Protecting The Private Life

How you view Ender's Game depends largely on whether you've read the book or not. As someone who's read it, it's difficult to imagine how the movie would come across to someone who hasn't, so this review might be a little biased. I can sum up my thoughts in 2 points: The movie was as faithful to the book as a movie can be. The book is about the slow mental evolution of Ender, coupled with the methodical destruction of his emotional psyche at the hands of his teachers. The keyword here is "slow". This left the movie with 2 options: either have 50% of the movie be montages, or accelerate everything by extreme proportions. Both options suck, but the former sucks more, so they went with the latter. This completely removed the impact of Ender's transformation over time, and left no room for even a single character to be fleshed out. When none of your characters carry any weight, all you're left with is the spectacle of the zero-gravity

Captain Phillips is an experiment in what happens if the main character doesn't panic, is smart, does everything right, and stays calm for 95% of the ordeal. The movie is exceptionally well-made and I can't pinpoint anything that it did wrong. However even when immersed in a traumatic situation, if the main character isn't stressed or scared, then why should the viewer be? This is the question I found myself asking when about halfway through the movie, I found my immersion (and interest) waning. By not getting emotional, it also made it difficult for Tom Hanks to show off his acting chops, and instead the main character remains impenetrably calm for almost the entire movie. It's simply not the kind of thing an audience can be expected to empathise with. Fortunately, we're given a really strong ending with Tom Hanks' acting finally given a chance to hit the audience hard. It's a movie that does nothing wrong, but lacks any real drive or tension simply be

The Good: Gravity is the most visually breathtaking movie I've ever seen. It is exactly the kind of movie that the 3D effect was meant for, and is absolutely worth seeing on a big screen and in 3D. It wouldn't nearly have the same effect at home in 2D. The technical brilliance of the film lends itself perfectly to its main aim: immersion. My experience involved a racing heart, white knuckles gripping my chair for dozens of minutes on end, and praying for the tension to be over. And of course as soon as it calmed down, I couldn't wait for it to ramp up again. The music fit perfectly with this, punctuated at just the right times with the utter silence of space. The silence had a surprisingly huge effect on the action as well – after being desensitized to most of the explosions in movies these days, to see it happen in 100% silence was extremely eerie and intense. The complete lack of gravity added to this as well – nothing moved like I expected it to, and suddenly every

Having seen other works from Sophia Coppola (Lost in Translation, Somewhere) I knew what to expect, but I still wasn’t prepared for the surrealism that permeates through “The Virgin Suicides”. Within the first 30 seconds I was enthralled; unable to guess what would happen or how things would play out. The basic plot of the movie is utterly depressing, and yet the somewhat alien interactions between the sisters (and their interactions with the world) negate this depression to the point of being a pleasant curiosity. And yes, it’s as unusual as it sounds. It’s the kind of movie that makes you sit there at the end, staring dumbfounded at the credits, soaking in exactly what it was you just saw. Absolutely nothing is resolved or explained by the end, and yet it remains extremely satisfying with no real questions remaining. It should by no means be described as “entertaining”, at least not in the traditional sense, but instead as “compelling”. It’s definitely not for everyone. Ki

Despite the bland name, “The Lookout” is a surprisingly insightful look into the lives of damaged, flawed people. Nearly every character with even a handful of speaking lines had an interesting, nuanced background, while remaining very much rooted in reality and the lives of ordinary people. It’s a pity that by the end of the movie, there really wasn't time to resolve all the different relationships and character struggles, and it left me feeling unsatisfied despite the objectively excellent climax.  By far the most glaring example was his ex-girlfriend, who only gets a quick conversation in a dream when there was a hell of a lot more potential for exploration. In many ways, the bank heist actually gets in the way of the main character’s opportunities for growth, rather than enabling it. After putting all that attention into introducing and growing a swathe of characters, it was a pity to see it all ultimately boil down to a movie about money. The movie certainly doesn't

“Dear Zachary” could very well be the saddest movie you will ever see in your life. Just when you think things are starting to turn around and get better, the movie slams you back down, over and over again. What starts as a biography quickly turns into a true crime documentary, with an audience that is extremely emotionally invested by that point. Not only is it a true story, but everything from the filming, interviewing, producing, music, and editing was done by one family friend of Zachary’s father. It’s incredible how good of a job he did – especially with the editing. Bits of the narrative are cleverly hidden until they can have maximum impact, and the result is some really impressive pacing that keeps you constantly on edge. The emotional turmoil "Dear Zachary" puts you through really can’t be described. The movie puts the complete annihilation of an elderly couple’s hopes and dreams on full display, and doesn't pull any of its punches. Moments like when they desc

Contrived, cliché, and uses “magic” as a free pass to fill the movie with ridiculous plot holes. CGI is constantly used instead of real illusions, losing all credibility and sense of magic. There’s some clever one-liners and cool action scenes every so often, but they’re few and far between. It’s a movie about magic without actually having any magic of its own. Unless you’re after some extremely light entertainment, just go and re-watch The Prestige. 4/10

I am so sick of shaky cameras. After being blown away by District 9, it was shocking to see Neill Blomkamp stoop to such lazy filming. None of the fight scenes were fresh or engaging, and the camera only stood still long enough each fight to show off some new gadget before going back to indiscriminate blurs of punches or guns firing. Everything was just so derivative and ordinary. Occasionally you’d see a cool camera angle, a clever use of silence or a particularly nice special effect, just to let you know there was at least some creative spark left. However these were few and far between and were nowhere near enough to salvage the movie. Blomkamp showed us in District 9 that he likes to commentate on society, and he did an excellent job of handling discrimination in that movie. In this movie, however, whatever commentary he might have originally had clearly got lost in the process. While the first quarter of the movie has some nice scenes of Matt Damon living in slums and dealing w

Drinking Buddies is a subdued drama depicting very real relationships. What might seem like an open-and-shut plot actually turns out to have a very human story. In fact it appears to be right on track to have a fairy tale ending, until you realise that it’s only 90 minutes long, not 120. It’s important to keep this mind, because the otherwise satisfying ending might come as a bit of a shock to some and feel very abrupt. With a story like this, success rests almost entirely in the hands of the script and actors. Fortunately, Drinking Buddies delivers on both. The chemistry between Olivia Wilde and Jake Johnson is a pleasure to watch, and leaves the audience in no doubt that “Drinking Buddies” was a good title choice. The chemistry between Jake Johnson and Anna Kendrick is also great, but in a much more intriguing way. Their relationship shows just how much complexity can be involved when trying to define “love”, and avoids all the standard tropes for a relationship like theirs. Th

In my mind, “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil” is the other half of a parody duo with “Cabin in the Woods”. While nowhere near as intelligent as Cabin in the Woods, it tackles the same absurdities found in modern horror, but from a great new angle: the “psycho rednecks” are completely ordinary people, and rather than being tragic heroes, the college kids are utter morons who manage to repeatedly kill themselves. It’s absurd, over-the-top, over-acted and silly, and all of it is completely intentional. The movie knows exactly what it’s aiming for from start to finish, and doesn't stray from it for a second. While the premise might not have been enough to last 90 minutes on its own, the decision to add an actual psychopath into the mix added perfectly to the parody and made for a great climax. In the end, it’s not as clever as Cabin in the Woods, nor does it pull off the impossible and parody the horror genre while also being a horror itself – it’s simply a comedy. There’s definitely nothi

I went into this movie with hardly any expectations, which is pretty rare for me. I was rewarded by a surprisingly good plot, a great main theme, perfect pacing, and some pretty cool fight scenes (special mention to the bullet train fight). Unfortunately, about halfway through, things started going downhill. A random love story was thrown in, and the great pacing was shot in the foot and never recovered. Not only does the romance contribute nothing to the plot whatsoever, it actually actively hurts it: five minutes after Wolverine commits adultery, he chastises the husband for doing the exact same thing and doesn't even blink an eye. Then the main theme gets quickly tidied up with some ridiculous self-surgery and is never addressed again. Then a couple of gimmicky “twists” are mixed in and all sense of a cohesive plot is thrown out the window. Even the fight scenes started getting more bland and uninspired, with the final showdown being nothing short of boring. To top it all off

Pacific Rim is made up of two entirely separate movies. There’s the “robots punching monsters” movie, which is what everyone is there to see, and then there’s the “humans talking about stuff” movie, which nobody is there to see. The disjoint is so extreme that I'm going to review each part separately: Movie 1 – "Robots Punching Monsters" It’s as awesome as it sounds. The recipe is pretty simple - you take martial arts, add missiles and swords and acid, make the opponents taller than skyscrapers, and then bask in the piles of money you make. There’s not really much else to say about it, except for one complaint: there was a lot more potential. Cool, unique robots are just instantly killed off, without them doing a single thing that sets them apart from the other robots. That’s just plain wasteful. The only excuse I can think of is they couldn't fit it in, which brings me to Movie 2... Movie 2 – "Humans Talking About Stuff" I can’t think of

What a weird movie. I can’t decide if the absurdity of the plot was intentional (perhaps how events looked through the eyes of the 12 year old?) or just a by-product of 90’s action tropes. Either way, I loved it. The storyline was incredibly original, and remains original to this day – a famous hitman with the maturity and worldly knowledge of a 12 year old, and an actual 12 year old who’s been messed up and forced into adulthood. It’s a risky premise, and the sexual tension in some scenes is extremely uncomfortable to watch, and it all adds up to a movie that could have easily been a monumental failure. But one thing saves it: the acting. Holy shit, the acting in this movie is off the charts. Gary Oldman is quite likely the greatest “crazy villain” actor of all time. Natalie Portman was actually 12 when making this movie, and I have never seen someone so young act so incredibly well in my life. And last but not least, Jean Reno: the eccentricities he put into his character just pou

There’s a reason there haven’t been many Superman movies – when you have a hero designed with no weaknesses, how the hell do you give him a tough fight? The creators did well to focus on his upbringing and self-discovery: that’s where the real story lies. Unfortunately, it’s a story that required an absolute mountain of explanation, and the creators apparently couldn’t think of a better way to tell it than with monologue after monologue. Exposition aside, the story and themes are interesting and successful, and they display Superman’s internal struggles. That’s not to say the villain doesn’t provide external struggles. As fellow Kryptons, they have all the same advantages he does, and boy does that lead to some entertaining fights. Seeing two invulnerable people punch each other at the speed of sound never really gets old. Easily stealing the show was General Zod’s right-hand woman, who had some of the most badass fight scenes I’ve ever seen. Weirdly, Superman matched the bad guys p

Stoker aims to be unsettling, and it pulls it off in spades. From the mysterious plot, to the ever-so-slightly odd camera angles and camera movements, it achieves something that is surprisingly difficult: everything feels “off”, but you can’t really put your finger on it. You simultaneously feel uncomfortable but intrigued about what the hell is going on. Thankfully, the ending is extremely satisfying (with some great juxtaposition to the introduction), making it all worth it. While solid, the script occasionally seems pretty average when compared to the excellence of everything else, but this is a tiny complaint. A much larger complaint however, is that what should have been a powerful monologue was ruined by the trailer showing the punchline. I concede that that’s not directly a fault in the movie, but it was extremely annoying nonetheless. Fortunately the acting more than makes up for any dialogue complaints, and Mia Wasikowska impresses me more with every movie I see her in. I

Shane Carruth shows us that his writing/directing/acting from Primer wasn't just a fluke. Upstream Color is just as impossibly confusing, but it's a different beast altogether. Much more about abstraction than science fiction, it uses gorgeous cinematography and the absolute bare minimum of dialogue to tell enough of the story for the audience’s creativity to really take over. When you metronomically question whether a character is a literal person or a personification of God, you know you've got something special. In fact you could argue the story is completely irrelevant to experiencing the movie, and is just there for the audience to bask in the surrealism of it all. That’s just as well, because the story itself doesn't seem to hold any higher meaning beyond the cyclicality of life. Unlike Primer, I'm not sure it would be as intellectually stimulating to try to piece together the story. Instead, simply experiencing it once is all that it asks or needs. In clos

Captain’s Log: 15 June 2013 Still no sign of sociable land. After scouring the Bathurst Sea for a social island to call home, our chances are looking grim. What was once a full crew slowly became skeletal, with each port we visit proving appealing to more and more crew members. Perhaps upgrading our ship in these waters was ill-conceived – being the fastest and smartest ship is nice, but all it has achieved is alienation. Why would anyone even try to go near something so foreign? Would it really be worth the risk to slow our ship down to their speed? Whether intentional or otherwise, many seem to be permanently docking their ships, but the islands seem so small. Claustrophobia sets in after just a few days in most ports. Rumours circulate about distant seas with much bigger islands and ports, but the journey would be long and treacherous. Maybe it’s a price worth paying? What about losing our firepower advantage? Recent contact via telescope with ships just like ours proved cath

For those who haven't heard of it, there's a personality test called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator , based on Jung's exploration into personality types. Long story short: there are 4 binary categories, and everyone can be roughly classified into one of the 16 combinations. The categories are: Extroversion (E) – Introversion (I) Sensing (S) – Intuition (N) Thinking (T) –  Feeling (F) Judging (J) – Perception (P) Understanding exactly what each option means is kind of a pain and not really important - the main thing is that the 16 resulting combinations are all quite unique and easy to understand. You can probably name at least one friend that fits into each category quite nicely. It's at this point that in order to maintain my academic integrity, I should point out that criticism exists against the Myers-Briggs test, with some claiming that it's vague enough to border on horoscopes. This may be true for a couple of the categories, but the majority of th

A few weeks ago I made the journey back to my home town for the chance to catch up with old school friends. After 5 years, I had no idea what to expect, and I can say now that two things struck me: how pleasant it was, and how surreal it was. The initial hit of surrealism came from equal doses of changed appearances, and a complete lack of changed appearances. Some people looked like they’d just gotten out of cryogenic pods, and others I physically bumped into after not recognising them in the slightest. Meanwhile, some hadn't been entirely successful in adapting to the slowed metabolisms of living in your twenties... The next wave of surrealism was more slow-burning, with the realisation that yes, everyone was now inexplicably extraordinarily nice. And not even just polite – they were genuinely proactively friendly. People I had literally never said a full sentence to in six years of high school would come up to me to hear how life was treating me, while I’d just been content

A popcorn movie through and through. When you’re released at the same time as another movie in the same genre, you’re bound to be compared, and this movie definitely loses to Ironman 3. Nothing is particularly wrong with it – it’s just nothing special. The script made sure to spell out even the most simple plot points to the audience multiple times, the music was overly dramatic, and some pretty damn corny lines were scattered throughout. It became painfully obvious that the plot was just there to have excuses for different action sequences. While solid, the action never wowed me like it did in Ironman 3 (except for the short warp-speed battle). Ironman 3 managed to be a far deeper and richer movie, while simultaneously winning on humour and action. If I was to sum up Star Trek 2 in a word, it would be “melodramatic”. Great to waste a few hours and have a bit of easy fun, but honestly I’d rather just re-watch Ironman 3. 7/10 Bonus Rant: The pre-title opening scene was embarras

I can’t think of a single thing to fault this movie on. By every objective and subjective measure I use to judge films, Ironman 3 gets full marks on everything it aimed for. When a scene gets even remotely close to cheesy, the PERFECT line of dialogue is hilariously delivered to elevate the scene to new levels. Robert Downey Jr. cranks his wittiness up to 11, and I swear Ben Kingsley was using some kind of captivation magic whenever he was on screen. Even the child actor was hilarious, without losing the innocence child actors sometimes sacrifice. This movie found a perfect balance of humour, seriousness and action. And man that action – intense, original, beautiful. The greedy nerd inside of me would've loved to see a few more seconds of each of the new Ironman suits, but I realistically couldn't have asked for more. 10/10

This movie represents the untapped potential of original sci-fi movies. Sure, we've got cool new Star Trek movies and stuff like Prometheus, but seeing some truly original sci-fi is all too rare. A great soundtrack by M83, kick-arse acting from Tom Cruise, and an AMAZING aesthetic reminiscent of “Moon” is a pretty unbeatable combo. The plot got a little contrived about 3/4 of the way through – not to mention some annoying (though inconsequential) plot holes – but recovered nicely before the end. Oblivion successfully caters to the masses while earning the respect of sci-fi fans – not an easy thing to do. 9/10

For a movie with an excellent premise and an excellent conclusion, Trance didn't really seem to capitalise on it. The middle occasionally felt like it was adding in needless complications just for the sake of trying to appear more "trippy" than it really was. What struck me as odd is that after all this effort to make the plot and marketing "trippy", the visuals were decidedly lacking in anything unusual or unique - it honestly felt like the DoP and director were just on autopilot for this film. This is all made more disappointing by the fact that it's directed by Danny Boyle of "Trainspotting", "28 Days Later", "Sunshine" and "127 Hours" fame. It should be said however, that in the hands of an ordinary director I definitely wouldn't be as critical as I am being now - Trance is by no means a bad (or even average) movie. I was simply hoping for more. 7/10

Great mystery movie. It slows down a tiny bit between the crime happening and the mystery beginning, but nothing to worry about. The acting is superb, with Jude Law and Rooney Mara being as excellent as always. It provides all the information necessary for the audience to work it out in advance (which is a personal requirement for me when watching mysteries), but portrays it in a completely different light at the time. Just as it proves the importance of context when hinting at the truth, so to does it comment on the danger of context when surrounded by crazy people - suddenly everything you do can seem crazy. How do you know if someone is actually crazy, or just appears crazy because you've prejudged them? What about the reverse? 9/10

What first appears to be a simple shy-boy-meets-girl story turns into a surprisingly dark tale about child abuse and mental illness. It is an incredibly well handled example of an unreliable narrator, supplemented with superb acting. If you're willing to stick through its illusion of mediocrity, there's a lot of nuance to be found. 10/10

Some excellent speeches scattered throughout 2.5 hours of rambling Old English. It fails as a gripping political drama, and certainly isn't a war movie; it's merely a biography about a man whose personal life just doesn't seem interesting enough to warrant 2.5 hours. It's by no means a bad movie (the acting is exemplary), but I can't see it entertaining anyone beyond patriotic American intellectuals. 5/10

Very slow, but intentionally that way. It very methodically builds up to the final act, and makes the final scene very powerful. Whether that scene makes 2 hours of build-up worth it is up to the viewer. Nobody can argue that it's incredibly well crafted, but it's not designed to be "entertaining" in the traditional sense. It's a window into the real world of intelligence-gathering, and not spiced up in the slightest. 8/10