Under The Skin

A film where Scarlett Johansson plays an alien who picks up hitchhiker's and then harvests their skins? Hmmm..sounds kinda intriguing. What's that? You get to see Scarjo in the nuddy? Sold! Cynicism aside re that second point, this is a tough watch for anyone unless, like Monty Python once said, you're the type of person "...who talks loudly in restaurants". From it's bizarre 2001-style opening, Jonathan Glazer's latest film moves along in slow motion and just never gets going. Glazer's background is mainly in music videos and commercials and he struggles with this longer format of entertainment. Much has been made of the guerrilla style of filming Glazer used in making this (Johansson basically interacting with unsuspecting members of the public via hidden cameras), but that can't compensate for a lack of substance. What saves it from being a total disaster though is Johansson's superb performance and the actual portrayal of the difficulty of an alien trying to fit in to contemporary society is nicely realised. Plus, the way the unsuspecting humans are killed is different than the usual "killed by zappers" and somewhat queasy to watch (think implosion and innards). You'll also elicit a wry smile as well when you think of foreign audiences trying to decipher some of the molten thick Glaswegian accents. Things aren't helped along the way though by the obtrusive score that is so over the top it elicited a few unintentional laughs in the screening I was in. Glazer's approach has obviously been less is more, which works up to a point, though the script is far too clunky, shown up by a key moment in the film where the alien appears to want to understand humanity, but the first person she stumbles across happens to be an opportunist rapist! So, will this be remembered as an intriguing study of an outsiders perspective on the human condition? Or will it be known as that dull arse film where Scarlett Johanssen drives around Scotland in a van and not much happens? I suspect it will be the latter. Rating: 6/10.

300: Rise Of An Empire / Pompeii

It's double review time again, this time the tenuous link being swords, sandals, computer generated imagery and, er, history. Starting off with 300: Rise Of An Empire, director Noam Murro's (no me neither) film is the the follow up to Zack Snyder’s seriously over-rated 300, though it actually takes place around the same time of the battle depicted in that film. To go into plot, characters etc. would take forever, but it's basically 300 again, though this time mainly set at sea. There's clunky dialogue, male characters who all look alike (apart from one who looks like Zlatan Ibrahimović) and 99% special effects. So, as you were then basically. Though this time there's also a sex scene so bizarre it genuinely looks like it's been cut in from a soft porno. If you like hacking and slashing there’s plenty of red stuff on show (at one point someone's head meets a horses hoof with very squelchy results), but it does little to challenge the preconception that once you've seen one CGI slicing with a sword you've seen them all. On the plus side Eva Green is good fun as the main baddie and some of the battles at sea are genuinely ingenious with one including the most surprising appearance of a horse since Caesar climbed aboard one in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. In the end though there's nothing here to suggest that this was more than just a sequel for sequel's sake and the whole thing just lacks soul. Murro was slated to direct A Good Day To Die Hard, but dropped out to direct this. Looks like he would have lost either way. Anyway, moving on it’s Paul W. S. Anderson time! Settle down there at the back. Anderson easily makes the short list for worst director of the last twenty years but, much like a broken clock still showing the correct time twice a day, occasionally he gives us something that isn't actually all that bad. The anomaly this time is Pompeii which, despite appearances, just about sneaks into the guilty pleasure bracket. The basic storyline is as old as Pompeii itself, as a boy from the wrong side of the tracks (in this case a slave played by Kit Harington) catches the eye of a girl (Emily Browning as the daughter of a city ruler) from a social standing miles above him. Will true love prevail, not only over the social divide, but also over a volcano in a very bad mood indeed? The thing about disaster films is that you can’t just show a load of death and destruction without a human element to engage the audience and, though they're written pretty thinly, Anderson makes us care about the characters. Browning and Harington will probably only appeal to certain demographics of the audience, but for the rest of use we can enjoy Kiefer Sutherland (who at times sports an accent that is so bizarre it looks as if he’s attempting an impression of Anthony Hopkins whilst wearing a gum shield), clearly having great fun as a Roman Senator and his dry comment when watching a re-enactment of a slaughter during a gladiatorial smack down provides the film with a high moment of subtle laughter amongst all the mayhem. Though Anderson has received lots of praise for the historical accuracy of the Pompeii he's put on screen and the depiction of the eruption of Vesuvius itself (when the old girl finally erupts its an impressive moment and nicely pitched dramatically) you get the feeling that (though morally not really all that on), for once he isn't taking things too seriously himself either. 300 Rating: 5/10. Pompeii Rating: 7/10.

The Lego Movie

Phil Lord and Chris Miller have only been around for a few years, but they already have some serious pedigree. First up was 2009's under seen but widely praised Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs. Next they gave us one of the best comedies of recent years with 21 Jump Street and, lets be honest, who saw that coming. Recently they've given us the worthy Brooklyn Nine-Nine television series, but now they return to their computer animated cinematic roots with The Lego Movie which, despite not hitting the heights of their earlier output, still has enough original thoughts and laugh out loud moments to make it one of the films of the year so far. The storyline is as standard (basically good vs evil) as it is gets, so lets concentrate on other aspects. First up are the visuals which, despite being computer animated, have been done in such a way that it comes across as stop motion, deftly reflecting the way you would use Lego piece by piece in reality. It's a smart touch. In respect of the humour it's Lord and Millers usual mix of jokes for the adults (there's plenty of satire in here, mainly based on the characters happiness about everything - see (or hear) the films signature tune - "Everything Is Awesome") and colourful mayhem for kids. Lord and Miller also utilise the physical traits of the Lego characters in a number of imaginative ways (Liam Neeson is a police officer who has a two-sided head which means he literally changes between Good Cop / Bad Cop) and nostalgia abounds in many places, not least with the appearance of the astronaut figure with worn-out logo and broken helmet. The film does have couple of problems though. The first is that it's just too manic for it's own good and things start to get exhausting rather than staying constantly thrilling (and on that note some of the action scenes are so briskly edited it's hard to tell what's going on - listen out for a Wilhelm Scream though!). Secondly. and somewhat spoiling the whole party, the ending is truly terrible as we partially enter the "real" world in order to tie up a number of plot points. No doubt it happens due to what must have been agreed with the Lego company itself (and its marketing concerns) in the pre-filming negotiations, but it means the production limps over the finish line. Rating: 7/10.

Need For Speed

Though he's appeared in a few films over the years, now that Breaking Bad has ended it's time for Aaron Paul to properly kick start his big screen career. One of his new vehicles (sorry) is Need For Speed, which has Paul (who appears to have been spending his Bad wages at McDonalds) starring as a street racer who, stop me if you've heard this one before, is framed for a crime he did not commit and on release drives cross-country on a mission of revenge. Or something like that. The plot is basically a side issue here as it's all about the cars and I'm sure petrol heads will get their fix from what's on show. In addition, there's good news for anyone who is moaning about the quieter F1 engines as this film is loud, loud, loud. Comparisons with Fast and Furious can't be ignored, but whereas that series spectacularly floundered as soon as it went computer effects heavy, the film makers here have gone with practical effects and it adds some metal bending realism and genuine danger to the proceedings. Paul (though not really having much to do) is solid enough, with his laid back style of acting evoking (intentionally or not) the road movies of the 1960's and 1970's, but the supporting cast is hit and miss. Imogen Poots provides some sass as Paul's front seat passenger and Rami Malek gets the best job quitting scene in years. Less enjoyable is Scott Mescudi who is irritating beyond belief, playing the sort of wise cracking smart ass that can only best be described as a Berkshire Hunt. If there's a more annoying character put on celluloid this year we'll all be very unlucky indeed. Director Scott Waugh previously only had the critically panned Act of Valor under his belt. He does a better job here but, at the end of the day, isn't this just an amalgamation of all of the Smokey and the Bandit films? Rating: 6/10.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

I've said this before about Wes Anderson, but there can't be a film maker alive today who's idiosyncratic style is so paramount you can tell who the director is within thirty seconds of the film beginning. For The Grand Budapest Hotel it takes about five seconds. The rest you know. Kitsch sets. The lock-pan-lock camera movements. The mix of live action and (knowingly) obvious special effects. The ensemble cast. This is quintessential Anderson all the way. Arguably, it's also the most audience accessible film he's ever given us, with word of mouth helping to contribute to its impressive box office return. Overall though, it's just more fun than what you'd expect from Anderson. Set in a fictional European state in the the early 1930's we follow Ralph Fiennes as concierge Gustave in the aforementioned hotel, who finds himself framed for murder following his inheritance of one of his guests valuable paintings. As this is Anderson you'll be unsurprised to hear there's a lot more going on as well, but Gustave's storyline is the focal point and rightfully so. Fiennes is hilarious and gives one of his best turns for years, portraying Gustave as a proud man with an eye to detail and a loyalty to all those around him, but it's the moments of touching insecurity and cheerfully comic swearing that really add to the performance. On the aesthetic front Anderson's use of models and hand painted back drops is a nice compliment to the old fashioned setting. Throw in some surprising moments of gore and some laugh out loud one-liners and you start to wonder where this side of Anderson has been hiding. It's not all gravy though. The marketing has made use of its wide cast, but many actors (virtually all Anderson regulars) only pop up for 30 second (or less) cameos and, Gustave aside, there's virtually no characterisation anywhere else. Anderson also continues his unfortunate wont of including scenes where animals are harmed and the one here is drastically unfunny. In the end though the good outweighs the bad and you even get to see Willem Dafoe (as an enforcer) looking more like someone from the undead than he did in Shadow Of The Vampire. Rating: 7/10.

Robocop

...and so to the latest entry in the remake of violent 80's films dumbed down for today's cinema paying public. Everywhere you look in respect of this remake / relaunch of Robocop there are danger signs. The budget doubling from $60m to $120m. Delays in production. Darren Aronofsky (wisely) doing a runner. Arguments over the look of Robocop's get up and the tone (i.e. certificate) of the final product. Though perhaps the fact of who ended up in the lead role sums it all up; Crowe, Cruise, Depp, Fassbender were all considered. We've ended up with, er, Joel Kinnaman. Though he understandably towed the company line during marketing and press for the film, Brazilian director Jose Padilha has been widely reported as saying the making of the film was "hell", and the "worst experience of his life". Frankly I don't have much sympathy for Padilha (the film was already in a hell of a mess pre-production when he signed on) and both himself and the studio seem to have completely missed what made Paul Verhoeven's 1987 effort so memorable. For clarity the storyline isn't too different (in a crime-riddled Detroit of the future a cop is injured and a multinational corporation turns him into a part-man / part-robot crime fighting machine), but this is missing all the wit and satire that subtly counter balanced all the bloodshed of the original film. On the plus side, some of the nods to the first film find the mark (there's a neat reference in respect of buying something for a dollar) and Gary Oldman as the scientist / inventor behind Robocop gives a great performance that the film really doesn't deserve. Overall though there's nothing here to justify this remake and you're better off just re-watching the original or checking out Padilha's great Brazilian Elite Squad films instead. Rating: 4/10.

Her

Spike Jonze's name always appears to be everywhere and I had to double check that Her is actually only his fourth film as a director since his 1999 debut Bring John Malkovich. However in the intervening years (along with two other films as director) his polymathic tendencies have seen him writing, acting, producing and choreographing in various medium, so it's not a surprise to see he's on triple duties with Her as writer, producer and director. Set in 2025 (though the poster has Joaquin Phoenix looking like an 1970's F1 driver) the film follows Theodore Twombly (Phoenix), an introverted man who (loaded irony ahoy!) works for a company that writes heartfelt letters on behalf of other people. To help address his loneliness Twombly purchases a computer operating system with which he can interact on an emotional level. Before long however Twombly falls for "Samantha" (the tones belong to Scarlett Johansson) and Jonze's film explores whether or not humans and computers can ever really sustain an emotional (let along a physical) relationship. Acting wise this is great, with Phoenix perfectly capturing the temperament of someone experiencing love for the first time and then seemingly having it taken away, whilst Johansson's voice smoothly shifts from caring to cold in an instant (speaking of voices also look out for Jonze's himself as an amusingly sweary Alien in a computer game). Jonze spent well over a year in post editing sub plots, but the actual crux of the matter is still somewhat hit and miss. Though it does work in the fact we engage with the protagonists, Jonze's analysis of the situation (i.e. humans need to talk to each other more!) is hardly earth shattering news and the films ending is too conventional (and obvious) for what has transpired in the previous two hours. Even if you don't fully buy into the story, there is some superb cinematography to enjoy (2025 looks lovely, so good news people) and some nice wry moments to look out for on the social / aesthetic front, not least that in ten years time it appears the belt line of our trousers will be somewhere near our necks. Rating: 7/10.