Pacific Rim

Big budget, bright lights, loud noises and heavy does of CGI, the summer blockbuster has become a staple of the the cinematic year hoping to thrill its dozens of enthusiastic spectators. Entertainment is key due to blockbusters' infamous focus on action over story and for Guillermo del Toro's new colossus film, Pacific Rim, this couldn't be more relevant. Boasting huge man-made machines battling giant monsters it's no surprise that it's being compared to the 'transformers' franchise and whilst it may not be as monotonously dull it shows to be just as narratively poor.

 Of course the plot isn't the primary point of appeal in the film with the glaring titan brawls taking pride of place, however without a sufficient and engaging enough story proceeding the action then it becomes useless, watching epic fights of man vs. beast may be momentarily entertaining however it's ultimately pointless. It's around the year 2020 and a hole at the bottom of the pacific ocean has been ripped open allowing hellish beasts called 'kaijus' to cause mass destruction on earth, after military tactics prove ineffective the world is forced to retaliate by constructing towering controllable machines, or 'jaegers', to fight them. Following a harrowing experience whilst controlling the 'jaeger', pilot 'Raleigh Becket' (Charlie Hunnam) leaves the programme only to be re-assessed years later as he returns through the persuasive voice of superior officer  Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba). With a plan to kill the monsters off once an for all it falls to 'Raleigh' to execute the mission.

Whilst the plot may not be diverse or hugely engaging the action certainly makes up for lost time being bold and hugely entertaining with the weapons and abilities of the 'jaegers' appearing nonsensically out of nowhere to sarcastic chuckles and enthusiastic 'woops' as a 'kaiju' comes crashing to the ground. Living up to its epic blockbuster status the action sequences are huge amounts of fun due to the fact that the film knows how ridiculous it truly is. With this however comes the lack of attention towards the story and characters, focusing too heavily on the high budget action instead. Surrounding our protagonist throughout the story are a plethora of exaggerated , stereotypical characters with poorly developed backgrounds and did very little to contribute anything towards the film aside from the occasional cliched 'one-liner'. Hindering any chance of character enthusiasm are the relatively average performances of the cast with protagonist Charlie Hunnam looking hugely bored throughout supplying a lack-luster performance. Exceptions appear in the forms of both Idris Elba who clearly enjoys playing his exuberant character and also Charlie Day who provides some fitting comedy in amongst violent scenes as a bumbling government scientist.

 Achieving in its primary purpose tho entertain, Pacific Rim does little else to thrill its audience being sluggish and hugely predictable for the most part. Being overly excessive in its action scenes the film forgets about its other necessary elements crucial to make the film mesh. If your're able to ignore a frustrating screenplay, a lot of fun is to be found within Pacific Rim however its difficult to neglect even when confronted with a monstrous brawl.

6/10- Lazy writing makes this film more dumb than fun.

Calum Russell

A Field In England

 Famous for defying genre and narrative conventions, British director Ben Wheatley is quickly becoming a cinematic phenomenon exciting audiences with his gritty and highly realistic approach to filmmaking. Following from the success of last year’s dark rom/com ‘Sightseers’, Wheatley has taken on a far more ambitious project in ‘A field in England’, surrounding the story of a group of deserters in the civil war as they are captured by an estranged alchemist searching for treasure.  Being released on multi-platforms on the same day (5^th July), ‘a field in England’ is an extremely audacious project, supplying a narrative which is highly extravagant and certainly not for everyone.

Containing perhaps some of the lesser known thespians that the UK has to offer, they ultimately prove to be crucial giving believable, meaty performances to a narrative which is relatively bare.  Following their capture, Whitehead(Reece Shearsmith) as well as his band of fellow deserters are forced to search for some buried treasure by alchemist O’Neil (Michael Smiley) all whilst under the influence of unwittingly consumed ‘magic mushrooms’, unsurprisingly madness then ensues. The film works on a basic level giving a plot which is undeniably thin, made interesting only through its fantastic cinematography and occasional moments of quotable dialogue. Shot in distinct black and white this choice of monochrome colours immediately transports you to the time of the English civil war and does an excellent job in encapsulating the setting and macabre themes. Breath-taking at times the cinematography is truly stunning, supplying frequent artistic stills as well as notable moments of mesmerising absurdity.

Whilst this style and cinematic grace coagulates perfectly with the terrific acting performances, the narrative ultimately proves to be too thin with the film filling it’s time with egotistical moments of nonsensical images and overlong scenes of a ‘bad trip’.  The overall pretentious nature of this film frustratingly looms over its 90 minute running time allowing the film few moments to legitimately express some genuine scenes of character chemistry or simple normal occurrences.

To create such a film is no doubt congratulatory as certainly very few Directors could replicate the bizarre and highly psychedelic piece that Wheatley has created.  ‘A field in England’ benefits greatly from its intelligent release schedule allowing great choice to audiences for a film which will no doubt be highly opinionated. With a tight script that morphs today’s dialect with the pasts seamlessly through fantastic acting performances across the board, it was a shame to see the plot enter into a nosedive being filmed terrifically yet showing scenes of no real value and very little payoff.

7/10- A highly psychological and convoluted ride with few twists and turns but plenty of mushrooms.

Calum Russell

This Is The End

 Famous for his foul-mouthed and crude 'stoner' comedies, lead actor Seth Rogen is back with his latest attempt to put his competition to shame with lavish 'dick' jokes and inappropriate humour. Helmed usually by fan favourite director, Judd Apatow, Evan Goldberg instead takes the driving seat, quite noticeably too brandishing humour similar to that of his past written 'Pineapple Express' being constantly 'in your face' but always hilarious.

Written in a unique style, this is the end sees the famous comedy actors (Seth Rogen, Danny McBride, James Franco, to name just a few) playing caricatured versions of themselves in the setting of the 'end of the world'. Reluctantly following Seth to James Franco’s house warming party the story largely follows Jay Baruchel and his relationship with Seth Rogen, ultimately proving to be an oddly touching one amidst crude comedy that screams otherwise. Immediately the film is entertaining as we witness a plethora of our favourite comedians act as themselves interacting seamlessly with those around them. Ignoring the main six actors in the majority of the film, actors such as Jason Segal, Kevin Heart and Michael Cera are all invited with Cera being the most notable comedian being a total exaggerated version of his persona fuelling the first act with hilarious moments sparking from his persona which would've quickly gotten old if he hadn't been killed off in the opening minutes. This cannot be said however for every surprise actor with Paul Rudd appearing at one point reminding the audience of his excellent acting skill and comedic timing using his short allotted time perfectly, it was a shame to see him and a few others mysteriously disappear when they could've been utilised more effectively. Almost Instantly the cast is whittled down to just six, including the protagonists, the host- James Franco as well as Jonah Hill, Danny McBride and Craig Robinson after a rather thrilling and almost slightly disturbing 'apocalypse' sequence of death and destruction made counteractively hilarious through the reactions of the cast wisely chosen, all sharing excellent off screen chemistry that evidently translates in front of the camera.

 Hiding inside the house for many days the film never fails to entertain consistently finding something new to do despite the inability to go outdoors, springing up new surprises and events that swing the film in new directions. With toilet humour that is particular to only certain comedy tastes, not everyone will find this crude and rather masculine film for them, containing consistently immature scenes of an almost worrying amount of ‘dick jokes’ entwined however with occasional moments of intelligent comedy whereby none of the good jokes are in the trailer. Many humorous moments emerge from contextual references to past films of the cast being often admirable accepting which films were good and which were obvious failures, these are used sparingly however as to not discriminate audience members of little contextual knowledge.

With certain comedies it's crucial to know as little as possible prior to viewing so as not to spoil certain moments of hilarity and this is certainly the case in ‘this is the end’. The story could've been tighter in certain places, especially towards the end with its lacklustre finale however this is not the point of focus in the film. The films primary principle is of course to make the audience laugh and it achieves this heroically.

8/10- A whole lot of fun with the best cinematic comedians.

Calum Russell

Pixar

 Disney, once known for their supreme care and attention with such animated classics as 'The Beauty and The Beast' and 'The Lion King' are now more renowned as the giant cinematic conglomerate owning over 5 different major franchises including the star wars and marvel universes. Whilst their quality of produce isn't awful neither is it excellent and comparable to their early classics ( remember 'Meet the Robinsons'? 'Home on the range'? No? Don't worry no one does) and this attention to revenue instead of quality, has also effected one of it's subsidiary companies, Pixar, who are experiencing a short cinematic sickness following years of overwhelming success.

 After a 6 film run of cinematic success ( all of which scoring no less than 92% on rotten tomatoes) Pixar was ready to add yet another film to the list in 2006 with 'Cars', an idea fuelled very much by the interests of Pixars chief creative officer John Lasseter who also directed the film. Being released to a relatively average reception, 'Cars' could hold very little up to its momentous predecessors despite the fact that it was actually a fairly good, well rounded film. The negativity surrounding the film was more a frustrating reaction to the company as oppose to an outcry about the film knowing quite plainly that Pixar could do and can do a lot better. After 6 films of excellent quality, audiences expected each new film to be just as good as the last (much like the work of directors such as Spielberg) and after 'Cars' was released many hoped it was simply an idea too closely held onto by Lasseter, an idea that not everyone was on board for and was an idea which for many was overlooked as a 'blip on the radar'. To everyone's delight this was very much the case with 'Cars' being followed by the excellent 'Ratatouille' reminding audiences of Pixars film making talent, this was then followed by 3 films of the same quality including 2010's 'Toy Story 3' which completed perhaps the best trilogy of all time with passion, style and tears. Audiences were ready to leave the 'Toy Story' team behind and meet new characters that could perhaps replicate its success and Pixar had found their answer in its audience’s very favourite previous film...Cars.

The success of the first films merchandising programme (bringing in no less than $10 million) was something that simply couldn't be ignored by the money driven owners of both Pixar and Disney so their sequel policy quoted by John Lasseter "If we have a great story, we'll do a sequel." was put to the test. It failed. Cars 2 was a critical flop earning a 39% on rotten tomatoes and became Pixars first film to not get nominated for an award in the Oscars. ‘Cars 2’ was flashy, heartless and no fun having no central values which all of its predecessors evidently possessed. Audiences felt let down that their once quality committed company now had dollars in their eyes instead of a paintbrush, making themselves look sub-par in the light of far better animated films of the year, most notably 'Rango'. The obvious reason for this was of course the focus of revenue over quality however it can't be ignored that the once scattered release dates of their previous films, coming out every 2 or so years had now been changed to a strict release every year restricting the company slightly from perhaps expressing their true artistic talents. If an idea has not fully developed they shouldn't feel the need to push a release date of the following year, audiences would be much more appreciative if we wait until a film has been tended to, to the best of the companies abilities.

 The release of 'Cars 2' had downhearted fans who yet again searched for Pixar’s redemption in their next film 'Brave' which although wasn't quite as comparable to the majority of Pixar films, still stands strong as a good quality animation. Receiving a 78% on rotten tomatoes, similar to that of 'Cars' which helms a slightly lower score, however as we all fully well know Pixar can do a lot better and with perhaps 2 films of sub-par quality Pixar hit a slump in quality. With the release of 'Monsters University on the horizon many hope Pixar will return to their renowned attention to quality

 If anything however this current disappointment and annoyance in the company is a sign of just how good the company really is, giving us childhood films so touching, so imaginative that when we receive something even slightly below par we're disappointed.  Pixar are the company who have fuelled the dreams of children throughout the world and they remain the best animation company in the world without a doubt. Every company encounters bumps throughout their existence and it was inevitable that Pixar would too; it's just taking them time to find their feet once more. With doubts that 'Monsters University' will do this, next year’s announcement of the original story of 'The good dinosaur' follows the prospect of if dinosaurs never went extinct and were integrated into today’s society, and will no doubt return the company to their rightful form, as their very best films have been the most original ones. With also the recent announcement from Pixar that 'We’re going to have an original film every year, then every other year have a sequel to something.' it looks as though they've found the winning formula of quality and revenue, the futures bright .

We can all see the 'faces' on the front of cars, but few of us can even begin to imagine the life of a dirt collecting robot or the cooking skills of a young rat.

 Pixar, bring us original quality not a regurgitated business plan.

Man Of Steel

In this battle of cinematic superhero dominance a clear divide has been made between the wildly different Marvel and Dc universes. The exuberant world of Marvel is a financially successful one appealing to everyone both old and young, expressing a softer more fabricated view on ‘superhero life’. Dc however couldn’t be more different, finding success in its beloved Dark Knight trilogy being extremely dark, gritty and realistic with its director Christopher Nolan being still undoubtedly clutched to, to aid the company to produce films of quality. With hope to replicate the trilogies success and widen the Dc universe to match Marvels ever expanding one, notorious superhero, Superman has now returned in Man of steel, seeing him fight his classic rival, General Zod with a gritty screenplay and the disposal of his kitsch red pants.

 Prior to even his arrival on earth we are treated to Superman’s origins story seeing him blasted into the universe in an act of defiance from his parents as his planet Krypton comes under attack from the repressive General Zod (Michael Shannon) who opposes the natural birth of Superman (Henry Cavill) in favour of his more orderly system. Soon enough Superman lands on earth as the plot unfolds and he undergoes a journey discovering his purpose on earth. Whilst many superhero movies like to elaborate and over indulge in origin tales, here we are given the bare bones without the cheese and whimpering drama working heavily in the films favour as it fairly quickly gets it out of the way to make room for the more exciting, more important story at hand. Strong for the most part the film’s opening provides the energy necessary to fuel the rest of the explosive film, showing vast areas of Krypton unprecedented in the Superman franchise with huge amounts of money being spent on smooth CGI yet perhaps not enough on simple tripods to hold the cameras steady in scenes of much shaky annoyance.

 These scenes of action are by no means only seen in the first act, oh… no, this opening sequence is simply the foundations by which the film builds its story and fantastic action set pieces. Used perhaps a little too much towards the end of the final act becoming quickly formulaic and contrived, these scenes were mostly hugely enjoyable seeing hovering battles between the two foes carried out with style and a fantastic soundtrack. Following in the footsteps John Williams is by no means an easy task; however Hans Zimmer does an excellent job in matching the films enormous scope with a soundtrack which makes you giddy with excitement every time it’s heard painting a rather huge smile on the faces of the audience. Perhaps expectedly the soundtrack however can barely compete against Williams original and this is certainly unaided by the sheer amount of times it’s used throughout the film, even in times when it doesn’t fit the action on screen it’s clumsily thrown in to almost comic effect. This is simply an irritating feature however in amongst truly riveting action scenes where a prominent sense of realistic peril is felt for each and every character both minor and major leaving you on the edge of your seat.

 Consistently counterbalancing its successes throughout, Man of Steel lets itself down with a fairly poor script with thin character development for everyone but the protagonist. This leads for the love between him and renowned love interest Lois Lane (Amy Adams) to feel totally fake and subsequently disinteresting. The script is saved for the most part with terrific acting performances from the lead, Henry Cavill, filling the boots of Superman both visually and charismatically being suitably witty yet overwhelmingly confident with an impressive American accent to disguise his English origins stamping the seal of approval. Michael Shannon who fills the role of General Zod also does an impressive job but is undoubtedly burdened by his lack of screen time and poor script making him feel like an underused utility especially considering his outstanding acting credentials.

Is Superman super? Well no, not quite, but he’s certainly not a disappointment either being the superhero that Dc needed to kick-start their new set of films to rival Marvel after the conclusion to the Dark Knight series, being suitably dark yet extremely enjoyable.  Yes the script is weak and yes is burdened with minor mistakes however Man of steel ultimately proved to be hugely entertaining despite its lack of a sustainable plot; it is quite simply bags of fun.

7/10- If you are able to brush past the films weaknesses a spine tingling and wildly epic tale of Superman can be found from his realistic origins to his action packed adolescence.

Calum Russell

Mud

After finding success with 2011’s critically acclaimed ‘Take Shelter’, director Jeff Nichols is back with a more linear narrative than that of his ambiguous previous hit; surrounding the story of Mud, a rugged fugitive taking residence on an island when two teenagers cross his path and vow to help him in his quest for love.

Being comparable to such engrossing and explorative tales of the novelist ‘Mark Twain’, Jeff Nichols’ storytelling is just as wildly impressive being immersive, believable and lovingly nostalgic throughout. Usually used as an irritating device to infuriate audiences and do little but play up to typical childish personas, both children in ‘Mud’ are the exact opposite being loveable and engaging, acting as mature and hugely realistic protagonists. Tye Sheridan leads as Ellis, a teenager in the limbo between childhood and being a teenager facing the relevant issues of this age such as parent troubles as well as the more foreboding issue and theme of love. Used subtly and tentatively throughout, this theme is well defined and used effortlessly to run parallel to the films central narrative. This creates for an unexpected yet undoubtedly welcomed ‘coming of age’ tale of two boys with a powerful friendship as they learn the realities of adulthood in a situation that they don’t quite understand.  These strong themes and general explorative tone of the film hold strong for the majority of the film, sagging slightly in the third act where the film slows slightly and coincidently produces some inconsistent tones that feel jarring in amongst a film of a very different message.    

Similar friendships are shown throughout as the film juggles plenty of differing themes shown through a plethora of acting talent. Matthew McConaughey, plays protagonist Ellis’ rock of support throughout the film whilst also focusing his efforts onto pleasing himself with the reuniting of him and his lover. Following in his fairly recent emergence as a serious and wildly talented actor, Matthew McConaughey is fantastic as the title character, Mud,  effortlessly adapting to his changing situation with realism and style. As the plot progresses the film becomes ever more engrossing, introducing a well-developed handful of characters that are used intelligently to enhance the story instead of bogging it down. Mud’s relationship with one of his old friends of the town,Tom, (Sam Shepard) is especially notable as it feels genuine and heartfelt being very much comparable to the relationship of the two boys which shares just as much passion.

Mud sails at its own breezy pace being tentative and insightful throughout its journey, reminding audiences of the joys and confusions of childhood within a mesmerising setting of rural Mississippi. With excellent acting across each and every character, Mud easily immerses its audience through its fantastically written script and neatly woven characters that are overwhelmingly enjoyable to watch and engage with.

8.5/10- An uplifting tale of childhood disguised within a thrilling drama.

Calum Russell

The Hangover Part III

If an above average original film surprises audiences and scoops up plentiful box office treasures you can be assured to see the film stem sequels hoping to replicate the originals success. Seen in 2009 after ‘The Hangover’ thrilled audiences with its sudden surprising success and low budget, a sequel was released two years later to worse reactions helming a plot identical to that of its predecessor. Completing the franchise is this year’s ‘Hangover part 3’ which instead boasts a different plot with the ‘wolf pack’ back to handle the totally hilarious issue of Alan’s mental illness, and this time fails to include an actual hangover as well as any elements of surprise and also any genuine humour.

Alan (Zach Galifianakis), the staple character of the previous two films is the initial centrepiece of this films narrative, being taken by the loveable group of friends to a mental home in order to recover. Being boasted in the films vast advertising campaign ‘This time, there's no wedding. No bachelor party.’ Instead we begin with an undoubtedly bleak funeral which certainly sets the tone for the film which proves to be just as unenjoyable. Being a camp, fun loving comedy necessity in the previous two films, Alan seemingly transforms over a short period of time into an immensely irritating man with the presence of an annoying ten year old child reluctantly being towed along by friends Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms). This leaves Mr Chow ( Kim Jeong) in the comedic driving seat, used only sparingly in the previous films but now used and abused until his brutishly insulting humour smothers every corner of the screen, only occasionally to good comic effect. This leaves nothing but the non-existent humour of Cooper and Helms to entertain the audience, consistently resulting in overwhelming auditorium silence due to the films poor screenplay.

So with the lack of jokes what better to fill the film with obnoxious action scenes and totally irrelevant and uninteresting scenes of drama between characters we don't even cared about? Believing it’s something much bigger and better than it clearly is ‘The Hangover part 3’ consistently delves into the deeper lives of characters we do not wish to know about resulting in awkward scenes of drama which lead to nothing and hold no comedic value or even dramatic impact. The lack of effort here is blatantly obvious being arrogant and in your face, with the opportunity to mix up the series and put a fresh spin on the franchise we thought we knew, director Todd Phillips instead prefers to stick to linear guidelines creating no comedic opportunities.

Disappointing is an obvious word to use to describe this film however this is almost expected of Hollywood that simply solely care about box-office intake rather than audience satisfaction. The fact is that ‘the Hangover part 3’ is a very boring and dislikeable film that holds very few redeeming qualities. It’s very rarely funny, rarely thrilling, and in no way surprising. It’s just depressingly unfunny.

3/10- As much fun as a hangover.

Calum Russell