The Imitation Game (2014) – Review

Review: The Imitation Game is an excellent look at a brilliant man who made enormous contributions to our free world only to be tragically brought down by hatred, fear and intolerance (and then subsequently forgotten in time).

The film is about Alan Turing, a mathematician and logician who is worked with the British armed forces and MI6 decoding the German Enigma machine, thereby giving the allies a great advantage during WWII (and saving millions of lives, if not the world). More specifically, the film is split into three sections. One that looks at Turing during boarding school as a teenager and a key relationship that shaped his life. Another that looks at Turing’s time at Bletchley Park, cracking the code with his team that included Joan Clarke and Hugh Alexander. And the third that looks at Turing’s life a few years later when it comes out that he is a homosexual to the public. He is given a choice: prison or chemical castration, as his sexual orientation was illegal under British law. He decides to take the drugs, fearing he will not be able to do his work in prison.

The Imitation Game works very well on multiple levels. Chiefly, it is an excellent character drama about an outsider trying to find his place in a society that does not seem to want him, built around the fantastic performances, especially from the film’s leads. It also plays very well as a WWII thriller, as the team works against the clock to break the code, directly contributing to the allies winning the war in Europe.

Director Morten Tyldum does a good job with both these aspects of the narrative. The character work, in particular, is quite powerful. Tyldum, along with the actors, does a very good job ingratiating the characters. The audience cares deeply about Turing (and Clarke) and wants to see him succeed. Tyldum has a difficult job, actually, with making Turing likable. For starters, he is an outsider who seems arrogant and unsociable. Plus, the audience has likely never heard of him despite his considerable contribution to the war effort and math. There is no built-in appeal; thus, the likability of the character falls completely on the performance and narrative. To this end, the performance is wonderful and Tyldum caters the narrative to make Turing also appear very vulnerable, allowing the audience to side with him. Turing resonates because the narrative and performance allow him to emote and showcase his feelings. The audience understands him and what he wants and thus sides with him.

Tyldum also uses the narrative to create supporting characters to promote Turing as well. Clarke is incredibly likable, as is Alexander. Clarke likes Turing almost right off the bat (and seeing him give her a chance, recognizing his own life struggles in her situation, also endears him to the audience) and Alexander comes around. They are likable and they support and like Turing, which subconsciously also allows the audience to like Turing (because they like Clarke and Alexander). Tyldum creates a great personal villain for Turing in Commander Denniston as well (though, how much of this is based in reality is unknown; but in terms of him being an antagonist for Turing, he works well). Denniston is so dismissive of Turing, seeming to have a personal vendetta against him that by nature the audience takes Turing’s side. It also helps that Turing is balking in the face of authority. That is a very relatable reaction in all of us (whether we get to express it as much as we want to or not).

With great characters established, Tyldum turns his attention to cracking the Engima for much of the second act. The film then becomes as much a thriller as a character piece. Tyldum excels here. The film is gripping and paced very well. Turing and his (ragtag) team (of sorts) work against the clock (both the very real one – as more British soldiers die each day fighting the Germans and the narrative one, as Denniston wants to shut down Turing and his project – a machine he is building to crack the code). Here, Tyldum turns the film into a basic puzzle solving thriller, hitting all the right narrative beats.

Through the first two acts, The Imitation Game could be taken as a feel-good character drama, but the third act reveals it as a tragedy. Turing did solve the Enigma machine and he did aid the allies in winning the war maybe more so than any other individual. Yet, his story is ultimately a very sad one. Turing’s story becomes all the more important and socially relevant today because of what he faced in his personal life.

In the early 1950s he was chemically castrated by the British Government; and subsequently, he committed suicide a few years later while self-administrating the pills designed to take away his homosexual urges. Even today in Britain and America, far too many gay and lesbian people are not given equal rights, harassed and told that they are less because of their sexual orientation. Turing, by all accounts, was a war hero and yet that did not change anyone’s mind about humiliating him and destroying his life (the Queen of England did not even pardon him until 2013!!!). Over sixty years later, things seem to be getting better, but the fact that we still do not have equal rights for all people is just sad. And, with the radicalization of the Republican party here in America (to be honest, Republicans are not really Republicans anymore; what the Republican party stands for has been warped and shifted so far to the right that I cannot believe that Republicans even want to be associated with the utter hatefulness and ignorance of the party today; it is disgusting – but not to digress too much), there is fear that maybe there is a social shift away from progress (a shift away from a world of equality and tolerance – you know things that America stands for, yet not enough people actually practice). Turing’s story is yet another rallying cry against hate, fear and prejudice – a rallying cry for personal and social freedom to be the people we are. Imagine what Turing could have accomplished in a world that fully accepted him.

The third act is emotionally effective, as Tyldum showcases the downfall of Turing as a result of taking his mandated pills. He becomes a shadow of his former self. Tyldum also uses Clarke very effectively here as well. Seeing her reaction to the state of Turing makes the emotional resonance of the drama all the more powerful.

The Imitation Game is a brilliant film. Alan Turing is a figure who we should all know about – his contribution to the world and the tragedy of his story. Tyldum balances the different narrative goals of the film very well, making a film that is compelling in every regard.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Morten Tyldum became a much in-demand director with the breakout success internationally of his great thriller Headhunters. The Imitation Game is his first English-language film. I think it is even better. Tyldum has a knack for both character and narrative. I look forward to his future films.

Aesthetically, The Imitation Game is beautifully put together. Alexandre Desplat’s score is wonderful, capturing both the gravity of Britain at war and the tension of desperately trying to solve the Enigma machine puzzle as well as the jovial spirit of scientific discovery shared between the people working to crack the code. It is a playful yet moving score. Desplat, again, has given us many of the film’s best music this year (also scoring Unbroken, Godzilla and The Grand Budapest Hotel). Oscar Faura’s cinematography is great as well. The drastic visual difference between Turing’s WWII years and the years after, the muted color palate in the latter, exemplifies the tragedy of his story. Maria Djurkovic’s production design is very good too. The film looks and feels very natural, even though it is a period piece. Her set design also showcases Turing begin shunned by society through his apartment in the years after WWII. It is a cluttered mess.

The cast is fantastic. Tuppence Middleton, Mark Strong, Charles Dance, Allen Leech, and Rory Kinnear are all very good in small supporting roles. Matthew Goode is also very good in a small supporting role as Hugh Alexander (the multiple British chess champion and part of Turing’s team). Goode is wonderfully good at playing charming characters and Alexander is no different. His performance is quite endearing and goes a long way to making Turing likable. Alex Lawther is quite good as Turing as a teenager. He is able to convey the emotional turmoil that shaped Turing, which is a key narrative component to the film as a whole. Keira Knightley is wonderful as Joan Clarke. She brings a lot of energy and charm to a film dominated by male characters. She lights up all of her scenes and she has brilliant chemistry with Benedict Cumberbatch. In a year in which she has had four films come out in theaters (Jack Ryan, Begin Again and Laggies being the other three), she has given an array of great performances, but her work in The Imitation Game is her best of the year. She looks utterly heartbroken when she finds Turing a man crippled by the drugs he is forced to take and the knowledge that society does not accept him. Her performance in this moment breaks the hearts of the audience as well. Cumberbatch is spellbinding as Turing. He perfectly captures the conflict of being utterly brilliant but having a tough time socializing (to some extent, his work on Sherlock does inform his performance here, as they are similarly stylized characters). Cumberbatch captures Turing’s heroism and pain as well. He has the courage to think of the greater good when most of us would be selfish. To see him broken in the end, it is tragic.

Summary & score: The Imitation Game is simply a biopic, telling the story of a remarkable man – however Alan Turing’s story is not just about how he saved the world, it is also about how our ‘civilized’ world destroyed him because it perceived him as being different. His story is a cry for change – change we are still fighting for. 9/10

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) – Review

Review: Zero Dark Thirty is a taxing and intense dramatic thriller, ripe with strong performances and sure directing. The film is about the CIA’s operation to find and kill Osama bin Laden, which took over a decade. The story focuses on the efforts of the CIA officer that fronted the team in the field in Pakistan (named Maya in the film).

Zero Dark Thirty presents a difficult narrative challenge, and director Kathryn Bigelow does a magnificent job. The challenge is that the story takes place over a period a bit longer than a decade with multiple characters coming in and out. Plus, the whole third act (practically) does not feature the film’s protagonist, and finally the audience goes into the film already knowing the ending. Bigelow makes a series of good choices with her screenwriter Mark Boal to combat these potential issues.

First, instead of making it completely about the mission Bigelow devises much of the film as a character study centered on Maya – a woman who has devoted her whole life to catching one man. She has no friends, no personal life, and is even not well liked within the CIA for her relentless drive. The film feels so emotionally draining because the audience is completely invested in her, and feels the strain of her tireless work.

Second, Bigelow structures the third act to be utterly gripping as it features the two SEAL team assault on bin Laden’s compound. Not having the protagonist feature heavily in the third act of a narrative film is a huge risk. Most films would flounder or feel incomplete, but the SEAL team assault is done with a perfect mastery of tension that the entire audience is fully enthralled. Bigelow also gives Maya enough moments to still feel like a meaningful part while also giving her narrative a sense of closure.

When making a film with an ending that the audience already knows going in, the film needs to be more about the characters and the journey than the ending. Bigelow does this brilliantly, but again still gives the audience a captivating ending. The narrative has a sense of momentum as the information builds and the audience can feel the ups and downs of Maya’s (et al.) search. Maya’s emotional journey resonates with the audience making the stakes feel heightened, which is great achievement when the audience knows what will eventually happen.

Politically the film has raised some issues as well – namely the use of torture. Torture played a somewhat vital role in extracting information that lead to bin Laden being found – along with a lot of surveillance, ground work, and critical thinking among good CIA field officers. The film would seem to suggest that torture is a necessary evil to combat terrorism. It even goes as far to say that the information started to dry up after President Obama mandated that torture was not to be used by U.S. armed forces and government agencies. Do the ends justify the means, or does evil only beget evil – violence begets more violence? However, the film also shows the cost of torture, both on those that carry it out and on those that it is done too. Nothing is glorified.

Much like Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies, Zero Dark Thirty also seems to take shots at the incompetency and bureaucracy of those in positions of control and power within the CIA. The Pakistan station chief Joseph Bradley does not come out of the film looking too good. Zero Dark Thirty also points out just how much data is gathered and processed and just how difficult it is to analyze it – not to mention the resources it takes to fund all these continuous operations. It is an interesting look behind the curtain, so to speak.

The film is very good alone as an informative look at how the CIA found bin Laden and how the SEAL team infiltrated his compound and killed him. However, this would only serve the film for one or two viewings. What makes this film more than just a dramatization of the real events (to some percentage of accuracy) is its ability to drive deeper into the characters, the people who sacrificed parts of themselves and even their lives to find and kill bin Laden, or more importantly to try and keep America safe. It is this human aspect of the film that resonates with the audience and pulls them in (and makes this more than just a History Channel special).

Bigelow does not treat her characters like heroes. They are real people – flaws and all. The audience can see and feel the toll that the life and work takes on these characters, living in constant danger, working long thankless hours, and being asked to treat other humans as less than human. The film is exhausting, yes, but because Bigelow has done such a fine job with her characters and their relationship to and with the audience. The viewer feels exhausted at the end because they emotionally went on the journey with the characters (particularly Maya, who is exhausted by the end as well).

The film however does feature graphic seasons of violence and torture, and thus many not appeal to all viewers. However, Bigelow does not go overboard. The violence is actually fairly minimal given the graphic nature of the material. It is more emotionally and psychologically unsettling.

Zero Dark Thirty is ambitious in its scope both expertly telling its story and developing strong characters. It is an arduous journey, but one well worth taking.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Kathryn Bigelow has certainly asserted herself as the filmmaking authority of modern American war films with The Hurt Locker and now Zero Dark Thirty (though, I would argue that Generation Kill is a step above – but it is a miniseries). These films not only effectively tell their stories, but they also care about their characters. Her films are more so about her characters than events or action, which is why they work so well dramatically. She also is so adept with tension throughout these films that she never lets the audience’s attention wander (which is also why the experience of these films is so taxing). After The Hurt Locker, Bigelow and Boal seemed like the perfect team to take on Zero Dark Thirty, and I am not sure another filmmaker would have done a better job with the material.

Alexandre Desplat’s score very much sets the mood for the film as it pulses with tension and thriller aspects, ever driving the suspense. It is fantastic work, as always. Greig Fraser’s cinematography is gritty, which fits Bigelow’s realistic style for the film. Yet, he still is able to keep his actors well lit (maintaining the magic of Hollywood filmmaking), but not in a glamorous, glossy, or flashy manner. Jeremy Hindle’s production design also has a very realistic quality to it. Everything looks and feels authentic, which is crucial for a film like this.

The film is mostly filled with small performances as the narrative encompasses tons of characters for short amounts of screen time. Chris Pratt and Joel Edgerton are both very good, giving a relatable human face to the SEAL team that takes the lead in the third act. Mark Strong gets to come in and give a strong thunderous monologue that is great. But really, the stars of the film are Jason Clarke and especially the lead Jessica Chastain as Maya. Clarke is tough as nails as CIA interrogator Dan but he eventually is worn down by the stresses of his job, which gives a human quality to these CIA characters the audience is asked to take stock in despite their morally questionable practices (i.e. torture). Chastain is fantastic in the film. She is strong and smart as a whip, and not shy about letting everyone know that she is the smartest person in the room. It is her drive, despite the personal cost, that resonates so effectively with the audience.

Summary & score: Zero Dark Thirty is entirely fascinating, both from a story standpoint and more so its characters. 9/10

Movie of the Week – Sunshine

This week’s movie is Sunshine (2007).

The sci-fi film, made in the style of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey and Andrey Tarkovskiy’s Solaris, is about a crew of eight who sets out to reignite our dying sun. Director Danny Boyle, working again with screenwriter Alex Garland (The Beach and 28 Days Later…), forms the film to be both a thriller and a psychological look at what it is like to look out into oblivion and see nothing looking back (or what it is like to look into the face of God), isolation, and facing death. As far as the thriller aspect goes, it is quite gripping and effective. The psychological drama aspect, however, is much more interesting, and is what makes this one of the great sci-fi films. Plus, the visuals are astounding. Cinematographer Alwin H. Kuchler and production designer Mark Tildesley do phenomenal work (among 2007’s best). The score from John Murphy and Underworld is also fantastic. The cast is very good with Cillian Murphy, Chris Evans, Michelle Yeoh, Rose Byrne, Troy Garity, Hiroyuki Sanada, Benedict Wong, Cliff Curtis, and Mark Strong. Sunshine is a must-see for fans of the genre, as it is one of the best of the last decade (and one of the most underrated film as well). Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) – Review

Review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is structured in the manner of the classic spy dramas – short on action but long on tension, mystery and wonderful characters. The film centers on George Smiley, a spy recently forced to retire due to a change in power at MI6 (the Circus), who is tasked with finding the Russian mole placed at the top of British Intelligence. Director Tomas Alfredson is clearly not interested in making a James Bond or Mission: Impossible style spy drama with Tinker Tailor Solider Spy (not that the book(s) is anything like those action spy series) – in fact he is not interested in making a light spy drama either. This film requires its viewer to pay attention, as the narrative is a little convoluted – much in the same way trying to uncover a mystery is – with many characters, lots of important dialogue and small moments that all piece together a bigger picture. The audience is required to keep track of all these small pieces as the film is not dumbed down in the slightest. Alfredson and his actors live in the world of nuance and subtlety, and for this reason moviegoers looking for a light action oriented spy film are going to find this possibly very slow. The narrative is not in a hurry, as Alfredson takes his time letting the mystery unfold (something I appreciated, as it is not too common in film today), while building the tension until it suddenly boils over and the film becomes quite gripping in the second half. The story takes place in the 1970s during the Cold War, and aesthetically Alfredson has very much created both a look and tone to fit the setting. Not only does the film look gloomy and a little bleak (much like the world outlook at the time), but the film feels like it was made in the 1970s. There is almost a nostalgic feel to it (especially in the score). While the film works quite well as a spy drama, it also is a good character study of George Smiley – a man whose entire life is dedicated to keeping secrets. However, back to the spy drama aspect, Alfredson does something great with the film – he allows the tension to grow organically from the characters and performances (not explosions and big action set pieces, not that there is anything wrong with that this is just a nice change of pace for the genre). Each word of dialogue becomes as impactful as any action scene might be. The characters are also given a chance to interact in more of a cloak-and-dagger manner (than running around shooting at each other or fighting); again, each word or expression becoming more important, as the wrong one could give them away. At the same time, as the film is about spies, the characters are all very much bottled up, making it hard to connect with them superficially (which will again alienate some moviegoers) and there is not much of an emotional connection built up between character and viewer, which does impact the viewer’s stake in the outcome a bit. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is not going to work for everyone; it is much too restrained for that. But, for those willing to take it as it is, pay attention and invest in the characters (and thereby the stakes), the film is a fantastic mystery spy drama.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Swedish filmmaker Tomas Alfredson became a promenade filmmaker (at least for international audiences) with Let the Right One In. Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is his first English-language film, but aesthetically and to an extent tonally the films go together well, building quite a resume for Alfredson as one of the better dramatic filmmakers working right now. Alfredson takes his time with his narratives, but the payoffs are wonderful. He builds tension (that in a way seems to come out of nowhere, as he develops it over the whole course of the film) very well. And, he is very good at creating good character moments allowing his actors to do their best work. Alberto Iglesias’s score is beautiful (as a stand-alone piece), but also fits the film very well. He both gets the mood right, as the score very much feels like it fits in the 1970s in many places, and builds on the tension in the film (here is a sample and here is another). Hoyte Van Hoytema’s cinematography is quite interesting, as he and Alfredson have put the camera far away from the actors in many cases, using wide lens, creating a very voyeuristic feel to the photography. This again goes really well with the tone and style of the film. As good as the score and cinematography are (both are in my top 10 of the year in their categories), Maria Djurkovic’s production design is even better. Her work not only fits the film well it is aesthetically interesting in its own right. Her design work inside the Circus, particularly its executive floor, is phenomenal, as it captures the ambiance and mood of the era so entirely (while also being compelling from a pure design perspective as well). While Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is primarily George Smiley’s film, there are a number of good small character roles. Tom Hardy, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch are very good and stand out. Among the top tier of the Circus, Colin Firth, Toby Jones and especially David Dencik give great performances too. Gary Oldman is brilliant as Smiley. His emotions are so boxed up, and he is such a cool customer – and yet he just gives the audience enough to allow us to feel the tension he is feeling – another great character from one of the great character actors.

Summary & score: In many ways Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is one of the best spy dramas to come out in a long time, but it is not going to connect with many moviegoers. 8/10

Green Lantern (2011) – Review

Review: Green Lantern is funny, entertaining and features good work from its principal actors, but has a weak story, pointless and shallow characters and promotes wow over quality. Director Martin Campbell does a few things right. The film is for the most part entertaining because Campbell gets good performances from his cast – Hal Jordan is a lot of fun with his joking side comments. And, Campbell has the film ever moving forward with fairly tight pacing. He does not let it lag (which is something overly needed when the story and characters are poor, as with this film). Visually, the film has a decent look to it and the action mostly works well. The main villain being a blob of smoke is sort of weak though (the filmmakers probably should have remembered how much it did not work in Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer and reimagined the look for GL’s villain). Really though, it is just Hal Jordan, Carol Ferris and maybe a few side characters, the good action, light tone, and the quick pace of the film that makes this as entertaining as it surprisingly is, given that it is a fairly bad movie (probably the most fun and entertaining film I will give a five to this year). But, it is hard to overlook just how painfully insubstantial and tired the story really is and that many of the characters (like Hector Hammond) have no depth and are merely there to fill scenes and forward the plot. Sinestro could have been a great character – they had the right actor and even the right set up initially, but he is good guy until the end (only for a reveal during the credits that nope, wait a minute, he is a bad guy after all, I mean you do not hire Mark Strong and then have him not be the bad guy right?), which makes the end reveal make no sense and feel forced. This film also does not benefit from having a number of great super hero films come before it, a few even this year (with X-Men: First Class and Thor). If this had come out in the early days of new comic book movies (let us call it circa 2000-2002), it probably would have been received better. Green Lantern is maybe still worth a trip to the theatre or a rent just because it is a fun film, but ultimately it is pretty disappointing (especially given the talent involved).

Technical & acting achievements: Martin Campbell does his best work when the script is good (which is something that one could say about all directors, but Campbell is not a director to make a script his own, rather he will just shoot what is on the page in a compelling manner). The script for Green Lantern is far from good. It fails the talent of the actors and technical artists/filmmakers. But, Campbell is the director and should take the blame for the film not working (and writer/producer Greg Berlanti for creatively blundering away what could have been a great film). James Newton Howard’s score is fairly standard for the genre and has some okay moments, but overall is only passable. The production design by Grant Major is also only okay. There are a few interesting sets (though the secret lab space seems to make no sense and just be oddly grandiose and sci-fi-like for the fun of it). Dion Beebe on the other hand does good work (though, for one of the best D.P. in the business, this is probably one of his lessor films aesthetically, but he sure does a good job lighting Blake Lively, something any leading lady can appreciate). The cast for the most part is good, even with not much to do or character to work with. Geoffrey Rush (in a voice role), Temuera Morrison, and Taika Waititi (who is pretty funny in it) do good work, while Tim Robbins just sort of hams it up (and seems like he is only there for a paycheck). Mark Strong is severely underused and wasted and Peter Sarsgaard actually does pretty good work playing a character that is written with no humanity and not providing much more than a plot devise. Blake Lively is (maybe a little miscast as it seemed as though she was supposed to be the same age, or at least close in age, to Hal) strong and works well in the film. However, the best part of the whole film and the primary reason that it is enjoyable at all is Ryan Reynolds. He is very funny, charismatic and pulls off the action well.

Summary & score: Green Lantern is not much more than a throwaway summer blockbuster – big on spectacle, small on quality. 5/10

Kick-Ass (2010) – Review

Kick-Ass is a remarkable blending of homage and parody, action and humor, drama and silliness. The film has it all. At its core, it is a coming-of-age story about a teenage boy finding his way in the world – only, to do so he decides to become a superhero despite having no powers or physical abilities. The film also has two sub-plot stories pertaining to differing relationships between parent and child. These three story structures are interwoven and intersect throughout the film, each with its own emotional journey – and Matthew Vaughn did an excellent job giving each narrative thread enough screen time and impact to resonate individually with the audience, thus each character matters, which benefits the overall experience – even despite all the laughs and silliness that the film offers, there is still a connection between the characters and audience. And the film does offer quite a few hilarious moments. These jokes are both at the expense of prior superhero films and books (the character of Kick-Ass has many visual, audio and narrative references to Spider-Man, while Big Daddy has many referring to Batman, even Adam West’s version) and the nature of what the characters are actually doing and reacting to on screen. The character of Mindy ‘Hit-Girl’ is outrageous – which sparks different reactions depending on the disposition of the viewer. She is an eleven-year-old girl whose father has brought her up in isolation, loving her completely, but raising her quite differently – to be a deadly assassin. We see the girl in action. And the film is unflinching in its depiction of violence, only some find it more shocking because the character is eleven. And she has a foul mouth, which again is seemingly only shocking and offensive because the character is eleven. However, taking the character as she is portrayed in the world of the film, she is wonderfully cute and spunky and brings that to her alter ego, which does produce a number of laughs. It is the situation as a whole for many of the characters that produces most of the best moments of humor, be them relatable (being awkward around a girl) or absurd (most of everything involving the relationship between Mindy and her father – their introduction in the film is one the funniest and best in recent memory). Director Vaughn seems to blend in his British gangster film style from a lot of his previous work into the film, especially in the scenes involving Frank D’Amico. The film walks an interesting line throughout, there is a feeling of light-hearted comedy that is constantly being impacted with action and drama, but where Vaughn excels is in his ability to master all three aspects and balance them to their best use, thereby engrossing the audience in the drama of the story, giving them the action they expect and making them laugh too throughout the whole film, really a masterful job done. He is also able to pay homage to superhero movies and comics. While many of the jokes do stem from the ridiculousness of superheroes in the real world, there is a definite sense that the filmmakers involved here truly love and care about comics and their byproducts, and there are many references and shout outs in the film (it is awesome that one of the characters is reading Runaways in one shot). On the technical side of the film, along with Vaughn’s superb directing, the film benefits from having a great cast and crew. The production design by Russell De Rozario in the film was pitch perfect (I especially liked his Atomic Comic set and Frank D’Amico’s apartment). It captured the world that each character inhabited perfectly, and helped tell their story visually. The score by the team of John Murphy, Henry Jackman, Ilan Eshkeri, and Marius De Vries and particularly the pop-music cues where able to capture the atmosphere of each character’s perceived  world, while also giving the audience insight into their emotional make up (using Banana Splits Tra La La Song for Hit-Girl’s first action sequence was sheer brilliance). The score also played off the talents of each composer involved, which helped Vaughn accentuate the style and mood for each scene (for example Jackman worked on The Dark Knight’s score, and you can hear the reference to that film in moments of the score here). The cinematography by Ben Davis fit each scene well. Davis was able to enhance the ambience of each sequence or scene with his work. He along with Vaughn also did quite a good job of staging many of the scenes as if the audience were looking at a panel in a comic through their shot selections. Stylistically, it was very fitting to the overall homage feeling to the piece. The dialogue was great, funny and worked throughout – the script by Vaughn and writing partner Jane Goldman, which was written at the same time as Mark Millar and John Romita Jr. were writing the graphic novel, is able to capture the humor in the situations that these characters find themselves in, but like the film as a whole it also takes stock in the characters and gives them real arches that audience can relate to and invest in. And finally, the cast was great. There are no weak performances in the piece. Clarke Duke, Even Peters, Lyndsy Fonseca, and Sophie Wu were all good in their supporting roles as Kick-Ass’s high school friends. Frank D’Amico’s henchmen, played by Michael Rispoli, Stu ‘Large’ Riley, Jason Flemyng, and Dexter Fletcher are also good in their supporting parts (Flemyng and Fletcher have appeared in all three of Vaughn’s directed films). The film, though, benefits greatly from the fantastic group of actors playing the main characters. Christopher Mintz-Plasse, still and maybe forever McLovin as far as the general movie-going population is concerned, is surprisingly good here – he has to do more range and play off the image that people associate with him, and he does so very well. Mark Strong is as always great; he was the ideal choice to play the villain. Nicolas Cage (who I normally would be unexcited about upon seeing his name in the credits) was hysterical. His approximation of Adam West’s Batman voice was fantastic. Chloe Grace Moretz stole the show (at least upon first viewing). Her mixture of cuteness and sarcasm amplifies her performance in a role that very easily could have not worked at all. She is just right in her approach and handling of the material. Lastly, Aaron Johnson did an excellent job too. He was able to guide the viewer through the world and his performance was completely relatable, which it needed to be for his character to work. Kick-Ass is a rare film – it is both absurdly violent and silly, and yet completely works, creating a humorous action-packed, yet meaningful, cinematic experience. 9/10

The Young Victoria (2009) – Review

The Young Victoria is a charming look at the early years of Queen Victoria’s reign, shaping how she would rule as the longest sitting monarch in British history. The film mixes a bit of biography with that of a Victorian romance – showing both the love story between Victoria and Albert and the events that cast her initial endeavors as queen. The romance is mainly done through letters (conveyed to the audience through V.O. narration) and the building anticipation of the reception of each letter. When Victoria and Albert do meet, they must engage in polite reserved dialog, cognizant of both the proper manner by which they must conduct their affairs towards one and other and also being on guard, as to the motivations of their parents and others that would gain through their union. The film does this quite well, a credit to director Jean-Marc Vallee and screenwriter Julian Fellowes. Though, to audience members not interested in a reserved love story, or the strategy of politics, the film will feel quiet and unemotional. However, while the piece is not have many (if any) raw emotional scenes, due to the period and its dedication to it, there is a lot of emotion just below the surface, which the actors portray very well. Behind their refined faces, in their eyes, there is passion and love and hate and fear and longing and so on. The film is quite moving, should the viewer accept the world in which the film exists. Much like the series Rome, the film also has a lot of appeal in regards to seeing the behind the scenes workings of the monarch and their advisors, and with such great performances it is almost a shame that this was not a miniseries to fully exploit the full goings on at the palace and government. Technically, the film is beautiful to watch Vallee, production designer Patrice Vermette and cinematographer Hagen Bogdanski bring the world to life, enhanced by  Ilan Eshkeri's graceful score. The sets, the costumes, the anima of the world are elegant, as they should be. Eshkeri and Vallee use shifting plans of focus to effectively guide the viewer in their beautiful composition. Emily Blunt is wonderful as Victoria. She is able to capture the spirit of the character, being majestic and strong, but still allowing fear, love and other more carnal emotions to creep in. Rupert Friend is just as good as Albert. He both soft and stable; his chemistry with Blunt makes the romance narrative of the film radiate (and I look forward to his future roles). Paul Bettany, Jim Broadbent (great in a small role) and Mark Strong (always accompanied by flies, a funny touch) highlight the fine supporting performances. The Young Victoria is delightful to watch, features superb performances and works to tell both an engaging Victoria era love story and also a young girl’s rise to become a beloved and effective queen. 8/10

Sherlock Holmes (2009) – Review

Sherlock Holmes is a fun time at the theatre. The film lives and breathes on its characters, especially Holmes and Watson. Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law bring the characters to life, maybe not how one would expect, but they are amusing, have great chemistry and ultimately save the film from being just another mindless buddy Hollywood action outing. The issue with the film is the story and some of the characters are only there to set up the next film, which can still work, but here it creates some narrative structure problems. The ending of the film (the final showdown between Holmes and Blackwood, not the epilogue that follows it) seems to just happen, there is not sense of build up, no expectation, leaving the viewer feeling like there was more to come (and there is if you consider the sequel), but not so much in a cliffhanger way, more of a this story feels stunted and incomplete, thus it organically feels like there is more (but there is not, at least not with Blackwood). Guy Ritchie (who has made a series of bad films following his first two good films) must be pretty happy to have had such a great cast, saving him from yet another blah film. His visual style (slightly copied from The Hughes Bros.’ From Hell, but not quite as dark) works well, and Ritchie does use his camera well, though the editing is a bit awkward at times. Hans Zimmer delivers another very good score, which fits quite well with the tone and the material. Back to the performances, as they are the point, and why someone should want to see this, Downey Jr is nothing short of great, though he seems to have mixed a bit of his own oddball acting with a dose of Captain Jack Sparrow. Law, on the other hand, feels very much like a Ritchie character, and is played very well, complimenting Downey Jr’s work perfectly. Their chemistry alone is enough to build a successful franchise on. Rachel McAdams is good, but her character is fairly pointless, other than to set up the villain of the sequel. And Mark Strong, who is always good, really does not have all that much to do, but still makes a suitable villain, though the story could have used a bit more direct interaction between Holmes and Blackwood. Another issue, arising from the Blackwood character is that it was interesting and kind of cool that the dark magic seemed real, putting Holmes and Watson off their element, making the revel feel like a let down, and overall hurting the story. Eddie Marsan and Kelly Reilly are good in their small roles (it is nice to see Reilly get in a big American movie, I hope she gets more roles here in the future as she is generally very good). So at the end of the day, Sherlock Holmes is very entertaining, but hollow, surviving (if not succeeding) on the fine work of its actors. 7/10