Legend (Review) - Two Much of a Good Thing

Tom Hardy is a pretty incredible actor - there's no real question there. So when I heard that he'd be playing not one, but both of the notorious Kray twins, I was excited to say the least. As with most movies, trailers began spilling out and the film seemed to be getting better and better. So where did it all go wrong? 

Well, that's not entirely fair. There's not necessarily anything wrong with Legend, as it's a reasonably competent crime biopic detailing the retention and decay of the Kray twins' power in the East End of London. Rather than beginning with an introduction to how they grew their empire, the film instead opens with Reggie Kray already at the top of his game: police officers fear him, rivals fear him, and he's generally adored by locals who see him as a beacon of protection - or instiller of fear. Once his mentally unstable brother comes onto the scene, however, thing begin to go awry. Not only physically formidable, Reggie's brother Ronnie is also a paranoid schizophrenic who will use his brute strength to intimidate and nullify those who stand in his way. Sound pretty cool, right? Well, I thought so too, until Reggie's love interest Frances (Emily Browning) comes onto the scene. 

And this is where things began to feel a little off. I was expecting an out-and-out crime drama with enough violence to justify its 18-rating, but instead we got half of that, and half of a fairly mundane romance Reggie and Frances. Don't get me wrong: I don't mind romantic sub-plots in movies. In fact, in the case of critically acclaimed films like Forrest Gump, a romantic partnership can add numerous layers to the plot. But in the case of Legend, it's just a bit boring and predictable. I won't spoil anything, but the story hits all the beats you'd expect, and even the ending isn't a huge shock. Also, the film features a constant narration by Frances that accompanies the key events of her relationship with the twins, but it's weak to say the least. I'm a huge fan of interesting narration in movies, and it can often add an entirely new layer of depth to an already interesting story (such as A Clockwork Orange). But in Legend, it's just boring, and Emily Browning comes off as bored when delivering her lines.

When the film's on-point though, it's really on. The moments shared between Tom Hardy and...well, Tom Hardy, are especially memorable. One fight scene involving Ronnie and Reggie in particular is both funny and hard-hitting, and there's plenty of scenes that manage to create that engaging atmosphere that keeps you interested - even between the slower-pace of Reggie's relationship. The way in which both brothers appear on-screen together is also admirable, as there's never a moment at which you feel like one of the brothers has been digitally added to appear with the other. 

A relatively minor issue I had with the two lead characters, however, was that they were often characterised by a single feature that was stretched to its absolute maximum. This isn't a huge issue with Reggie, as his relationship with Frances made him layered enough to empathise with. Ronnie, on the other hand, seemed to be identified a lot of the time solely by the fact he's gay. Sure, it was surprising to hear that such an iconic gangster was openly homosexual, but the number of scenes that played with this idea became a little stale. The conversation in the trailer ("I like boys") was entertaining, but then we're shown homosexual parties galore, and Ronnie's numerous boyfriends pop up like caricature cartoons. 

Verdict
It might sound like I hated Legend - I didn't. I just felt so underwhelmed after the months of expectation and intrigue. Tom Hardy is understandably brilliant with what he's been given to work with, but the plot of the film feels like it treads so much common ground. Honestly, if Hardy hadn't played both of the brothers so competently, then this wouldn't be worth watching, even on DVD. However, if you can excuse the consistently average side-plot with Frances, then there's a movie here worth checking out. 

"Reggie was a gangster prince of the East End, Ronnie Kray

was a one-man mob."

Ant-Man (Review) - Small Hero, Big Success

Perhaps one of the most unknown additions to the Marvel cinematic universe, Ant-Man revolves around the character of Scott Lang (Paul Rudd). Scott's a fairly regular guy who rarely sees his daughter anymore due to a split from his ex-wife, and has recently been released from prison after being caught and tried for burglary. Once out, Scott quickly gets himself back into trouble again after robbing a house and discovering an enigmatic red and black suit. This is, of course, the Ant-Man suit belonging to its original creator, Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas). Conditions arise that lead Hank Pym to enlist the help of Scott in order to break into a heavily guarded facility and steal a similar suit, so that its power cannot fall into the wrong hands. 

At its heart, Ant-Man is a comedic heist movie which contains superhero elements. Sure, there's plenty of ties to the larger Marvel universe -- a plot line that takes place at the new Avengers HQ, for example -- but otherwise this is a much smaller affair. And that's not exactly a bad thing. One of my issues with Age of Ultron was that consequences were constantly being upped to the point where the film just felt silly and far too over-the-top -- an impressive feat for a movie about super-powered icons. Ant-Man, on the other hand, focuses almost entirely on a regular guy who gains his powers semi-reluctantly and uses them so that he can eventually see his daughter regularly again. 

Paul Rudd is also absolutely great in the titular role, and adds a considerable amount of comedy to the movie. It's not quite as funny or entertaining as the excellent (and arguably best Marvel movie) Guardians of the Galaxy, but the humour certainly makes this worth a watch. Also, because the stakes aren't quite as in your face throughout, the film is also approachable for those who have been otherwise put off by the likes of the Avengers or similar high-budget superhero films. That's not to say Ant-Man is lacking in budget, however, as the special effects when Scott shrinks to the size of an ant are simply fun to look at. This is especially true when he battles the main villain of the movie in a child's bedroom, which was a scene featured in the trailer. 

Scott Lang (Paul Rudd)

Unfortunately, the villain of Ant-Man is where the movie falls down slightly. Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) plays a nefarious successor to the company Hank Pym began, and his motivations seem to boil down to nothing more than "I'm evil and hate people". Honestly, he could have been called something like 'Mr. BadMcPerson' and I wouldn't have been surprised. Once he dons the opposing suit and becomes Yellowjacket in the latter half of the movie, then things begin to get a tiny bit more interesting, but he's ultimately forgettable. A good example of what to expect is when Cross uses a lamb for an experiment that will likely fail, and when asked why he can't use mice, he simply replies: "What's the difference?". I mean, sure, he's right, but that just seems like overkill. 

Verdict
Ant-Man might not be the very best Marvel film available, but it's also far from the worst, and could potentially be one of the funniest. It's an enjoyable movie that plays very nicely into the larger Marvel universe, but its relatively fresh nature also means that it can be appreciated as its own thing. I'm not saying that you need to rush out and watch it right now, but if you have an opportunity, then you could do far worse. 

"This is not some cute tech like the 

Iron Man suit!" 

Terminator Genisys (Review) - Another Misfire

I don't understand why it's so hard to produce a Terminator movie that lives up to the iconic first two instalments. I personally didn't hate either T3 or even Salvation, but they were inarguably inferior to their excellent predecessors. Not only is Genisys another example of how seemingly difficult it is to achieve success with this franchise nowadays, but it's also the weakest entry in the series. 

Trying to profit off of nostalgia, Terminator Genisys essentially re-tells the first movie's plot, but with some time-bending changes. Like that movie, Genisys begins in the year 2029, when Skynet has won the war and has enslaved humanity. John Connor (Jason Clarke), our last hope, sends his one true friend Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to 1984, so that Reese can protect John's mother from death at the hands of a terminator. However, when Reese is sent back in time, he quickly realises that things aren't at all how he expected, and Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) is far from the helpless damsel that he thought she would be. 

The film starts promising enough. With an advancement in our own technology comes a better view of what Terminator's fictional war will look like, and the film begins by showing us this bleak future. The machines reign supreme, and humans being gathered into death camps provides some pretty sombre images. Even once Reese is sent back, the movie still remains enjoyable; especially for those who have seen the original Terminator, as Genisys does a good job of providing an updated, shot-for-shot remake of that film's opening scene. However, once we meet Sarah Connor for the first time, things begin to go downhill. I haven't seen Game of Thrones, but based off of this movie alone, I don't think that Emilia Clarke is that good of an actress, and especially bad at representing the now iconic heroine of Sarah Connor. Fair enough, they've tried blending elements of Terminator 2, with Sarah now being a hardened badass, but it's never really explained why she's such a badass. There's some flimsy explanation about how she met her Terminator (affectionately called "Pops") when she was 9, but no real information is given to explain how that scenario came to be. 

Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger)

And Sarah's Terminator is the only thing that really redeems this movie in any way, for one reason only: Arnie's back. Returning in his titular role as the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance is on-point and the same as in the other instalments for the series. The best lines, stunts, and moments throughout the movie are thanks to nobody but Schwarzenegger, and he manages to make the movie slightly bearable. Sure, there's a weird bullet-loading montage halfway through which involves Reese and the Terminator, but by that point you've given up hope of the film getting much better. 



Verdict
There's not a lot more to say about Genisys, because it's simply not a very good movie. The acting is poor, a lot of the action is boring, and without Arnold's presence, it would be completely unwatchable. It's cool to see the throwbacks to the original movie, but all that does is make you wish that you were watching that instead, and if you haven't seen the original, then these references will be completely lost on you. Instead of seeing Genisys, buy the boxset of the other instalments (yes, even T3 and Salvation), and enjoy some of the best sci-fi movies ever made. 

"You're nothing but a relic" 

Inside Out (Review) - Pixar at its Best

It's tough to beat the sheer entertainment found in a Pixar movie. Sure, they've not all been to the standard of Toy Story, but they're very rarely sub-par. With this latest release, the animation studio has proven once again that they're truly unbeatable when it comes to making films for all audiences, with Inside Out managing to tell a relatable, incredibly original story filled with funny and likeable characters. 

The plot to Inside Out is probably one of the most original I've heard of, and is a considerable reason why the movie is as special as it is. Basically, the film depicts how everybody has emotions embodied within their head, who cooperate to make us function and act the way we do. Focusing on a young girl called Riley (Kaitlyn Dias), we get to see Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyliss Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Anger (Lewis Black) and Disgust (Mindy Kaling), as they try to keep Riley's emotions in check. However, when Riley's family leave their hometown of Massachusetts to live in San Francisco, things begin to go awry. 

I won't give away too much more of the plot, because I went in to the film not knowing much, and that's how it should be. Just know that while there's plenty of character interaction and humour that adults will enjoy, there's also a great, adventurous story within Inside Out that kids will appreciate just as much. The best part about the film, however, is the voice acting behind the characters themselves. Anybody familiar with The Office (U.S.) will instantly recognise Sadness and and Disgust as Phyliss and Kelly from that show, respectively. Bill Hader as Fear is also hugely entertaining, and the other emotions don't lack in talent either. If anything, the fact that they're so entertaining eventually becomes detrimental to the movie, because there's just not enough time to focus on everything.  

Visually, Inside Out is an absolute joy. The HQ that the emotions live in is imaginative and colourful, and this is only heightened once you get to see other parts of Riley's mind. All of the characters also look exactly how you'd expect (Sadness is always blue, for example), and this all comes together to make a movie that's just fun to watch. In fact, there's not really a huge deal you could find wrong with Inside Out. The story may lack any weighty surprises, but it's easy to follow and provides a great grounding for the rest of the movie to grow off of. A personal complaint that isn't exactly a negative on the movie's part is that there's some hilarious moments when you see into other people's minds and how they are controlled, though these were all left until the very end in a montage sequence. Littering these throughout the movie might have led to more consistent laughs, but there's still plenty of humour that made everybody genuinely laugh out loud. 

Verdict
There's not a great deal more to say about Inside Out, because it's a solid Pixar movie: If you're a fan of Pixar, then you'll love it. With an imaginative idea that's fleshed out and populated with interesting characters, there's very little to dislike in this movie. It's not quite up there with Toy Story, but it's slightly above Wreck-It Ralph. Definitely worth a watch. 

Instead of a quote, I thought I'd post this trailer 

to the movie, because it's a great indication of what

you're in for: 

Jurassic World (Review) - Almost Awesome

I desperately want to like Jurassic World. Chris Pratt is great, dinosaurs are cool, and the Jurassic series is beloved by many - the original being the best, naturally. And at times, I really did enjoy this fourth instalment. However, for every moment of Jurassic World that entertained, there was a handful of inane, eye-rolling scenes that dragged the film down as a whole. 

Set twenty-two years after the events of the original Jurassic Park, the film shows how John Hammond's vision from that movie has finally been realised. Ignoring the deaths caused by the dinosaurs a few decades prior, a grand theme park has now been opened on Isla Nublar, along with all the grandeur that that brings. Triceratops petting-zoos and Sea World-esque exhibits draw in guests, but there's always something bigger and better being worked on in order to drum up hype for the park. This comes in the form of a new dinosaur that is created from the DNA of other animals, and is more deadly than anything seen before. As expected, one thing leads to another, and soon the new beast is roaming the park, hunting anything in its path. 

Sounds cool, right? I thought that too. Couple this with the aforementioned presence of Chris Pratt as a Dino-whisperer, and some truly spectacular dinosaurs envisioned on-screen, and you'd think that you have yourself a brilliant return to form for the Jurassic series. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The movie tries to spin this spectacular world of beasts around the developing relationship of two brothers, and in doing so, becomes predictable and clichéd. A perfect example of this is an early juxtaposition which transitions from cool dinosaurs to a conversation between the brothers about whether their parents will get divorced. It's ham-fisted, and genuinely funny in how awkward it makes the film feel. 

Then, eventually, you get back to the engaging, exciting moments which you'd hoped for. Chris Pratt bonding with Velociraptors, only for his relationship with them to be truly tested when an assistant falls into the exhibit is exciting and tense, and exactly the kind of thing I'd wanted to see. Cut back to the eldest of the two brothers being apathetic and downright nasty to his younger sibling, and that excitement is immediately destroyed. In trying to create relatable moments that keep the story grounded, Jurassic World succeeds in nothing but a lessening of the experience. 

And to be perfectly honest, if Chris Pratt wasn't in the movie, then there'd be little to rave about. Cementing his presence as a genuinely likeable guy with Guardians of the Galaxy, he manages to make the film at least a little enjoyable. Though the relationship between Pratt's character Owen and the stereotypical businesswoman Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) is forced - like most in the film - it's far from the worst aspect of the movie. This isn't a particularly positive point in the film's favour, though: Jurassic World shouldn't need Pratt in order to make it bearable. 

Owen (Chris Pratt)

As a little side note, it's also disappointing how much CGI the film relied upon, considering how much the original asserted the use of practical effects to remain relevant even today. It's not uncommon for modern blockbusters to be CGI-heavy, and I don't consider this an automatic negative for a movie. With Jurassic World however, it just seems such a waste, because the 1993 original showed how animatronics and practical effects can easily rival dinosaurs generated by a computer.  That's not to say that practical dinosaurs and effects aren't found in the movie, it's just that they're heavily outweighed by their computer generated counterparts. 

Verdict
Jurassic World was so close to being really great. If the film literally cut half of the scenes that pitifully tried to push family relationships, then it would be a far better, albeit very short movie. There's elements of it such as the dinosaurs and action scenes that show what could have been, which is why the aforementioned 'character development' moments feel so stilted and unnecessary. Having the two brothers hate eachother, only to rekindle their relationship isn't interesting or fresh; it's boring. If you planned on seeing this film already or if you're a huge fan of the series, then it's probably worth checking out. Otherwise, you're better off waiting for the DVD, or seeing if it ends up on Netflix in a year. 

"You just went and made a new dinosaur? 

Probably not a good idea."

Mad Max: Feminist Propaganda?

With the release of the brilliant Mad Max: Fury Road came an outcry of dismay from several men's rights activists about how the movie is nothing more than a work of feminist propaganda, and that it ought to be boycotted at every cost. The main reason for this averse reaction is simple: the main character is arguably somebody other than the titular Max. In fact, it's Charlize Theron's 'Furiosa' who takes the leading role for most of the film, which defies many gender stereotypes we've had within action movies for a very long time. Does this mean that Fury Road is a man-hating, feminism-glorifying piece of cinema? Of course not. 

In the world of Fury Road, men are the overwhelmingly predominant gender. Villain Immortan Joe's hope of a future heir relies upon his five 'breeders', who he keeps locked up in his fortress, in the hope of producing a male child. Furiosa rescues these women and takes them far from Joe's evil grasp, trying to reach the promised 'green place' from where she came. However, during all of this, Max himself is present. Sure, he begins the movie captured and chained to the front of a car, but he's soon set free and is forced to side with Furiosa to ensure any chance of survival - and in that lies the key point. Max sides with Furiosa; he's not overshadowed by her. 

There's a handful of scenes that have made people particularly angry, one being a moment at which Max hands Furiosa a sniper in order for her to shoot at a far away target effectively. Three bullets remain in the gun, and Max shoots two - both of them miss. To save wasting all three, Max acknowledges that Furiosa's previous display of marksmanship is superior to his, and so he hands her the gun, which she places on his shoulder; using Max as a makeshift bi-pod. This scene doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Max is a man and Furiosa is a woman. An earlier scene shows how her talent with a gun surpasses that of Max's, and so she completes the task at hand. It's been established that Max is more of a regular guy than an all-out action hero, and so for him to be perfect at every stereotypically masculine skill would not only seem unrealistic, but go against the established narrative of the Mad Max series. 

Another point of contention that has riled up certain groups of people is that Fury Road's director George Miller hired Eve Ensler to talk to the five wives in the film (alongside others) in order to give a perspective of their situation. Eve is the writer of 'The Vagina Monologues', and is a woman's rights activist. Many took this as George Miller having a feminist agenda when producing the movie (though this wouldn't necessarily be a terrible thing), but Eve only offered insight and advice to some of the actors and actresses. If it results in a better, more grounded movie, then why would this be such a huge issue? 

The fact of the matter is that Furiosa is a strong, empowering female character who can easily stand alongside the likes of Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor. This doesn't mean that Max is less than her; nor does it mean he's superior. In Fury Road, Max and Furiosa end up being equals, and both have a joint motivation: survival. How about, instead of being so concerned with the politics of a movie like this, we enjoy it as the amazing, exhilarating action film that it is? Having women in leading roles within movies isn't a terrible thing, and that should honestly go without saying. But we can still have our Jason Stathams and Sylvester Stallones, too. 

Because it's about equality, right? 

Mad Max: Fury Road (Review) - Fantastically Fuelled Action

Wow. That's all I can really say. After nearly two hours of non-stop action, it's hard to properly explain exactly what you've just seen. Mad Max: Fury Road is an insane, balls-to-the-wall action film at its most pure. It's minimal on dialogue, and packed to the brim with explosions, cars, and face-melting stunts that are an absolute joy to behold. Believe the hype: this is one of the best action films in years. 

The film opens with our hero Max (Tom Hardy) being captured by a group of albino savages, and taken back to their encampment. Led by fearsome dictator Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), this sinister oasis becomes Max's prison, as he is bled dry to fuel the mindless followers of Joe. Meanwhile, a mysterious driver of Joe's goes rogue, and takes his 'breeders' in search of her childhood home. Max joins this woman along the way, and mayhem ensues spectacularly. 

While the story is relatively interesting, it's little more than a vehicle to drive the relentless chaos forwards. Max is a man of few words, as are most of his allies; there's lengthy periods without any dialogue, but unlike artsy films such as Drive, these speechless segments are filled with chases and fire. The film itself is essentially a two-hour chase across the arid desert, and is predominantly a showcase for just how mental things can get. There's about 30 minutes of downtime littered throughout, which allows for some character development and expansion of the world, but Fury Road often opts for action instead of words. In fact, it's in these moments of solace that you'll find yourself moderately bored, waiting for the next huge event to spark things off once more. 

Back when Mad Max was first introduced to us back in 1979, Mel Gibson filled the shoes of the enigmatic protagonist. The first instalment was a vastly different movie from what we've got here now, but managed to become something of a cult classic abroad after its Australian conception. Throughout the three movies, Mel Gibson solidified himself as the quietly capable lead, but Tom Hardy does a brilliant job in revitalising the character of Max. Though he's lacking in dialogue, Hardy's Max is still a complex and battered man, which is especially shown through the brief yet interesting flashbacks. Don't worry though: you won't be missing out if you haven't seen the original trilogy...though do yourself a favour and watch The Road Warrior, at the very least. There's plenty of nods and references to this classic throughout Fury Road, too. 

Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy)

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that Max isn't exactly the film's main character, however. While his name may be the one plastered all over the posters, it's Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who drives the movie - and plot - forwards. She's no damsel in distress either, and goes toe-to-toe with Max on several occasions. For years, the problem of weak female protagonists has been a huge area of contention for movie goers. Female heroes like Alien's Ripley and Terminator's Sarah Connor stand out as examples of empowering women in movies, and Fury Road's Furiosa can proudly stand alongside them. If you've ever complained about women's lacking presence in the action scene, then you owe it to yourself to see this movie. 

There's really nothing negative I can say about this film. Sure, the moments of downtime that are rare occasionally feel a little too slow, but they're necessary to make the action feel as intense as it does. Once you've seen a guy rocking out on a double guitar that shoots fire out of its end, you know you're in for a real treat. 

Verdict

Perhaps the biggest surprise for a film I've had in years, Fury Road solidifies its place as a modern-classic action masterpiece. It's ludicrous, ridiculous and absurd, and yet manages to keep you engaged and believing until the very end. I was sceptical that the pace could be held to the same heights as in the trailers, but the film succeeds to do so and then some. You'll come out of the cinema wanting to watch it all again, as every single scene is littered with details, and there's always so much going on amidst the fiery explosions and mayhem. Couple that with the frequency of practical effects instead of blatant CGI, and you've got yourself a real treat. See this movie. Like, now. 

"My name is Max. My world is Fire.

And Blood."