Assassin's Creed

Video game movies get a bit of bad wrap. It is incredibly hard to capture the essence of what makes the medium great (the active participation) and transfer that to cinema (a passive experience). When I first heard about this movie based on a semi-historical game series, and how it would take place in the world of the games, not just follow the story, I was hopeful. But once again, there is a failure to realise what makes this particular game series so popular.

Callum Lynch (Michael Fassbender) is a troubled man. He saw his mother be murdered by his father in Mexico and, after a life of crime, finds himself being executed for murder. After 'dying', he is subsequently revived by a shadowy organisation called Abstergo, who are doing experiments with genetic memories (the idea that the memories of our ancestors are locked in our very DNA). Abstergo has tracked Callum's DNA back to the Spanish Inquisition, where his ancestor Aguilar (also Fassbender) was a member of an ancient order called the Assassins. Sophia Rikkin (Marion Cotillard) is in charge of the experiments and puts Callum inside an 'Animus', a device that allows users to relive the memories mentioned before as though they were really there. It turns out though, Abstergo is really a front for a group called the Templars, the historic enemy of the Assassins.

This movie is complete chaos. The only reason I was able to write half of that plot outline was because I have played the games. The story is a real confusing mess, as the audience is thrust into the film with a tiny little historical background to the two warring factions and their goals, but none of the technology that dominates the film. And that leads to one of the big problems of the film. The games on which it is based are split between a modern and historical storyline. This is not an even split however, as the majority of the time is spent in that historical setting (be it the Crusades or Colonial America), with the development of the modern storyline and characters taking a back seat (granted these add up over the span of five games and isn't something you do with a movie). But for this, there is an attempt at an even balance, although it tips toward the modern setting, with the only reason I can see being that it would be harder to make a historical action movie. Now I will say one thing I really appreciated about the sequences set during the Spanish Inquisition, is that they went all in and had everyone speaking Spanish. Too often Hollywood movies would just go for the easy English option.

Up top, I should say that the action is very nicely choreographed and the stunt performers worked extremely well. The only problem was that you couldn't see it. Now, the Jason Bourne series is known for very rapid handheld 'shakycam' shots that a lot of people don't like. It's a different stage of the movie making process that's at fault here though. This time it's the editing. Some of the action shots were so quick I couldn't keep up. At one stage a bad guy had a horse on a roof and I didn't even know how he even got there. It's no secret that Michael Fassbender doesn't like doing press interviews or promotional work for his films, but I've never seen him look so bored while in a film. In a lot of the scenes he has a rather pained look on his face as though he has no idea what's going on and I can't really fault him for that. Marion Cotillard looked equally confused, but probably at the fact that her role was so underwritten. The remaining veteran actors in the cast (Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson and Charlotte Rampling) are wasted as background filler and I had no idea what Michael K. Williams was doing in the plot at all.

This movie will turn you off if you're a hardcore fan or someone just wandering in from the street. I know it might be easy to point a finger at me and say that I overanalyse movies, but I truly came at this one wanting it to be good. Sadly, it missed out on being a solid action movie, despite the high amount of action.

The Light Between Oceans

Australian movies made for an international market never seem to hit the mark for the intended audience. Recent efforts like The Water Diviner and The Dressmaker were flops despite having big names like Russell Crowe and Kate Winslet. However, when you bring an outsider in to show their perspective on Australian life, it always seems a lot more effective. Add a couple of high profile international stars and you may have a winner.

Tom Sherbourne (Michael Fassbender) has returned home to Western Australia after World War I. In order to find some solitude after the horrors of war, he gets a job as a lighthouse keeper on an island of the coast. On one of his trips back to the mainland, he meets Isabel (Alicia Vikander) and slowly he falls in love with her, despite being separated by the sea. Eventually they wed and she moves to the island with him. Even though it is a harsh environment, they build a life together and are happy until Isabel miscarries not one but two pregnancies. All hope seems lost for them when a boat drifts ashore with a dead man and a baby girl. Isabel convinces Tom that they keep they child rather than telling anyone what happened and they soon return to life like nothing has happened. When they return to the mainland to show off their new child, Tom meets Hannah (Rachel Weisz), whom he learns lost her baby daughter and husband at sea a few years earlier. Soon Tom is wracked with grief and indecision about what to do.

Derek Cianfrance has always been an actor's director. His last two movies have been performance driven and The Light Between Oceans is no different. Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander are two actors at the top of their game. They, along with Rachel Weisz, all fall into stride with fantastic Aussie accents, one that isn't the easiest to do. Granted, that isn't what makes their performances good, it's just an added bonus. What makes their performances so great is their pure commitment to the emotions that are necessary. Tom is supposed to be a character haunted by his experiences in the war and Fassbender masterfully pulls that off. His guilt is entirely believable and at times you felt the pain he had in keeping his secret. Vikander and Weisz are also great at tearing the emotions out from the audience. Both women have their legitimate claim to raising their daughter but the pain in having to potentially give her up is too much. There are three great performances from Aussie veterans Bryan Brown, Jack Thompson and Gary MacDonald that really form a good backbone to the cast.

There are a few missteps in terms of telling the story however. Cianfrance is definitely a fan of an easily identifiable three act structure movie. First, Isabel and Tom get to know each other, then they get married and find the baby, finally the guilt and decision to tell the truth. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it makes the movie a tad slower and seems sloppy. There is a lot of clunky dialogue, like when Jack Thompson's character explains in a rather heavy handed way what happened to Hannah's husband, something the film has subtly hinted at using the unique cinema technique of editing. There is an early montage of letter writing between Tom and Isabel as well that is rather dull and expository.

I guess the reason I really like this movie because of the way it's an Australian film without being one. Australian movies tend to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to international audiences because you can never beat Crocodile Dundee and that's what they want. It takes an outsider to show the rest of the world what an Aussie movie can be and it takes an actor like Fassbender to show that people really can do our accent. Other than that, it's an emotionally raw epic that tugs at the heartstrings. Especially that epilogue scene.

X-Men: Apocalypse

I really enjoyed the last X-Men movie. The decision to go back and explore different stories with younger versions of the characters has ultimately paid off, but even by their own admission, the third movie is never as good. That last statement is a bit of a lie. While Apocalypse may not be a high point in the series, it's still a pretty awesome movie.

In a pretty exhilarating introduction in ancient Egypt, we see all-powerful mutant Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) get buried under a collapsed pyramid. In 1983, CIA agent Moira McTaggert (Rose Byrne) witnesses his reawakening at the hands of a cult. Meanwhile in Poland, Magneto (Michael Fassbender) is living a quiet life with his wife and daughter until the townspeople discover what he is. Elsewhere, Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) is off looking for mutants and comes across Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), whom she decides to take back to Charles Xavier (James McAvoy). It's at this point that Apocalypse reveals himself to the world with his plan to destroy everyone so he can start the world afresh.

Okay, so after writing out that plot it does sound like the movie doesn't have a lot going on for it. The plot of the movie does take a bit of a back seat, but don't worry, it's not sacrificed for the sake of action. Rather the focus of this movie is character development. Although the majority of characters who we've seen before have already been established, we do get a better insight into their personalities. For example, the psyche of Magneto is explored and we can further see how he is torn between being good and bad. The new characters who are introduced are also given similar inner conflicts. Jean Grey (played by Sophie Turner) is shown to have an immense inner power that she is unable to control. This ties in nicely with the future we saw in X-Men: The Last Stand. 

The performances from the series regulars were solid as usual. The newbies however gave mixed performances. Kodi Smit-McPhee was a standout. He gave Nightcrawler the right amount of a comedic edge that helped lighten the dark mood throughout the film. That complemented the laughs given by Even Peters as Quicksilver well. Sophie Turner, Alexandra Shipp and Tye Sheridan came out okay, but they still need some more time to find their footing, which is okay with a franchise like this as they have plenty of time to do that. I was really disappointed with Oscar Isaac's performance because he is my favourite actor and he was misused so much in this film. I think it primarily had to do with the fact that the character of Apocalypse wasn't all that menacing for me and none of the power that he supposedly had came through.

I know it seems like I'm skirting around whether or not to say this movie is good or bad, but I have to commit to something. I guess I thought it was a little bit better than average, but the lacking plot and Superman level of destruction in the action sequence at the end dragged it down.

Steve Jobs

Apple founder Steve Jobs has become a rather scrutinised figure in both documentary and film after his death in 2011. This latest biopic however, comes at the hands of both director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, both of whom are known for their rather honest depictions of the world as it is and portrayals of famous people in not so flattering terms. This already fixating combination of talents is made complete with a subtle but powerful performance by leading man Michael Fassbender.

Steve Jobs is split into three acts, each covering a specific period in the life of the man, taking place prior to a product launch that was important in his life. The first takes place in 1984 at the launch of Jobs' (Michael Fassbender) latest dream product, the Macintosh. He is supported by his marketing manager and confidant Johanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet) as he contends with the mother of his daughter Chrisann (Katherine Waterston) and technical problems with the launch that he blames on Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg). In 1988, Jobs has left Apple and is working on a new project NeXT, which he thinks will be an important educational tool despite its high price. He also clashes with Apple CEO John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) about leaving Apple and Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen) over comments made during an interview. Finally in 1998, Jobs is back at Apple and is about to launch the iMac G3, the product that revitalised the company.

Where this film succeds that past films have failed (particulary 2013's Jobs) is that is not an ambitious film in its scope. Instead of covering every aspect of Jobs' life, the film covers three important moments in his career. That's not to say that the film is lacking for details about Jobs' personality or where he came from. We learn a lot from brief flashbacks where characters discuss his background. Despite Sorkin's snappy writing, the film does have a certain level of predictability when it comes to each of the segments. It seems that Sorkin just had a formula for each one and just changed certain details. Somehow this dragged out the movie for me and made the film less riveting than it should have been.

Which was a lot, considering Fassbender's remarkable performance is completely riveting. He plays Jobs as a sociopathic egomaniac who just wants to make the world of his genius. And you do believe that he believes he is the smartest human ever because Fassbender plays him with the right amount of charm, Kate Winslet's role I found difficult to categorise. I was trying to figure out whether she was a lead character orm a supporting one, but I suppose they all are next to who the movie is about. She really was the emotional core of the movie. Seth Rogen's boyish lovability comes in handy as Steve Wozniak and Jeff Daniels plays a more depressing version of the CEO he played in The Martian. Newcomer Perla Haney-Jardine is a strong presence as Jobs' daughter Lisa in the older sequences.

Boyle's biopic is convincing at times and peters out at others and this has to do with a shaky script from the usually strong Sorkin. Fassbender's performance I think will be strong enough for him to take home the big prize at the Oscars.

Macbeth

Shakespeare has been a fixture of adaptation since the birth of cinema. Whilst there have been many attempts to modernise his works, the best adaptations have come when they make a straight adaptation (two great examples that come to mind are Oliver Parker's Othello and Ralph Fiennes Coriolanus). Australian director Justin Kurzel's latest film Macbeth follows this strong tradition.

In the closing battle of a bloody civil war in Scotland, Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) proves his loyalty to King Duncan (David Thewlis) by killing the treacherous MacDonwald (Hilton McRae). After the battle, Macbeth and his friend Banquo (Paddy Considine) come across three witches who tell Macbeth that he will be king and that Banquo's children will be kings. Macbeth is lured into killing Duncan by his wife Lady Macbeth (Marion Cotillard) so that he can become king, but only after Duncan's son Malcolm (Jack Reynor) flees to England. Once Macbeth becomes king, Duncan's closest ally Macduff (Sean Harris) begins to suspect Macbeth's involvement in the old king's death. At the same time, Macbeth is haunted by what he has done and descends into madness.

It is very hard to fault one of these adaptations on its story. There is little you can do to make the story better than what has been written. So therefore they must be judged on the performances and technical aspects. Luckily this film excels in both areas and that is largely due to the fantastic direction of Justin Kurzel.

The most important part of this film is its performances. You really need to be able to cast the right actors for the roles because people know the characters so well. Choosing Michael Fassbender was a genius move. He has the physicality to carry the battle scenes as well as the vulnerability for the madness scenes to be genuine. Marion Cotillard was good, but I felt as though she didn't have enough of a villainous attitude. Sean Harris is amazingly scary and brutal as Macduff. While both Paddy Considine and David Thewlis have rather short roles they both have a great screen presence. Elizabeth Debicki does a great job with her small role as Lady Macduff and Jack Reynor does the same. The problem that a lot of people are going to have getting into this movie is the thickness of the Scottish accents. This combined with the language of Shakespeare can make for some tough viewing.

Technically, this film is a masterpiece. The locations chosen in the Scottish Highlands are beautiful as is Bamburgh Castle on Northumberland coast. Kurzel employs a lot of frame rate experimentation with this movie as well, which gives it an almost ethereal quality. The battle sequences are all shot in super slow motion which heightens not only the tension and action, but also visceral emotion in the scenes. He also uses time lapse in a great scene when Macbeth is descending into madness, wandering around his chambers.

Even if you're not a fan or unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare this is a great entry point, despite the fact that it can be a little difficult to follow at times. It's an even better if you do like the play, but it's not at all a prerequisite.

Christian Bale out, Michael Fassbender in. Who is going to play Steve Jobs?

Fassbender after reading about
his involvement in the film

A couple of weeks ago, we had reported that Christian Bale was up for the role of Steve Jobs. Well, it seems that he has taken himself off the project, leading sources to say that Michael Fassbender is "in talks". But we all know how much we can trust "sources".

The good people over at Vulture have made a list of Oscar-worthy leading white men, one of which will surely say yes to the role. These include Javier Bardem, Edward Norton, Matthew McConaughey, Matt Damon, Ethan Hawke, Jeremy Renner, Mark Wahlberg, Jared Leto, Jean Dujardin, Jude Law, Adrien Brody, Michael Shannon, Joaquin Phoenix, Bradley Cooper, Casey Affleck, James Franco, Ryan Gosling, Jesse Eisenberg, Jonah Hill, and Haley Joel Osment. 

Definitely one of them.

Frank

As Domhnall Gleeson's character Jon asks in the film, how to describe Frank? Well, one way would be to say it's a laugh-riot. Another, that it looks at the concept of originality in a rather original way. And then the perils of forcing originality.

Jon is a young wannabe musician who gets roped into playing in a band because he can play a few notes on a keyboard. The band, "Soronprfbs", is led by Frank (Michael Fassbender), a strange man who wears a Frank Sidebottom head. After being whisked away to an Irish cabin resort to record an album with the band and soon they get a gig playing at the SXSW (South by Southwest) festival in Austin, Texas.

Director Lenny Abrahamson crafts a really original and clever, not to mention hilarious. The movie's main focus is that the character of Jon wants to attain a certain level of fame, as is evident with his obsession with social media (done in a very creative way, with every blog post and tweet projected onto the screen), and he believes he can attain this through Frank. All the while, he struggles with his own lack of creativity.

But I am almost leaving out one of the best parts of this movie; the performances. Domhnall Gleeson has been proving himself lately with excellent turns in films like About Time. Here he clings to the ideas of fame and originality like his life depends on it. Maggie Gyllenhaal also gives an outstanding performance as Clara, the band's theramin player. Clara is super aggressive and is reluctant to follow along with Jon's plans.

But the star attraction (for me, at least) was Michael Fassbender's performance. He spends ninety percent of the movie with the fibreglass head on, but is still able to give an emotive and evocative performance and unless you know it was him under the head you would be surprised to find it is him. Scoot McNairy (The Rover) is great in a supporting role.

At first I wasn't really a fan of the music that the band was producing (it is pretty avant-garde) but it kind of grew on my and now I'm a fan of Soronprfbs.

Verdict: A super funny and charming comedy about the ideas of originality. Great performances from Gleeson and Fassbender.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Enough with the X-Men already! Is what I was thinking before watching this movie. It's not that I'm not a fan, it was more that I thought I was all X-Men'd out. This movie showed me I wasn't.

One of the great things that was in the movie was the number of characters. In any other movie, I would say that this would be too confusing, but it made this one so much better. There are all the characters from the original trilogy (Wolverine, Storm, Colossus and, my favourite, Iceman), characters from First Class that we all loved (the young versions of Professor X, Magneto and Mystique) and new characters that will definitely be your new favourites, like Quicksilver (who I think everyone will love), played by Evan Peters (Kick-Ass). The only problem with Quicksilver is that he'll be appearing in the next Avengers flick played by a different actor, James' Kick-Ass co-star Aaron Johnson (he won't be as funny).

I won't go into too much plot, but basically the mutants of now (or the future?) send Wolverine back in time to prevent a war between mutants and humans breaking out. He teams up with young Magneto and Professor X to make this happen.

I will go into the 70's setting though. It is amazingly accurate (or maybe it just seems that way to me). Instead of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the historical moment that is the backdrop is the end of the Vietnam War. Like First Class, this adds an extra level of tension that the audience can relate to. Director Bryan Singer also handles the dramatic moments of the story really well.

The other thing this movie handles really well is the comedy. The last couple of X-Men movies have been pretty good at mixing comedy and drama, but this time it is perfected. The jokes aren't rammed down your throat so that they are overplayed, rather they are well timed and don't interfere with the films more serious situations.

I had a couple of issues with the continuity of this film in the timeline. The last time we saw Patrick Stewart's Professor X he was torn to shreds by Dark Phoenix, yet this film is set years after that and he is fine. Maybe if it was made clear that this was an alternate timeline it would be okay, but I don't think it is.

Verdict: I had a lot of fun watching this movie, revisiting old characters and meeting new ones was great. The story was pretty simple, but at the same time engaging enough that you didn't lose interest.

12 Years a Slave

Steve McQueen makes confronting films. His previous two, Hunger and Shame, were especially confronting for their portrayals of both the struggles of the 1981 Irish hunger strike and a New York sex addict, respectively. 12 Years a Slave is no less confronting than those two films.

The film follows the true story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a freed slave, who is sold back into slavery in a set of nefarious circumstances. Solomon eventually ends up as the property of Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), a psychotic cotton plantation owner, after attacking a carpenter at his previous plantation. Epps is an especially cruel master and regularly punishes his slaves. Solomon tries many times to get word back to his family, but is unable to, due to the resistance of people around him who are too afraid.

McQueen superbly conveys the pain of his characters in the film. Likewise, he is unflinching in the depiction of violence toward the slaves. At many times the whippings and lynchings are extremely hard to watch. What's even more hard to comprehend is the fact that this actually occurred, not only in the case of Solomon Northup, but to slaves throughout the South in the pre-Civil War period.

Chiwetel Ejiofor (Love Actually) plays Solomon with such pain that I could see through his performance to the reality of both the character and the actual man within who feels for the injustices that happened in the past. Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock) is amazing as Solomon's previous master.

The most amazing performance for me comes from McQueen's muse Michael Fassbender (Shame). His ugly and honest portrayal of a southern plantation owner is painful to watch, but that's a good thing. If you like his character there's something wrong with you.

Verdict: An extremely confronting film about a dark time in not just the history of the United States, but the history of man in general.

The Counselor

The works of Cormac McCarthy have always served as interesting fodder for film adaptations. Indeed both No Country for Old Men and The Road translated his vision perfectly to the screen. However, The Counselor is an entirely original script from him and when you couple that with an immensely visual director, such as Ridley Scott, you get a beautiful film that also has extreme depth and meaning just underneath the surface.

The film is set in the southern United States and it follows The Counselor (Michael Fassbender) as he descends into the drug fuelled world of the Mexican cartels. After a shipment that he had a stake in is stolen, he ends up going on the run, as the cartel behind the other half of the investment believes he is responsible.

The film has many themes and they all seem to be complementary of one another. The largest ones are those of greed and actions and consequences. The Counselor is driven to do many of the things that he wants, primarily by greed. What he wants most is to please his girlfriend Laura (Penelope Cruz) and we can only assume that she is the reason he has driven himself toward this path. That greed also goes hand in hand with the consequences that are a direct result of the actions that he has taken.

All this depth and meaning stems from a superb script from McCarthy. Unlike the other adaptations that I mentioned earlier, whose screenplays had been written by other writers, The Counselor has the unique voice of McCarthy, who has written some wonderfully cryptic dialogue scenes that also appear in his literature.

This film is also spectacular to look at as well and that is largely due to Ridley Scott's amazing vision as a director. The landscapes in the film are amazing, showcasing Mexico and Texas on an intimate scale that I really appreciated.

Finally, the cast of this film is not be forgotten. I know looking at the poster, all you see are the big names and just think it's going to be an empty film. But all the actors are fantastic. I especially want to give praise to Cameron Diaz, as I have not seen her reach a level such as this since Being John Malkovich in 1999. There is also a scene that has cameos from Dean Norris (Hank in Breaking Bad) and John Leguizamo (Luigi in Super Mario Bros., and a ton of other stuff) that I found humourous for some reason.

Verdict: An intense and compelling crime drama that is sure to make you scared of cheetahs and girls on Ferraris.