Arrival

Science-fiction movies have become a lot different to what the genre is supposed to be about. Instead of asking philosophical questions about the nature of man, like we see in Forbidden Planet and 2001: A Space Odyssey, the genre has become another extension of the action genre with movies like Guardians of the Galaxy and Independence Day. Denis Villeneuve's latest movie, however, puts the sci-fi elements firmly in the backseat and focuses instead on the human involvement in an alien arrival on Earth.

The world plunges into chaos as twelve mysterious alien vessels land at various spots around the globe. While the public starts to question why they came and why the aliens haven't reached out, the militaries of the country that each vessel is in becomes proactive about looking for answers. Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is contacted by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) to lead the team that will attempt to speak to the aliens. With her to try and interpret the answers is theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner). Lurking in the background is CIA Agent Halpern (Michael Stuhlbarg), who seems to make his decisions based on what the Russian and Chinese forces are doing in regard to their alien vessels.

It is incredibly hard to talk about this film in broad brush strokes so as to not ruin the film, because so much of makes Arrival great is in its detail. The whole theme of language that runs throughout the film is pretty fantastic because it makes the point of how vital language is to our culture. This is something that we take for granted everyday and never stop to think how everything would fall apart without it. Even the way the film breaks down simple sentence structure really makes you think. And if what I just said makes you roll your eyes, then you probably weren't thinking that this movie was going to be a two hour linguistics class, which it kind of is. Because of this, the movie works at its own pace and isn't hurried along in the way that other movies feel the need to. There was one explosion, but I feel like this was included just because the studio said there should be one.

The other fantastic thing about this movie is that it has a female lead who isn't overshadowed by her male co-stars that seems to happen when a blockbuster has a female lead. The whole way through, Amy Adams commands the screen and she doesn't get shafted by the male characters thinking they know better. Another good turn that this movie does with her is around her recruitment to the mission. Sci-fi movies have the trope of the team of experts being chosen just because they happen to be lying around, but here Louise has to prove that she is the top person for the job. Adams performance is also one of the best I've seen her give. This isn't a spoiler, but the film begins with a whole montage of her raising her daughter and ultimately has to give her up because she dies from a rare disease. This montage lasts a total of two minutes and really lets you get a feel for who the character is through an amazing performance.

The writing did have a few dodgy areas that felt a bit jarring. Once the film gets going and the team starts to be able to communicate with the aliens, there is a montage showing them learning the language with a voice over about their language. Instead of having linguist Laura giving this monologue, it is Ian, the theoretical physicist doing it. It just felt like a weird logical point not to have the linguist character not talking about language. The was line where the on site doctor bluntly asked Louise if she was pregnant. This does have a point in the movie but it was delivered in a bit of a harsh way and takes you out of the film for just a second.

I'm going to give Arrival the top score for its originality and ability to distinguish itself for other films being released in the genre. Villeneuve is able to focus on the human element of the film which is something that so many alien movies are unable to do. The threat in the movie doesn't come from the other, but rather those we are familiar. Also it had a twist that ended up making me second guess myself.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I figured out while watching this movie that the story I really want to see is the love story between Thomas and Martha Wayne (Batman's parents) because maybe I'll actually feel some emotion after seeing them get shot for the thousandth time. But alas this isn't that movie. It's a movie about Superman, so let's get to it.

Set two years after the events of Man of Steel and America is still reeling after Superman (Henry Cavill) destroyed Metropolis City while trying to defeat General Zod. Several people are upset about this and none more so than billionaire Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck). As his crime fighting alter ego Batman, he is dedicated to find a way to show people that Supes is not the hero that everyone wants him to be. Meanwhile, Clark Kent is also trying to write a story showing that Batman is a reckless danger on Gotham City. Between the two dynamos is Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), who is plotting for each hero to bring down the other, all the while doing research in both metahumans (AKA future movie heroes) like Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) and finding a way to turn the people of the world against Superman.

As you can probably tell from that description, there's a lot going on in this movie. And that's a huge problem that is endemic to a lot of these superhero movies. The studios feel as though audiences are stupid and have to cram as much as possible in a single movie to sell movies that have not yet even been written. Batman v Superman has this in spades, introducing every future superhero in the DC Universe, even if it's only for two seconds at a time. These other hero cameos also just serve as a distraction that the film that you're currently watching isn't any good. This is because it is too full. The convoluted plot tries to fit in two introductions of new characters, although Batman really doesn't need any introduction, and Wonder Woman is really only introduced by maybe five lines of dialogue that doesn't give any insight at all to who she is or where she comes from. And in the middle of all this happening, we are treated to a lengthy and jarring dream sequences that diehard comic fans will be able to link to the Flashpoint storyline, but regular moviegoers might get lost with (if you're part of the latter group, maybe just take a squiz at that link). This really could have been chopped out to make a more streamline story.

The aesthetics of this movie are nothing we haven't seen before either. A lot of CGI smash on smashfest that is just moved to an abandoned part of Gotham because people got so up in arms about that happening in Man of Steel. Newsflash Zack Snyder, taking the people out of the equation won't change people's opinions on the wonton destruction of cities. Side note: while we're on Gotham City, did anyone else notice that it seemed really close to Metropolis, almost as if it were in the Greater Metropolis Area? Because you can definitely see the Bat-signal from Metropolis. Back to visuals now. Why was everything slowed down? I can get the need for some stylising of the fight sequences, but there's a whole slo-mo montage of Superman doing his super thing all around the world. I get that it's building dramatic tension, but this movie is way too dramatic for it's own good.

None of this movie's performances warrant anything to write about, but I will anyway because you know I'm that kind of guy. But because there's so many, I'll be brief about each. Henry Cavill could really instil some of his own real-life charm because Superman is too dark and brooding. On the flip side, Ben Affleck barely brooded at all, which is the only thing Batman is really good at. Up until the last five to ten minutes Gal Gadot was really only eye candy for male teenagers and then she became a badass with the only good musical theme in the whole movie. Jesse Eisenberg was over the top as a character who is supposed to be a restrained genius, not the Joker. Jeremy Irons was a very believable Alfred and the total opposite to Michael Caine, so I'm torn there. Laurence Fishburne was too wacky as Perry White this time round. Tao Okamoto, Callan Mulvey and Scoot McNairy weren't in it enough for my liking.

Five minutes into this movie, I found myself thinking, "This movie needs more Wes Bentley." If you're as confused by that sentence as I am, then allow me to explain. If a movie doesn't impress me in the first five minutes, I often think that only the appearance of Wes Bentley will make it better for me. Granted, it's not a thought I find myself with often, but this was definitely one of them. The lack of Wes and the frustrating slowness of Batman v Superman left me sadder than Ben Affleck. Nawww, poor Ben, won't you let us know what's going through that head?

Big Eyes

"Espresso, what's that, like reefer?"

Tim Burton's signature gothic, often fantastical style has never particularly appealed to me. I haven't been sold by his reimagining of classic films, which in itself goes against my opinion on adaptations. However it's difficult not to appreciate some of his classics, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Big Fish etc. His latest film Big Eyes, a biopic about artist Margaret Keane, does away with many of the Burtonesque themes, with a cheerful opening act that thinly veils a story of duplicity and suppression.

In the mid-1950s, Margaret Ulbrich (Amy Adams) runs away from her husband, taking her daughter Jane (Delaney Raye) and her paintings with her to San Francisco. Her work is unlike any other, often portraying young children with over sized eyes. Whilst selling her paintings for loose change at an outdoor market, she meets Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz), a fellow artist, who takes great interest in her work. The two hit it off, getting married shortly after. Walter helps Margaret get her art recognised, although he starts to take credit for it, believing that nobody would be interested in paintings from female artists. Soon the Keane 'big eyes' paintings grow into an empire, but the real artist is being hidden from the world. 

Whilst Big Eyes has a completely different style to most of Burton's other films, he doesn't hold back from injecting stylistic choices all over the place. For instance, there are sections of the film that are shown on a TV, and these appear to have been shot with a fish-eye lens, not only to mimic the curved front of CRT televisions but also to draw the centre of the screen closer to the audience in quite a confronting way. There are other sections that seem very heavy-handed, almost hitting the wrong points in the overall narrative arc and becoming overly emotional. But all those points aside, Big Eyes presents a captivating story that's augmented with skillful portrayals.

Amy Adams is a tremendous actor who's played some great roles in recent years, and yet again here she breathes life into her character. Over the course of the film she's liberated, then suppressed, hesitant, angry, then empowered. It's a great representation of her range as an actor, and of the troubles that Margaret had to deal with. Danny Huston narrates and plays a journalist but doesn't really do much for the story, and Jon Polito looks the same now as he did in Miami Vice back in the 80s. Krysten Ritter, Jason Schwartzman and Terence Stamp add to what is already a very strong cast.

The many faces of Walter are perfectly articulated by Waltz, and his performance defines Big Eyes for me. One minute he's charming his way up the social ladder, the next he's explaining to Margaret just why her work is actually his. It may be over-the-top but it's a lively performance, which is what I always love about Waltz. Walter is more than just a liar though, his personality is fragmented. To some degree it's as if he actually believes that he painted the big eyes. Waltz grins his way through the film yet the inner complexities and deceptions that define his character radiate so obviously to the viewer that it's agonising to see how effective his dishonesty is. The dramatic irony leaves the viewer on an excruciating precipice, waiting for Margaret to reveal the secret to the world, to break free. It's here that Big Eyes is the most effective.

This isn't Burton's greatest accomplishment, and probably won't appeal as much to his hardcore fan base, but I'm glad that Margaret Keane's story got put onto the big screen, even if it is a little Hollywood. Adams and Waltz are fantastic.

Her

I find Spike Jonze to be an amazing conundrum. He can go from directing Academy award winning films (Adaptation) to hanging out with the guys from Jackass (in the movies, he is the old naked lady), which he is one of the creators. Despite the fact that he confuses me, his work has never failed to entertain me. Her is another example of this.

Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) works as a surrogate letter writer, who is picking up his life after splitting from his wife Catherine (Rooney Mara). He decides to purchase a new operating system (a personal assistant in the form of an artificial intelligence). Once he starts it up, it takes on the persona of Samantha (the voice of Scarlett Johansson). Samantha and Theodore begin a relationship, that he is reluctant to tell his friends about, especially his best friend Amy (Amy Adams).

The film takes a very interesting look at the state of modern relationships. Theodore goes on dates with girls and realises that he doesn't want anything serious and is just after sex. Most guys these days are after just that. Once he begins his relationship with Samantha, things become increasingly complicated.

The other theme that is touched on is the idea of the singularity. The singularity is the point in time in which artificial intelligence surpasses that of human intelligence. But rather than portray it as a scary concept like in Terminator, it is seen as a rather peaceful passing.

Indeed, the near future that is shown is not a flashy future with obvious technology changes, but is subtle and efficient. The most glaringly obvious change is the fashion, with ridiculously high-waisted pants and high collared shirts.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore convincingly enough that you believe his relationship with Samantha is real. Also, Scarlett Johansson is amazing as Samantha, playing her with a subtlety that doesn't draw attention to her performance. Amy Adams is fantastic as Theodore's closest friend.

Verdict: Jonze crafts an amazing story about love in a future that is believable.

Man of Steel

Did you ever wonder who pays for the reconstruction of a city after superbeings have destroyed it? Have you ever wondered why people don't recognise Clark Kent as Superman with glasses? If you answered no to both of those questions, then Man of Steel is the movie for you.

After a lengthy sequence on the world of Krypton, Jor-El (Russell Crowe), a scientist, sends his firstborn child (and first naturally born child of Krypton in a thousand years) away in a spaceship due to the imminent destruction of his home planet. Meanwhile, leader of a military coup, General Zod (Michael Shannon) fails to obtain a codex containing the DNA structure and ends up getting banished to The Phantom Zone (a type of black hole).

Thirty-three years later on Earth, Kal-El (Henry Cavill), after being brought up as Clark Kent in a small town in Kansas (never referred to as Smallville in this movie), is a drifter, floating from job to job, saving people where necessary. When he hears about a possible discovery of an alien spaceship in Canada, Kent travels there and finds the ship, resurrects his father's consciousness with a key and learns about his origins.

In doing so, Kent alerts Zod, who has been searching for Kent/Kal-El, bringing him to Earth. Zod realises that Earth is a prime location for beginning a new Krypton, thus dooming this film to the Superman curse of all these films being about real estate (seriously, look it up, every superman film has a plot or subplot about real estate).

Although the plot of this film is weak, both the superb acting and striking visuals and action sequences redeem the film. Henry Cavill (The Tudors) brings a depth to Superman that was missing in Brandon Routh's hollow performance. He has a certain charm that I believe Superman should possess and there is a true chemistry between him and his Earth parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Amy Adams (Doubt) is the perfect choice for Lois Lane. She is believable enough to play such a strong and independent reporter to Lawrence Fishburne's Perry White.

I found Michael Shannon's (Revolutionary Road) performance as General Zod to be good, although at times I felt his character was annoying, especially at his most persistent moments. On the other hand, Russell Crowe was fantastic at playing a role made famous by Marlon Brando. His gruff Aussie accent was not out of place as the Kryptonian accent was all over the place.

Zack Snyder (director of Watchmen, 300) is great at comic book adaptions and here he does another fantastic job, especially with the backing of Christopher Nolan, fresh of the back of his Dark Knight trilogy.

The action in this movie, especially the fighting scenes between Kent and the other Kryptonians, was believable and enjoyable to watch, although as I mentioned before, someone is going to pay a lot of cash to rebuild Metropolis.

Verdict: An all in all enjoyable movie to watch despite some weak points. I look forward to see what Warner Bros is going to do with the other DC characters ahead of an Avengers-style JLA movie.