a similarly mesmerising performance as Wink, and the relationship between the two is astonishingly genuine. The rest of the cast is also superb and it’s worth mentioning that most of the actors in the movie were non-professional, giving the film an authenticity it might have lacked with familiar faces.

The script also adds to this sense of realism. Adapted by Lucy Alibar from her one-act play ‘Juicy and Delicious’, it is simple and to the point. While at times the script’s origins as a play show (events go relatively unexplained), this simplicity aids the cinematography and score in creating the unique and mysterious environment which these characters inhabit. The actions of The Bathtub community feel real, they’re not overly scripted or watered down, and it’s refreshing to watch.

Beasts of the Southern Wild is a unique movie, and you’d be hard pushed not to be enchanted by its heart and sincerity.

====VERDICT====

Featuring a cast of unknown faces and a story which is part fantasy, part allegory (although of what, I’m not entirely sure), it feels unrestrained from normal conventions, and is all the more liberating for it.

3.5/4

CJ SAYS:

Anyone who knows my family knows that my sister is a bit of a drama queen; full of energy and never one to shy away from a scene. When I watched Beasts of the Southern Wild the other night I observed a very different drama queen altogether, one also full of vigour and confidence (and not far off the age of my younger sibling).

This drama queen goes by the name of Quvenzhané Wallis. Her realm lies amongst the gators and swamps of the wild Louisianan Bayou. She demands her audience’s attention, and, with servile obedience, I found myself obliging. While her age (she was six when the film was shot) would suggest she was a novice, her performance is that of a mighty sovereign. A cinematic Boudica.

Faced with a complex story, a predominantly middle-aged cast, scores of animals, pyrotechnics (not to mention the lead billing), Wallis never appears deterred by the enormity of the task. The film is seen mostly from her point of view with few scenes without the Cajun queen. Such a spotlight can only be craved by most actors, and here, this afro-haired missy grabs the opportunity to be centre-stage with both her dainty hands. She owns the screen. Absolutely nothing fazes her, even when face-to-face with a dinosaur-sized boar. Wallis has the innocence that can only be captured by a child, yet possesses the ferocity and wisdom of someone who has seen all there is to see. It is a performance far beyond her years but Wallis makes it look as easy peasy as lemon squeezy.

There are other reasons to watch Beasts, but the little leading lady steals the show. Director Benh Zeitlin has crafted an ambitious, moving triumph of Independent cinema.  Much like Wallis’s Hushpuppy, Zeitlin exhibits a tenacity usually credited to those with far more experience.

====VERDICT====

A powerful tale. Like the storms or the Aurochs, this film has a profound impact on the viewer. Zetitlin’s debut is a marvel.  

4/4

In the Loop

In the Situation (comedy) Room

He was getting a bit sick of the PPI cold calls.

CJ SAYS: 

The saying goes that swearing is a sign of a limited vocabulary. Billy Connolly refuted this by declaring that while he knew thousands of words he still preferred to use “fuck”. In 2009, a fellow Scotsman went one step further creating an hour-and-a-half long dictionary of vulgarities that would impress even the greatest of wordsmiths.

Armando Iannucci’s satirical take on the special relationship drops the F-bomb on Whitehall and Washington. A lot. In the Loop is a continuous stream of profanity from start to finish (much like the “arse-spraying mayhem” of diarrhoea, as described by Director of Communications/“Gorbals Goebbels”, Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi)). It is not, however, a display of cussing for cussing’s sake. What Iannucci has managed to do is show the dirty, un-glamourised world of politics in a sharp, savage and astute way. It’s normally one side or the other – the glossy West Wing way or the gritty House of Cards way – and when it does come together it is often an omnishambles (as shown week in, week out by The Colbert Report).

In the Loop holds a mirror up to a system of government riddled with irony and hypocrisy, and ridicules it. It takes the political strata and tears it apart layer by layer. Gaffe-tastic, incompetent government ministers and advisers, figure headed by Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) whose statements regarding war in the Middle East sets the film’s events in motion. Hawk and dove army chiefs whose decisions are made out of self-interest rather than national public interest. Bullying spin-doctors with anger management issues. Everyday we read about similar individuals in the paper. These parallels, combined with some truly sensational one-liners, make this a timeless mickey-take of those who (worryingly) hold the reins of power.

====VERDICT====

Dr Strangelove meets The Office meets Glengarry Glen Ross. A viciously funny mockumentary, fully deserving of its 2010 Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.  

3.5/4

JJ SAYS:

Political satire on the big screen is a rare thing and there’s certainly a tendency, especially in the US, to play politics straight edged. Take House of Cards, The Ides of March, Syriana, or pretty much anything in the last ten years and it becomes all too clear that when it comes to politics, studios feel far safer commissioning thrillers over satires. Perhaps this is why In the Loop was so warmly received upon its release in 2009.

A political blunder and the potential outbreak of war between Britain, the US and the vaguely termed ‘middle-east’ forms the basis for events. This international perspective enables the action to flit between London and Washington D.C as the two nations deliberate the shaky evidence in favour of going to war. For fans of The Thick of It, there’s a lot to like. The script is sharp and filled with one-liners. Peter Capaldi also is worthy of mention for his charismatically belligerent performance as Malcolm Tucker, the governments heavy handed and profane enforcer. James Gandolfini is similarly well cast as the ‘peace loving’ General George Miller and a verbal showdown between the two is arguably the films highlight.

Having said that, I’m not a fan of The Thick of It, and neither was I really a fan of In The Loop.  As I’ve already mentioned, the film has a solid script and a strong cast, but it left me cold, and aside from the odd moment I rarely found myself either amused or engaged. At times the film flat out annoyed me, specifically Oliver (Chris Addison), who really did nothing for me. Sure, I get the fact he’s a fish out of water in Washington D.C., eager to impress, and obviously he’s supposed to be a bit of an arse; but instead of being entertaining, or even entertaining and irritating, I just found him intensely annoying. In my eyes what really hurt the movie was its aura of self-satisfaction, and the derision which infuses the script ends up just weighing the whole thing down. I mean, being a satire is one thing, but having two-dimensional characters who rehash their ‘funny’ attributes again and again is another entirely; towards the end the whole thing felt forced.

I can see why In the Loop would appeal to some people, but for me the movie just didn’t cut it. I’ve seen a lot of people compare it to Dr. Strangelove, but that seems horribly misleading, these two films are stratospheres apart in nearly every respect that matters. If Dr Strangelove wasn’t directed by Stanley Kubrick, didn’t have a career defining performance by Peter Sellers, didn’t have one of the greatest scripts of the 20^th century and wasn’t nearly so original or relevant; then the two might be comparable. It’s like comparing the Godfather to Lawless; they’re both about crime, that’s pretty much it.

====VERDICT====

In the Loop features some good performances, but its cynicism and derision become overbearing and ruin what could have been an effective satire.

2/4

 

Michael’s Monthly: Pacific Rim

GODZILLAGEDDON

Cancelling the apocalypse in style.

As well as offering you our opinion we want to give you, our readers, the chance to voice your own film-based opinions. In the first of his monthly column, Michael Drummond reviews Hellboy-raiser, Guillermo del Toro’s, latest action flick. 

Whatever you think of Pacific Rim, it is undeniably on a different scale to Guillermo del Toro’s previous work. This is true in terms of the amount of CGI and other special effects utilised, but it might also have something to do with the size of the giant alien beasts that form the villains of the piece. The premise of the film, that mankind builds 280ft walking machines (Jaegers) to battle colossal alien “Kaiju” that arise out of an ocean rift, is as ridiculous as it sounds. But the film is tons of fun and quite possibly the best of the summer so far.

Del Toro does well to take two relatively unknown (at least in the West) Japanese genres, Mecha (robot/machine) and Kaiju (monster) and bring them together in something that will appeal to more mainstream audiences. While both have been taken up by Hollywood separately, Pacific Rim unites the two in explosive fashion.

It’s easy to just focus on how entertaining it is to see Idris Elba making a heroic speech and leading a human resistance force of outdated walking tanks against fearsome alien invaders (and it is a LOT of fun), but there’s depth to the film too.

The concept of the machines needing two pilots that are neurologically linked, thus sharing all thoughts, feelings and memories, permeates the whole film. The movie explores the different quirks and dangers of two people being so deeply linked. Also, the tenacity of humanity and its sheer will to survive in desperate circumstances is expertly brought to the fore. Pacific Rim is not just your standard summer action epic, it brings something unique to a genre of film dominated by un-creative dross.

The art that went into creating the different Jaegers and Kaiju is immense and shows a lot of talent. Each Kaiju and Jaeger has distinctive styling and features, giving them all a different feel and character. Each Jaeger has its own back-story depending on its design and country of origin- a lovely touch from del Toro and his team. It’s these details that separate Pacific Rim from the rest of the bunch.

====VERDICT====

Pacific Rim gives everything you could possibly want from a summer blockbuster: giant machines, aliens, heroics, and copious amounts of funny quips and fantasy violence. Not a classic, but it’s the most fun I’ve had at the cinema in years.

3.5/4

The Place Beyond the Pines

Daddy Issues

A kid, a missus, and on the run from the cops. Gosling’s hands are pretty full.

JJ SAYS: 

Derek Cianfrance’s latest movie is an incredibly ambitious multi-generational tale, split into three acts. It opens with the story of Ryan Gosling’s character Luke Glanton, a tattooed motorcyclist in various state carnivals. When Luke learns he has a young son with former lover Romina (Eva Mendes), he decides to leave the carnival in an attempt to provide for his child.

As an audience we’re left in the dark about Luke’s past, and we seemingly join him at this particular juncture of his life, a technique which makes the ensuing plot developments all the more compelling. These opening three quarters of an hour are easily the films most effective moments; Luke and Romina are evidently drawn to one another, however it is always apparent their problems are likely insurmountable. Their difficulties are augmented by a combination of foreboding cinematography, with substantial use made of the New York countryside, and the films operatic score; together these create a tangible sense of gloom and a feeling of inevitable disaster throughout the entire first act. To my mind this is one of Ryan Gosling’s best performances to date, by that I do not mean that Luke Glanton is necessarily a great character, but that Gosling handles remarkably well material which in another actors hands could so easily appear cliché and ordinary.

Luke’s desperation enables the switch in focus to Bradley Cooper’s character Avery, who comes into contact with Luke after a bank robbery goes awry. Avery is an on the beat cop, albeit one with a hero’s reputation and a lawyers education (which in hindsight seems slightly ridiculous), and has a young son of his own. Upon seeing how rife the police department is with corruption (particularly a sleazy Ray Liotta), Avery begins to use these traits in a bid to rise to power. There’s a somewhat heavy-handed irony about the fact that Luke turns to crime in an attempt to provide for his family, while Avery pursues his perfectly legal political career out of a deep self-interest, neglecting his own family in the process. Although the second act of the film is slightly less involving, it is nonetheless well constructed, and the parallels between the two acts compliment one another; specifically the notion of both men’s total isolation and guilt in front on their young sons.

The third act is by far the films weakest. Taking place 15 years after the films first two sections, it centres on the story of both Avery and Luke’s sons (AJ and Jason), who happen to meet in high school. While an essential element for the story to come together, their relationship feels slightly contrived. What up to this point was an effective drama descends into an almost melodramatic finale. Moreover the spectacular cinematography and score, which anchor the first two acts of the movie, lose some of their power in these weaker final scenes. Nevertheless, for all the third acts issues, it does succeed in affirming what was clearly Cianfrance’s goal from the start; it shows the multi-generational impact of both Luke and Avery’s actions 15 years previously.

It would be easy to criticise The Place Beyond the Pines for being too unwieldy or too unfocused, and even easier to argue that the third act derails the careful build up which precedes it. However, it seems far more appropriate to praise The Place Beyond the Pines for everything it gets right, which is a lot. It’s impressive scope and ambition challenges the conventional Hollywood wisdom of having a protagonist whose story runs throughout the movie. Sure, the movie’s far from perfect, and the story arc is a little less satisfying than it perhaps thinks it is, but The Place Beyond the Pines is nonetheless a deeply involving and interesting piece of cinema.

====VERDICT====

The Place Beyond the Pines is consistently interesting and is, at times, great. While the films final section is somewhat average, the story remains compelling throughout. However, if I had to choose one American indie film this year I’d still choose Mud.

3/4

CJ SAYS:

In the space of a couple of films, Derek Cianfrance has brought a breath of fresh, realist air to the exploration of relationships. His breakout, Blue Valentine, examines a marriage through the smooth and rough. Set against the stark backdrop of Upstate New York, his most recent piece, The Place Beyond the Pines, explores family legacy and the challenges of paternity, demonstrating the lengths man will go to, to protect their kith and kin.

Cianfrance confronts these issues in an ambitious, emotionally-charged triptych that examines the consequences of two men’s actions on both themselves and their children. It offers an insight into working-class America, whilst also providing ample social realist material which is covered in great breadth. It is this breadth that is also the film’s downfall. By attempting to cover such a large scope, the script lacks a definitive focus. Motifs are overdone and clichéd (five variations of a bike traversing down a long and winding road seems a bit excessive). Similarly, there is no real depth to the blunt and often corny lines (Exhibit A: “If you ride like lightning, then you’re gonna crash like thunder.”).

It’s a similar story when it comes to the acting. Ryan Gosling’s tattooed, platinum blond rebel without a cause is so melodramatic that I found myself, during the church scene, crying at him, not with him. This was the same Oscar-nominated badass who has displayed such versatility throughout his career, and here he was blubbing at his child’s baptism for no reason other than it being in the script. Bradley Cooper also appears to be simply line-bashing, exhibiting little of the intensity that won him praise in Silver Linings Playbook.

Glancing at Cianfrance’s résumé, there is no doubt that he is a talented filmmaker. Likewise, Gosling, Cooper, et co. have earned their spurs as fine actors. Yet, watching The Place Beyond the Pines felt more like watching a devised school drama piece. A relatively inexperienced writer has created a story revolving around several societal issues that are meant to resonate amongst the audience. The performance intends to be meaningful, but a flimsy plot is further let down by the cast exaggerating every line delivery and emotion throughout a ten minute piece. The only difference is that The Pines is a two hour and twenty minute slog.

====VERDICT====

Mike Patton’s evocative score and some foreboding cinematography makes The Place Beyond the Pines visually stunning. This cannot, however, save it from falling into melodrama.

2/4

Monsters University

Where The Wild Things Were

The gang were shocked when they heard what they had to do for the rugby initiation.

JJ SAYS: 

Monsters University is the latest offering from Pixar and, as the title suggests, focuses on the exploits of Monsters Inc. protagonists Mike and Sully (albeit at a much younger age) as they attempt to graduate ‘scare school’, a seemingly pivotal stepping-stone to becoming professional Scarers. At its core the film is essentially a coming of age story as the two battle against the odds to retain their places at MU, becoming best friends in the process. It’s a largely enjoyable film and certainly succeeds as a piece of summer box office material, but it fails to elevate itself into the higher echelons of the Pixar canon.

Monsters University has a lot going for it, and certainly manages to recapture aspects of what made its predecessor so successful. Billy Crystal (Mike) and John Goodman (Sully) both comfortably reprise their roles after more than a decade long hiatus, bringing the same liveliness and warmth to their characters, as well as recreating the genuine chemistry the pair shared in Monsters Inc. Moreover the animation looks incredible, with the university campus moving through the seasons as the story progresses;  autumn looks particularly photorealistic.

The movie is also, at times, genuinely funny; and even when the jokes are slightly off key there is a pervasive light-heartedness and sense of fun which is difficult to fault. The college fraternities are perhaps the most evident example of this, and although Roar-Omega-Roar is not the most scintillating idea Pixar has ever had, the much looked down upon Oozma Kappa provide a significant amount of the films amusement. While director Dan Scanlon may only have a short list of credits to his name the direction is, on the whole, capable. An early scene in which Mike moves into his university dorm is handled with particular finesse.

Having said that, the film does, occasionally, drift into patent blandness, specifically during a Rocky-esque montage scene that, even without the Bill Conti theme, feels as though it’s been used a thousand times before and was, fundamentally, a lazy way to progress the story.

Perhaps the biggest issue with Monsters University is the plots lack of direction, which sometimes feels aimless. While the movie is certainly charming, it doesn’t seek to stretch itself in any way; the story, the script and even the jokes are all fairly conservative. Fundamentally, it never tries to be anything other than good and it’s largely for this reason that the film falls drastically short of the Pixar classics. While the studio’s usual hallmarks are present, Monsters University fails to break any new ground and numerous scenes feel overly familiar and stale. Obviously, a certain amount of this familiarity comes from the fact Monsters University is a prequel and therefore was always going to be a recognisable movie. However, this fails to explain the fact that intermittently the movie feels as though it’s going out of its way to ‘tick boxes’.

Considering the strength of past Pixar work, which almost always seemed to be stretching the medium, it seems a shame that the studio’s latest effort is, for all its upside, a long way from the pantheon of Pixar greats.

 ====VERDICT====

Monsters University is, in its own right, an enjoyable and entertaining movie; to some degree its flaws are only noticeable because of the peerless work Pixar has produced in years past. 

2.5/4

CJ SAYS:

Sex, vast quantities of spirits, slackers, student houses with sub-standard hygiene, etc. The components of university life have become the bedrock of an entire film genre. All the big studios have tackled the college comedy. Universal with National Lampoon’s Animal House. Touchstone had The Waterboy. MGM, Legally Blonde. A combination of slapstick and an extensive vocabulary relating to the female genatalia is as entertaining for audiences as a night out at the Union Pub.

Pixar, it’s fair to say, aren’t the most likely studio to have a pass at the genre. It is also fair to say that Pixar is no ordinary studio. Despite the potential hot water, Monsters University takes on the genre and does so with honours.

The newest edition to the Pixar universe marks the return of Mike (voiced by Billy Crystal) and Sulley (voiced by John Goodman) to Monstropolis – the world behind our closet doors. Monsters University takes us back to Mike and Sulley’s student days, where our furry/slimy protagonists met as college freshmen. Both enrolled on the scare programme, the pair clash from the start, Mike’s tennis ball head constantly in a textbook, while Sulley rests on the laurels of his family name. A run-in with Dean Hardscrabble – a half-dragon, half-centipede hybrid voiced by an icy Helen Mirren – leads to both pupils getting kicked off the programme. In a bid to win back their place the drop-outs enter the Scare Games, albeit with the Oozma Kappa fraternity (the equivalent of the Sci-Fi Club you avoid signing up for at the Society Fair).

While there are plenty of homages to its predecessor (the customary John Ratzenberger cameo is warmly received), Monsters University succeeds as a stand-alone story about the trials and tribulations of life during and post-college. Unable to employ staple college comedy gags, Pixar instead lampoons many of the characteristic features of student life. A (non-alcoholic) version of beer pong in the Roar-Omega-Roar frat house to a prank involving a pig-cum-Angry Bird mascot demonstrates the studio’s boundless creativity while also working as a witty depiction of the folly that goes on around campus.

Yet, besides all the fuzzy freshers antics, there is something more subdued about Monsters University compared to its Pixar counterparts. A younger Mike and Sulley are, ironically, more philosophical and less dysfunctional than their Monsters, Inc., selves. The studio also does a complete U-turn on its previously “can do” ethos highlighting arguably the toughest lesson of all: no matter how hard you work, you don’t always get what you want. A profound lesson and one that Pixar admirably imparts. However, it leaves very little by way of comic material which is made apparent throughout the film’s duration.

Since Toy Story 3, Pixar has struggled to strike the balance between humour and heart. Cars 2 was lacklustre and predictable (much like Formula 1) and Brave lacked any iota of wit (much like the Scottish). Though signs of the high-energy tempo of Monsters, Inc., are there, Monsters University is far more mature than its predecessor. There is less fun and more of a focus on message and meaning. More didactic, less quirk. It is still very entertaining, but closer to the demeanour of a professor rather than a student.

====VERDICT====

Like a post-grad student, mature but often a good laugh.

3/4