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.

The Jungle Book

The Jungle Book is one of those stories that people of all ages have grown up with, whether it's the books, the original 1967 Disney animated movie or any of the other movie versions that have been released since. The latest version has come along at a time when making a live action version is possible without relying on unpredictable trained animals (like they did in the 90s.) And while there's a lot of good in this movie, there's also a lot of bad.

Mowgli (Neel Sethi) is a young boy who has grown up in the jungle. He was found by the black panther Bagheer (Sir Ben Kingsley) and raised by the wolf Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o). During a peacetime period brought on by drought, Mowgli comes under the attention of the tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who threatens the entire jungle unless Mowgli is turned over to him. Mowgli realises that the best thing for him to do is find his true place in the world and go to the man-village where he was originally from. Along the way, he comes across the snake Kaa (Scarlett Johannson), befriends Baloo the bear (Bill Murray) and angers King Louie (Christopher Walken).

The original Disney animated movie was very much targeted toward kids, no doubt about it. This one, I'm not so sure. Yes, the plot is pretty basic and doesn't need too much attention to follow it, but it is a really intense movie. Every time Mowgli found himself in a dangerous situation, I couldn't help but get caught up in the moment, so I can't imagine how terrifying some of it must have been for kids under ten. The way the world is presented to us is pretty ingenious. Everything seems out of proportion and way bigger than it would be in real life. That's because we're seeing the world through the eyes of a ten year old. Of course elephants will seem like the biggest things in the world. While we're on the topic of the animals, I have to mention how fantastic the visual effects are. So much research must have gone into how each individual animal species moves, because when you see them, you almost forget that they aren't even there with Neel Sethi, yet he reacts amazingly to them.

While all this is great, there are still problems. I felt like some of the characters were only included in the film because the filmmakers felt obliged to put them in there rather than serving any plot points. For me Kaa was the big one. She only appears briefly (basically all her part is in the trailer) and all we want to see from that character is the crazy eyes. The other one is King Louie. I find his character particularly problematic. He doesn't appear in any of the original books, but rather was created for the Disney animated movie. In 1967, I'm sure it was okay to have a parody of a black jazz musician in your movie, but when you've got a very obvious Christopher Walken doing a very obvious impression of a black person (blackvoice?), it goes a bit far. I know Christopher Walken loves to sing, but does he need to? That leads into the next problem. This isn't a musical like the old one, so why shoehorn in two songs. "Bare Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You" were the most popular songs from the original sure, but I found that breaking up the action with these songs just pointless.

Overall, the voice cast is pretty solid. Idris Elba and Ben Kingsley are amazing. Elba has a rather menacing voice as it is, but when it's coming from a tiger, well that's just terrifying. Kingsley is such a talented voice actor that you end up paying more attention to his character than the voice. And that's a problem that sticks out with the rest of the characters. The cast is so well known that they become removed from the parts they play. This is most noticeable with Bill Murray who seemed to be playing more of a version of himself than Baloo.

The Jungle Book is hanging in a weird limbo for me. I wouldn't say I particularly enjoyed it, but I wasn't bored. There was always something that was intriguing for me on screen and at times that distracted me from what was going on with the story. I also couldn't help noticing that this movie took some beats from The Lion King, which was a huge distraction.

Hail, Caesar!

The Coen brothers have been making movies for over thirty years, making classics like Fargo, The Big Lebowski and No Country For Old Men. These movies leave you with one feeling above all; satisfied. Their latest movie, Hail, Caesar!, feels more like the fast food version of one their films, it feels good while you're watching it, but later you wonder if you really needed it after all.

Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is the head of production for Capitol Pictures. He is also a 'fixer' and helps get movie stars out of sticky situations. One of these situations arises when the studio's biggest stars Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) goes missing when he is shooting a biblical epic about Jesus. Meanwhile he has to deal with an array of problems on the studio lot, including Western star Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) moving to a more dramatic role where he clashes with director Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes) over directing choices and the pregnant actress DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson) has to search for a father for her unborn child. Floating in the background are the Thacker sisters (both played by Tilda Swinton), rival gossip columnists who are on the prowl for the latest Hollywood scoop.

Hail, Caesar! is a glowing tribute to the Golden Era of Hollywood. The Coen's parody an array of movies and stars from this period, including Kirk Douglas and Charlton Heston, costume dramas, westerns and musicals. In fact there is a fantastic extended song and dance number by Channing Tatum which is a joy to watch. The subject of communism in Hollywood is broached upon, but it is in a rather lighthearted way. The blacklisted writers are shown as diehard followers of the cause and will even help people defect to Russia. This movie is also a defence for anyone who loves cinema. The Throughout the the film, Mannix is repeatedly targeted by the jet company Lockheed, whose representative implores him to leave the movie industry behind, calling it silly and frivolous. Ultimately Mannix sticks with the industry because he loves.

Josh Brolin's Eddie Mannix is a strong central character. He embodies the no-nonsense studio exec who relies on things to run on clockwork perfectly. Brolin has enough range to do serious and character roles like this one. He isn't taking himself too seriously, which suits the role amazingly. All the characters apart from Mannix don't get too much screen time, but the actors who play them leave a mark. George Clooney who I think of as quite a strong figure in Hollywood, plays the stereotypically cowardly and bumbling movie star. Alden Ehrenreich gives a funny performance as Hobie Doyle, as he struggles to give the articulation needed for more dramatic roles. Ralph Fiennes also gives a hilarious performance as his over-the-top English director. Channing Tatum and Scarlett Johansson both have extended musical numbers in which they are great.

I did leave Hail, Caesar! feeling slightly empty, like I hadn't really taken anything away from it. But as I look back on the film, it is filled with enjoyable tidbits and cameos that will keep you enjoying it for days after.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

I think it's safe to say that Marvel Studios have gotten themselves to a safe enough place to be comfortable and confident in the movies they are making. The latest films have been branching out into various genres (political thriller with Captain America: The Winter Soldier, comedy sci-fi with Guardians of the Galaxy) and they have now reserved the main Avengers movies for the generic beat-em-up that most superheroes become. Despite this, Age of Ultron isn't entirely a slugfest and does try to take a softer approach with a few of its characters.

The movie starts right in the middle of an intense action sequence, with the team of the Avengers (Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, The Hulk and Hawkeye) assaulting a fortress in the European country of Sokovia in an attempt to retrieve the sceptre of Loki from Hydra (see Captain America: The Winter Soldier). Once Tony Stark gets his hands on it, he realises that the sceptre possesses the technology to develop complex artificial intelligence, something that he and Bruce Banner have been interested in developing for a while. But Stark's plans for this AI program, named Ultron, goes awry and the program soon goes rogue with plans to destroy mankind. It's up to the Avengers to, you know, save the day.

In this film, we get to have a closer look some of the characters outside the big three (Thor, Cap, Iron Man) and it is slightly refreshing. The relationship between Black Widow and Hulk is explored and heavily hinted at being romantic and Hawkeye is revealed to have a wife and children, a fact that surprised not only the audience, the characters in the film. These smaller arcs are somewhat refreshing and satisfying.

There is a lot of assumed knowledge that comes with watching this film. Not only are you expected to have done your homework and be completely up to date with the Cinematic Universe, but you are also expected to have some knowledge of what is happening in the comic books or else you will be left in the dark as to who some of these new characters are. This film introduces us to three new heroes on top of the villain, whose storyline does make sense. The new characters are the Maximoff twins, Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen) and Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) (otherwise known as Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver). We of course saw a much better version of Quicksilver in X-Men: Days of Future Past, but that is beside the point. We also are introduced to Vision (Paul Bettany), who is another advanced cyborg imprinted with Tony Stark's manservant Jarvis' own AI.

This movie is definitely the kind that moves from action sequence to action sequence with a little talking in between, just enough so you know what's going on. And it's pretty impressive too. The action is enough to keep you amazed at what's going on. There is also an array of humour in the movie, enough for everyone to have a laugh.

Most of the performances are pretty stock standard, as all the actors have gone way too deep with these characters. The ones that stuck out the most for me were James Spader (Stargate) lending his amazingly authoritative and terrifying voice to Ultron and Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlet Witch, although her accent did drop a few times. Of all the Avengers, Chris Hemsworth probably gave the best performance. His outsider status as an Aussie probably helps him get in the mindset of the god Thor.

Ultimately this film is incredibly entertaining and isn't extremely taxing. Fans of the movies will get all sorts of excited and people with limited knowledge of this things will still enjoy the large scale of the film.

Lucy

Luc Besson's latest sci-fi offering Lucy is one of the most ridiculous films I've seen in the past few years, but somehow it kind of actually works!

Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is studying in Taiwan, when she is tricked by her boyfriend, Richard (Pilou Asbæk) into delivering a package of drugs to his employer. The super-drug CPH4, which she is forced to smuggle overseas in her abdomen, can increase the brains working capacity and provide superhuman abilities. After being attacked whilst in captivity, the package splits and leaks into Lucy's system.

At the same time, Professor Samuel Norman (Morgan Freeman), who has been researching the theoretical abilities of  higher-functioning human brains for the past twenty years, is contacted by Lucy and the two meet up to assess the nature of her higher state of being.

 

First up, Scarlett Johansson is really what makes this film. Her character is relatively normal but is thrown into unbelievable circumstances, so to be able to watch her transformation as she is affected by the drug, is fantastic. Morgan Freeman is just Morgan Freeman again, to which I mean, slightly typecast, but still a great performance. As for the other actors, I really can't work out how to judge them because, whilst they seem to just constantly over act, they are playing such ridiculous roles that it kind of works...kind of.

The plot of this film is absolutely ludicrous, but not surprising coming from the mind that brought us The Fifth Element. It's pure science-fiction, of course, but it's so unbelievable that it's difficult to take it seriously. It seemed like Besson was trying to be a lot more serious here than with The Fifth Element, but I couldn't help but laugh with half of the scenes because they were just so over-the-top and out there. This sort of weird dramatic-comedy, which may or may not have been intentional, makes this genuinely quite an enjoyable film.

It's beautifully shot and edited, with what seems to be quite a lot of influence from David Fincher's work, with sped-up footage, fast cuts and a similar use of effects used to illustrate the brain at work, as he used in the opening to Fight Club. Comparisons can easily be made to many other science fiction films, even a bit of 2001: Space Odyessy at the end, which certainly pleased this Kubrick fan (not in a sexual way, geez), and generally, it's just great cinematography from Thierry Arbogast, who often works with Besson. 

I'm not really sure what its intended message was, if there was one. You could make the argument that it channels our desire for knowledge, or even our fragility as a species, but at the end of the day, plot issues or not, its really just good fun, with plenty of eye candy (Obviously I'm talking about the Special FX...ok, and Scarlett Johansson is nice too).

Under The Skin

Searching for meaning in Under The Skin is very difficult. It's not that there is no meaning to the film, rather it is up to the audience to find their own interpretation of the film, much like when you watch 2001: A Space Odyssey for the fiftieth time and think you understand it.

There is no real plot as such. Rather it is a series of events that fluidly evolve into each other. Scarlett Johansson plays an alien who has taken the body of an attractive young woman. She drives around the Scottish highways luring in young men whose flesh she harvests. After an encounter with a deformed man, she becomes more conscious of her human form.

This film is littered with beautiful and very Kubrickian imagery. There are beautiful shots of the Scottish countryside to masterfully crafted interiors of the alien's all black and extremely reflective lair. The nighttime road scenes are also amazing to look at.

Johansson's performance is chilling and captivating. Although most of the film is without dialogue, she uses her gaze to convey a variety of emotions, from seductive glances at her prey to distant stares at her own body. Through these looks we really get an insight into the characters thought process.

Verdict: Although a very minimalist film in terms of story, Under The Skin is breathtaking and thought-provoking.

Chef

Writer director Jon Favreau (Iron Man, Elf) has made a really fun movie about following your dreams. It is extremely uplifting and you'll finish watching it feeling good about your life. You'll also be extremely hungry. Painfully hungry, in fact. It also tackles soft issues like responsible uses of social media, family and, most importantly, how to seduce people with food.

The driving force in the story is that head chef Carl Casper (Favreau) has been introduced to Twitter by his 10-year-old son, Percy. After an unfavourable review by food blogger Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt), Casper engages in an online feud which culminates in an unflattering confrontation that goes viral and ruins Casper's career.

Supported by his family, Casper goes to Miami with his ex-wife Inez (Sofia Vergara) to help take care of Percy. There, Inez puts Casper in touch with Marvin (Robert Downey Jr.), her other ex-husband. Marvin gives Casper an old taco truck that he can use as a food truck. Casper calls Martin (John Leguizamo), his old friend, to come help him. Once they fix it up, Casper, Percy and Martin drive back to Los Angeles, selling food along the way.

And that brings me to the food. There is so much food in this movie that it gets it's own montages (that's right, food montages). And there isn't just one style of food in this movie, there's lots. There's fine dining at restaurant food, food truck food, food cooked at home, food as a substitute for foreplay, all the food. And it's shot in such a way that it dominates the screen.

Verdict: A tortuous movie if you're hungry and an uplifting film if you're down. People with the munchies beware.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I've always been a huge fan of World War II movies, especially those that strive for an accurate portrayal of warfare in the 1940s, Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan being a stand out example. And then sometimes I want to see a what if scenario of the same period, Tarantino did a great job of that too. But then you might get a movie that walks a line between the two, a movie where history occurs as it did, but you supplant a fictional character, a superhero* no less, into the mix. That's why I appreciated the first Captain America movie so much.

The Winter Soldier poses an interesting question. What if you took that same soldier, with all his values and beliefs, and put him in the present day. After the events of The Avengers, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is trying to acclimatise to modern life in Washington DC. He is still an agent for SHIELD, a government espionage agency run by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson).

Rogers' partner on these missions is Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) also known as the Black Widow. After an attempt on Nick Fury's life, Rogers and Black Widow uncover a corruption plot that permeates throughout the SHIELD organisation.

There is a prevailing notion that is brought up throughout the film and that is that humanity would willingly give up its freedoms in exchange for security. This is an interesting nod to our own society, with things like surveillance of the population being conducted by most Western powers.

Chris Evans had a different challenge in this film. In the last movie, his character had to cope with a physical transformation and his performance was great. Now as a modern actor, he has to portray a man from the past dealing with things from the present for the first time. One of these things he has to deal with is dating, having not gotten over his "best girl" Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell).

For an extremely physical movie, Johansson does an excellent job to keep up with the rest of the guys. In truth, I enjoyed her fighting scenes more than the guys because it is always great to see a girl kick a guys arse.

There was also the inclusion of a new hero from the comics who I have always liked. Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker) plays Sam Wilson AKA The Falcon. The Falcon is famous for being the world's first black superhero with his own comic series. Sam Wilson is a veteran who helps soldiers who suffer from PTSD and is only too glad to help Rogers when he asks.

Verdict: An enjoyable Marvel movie that will get superhero junkies through to the next Avengers film.

*Superhero is a trademark term owned by both Marvel and DC. I just wanted to cover myself, you know.

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.

Hitchcock

I am convinced that someone has built and is using a time machine. My evidence for this wild allegation is the movie Hitchcock. They must have gone back to 1960 and convinced Alfred Hitchcock to get in some odd shaped car and act in a film about the making of his most famous movie Psycho. It's either that or Anthony Hopkins is the best celebrity impersonator ever (or close enough until you hear the legendary Ralph Garman). Either of these ideas work for me.

The story behind Psycho was an amazing one. His last film North by Northwest was a huge success. But Alfred dreams of his younger days, when he and his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) were making experimental movies and pushing the boundaries of can and can't be shown on the silver screen. He is under contract for one more picture with Paramount. So in the search for the inspiration for his next movie, Hitchcock comes across Robert Bloch's novel Psycho. It is about the owner of a mysterious motel who murders most of the young female guests who enters it's doors. Hitch, as he is known in this movie, is smitten with the story, he has found the film that will push the envelope in many ways. However, he cannot get anyone to finance it. So, in a turn that makes me to consider him one of the original indie filmmakers, he mortgages his house and tightens his bootstraps to make one of the most ambitious films of his career. Ambitious only because the head of the US censor board (That 70s Show's Kurtwood Smith) finds the film to be abhorrent. So through the ups and downs of the production he finally is able to make a rough cut that is satisfactory, although it isn't any good.

Meanwhile, Alma finds herself drifting away from Alfred and wishes to pursue her own projects. She starts work on an adaption of her friends new novel. She works on this for a considerable amount of time before realising it is unadaptable. This is just about the time when Hitch finds that he needs to re-edit his rough cut and Alma comes to the rescue. They spend a considerable amount of time in the editing room and end up coming out with a masterpiece. This time round the film is much more to Hitch's expectations, although only two theatres agree to show it, so they must rely on word of mouth. Luckily for them it is a success with the audience.

The cast in this movie is great. Anthony Hopkins, as I said earlier was a dead ringer for the master of suspense, and Helen Mirren were perfect as always. But they real joy of the cast is in the supporting roles. Scarlett Johansson is perfect as Janet Leigh (also known as Jamie Lee Curtis' mum, something I only recently discovered), the leading lady made famous by the iconic shower scene. Another doppelganger in this movie was James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins, who plays the eponymous psycho. This guy was so convincing as Perkins, he had all the nervousness of the actor and character down-pat. Also a surprising supporting role came from a highly unrecognisable Toni Collette as Hitch's assistant. Jessica Biel also gets a bit part as Vera Miles, Hitch's former leading lady.

There are some interesting "dream" sequences in which Hitch's experience making this film is likened to that of the story Ed Gein, the serial killer caught two years prior to the making of the film and the model behind the character of Norman Bates. Here his played by Michael Wincott (we all remember him from Alien: Resurrection, surely).

Verdict: I found this movie to wonderfully enjoyable. I love Psycho and I find it to be terrifying (it's 52 years old as well). I also like to see movies about how Hollywood worked in it's golden age and this is no exception. Look out for a great reference to his next film, The Birds.