Review: Interstellar ★★★★★

Chris Nolan has brought us some of the biggest and boldest 'blockbusters' of our generation. Moving past his earlier work in Memento and The Prestige, his first major blockbuster came in caped form. The Dark Knight trilogy re-imagined Batman in a manner which oozed class and took audiences and critics entirely by surprise. When Inception was released, therefore, we had seen what Nolan was capable of and expected big things; he certainly delivered on all fronts with a large-scale action film that was engaging both emotionally and intellectually.

Two years after Nolan hung up Batman's cape (or at least the one belonging to his costume department), he has gifted us a masterpiece, and a film which is arguably his best yet. It is certainly fair to say that the immense hype surrounding this film is owed entirely to the quality of work that Nolan has previously put on show. The cast is star-studded, as one would expect, but it is Nolan that proves the biggest draw.

Interstellar centres around a near-future struggle for Planet Earth, where its life expectancy has shrivelled to less than a generation. Whilst it is never explicitly explained, it becomes relatively obvious that the human race went through a resource crisis which prompted Michael Caine's Professor Brand and his  'new NASA' to put Earth on the market and take up residence elsewhere, Time is running out, so enter Matthew McConaughey: the best pilot there ever was, ever. Sadly, Coop (McConaughey) had to hang up his wings; there wasn't a need for pilots like there was for farmers, and his farm was relatively fruitful.

By some lucky coincidence, Coop stumbles across 'new-NASA' and is met with an almost instantaneous invitation to pilot their exploration mission. In that age-old dilemma of "the fate of the world" versus "but my family", Coop leaves his family faster than you can say 'alright, alright, alright' and starts navigating different galaxies in pursuit of a solution for the survival of the human race.

He doesn't set off alone, though. Anne Hathaway as Brand's headstrong daughter shares the scientific responsibilities at the core of the mission with West Bentley and David Gyasi. As a whole, the Interstellar cast is mesmerising throughout; not one performance feels under-cooked. McConaughey is at his best, with a powerful and heartbreaking performance - a performance that arguably trumps anything he has produced before, including Dallas Buyers Club. An honourable mention must also go to Mackenzie Foy, who plays ten year-old Murphy Cooper. Her performance for someone so young (she was born in the year 2000) is breathtaking.

The film itself is incredibly brave, and kudos to Mr. Nolan, times two, for their work on the script. Chris and Jonathan have produced a clever blockbuster, as Inception was, but with a very real emotional weight behind it. Inception's underlying storyline of DiCaprio mourning the loss of his wife was never as convincing as the engaging relationship Coop shares with his family, in particular Murphy. As such, his leaving is all the more agonising.

The Nolan brothers were so committed to the story that they turned to theoretical physicist, Kip Thorne and his work on gravitational physics and astrophysics has a clear influence on the film. However, you certainly cannot invest wholly in the scientific grounding of the storyline in places. It feels as though the Nolans wrote themselves into a place where the rule book needed to be thrown out, and this benefits Interstellar as a film rather than a factually accurate foretelling of our future.

It's certainly the mark of a great film where the credits roll and the audience sits in stunned silence, as they did in our screening. Interstellar blew me away for a number of reasons but above all, the message at its core was heartbreaking and wonderfully moving. Of course, t was magnificent to look at - its grandiose style and the magnitude of Nolan's undertaking were beyond impressive - and there was a sufficient level of action to claim its 'blockbuster' status, but don't be fooled by that label because this film is nothing short of a masterpiece.

Review: Wish I Was Here ★★★★

Zach Braff's career, post-Scrubs, has been one largely bereft of mainstream audiences. His latest project, Wish I Was Here, does not buck the trend.

Funded by Kickstarter, Wish I Was Here is a quirky indie comedy fused with a tick-list of emotional dilemmas. As well as directing the picture, Braff is Aidan Bloom: a perpetually out-of-work actor, father of two children and husband to Sarah (Kate Hudson), who seems destined to forever pay for his reluctance on giving up his dreams.

When his father - the wonderful Mandy Patinkin - falls ill, reality hits Bloom like a freight train. He has to juggle home-schooling his two children with his auditions, his marriage, his father's illness, and his responsibility as an older brother to Noah (Josh Gad): a man with enormous 'Dad' issues.

It is an unfortunate fact that life has a cruel habit of 'kicking one when one is down'. Thus, it doesn't ever feel as though Braff's multiple struggles have been shoe-horned into the story to add weight. In fact, Wish I Was Here is a grounded film that takes a very honest look at emotional suffering.

The acting is excellent; Braff is very likeable and Gad stands up to be counted with a performance that moves. A mention should also go to young Joey King, playing Bloom's daughter, who steals the spotlight from Patinkin and Braff in a few wonderful scenes.

In short, Wish I Was Here is a lovely film. It verges on saccharine but it's funny and it's touching. For that, Braff deserves congratulations.

TOY STORY 4: LIFE AFTER ANDY

Last night, Pixar announced that the world's favourite toys will be back on our screens. June 2017 will see Toy Story 4 arrive at cinemas, 22 years after the first outing of Messrs Woody, Lightyear, Jessie and Potato Head.

It is an announcement that has taken the world entirely by surprise. Of course, with the revelation that there will be a sequel to The Incredibles and Finding Nemo, one reasonably suspected that Pixar weren't perhaps finished with a franchise that raised them over $1bn at the box office - not to mention the $10bn it drew in purely from merchandising.

You have to hope - although it would be naïve to think otherwise - that this is a decision not motivated by money; that Pixar feel there is a story left to be told with these characters. It would even be nice to hear that, perhaps, their affection for these characters is so strong that they do not wish to put them in a box in the attic and leave them to gather dust. However, reasoning dictates otherwise.

Toy Story 3 was a masterpiece in climactic story-telling. It took the characters that a generation had grown up with and brought them back to life just as that same generation stared 'growing up' in the face, mirroring Andy's problems in the narrative. Aside from the classy script writing that has become a ubiquitous feature of all Pixar productions, the final scene in which Andy offers up his collection of childhood friends to Bonnie is crushingly moving. It is also, without doubt, the perfect ending to a trilogy that had resonated with a generation of children-cum-young adults.

The announcement of Toy Story 4 filled me with pure and unadulterated excitement in the first instance; a knee-jerk reaction to the thought of catching up with old friends. Slowly, however, the dawning realisation that the perfectly wrapped trilogy will now be torn apart in an attempt to squeeze more life, and money, out of these characters is somewhat distressing.

Andy, surely, cannot feature any longer: his story arc is complete. Does this mean there will be a new story arc with Bonnie? Should we expect Toy Story 5 and 6 to wrap up any plotlines they set in motion? It is unlikely, of course, but who can say it is not possible, now?

One of the major selling points of this announcement seems to be the return of John Lasseter to the director's chair. Director of both Toy Story and Toy Story 2, and winner of two Academy Awards, Lasseter now sits as Chief Creative Officer at Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios. He is a genius and his return to directing is both wonderful and a monumental pointer to how important it is that they get this film right.

So, do not for one second think that I am not excited to enjoy another Pixar masterpiece. John Lasseter made it very clear that their fondness for the characters will result in a film that can be nothing short of spectacular -

“We don’t want to do anything with them unless it lives up to or surpasses what’s gone before. Toy Story 3 ended Woody and Buzz’s story with Andy so perfectly that for a long time, we never even talked about doing another Toy Story movie. But when Andrew [Stanton], Pete [Doctor], Lee [Unkrich] and I came up with this new idea, I just could not stop thinking about it. It was so exciting to me, I knew we had to make this movie—and I wanted to direct it myself.”

- however, I think this re-addressing of a perfectly packaged trilogy is something to be mourned.

Review: The Kings of Summer ★★★★

During The Kings of Summer, you could almost be forgiven for experiencing déjà vu. Jonathan Vogt-Roberts’ inaugural feature film feels a lot like Stand By Me, arguably the best of the ‘coming of age’ genre. This is far from negative and The Kings of Summer is a wonderfully well-intentioned film with a strong comedic script.

The film follows the efforts of two teenage boys, Joe (Nick Robinson) and Patrick (Gabriel Basso), who are desperate to escape their overbearing parents. Together with Biaggio (Moises Arias), they descend onto a wooded plain and construct a house so well crafted that you wonder whether the lads are qualified architects. Nevertheless, the film’s implausibility is forgiven as part of its endearing whimsy.

The acting performances from the three boys are fantastic: their comic timing is excellent, and they perfected the ‘Superbad dynamic’ of two nerdy friends and one complete nutcase. The exceptionally strange and offbeat performance of Arias as Biaggio, the boy whose background we know little about, is hopefully a sign of great things to come. It is the spectacularly brusque Nick Offerman (of Parks and Recreation fame) who is gifted the vast majority of the best lines, however, and no one can begrudge him that as he delivers them flawlessly, no thanks to his years of practice as Ron Swanson.  

As the film progresses and cracks begin to form in their utopia, the boys’ emancipation becomes less and less attractive. The comedy dries up a little in this final third and it begins to take itself quite seriously but it is so funny in the earlier parts of the film that it should be allowed a little self-indulgence.

The Kings of Summer is a well-made film with a great heart, and the tranquility that transcends the film is no doubt down to Vogt-Roberts wonderful direction. He uses some lovely wildlife montages to portray the utopia that the boys have found themselves in, and a great amount of slow-motion to keep the pace of the film to a meander; what some people argue as too much, I thoroughly enjoyed. The soundtrack also does the film a lot of favours with a summer vibe that lends itself perfectly to the story.

Vogt-Roberts’ film is a testament to all indie comedy and to coming of age films, of which it is one of the best since Stand By Me. This is a film to treasure for this generation.

Holy Hollywood, Batman!

Ben Affleck to don the cowl as The Dark Knight returns in Man of Steel sequel

Ben Affleck: Caped Crusader. A headline that sent the internet into a frenzy. Whilst the furor that followed was to be expected, the scale of animosity, however, possibly wasn’t.

Credit: The Guardian [online]

Respect was an alien concept to Affleck in his early 21^st century, ‘Gigli’ days. However, strong career moves in recent years have gifted him a newfound esteem. Hollywoodland, The Town and Argo all landed him reverence from the critics, and an Academy award, no less, for his spectacular directorial work on Argo.

Recent maturity on Affleck’s part, has led to his removal as the butt of every joke. Instead, directing seems to be his forte and he has got his career back on a path he can be happy with. Why is it, then, that Affleck is willing to jeapordise his revival by opening himself up to such a risk-laden project? Scott Mendelson’s insightful article for Forbes raises the interesting argument that perhaps Affleck’s decision is, in fact, a shrewd one that leaves Warner Bros. indebted to him. This debt could grant him a lifetime supply of money to continue making his gritty, artistic dramas. As Mendelson puts it, he is “arguably sacrificing Ben Affleck the actor to ensure the continued artistic legacy of Ben Affleck the director”.  

Perhaps the decision is less complicated, though; Affleck is quick to distance himself from the atrocity

Credit: digitalspy.co.uk

that was Daredevil so maybe he sees this as an opportunity to prove that he has the ability to successfully portray an emotionally damaged superhero?

Zack Snyder has promised us that Affleck’s Bruce Wayne will be “a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter”. This is ideal for Affleck, who has gotten to an age where the Expendables franchise might be the only place he could play ‘action hero’. His “I’ve seen things and lost people” character in Argo could be translatable for the image that Snyder clearly has for Wayne in Man of Steel’s sequel. 

In all honesty, the biggest problem with Man of Steel 2 is the fact that it involves Batman at all. DC Comics has, up to this point, made dark and emotionally gripping superhero movies; a far cry from Marvel’s glossy, action movies aimed at destroying the box office (as well as New York). However, Man of Steel’s incredible box office success of more than $649 million must have caused the Warner Bros. executives to have a greed-induced panic attack. Before we could take a breath after Man of Steel, Batman vs. Superman was being announced at Comic Con.

Sadly, DC will become the pet project of Warner Bros. and we will lose the grit and guile that made the Dark Knight trilogy such a breath of fresh air. Christopher Nolan will surely distance himself from such money grabbers, and the quality (although perhaps not the fun) will dissipate. However, maybe Affleck’s gritty films, courtesy of Warner Bros.’ debt to him, will act as a replacement?

This decision has left the future of DC unclear but, maybe, Affleck’s appointment isn’t all that bad. If he can emulate his performances from The Town and Argo then we may have a decent film on our hands. The stellar cast from Man of Steel will all be featuring again and David S. Goyer can certainly pen a clever script. If you were to ask Twitter, it is the end of cinema as we know it; in reality, it isn’t nearly as neglectful a decision as one might think.

Review: Man Of Steel ★★★★

Man Of Steel is a true depiction of the direction that the DC Universe is taking with Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer at its helm. This duo was responsible for the epic Dark Knight trilogy and offered their respective talents to Zack Snyder as he attempted to banish the curse that seems to linger around the Superman franchise.

The Superman jinx has caused problems for even the most established of directors. Bryan Singer's attempt, Superman Returns, was the most recent at creating a decent film about the Last Son of Krypton but was a massive flop in spite of its cast and hefty budget. Many feared that Snyder, with his less than entirely dependable record, would be unable to shake the curse. However, Man of Steel is a surprisingly good film and, whilst flawed, sets up what has the potential to be an exciting franchise. 

As with Batman Begins, Goyer seemed keen to dedicate the first in this fresh superhero series to Kal-El's origin; making Man of Steel a prologue to the established story of Clark Kent. Hence, Kal-El's story from birth to adulthood (as he develops into the superhero marauding as Clark Kent, Daily Planet reporter) is explained to us at length and in great detail. 

Very little was spared by the production team when creating the crumbling Krypton, and the opening scenes depicting General Zod's uprising against the Krytponian Council demonstrate the monumental scale of the budget. The risk behind allocating such a large budget to a franchise known to be difficult is a huge demonstration of faith by the production companies in Snyder, but also in Goyer and Nolan. The faith pays off completely and Snyder was able to create a breathtaking Krypton. 

A large portion of the film is taken up by flashbacks to Kal-El's childhood on Earth and the events that defined him. Bullies, life lessons from his father (Kevin Costner) and near-death experiences throughout his formative years lead to a young man who doesn't understand his differences to the human race, nor his place on Earth. Henry Cavill won't get a lot to play with in terms of meaty acting with Superman; he is an invincible alien who isn't flawed in the way that Bruce Wayne is. However, Kal-El's desperation as he travels the world in search for answers is well depicted by Cavill. He also does well to get his teeth into the emotional tussle between "Supes'" passion for the human race and his obvious desire to preserve his own kind. There is a vulnerability to the character that Cavill manages to tap into thanks to Goyer's writing. 

Man of Steel boasts an excellent cast, who all live up to their reputation. Michael Shannon is superb as General Zod, in keeping with the frightening intensity of previous DC villains under the Nolan and Goyer reign. Amy Adams is an excellent Lois Lane, whose only downfall is the lack of tongue-in-cheek comments we expect from the quick-wit of Lane's character. This humourlessness is one of the film's two greatest flaws. Whilst it is a theme characteristic of the new DC world, Superman is a franchise that arguably needs a touch of humour due to the ridiculousness of its premise. Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe, playing the two fathers (Jonathan Kent and Jor-El), are the biggest culprits as they remain unflinching in their solemn severity, delivering life lessons to Kal-El. Whereas in the Dark Knight trilogy, we can rely on Christian Bale and Michael Caine to deliver some sharp one-liners, Man of Steel offers very little in this department.

There are some scenes worthy of a smirk though, if you look closely enough. Kal-El in full Superman dress being marched down a corridor with handcuffs on was particularly ironic. Cavill's dry delivery of, "If it makes them feel more secure..." and the preceding arrest scenes, actually raise some interesting points about the nature of humanity when faced with something we do not understand. This fear of the unknown is an underlying theme to the film and Goyer sheds a harsh light on humanity, asking us to take a look at ourselves and the manner in which we react to the different among us.

One of the challenges with the Superman franchise is the titular character's invincibility. It is a difficult thing to make a fight between Superman and his foe interesting when you cannot see the former falling short. Snyder's answer to this problem seems to be pitting Kal-El against his own, equally powerful, race and causing an inordinate amount of damage to Metropolis in the process. It was evident for all to see where the majority of the budget had gone. The length, and seeming endlessness, of these excessively destructive battle sequences were frustrating and contributed massively to the duration of the film itself. The audience watch as two superhumans crash through buildings, and later satellites, with complete disregard (somewhat ironic in Superman's case, considering a later scene demonstrating his unencumbered love for humanity). Interestingly, Watson Technical Consulting recently carried out simulations of the battle over Metropolis to determine the consequential costs of such a colossal war. They determined that, with economic impact, Metropolis would need $2 trillion to regain their former mighty status (see picture attached for further figures - credit to Buzzfeed.com). Avengers and Chitauri, take note: this is how you destroy a city. 

Since Nolan's Batman, the DC universe has become a lot darker than its Marvel cousins and Man of Steel is no exception to this. Whilst it could have been far more refined in its explosiveness, for it does feel very long, Snyder had the incredibly difficult task of interesting the masses with 'Superman vs. Zod' so can almost be forgiven. In short, Man of Steel is a good film which has kickstarted a potentially great franchise; something I never thought I'd say about a Superman film. 

Review: The Purge ★★

The Purge is James DeMonaco's attempt at showing us what could lay in wait for the Western world with our often questionable moral compass. He tries to couple the classic thriller banality with an underlying political comment, and fails on both counts. 

The film opens on James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) returning to his large house, in its pristine and gated neighbourhood, on the eve of the annual purge. The annual purge was developed and passed by the mysterious New Founding Fathers, granting US citizens a 12-hour period where all emergency services are suspended and all crime is 'legal'. It was created in an attempt to reduce US crime and it has succeeded; the public seem to appreciate the opportunity to "purge their souls". James Sandin is one of the leading security system salesmen, exploiting the purge to create a small fortune (a fact much despised by his neighbours).

The Sandin family are, in typical slasher fashion, dysfunctional. James' wife, Mary, is played by Lena Headey and she puts in a characteristically strong performance. There are two kids, Zoey and Charlie, both playing roles we have seen many times before. Charlie (Max Burkholder) is a socially-awkward loner and Zoey (Adelaide Kane) is a rebellious teenage girl, typified by her desire to secretly date someone her father doesn't approve of. 

The first half of the film is disappointing as DeMonaco makes the ill-founded decision to loiter around the political and ethical issues that come with the purge. Regrettably, the script is nowhere near good enough to make this first half engaging. The awkward dialogue is at its worst as the family, and the audience with them, suffer through dinner together. Hawke and Headey are both strong actors but even they cannot rescue the dialogue here. 

The poor build-up is not helped by the noticeable influence of Michael Bay. Having seen his producing credit crop up at the film's opening, one can make the safe prediction of seeing either an explosion or a girl in a bawdy outfit. Lo and behold, under 10 minutes in, we have Zoey in a risqué school uniform, dry-humping her boyfriend. At least Bay is nothing if not consistent with his lecherous depravity.

The film really gets going when Charlie decides, rather naïvely, to disarm the security system and grant Edwin Hodge's character, sanctuary. Unfortunately, he was a 'purge target' for some sinister socialites who arrive at the Sandin's house asking for their man back, on the proviso that if he is returned then the family will remain unharmed. They explain that they do not want to harm a family cut from the same cloth as they. Upon their eventual entry to the house through Sandin's own questionable security system, The Purge becomes a classic home invasion thriller, complete with clichés. The film moves clumsily towards its unfortunately predictable climax, throwing in a rare jump on occasion. However, DeMonaco manages to sustain a certain level of tension throughout the invasion half of the film, which is the film's saviour. 

James DeMonaco has tried and failed to make a film that is both frightening and thought-provoking. The attempted political comment is not intelligent enough to warrant thinking about and the scares are predictable. However, it offers enough tension to make it a passable 85 minutes of slasher cinema.