Noah

So Russell Crowe is portraying a historical figure who, at one point in this film, wields a knife and marches menacingly towards a young girl holding a new born child with the intention of a bit of baby killing. The character in question? Genghis Khan, perhaps? No, it’s Noah. You may have already guessed that Darren Aronofsky’s latest film isn’t quite as a straight forward telling of one of the Bibles signature moments as you might expect. Having said that, the tale of Noah needs some fleshing out if you’re going to make it into a full length feature film (the actual story itself takes up a surprisingly small amount of space within the Bible and omits such details as Noah’s wife’s name), though you can’t help but chuckle that Paramount were having to put disclaimers in cinemas stating that “artistic license has been taken”. License or not, this is a pretty awful film. Christian groups may have welcomed the film and it’s message, but that’s a different factor than the actual quality on show for a paying audience. In effect this is Aronofsky’s interpretation of Noah and he can't be faulted in some areas. The look of the ark is surprisingly unconventional compared to it's usual standard depictions and you can't deny that Aronofsky and Crowe make their assessment of Noah, as a bloody-minded stubborn man who will let nothing get in his way of worship and the job he believes he must do, extremely convincing. The rest is complete gubbins though, highlighted by "The Watchers". Ah yes, The Watchers. They are explained away as "fallen angels" and in the film they are represented as gigantic stone golems who help build the ark and, in scenes where you may suspect Michael Bay has made a guest appearance, protect (and kill) anyone trying to rush the ark. They are utterly ludicrous and it's hardly surprising that they were not shown at all in the trailer. The fact that Aronofsky and Paramount argued over the final cut tells you all you need to know really, though I bet the suits were wishing they could have cut all of Emma Watson's scenes. She is dire and whenever she appears on screen you want one of the (very unconvincing) CGI animals to gobble her up as a snack. What could have been a biblical epic is just cinematic incomprehensible rubbish. The novelist Fay Weldon was once asked why she kept writing books. She replied: “To make amends for the last one.” Better start your new project soon, Darren. Rating: 4/10.

Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes

Virtually nothing was expected of 2011's Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, so the fact it turned out to be one of the best films of the last few years was a joyous surprise both for the cinema goer and, crucially for their planned reboot of the Apes series, 20th Century Fox. Therefore, we now have the follow up film. The problem is though that expectations have been raised and new director Matt Reeves (following on from the impressive Rupert Wyatt) can't deliver a product which lives up to the previous outing. Storyline wise we're now ten years on from the previous film and, following a world wide pandemic which has annihilated the human population, we explore the interactions between a number of human survivors and the disease free apes. After a nice start showing the apes hunting some prey, the films pace slows to a crawl and never recovers. The first hour is basically spent telling the audience that apes have feelings too which, for those that know their evolution (i.e. anyone with a brain) is hardly a shocking revelation. With far too much time spent on dialogue the set pieces need to deliver and, surprisingly for Reeves who has decent form in this area, he can't produce the required goods. In fact the set pieces are a good marker to use when describing all aspects of the film: passable, but Rise did it better. For example, whereas in the last film the sight of Caesar emerging from the San Franciscan fog atop a horse was a truly breathtaking moment, the equivalent scene here of a ape charging into battle sitting on a steed whilst firing two machine guns just looks ludicrously silly. On the plus side there are a couple of scenes of impressive tension (with the now somewhat already infamous moment of a when an ape murders a couple of humans a nice draft of how to build up tension in a scene where it's already implicit what the end result is going to be), but they are few and far between. Script wise this lacks the emotional impact that the last film had between Caesar and his human "family" and there's a lack of a strong female character. Overall, when watching this it feels like there's a film in between Rise and Dawn that they just forgot to make or that we're actually just picking up the story on disc five of a ten disc DVD box set. The film ends on a mesmerising and menacing close up shot of Caesar's baby blues as he contemplates what the future holds but, as with the original franchise, it looks like this storyline has run its course already. Rating: 5/10.

The Raid 2

Gareth Evans didn't pay much attention to plot or character development in his surprise 2011 hit The Raid. It was mainly all about lashings of claret and some of the most bonkers action scenes seen since John Woo was in his prime. For this follow up Evans has a much broader canvas on which to paint his violent masterpieces, but the film gets stuck between telling a fuller story and Evans trying to throw in as many outrageous moments as he can. This sequel starts off but a few hours following the end of the last film, but the uninitiated will be able to pick up what’s going on as this is basically an undercover cop in the criminal underworld type deal. This is a frustrating film from Evans. At times he’s a skilled operator behind the camera (some of his swooping tracking shots are reminiscent of Wells and Scorsese) and whist the sub-plots of feuding between gangs and family’s are old hat in gangster films, the script has enough to distract you from the over the top action. To that action then; this is where the film (unless you’re a card-carrying genre fan) falls down. Despite some great moments fight fatigue sets in well before the end and it’s all a bit silly in parts (a scene of hammer mayhem on a train is where the film comes dangerously close to parody). Plus it’s hard for Evans to deny this isn’t just violence for violence’s sake, especially an infamous shotgun head shot that is shown in such hideous detail it’s really only gone in for shock value. Throw in other negatives like Iko Uwais’ performance (he can certainly kick bottom, but his thesping leaves a lot to be desired) and odd plot devices like the one involving a bug which is so huge it wouldn’t look out of place in a 1960’s episode of Mission: Impossible, you’ll begin to wonder if these films are getting better critical plaudits than they actually deserve. Still, if you like films that involve scenes of bloody murder involving characters called such things as “Hammer Girl” and “Baseball Bat Man”, then step right this way. Rating: 6/10.

Calvary

After the fantastic The Guard, John Michael McDonagh’s follow up has been eagerly anticipated. Be warned though that Calvary is a change in style and tone from his directorial debut that may leave some disappointed. Teaming up again with Brendan Gleeson, we kick off with a verbal assault on the ears as during a confessional an unseen parishioner explains to Father Lavelle (Gleeson) that he was sexually abused by a priest when he was child and that he will take revenge on the Catholic Church by killing Lavelle the following Sunday. Lavelle pretty much takes the threat in his stride and the film follows him as he goes about his business for the week, mixing and speaking to a number of eclectic people that are resident in the town. Gleeson is great as always, but the film gets a bit lost in its addressing of it’s weighty issues. McDonagh has said he made this film as he wanted to tell the story of a “good” priest, which in effect he has done, but the constant church bashing gets tiresome, highlighted by a forced scene where a father “protects” his lost daughter from the kindly Lavelle. It’s more dramatic than funny (though the occasion moments do produce some hearty guffaws), but the storyline doesn’t hook you like it should due to the slow pacing and a cast of mainly unlikable characters. McDonagh has a way with a script though and the films conclusion will certainly play on your emotions. Throw is some beautiful cinematography and the end result is an above average production overall but, unlike The Guard, this is unlikely to warrant further viewings. On that note it’s rumoured that McDonagh is teaming up with Gleeson for a third time for a film where Gleeson will play a paraplegic ex-copper who hates able-bodied people. Now that sounds a bit more like it…..Rating: 7/10.

Locke

I read a hilarious review of Locke just after I had seen it in which the person was complaining that 50% of the film is taken up with discussions about concrete. Frankly, they're not too far wrong. To explain further, the film follows construction manager Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) as he attempts to supervise a large concrete pour planned for the next day. Now, when I say follows, this is the crux of the matter, as Steven Knight's film takes place entirely inside Locke's car. It's hardly a revelatory approach and there's that famous film quote (well the quote that isn't the one about the gun and the girl) which says that all you need to produce a film is a camera, a light and an actor. Knight is most well known for being the co-creator of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, though he has also written many a screenplay as well as having one previous film (the little seen Hummingbird) as director under his belt. Knight's script (plus Hardy's solid performance - not sure about the Welsh accent mind) just about keeps this on the right side of entertaining, with Locke taking numerous phone calls as both his personal and professional lives unravel. On that note, Knight gives even screen time to each of Locke's problems, but his domestic issues hardly set the film alight (not helped by them all being Locke's own fault). More fun is had with his manic attempts to organise the concrete pour, especially his comic conversations with colleague Donal (Andrew Scott). On that note you can have fun trying to decipher the actors voices popping up on the hands free as the film progresses (Scott sounded so much like Chris O'Dowd I had to do a double take when the end credits came up). Apart from that there isn't much else here to hold the attention and even with a short running time this feels like it's outstaying its welcome well before the end. However, if you fancy seeing something different then give this a chance - Blockbuster fans need not apply. Rating: 6/10.

The Double

For his directorial debut Richard Ayoade adapted Joe Dunthorne’s Submarine with critical success. For his follow up feature he’s also turned to a literary source, that of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Double. Dostoyevsky’s work splits people who read it and there’s no real agreed analysis as to what the final interpretation should be. Though Ayoade’s film doesn’t actually stick all that closely to it’s source material, I think the diagnosis will be the same i.e. enjoyably confusing, but somewhat ruined by its ambiguity. Due to the success of Submarine, Ayoade has a stronger cast to play with here with Jesse Eisenberg and Mia Wasikowska taking the lead roles. Well, I say “leads”, but it’s Eisenberg who does most of the heavy lifting. We follow Simon James (Eisenberg), a sad sack employee in a nameless and soulless organisation, who’s duty of going to visit his frail mother and from-a-distance yearning for his colleague Hannah (Wasikowska) the only things lifting him out of his drones existence. Soon enough though things take a turn for the bizarre when a doppelganger of James (called James Simon – also played by Eisenberg) shows up at his place of work and becomes everything James is not, i.e. a hit with colleagues and, much to James’ chagrin, Hannah. Where it goes from there would be too spoiler-rific, but this is one of those classic productions where the good and minus points pretty much even themselves out and you’re left with something that is good as opposed to great. Eisenberg clearly has fun playing both parts and there are amusing cameos from a number of people, not least Sally Hawkins in a blink and miss it role at a party and (rejoice!) the lesser spotted Chris Morris as a member of personnel with a Catch 22 approach to giving someone a new ID card. Script wise things don’t really click mind (the constant references to the red tape and bureaucracy that hold James back wear thin), not helped by James being so wet you just think he deserves all he gets when Simon start to exploit him. Things are better on the aesthetics side of things and James’ place of work is nicely realised with a set design that is a bland and dreary Kafka-esque nightmare, though some may find it a rip off of Brazil. Ayoade is already known as being somewhat of a cineaste when it comes to being behind the camera and he does some nice work here, including a great Hitchcockian moment when James, whilst spying on Hannah through a telescope, spots a man on a ledge who waves at him and then promptly jumps off. Overall: Enjoyable, but a backwards step for Ayoade from Submarine. Rating: 6/10.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier / The Amazing Spider-Man 2 / X-Men: Days of Future Past

I’m bunging these latest Marvel films (stop yawning at the back) together as its the perfect opportunity to make an overall comment on the films that make the big bucks these days and their, in the main, lack of quality. I read a great article recently comparing the box office hits of 1984 with what we have this year. The roll call for 1984 is barely believable: Gremlins, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom, Beverley Hills Cop, The Karate Kid, Romancing The Stone, The Neverending Story, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Terminator. Now granted not all those films are bona fide classics or appeal to everyone, but there's a wide mixture of genres in there and how many households worldwide don't have a least a couple of them resting on their DVD shelves? Now compare that list to three of the top five films (in terms of box-office returns) so far this year: X-Men: Days of Future Past, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. In effect, just further churning out of the same old same old, with only the law of averages meaning every now and then we get a great film. The usual defence is that if these films really were so bad people wouldn’t go and see them, but for a long time now (Hello, Michael Bay) the connection between quality and returns is a fractured and unquantifiable one. I won’t deny that part of my moan comes about as a generational thing, but even the staunchest comic book fan would be hard pressed in keeping a straight face in claiming that any of these films are ones for the annals. Lets start with the best of these three, that being the return of Chris Evans as Steve Rogers in the somewhat grammatically misleading (what the film and you’ll understand) Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Director’s Anthony and Joe Russo’s last film was, ahem, You, Me and Dupree so I can only assume they got the gig here as the production was running short on coin. However, this is a fine effort, especially when you consider that the plot itself is as old as they come (there’s a spy in the ranks, but people believe it to be Capt himself). There’s a sleekness to their direction and many of the set pieces are short and sharp, plus we get arguably the funniest Stan Lee cameo yet. Producer Kevin Feige’s talk that this is modelled on classic 1970’s political thrillers doesn’t hold true though (despite casting Robert Redford!) and the talk of practical effects over CGI has to be taken with a serious pinch of salt. However, the little touches just about see this one home, especially in the form of the “Catch-Up” list that Cap refers to at the start of the film. Depending on what territory and country you’re watching in, the list varies to reflect the culture of the area. Hmm, if it’s not included as one of the DVD extra’s, I can already see geeks worldwide trying to get their hands on all the different versions in order to complete their Marvel collections. Moving on to The Amazing Spider-Man 2, being the sequel to an unamazing film to start with. this didn’t have to do much to be an improvement on its predecessor. It’s a shame then that despite a step up in quality, they really haven’t done much to get there. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone put in the requisite effort so hats off to them, but the rest of the film is mainly a large blur of effects and the film suffers from what was eventually Sam Raimi’s undoing with its introduction of character after character. The narrative can’t cope and we move from different storyline to different storyline with no real structure underpinning the whole thing. Keeping in line with it’s lighter approach than other’s within the Marvel stable there are a few nice one-liners, but it’s unclear from the rest of the cast (Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti, Dane DeHann – who appears to be getting typecast as a nutter for hire early on in his career) whether they should be knowingly hamming it up or not. It’s all too one dimensional and sluggish, summed up by the Stan Lee cameo which appears to have been thought up in a thirty second brainstorm in a break between filming. It’s odd then that the film finishes with such an emotional and weighty gut-punch. Even with this surprising development, it doesn’t alter the impression that the film makers are just happy to settle on what’s tried and trusted box office wise, rather than putting effort into giving us something different. Such accusations of laziness also hold true against X-Men: Days of Future Past. Nice title aside, this brings little originality to the party and comes across as a quasi-“X-Men: The Greatest Hits”. The main problem the film has is that it’s time travel premise is old hat and all the stock scenes are here (i.e. the time-traveller waking up in a strange place; having to convince the person that sent him through time that it was them that sent them etc.) that you would expect to find in films that have a similar concept. Director Bryan Singer apparently spent ages revising time travel and related japery such as string theory, but has somewhat missed the point that it’s all (currently, for you facetious types out there) a load of balls anyway. X-Men: First Class was surprisingly enjoyable for such a late entry in a film series, with the “re-boot” in the form of the new actors involved being the main reason. Here though it appears the well of ideas has quickly run dry, highlighted by the fact the film can’t find a balance between the “old” and “new” X-Men. Throw in the fact there’s no real villain and bizarre scripting decisions (at one point we’re introduced to a mutant who has such super fast speed he seems to be the saviour of all problems, but he suddenly disappears from the film for no apparent reason) and you can see why original director Matthew Vaughn did a runner early on. So, going back to my original discussion, will any of these films have the longevity of 1984’s crop and will we be watching any of them in 2044? I’d say about as much chance as me sitting through the end credits of any of these films to catch any additional scenes. America Rating: 7/10. Spidey Rating: 5/10. X-Men Rating: 5/10.