Terminator Genisys

 

Starring

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Emilia Clarke

Jason Clarke

Jai Courtney

Lee Byung-Hun

Directed by

Alan Taylor

Screenplay by

James Cameron et al

The Ultra Review are massive fans of Terminator. We’re talking a time-bending, reality-questioning, epiphany-inducing, existentialist crisis-causing level of fandom.

We know the name of the niteclub was Tech Noir and the street it was on was called Pinco in The Terminator. We know Miles Dyson’s middle name is Bennett and he called his son Danny. We know that John Connor’s stepmom, Janelle Voight, was played by Jenette Goldstein of Aliens and that she is Michelle Rodriguez’s mother. We know that the Terminatrix, in Rise of the Machines, was initially meant to be an Asian woman because the “Eastern look” is more menacing than that of a Caucasian woman to an American audience. We know that the name of the Cyberdyne’s cancer patient employee in Salvation was Dr Serena Kogan played by Helena Bonham Carter.

You get the picture.

So you can imagine our scepticism when we saw the trailer for the latest instalment in the Terminator franchise. 

Sure, there appeared to be plenty of special effects, chase scenes and action but we are part of an audience who were mesmerised by the first two movies, only for Hollywood to come along and take a big steaming dump on our beloved series by releasing two bastardised sequels, unworthy of the Terminator name. First, Rise of the Machines, ahem, gave rise to the pseudo-comedy version of Terminator, a movie in which armour-plated killing machine Arnie actually said the line “talk to the hand”. Then McG came along with Christian Bale’s MASSIVE ego and tried to completely destroy the winning formula of cat and mouse.

Going into a movie and expecting it to be rubbish gives it a tremendous advantage which Genisys took full advantage of.

There are three reasons The Ultra Review left the screening with a huge smile on its face.

1 – Attention to detail

There is so much attention to the little things in this movie that the inner nerd couldn’t help but literally coo when certain things happened on screen. For example, when half of Arnie’s face is taken clean off – hardly a spoiler, it’s about as inevitable as him uttering the words “I‘ll be back” – the exposed T-101 eye moved in sync with the human-looking eye. This has never happened before. In the past, the eye remained static. You may question the validity of highlighting this point in a review but this is just an example of the pain-staking lengths the makers of this movie went to to bring you an experience that even the most specky of Terminator nerds found hard to fault.

Danny Dyson is in the movie. Kyle Reece’s scars match those from T1. When recreating the opening scene from T1 they took care to remove Arnie’s gentials from the shot. These are all subtle but important details that add up.

2 – Logic

This film, unlike ROTM and Salvation is full to the brim of logic. For example, Arnie is old and looks it. Whereas in ROTM, his elderly appearance is poorly hidden behind layer upon layer of make-up, it is explained that Arnie looks old because his living tissue had aged over his metal endoskeleton because he has been around for so long. That makes sense. That is what was missing from this franchise – logic.

Another example of this detail is the plot. Skynet is directly linked to a new social network application which connects all of our devices. That makes sense. Judgement Day’s occurrence was blamed on inevitability in ROTM. How lazy is that?! Did they really sit around a desk, trying to decide on the plot and went with that? It just happened? Couldn’t they have said that they found Arnie’s arm from T2, the one we all saw him lose in the battle with the T-1000? Couldn’t they have said that the work Miles Dyson had done was backed up on an external computer system and that they merely carried on his work?

By using the app storyline, Genisys plays on the fears of technophobes, a theme wonderfully explored in the otherwise deeply flawed yet beautiful I Robot. This plot plays on the reservations and fears those of us who are unhappy with the level of communication surveillance that exists today and for those of us old enough to have been around for the entire franchise, there are bound to be a few.

3 – Finally…

This is the sequel that we have been waiting for since 1991. Lose ends are tied up. Things are explained. Angles are covered. The story is furthered. The product is enhanced. All without doing the sort of damage that the intervening movies have. Not to mention that AWFUL TV series which, other than in this sentence, we refuse to acknowledge.

Dark, exciting, thought-provoking and thoughtful, the movie was well on the way to be considered only the third movie ever to receive a five star rating from The Ultra Review. 

However, there are flaws which prevent this. One of which is HUGE!

1 – Pops

Sarah Connor refers to Arnie as “Pops”. Again, this is the movie applying logic but Pops? It just doesn’t suit an armour-plated killing machine, whose entry into our psyche is typified by requesting a Plasma Accelerator in a 40 watt range in a local gun store in the 80s.

2 – Comedy

When Arnie smiled in the Director’s Cut of T2, it was hilarious. It was a gem of a moment in a movie almost completely bereft of humour. It was a dark movie about the end of the world, insanity, existentialism and the inevitability of death. This moment was enough. However, the smile was recreated in Genisys at least five times which was at least four too many.

Also, the relationship between Kyle and Sarah contained far too many laughs and flirting. The Kyle of T1 was depressed and melancholic, a product of his time; ill-at-ease with the opposite sex and even ill-at-ease with the world’s scenery. This Kyle is smooth and comfortable with women and seems to know his way around a chat-up line. NO. NO. NO. Where is the pain? Where are the effects and the physical demeanour and shyness that come with a life of knowing nothing other than death and despair?

3 – John Connor

While the aforementioned flaws are just that – flaws – they can be overlooked due to the sheer quality of the movie. However, John Connor cannot. Why is he even in this movie? For fear of spoiling Genisys, I shall refer to this matter no longer as it would spoil a movie you really should see for yourself. Safe to say, his place in this movie leaves a sour taste in the mouth and takes away plenty of the good work done elsewhere.

The movie is crisp, special and if it were a book it would be a page turner. But John Connor takes an entire star off this movie.

Genisys is the perfect summer’s day; not a cloud in the sky, just the right amount of breeze to keep the heat bearable and as you stroll along the beach with your beautiful other half, you forget all of life’s troubles that come along with days that don’t begin with ‘S’ and all is well with the world. Then a big dirty seagull named John Connor comes along and streaks a big smelly stream of turdacious sputum across your favourite shirt.

However, it is the nuances that make this movie. Not merely copying the old movies but paying homage to the giant shoulders on which they stand.

That breeds greatness.

Rating: ✮✮✮✮

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGSxss7gWak

 

American Sniper

Directed by

Clint Eastwood

Starring

Bradley Cooper

Sienna Miller

Luke Grimes

Jake McDorman

Kyle Gallner

You can pretty much guess where this film headed right from the beginning - a one-way ticket to Fiction Town. Step 1 - the twin towers are attacked. Step 2 - our hero signs up to be a Navy SEAL. Step 3 - he's shooting people in Iraq. Can we just clear something up from the off? Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Not even the US propaganda machine could have spun that one. It's going to be a long movie.

American Sniper is the (ahem) true story of Chris Kyle, famous for being the most lethal sniper in US military history. Bradley Cooper, adopted an intense workout regime to bulk up and look like Kyle, when he wasn't busy being Tinseltown's latest darling and taking the world's most cringe-worthy selfies. He even spent much time with Kyle's widow to get a true feel for what it was like to be Kyle. As an exercise in acting, Cooper does a great job. They even say he refused to leave character for the duration of filming. Even when at home, he refused to be called anything other than Chris. Method acting is in these days.

Sienna Miller plays the girl-next-door-yet-unrealistically-hot-all-American love interest of Kyle. You begin to feel for her for falling in love with such an affable and charming young man but when the bullets fly, she sticks around. Despite questioning his work and demanding his return, when you turn a blind eye a lá Carmella Soprano or Skylar White, you are just as guilty as your sociopathic husband. Enable and facilitate but don't expect sympathy when ye both pull that trigger.

The movie is based on the autobiography of Kyle, written when he came home from war in Iraq (pronounced "EYE-RACK", obviously) about his time at the end of a long-distance weapon. To say that his actions in Iraq were glorified is putting it mildly. This is nothing more than a recruitment film for potential American soldiers. An expensively-made and expertly edited piece of propaganda to further increase the anti-Muslim sentiment that is the narrative of the western world right now. When you go to the cinema, you leave your disbelief at the door, you understand that what you are about to witness is a work of fiction. Indeed, this was a work of fiction, taken directly from the thoughts of a psychopathic murderer of men, women and children. This was not a documentary yet those who watch the movie will doubtlessly be enthralled and influenced by the message; America good, Muslim bad. 

Throughout the movie, Kyle's heroic murders are flanked by the altogether more evil murders of his equally skilled adversary, Random Parkour Sniper Guy. This is where the movie takes a turn off Racism Street and down into Ridiculous Avenue. Random is dark, mysterious, always up to no good and a defender of evil. His appearance is particularly ridiculous. As if we didn't already understand that he was a bad guy due to the colour of his skin and his patchy pubic beard, they gave him copious amounts of eyeliner to really hammer it home. THIS IS A BAD GUY. In fact, the only thing darker than his intentions and his skin is his weapon. Kyle's tool of choice to kill is painted in military livery, fresh, discreet, a classic design, whereas Random's weapon is slick black, as black as his heart and as bad as his evil intentions. It's like watching a James Bond movie! The modern hero versus the generic bad guy. If it wasn't depicted as being real, it would be humourous.

The movie comes out with such beauties as "I want you to put the fear of god into these savages" and "this is for god, country and family". When these lines are uttered, it struck me that perhaps the movie MAY be a subliminal and very realistic critique of Kyle and the invasion/occupation of Iraq. That, just maybe, they are giving us a gritty depiction of the evil behind genocide and the brainwashing that occurs to make a man leave his young family and fly around the world murdering people. Director Clint Eastwood has of course flown in the face of accepted narrative before, directing Letters From Iwo Jima. I toyed with the idea that perhaps this was a searing indictment of America's destruction of the Middle East, as if Eastwood had produced a more serious version of Team America. Could this really be a satire and a metaphor for the brainwashing of both the soldier and the American citizen? Cooper and Kyle's widow have spent recent months promoting the movie by touring the world, praising the heroic deeds of her husband. Well, there goes that idea! 

Any symbolism here is purely accidental and in the eyes if the beholder only. What a shame, this movie could have been a much-needed criticism of the engagements of the battlefield and the needlessness of death it brings. In fact, the only pity we feel is for our hero when he starts to suffer mentally from all the killing he witnesses. Only when his colleagues begin to fall does he begin to question what he is doing. In one moment of poignancy, a young soldier calls himself a legend, Kyle's moniker, to which Kyle replies: "That's a title you don't want, trust me." Don't be fooled, this is not guilt because of murder, this is guilt because of survival. We are expected to feel bad for Kyle. Are we expected to forget that he bravely put bullets in men, women and children for the entire movie?! 

In the movie, every single Iraqi is depicted as a terrorist (there's that word!) and having some kind of ulterior motive. The movie is completely ignorant to the fact that Iraq did actually have a trained army and peaceful citizens. Not every man, woman and child can maneuver a rocket-launcher and strap themselves with explosives. Then again, if it told the truth, who would read the book and who would watch the movie?

This film has two plus points. One is that it brilliantly depicts guerrilla warfare better than anything since Ché: Part One. Some of the fighting scenes are intense and are up there with anything ever made anywhere. Of this, Eastwood can be very proud. Secondly, the movie as a stand alone movie is actually quite engaging. You are pulled in and you begin to care about what happens to the main characters, be it support or the wish of capitulation. That is important in a movie.

However, the evils of this movie cannot be ignored. Journalist Rania Khalek described the movie as "racist atrocity pornography". It is a movie dedicated to the life and actions of a murderer, a racist, a killer of innocent animals for fun and a bigot. Chris Kyle killed 160 Iraqis in their own land and for what? Bradley Cooper, Clint Eastwood, Sienna Miller and everyone else involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves.

If you want to see a decent movie about this time, this theme and this war, watch The Hurt Locker and avoid this dross. It has better acting, is a better movie and more importantly, knows it is fiction.

To quote Team America: "America - FUCK YEAH!"

Rating: ✮

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRbAXWfthtA

Team America trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPBX47zSktc

Interstellar

Directed by:

Christopher Nolan

Starring:

Matthew McConaughey

Anne Hathaway

Michael Caine

Jessica Chastain

Christopher Nolan, Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, a huge budget and worldwide fanfare. It's safe to say that you know what to expect when you go to see Interstellar. A very long movie, an epic of biblical proportions, heightened drama, more tension than in the chest of an asthmatic old lady carrying heavy shopping and fantastic story telling. You will not be disappointed.

Interstellar is a slow-burner but it has to be, Man Of Steel showed us what happens when the movie is THAT long and tears off the line - we remember the general gist of what happened but I'll be damned if I remember much of the plot or the millions of secondary characters for that matter! Here though, Nolan reverts to the formula that served him so well in the Dark Knight franchise. We are allowed to learn to love and to hate the characters before they are thrust into exciting incidents.

Matthew McConaughey stars as Cooper, a genius-turned-farmer, in a world set somewhere in the not-too-distant future where the need for farmers and for produce far outweighs the need for engineers and scientists. That the world we are seeing is a very real probability lends credibility to Interstellar. There are no fancy contraptions, take note Back To The Future II (where are the floating cars and inside-out jeans and self-drying jackets?) This world, on the brink of dystopia, reminds us that brain power and cunning and all of our books and education count for nothing if we don't have a world to live in and a family to leave behind.

Cooper is recruited by the extravagant and exciting Professor Brand (Michael Caine) with his daughter who is annoyingly just known as Brand (Anne Hathaway) in order to find alternative life in the universe and thus save the future of mankind. What is it with the insistence of Hollywood to make us know poeple by their surnames? Mulder & Scully, Mr White, Mr Anderson, Underwood, etc etc etc. 

Once you can get your head around the ridiculous science, the movie sucks you in like a black hole (snigger). While it does stick to conventional scientific theory, the idea of black holes is one that, even as a Sci Fi fan, I find it hard to hang my hat on. Then again, there are people who base an entire career around the THEORY of the big bang. Imagine their disappointment when that one is disproved. 

Allow yourself to fully leave your disbelief at the door and you will love Interstellar. Don't be a skeptic and all will be well.

McConaughey is fantastic as the brash and quick-witted Cooper. There are genuine moments of Rusty Cole from True Detective here as he struggles to make sense of the world he lives in and risks his life to save. Although it was a bit weird to not see him sucking on endless cancer sticks throughout the movie for once! There was a moment in recent times when McConaughey was nothing more than a chick flick actor. He was typecast as the boring and dreadful love interest of his co-star and therefore every lady that watched them. However, just two major roles later and he has transcended into the world of the serious actor, portraying complex characters with a deeper-lying agenda and endless thought behind those mysterious eyes. All that is left for McConaughey to do is to play the action hero and then perhaps the genius yet twisted villain. Have they cast for the next James Bond movie yet?

Anne Hathaway is great as the secondary character here but her famous talents are wasted in this role. She has limited dialogue and we are expected to believe that there is a bond between her and other humans when her few lines and body language suggest that she is a cold and limited human being of little or no humility. But what actor in their right mind would have turned down this role?!

Overall the movie leaves you pondering the wonderful and has a definite air of the magnificence about it. There are constant questions being asked and more importantly, being answered. The special effects are - ahem - out of this world and the narrative, once it has dragged you in, becomes your life for the next 169 minutes. This is not one of those movies that you will spend looking at your phone. 

Are there any flaws in the movie? Well of course. It is a little bit dragging towards the final act and the simultaneous telling of a story at different times gets a little bit messy. Then there is the ending. Make the movie three minutes shorter and we have possibly the theultrareview's greatest ever movie!

This is the movie of the year and one of the best I have ever seen. If you have the chance to see Interstellar, do it. Please do it. You will not regret it and don't wait for it to come out on DVD or Bluray - I don't care how good your set up is, it will not do Interstellar justice - trust me!

I was reluctant to review the movie for fear of not doing it justice, that's how good it is. This is what happens when one of the greatest directors of our age, a massive budget and one of the world's most accomplished actors get together on a project. Sometimes everything clicks.

The overall theme is one of leaving your comfort zone and pushing yourself to find out who and what you can truly become, only to realise that there will always be that little bit of you wishing you were back in your bedroom at the age of eight, playing with your toys and without a care in the world. The best quote from the movie is a poem by Dylan Thomas called Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night. These words sum up Interstellar and it really hits home how rare movies as important and emotive as this really are.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Rating: ★★★★★

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSWdZVtXT7E

Fury

Directed by:

David Ayer

Starring:

Brad Pitt

Shia LaBeouf

Logan Lerman

Michael Pena

Jon Bernthal

It was pure coincidence that I heard a radio interview with Fury director David Ayer literally moments before I went into the cinema to watch his latest movie. His words inspired me and my fears about the movie were allayed. He spoke of wanting to make a war movie that focused less on the overall theme of good vs evil; the just and worthy, god-fearing Americans verses the evil, antiquated and ill-advised Krauts. He lied. Though there were moments of greatness and simplicity in Fury, they were all performed to the backdrop of the great and noble cause that pushed them forward. There were many moments in the film where all that was missing from the scene was a star-spangled banner flying in the background, with that song playing while American bald eagles flew overhead. The surfing scene from Apocalypse Now springs to mind, not because of its ridiculousness, that scene is so powerful because it is a parody of itself and of the entire Vietnam War and the American way. A bit of that self-deprecation would have been appreciated here.

In the same interview, he spoke of wanting to focus on the deeds of the many and the relationships they harvested; brothers fighting for each other and not for any perceived greater good. He said that he wanted to movie to not be just another Spielberg war fantasy. Again, he lied. Ironically, the greatest parts of this movie have much in common with Saving Private Ryan. What makes Fury so watchable is its portrayal of the men as men. We are reminded constantly that, although brainwashed by propaganda and bullshit rhetoric, the men are ordinary folk. They are scared, they cry, they miss their wives, they miss their kids, they miss baseball and ice cream. We learn about who these guys are and that they are so much more than the numbers that they are likely to become.

We begin to love and hate characters as much as the sides we choose, even if we don't want to. We experience every bullet and we feel every lump of mud that they crawl through. We feel as though we have been in their vaunted tank - the death machine and life saver for our crew of unlikely heroes.  

What Fury achieved above all else and what makes this movie different to all other war movies is its temporary refusal to eulogise about war. Fury is a powerful movie in the awkward silences between the men who are effectively strangers. When the bombs have dropped and our heroes have somehow managed to survive the German onslaught, there are cheers of joy, yee-haws and vehement expletives. But what happens when they stop? Once the dust has settled and the camaraderie has stopped, all these men want to do is kiss the ground they are walking on for another day and thank their deity that they are still alive, they want to cry and hug each other...but they cannot. They must remain broad-shouldered, square-jawed and with a stiff upper lip. Much like the cinematic masterpiece that is Drive, the most powerful words in this movie are the ones that are left unsaid. We have to read the moment, the body language and put ourselves into the situation to know what those men are thinking. It is then that you realise that the movie has got you. You are emotionally involved. Of course, this soon gives way to the old "the Germans all deserve to die" nonsense but for a while at least, we are walking a path not walked in a long, long time.

Herein lies the problem. Ayer said none of this in his radio interview. The movie's biggest achievement went unadvertised on the night of its launch. This leads me to believe that the movie's biggest success was down to the cast and their chemistry and given the cast - I would not be surprised. Brad Pitt is fantastic as "Wardaddy" in a roll that he plays with more intensity than anything since Twelve Monkeys (this is not World War Z - the Z is for flop). Shia LaBeouf is brilliant as the emotional, religious and fittingly-named "Bible", Michael Pena is great as the token Latino "Gordo", Jon Bernthal of The Walking Dead is solid as the token hick idiot "Coon Ass" and Logan Lerman is very, very good as the pathetic, deer-caught-in-the-headlights kid "Norman". It speaks volumes about the actors that they spent so much time in the tank leading up to the shooting of the movie to get used to the small spaces and each others' habits, personalities and smells.

Fury was designed to be a war movie with a difference. It was but not as much as it should have been. While it was great to see the dark side of war tackled for the first time in a long time, there was still far too much of the very thing Ayer claims he tried to avoid - the glorification of the allied cause. Therefore the movie has to be put down as a missed opportunity and a failure to do something that hasn't been done before. 

This movie isn't as intelligent as it thinks it is.

Rating: ★★★½

Trailer:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg

Gone Girl

Directed by:

David Fincher

Starring:

 Ben Affleck

Rosamund Pike

Tyler Perry

Neil Patrick Harris

Carrie Coon

When you sit down to a movie starring Ben Affleck and with the word "girl" in the title, it is safe to say that you should not expect too much from the experience. You would be forgiven if you expected to sit through almost two hours of Affleck smouldering with that big square jaw and those bigger, squarer shoulders and generally being all handsome and wonderful. You would also be forgiven for making the assumption that you had just wasted almost €20 on tickets and extortionately priced cardboard imitation food - and that's assuming you go Dutch. You would be forgiven but you would also be very wrong.

Sure, the price is still high, the food is disgusting and the jaw is still ridiculously square but this is a different Affleck flick. This is definitely more The Town than Gigli and more Argo than Jersey Girl. Remember, this is the Affleck that is trying to win the hearts and minds of Batman fans. It is no coincidence that he has starred in darker roles as of late and will continue to until he stars as The Dark Knight.

Here, he plays Nick Dunne, a husband who comes home from work to find his wife Amy, played by Rosamund Pike, is missing and their house in a state of disarray. A marriage that outwardly appeared to be as close to perfect as one could idealistically suggest suddenly appears to be creakier than Betty White's hip.

Then unfolds a topsy-turvy whodunnit which transforms into a breath-taking and utterly captivating wasanythingevendone. Not since the early days of Homeland have we questioned whether or not the main star was a good guy or a bad guy in such detail. For every reason to like him there is an equal reason to doubt him.

Then there is the ultimate twist of all - is Affleck even the star? Amy is present throughout by means of flashbacks to her narrated journal writing, bringing a verisimilitude to the part that Nick himself must play; we are allowed to hear the innermost thoughts of Amy set to the backdrop of Nick needing to appear remorseful and sad at his doting wife's tragic disappearance. In fact, so good is Pike in her role that I felt compelled to glance through Jack Reacher, just to judge her eyes in a new light which stayed with me so long after seeing Gone Girl. I will never look at her the same again!

Make no assumptions with this movie, except the assumption that this movie is worth your time and spondulas. This film never lets you rest on your laurels because just when you think you have anyone or anything figured out, you are thrown yet another curve-ball. Christopher Nolan take note; you don't need three or so hours for a movie to perfectly depict drama.

At one point, Nick is in a police station in a poignant moment and you are left to wonder what the message is in the movie - how did two young affable, loving people get to this point in their lives? It is then that your eyes are drawn to the notice board in the station. Amidst the ocean grey walls and military grey features is a poster that boldly states "God Bless America". This is the point of the movie. These two people and their relationship have become perverted products of a bastardised society. Gone Girl is a searing indictment of modern America and the morals and standards it sets its citizens. It is a message that is very well said.

Gone Girl brings into question our very ideas of love, happiness, marriage and the inter-dependency of the traditional monogamous relationship. A slow-burner to start with, each twist is like a gear change and with each one, the movie accelerates at a rate that keeps you moving forward but in a very smooth manner.

For this movie, leaving the story exactly where they did is as fascinating as every intricate twist and it will be commendable to leave the story as it is. Slight curiosity aside, you won't know what happens next and you won't want to know!

Neil Patrick Harris was a welcome secondary character in the movie, playing the part of the creepy ex-boyfriend Desi Collings to a tee, a role far-removed form his goofy shenanigans in How I Met Your Mother. Unlike Topher Grace playing the bad guy in the awful Spiderman 3, Harris' change of persona is very welcome and proves that he should have a decent career on the big screen away from that piffling teen drama.

For Pike, this should prove to be a major turning point in her career - she is almost TOO good as Amy.

For Affleck, the future is dark and very, very bright.

Rating: ★★★★

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esGn-xKFZdU

Lucy

Directed by:

Luc Besson

Starring:

Scarlett Johansson

Morgan Freeman

Min Sik-Choi

Amr Waked

Lucy is a movie of two halves. Starring Scarlett Johansson as Lucy, it is a thrill ride for the first 50 to 60 minutes, after which it completely deteriorates. Let's start at the beginning...

Lucy is an unwilling runner for her scumbag boyfriend in Korea. Quiet, gentle and on a bit of an adventure, she somehow ends up with a new synthetic super-drug running through her veins. The drug opens up her mind to more of its potential, far above the 10% it is estimated that humans currently use, at which point she develops talents that are, for want of a better phrase, really cool! The point is that Lucy is super-human. Her abilities are fantastic and she copes splendidly with the knowledge, strength and responsibility she is given. Not only is she super-human, one of her unique abilities is that she knows just how powerful she is. Hark back to superhero movies, remember Superman struggling to understand what he could actually do here on earth, the hilarious moments when he picks up the car for the first time, not knowing whether or not he could actually do it? Remember the start of The Flash, when he runs to catch a bus and accidentally arrives miles down the road, seemingly completely unaware of his speed? This is where Lucy is different. Her power is her mind and while she has unbelievable physical abilities that belie her timid and frail appearance, she is fully aware of everything she can do. 

The first half of the movie is entertaining. Lucy out-muscles her aggressors and she effectively saves her friend's life by diagnosing her with a hug. Yes that seems silly but if you can believe that Scarlett Johansson can make her hair change colour and length at will, you will believe anything! It is around the halfway point, however, that you begin to ask questions? Why is she so mature? Increased capacity doesn't guarantee increased maturity. This is the timid little lady who couldn't speak to a hotel receptionist less than an hour ago and now here she is, stiff as a board, cool, calm and collected, facing down the barrel of a gun.

Another point on maturity - why is she completely void of bravado? In that pub conversation that is frequently had, intoxicated men often venture through the mental exercise of what they would do if they could become invisible. Often the answers range from "rob a bank" to "perv in the girls' locker room" - both equally childish yes but both very human and honest. Lucy knows what she can do - why isn't she doing anything fun?! What made Bruce Almighty so much fun was that he had god's powers for a week and went around the place having fun, fixing things in his own life just generally doing things that every person watching the film would love to do. Not Lucy - Lucy is transformed into this non-human entity, oblivious to everything she was, her hopes and fantasies seemingly non-existent. Another question - why does she shoot everyone? She has got the power to take bullets out of guns with her mind and to control other humans at will yet she resorts to shooting people...this made little sense.

There is one more pertinent question about the movie. Why did they cast Morgan Freeman as the scientist type guy, Professor Norman? He is completely wasted in the white coat. He's not even the B character in the film. He isn't allowed the screen time nor the lines to put his stamp on the part. They could have put anyone in that role and it would have made no difference. This isn't a knock on Freeman, this is a knock on the writers - if you're paying for Morgan Freeman, USE HIM! Have you never heard the man's voice? He could have used his gravely tones to bring down the heart-rate of the movie, before hitting us with more unlikely magic. Every valley accentuates every peak.

The relationship between Norman and Lucy could have developed over the course of the movie but that, like every other relationship in Lucy and every single character, remains as it was at the beginning. They could have been made closer; Lucy could have confided in him that she's afraid of what she has become and he could have become a father figure to her. She could even have turned on the professor after he criticised her murderous ways and abused her abilities, if they needed a twist. Alas - it wasn't to be. This is a movie for the type of audience that enjoy The Expendables franchise.

There is also a bad guy but he is so inconsequential that I have completely forgotten his name.

The first half of the movie played like the fantastic Hanna on LSD mixed with elements of Limitless, for obvious reasons. The second half was so unwatchable that you could have fast-forwarded to the ending and missed nothing in between. The ending itself is such a cop out that you'll appreciate the credits, just to terminate the experience, so you can move on and do something else with your evening. 

As an experiment, the idea is fun but in practice, it is poorly executed. Two fine actors, a great idea and fabulous special effects fail to save this movie from the WOMO file - Watch Once and Move On.

Rating: ★★★

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVt32qoyhi0



Remember, if you want anything reviewed from the past or if there's a film coming out and you want to know if it's worth the coin, email or comment below :-)

The Maze Runner

Directed by:

Wes Ball

Starring:

Dylan O'Brien

Will Poulter

Aml Ameen 

Ki Hong Lee 

Thomas Brodie-Sangster 

Kaya Scodelario
 

Directed by Wes Ball and starring Dylan O'Brien as the reluctant but very obvious saviour of the masses, The Maze Runner is one of those movies that you can just tell was a fantastic novel but the transfer to the big screen did not do it justice on such a small budget. First off, we need to establish that this is a movie for teenage boys, a more dynamic and interesting response to the one-dimensional Divergent. However, the step up from that chick-flick isn't all that great. Thomas arrives in this seemingly dystopian world in an elevator. He steps from the elevator, highly confused by his surroundings, immediately running away from the teenage boys around him who seem to revel in his confusion - all of the boys have no memory of who they were before arriving here. His running is halted when he realises that the world in which he has been thrust into is confined behind four high walls from which there is no escape - unless you tackle the maze - the only possible escape from their perpetual enclosure. 

The boys live their lives in relative comfort; it never rains, they all sleep outdoors, there is no disease and they eat what they grow. But it is here that the story becomes so obviously one-dimensional, leaving you with many questions about the boys and their lives. Why are there no bullies? In fact, safe for a few seconds towards the end, nobody portrays villainous traits whatsoever. Though this is a prison for boys, it's obviously a teenage version of Oz The Series? Obviously the extreme homo-eroticism of that show cannot be portrayed here but why go to the other extreme? The obvious long-term effects of captivity are not dealt with here at all. Why is everybody so nice? If this is a metaphor for an all-boys school, where are the bullies? Where is the guy that pushes you around just because he can? Where is the guy that waits until you have a plate of food prepared then shoves that to the floor? We are expected to believe that every boy that comes up that elevator is a charming boy with the social graces of a man 20 years his elder.

Perhaps the major flaw in this movie is the lack of vulnerability these boys show. Emotions in a teenage boy are at the fore - always! Yet there are effectively no fights between the lads and aside from one side character in a very short clip, none of these lads cry out for their parents. Some of them have been there over three years and not once in the movie were the absent members of their families wept over. I get that the boys are being made out to be mature beyond their years but at 30 years of age, I still miss my parents. If I missed my parents at 17 I would at least talk about it. The human side of the boys is lost in the obsession to focus on the maze itself. Every day, the "runners" go into the maze to try and find a way out before the doors close at night. They return with plans drawn in their heads of the pathways, they are the cartographers of the dystopian age.

For a time The Maze Runner came across as The Matrix meets The Goonies. We have the futuristic vibe, the chosen one and the questioning of reality, not to mention the gates being the blue pill. Then we have the teenage adventure, the gadgets, the search for treasure and there is even a small, jolly, fat kid called Chuck - that's waaay too close to Chunk for that to be a coincidence. However, it is only when the first girl comes up through the elevator that the theme becomes obvious. This movie is a metaphor for turning 18, of how afraid you are of escaping the walls of childhood, where your life has comfort, meaning and strata and yet you are so excited and curious to escape into the maze of adulthood, where you have only yourself to rely on, away from the annoying teenage girls that created divisions amongst the boys and into the unknown. It is then that this movie begins to shine. 

The hero slowly begins to take his place at the top of the food chain and it is then that we see the true emotions of the boys. Parents are mentioned, fears are divulged, tears are shed and there are even villainous deeds and death. In a rare cinematic occurrence, the movie grows with the boys. This is definitely a slow-burner but give it time and you will be rewarded with a fantastic ending and an open door for what promises to be an intriguing sequel.

Most of the actors in the movie are British which is not to detract from the talent. On the contrary, it is a compliment to how accomplished young British actors and the British film industry is in general. While Dylan O'Brien played the part of the handsome, reluctant hero very well, it is Will Poulter who was the star. This chap has a fine career ahead of him has a villain. His brow alone should see him trying to slay James Bond sometime down the line. 

The music of the movie is generic and though special effects are unnecessary in the majority of the film, slicker CGI would have been appreciated. There are plenty of terrible movie adaptations of novels out there but author James Dashner's is better than that. There are still perhaps too many questions, the biggest of all being left unanswered at the end. I shan't divulge what that is here for fear of spoiling the movie. (SPOILER ALERT!!) Let's just say this is more The Island than Oliver Twist. Still, look forward to the sequel, if only to quell your curiosity. Not a great movie but not a waste of time either. You get the feeling the book, read as a teenage boy, would be much better.

Rating - ✮✮✮½

Trailer -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64-iSYVmMVY