The Legend of Tarzan

Before I watched this movie, I had myself thinking that I had never seen a Tarzan movie. But then I remembered Disney's Tarzan and it's TV spinoff, the parody George of the Jungle, the comedy Jungle 2 Jungle and even listened to Baltimora's 1985 hit Tarzan Boy (here's a fun challenge, give that one a listen while you read this). But all of those had a fairly upbeat tone to them. How does the one hundred year old character hold up in this era of gritty reboots? Not as well as it should have.

In 1890, Belgian envoy Léon Rom (Christoph Waltz) has been sent to the Congo in an attempt to make some money for the bankrupt king. He comes across Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou), who promises him a lot of diamonds in exchange for the jungle man Tarzan, who killed his son. In England, Tarzan is reformed as Lord Greystoke (Alexander Skårsgard) and has received an invitation to return to the Congo to tour for some publicity. He is initially hesitant to visit, but American spy George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson) convinces him to go after hearing rumours of slavery taking place. Tarzan's wife Jane (Margot Robbie) also tags along, but this ends up being a mistake after she is kidnapped by Rom. Of course Tarzan is there to the rescue.

Tarzan suffers from some pretty bland plot problems. After a really interesting hint at some politics and great introduction to Léon Rom, the film just kicks into regular action/adventure tropes that follows perfectly in line with, well, the legend of Tarzan. And while it's not the generic discovery of Tarzan, the return of Tarzan isn't much more interesting. Another thing I found very distracting was the behaviours of some of the animals. Everyone knows that gorillas don't swing from vines and I thought it was really stupid that Tarzan would learn this from them. I would be fine with him developing this technique on his own. There is a heavily proliferation of CGI animals at work here and while it's not as bad as The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, we really don't need a cameo from a group of poorly rendered elephants.

The characterisation is at least good. Tarzan is introduced with a shot of disfigured knuckles, a remnant of running around on all fours and although Skårsgard's accent is a bit shaky, his diet of raw eggs and whiskey is something we should all aspire to (take that Rocky). Margot Robbie's Jane offers a lot more than a damsel who's nice to look at. She works well in a sticky situation and her relationship with the African tribes proves invaluable. While I said that Christoph Waltz had an intriguing intro, he ends up being a bit of a generic villain, a thing that he has become lately. Of course, Samuel L. Jackson is there to be the good sidekick as always.

While The Legend of Tarzan promised to give us a different look at the famous jungle man, it ends up being the same old story, with all the elements of his adventure we've come to expect. The only thing missing was his chimpanzee buddy Cheeta.

Jack's Thoughts - Spectre

I am not going to lie about how much of a shameless James Bond fan I am. Well at least I used to be, until this latest installment Spectre absolutely killed any enjoyment I once had of the classic series of films. Now while not every film has been great, this Daniel Craig film has hit a new low, with more attention paid to fan service than actually trying to make a good movie.

Bond starts out in Mexico, investigating an Italian crime boss who he was directed to by the former M (Judi Dench) in a video message she recorded before her death. This leads him on a journey to uncover a secretive criminal executive named SPECTRE, led by his older foster brother Franz Oberhauser (Cristoph Waltz). Meanwhile, the current M (Ralph Fiennes) is facing pressure from a committee set up by C (Andrew Scott) which is proposing a new surveillance program that would make the 00 Section redundant.

I think what has hurt the last couple of Bond movies the most is this need to make them a continuation of the films that came before. The end of Skyfall seemed so clear cut as though EON Productions were saying that we're going to start afresh and give you a new standalone adventure. But that isn't the case at all. So much assumed knowledge is needed from the previous films it's laughable. Gone are the days of simply enjoying a wacky adventure with a man in a tuxedo. Now you actually have to work when you watch this movie. Top that off with a shitty plot that had me squirming with discomfort and a final revelation that was so obvious that I was actually saying the dialogue in synchronisation with the characters.

I was shocked to learn that this film cost $350 million dollars, but then again I can see where it all went. Maybe spending millions on 10 exclusive Aston Martin cars that will never be available to the public, one of which you destroy completely is not such a great idea. Or maybe spending a lot more on an explosion that will get you into the Guiness Book of Records and not at all add to the enjoyment of your film is an equally bad idea. There is way too much action in this movie. I understand that it's trying to say something about mass surveillance, but I feel as though it's coming a little late to the party.

The film is lacking lots of things, but one I noticed above all else was the lack of sauveness. Bond is a partygoer and the definition of cool, but none of his actions in the movie indicate that. I mean you can still wear a suit and not do cool things, just look at Dave Bautista's Mr Hinx (full disclosure, his fight with Bond on a train was probably the only thing I liked about this film.

I was confused with the choice of cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema to make the colour palatte of this film a dull brown. His previous work on films like Her and Interstellar had been so vibrant, but here it matched Daniel Craig's enthusiasm to play Bond. And speaking of that, he just brought the whole movie down. Toward the end I was hoping that they'd just kill him and put us all out of our misery.

Look how much he hates your enjoyment

Look I'm going to go so far as to say I hated this movie and it's the worse Bond film since Die Another Day. In fact it's much worse. I can at least sit through that film.

Spectre

In the beautiful secrecy of Rome at night James Bond arrives at a secret meeting. Uninvited he smirks his way past the guards in Craig's now signature brutish fashion. As he arrives in the upper gallery viewing deck of this clandestine conglomerate, he makes his way through the witnesses looking down at a vast hall wherein an international assortment of organised crime discusses business. The lighting is low and reflective of the power and secrecy of this event, the sound echoes in the cavernous gloom as Bond stalks silently between faces cloaked in darkness. Suddenly the arrival of a shadowy man in the meeting creates a palpable atmosphere of fear within the cavernous hall. Within minutes a man is killed and no one moves a muscles. The recent arrival. surely the head of this cabal speaks into the microphone. Bond is enamoured, captivated by this man and his power. The man makes a public address to everyone in the room but it seems he has one particular person as his intended audience. "Welcome, James. What took you so long?" The man turns and looks up into the gallery, make direct and immediate eye contact with Bond. The light captures his face, Bond knows this man.

With 2012's Skyfall director Sam Mendes furthered the modern Bond revival with it's stylish action and settings, breath-taking cinematography, retro-appeal and personal storyline. But with Spectre, all the goodwill of Skyfall seems to be slowly bleeding out of a film that too doggedly holds onto contemporary blockbuster ideas on stakes and motivation, and classic Bond nostalgia. The effect being a mixed bag of the good, the bad and the ugly of Bond. Spectre begins with a lovely but needlessly showy (seemingly) single-take shot in Mexico City during Day of the Dead with Bond on the trail of a bad guy. After the event naturally ends in a helicopter fist-fight metres above the streets of Mexico City and Bond killing his target he's left with naught but a strange silver ring whose only distinction is a black octopus engraving. It turns out Bond has gone somewhat rouge after receiving a tape from the now deceased Judy Dence M and without approval from the new M (Ralph Fiennes) goes in search of the men who sent Skyfall's villain Raoul Silva, which turns out to be the eponymous committee. Along the way Bond is surreptitiously joined by Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Q (Ben Whishaw) and Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux), a woman with an mysterious link to the organisation and a prime target for them.

Spectre is a lovely film for the most part, fulfilling in all the necessary requirements for a Bond film, beautiful women, beautiful cars, seduction, varied scenery, vodka martini's. secret bases, ridiculous fun action and villains, villains, villains galore. But the whole way through the film just feels off. Motivations are lacking, plot-holes are apparent and a general sense of dualism is present, the film is never sure if it should be a throwback or re-invent the wheel and is seemingly stuck between the two points. In spite of the brilliant and armour-cracking portrayal of the aging, bitter Bond during Skyfall and the surely tragic death of M, Craig has perfected the formula for his Bond in this film. He's strong, silent, smarmy, apparently suave and frankly brutish, and in possibly the most satirical take on Bond's persona after killing an Italian bad guy in Mexico, he goes to the man's funeral, meets his wife, saves her from assassination, fucks her on the night of her husbands funeral and she is gotten by the next scene. It's enough to make even the most casual Bond fan ache for the bravery to return to a campy Bond with torturous puns.

Though the film is surely competent and interesting enough it's the bad that draws the attention after the objectively enjoyed Casino Royale and Skyfall, and (perhaps over-criticised Quantum of Solace). The reveal of Bond's connections to arch-villain Oberhauser are lazy as they are stupid (SPOILER ALERT), Oberhauser's plan is needless, and the whole thing smacks of prequel-level writing in the need to bring things to a certain point. Madeline Swann is one of the most disappointing Bond women in a good while and the romance between her an Bond is nothing short of tacky, there is absolutely no reason these people should be together whatsoever. Finally, the finale is derivative, lazy, blockbuster trash, with a few genuinely interesting moments, but hampered by senselessness and carelessness. Overall, Spectre is a hot mess, when it does well, it can be lovely, but overall it's just an unpleasant odour that lasts for two-and-a-half hours. While not bad, it's certainly a film that will become less appealing the more one applies thought and time to it.

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.

Horrible Bosses 2

The original Horrible Bosses was an enjoyable film with a great cast, but apart from perhaps 22 Jump Street, comedy sequels don't tend to have a great track record. Inevitably, Horrible Bosses 2 has come along, this time under the direction of Sean Anders. Is it a film destined to be a classic? Or is it likely to be as graceful as a plane crash? Let's check it out.

After the events of the first film, Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) and Dale (Charlie Day) decide to form their own business, centred around their invention, the shower buddy. The company, erroneously named 'Nick-Kurt-Dale' (say it quickly for the first racist joke of the film), are approached by Rex (Chris Pine) and his father, Burt Hansen (Christoph Waltz), the owner of a large retail chain. After Burt stabs them in the back, the trio decide that their best course of action is to kidnap Rex and ask for a ransom.

After that plan typically fails, they find themselves partnered up with Rex, who also has a motive for getting the ransom from his father. They brainstorm an outlandish kidnapping plan that sets in motion the rest of the events of the film. Along the way, several characters from the original are reunited with the trio, including the now incarcerated 'horrible boss', David Harken (Kevin Spacey), the sex addict dentist, Julia (Jennifer Aniston) and Dean "Motherf*cker" Jones (Jamie Foxx), in a sequel that seems incapable of differentiating itself from many other comedies of recent years.

Similar to the first, almost all of the jokes in Horrible Bosses 2 are incredibly crude. Be it sex, masturbation, 'toilet humour', or just swearing for giggles, they generally lack taste. There's something quite charming enjoyable about that sort of humour, but the problem in this case is that the jokes seem so tired that they're really quite hit and miss. 

Though the wit can be somewhat forgiven thanks to the incredible follow-up cast. The returning trio seem to have lost none of the chemistry from the original and many of the returning cast members, including Aniston & Foxx are just as fantastic as in the first. As for Kevin Spacey, well, his two short appearances are the best scenes in the film. New to the series are Chris Pine and Jonathan Banks, both putting in great performances, the latter holding the same hilarious gravitas as he did as Mike in Breaking Bad. The only slight disappointment (mainly due to script) was Christoph Waltz, who's character doesn't really get many jokes so ends up being a bland placeholder in the overall plot.

The heist-like kidnapping scenes make for some fantastic sequences from cinematographer Julio Macat (Home Alone, Wedding Crashers) which really do elevate the entertainment value of the film. With fast paced tracking shots, car chases and some cool edits, they bring more to the series than the first, which was visually, a straight-forward comedy. 

Horrible Bosses 2 has an incredibly strong cast and is visually quite compelling. It's full of hilarious moments that are dark and crude in a similar fashion to the first, but unfortunately there are many, many other moments which are in bad-taste and are too overused to amuse.

The New James Bond Movie has been announced!

Some very exciting news has just been announced. Director of Skyfall Sam Mendes made the announcement on Thursday from Pinewood Studios (the home of James Bond) that the new Bond movie will be called Spectre.

Fans of the Bond series will instantly recognise what this title alludes to. SPECTRE (standing for Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) was the organisation that Bond was a constant foil to in the early movies, especially the Connery years. This organisation was headed by the ever-changing and mysterious Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Before you get excited thinking that we are seeing the return of Blofeld, it has been announced also that Christoph Waltz will play the villain Oberhauser, the son of the late Hans Oberhauser, a man who acted as a father figure for Bond. This sounds like a whole bunch of misdirection to me. Remember when they said that Benedict Cumberbatch WASN'T playing Khan Noonien Singh in Star Trek Into Darkness.

In addition to Waltz, the new cast members will include Lea Seydoux, Dave Bautista, Monica Bellucci and Andrew Scott. Returning from Skyfall are Ralph Fiennes as M, Ben Whishaw as Q, Naomie Harris as Miss Moneypenny and Rory Kinnear as Tanner. All more I can say is that we here at the blog are more excited than we have ever been.

Django Unchained

I remember on my first day of film school, one of my teachers asked me what I wanted to be in the
industry. When I replied that I wanted to be a director, he preceded to ask me who was my favourite. I said Tarantino, because like most young filmmakers my age, he was one of the people who inspired me to get into film. He then started to mock me for being inspired by a man who was incapable of being original and someone who stole scenes from other films. In my own naive way I thought this to be true, but as I saw more and more films by other directors I realised that everyone makes homages to their favourite films and filmmakers. But it isn't until now that I feel fully vindicated. Of course after my dressing down in front of the class, my newfound friends all told me they liked Tarantino as well. So, the reason for my vindication, you might ask, is Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained. And that is because this movie is a movie that covers such a controversial, heart wrenching topic that affects the majority of the population of the US.

The movie follows the story of the titular Django (Jamie Foxx), who is sought out by the cunning bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) to help in discover the whereabouts of three of his targets, in return Django will earn his freedom. As they move on and Dr. Schultz trains Django as his protege and they embark on numerous bounties, we find out that Django's wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), was sold to someone different to Django as punishment for running away. Dr. Schultz agrees to help Django find his bride. She is being held at Candyland and her master is the downright evil Calvin Candie (Leo DiCaprio), a francophile who doesn't speak a word of French. Dr. Schultz and Django concoct a master plan to get Broomhilda to safety and the film ends in classic Tarantino style (going into any further depth on the plot would just be unfair).

Tarantino has said that there is something for everyone to hate in this film and I have never heard a truer statement. Whether it be the stylised but gratuitous violence, the overuse of one of the worst racial slurs one can utter (although in the context of 1858, that overuse is understandable) or the graphic depiction of the punishment of slaves (which is the one that wrenched at me) there really is something for everyone to wince at.

Also there is not a single weak performance in this movie. Everyone is exemplary. Jamie Foxx should win an award, any award for his performance. Django is a sympathetic character who you hope everything comes good for. I haven't seen Christoph Waltz in anything since his depiction of sadistic SS Colonel Hans Landa in Tarantino's previous effort Inglorious Basterds. Dr. King Schultz couldn't be further away from Landa. Even though he is in effect a glorified assassin, he is still a friendly and affable character, that's of course if you're not one of his targets. The stunning Kerry Washington is unfathomably fantastic as Broomhilda. She is obviously loved a lot by Django and in return she loves him in equal amount. One of the scenes which disturbed me most involved her being released from a hotbox, which I can only imagine was a punishment for slaves in that time.

And then on the other side of the coin we have the heinously evil Calvin Candie and his manservant, Stephen, played respectively by Leo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson. DiCaprio's performance as such a despicable character renders him so completely unnoticeable from any of his previous roles. There is one scene where he smashes a glass with his hand and suffers quite a bad cut, but the character keeps going. Sam Jackson is just as excellent as the devious Stephen, who orders the slaves around like he is their master. There are also a huge number of cameos by respected actors from around the globe, but they are too numerous to mention one by one.

Verdict: This film is an epic sprawling across the southern states. It is also classic Tarantino and probably the best film of his career. A must-see.