Film Review | Chronicle (2012)

There will always be types of film that feel as though they're reaching saturation point and either need to be left alone for a while, or need someone to do something so radical with them that they become fresh and interesting again. Found footage films currently fall into this category, as do superhero origin stories. Writer and director Josh Trank's decision to combine these two subgenres in his debut feature Chronicle can therefore be seen as either very brave or very stupid. As things turn out, he lands somewhere in the middle.

The found footage style of shooting turns out to be both a blessing and a curse, working at its best when combined with the superhuman abilities the three main characters gain; some of the most stylish moments throughout the film come from when Trank has the handheld camera float around the action, usually through Andrew's (Dane DeHaan) telekinesis. The question therefore has to be asked why Trank felt the need to present his film through found footage rather than just creating a realistic style of cinematography, something of which he is clearly capable.

More often, however, the reasons for characters to be filming at all feel too contrived to the point of becoming really quite distracting. Andrew's reasons for choosing to film his life at the start feel flimsy, and whilst it's easy to believe he would want to get footage of the powers he and his friends develop, there are plenty of moments where his filming feels entirely nonsensical. There are too many other occasions where other characters have to explain away the fact that they are filming, which begs the question once again why Trank chose to stick so stubbornly to the found footage style (at times to the detriment of his film) instead of opting for a combination of handheld and traditional camera shots.

As an origins story, the film does bring some fresh ideas to the table, with Trank choosing not to explain every element of his story. To the film's benefit the source of the trio's powers isn't dwelt upon, and the inclusion of the nosebleed side effect that the friends experience make proceedings feel all the more mysterious and sinister. Structurally, the film's opening and closing acts are stronger than the middle, which ultimately drags despite a handful of interesting elements. A lot of the time it's almost like you're watching a series of YouTube clips of people with superpowers pratting about. It's amusing at first, but soon loses its novelty. Thankfully, Trank manages to pull off a gripping and exciting finale, going all out with the superpower special effects at exactly the right moment.

Other elements to the story feel underdeveloped, most notably a great many of the characters. For the majority of the film, Andrew is a stereotypical social outcast with a troubled home life that is never explored in enough detail, his sickly mother and abusive father never becoming much more than one-note characters. Steve (Michael B. Jordan) again feels lacking in depth, his friendship with the other two rarely feeling natural. Matt (Alex Russell) is the most frustrating of the three, quoting philosophy irritatingly - and apparently for no real reason - at the start of the film, and never really settling as a character into anything consistent. It's a shame, because all three young leads put in solid performances despite the unconvincing characters they are portraying.

In the end, Chronicle is flawed but entertaining. There's enough here to make it feel worthwhile and evidence of plenty of invention and style from Trank. A reboot of the Fantastic Four franchise is currently in the Trank's future career; with the right script behind the project, and based on the positive elements seen in Chronicle, it could be a great match of director to franchise, and the perfect opportunity for Trank to remedy some of the mistakes made in his first film.

6/10

Film Review | The Ides Of March (2011)

I'm a big fan of The West Wing, the US political drama focused on Martin Sheen's President Bartlet and his White House staff. It's the most entertaining, engrossing, well-written and authentic-feeling dramatic representation of the world of politics I've ever experienced. What this essentially means is that I now consciously measure any other politically-oriented dramatic work against The West Wing. Maybe this means  I can be quite severe when passing judgement on political dramas, or maybe it's just that I acknowledge just how high-quality this subgenre can be and don't take kindly to those who try to cut corners when presenting the world of politics. Whilst The Ides Of March could never be accused of corner-cutting, it feels a little too lacking in several areas to be considered a truly great political drama.

The film's greatest strength is by far its cast. Ryan Gosling leads ably, crafting an engaging and, for the majority of the time, believable protagonist in junior campaign manager Stephen Meyers. The supporting cast too displays a cornucopia of talent, with Philip Syemour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and George Clooney (who also writes and directs) all reliably excellent. The tone throughout much of the film is also well struck, with palpable tension and pleasing authenticity created through the aesthetic and cinematographic choices Clooney makes as director.

The Ides Of March's problems come from a few key weaknesses in Clooney's script, which manifest themselves more and more as the film progresses. Some characters lack the integrity to genuinely ring true. Gosling's Meyer, for example, is set up during the film's opening act as a bright young spark in political management who has risen quickly through the ranks of Governor Morris' (Clooney) campaign staff due to his keen intelligence of the world of politics. However, several key decisions Meyer makes throughout the film indicate a serious lack of understanding and experience in the field, and the Meyer we see in the film's final act feels in some ways like a different character to the person introduced at the start. Watch too as Evan Rachel Wood's intern changes personality almost entirely, from sassy free spirit to panic-stricken young trollop in just one scene. It's stretches too far such as these that leave Clooney's script lacking in the tightness needed to achieve a genuinely satisfying level of authenticity.

Ultimately, Clooney's film is enjoyable enough thanks mainly to the cast and Clooney's directorial skill. It's just a shame that the mistakes the film contains hold it back from genuine greatness, as the potential was definitely there. As it is, The Ides Of March is certainly enjoyable, but doesn't deserve to join the ranks of cinema's truly great political dramas.

7/10

Film Review | Paul (2011)

Looking through Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's individual filmographies, both men have made some pretty average fare in their careers when going solo. It's when Pegg and Frost work together that cinematic brilliance such as Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz happens. Paul signifies the end of this rule of thumb: whilst it's nowhere near awful, it's also far too often remarkably ordinary.

Pegg and Frost share credits as both writers and stars, playing two British sci-fi and fantasy geeks (not a huge stretch for either of them); whilst there are glimpses of the infectious chemistry seen between the two on screen before, here it never fully ignites, feeling like a somewhat shallow imitation of what the duo have previously offered. Seth Rogen is an actor I can take or leave, and his performance as the voice of the titular alien fugitive does nothing to sway me any further either way. It works, but Rogen is never outstanding and at times feels as though he's simply going through the motions. Kristen Wiig is fine in support, and Jason Bateman's antagonistic secret service agent generally works well too, although a character shift in the final act feels like a stretch too far. Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio's junior agents are less successful, but by no means terrible providing a few minor chuckles throughout.

Script-wise, Paul paints much broader strokes than Pegg and Frost's previous more highly regarded films, which may widen its appeal but also makes it feel much less sharply crafted. The writing is at its best when paying tribute to science-fiction films gone by with enough references to keep even the most ardent film buffs happy - a voice cameo by a certain alliteratively-named director is a particular highlight - but elsewhere lazily falls back onto the blunt and heavy-handed. Easy targets such as the Christian right and intolerant rednecks feel beneath the British twosome considering their more finely honed previous comedic works.

Ultimately, there's enough to enjoy within Paul to make it worth a watch. The story is episodic and at times unfocused, but managed to hold my interest throughout. If you expect Paul to do to sci-fi what Shaun Of The Dead did to the zombie and horror genres, or what Hot Fuzz did to action and buddy cop movies, then you'll undoubtedly come out disappointed. But go into Paul looking for a lighthearted sci-fi comedy that will entertain without taxing your grey matter too much and you could do a lot worse.

6/10

Film Review | Batman (1966)

With Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy fresh in the minds of many, it's easy to dismiss or even forget that the Caped Crusader's inaugural big screen appearance was a much more lighthearted and comedic affair. 1966's Batman, a feature length adaptation of the TV series which started in the same year, is in many ways a world away from the most recent incarnation of Gotham City and its flying-mammal-themed hero. But there are things that the '60s version of Batman brings to the table that Bale's troubled vigilante never could or would.

It's clear from the very start what kind of superhero film Batman is, with Batman (Adam West) and Robin (Burt Ward) launched straight into a rescue mission which sees them flying the Batcopter, climbing down the Bat-Ladder (complete with "Bat-Ladder" nameplate hanging from the bottom) and utilising Bat-Shark-Repellent to dislodge a shark from Batman's leg. A dark and brooding Gotham this certainly is not. This is unashamedly camp and tongue-in-cheek with intentionally dodgy props (there's more rubber in the shark than in Christian Bale's Batsuit) and a pantomime plot. Batman's approach to the character and his world certainly won't be to everyone's taste, but it lays its cards clearly on the table from the very start, so at least any misery guts out there can switch off within the first ten minutes and do something depressing instead.

West's Batman may not channel the trauma of his parents' death when he was a nipper, but he fills his  spandex Batsuit amply and entertainingly. It's as alter ego Bruce Wayne that West's talent truly shines through, bringing the suave playboy side of Wayne to life better than any big screen Batman since. It's not hard to see from his performance here why West was offered the role of James Bond following Connery's departure (West only turned it down because he felt that Bond should be played by a Brit, movie trivia fans). Burt Ward's support is exactly what it needs to be: memorably full of youthful eagerness, but always allowing West to take centre stage.

Batman offers four of the hero's greatest foes, and four more sublimely extrovert performances. However, with a quartet of supervillains it's inevitable that at least one will feel pushed to the sidelines; sadly here it is Cesar Romero's Joker, who is never given much to do beyond take orders from Burgess Meredith's Penguin. That said, Batman manages multiple villains much better than many more recent offerings into the superhero subgenre.

One or two other key problems mean that Batman never threatens to become a true classic. The plot is regularly meandering and disparate, feeling like a collection of ideas from the TV series connected by a story stretched to fit an overlong running time. A late moralistic message about world harmony feels unnecessarily tacked on, and whilst it's never distracting enough to do any major damage, it does mean that the end of the film feels a little anticlimactic. But these are minor issues. Go into Batman looking for pure, straightforward entertainment and you'll find yourself grinning throughout, with several genuine laugh-out-loud moments that will reside pleasingly in your memory long after the film's end.

7/10

Film Review | Four Lions (2010)

At the UK premiere of Four Lions, writer and director Chris Morris stated that not only did he not consider the subject matter of his film controversial, but also that attempting to stir up controversy is "one of the most boring things you can do". Whilst I'm fairly certain that there will be at least some people who would indeed consider a comedy film about a homegrown Islamic terrorist unit to be controversial, I'm inclined to believe Morris completely in his second sentiment. Four Lions is one of the most finely crafted comedy films of the 21st Century, and at no point does it provoke anything other than genuine humour, thought and emotion.

It's the expert writing and direction of Morris which ensures that Four Lions never comes close to descending into cheap shots or ignorant parody. The story, whilst regularly farcical and blackly comic, also feels remarkably authentic and (scarily) really quite plausible in a number of ways. Morris creates real characters who believe in something, whilst at the same time highlighting the fact that what many people think they know about religious extremists - largely thanks to the media - is in fact the distorted caricature.

Four Lions' assembled cast provides another major strength. Much has been made of Kayvan Novak's imbecilic Waj and Nigel Lindsay's extremist British Islamic convert Barry, and with good reason: both Novak and Lindsay deliver strong and memorable performances, although both spend more time during the first two acts of the film as clear-cut comedy characters. But for me, the standout performance here comes from Riz Ahmed as Omar, the unit's leader. Ahmed's performance takes in everything from slapstick to pathos, with some of the scenes showing Omar's relationship with his wife and son delivering some of the film's most poignant and emotional moments.

Structurally, the film feels a little hectic and unfocused, especially during the opening and middle acts where it's never quite certain what direction the story is going in. Morris almost certainly does this to reflect the disorganisation and confusion of the main characters, but it still means that Four Lions sometimes feels like a string of very well written and performed sketches involving the same characters that don't necessarily form a definite plot. It's in the film's final act where Morris tightens the film as a whole, delivering a focused and flawless finale which is equal parts comedy and tragedy.

Any flaws are minor, however, and vastly outweighed by the film's successes. Morris has refined his craft throughout his acclaimed career in television meaning that Four Lions, his feature directorial debut, largely feels like the work of a seasoned veteran of the big screen. Morris also deserves serious praise for successfully crafting an original spin on what are well-trodden and much-loved comedy archetypes, and for his sheer audacity and unapologetic film-making. In less skilled hands, this could have been a complete train wreck of monumental proportion; under Morris' proficient control, Four Lions stands firm as one of the most successful and important British comedies ever made.

9/10

Film Review | In Time (2011)

Think of an English idiom either concerned with, or involving the word, time. The chances are pretty high that, whatever expression you're currently thinking of, it's included somewhere within In Time. The chances are equally high that you've just gone through the same process as those who actually wrote the script.

The universe that In Time takes place in is undoubtedly the most creative element of the whole thing. Hardly a surprise: writer, producer and director Andrew Niccol's previous credits include Gattaca (writer and director) and The Truman Show (writer and producer).Whilst In Time's world never reaches the imaginative highs of either of those films it certainly holds together in a compelling and believable fashion. Niccol also doesn't waste time with exposition, instead throwing the audience into the film's construct  with a confidence that genuinely galvanises your interest. It's a shame that this barely lasts halfway into the film's first act.

The problem is that Niccol never does anything interesting or deep enough with the set-up he creates. An appealing premise is squandered through characters lacking motive or intrigue performed by a cast that ranges from weak (Justin Timberlake) to going through the motions (Cillian Murphy, who admittedly does the best he can with a poorly written character). The story never grabs hold, instead just bumbling along becoming more and more unfocused until it reaches its lacklustre conclusion. The message that Niccol seems to be peddling here about class mobility and the poor being controlled by the wealthy feels ham-fisted and generates remarkably little excitement.

All of which leaves In Time as nothing more than a wasted opportunity. It's a real shame that Niccol fails to come up with a story or focus to match the ingenuity of the world in which his film is set, as with some decent characterisation and a well-written plot, this could have been a memorable entry into the action-sci-fi subgenre. As it stands, In Time is a forgettable disappointment.

4/10

Film Review | Devil (2010)

Promoted as the first part of "The Night Chronicles", of which we've yet to see any further installments released, Devil's screenplay is developed from a story by M. Night Shyamalan, who also serves as a producer. But whilst Devil lacks (for the better) the pretention of Shyamalan's recent efforts as director, it also lacks the invention and originality of his earlier, better regarded films.

After a flimsy opening and a first act that feels like it belongs buried deep within a TV movie channel way after most of us have gone to bed, Devil actually manages to settle into a pleasing if unremarkable blend of supernatural horror and claustrophobic whodunnit. Whilst some elements are automatically redundant - a brief subplot involving whether there is a motive for one of the five imprisoned in the lift to be killed seems pointless, considering how blatantly the message that what is happening is the work of the Devil is constantly put across - others work relatively well. The choice to have much of the pivotal action take place within a broken down lift is a positive, although it's never explored quite as much as you'd hope.

This ultimately ends up being Devil's downfall: it never goes far enough down one route to become more than overwhelmingly average. The scares are neither frequent nor effective enough to make this a genuinely successful horror, nor is director John Erick Dowdle's tongue nearly far enough into his cheek for this to pass as an entertaining B-movie homage. The story is too simplistic and its characters too lacking in depth or detail to allow the audience to engage on more than a rudimentary level at any point either. By the time Devil lays its cards on the table in the final fifteen minutes, the reaction it receives will be more akin to the end of The Happening than The Sixth Sense.

Devil never does enough right to be truly memorable, nor does it make too many mistakes to be considered awful. At just an hour and a quarter in length it never has the chance to become tedious, but this also highlights the slight nature of everything presented here. In the end it sits, much like a broken lift, between the basement of oblivion below and the penthouse suite of greatness so far above.

5/10