Captain America: Civil War

I really enjoyed the last Captain America movie. The Winter Soldier was a spy movie and it was breaking the mould of what a superhero movie could be, whilst still having the familiar elements that everyone enjoys. Civil War on the other hand takes it all away and punches you in the face instead. It wants to make you certain that this is a balls to the wall action movie, but for me it didn't stand out against any of the other superhero movies that I've seen recently, which is really disappointing because it has Spiderman in it. Spiderman!

Captain America (Chris Evans) and his team of Avengers are facing public backlash when they accidentally kill a large number of aid workers in Nigeria whilst trying to stop a villain who has stolen a biological weapon. This leads to the United Nations proposing a policy which would bring the Avengers under their umbrella to be used only when they deem it necessary. Endorsing this deal is Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) who urges the other superheroes to sign, as they must do so voluntarily or else their actions are considered illegal. Captain America still refuses to sign, especially because his old buddy Bucky Barnes (AKA The Winter Soldier) is being accused of a variety of crimes that Cap believes he has no involvement in.

I saw somewhere that this movie is basically Avengers 2.5 and that's true. Instead of focusing on the hero of the title, it cuts between both him and Tony Stark, making me think a much better title would be Captain America V Iron Man, but that's too much of a mouthful. There are definitely parallels to be drawn with the latest Superman movie, but they don't drag this film down as much. While there are definitely way too many characters in this movie, they have been set up in other films and that fives us an opportunity to be able to focus on the two new ones. But just because you don't need to introduce every single character that doesn't make the film less confusing. I found it hard to track every character's motivations in the film because they're all important to the plot.

The plot is definitely the weakest part and I know that it's a superhero movie so what am I expecting. Well, Civil War is essentially two movies. On the one hand there's the Avengers being split up and having to fight each other and on the other is a Captain America movie with Bucky being framed for crimes he didn't commit, so he has to clear his name while dealing with someone who wants revenge. I would totally be happy with the latter because you could shuffle some plot points around and drop a lot of the extra characters while still introducing others. But people want to see that shot where the two groups meet each other in the middle of the screen. I wasn't really impressed with the way the final fight between Cap and Iron Man played out. It seemed very out of character for both of them.

Since we've spoken ad nauseam about all the actors who've played these characters before, I'll quickly talk about the new and expanded upon parts. Chadwick Boseman is introduced as Black Panther and I really liked his arc. Boseman's performance was solid considering his character is not that well known to cinema audiences and he's up against characters that have been well known for almost a decade. Tom Holland was absolutely perfect as Spiderman. They nailed his non-stop talking and genius way better than both Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield and it's very disappointing that he wasn't in the film for long at all. Daniel Brühl was criminally underused as the movie's bad guy and he really just felt like 'generic German villain'. I really appreciated that Emily VanCamp's Sharon Carter was expanded on because that was sorely lacking from the last movie. Finally, Paul Rudd slipped into the main group with ease and he has great chemistry with everyone else.

I know I've already compared this to Batman V Superman but it's pretty hard not to. Did I enjoy it more than that movie? Yes? Is it the best Marvel movie so far? I don't think so. There were some shining moments which I enjoyed, but I mostly felt ambivalent throughout. I know that it's leading to brighter things in the future though so I'm hopeful.

Burnt

At That Other Movie Blog we have a special relationship with the food film. We don't know whether it's just the fact that they are always slightly weird or if it's because we love food porn. Director John Wells dives headlong into this genre, but unlike Chef's take on street food or The Hundred Foot Journey's exploration of a home cooked experience, Burnt takes into the high stakes kitchen of a high end restaurant.

Adam Jones (Bradley Cooper) is a chef looking to get back on top of his game. After shucking a million oysters in Louisiana, he journeys to London where he seeks out old friend Tony (Daniel Brühl), who is mâitre d' at a high end restaurant. Adam reveals to Tony that he has come back to get a third Michelin star, the highest honour a chef can attain. To do this he acquires his own dream team of chefs, including Michel (Omar Sy), David (Sam Keeley) and Helene (Sienna Miller).

I'm pretty sure that the food film is the 2010's equivalent of the 80's action movie because it has all the same beats one of them. Guy who was once on top has hit rock bottom and through a series of montages defeats the bad guys and comes out on top. In the case with Burnt, the bad guys are Adam's own demons who are getting in the way of him being able to achieve that third Michelin star. I'm not entirely convinced though that this is an interesting enough conflict for a film like this because it forces the other characters to just fade into exposition or motivation for the main character.

And the other characters do suffer. Daniel Brühl's Tony only serves to hint at the life that Adam used to live. Young up-and-coming chef David goes around and tells everyone what a god Adam used to be. Characters like Michel and Helene are both different motivations that drive Adam forward, but that's all they serve as. There was a real missed opportunity in making rival chef Reece (played by Matthew Rhys) a bigger part of the film. The same could be said of Adam's ex-girlfriend Anne Marie (Alicia Vikander), who appears in only two scenes just to make a little bit of unnecessary conflict.

I'm not sure if the London setting was a good choice, or why they didn't take advantage of it more. I understand that it is a city where the Michelin Guidebook holds a lot of weight, moreso than any US city, but at the same time not as much as other European cities, but Burnt doesn't really go out of its way to show that London is a culinarily interesting city. Yes, we do get shown a lot of the multicultural influence that immigrants have on the food culture, but these forays are all too brief, oftentimes being shown in the films many montages.

The performances are all fairly average, with no one really sticking out. Cooper's sociopathic performance doesn't really make him relatable apart from a heart touching scene where he makes a cake for Helene's daughter. Sienna Miller reunites with Cooper again after American Sniper and proves to me once again that they have no chemistry. Brühl can make any performance his own, but Tony feels too much like a weak background character. Omar Sy is very understated in this film and would probably give a better performance in a better film, which this is not.

I wouldn't say I disliked this film, but I also wouldn't say that I liked it either. It's definitely a movie that you have to go and eat at a restaurant after, even if it's Burger King, because the one thing I did learn from Burnt is that there's nothing wrong with a Whopper.

Woman In Gold

Films about the Holocaust come out every year, so when a film about the modern impact that dark time in history is made, you would get quite excited to see how this event still affects so many people to this day. And while I'm not at all adverse to seeing an intense legal drama (both To Kill a Mockingbird and A Time to Kill are great legal dramas), that backdrop may not work as well here.

Woman In Gold takes place in 1998, when young, struggling lawyer Randy Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds) is introduced to his mother's Austrian friend Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren). Maria's sister has recently died and she has found some letters that her sister sent to the Austrian government asking about the restitution of her family's paintings that were stolen from her family by the Nazis, namely the famous Gustav Klimt portrait of her aunt, Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I. Maria enlists Randy's help in the legal case and while at first he is reluctant, he soon decides to help. The pair travel to Vienna, where a symbolic conference is being held on the restitution of these types of artworks and they begin their case. Whilst in Austria, they meet investigative journalist Hubertus Czernin (Daniel Brühl) who helps them with their research.

This movie staggers along at an odd pace. At times you are being swept up in the progress that Randy is making with the case and at other times it slows right down, as Maria and Randy share a tender moment of understanding and while that sounds completely normal of a drama, it happens at odd and inopportune times. Randy's wife Pam also shows up, but only at times when Randy is having a crisis of faith and needs some outside direction. The film makes a big effort to not have to use subtitles the whole time as Maria does not wish to speak German whilst in Austria, but then this extends to the other non-American characters speaking to each other in English, even on Austrian TV. I feel like this was a bit lazy and could have been changed.

The film also features flashbacks to Maria's youth in Vienna, both before and during the Nazi occupation. Here she is played by Canadian actress Tatiana Maslany and her husband Frederick is portrayed by Max Irons. These sequences show how serene her home life was before the Nazis, but are also quite open in showing the brutality of the Nazis. Also when the couple are fleeing Austria, the tension and fear they felt comes through.

Ryan Reynolds carries most of the acting in this film and has really been showing his dramatic range in the past few years (presumably to drop the stigma attached with The Green Lantern). Even in shots that aren't particularly focused on his character, he shines with his subtle performance. Helen Mirren on the other hand, plays the character similarly to the ones she has over the last couple of years, especially her role in The Hundred Foot Journey. Tatiana Maslany does a much better job playing the younger version of Maria and is full of emotion. Daniel Brühl brings incredible emotion to the role of Hubertus and Katie Holmes supports the main cast well.

Woman In Gold offers enjoyable viewing, but doesn't try too hard to make a splash. There are some emotional scenes, but not enough to make the entire film one that you will cry the whole way through. Just like in Dumb and Dumber there is a joke about the confusion between Austria and Australia.

War Movie Month: Joyeux Noël (2005)

Historical war films, like Lawrence of Arabia or Bridge on the River Kwai, use the specific stories that they are based on to tell a story. Sometimes these films can be accused of being full of inaccuracies of what did or didn't happen. I think that's why films about widespread events appeal to me so much, no one can come along and say that didn't happen.

Joyeux Noël tells a fictionalised account of the Christmas Truce of 1914. During the stalemate that is happening on the front line, soldiers from the German, French and Scottish armies decide to take part in a ceasefire that lasts into Christmas Day. Among the soldiers is German tenor Nikolaus Sprink (Benno Fürmann), his wife Anna Sörenson (Diane Kruger), Scottish priest Father Palmer (Gary Lewis) and French Lieutenant Audebert (Guilliame Canet). During the ceasefire, the men play football, share stories and drink with one another.

While troops across the Western Front all did enjoy a ceasefire on Christmas Day 1914, this particular story does have a tiny bit of truth to it. Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany did send a tenor to the front to cheer up the troops and the French did applaud his singing, but that's about as far as the reality stretches. The battle scenes early on also do capture the futility of trench warfare.

This movie isn't really a performance driven film, instead focusing on the breaking down of barriers during wartime. That doesn't mean that there aren't standout performances, however. The three leaders of the troops, Alex Ferns, Guilliame Canet and Daniel Brühl (the German lieutenant) all give stellar performances, as does Gary Lewis and Dany Boon, who gives some much needed comic relief.

Verdict: If you're going to watch any Christmas movie this year, I would suggest you do away with watching Die Hard, Christmas Vacation or even The Muppets Christmas Carol and watch a movie that has some feeling to it.

A Most Wanted Man

Most of John le Carré's novels are fodder for excellent spy movies, this was proven with 2011's Tinker Sailor Soldier Spy. A Most Wanted Man is probably up there with some of the best spy movies and is helped along by a performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman that I will not soon forget.

This film takes a more mechanical approach to the spy game than Tinker Tailor did. There's no guessing or twists about who is a double, but rather focuses on a more straightforward look at modern espionage and the back-room politics that influence it. Günther Bachmann (Philip Seymour Hoffman) leads a covert team of anti-terrorism agents in Hamburg. Their main objective is to develop sources within the Islamic community to bring down more dangerous targets. They aim to make a young Chechan, Issa Karpov (Grigory Dobrygin), one of these sources by using his lawyer Annabel Richter (Rachel McAdams).

The plot isn't too complex and is rather easy to follow along with. Writer Andrew Bovell conveys the tensity of the spy game quite well and has written some of the more minor characters, such as Robin Wright's American Martha Sullivan, with just enough intrigue that they are not forgotten within the overall plot.

Director Anton Corbijn is mainly a music video director and that comes through in a lot of the tight, claustrophobic shots that is used throughout the film. There are also some really beautiful long takes that add to the characters emotions.

It feels weird writing about an actor's final performance. This is the first time I've done this and it's extremely hard given that that actor has always been one of my favourites. Philip Seymour Hoffman's intense portrayal of the beleaguered Bachmann is probably one of the finer performances his given although not his best. At times his German accent slipped, but not so much you'd notice. At times you really feel for his character, who is under intense pressure from his superiors.

 Rachel McAdams really surprised me with this dramatic turn. She seemed believable in this intense film and could keep up quite well with other more experienced actors in this genre. Robin Wright was fantastic as well and was a far cry from her character on House of Cards.

Willem Dafoe is an old hand when it comes to a German accent and plays brilliantly through some of the most intense scenes in the film. I was a little disappointed with the underuse of Daniel Brühl who is a great actor, but relegated to the background of most scenes.

Verdict: A great send off for an amazing actor. Hoffman dominates almost all scenes of the movie, even the ones he's not in. The story is gripping and enjoyable.