Hancock

Will Smith, who is probably one of the best known actors in the world, is amongst many high-profile actors who have somehow never been in a comic-book or superhero film (have you ever seen, or can you imagine, Tom Cruise or Russell Crowe in tights fighting criminals and villains? Me neither). With Peter Berg (who directed Jamie Foxx’s “The Kingdom in 2006), Smith enters into superhero films, and aims to create a new, unique take on the genre, and whilst many aspects of ‘Hancock’ are quite interesting and independent of the superhero craze, the storyline’s shocking shift halfway through, coupled with a very short running time, make the film seem a shadow of what it aspired to be, and make it a Will Smith film that could have been better!

Hancock (Smith) is a boozy, nonchalant superhero who the citizens of Los Angeles hate and abuse, and even though he saves them, the collateral damage he causes is more than enough for the city to want him gone. After saving PR man Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), Hancock gains the unwanted assistance needed to make the people love him again, but surprises lie around the corner for him and Embrey, a selfless individual only seeking to help someone who saves his life.

Hancock himself, and his hilarious forays into saving lives and stopping crime, are really good to watch, just because it’s Will Smith, and because the effects (and the scenes themselves) are excellent, as well as comical. A scene in a prison hall, whilst hugely immature, is just one of these moments, and the aftermath of two of Hancock’s early rescues are also brilliant (think derailed trains and commuters venting at a carefree Hancock). It’s a shame that we don’t see more, as an accidental or useless superhero is more fun to watch here than a serious and perfect one, such as Superman, has ever been.

However, the idea that Embrey can change Hancock’s public image, whilst clever, is also what slows the film down to a halt. Bateman is really good in the role, playing a real nice-guy who sees the best in everyone, and is a public relations worker with a heart – a fantasy in itself! But that’s just it, in that he’s too nice. You feel awfully for him throughout as his trusting nature presents itself as misplaced in more than one area of his life.

Embrey’s wife Mary, played by Charlize Theron, injects some femininity into the film, but she doesn’t have much to do until the latter part of the film, which is where I really found fault with Hancock. It’s going as you expect, and then takes a real shift towards a storyline that is totally shocking. Whilst some people might find it helps the film, I found it to totally ruin everything that had come before, and the film seems to be confused as to where, or what it aims to do next.

The film is well-directed by Berg, who seems to know how to shoot good action scenes, but his constant use of extreme, rotating close-up shots are almost comical after the first time, and reminded me of Michael Bay! I think that the idea for this film could really have been something special and different towards the superhero film, which is getting quite tired now. However, the film loses a lot of its edge at the halfway point, and becomes more serious, after having set out to be a comical movie, and its total confusion at this point makes it less engaging to watch.

It’s really all down to Will Smith, and he is the best thing about this film, and the only reason to watch it. If only the first half of it had been better than the second, it could well have been a more interesting and intelligent addition to the superhero genre. As it is, Hancock says it best when he proclaims “Do I look like I care what people think?” because the film gives the impression that it didn’t, and that’s where it fails.

4/10
(this is the review which I will email to the student paper, and will hopefully have printed in October's edition! Fingers crossed anyway!)

Juno

Woah. Honest to blog, is this film overrated much? So much has been said about this film and how amazing it is. And I finally got to watching it, and like Little Miss Sunshine, the film everyone claims is awesome is not only not funny, but trying to be disarmingly cool and failing miserably. A serious victim of hype; don't believe it.

You’ll know the story; it’s a poor man’s Knocked Up, with none of the laughs and too much emphasis on ‘cool’ teenagers. Juno (Ellen Page) gets pregnant by Bleeker (Michael Cera – the thin one from “Superbad”), and decides to give the kid to wanting parents (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner), with or without her dad (J.K. Simmons) and stepmother (Allison Janney) or their advice. The script, written by former stripper Diablo Cody, won an Oscar for Best Screenplay. And what a joke that decision is. Because I could probably write a more accurate portrayal of teenage life myself as a 20 year old with no screenplay experience.

The acting is good in this film, that's not the problem. However, Ellen Page is not really that believable as a mid-teen, and has the most ANNOYING voice. It just grates and grates, in this awful monotone. And really, I just struggled to believe Juno was 16, and that any 16 year old speaks not only that verbosely, but can handle a pregnancy with such nonchalance. Michael Cera, who plays his nervous, awkward teen role once again, is fast losing his believability as a teen, and if he's not careful, roles like this are all he'll be known for. He does okay with what he’s given here, but it’s a waste really.

Jennifer Garner has never really been that effective an actress, but she does well toward the end here with a total metamorphosis of her character. Jason Bateman is really wasted here I feel, his comedic talents far too constricted in a character who is just too smarmy to take seriously even from the first time we meet him.
Allison Janney, as Juno’s stepmum, is one half of what makes Juno bearable however. Any woman that names her child Liberty Bell is bound to be weird (but then, we're in a Diablo Cody movie, so that must be normal), and she does not disappoint. I found her scenes with Simmons and Page to be not only more realistic a portrayal of family, but also far more comedic than anything else within the movie. As I reiterated about Janney's performance, and certainly to a larger extent, J.K. Simmons (as Juno’s dad) steals this film. He did it with the Spider-Man trilogy (as the newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson), and here again he shows his comedic prowess. Literally, in my opinion, these two actors are the only positive about this film.

The hype around this film is ridiculous, which says it all really. The music and the dialogue (which have both been trumpeted by many) were so, so annoying. Hearing the same piece of music three times in one movie, and then another piece twice, really, REALLY grates, particularly when it's this dreary, not even indie rubbish that us young adults and teenagers apparently all listen to. It’s just crap, full stop. And the script...Miss Cody: you're NOT a teenager. Stop pretending to be one and grow up. I'm sorry to anyone who loved this film, particularly for the "smart" dialogue. But I couldn't stand it. No-one, I repeat NO-ONE talks like this, and if I knew someone who did, I'd probably think they were nuts. Agreed, it doesn't go on and on throughout as relentlessly as it begins, but I just found everything Juno said to be, well, ridiculous. Best Original Screenplay my iPod...wow, look readers, I just made an original, witty, offbeat and popular-culture referencing joke. Maybe I'll write a whole script full of "jokes" and win myself acclaim too. This terrible indie drivel ruined what little chance the film had of making any impression on me. I cannot tell you of any friends I have who listen to indie music that's like this. The only song I recognised was that "I'm Sticking With You", and at least it wasn't repeated THREE TIMES throughout the movie. Yeah, it makes a point. Fine. But did you have to play it THREE TIMES?!

Jason Reitman directs well, there's nothing he has done wrong (it's not his dialogue after all!). But then there's nothing that really stands out about his direction, because at the end of the day the film would have been nothing without Cody's script, so he's really only the man to point and shoot. The town looks nice, and the snow was real in the winter, so I guess that it looked nice. And the credits scene at the beginning was original, but about the only original and interesting aspect of the movie.

This film is a perfect example of a movie that just did not at all justify its hype for me. People keep telling me it’s better than any other teen-oriented film, and that it’s brilliant. But after seeing it for myself, I urge any person who is not braindead not to watch this film, because it’s trying so hard to be cool that it just gives off an air of pretention. I never want to see it again if I can help it.

2/10 (and it only gets this score because I liked two performances, as well as the director only being the visionary, and not the script-writer. He doesn’t deserve the flak.)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I didn't think that "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" could be as entertaining, engrossing or satisfying. Not the best of the bunch but deserving of its place amongst the other films.

Indiana Jones, now over sixty and still up to his old tricks, goes after the Soviets during the ‘50s (McCarthyism and Soviet hate was running pretty high then!), with both parties searching for the Crystal Skull, an enigmatic idol that could hold the key to mysteries and treasures beyond anything Jones has found before. Tagging along is Mutt Willaims (LaBoeuf), who may have a connection to the old professor that neither of them know about...

The acting here is pretty brilliant, especially considering the talent on display. The co-stars are many in number however, and this does detract from their performances, with such actors as John Hurt and Jim Broadbent given small roles, hardly befitting of their acting prowess. Harrison Ford resurrects (no old age pun intended) the character of Indiana Jones here as if he had never been gone, and is a large part of why the film was so surprisingly good. He seems to just fall back into the role, albeit as an older, wiser, creakier Dr. Jones, which is totally befitting of the character's portrayal. Cate Blanchett plays the weirdest villain yet, an icy Russian agent who seeks the eponymous Crystal Skull. Having such a famous actress as such a bizarre villain was off-putting at times, but she hams it up and makes the performance sinister enough to register as evil here. The only other female character, Marion (from the first film) pops up with almost a cameo performance, and is used to push forward the plot with some revealing truths. However, some of the spark between her and Jones can be seen, evoking "Raiders" and reminding the viewer of what came before.

Shia LaBoeuf, John Hurt and Ray Winstone are the supporting male actors in this film - that's how good it is. LaBouef's character Mutt Williams completely apes Marlon Brando's character from "On The Waterfront", right down to the swagger and self-assurance, and the rumours about his character...well, I'll let you see for yourself! He manages to contend with Ford very well here, showing that he is becoming a very good young actor. John Hurt plays an insane professor with knowledge of the skulls, and so has very little to do but appear mad. Winstone is Mac, Jones' war buddy, and his motivations and actions do create a little intrigue, but in all honesty he is wasted a bit here too.

The film looks good and sounds amazing, which was to be expected from Steven Spielberg. At too many points however the CGI does distract, and in a series which always relied on the practical, it's a shame to be able to spot so many computer effects. The visuals, quite honestly, were my main problem with the film. The over-reliance on CGI really took away from a lot of the action, and the insistence that a lot of it was still physical and real is a lie, really. The conclusion to the film is the only part when CGI is not only totally necessary (when you watch it, you WILL understand) but appears better than at any other point. And what is wrong with getting real prairie dogs, scorpions, monkeys and ants?! CGI animals used when the real alternative created much of the tension in the past films makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and again I sense Luca's digital obsession seeping through.

This strangely didn't feel like a Spielberg film to me, but then I guess that he's changed in his approach to filmmaking over time. The quips, crazy action and parental complexes still remain though, so you can see glimpses of him in there. What worries me is that the dirty fingerprints of George Lucas can be seen throughout this film; Spielberg doesn't have as much power as he used to. The dialogue is almost as good as before, particularly when concerned with the professor's age, his "allegiance" to America and his profession itself. What it really does however is remind you of the other films, which whilst being a good thing is detrimental to this new film, which suffers from too much exposition and too little humour.

What can I say but "Raiders March"? You know from the off that the music will be awesome, and it doesn't disappoint. Whenever that particular motif began, you could feel the audience in the cinema smiling and the anticipation increasing. John Williams seems to have that power through his fantastic compositions, and the "Ark Theme" pops up, again maintaining that link between the films.

I wish “Crystal Skull” had been more like the old Indy films, because in thinking again about it, I do feel that the previous three are so, so much better. This isn’t a complete disaster by any means; it’s still a great movie. I just wish that the promises of more real stunts, less CGI and a good story had been more strictly adhered to, but I guess you can’t get everything you want. As Indy says, he works only “part-time”, and in that sense, you can project that particular comment onto the filmmakers themselves and their efforts here.

7/10

Iron Man

A refreshing and grounded comic book movie - the best I've seen since “Batman Begins” (and until “The Dark Knight”!). The fact that a sequel is two years away makes this reviewer particularly sad!

Multi-billionaire Tony Stark (hmm...rich man becomes superhero with conscience...aren’t comic books original?) becomes Iron Man to stop the arms trade that he had been entrenched in beforehand, creating enemies from friends whilst trying to live a playboy lifestyle. Like Batman’s brash, LA cousin, Iron Man is a glorious, action-packed movie which certainly wins runner-up superhero movie of the summer (and in some respects, it is a little better than “Knight”.)

The entire cast acts well, as to be expected from a group of highly-rated and distinguished actors. Robert Downey Jr. feels almost made for this role - a rich man living a life of excess, who turns it around to better himself. His trademark comedy and quick wit is used here, but he also gets to show his serious side (as serious as a comic book film can get really) and shows it well. Gwyneth Paltrow, I will admit, is not one of my favourite actresses, but here she knows she's having fun, and makes her role as Tony Stark's secretary/assistant/slave one that you wish you saw more. Jeff Bridges and Terrence Howard contend pretty highly with RDJ offscreen for acting prowess, but here, as with the other actors, they're clearly enjoying being able to act in a film that they enjoyed, and it makes the film seem that much more interesting and well-rounded.

The film looks, feels and sounds amazing. Favreau seems to have segued from lower-budget, less intense films to this without a hint of difficulty, and the rumours that he might direct an Avengers film (which would have Iron Man, Hulk and a whole load of other superheroes from Marvel working together) fills me with excitement! Favreau gives the film a sense of cool, as well as a pace that belies the film's two hour running time. At no other point has a comic book adaptation that I have seen been quite so zippy, so flowing as this. The dialogue reflects RDJ's humour - snappy, witty and sometimes too quick for you to pick up on the comedy. The music is guitar heavy, which actually makes it seem that much more awesome to me. Not all sweeping instrumental music for once, a gritty, rocking soundtrack for a back-to-basics hero.

There are so many points within the film where the CGI and practical effects are indistinguishable from one another that you begin to wonder how the hell they did it. ILM seem to have repeated the success of Transformers with Iron Man, and one can only hope they get better! It's action-packed, but that's about it. As with any comic-book film, the audience is kids, and so the film couldn't really be packed full of sex. There were the odd sly references however..."I'm doing an article for Vanity Fair" probably being my favourite! The action's pretty intense, particularly at the onset of the film. Being that Iron Man is just a bloke in a metal suit, you do feel he is more vulnerable, and the action hits hard. It's more realistic than anything other than Batman, but in the end the "arc reactor" that powers the suit AND saves Stark from death is complete tosh. At least it's the only aspect that's unbelievable - something that we don't often see with superheroes!

It’s not all great though, as there is a distinct lack of action set-pieces, and the first half of the film tends to drag (Stark’s imprisonment and escape takes about an hour). It definitely leaves the viewer wanting more at the end, which, whilst not necessarily being a bad thing, does detract from the action that the first film presents. Origin films do often have a lot of work to do in the superhero genre however, and in comparison to counterparts such as Spider-Man, Iron Man manages to zip through the usual slow scenes.

All in all, I found Iron Man to be a breath of fresh air; a superhero film that doesn’t take itself that seriously, and one which continuously surprises and contradicts your expectations of the genre, not to mention the ingenious casting of Robert Downey Jr.

9/10

The Dark Knight

A truly fantastic and engaging movie, "The Dark Knight" lives up to and exceeds the hype, fuss and intense interest that has surrounded it. It's very doubtful that a comic-book film will ever top this, and yet throughout you're not even considering that it's a superhero film; it's that good.

The plot follows Batman (Bale) on from the events of “Begins”, as his one-man war on crime gains momentum, but attracts more criminals than it dispenses with, one of which is the demonic, scar-faced Joker (Ledger) who seeks only to spread anarchy and discord, but is hired by the Mob to sort out the Batman. It’s up to the caped crusader and two allies, the erstwhile District Attorney Harvey Dent (Eckhart), and Jim Gordon (Oldman), the one true cop in the Gotham force, to counter this new threat, but the Joker supplies a new challenge to the three men; how far can one man be forced to go before he loses everything?

It's class across the board acting-wise here...the main and supporting cast is full of heavyweights, and they make the film much, much more than a Batman movie. It's a crime drama with the best of the best playing out the roles.

People will go on and on about Heath Ledger here, and so they should. He steals the film whenever he's onscreen, and you miss him when he's not. The Joker is no longer a clown with a bag of tricks and a laughing gas canister; he’s “a dog chasing cars” and an “agent of chaos” who seeks only destruction. Ledger is unrecognisable, and that’s part of the appeal, his pretty-boy looks shunned, and the freakish face of the Joker, coupled with his eccentric yet malevolent performance, mark this portrayal as a fitting end to a short career.

But Christian Bale, Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart more than hold their own, the latter two actors getting meatier and more interesting roles than you'd think, and Bale is the forgotten man here; portraying the idealistic hero who simply cannot do anything right, despite his efforts to clean up the city and have a normal life. Gyllenhall is in an unfortunate position being the lead female, but she is a great actress, and her Rachel Dawes is one who looks back to her past with Bruce Wayne, and forward to the future with Dent, and conveys a conflicted and confused woman very well.

There are some great supporting actors here, but Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine perhaps stand out over the rest, simply because they're only playing supporting roles, yet are two incredibly well-known and talented older actors. They ground the storyline, and provide hope and a moral compass to Bale's Bruce Wayne, showing the class and intelligence with which Nolan has picked a supporting cast.

The film looks, sounds and feels epic. Using Chicago as a stand-in for Gotham was a very good idea - you really get a feel for the place, and so the action appears more grounded and more real. The entire city seems to have been taken over by the production here; how did they manage to get so much access to so many areas? No matter; it grounds the film in realism, and allows for the audience to imagine what the effects of such a freak as the Joker would be on a real city. Nolan knows how to direct action, but more importantly he knows how to direct drama, tension and conversations, and these scenes are the beating heart of the film. He has consistently stepped up his directing from Memento (which is a better first film than some directors will ever achieve in their careers), and in this film shows that he is one of the best directors in film right now.

What he achieves is not only a real hold on the story, but also an eye for the necessary action and a really strong grip on the character-focused scenes. It strikes a chord with you when you remember not just the action, but the intense one-on-one dialogues between Ledger, Bale and others, because Nolan is that much better at portraying real characterisation than many, many other directors ever could be.

The stunts and action are as real as can be, and in particular acclaim must be given to the scenes containing the flipped 18-wheeler and the exploding hospital; because they are REAL!. There is so much that is said that sticks with you after, and nearly all is from the mouth of the Joker. Ledger's reading of the lines is so right, so twisted that you cannot imagine the dialogue without the performance. There is precious little humour, but with such a serious storyline you wouldn't expect that, and Jonah Nolan’s scriptwriting career is certainly in bloom from here on in (currently leaping to heights such as an ‘Escape to New York’ remake, as well as a future Spielberg vehicle, ‘Interstellar).

Musically, with Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard composing, you know that this film would have a special soundtrack. If only every big movie had such collaborations between composers! The theme for Ledger's Joker is so, so bizarre, but it achieves the same as the character it represents; it cuts through, it jars with your mind and it makes for an uncomfortable experience, but at the same time, you can't not listen to it. The Batman theme is understated, but ever-present, and this is another strength here; we don't have a bombastic Superman or Spider-Man theme here; rather, the film speaks for itself, and the music is but a hint behind the action.

The film is dark in subject and depiction, but its rating here in the UK (12A) is more than appropriate, and it doesn’t need a 15 rating at all. It's up to parents whether they think their child can handle it, and the sooner they realise this, the sooner that films might stop getting blamed for the latest teenage crime statistics. The violence ebbs and flows, but you’d expect worse, and what holds most of the rating is the Joker himself – just looking at Ledger’s face (not with-standing the feeling of looking upon one of the final performances of a famous actor) is enough to justify the rating.

The funny thing about these movies is that they portray something that seems so ridiculous as so real; and as such, it's not that far away from realism, but just enough to suggest that it could never happen. However, the actions of the Joker eerily echo those of the many terrorist groups that are active today, and many of the ways in which this is depicted suggest that the filmmakers sought to present this as such. Not that the film should be considered a commentary on modern times; sure, the surveillance gadget can be construed as Patriot Act imitation, but in all honesty the film is seeking to present the idea that chaos and anarchy is boundless, and even the good can fall; Batman is no Bush, and the Joker is no suicide bomber.

So in summary, the standouts in this film are the quartet of Bale, Ledger, Eckhart and Oldman, all actors at the top of their game and all proving that even a movie about a rich man fighting crime in a batsuit can be a masterclass in filmmaking, plot, action and performance. Their performances, and the plot itself both combine to show that a comic-book film not only can be handled with class and seriousness, but that with the right actors, any story can be made a masterpiece.

10/10