Jurassic World. A Review.

When the BBQ is covered in cobwebs and the river is much too cold to swim in, nothing else gives you that summer feeling quite like a big summer blockbuster. With 6 other friends I went to the beautiful Plaza Cinema, we got real ticket stubs, the air smelt like popcorn, and I was beyond giddy with excitement - Jurassic World was about to remind me why I’m terrible at football and beaches make me cringe, because for me the magic of summer is in the cinema. 

   Jurassic World is open, and operations manager Claire juggles vicious attractions and the potentially more vicious shareholders. As her two nephews take a self-guided tour, animal-trainer Owen Grady battles to prevent sinister forces abusing his research. Then a genetically modified monster gets loose and the dino-dung really hits the fan. 

   Bryce Dallas Howard is superb in the beginning of the film as Claire, operations manager at the park who itemises and organises every aspect of her life and career. Her arc is predictable, however, and I can only hope in the sequel that she is given more to do - I’d love to see more of the spark she shows when given the chance. The two young leads are impressive; Ty Simpkins was entertaining in Iron Man 3 and similarly manages to toe the difficult line between sweet and irritating again here. Nick Robinson (who is excellent in Kings of Summer, check my review here: Kings of Summer. A Review.) is unfortunately short-served on character development, he gives a solid performance as a sullen teenager, but is capable of much more. More often than not, the disgruntled older sibling is a female role, so while this is a male-heavy cast it was nice to see the reversal. Chris Pratt will have won over more fans who missed his excellent coming out party in Guardians of the Galaxy, shining in his comedy sequences and suitably daring in action (though it would have been nice to see him given a little more emotional material to work with). Ultimately the cast are all support acts for the main attractions, and so it is to their credit that they all leave a lasting impression unlike the central couple in the recent Godzilla. Films like Jurassic World sell tickets often because audiences think they want to see 2 hours of cgi monsters, however this is not really the case and for a monster movie to work there has to be a human cast that the audience care about. Jurassic World’s cast were certainly entertaining, with high quality even in some of the smaller supporting roles, creating a world in which dino-destruction actually matters. 

   Colin Trevorrow was best known for the popular time-travel indie Safety Not Guaranteed, then he inherited a behemoth of a film nearly ten years in production with a legion of fans and a mountain of expectation. Trevorrow has made the jump to blockbuster entertainment admirably, the film never feels out of his control. In contrast to the original, the setup is handled at a brisk pace, however Trevorrow still finds time for small moments of character that keep the audience invested - such as the billionaire CEO who insists on flying his own helicopter. Jurassic World could have relied simply on the branding and soundtrack, however it comes with a handful of its own tricks; the GM Indominus Rex is a horrifying thing, the park itself is well realised and peppered with satire, while the glass safari-spheres are fun on screen and provide some clever shots - one of which sold the film for me. Cinema has yet to produce cgi that will age anything like as well as the animatronics in Spielberg’s original, however the computer generated horrors in Jurassic World are plenty life-like enough to have you watching through your fingers. Jurassic World is a good looking film, which holds up when things begin to get truly frantic on-screen. 

   The original Jurassic Park is an amazing movie; it takes its time setting up, and was groundbreaking in its execution of cinematic action-horror. Jurassic World was never going to do that, and nor should it have been expected to - the cinematic landscape has moved on. Jurassic World deliberately comments on modern consumption of entertainment, we demand bigger and faster, however if Jurassic World’s makers had sought only to take the concept of the original and add a few bigger monsters it would have been a soulless husk of a film. Instead the filmmakers have made a modern film, one which comments on entertainment culture, militarisation, family ties, and more. It is the burden of the 21st century blockbuster filmmaker that the audience is as razor sharp and unforgiving as a hungry velociraptor; we want a film that is smart and iconic like the original, we want to be wowed by special effects, we want characters to cheer and jeer and care for. Colin Trevorrow’s solution was to use the aesthetic and brand awareness of the original, and put a modern spin on the classic theme of the dangers of playing God. It is not a perfect solution, some will argue he has leant to heavily on referencing the original, some will argue he does not imitate his predecessor  closely enough - evolution it seems is not an exact science. Jurassic World is a smarter film than many of its rivals, modern filmmaking technology makes it well worth seeing on a big screen, but most importantly it feels like a Jurassic movie should - equal parts wonder, humour, and terror adding up to a lot of fun. 

   I left the Plaza Cinema grinning from ear-to-ear, barely managing to contain my T-Rex impression. Jurassic World is already stomping through the box office, and deservedly so - because it did everything a really good summer film should; it was entertaining, it was made with quality, and best of all it has created a real summer memory which I will not soon forget. 

WHO: Chris Pratt, quickly solidifying his place as a genuine action star.

WHAT: Raptors in the dark. 

WHY: To smile, and laugh, to cheer, and to hide behind you hands.

WHEN: If the music in the trailer sends a tingle down your spine, it’s time to go to the cinema!

(Art from: http://sicktriceratops.com/post/108087377661/jurassic-world-fan-art-by-powersimon)

Once. A Review.

2015 is like an all you can eat buffet of blockbuster action, and I must admit I have a complete lack of self-control at buffets. After the brilliant jam-packed action of Avengers and Mad Max, what I needed was a palette cleanser - which is why Once was so refreshing.

Once is about a guy and a girl who meet each other on the streets of Dublin and bond through a mutual love of music. And that’s about it. While sparse plot can be the ruin of a film, it is a great strength for Once, it is a film which does not rely on coincidence or concept to keep you entertained, but rather uses its characters to tell a story - a novel idea. 

One of the most fascinating things about Once is that its two stars Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova were not professional actors, they were musicians. As such, they are in roles that they were born to play, people whose lives have not perhaps gone the way they had anticipated however who still see beauty through music. Hansard and Irglova give tender and raw performances, entirely believable and compelling without being over the top. They have real chemistry, having been friends prior to filming, in fact director John Carney quipped that instead of getting people to act like they knew each other he had to make them act like they had only just met. Carney succeeds in this challenge, as the onscreen relationship grows in a realistic manner, unfolding slowly. The film is cast wonderfully well, with smaller roles adding up to more than the sum of their parts; for example Hansard’s world weary father speaks volumes simply by supporting his son with a cup of tea. 

John Carney was determined to direct on a shoe-string budget, wanting the intimacy of a small crew. This was a brilliant decision which is evident in the organic quality of the final film, dialogue never feels forced, and there are no big stars or set pieces which distract from the message of the film. Carney talked about it not being important to have the best script, because it is a film ‘more about tone’, this meant a lot of improvisation on set which can sometimes ruin the pace of a film, however it adds to the overall feel of Once as a story about real people. There are times when the lack of budget is evident, some shots are frustratingly wobbly, and there is a lack of the more complex camera shots we take for granted in modern film. Ultimately however, the direction and filmmaking is in service of a film with a rugged and raw tone, which is part of what makes Once such a triumph. 

60% of Once is music, with most of the key emotional beats of the film being told through a musical performance. The musical numbers feel organic and integral to the plot, this was not a film with added music nor a musical with added plot, instead both elements work in tandem in an incredibly satisfying way. The music of Once is truly remarkable, it is stripped back and emotional, infused with folk and Irish influences with a modern twist. The signature song for the film, Falling Slowly, earned Hansard and Irglova a well-deserved Oscar and garnered more attention for this hidden gem of a film. Falling Slowly is talismanic of the film, not in a hurry but with an inevitable momentum, two well rounded characters falling slowly, hesitantly, defiantly, and perhaps lovingly together.

Steven Spielberg, master of spectacle and sentiment, said “a little movie called Once gave me enough inspiration to last the rest of the year”. Once is a wonderfully hopeful film, uplifting but never cynically so, it is not pitch perfect, but it is honest and will stick with you long after viewing. 

WHO: Marketa Irglova steals the film, incredibly watchable. 

WHAT: The music - sublime. 

WHY: It is a brilliantly charming film, and will leave you smiling. 

WHEN: When you need a break from visual effects and superstars. 

Avengers: Age of Ultron. A Review.

   First, a counter-factual review of a film which never happened.  Avengers: Attack of Ultron, as directed by Justin Lin (Fast and Furious) is solid blockbuster action flick. The action sequences shine as the Avengers take on Ultron (Jean Claude Van Damme), and while it is a shame there were quite so many shots of Scarlett Johansen’s cleavage, and it seemed out of character for Bruce Banner to drink so much Corona, on the whole it will appeal to the main audience.  This film never came to be, but it isn’t all that hard to imagine. The fact is, we are a spoilt cinema-going audience. Age of Ultron was made with huge amounts of heart and soul, and deserves to be recognised as more than just a cash-in designed to sell action figures.  

    Age of Ultron, as you’d expect, focuses on the rise of Ultron, an artificial intelligence gone wrong and hell-bent on destroying the Avengers. There is great deal of plot going on in AOU, however it all boils down to the Avengers deciding what their place is in the world. If Avengers Assemble brought the team together, AOU begs the question - was that really such a good idea? The great thing about Joss Whedon’s script is that you will root for the heroes all the way, while still questioning whether they are doing the right thing. AOU is no simple tale of good versus bad, instead it is a film where there really aren’t any easy answers, and our heroes have to go through a great deal of pain to find any resolution. 

   AOU is a ridiculous ensemble cast. Perhaps we have come to expect A list stars in our A list movies, but to see Robert Downey Jr and co all on screen at one is a real treat, and one that the film doesn’t take for granted. Rather than relying on star power to sell the story, instead the story gives its stars a chance to show depth and growth. Obviously there just isn’t room to give every character a fully fleshed arc, instead the film treats the team as its central character, a character going through some severe growing pains. Marvel’s smart casting is a great strength; Johansen is tormented as the Black Widow, Chris Hemsworth is hilarious as Thor, and Chris Evans makes the most of the straight man role. James Spader is on maniacal form as Ultron, rather than the antagonistic A.I. being a cold and distant, he is charismatic and compelling. Ultron has a few fantastic monologues, during which his grudge against the Avengers seems almost relatable. Just as with Avengers Assemble, AOU uses Tony Stark sparingly, and while Stark’s hubris is essential to the plot, that doesn’t mean AOU becomes the Robert Downey Jr show. The interplay between these characters is what really makes the film work, and it doesn’t need pointing our every 10 minutes that they are a family (looking at you Fast and Furious), instead  Whedon’s trademark witty dialogue is allowed to come to the fore - to the point that their disagreements feel real rather than machinations of plot. 

   From the very first frames, AOU is a great looking film. With so many characters on screen at once, the camera is forced to swoop and swing through the action, at times it is almost like watching Cirque du Soleil with so much acrobatic mayhem happening that you want to pause the film so you can take it in. As the end credits roll, there is a legion of effects people and prop makers, all of whom deserve credit for making the world of AOU beautifully realised. All the filmmaking elements come together to create a visual feast, and while this is by no means the film’s only selling point, you feel as though you are getting your money’s worth as an audience member. The production design of AOU sets it apart from the competition, the pseudo-science cooked up by Marvel is fantastic and futuristic, however it all looks like it could work. Furthermore, the colour palette of the film is wonderfully bright and vivid, you definitely don’t feel as though you need night-vision goggles just to see what’s going on. 

                  

   AOU is by no means a perfect film. Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson suffer from the many cooks syndrome, they are short-served on character development, for which shaky Eastern European accents does not quite compensate. AOU is also not a standalone film, it carries with it the weight of the whole Marvel Universe to this point, and there are brief moments where it seems as though the film may buckle under that weight. Thor is given a mysterious sub-plot, Loki’s sceptre from the first film becomes an important maguffin, Sam Jackson’s Nick Fury appears but doesn’t quite account for the fallout from Captain America: The Winter Solder. Interestingly, these issues stem from one of AOU’s greatest strengths. It is more than a film, it is part of something greater, an important gear in the vast Marvel machine that is giving us some of the best fantasy in cinematic history. AOU works as a standalone film, its villain and plot are some of Marvel’s best, however the smaller subplots and setups may leave the casual viewer non-plussed. A Marvel acolyte however, will enjoy these when subplots pay off a thread from a previous film, and take on faith that questions will be answered eventually. Marvel have so far managed to walk the tight-rope, their films work as compelling action-fantasy for the average cinema goer, yet offer unique rewards to fans who have been paying attention.

An open letter to Joss Whedon....

          Dear Mr Whedon. I am writing to express my sincere thanks for all the effort you have put into Avengers: Age of Ultron. I know it cannot have been easy, juggling an enormous cast, complicated script, and the obligations of working towards to larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. There must have been the temptation to phone it in, string together a couple of set pieces and call it a day. We are a spoilt audience to expect so much of a director and film crew, and should consider ourselves fortunate that such an epic blockbuster film was made with such care and attention to detail. You have more than earned a rest. 

WHO - James Spader, evil and loving it. 

WHAT - The still glorious sight of our avengers on screen together. 

WHY - Because in the cinematic Age of Comic Book Movies, Age of Ultron stands head and shoulders above the rest, thanks to smart writing, stellar action, and pitch-perfect performances. 

WHEN - Today. And then again next week, after it’s had a chance to sink in. 

                                            

(Art from: http://geektyrant.com/news/avengers-age-of-ultron-teaser-poster-by-matt-ferguson)

Furious 7. A Review.

   How did we get here? Fourteen years ago the original Fast and Furious was unleashed upon an unsuspecting audience, an unashamed action flick about an undercover cop in the underground street racing scene. A couple of lacklustre sequels later and most thought Fast had run out of fuel, until Justin Lin took the franchise a gave it a remodel. Furious 7 is a behemoth blockbuster, and while purists might point out it bears little resemblance to the original, it delivers what a big chunk of the cinema-going audience craves on a Friday night: action, fun, and not a whole lot of thinking. 

   Let’s get this out of the way first: this film makes no sense. At all. If you’re looking for a film with an airtight plot, realistic physics, or realistic anything for that matter, watch something else. The plot, such as there is one, has the Fast gang under threat from the big bad brother of a previous villain, and so they have to travel across the globe hunting a computer chip, for reasons.

   As you might expect, the performances in the film are larger than life - especially from Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson who appear to have taken the whole larger-than-life idea quite literally. The script is pretty dreadful, so none of the stars have much of an opportunity to shine - even two time Oscar nominee Djimon Hounsou is essentially reduced to yelling commands from a helicopter. On the positive side, the main cast have been together so long that they have a genuine and infectious chemistry, you would believe them as a family even without Diesels several monologues to that effect. Michelle Rodriguez is compelling as an amnesiac, actually an interesting sub-plot which deserved much more attention than it receives - though Rodriguez makes the most of what she is given. Kurt Russell is fun in a cameo role, Ludacris delivers on most of the film’s laughs, and Jason Statham is a believable threat, however none of them are fully fleshed-out characters and serve mostly to move the plot forwards. Overall the cast do everything that is asked of them, its just that they aren’t asked to do very much.

   I saw the film in a packed auditorium, and I’m pretty sure they were all there for the same reason, to see the action and the stunts - you know, the ones that were in the trailer? Director James Wan and his stunt coordinators have put together several stunning action set-pieces, they are all brilliantly executed and even have some surprises in store. Action is not always given its due credit, often it is taken for granted in this kind of film, however an awful lot of imagination and hard work has gone into creating sequences that are entertaining. The fight scenes are especially well filmed, they suffer the same affliction as many western action films where fast cuts are used to hide blows not connecting, however the stunt team and actors give bruising and energetic performances, and the camerawork highlights the action in a satisfying way - sometimes spinning upside down to follow the movement of the fight. The car stunts are both sublime and ridiculous, as well as highly entertaining. James Wan has managed to make them feel really dangerous, as one faceless henchman meets a sticky end there was an appreciative “ooooooooh” from the audience, it is no small feat to still bring fresh ideas to motor stunts 7 films into a franchise. When it comes down to it, Furious 7 sells itself as an action blockbuster, and thankfully delivers on this front. 

   It would be remiss not to mention, and pay tribute to the late Paul Walker. The tragedy of his death was widely reported, as was its impact on a film still in production. Judging by the heartfelt words of cast and crew, Walker’s death clearly had a huge impact on his colleagues also. The technology used to finish the film, as well as stand-in performances by Walker’s brothers, blend almost seamlessly into the finished product - a truly remarkable achievement. The film works a tribute for Walker into its final scenes which, while they do not tonally fit with the rest of the film, work beautifully by themselves. Walker’s legacy needed to be handled with delicacy and respect, not exactly the hallmarks of the series, however it is something the filmmakers managed to get right. 

   Something the filmmakers absolutely did not get right is the gender politics. Simply, the treatment of female characters is not good enough. Leering low-angle shots of women in bikinis are peppered throughout the film, seemingly whenever the producers are worried people might be struggling to pay attention. Who makes the decision to film these shots? Is some poor storyboard artist forced to draw these panels? Just, Why? There is nothing wrong with including beautiful people in films, it is a visual medium after all, however including these shots for literally no reason whatsoever is appalling. I am not well versed in feminist arguments, so I’ll approach this from a filmmaking perspective. Nathalie Emmanuel’s character is shown emerging from the ocean scantily clad, as two male characters have a humorous exchange as to who has “dibs”. This doesn’t move the plot forward, has nothing to do with Emmanuel’s character, the two males are not brought into some kind of conflict over their feelings. Furthermore, nothing about this scene is original, not a thing. The worst thing is that the filmmakers have tried. There are some strong female roles, and the aforementioned scene of the two men staking their claim ends with Michelle Rodriguez making fun of their chauvinism. The film is trying to have its sexist cake and eat it too, which kind of makes it worse. There is simply no need for this sort of thing in films, surely nobody in the auditorium is so desperate to see bikini models that they paid the ticket price solely for that reason? This kind of lazy filmmaking, no doubt perpetuated by insecure producers who think their audiences are stupid, needs to stop. I hate writing this kind of thing, it’s surely not fun to read, but it has to be said. Furious 7 is a worse film because of its treatment of women, I know people who will not watch it for this reason, Hollywood needs to wake up. Rant over. 

   Overall Furious 7 is an enjoyable film. The action sequences, which are the film’s big draw, are executed brilliantly and are worth the price of admission to see on a big screen. The plot is non-existent, however provides moments of fan-service for long-time devotees of the series. While having a few decent roles for women, this is not nearly enough and in no way outweighs the outdated sexist streak running through the film. There is plenty to like about Furious 7, hopefully Fast and Furious V8 will take go the ezra mile terms of story and gender politics, add a little substance to the style and take the next leap this franchise needs. Cinema would be better for it. 

WHO: Michelle Rodriguez, if there is a spin-off it should be hers.

WHAT: The Abu Dhabi stunt, silly silly brilliant stuff.

WHY: This film was made to entertain, and is a lot of fun.

WHEN: I think the correct order in which to watch these films is 1,2,4,5,6,3,7. Maybe. It doesn’t matter.

Cinderella. A Review.

As Disney shows us gods and monsters with Marvel, and prepares to take us to a galaxy far, far away with Lucasfilm, quaint things like glass slippers and fairy godmothers might seem terribly old hat. Cinderella is proof that some stories truly are timeless, and when treated with equal measures of wit and respect, can still find ways to surprise and delight. 

The plot requires little recapping, Cinderella follows the plot of the 1950 animated version fairly closely, making a few small, smart alterations. This isn’t some post-modern reimagining in the vein of Enchanted, or a complete ret-con like Maleficent, instead Director Kenneth Branagh focuses on taking a well known tale and telling it really well. 

The major success of the film is its cast, Casting director Lucy Bevan has put together a fine ensemble where the main roles are given gravitas by fantastic performances, and minor roles are elevated into real characters, additions such as Hayley Attwell and Stellan Skarsgard (interestingly both Marvel alumni) make the film a rich tapestry. Obviously the key to the film was finding the right Cinderella, a role which Lily James completely inhabits. Sweet and innocent might be the hardest sell in all of acting, play it too straight and it can be sickening, playing it with a wink at the camera would have undermined the whole film. James manages to find the middle ground, a Cinderella who embodies the film’s message of being kind and having courage, while being fun and likeable - a lead we can root for. 

Our Prince Charming (or Kit) is ably played Richard Madden, best known as Rob Stark from Game of Thrones. He proves a worthy love interest for James, and crucially the two are given a chance to build some chemistry before they are supposed to fall in love, seeming more like genuine lovestruck youths than cardboard airheads. Madden makes the best of a supporting role, thankfully the script gives him personality and motivation, and so he manages to make an impression on screen. It’s also nice to see Rob get to sit on the throne. 

Cate Blanchett is have a ball as the wicked stepmother, carefully nibbling at the scenery in a way which fits the character rather than steals the scene. Similarly the ugly sisters (Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger) romp around in the most fantastic pantomime outfits, mining comedic gold out of mean spirits. Helena Bonham Carter’s Fairy Godmother may potentially split audiences, she seems to be channeling Joanna Lumley in Absolutely Fabulous, personally I found her funny and felt she added a twist to a familiar scene.

Director Kenneth Branagh has been described as a safe pair of hands, but he is so much more than that. It takes a director of Branagh’s confidence to trust in the appeal of fairy tales, to believe that audiences will be invested in ball gowns and pumpkin carriages. Branagh has a great understanding of slapstick, and the film is patient in the way it earns such satisfying moments as an entire ballroom falling silent as Cinderella arrives at the top of the stairs. 

There are some things that didn’t quite work for me. The world of Cinderella, while visually stunning, would not hold up to scrutiny. It is an age old Disney trick of cobbling together aspects from different areas to create a fairytale world, however unlike the world of Tangled or Frozen which feel as though you could step right into, the patchwork of Cinderella doesn’t quite fit. Also, and I realise this is an odd thing to pick up on, the mice characters seem undeveloped. Perhaps it is a hangover from the original, which is unfair to bring to the new version, yet they seemed to be there for fan service and as a plot device and not much more. However, while these elements stuck out to me, they are still well made, and the fact I mention them at all speaks to the excellence of the rest of the film. 

There was a point in Cinderella that I realised I had a huge grin on my face, it is a film that hits all the right notes, with a few interesting new melodies thrown in. Branagh and co have delivered more than could be expected, a real family film with a kind and courageous heart. 

WHO: Lily James never gives anything less than a performance worthy of a princess.

WHAT: The dance. And I never thought I’d say that.

WHY: To see Rob Stark on the throne! 

WHEN: A timeless story, it will delight whenever.

Tunnel Burner. A Review.

Watch the film here: https://vimeo.com/121138972

   Making your first film is a bit like your first kiss. You spend a lot of time thinking about what it’s going to be like, it’s exciting and daunting, it’s over all too quickly, and it happens in a bus shelter. Okay that last part might just be me. Anyway, making your first film is a fantastic experience where you get to try out new things and experiment, Jose Sherwood-Gonzales managed to do this as well as make a personal film with heaps of character - not bad for a first timer!

   Tunnel Burner follows its central protagonist as he drifts through life, with the power to create portals he exists in a kind of limbo world where he doesn’t belong in the present yet isn’t ready to move on to his future. As the Tunnel Burner watches the word from the safety of his room, numbing his senses with drugs, he is about to get a rude awakening from a mysterious figure.

   Jose put an awful lot of planning into his first film, with both extensive location scouting and storyboarding. This is evident in the style of the film, he has managed to find unique and interesting shots all across one main location. Jose and his cinematography team have gone out of their way to make each shot as cinematic as possible, highlighting the already stunning art deco Brotherton Library. Of course on a student film there are times when aesthetic must be sacrificed in the name of a convenient location or time constraints, and so Tunnel Burner has a few shots that seem a little rough around the edges, however in general the film achieves a production value far beyond its meagre means. 

   Craig Arthur’s central performance is commendable, he manages to build his character just through physicality and facial expressions. Asked to carry much of the film by himself, and without dialogue, Craig rises to the challenge; panicked glances over the shoulder give a sense of paranoia, while looks of longing into the camera suggest deeper feelings. While Craig does his best, he is a little short served by the script. Of course for a first film, adding dialogue is just an extra complication - especially when filming in a library! With that said, if Jose ever decides to expand upon this character, it would be nice to see Craig be given more to do. 

   Tunnel Burner is more than just an excuse for a director to jump into filmmaking, it is also a personal film which seeks to examine the anxiety many people feel when the time comes to move one, and they aren’t ready. Jose lets his cinematography speak for itself, the narrow lanes of the library and the dark, brooding tones deliberately create a sense of detachment, supporting the message which the director sought to send. At times the film can be difficult to follow, the introduction of portals adds a surreal element which when added to the lack of dialogue means that the message gets a bit lost amidst the action. The portals themselves, however, are very well pulled off. Jose was determined from the outset that he would use a practical effect rather than cgi, and the end result is impressive. The music and sound editing are also superb, the score written specifically for the film creates a tense atmosphere - giving Tunnel Burner a sense of pace. Where the direction, cinematography, performance, and sounds all combine at their best, Tunnel Burner is remarkably polished for a student filmmaker’s first feature.

   This review has referenced several times that Tunnel Burner is Jose’s first film, and I mean this in no way to be patronising. Genuinely it is an impressive debut, in which the director has made an admirable attempt to realise his vision. Jose made effective use of all the resources at his disposal, including a great deal of planning and preparation on his part, and the end result is a film of which he should be proud. 

WHO: Craig Arthur. He behaves like a pro.

WHAT: The Tunnel Burner smoking shot, really well done.

WHY: A lot of hard work and passion went into this one, it deserves a watch.

WHEN: If you’re in the library working hard and need a 5 minute break.

Chappie. A Review.

   The third major release from director Neil Blomkamp and his co-writer/partner Terri Tatchell, Chappie takes us back to Blomkamp’s native South Africa. In the near future, the crime ridden city of Johannesburg has become slightly less crime-ridden thanks to the robotic police force invented by Dev Patel, and paid for by Sigourney Weaver’s weapons manufacturer. Idealistic Deon (Patel) is desperate to take the next step and created a genuine A.I., which he does in secret - creating the titular robot. No sooner has the childlike Chappie ‘woken up’ than he is kidnapped by a desperate gang - and that’s where things get interesting. 

   From the opening shots of faux documentary interviews with robotics experts, the realistic Blomkamp tone is established. His future Johannesburg is a violent, yet vivid place, expertly brought to life - the world of Chappie is a more believable setting for robotic misadventure than for example Robocop’s Detroit or Dredd’s mega-city one. Adding to the realism, the protagonists are not action caricatures, but seemingly real people. Dev Patel is not the slick computer genius or stereotypical nerd of many sci-fi films, but a lonely man who spends his evenings on red bull fuelled coding sessions. In a departure from his typical heroism, Hugh Jackman has a ball playing rival developer to Patel, sporting his native Australian accent, as well as a mullet and cargo shorts, Jackman is a hugely entertaining foil. The gamble in the casting are Yolandi and Ninja, not actors but musicians from Rap-Rave phenomenon Die Antwoord. While perhaps struggling at times with some of the emotional weight of the film, Die Antwoord are absolutely convincing as violent criminals, and their raw style adds to the realism of the world which Blomkamp has created. 

   The titular robot is wonderfully designed, aesthetically not far removed from the prototypes seen at electronics shows. Rather than the sleekness of I-Robot or the awkwardness of C3PO, the robotic scouts blend into the film, rather than standing out. Sharlto Copley gives a compelling motion capture performance, utilising a natural comic timing in some slapstick sections, but also conveying emotion through hunched shoulders or aggressive stance. Chappie’s childlike demeanour, as necessitated by the plot, may be grating for some, however he is sympathetic enough that for the most part audiences will side with him rather than against. 

   Chappie is a film with a social conscience and message, the latest in a modern vein of films where AI is represented as the hero while humankind is the antagonist. The humans in Blomkamp and Tatchell’s script represent a kind of worst-case scenario reaction to AI; this is most subtly done as Patel’s character vies for influence over his creation against the aggressive gangsters who have taken him in, however the blunt actions of Weaver and Jackman seem a little cartoonish by comparison. At times Chappie is a film torn between its desire to explore what it means to create a consciousness, as well as entertain an audience who have been sold on an action blockbuster. 

   In order to craft a story of scope and scale, Blomkamp and Tatchell’s script has characters make some strange and extreme decisions. Furthermore there is some egregious Sony product placement, as well as a final act which stretches the suspension of disbelief. Waiting to watch the film I saw trailers for upcoming action films such as Fast and Furious 7, these movies have ridiculous plot developments which as an audience we do not question because we are all in on the joke that these films are ridiculous. In Chappie, the realistic world and social conscience that are hallmarks of Blomkamp’s direction sit uncomfortably with developments which seem unrealistic and there for the sake of action set pieces. The film is dividing audiences, and this seems to be the line of division; either the realistic tone allows viewers to accept outlandish plot points, or it makes such developments so incongruous that the spell is broken. My personal experience was that the central performances were generally strong enough, and the presentation of the world so thorough, that I simply raised an eyebrow when Chappie downloads the internet to his brain yet still seems not to understand that a blade to chest will do more than send the victim to sleep - then I go back to enjoying Chappie’s development and the way he impacts the world around him. 

   The world of cinema is quick to jump to conclusions, and there are already those branding Blomkamp a one-hit-wonder, however this does a huge disservice to a film which attempts to explore large themes and succeeds to an extent. Blomkamp is a brave director who has managed to make a large scale film without sacrificing his own style, where the film does fall down is the moments in which it commits the sin of forcing character to serve action, rather than the other way around. At worst, Chappie is a film which tries to juggle many themes to satisfy its audiences, at its best Chappie will have you leaving the cinema thinking about the nature of intelligence and consciousness - which probably won’t be the case in Fast and Furious 7. 

WHO: Hugh Jackman, the nicest man in Hollywood being a villain - in cargo shorts.

WHAT: Johannesburg, proving that Manhattan doesn’t own the rights to sci-fi. 

WHY: If you loved District 9 and are craving more Blomkamp.

WHEN: You’ve just seen Terminator 3 and need your faith in robots restored.

(Art from: http://faragonart.tumblr.com/post/107809681008/cinemamind-in-collaboration-with-my-beloved-we)