Flight

At the 85^th Academy Awards at the start of the year, Flight was nominated for a couple of awards namely Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay. I hadn’t heard too much about it except for an appearance by Denzel Washington on The Graham Norton Show but I thought the trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlFMZ5D8FNc) looked quite good so I gave it a watch. Directed by Robert Zemeckis (who also directed Back to the Future, Cast Away, Forrest Gump and Who Framed Roger Rabbit), it definitely promised a lot.

The film is about Captain William ‘Whip’ Whitaker (Denzel Washington) who is a pilot and on one flight the plane becomes a critical danger and starts to crash. Whitaker successfully crash lands the plane, minimising the casualties. He is lauded as a hero, but the problem is that he is an alcoholic. He is in denial about this for the majority of the film and is brought before a hearing that might result in a prison sentence if he is found to be guilty.

Denzel Washington is absolutely stunning in this as Captain Whitaker and was nominated for the Best Actor award, losing out to Daniel Day-Lewis. Washington’s portrayal of alcoholism is sensational and, although I don’t have any experience of it, I thought he was pretty spot on with some of the mannerisms he showed. Washington makes his character spectacularly engaging to the point that the audience is concerned about him. Towards the end of the film, with his hearing approaching, Whitaker is put in a hotel room and not allowed any alcohol. However he inadvertently finds the minibar in the unlocked room next door. He finds some alcohol and then appears to leave it alone, before taking and drinking it. I felt such a sinking feeling when he did this, and found myself to be far more responsive to his actions than I thought I would be. For Washington to create a character this engaging is to his credit and he definitely deserves the Best Actor nomination.

The rest of the cast is fairly impressive too, but are completely outshone by Washington. I particularly liked Don Cheadle as Hugh Lang, Whitaker’s attorney who seems to start as a dislikable character but turns out to be a guy who only has his client’s best interests at heart. Harling Mays was a character of nearly endless amusement for me, and I particularly liked how he seemed to balance out the seriousness of the film. However it was the character of Nicole (Kelly Reilly) who I found to be most entertaining from the rest of the cast. Her character also struggles with addiction, and finds it to be particularly damaging. She takes solace and seeks the company of Whitaker but soon realises that his addiction problem is far worse and is slowly destroying the both of them. She too is a character to engage with, and that’s one of the best things about this film.

However I think Flight is perhaps missing an emotional level that would take it from being a nominee for Best Original Screenplay to a contender for Best Picture. As it is, it is a good film that you can get into quite easily, but there’s nothing to hold your attention. I watched it with my family, and by about halfway through my Dad and brother had both got bored and left. I feel that if there was more emotional attachment to Whitaker then the audience might leave the film more affected by the outcome. It wasn’t that I wasn’t connected to the character, but I just didn’t feel the film left any particular impact on me after I had finished it. The best films are the ones that you remember for long after you’ve watched them, and the ones that you continue to enjoy again and again. I don’t think I’d watch Flight again to be honest.

It’s not that I didn’t enjoy it, but I thought it was probably the sort of film that some would enjoy and some would find boring (as evidenced perfectly by my family). Denzel Washington is very good and manages to captivate you with his character. However despite the alcoholism and destructive effect of addictions displayed here it is missing something that would make it incredible.  

Up

Since when did animated films become so emotionally engaging?! I got bored one afternoon and decided that because the weather was rubbish I might as well find something to watch. I had heard an awful lot about Up but never seen it, and most of the reports I had said that it was very good. I decided to give it a go and found myself in the middle of an emotional rollercoaster for the first ten minutes.

The film tells of Carl Fredriksen, an old man who flies his house to South America to fulfil a dream he and his late wife had of exploring when they were children. He does this by using thousands of helium balloons. However he inadvertently picks up a small child, Russell, on the way. Russell is an eager-to-help boy scout who wants to help Mr Fredriksen in whatever way he possibly can. When they arrive in South America they come across a weird bird and a talking dog. They also find Charles Muntz who was an explorer famous in Carl’s youth and uncover a plot against the bird, named Kevin.

I usually find it quite difficult to review animated films because there is relatively little to say beyond that the story and animation was good. Up is really no exception, and so I think this review will be much shorter than usual. Indeed the animation is very impressive and definitely makes this one of the better animated films I have seen. However, if I had to muster one criticism it would be that the human characters seem a bit too geometric. Carl’s face appears to be modelled entirely on a square, and Russell seems to be a couple of circles that has been squashed and put on top of each other. This isn’t a major criticism though and it doesn’t spoil my enjoyment of the film at all.

The best thing about Up is how engaging it is. The first scene involving Carl and his wife is tragically sad and is the perfect scene to captivate the audience. Personally I couldn’t stop watching after the first scene. Carl is a typical old man in an animated film – grumpy and set in his ways. However through his time with Russell and the animals he changes and becomes more understanding. My personal highlight of the film was the fight between the two old men. This had me in stitches, and I imagine it would be exactly the same if a younger child was watching. Russell is also very entertaining and provides an ideal figure for a younger audience to identify with.

I particularly enjoyed the idea of using dogs as other characters. The talking dogs were very amusing, particularly Alpha and Doug. I liked the idea of having them communicate through a machine rather than having them actually talk, and this seems to add a sense of realism to the film. Obviously when I say realism I do not actually mean that it is realistic, but the communication relay made it much less obscure.

Up is the sort of film that can appeal to both adults and children. I really enjoyed and I think children will enjoy it too. As a child you can enjoy the storyline and the laugh at the jokes and what-not. As an adult you cannot help but become engaged with the characters and the story. Without a doubt this is one of the best family films made in recent years and I think all the family can enjoy it, from grandparent to grandchild.

Thor

Thor is another film from the good people at Marvel and was released in preparation for The Avengers. Unsurprisingly, given that it is the first film in the Thor franchise, it introduces the character of Thor and gives us an idea of his purpose in the franchise, as well as giving us a bit of a teaser for The Avengers after the credits.

Thor is part of the Asgard people, an incredibly powerful race who are demi-Gods. His father is king and he is next in line for the throne. However, after an ill-advised trip to the home of the enemy, the Frost Giants, he risks bringing war to his people after many years of peace. He is subsequently banished to Earth where he tries to return in order to help defeat his brother who has plotted with the Frost Giants to kill the King.

Chris Hemsworth takes the hammer in hand in this film. For those of you who haven’t seen the film, or don’t get the reference, this means that he plays Thor. He does very well vocally, adopting a ‘Lord of the Rings-esque’ voice for his character that creates a sense of great power around him. Additionally he is very enjoyable to watch when Thor first arrives on Earth. These scenes are very well written and it is quite something that the writers haven’t made them too corny. The middle section of the film contains much of the humour that is characteristic of the Avengers’ prequels. Chris Hemsworth is very enjoyable to watch on screen and brings the character of Thor to life perfectly. He is very well cast in the role and I look forward to seeing more of him in the sequel to be released next year I think.

Natalie Portman also stars as the human lead, Jane Foster, who is investigating atmospheric disturbances and inadvertently comes across Thor. After hitting him with her van a couple of times she begins to help him and naturally falls in love with him. Natalie Portman doesn’t excel in this film, but she isn’t terrible. It’s an average performance in all honesty. Average doesn’t mean bad though, and I quite liked watching the relationship between Jane and Thor emerge. Although as ever, it was quite predictable, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the end of the film left the two apart from each other. Instead of a triumphant return scene at the end, when Thor is left cut off from Earth, it stays that way.

As with every Marvel film of late, the supporting cast is equally entertaining as the leading cast. Tom Hiddleston does very well as Loki, Thor’s brother who emerges as the chief villain of this film. He has quite a good look for a villain and is the character who evolves the most throughout the film. He starts off on an even keel to Thor and then through a series of events he becomes twisted and conspires with the Frost Giants. Kat Dennings is quite enjoyable to watch too. Obviously building on her experience of comedy work she plays quite a dry humourous character, not dissimilar to her role in 2 Broke Girls. I think she has a lot of potential and found her to be very amusing in Thor. Finally, Anthony Hopkins. It gets to a stage in an actor’s career where they have proved themselves as an incredible actor and start to be offered roles of ‘great king’ and stuff. Thor is a great example of this for Anthony Hopkins. He carries off the role of Odin very well, and seems to have an air of ‘Great King’ about him. It’s definitely not one of the best roles but he is quite good to watch nonetheless.

Finally I want to talk about the visual effects. All of the Marvel films of late can be characterised by amazing visual effects and Thor is no different. Most notable is the creation of Asgarth which is absolutely marvellous. Equally, the effects for the battle scenes are brilliant and really add to the impact of the film. Marvel studios can pride itself on the scale of the visual effects within their films and the Marvel franchise is resultantly, and deservedly one of the highest grossing franchises ever.

Overall, if you enjoy the other Marvel films such as Iron Man, The Avengers, Hulk and Captain America then you should love Thor too. It is very entertaining and engaging, and provides a bit more excitement and background to The Avengers. However, if you are not a fan of the comic book hero then it is probably one to avoid. I think you might quite like this film if you are interested in Norse mythology though because of the portrayal of several Norse Gods. A very good film all in all.

The Bourne Supremacy

I quite enjoyed The Bourne Identity when I first watched it, and so I decided that buying the next two films would be a worthwhile investment. Having now watched The Bourne Supremacy I can say that it was a good buy. It follows on from The Bourne Identity, and yet feels like a much more modern and gritty film, which is to its benefit.

Following the death of Marie (the girl who helped Bourne in the first film), Jason Bourne seeks revenge and tries to follow a trail from his past which leads him to the death of a diplomat and his wife in Berlin. In much the same way as The Bourne Identity, the plot unfolds in a very engaging way and has intricate little twists and turns to keep you interested. With a couple of exciting car chases thrown into the mix as well, The Bourne Supremacy is a very entertaining action movie.

However you do have to keep your eyes trained to the screen. The first time I saw The Bourne Supremacy, I made the mistake of trying to dip in and out of it. This didn’t really go very well for me. There’s quite a lot going on and so I would advise making sure that you know what is going on most of the time. There are several plots within the main plot and quite a few characters to keep track of, so it is quite advantageous to know who is who and what is going on.

Matt Damon reprises his role as Jason Bourne from the first film, and is every bit as well cast as before. The character of Bourne appears to perfectly suit Matt Damon and he does as well in this film as he did in the previous film. While I don’t think Jason Bourne will ever be as iconic as, say, James Bond, Matt Damon’s performance in both The Bourne Identity and Supremacy have ensured that the Bourne films are a modern action favourite.

While Matt Damon is very impressive in The Bourne Supremacy, the supporting cast is fairly anonymous. This makes it rather difficult to follow who is who and it is quite easy to get lost. Despite being rather critical of her in my review of Identity, it was good to see Franka Potente back as Marie, albeit briefly. A couple more flashbacks would have made it easier for me to remember who Ward Abbott (Brian Cox), but this was not a major problem. I did like Karl Urban as Kirill and was quite surprised to learn when researching this post that he played Eomer in The Lord of the Rings. In The Bourne Supremacy he is quite a background villain, and is as memorable as the secondary villain in many of the James Bond films. However, he is very good in his role and the character he plays is a fitting target for Bourne’s revenge. I particularly liked Joan Allen as Pamela Landy and thought that she was quite dislikable early on as she played the typical American intelligence officer who is seeking her target. However, throughout the film she becomes slightly more likable for me. By the end of the film I was quite sympathetic with her, and looked forward to the next installment to see how her relationship with Bourne played out.

There’s not much that marks out The Bourne Supremacy as an incredible film. It is a suitable follow up to The Bourne Identity and nicely sets up The Bourne Ultimatum. It is a modern action film that fits the mould perfectly. It isn’t necessary to have seen the first film in order to understand the second, but it can’t hurt to get a bit of background can it? Overall, it is probably one to watch, but I don’t think it is essential.

Rat Race

Rat Race is an example of a very purile, silly comedy film. And yet I find it absolutely brilliant. It’s a film about a group of people who are told that there is $2 million sitting in a bag in New Mexico and the first person to reach the locker from Las Vegas will keep it all. Naturally, hilarious scenarios unfold on screen which will be guaranteed to make you laugh at least once.

With a cast that many people will recognise, Rat Race is a very good example of how enjoyable a comedy film can be. Starring Rowan Atkinson, Breckin Meyer, Whoopi Goldberg, Seth Green, Cuba Gooding Jr., Jon Lovitz and John Cleese, Rat Race has a cast that many people will be able to enjoy. The scenarios that the actors get involved with are so unpredictable that you just don’t see them coming. From Cuba Gooding Jr. trying to take a taxi to New Mexico and ending up driving full of Lucille Ball  enthusiasts, to Jon Lovitz gatecrashing a Veterans meeting in Hitler’s car and Whoopi Goldberg breaking the land-speed record with her estranged daughter, there is so much unpredictability that the comedy flows brilliantly.

The nature of the film is such that each character’s fate is presented in an order, so you are shown what is happening to each character one after the other. Because there are so many characters, by the time you see each one again you realise that it has been a while since you last saw them, and almost laugh at the introduction of them again. Rat Race manages to deal with the problems around this very well though. You never feel like there are too many characters, and (although there probably are too many characters), the way the film brings them all in is perfect.

Rowan Atkinson, who I feel is one of the greatest British comedic actors ever, is absolutely side-splitting here, and despite having seen the film countless times I always find myself laughing the most at his parts. What makes it even better is his comedy Italian accent. He has obviously exaggerated it for comedic effect, and it does come across as very funny. Also, there are so many of Rowan Atkinson’s lines that are repeatable that the film will leave a couple of quotes in your memory bank.

All the other actors are pretty funny too, especially Jon Lovitz, but I found Seth Green and Vince Vieluf to be fairly annoying. I’m not the biggest fan of Seth Green as an actor and have never seen Vieluf in anything before or after this. Their storyline is fairly amusing, but Green’s character is inherently selfish throughout the film (right up until the end) and this makes me go off him a bit and feel that maybe he deserves his nightmare journey to New Mexico.

The whole film has a bit of a ‘well you just couldn’t make that up’ atmosphere to it, and this is why it is so funny. The scenarios that happen seem perfectly plausible on screen but when you step back and think about it they are utterly ridiculous. Obviously in a comedy film, plausible ridiculousness is what is aimed for, and Rat race achieves this very well. I cannot work out though whether I am biased towards Rat Race because of how much I enjoyed it the first time I watched it.

If I had one criticism of the film then it would be that some of the actors do not actually play a character wholly different from most of the characters they otherwise play. Breckin Meyer plays the nice guy who never takes a risk, Seth Green plays the moody teenager-esque bloke, John Cleese is the eccentric hotel owner (now which hugely successful British sitcom does that remind you of?) and Rowan Atkinson, although funny, is funny in the same way he normally is. In terms of the cast, it is impressive but not astounding.

However, despite this I am fairly confident that Rat Race will have you laughing at least once. If you are not made of stone then you should find yourself giggling along to the hilarious scenes unfolding in front of you. I rate Rat Race very highly and thoroughly recommend that you give it a watch. 

Godzilla

I’ve always been curious about Godzilla and films with large monsters in them. Sometimes they can be absolutely brilliant, with some incredible special effects and some entertaining scenes. However, equally they can be disappointing and laughable. I started watching Godzilla with fairly low expectations so that I wouldn’t be disappointed, and it turned out to be very good.

It’s a film taking from a hugely successful Japanese idea of a gigantic ‘king of the monsters’. The 1998 film makes it much more Americanised and intends to appeal to a wider audience. After a nuclear incident, a biological mutation happens and a reptile begins to change dramatically. The gigantic creature decides to come to America to lay its eggs and starts to destroy Manhattan. Obviously the Americans aren’t too happy about this and attempt to stop the creature. Dr. Niko Tatopoulos (Matthew Broderick) is asked to assist with this, and eventually finds the eggs in Madison Square Gardens, blowing it up and destroying them all (or has he?)

In all honesty, the film isn’t stunning, and except for the visual effects, there was very little that stood out as incredible. However, it is quite enjoyable, quite entertaining, and very easy to dip in and out of. The effects on Godzilla are absolutely stunning, but for me I was comparing it quite a lot to Jurassic Park, which was made 5 years before and is possibly better for effects. Sometimes the effects are a bit comic and this doesn’t help the film’s standing. Aside from the effects, there is very little that makes me want to watch it again. The scenes with Godzilla in are spectacular and so much fun to watch, but beyond that, there’s not much going on.

Matthew Broderick is quite bland and plain at Dr. Niko Tatopoulos. As the main character and hero of this movie you’d expect him to be a bit more likable or a bit more heroic. Instead, to me he comes across as a bit unaware. He is obviously fascinated by the creature, but very little makes me care about his outcome. Whereas in other films of this sort there is a fear or concern over the safety of the character, I did not get this at all with Matthew Broderick. Equally, I found myself not really interested in what happened to his old partner Audrey (Maria Pitillo). Normally in these types of films there is a sub-story with the hero and a woman, and Godzilla is no exception, but I didn’t really engage with this one too well.

As a source of comedy, Hank Azaria does very well in Godzilla. He is funny in a fairly slapstick way, but really shines in the scenes that he is in. He brings a degree of comedy to the film that is in line with the general air of the movie. He is not too comedic, and yet is not too dry either. Another one who does very well for me is Jean Reno, who plays the leader of the French team sent to help destroy Godzilla. Reno has a fairly mysterious air about him, and as an actor, this can be quite handy. It makes the audience unclear whether his characters are sinister or good, and in Godzilla, this really works well.

Ultimately, it is quite hard to do a film like Godzilla well, but the 1998 version does its best. With a remake set for release in 2014, there is a lot of expectation on its shoulders, given the relative failings of the 1998 film. I don’t think it is a bad film by any means, but I don’t think it does the Godzilla ‘legend’ any favours. By making it more Americanised I think the filmmakers harmed the franchise and although the acting isn’t great, the special effects create a brilliant monster. I found myself enjoying Godzilla, and so it’s probably worth a watch.

The Mask of Zorro

I seem to find myself writing an awful lot of reviews lately for films that I saw in my childhood and absolutely loved. In keeping with this trend I recently watched The Mask of Zorro, the 1998 adventure film starring Anthony Hopkins, Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones. When I first saw this film I really, really enjoyed it and when it came up at a party recently I discovered that I wasn’t the only one.

It tells about a man who fights for the people of California under the name ‘Zorro’. However, the governor of California is hunting for Zorro. His soldiers kill Diego De La Vega’s wife and Rafael Monteiro takes his daughter for his own. The film then skips forward twenty years and follows De La Vega’s attempts to get his revenge, with the assistance of Alejandro Murrieta who is trying to avenge the death of his brother at the hands of Captain Love. In reality it is a typical adventure movie, but with swordfighting and a good old fashioned revenge plot the child in my absolutely loved it when I first saw it.

The acting isn’t particularly impressive, but it is very engaging. As a child I found the passion with which Antonio Banderas conveys in this role very entertaining and definitely helped me engage with his character much more. Considering Zorro is a Spanish ‘character’, Banderas is perfectly cast in this role. His dedication to this film is such that he performed all his own stunts except one. Presumably he was equally dedicated with his swordsmanship and this is to his great credit. His desire for authenticity shines through in this film and makes many of the action scenes more impressive because one feels that it is Banderas on the screen – mainly because it is.

Anthony Hopkins has been in some absolutely stunning roles, and while Zorro is an enjoyable film, in terms of the acting, Hopkins is decidedly neutral. When you compare this film to some of his other roles, he pales in comparison. However, it is quite enjoyable to watch him on his quest for revenge, and in the majority of the film, Hopkins helps you to feel genuinely sorry for his character. Obviously in most films with an obvious hero you want him to prevail, but Anthony Hopkins makes Zorro much more connected to the people he fought for, but also shows how utterly devoted he was/is to his wife and daughter. When Elena asks him to do something for her, he immediately does, and Hopkins way of conveying this produces a connection with the audience.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is also very enjoyable to watch. Her character, Elena, the daughter of Diego De La Vega, is passionate, strong-willed and fiercely loyal to the man she believes to be her father. Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn’t light up the screen, but she provides a very engaging and entertaining character who is perfectly suited to Alejandro in terms of passion. The scene where he and she are fighting in the stable is a particular highlight for many different reasons. She doesn’t put a foot wrong in this role, but isn’t stunning either. Ultimately, she provides a good performance for the heroine of this movie.

Neither of the two villains particularly excel, but there is something about Matt Letscher as Captain Love that is very sinister. He is a constant threat throughout the film, and is the perfect opponent for the younger Zorro. I remember as a kid being quite scared of Captain Love, and so Letscher does very well to convey this.

Finally, I think that the whole film is enjoyable just because it is atypical action adventure revenge film. There are two different revenge plots going on at once and this keeps you entertained. Also, there is a sub-plot which Zorro has to try and stop. With some moments of comedy and an incredibly likable ‘hero’ in Zorro (no matter who is behind the mask), this film is very entertaining. It might be the case though that if you haven’t watched it as a child you may not like it as much as I do, so beware of that before you watch it. I recommend that you do though.