MOVIE REVIEW: Everest (2015)

I was trying to decide whether to see this and The Visit at the cinema yesterday, but after changing my mind several times, I settled on Everest. I went with my Mum to an afternoon 3D screening and ended up being the only people there. I'll preface by saying just how much I enjoyed not having people kicking the back of my seat, or phones going off every five minutes, or people talking the entire film. I'm not normally one to nitpick like this, but it surprised me just how much it made a difference.

Everest tells the moving true story of the 1996 disaster on Mount Everest that saw 12 people die when a series of monumental storms hit the mountain. I've always been fascinated by mountains, particularly those who attempt to climb in the dizzyingly high ranges like the Himalayas. To me, mountain climbing encapsulates the perseverance and lust for adventure in the human spirit. Therefore, this movie was right up my alley.

First and foremost, Everest is hands down the most visually impressive movie I've seen since Gravity. The filmmakers couldn't really go wrong in that regard though; it is the Himalayas we're talking about. Seeing it in 3D really enhanced the experience for me, and instead of using it in a gimmicky way, I like how it subtly provided a more immersive edge and depth of field to the already spectacular wide angled shots. The action sequences are also shot in such a way to maximise the visual splendor and huge scale of the environment. Shots where we are looking down upon the climbers whilst they traverse bottomless cravas's on shaky ladders really had me on the edge of my seat. Put simply, this film is a cinematographer's dream, and they really made the most of it.

I like to think that director Baltasar Kormákur stuck quite stringently to the true story of the '96 expedition. The story therefore is relatively typical of disaster movies. Everyone starts off excited and enthusiastic, there are some early squabbles and conflicts within the team, everything goes to plan until an unexpected turn takes place and the movie becomes about survival and the lives of the families back home in comfort are thrown into turmoil. Of course, I'm sure this is how the original series of events panned out, and so I can't critisise it for being predictable or inaccurate. But what I would say is that the effectiveness of a film like this relies quite heavily on the strength of the characters and acting, due to an already predetermined story. I liked the characters in Everest, but they didn’t blow my socks off either.

The acting was really hit or miss for me. The two central characters, Jason Clarke as Rob Hall and Jake Gyllenhaal as Scott Fischer, were both pretty good. I felt the comradery and mutual respect between them as expedition leaders, but at the same time it didn't feel like either of them were really being tested emotionally. Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors working today, and I would have liked to have seen more screen time balance in the script between him and Jason Clarke's character. Emily Watson was the standout performance in my eyes, playing Helen, the main point of contact between the teams on the mountain and base camp. She added much to the emotional core of the movie, passing on messages and news to the families back home and also helping co-ordinate the ascent. Her sense of helplessness was both heartbreaking and endearing. As for the rest of the cast of mountaineers, I just felt like their backstories and various personalities were not sufficiently clear and rooted in the main story, and consequently I didn’t feel very emotionally invested in them. The film did focus on the team dynamic to a certain degree, but I think the emotionally charged moments when they’re on the brink of death would have been that much more powerful if the lesser characters had been developed and examined more closely earlier in the movie. That’s not to say Everest was not emotional, I shed a few tears at least 3 times throughout the film. The most emotional I got was actually when the climbers reached the summit. I fully felt the relief, satisfaction and primal release of joy that they would have felt conquering one of the greatest physical challenges the world has to offer.

Overall, this was a very enjoyable and rewarding movie. Beyond that I feel it was a necessary story to tell, as after all this was the deadliest day in Mount Everest’s history until a couple of years ago. It serves as a fitting homage to the heroes of that expedition, as well as being a thrilling and emotional experience for moviegoers. I only wish the acting could have been on the same level as the cinematography, which quite honestly outshines the other aspects of the film. Ultimately I believe that a movie should primarily be judged on the merit of its characters and how they dictate the direction of the story. With Everest however, the director had to do justice to the true version of events using suitable actors, and I think he did a pretty good job with achieving that. I think that the most admirable thing about Everest is that I can see it being accessible to anybody. It is far removed from being a film about mountaineering, instead tackling themes of adventure, perseverance, sacrifice, friendship and love, and for that I must applaud it.

Acting: 65
Narrative: 75
Visuals: 95
Music: 60

Overall: 74/100

MOVIE REVIEW: Eat The Document (1972)

I am a Dylan fan. In fact, I am a mega Dylan fan, as many of you who read my blog will know. He has impacted my life more profoundly than any other famous person has, dead or alive. I became hooked on him a few years ago after listening to Another Side of Bob Dylan and Blonde on Blonde (which is still my favourite album of all time), but also after watching Martin Scorcesse's masterpiece documentary No Direction Home. From then on Dylan was like a drug. I'd listen to him every day at least once for about 3 years, read books on him, find obscure bootlegs and watch old interviews. I was and still am infatuated by the man. So naturally, I eventually got my hands on a rare DVD copy of Eat The Document and have watched it a handful of times since. I want to review this film objectively and try to avoid any biases I might have towards Dylan. I will start by saying that this is no Don't Look Back, although it does share the involvement of D.A Pennebaker and also the subject matter, a UK tour. But despite how similar they might be on paper, the difference is massive.

The film is a fly on the wall documentary on Bob Dylan's 1966 world tour with the Hawks (subsequently The Band). It uses footage shot by Pennebaker throughout the tour, although I believe most, if not all of the final cut was filmed on the UK leg of the tour in May. Pennebaker shot and originally edited the film in a comparable fashion to Don't Look Back from the previous year, but as the story goes Dylan was unhappy with Pennebaker's cut, citing it as too straight edged and similar to DLB. This prompted Dylan to re-edit the movie himself with the help of Howard Alk and Gordon Quinn. The resulting film is significantly more psychedelic and rough in its aesthetic. It's clear that Dylan and Alk wanted this to be much more of an experiment than Don't Look Back, but whether it actually comes off is up a separate debate.

The film opens with a shot of Dylan breaking down in drug-fuelled hysterics, setting up the random and ambiguous tone that is sustained the entire 50 minute run-time. Dylan and Alk's editing, although very haphazard and somewhat pretentious, actually works on many levels for me. This is probably because I am such a huge Dylan fan, but also because I know what this tour was like through researching it in much depth. The shaky camera work and choppy editing will annoy many, but I think it perfectly encapsulates this amphetamine-loaded period in Dylan's career. This tour was mayhem. Dylan was had famously 'gone electric' the previous year at Newport, sparking global outrage amongst folk music fans. This is part of what makes the '66 tour so unbelievably fascinating to me. Of course I love the music, but through watching this footage you can hear and see just how crazy it was that everybody was suddenly booing a once beloved American hero. I think Dylan wanted watchers of Eat The Document to get a sense of just how much had changed since Don't Look Back in 1965. Dylan was moving and changing at a pace that even The Beatles couldn't keep up with, and through this movie you feel that speed, that revolution.

I could talk for hours about the music Dylan was making at the time this was filmed, but I'll keep it brief and simply say that this was world-changing stuff. Dylan was pushing boundaries like no artist had or in my opinion, has since. The film features wild and mysterious performances of some of his finest songs. The energy is palpable, from both Dylan and the crowd who are visibly angered. The '66 shows are still my favourite live performances of all time, and Eat The Document displays a fair few of what Pennebaker filmed that May (others can be found in No Direction Home).

Another thing I like about the film is that it seems to allow us to view the world as Dylan would have been during that time, making observations of basic human activities. We get a number of close up shots of nothing more than people doing everyday things. It contains a lot of British iconography, like a scene where Bob is watching bagpipers and police in traditional dress performing some kind of stunt. Or a long take of people waiting outside the Royal Albert Hall. I like the fact we get observations and not just interpretations of the world. It gives the film much-needed breathing room in between all the hyperactive editing and intense performances. This observational type of film-making will confuse some, as it has no narrative, no footholds and no clear messages. It is basically a 50 minute stream of consciousness, much like both Dylan's music and writing at the time. Admittedly, this does limit it to being not much more than an amateur attempt at an experimental art house film, but that's all it needs to be. Bob is a musician, and its clear that his interest in film at this time was a side-project of sorts.

I think to compare this to Don't Look Back is only natural, but it is perhaps not warranted. I don't enjoy it quite as much because I feel that it doesn't give me as much interesting content or a coherent structure. For what it is though, Eat The Document is a fascinating fragment in time, laced in drugs, sex and rock n roll. The main issue is its accessibility. Of course, Dylan and Alk didn't care about making an accessible film, but it must be mentioned. This will probably only be of significant interest to hardcore Dylan fans like myself. It gives a rare glimpse into the tortured mind of a genius at the peak of his powers, and for that I admire it greatly.

Acting: N/A

Narrative: 45
Visuals/editing: 70
Music: 90

Overall: 68/100

MOVIE REVIEW: The Internship (2013)

The Internship is the type of film you throw on when you're feeling lazy. It's marketed as a very accessible movie, and indeed it is. But does it have any substance? Any real humor? Any innovation? The answer to those 3 questions is no, I'm afraid to say.

The film stars two of Hollywood's most friendly faces, Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson. Yet to this day I can't recall a single film starring either of them that blew me away. The closest is probably Wilson in Woody Allen's 'Midnight in Paris', which was good but not awe-inspiring. Vaughn I am simply not a fan of. He has dragged a cheap laugh out of me here and there but nothing more. This film sees them stick very much to their comfort zones, throwing around cheap gags and acting as you would imagine them to act in real life.

The film's premise is simple but not completely without merit. Two struggling salesmen, Billy and Nick, ditch their jobs to try their luck at an unpaid internship at Google. The comedy is supposed to be based in the fact they are outsiders; 2 middle aged average Joe's in competition with a multitude of young genius computer geeks. The film tells the story of how they overcome various hurdles with their team of social misfits to compete for and ultimately win a full-time place at the company.

We have the familiar characters involved; the team of outsiders who stick together, the love interest, the obnoxious bully, the cold-hearted boss, and all the rest. The story is predictable from the get go and the dialogue is almost unbearably boring throughout, especially when they attempt to be even slightly deep. The only saving graces as far as the characters go are occasional funny one-liners and a few comical situations they find themselves in. For example when they first enter Google headquarters and find out all food and drink is free, prompting Vaughn to order 8 bagels. The romantic contingent of this film is the worst part, in fact it's simply insulting. Clichéd beyond belief, lacking in chemistry and cringe-worthy dialogue. It should have been left out altogether. To be honest, I could pick this film apart in much more depth, but I can't be bothered. There isn't much to say apart from state that it is spectacularly mediocre.

My main issue with The Internship is the fact it is a glorified advert for Google. The whole aesthetic, the colours, the offices, all scream 'everybody should want to work for Google, it's the best place in the world.' But in reality, I think it actually tarnishes Google's image. The producers made Google look like a playpen for juvenile kids who have a few more brain cells than the rest of us. Now, this might be how Google is in real life, but I hate how the film asks us to be impressed by slides instead of stairs, nap pods, free food and colourful beanbags. No doubt, some will find it quirky and innovative, but to me it just came off as kind of... pathetic? I get the fact it's supposed to be a company on the cutting edge of technical innovation, and I'm sure its great to work there. But the aesthetic was significantly overhyped in my opinion, and it just translated as a failed promo for Google to me.

This movie is the definition of average. I can see it being a reasonably good family film, or as aforementioned, one for a lazy evening. But having said that, there are much better films out there that fit both of those scenarios much more aptly.

Acting: 35
Narrative: 50
Visuals: 20
Music: 40

Overall: 36/100

MOVIE REVIEW: The Imitation Game (2014)

I recently watched a documentary about Bletchley Park and like many became fascinated with what happened there and the people who worked within its walls. I actually have a personal connection to Bletchley also; my cousin's grandad worked there during the war and played a leading role under Turing and Welchman. Regardless, I went into The Imitiation Game with high hopes, if a little bit late.

The film tells the story of Alan Turing, notorious cryptanalyst responsible for breaking the enigma code during World War II. I was interested to see how director Morten Tyldum would approach the story of Turing. Whether he would cover his upbringing or the lead up to his suicide, or whether he would stick to the nitty gritty work during the war. I was happy that he did a bit of both. I'll start by saying that Benedict Cumberbatch was very good in this movie. I haven't always been a fan of his, and I remain hot and cold on him as an actor. But for the role of Turing he was a nearly perfect fit. A few moments I felt as though he may have been overacting, but not knowing that much about the real Turing, I cannot really confirm that he was. For the most part he is thoroughly engaging, mercurial and a fascinating screen presence.

The story follows what was detailed in Andrew Hodges' biography and I think it just about covers all bases when it comes to Turing. We get flashbacks to his childhood, where we see clearly the bullying he endured as a child at boarding school. These flashbacks act as a visual representation of what Turing as an older man says several times, "Violence exists because it feels good, but once you take the satisfaction out of it, it is no longer enjoyable." You get the sense throughout the film that Turing never changed. He is still the little kid he was at school, with the same interests, same social flaws, same beliefs about people. He is depicted as someone entirely absorbed in his own world, and this is the main reason he was able to crack Enigma.

The meat of the film is obviously about the daily race against time to crack the code. This is where all of the conflict and drama arises between Turing and his colleagues. It is clear they don't like him and they don't mind showing it either. You get a real perspective on the frustration that those in Hut 6 felt when trying to perform the impossible. Outbursts of anger were a plenty, normally directed at Turing for focusing on his machine instead of conventional code-breaking. These added to the suspense but occasionally felt like overkill. I really liked the dynamic between Hugh Alexander (Matthew Goode) and Turing. Alexander is charming, witty and smart, and there is one moment where he decides to give Alan a lesson in flirting. The dialogue is great and you sense a subtle appreciation from Alan of Hugh's smooth talking, like it is comparable to Alan's gift with cryptology. The relationship evolves wonderfully and they end up with a solid mutual respect for one another.

The romantic element of The Imitation Game was always going to be difficult to get right. Alan was a homosexual, which was illegal in the UK in the 40's, forcing him to hide it from the world. Keira Knightly plays Joan Clarke, the closest woman to Alan during his time at Bletchley and afterwards. It's safe to say I'm not a fan of Knightly, and she didn't really win me over with this performance. It wasn't a bad portrayal, but her accent felt horribly unnatural. Again, this might have been true of the real Joan Clarke, but I somehow doubt she came over as contrived and forced. Her dialogue was pretty good, especially her more intimate moments with Turing, which were without doubt at the emotional center of the film. Their relationship was interesting to watch as it developed from a mutual intellectual admiration to a marriage based on their work. But in the end it is Alan who cannot let Joan get as close to him as she would like, and the relationship breaks down when he tells her he is homosexual and never really cared for her.

The real love story occurs between Alan and his code-breaking machine. His life and soul is entangled with it, and it is the only thing in the world that truly makes sense to him. This furthers the irony of Alan being so cut off from the world, yet somehow saving it. Although he is doing a wonderful thing in the service of his country, he is also, perhaps more so, doing it to be contented himself.

The last part of the film is about Turing's downfall after the war, and his arrest for homosexuality. He undergoes chemical castration to avoid being sent to prison for his crime. This is a huge part of Turing’s story, yet I don't feel the film covered it in nearly enough detail. The pain he must have felt being convicted and numbed for something that today we consider welcome would have been fascinating if they had explored it in more depth. Another issue I have is the omission of Gordon Welchman. I thought he was the second most important person at Bletchley, yet he wasn't in the film at all? Seems a little suspect.

Overall though, I enjoyed this film quite a bit. The directing for the most part was great and the story was compelling from start to finish. I enjoyed the visuals and the way the film was shot. The sets and lighting were all very realistic and helped the film feel as authentic as it could do. My only major quarm was that a few themes and topics weren't explored in enough depth, but considering how much history the director had to fit into 2 hours of movie, I can just about forgive him. Apart from Knightly, who I didn't hate by any means, the acting was top notch. Possibly what I like most about The Imitation Game is how they managed to paint a portrait of Turing in a very detailed way, but still left the audience to draw their own conclusions on him. They maintained his mystique and legend, and I have to give them props for that. Yes, this movie may be Oscar bait, but who cares? It is a story that deserved to be brought to the big screen in such a way.

Acting: 80
Narrative: 75
Visuals: 80
Music: 80

Overall: 79/100

MOVIE REVIEW: What If (2013)

It's a Monday night. I've just finished a long day at work. All I want is a light, fluffy rom-com to relax to. Something that won't require too much brain power. I came across What If on Amazon Prime and threw it on without a thought, not really knowing what to expect. It's hard to see Daniel Radcliffe as anything other than Harry Potter. I grew up with this actor as an integral part of my childhood. He played the Potter role so perfectly, and I have such a deep connection to those movies. Hence I will always feel I have a certain kinship with him. However since Potter, I am yet to be truly impressed by him in a movie. This is sadly no exception, yet he definitely stands head and shoulders above the rest of the cast.

What If explores the ambiguity of friendship and the notion of whether a male and female can be intimate friends without anything more. I like the idea, yet I don't think this film packs enough punch with its characters to separate itself from the rom-com pack. The first half an hour is by far my favourite part of this film. We are introduced to Radcliffe's character Wallace as sort of a misfit, but at the same time somebody who is clearly smart and personable. We also meet Chantry, played by Zoe Kazan. They hit it off at a party, but after walking home together we learn that Chantry has a long-term boyfriend called Ben. Predictably, they keep running into each other and before long they become close friends. I liked the first part of the film because it felt more honest and innocent, if also very cliché. You sense the characters doing their very best to learn about each other and be there for one another as friends.

The funniest scene in the movie comes when Wallace meets boyfriend Ben for the first time. A disastrous scenario ensues when he gets knocked out of the window by Wallace, who makes the worst first impression of all time. After this scene, the love-triangle dynamic is in full effect, and this is when we run into major problems. Ben gets a job offer and has to move to Dublin, leaving Chantry alone in Toronto with Wallace. They continue to hang out and are predictably thrown into some awkward, boundary pushing situations that test their friendship to the maximum. We get the horribly clichéd skinny-dipping scene in which Chantry clearly crosses a major line, asking Wallace to look at her naked. Their friends Allan and Nicole prank them by stealing their clothes and leave them alone on the beach with nowhere to go, forcing them to share a sleeping bag in the nude. This upsets Chantry and she so she decides to visit Ben in Dublin. She finds him quite obviously about to cheat on her with drunken women before he eventually spots her. Her reaction to this is to just shrug it off and continue to trust him.

This is my main issue with Chantry's character; she has no moral foundation and clearly doesn't know what she wants. In fact, that applies to most of the characters in this movie. All of them are just being led by desire, with no consideration for integrity or moral values. I'm afraid that this saps any emotional charge out of the film for me, and leads me to dislike most of the characters, especially Chantry. There is no real struggle to latch onto either, as both of the central characters both have good jobs and great social lives. The surrounding cast just got on my nerves for most of the film, none more so than Chantry's twin sister, who does nothing but insult Wallace and gossip about crap the entire film. Wallace's best friend Allan is slightly more tolerable and had a few funny lines, but I still found him insufferable by the end of the movie. Radcliffe is really the only thing that held this film together in any way. His dialogue was quite interesting and at least you felt he really cared for Chantry.

But quite honestly, What If left me wanting a lot more in every department. I know I should try and see this movie in the context of the rom-com genre, but I think a good rom-com should do a better job at being comic and playful than this does. Above all, the viewer must care at least a little bit about the characters. But really? Am I supposed to feel happy for Wallace and Chantry at the end of the film because they finally hook up? Lets not forget that she is still cheating on Ben at this point.
At the end of the day, this is an OK romantic comedy. The highlights were Radcliffe's acting and few moments that made me grin or chuckle. The downsides were plentiful, but above all Zoe Kazan's tedious portrayal of Chantry and a horribly annoying back up cast. I can how this film might appeal to some, but to me it was just too clichéd and lacked a soul.

Acting: 45
Narrative: 40
Visuals: 45
Music: 60

Overall: 47/100

MOVIE REVIEW: Unbreakable (2000)

Unbreakable had been on my list of films to watch for quite some time before I finally got around to it last night. All I can say is that I feel stupid for leaving it this long. This movie was fantastic from start to finish. I am new when it comes to M. Night Shyamalan's films so I didn't know quite what to expect aesthetically or thematically. What I got was one of the most subtle yet powerful superhero portrayals I've ever seen.

This film hangs on its aesthetic, its colour palette and the mystique of its characters and their intentions. From the first scene it had me thinking, wondering, speculating about David and his story. Bruce Willis delivers perhaps his more nuanced performance in this film, perfectly depicting a very troubled individual, someone who doesn't understand himself and what he is capable of. The character of David Dunn is perfectly balanced out by Elijah Price, played by Samuel L. Jackson. Another complicated character, we learn about Elijah's past and his illness through a very moving flashback. He has osteogenesis imperfecta, meaning his bones are so brittle they break under the smallest of strain. He is also a comic book aficionado obsessed with finding a real life superhero. After reading about David’s freak survival after the train wreck at the beginning of the film, he quickly becomes deeply absorbed in finding out more about his past. From the get go he seems to be 100% certain that David is the hero he’s been looking for all along, but it is not until the end of the film that we learn why he has been so invested in David’s story.

I found the character of David Dunn to be absolutely fascinating. From the one shot scene on the train at the start of the film until the last 10 minutes he remains an inigma, shrouded in mystery. Willis does a fantastic job of keeping this up, and his quiet unassuming demeanor kept me gave the character such a multi-layered persona. For the first half of the film you can clearly see the sadness in Dunn’s eyes. This is a fundamentally troubled individual who has not found his purpose in life. His relationship with wife Audrey and son Joseph also feel very strained for no particular reason. The sense of aimlessness and helplessness that David feels comes across as so authentic within the context of his relatively normal life. He initially objects to Elijah’s suggestion that he might have special powers, but as the film progresses it seems that he can’t escape the thought of it, and gradually he starts to believe it himself.

Despite being dubbed a superhero film, Unbreakable’s sentiments are rooted in something very human, the quest for fulfillment and purpose in life. As David comes to learn of his powers, you can sense his sadness dissipate because he is slowly realising that his actions can make a difference. This is summed up beautifully at the end of the film after he has used his powers to save some girls from a crazed psychopath who had been keeping them prisoner. He is sitting in the kitchen with his wife and son reading the paper before sliding it over to Joseph, who reads the headline about his Dad saving the girls. He simply smiles and nods his head, confirming that Joseph, who believed in his powers from the start, was right all along. It is an emotionally charged moment because you physically feel David’s sense of fulfilling his destiny.

It’s clear to me that Unbreakble would not have worked if it wasn’t for Shyamalan’s directing and and Eduardo Serra’s beautiful cinematography. The film utilises a variety of long take and wide-angle shots to capture the essence of the world these characters are occupying, Visually, the film has a hazy, misty and melancholic tone to it, which allows the very subtle hero/villain colour contrast to shine through. David Dunn’s signature colour is green, and this is embodied in the end by his green security raincoat that he wears when undertaking his mission to save the girls. Elijah’s is purple, which he wears throughout the entire film. What I love about the use of colour in Unbreakable is how understated it is. Most superhero films overuse colour, whereas in this film it is very much in the background, and you only start to notice how effective it is when reflecting on the scenes and how they play out. Need I mention the score by James Newton Howard? It is pretty much flawless and a wonderful accompaniment to the visual action.

Much like Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight’, Unbreakable is rooted in the classic hero/villain dynamic, but as aforementioned, it transcends being simply about this and delivers an altogether more profound message about the human spirit and finding one’s purpose in life. The two main characters and the surrounding cast all add something unique to the story and help to bind it together. Above all, you care about David and his struggle, and this is a testament to both Shyamalan and Willis. I won’t ruin the twist at the end of the movie for those who haven’t seen it, but I will say that it ties things up perfectly, if somewhat predictably. Unbreakable is unquestionably a very underrated movie with lots to offer in all departments. Watch it now!

Acting: 95
Narrative: 90
Visuals: 90
Music: 90

Overall: 91/100

MOVIE REVIEW: The Way Way Back (2013)

This was an enjoyable watch. I went into this after a reccomendation from a close friend and for the most part it fulfilled the role of being a decent coming of age movie. The central characters all have something slightly off-kilter about them which kept the film unpredictable and engaging for me. Probably my favourite scene was the very first one. Trent (Steve Carell) is driving Duncan (Liam James) and family to a holiday home on the beach. The way the scene is shot was enthralling. Only Trent's wicked eyes can be seen in the rearview mirror of the car, as Duncan sits glum and depressed on the backseat facing in the opposite direction. Trent goes on to demoralise Duncan for his lack of ambition and confidence, asking him what he would rank himself out of 10 before clarifying that he sees the boy as a 3. Just through the anger on Duncan's face and the arrogance in Trent's voice whilst they face in opposite directions perfectly establishes the central conflict in the film.

The film progresses into familiar 'coming of age' territory. Duncan meets a brash, confident role model in Owen, played brilliantly by Sam Rockwell and slowly learns how to express himself. Another prominent theme in the film is maturity and how it is not always associated with age. The adults in the film peruse around acting like ignorant kids for most of the movie, throwing temper tantrums, drinking too much and massaging their egos. This really adds to the sense that Duncan is an outcast in his own family, deeply affected by his parent's split and forced into his shell when around them simply because he sees things differently.

The standout performance is Sam Rockwell well who delivers a compelling performance as Owen. He is loud, witty, mysterious and care-free yet somehow you feel he is hiding a darker past, maybe similar to Duncan's. The dialogue between the two at the water park is good, but left a little to be desired. I feel like they could have fleshed out this relationship a bit more and dug a little deeper, as it occasionally feels like the two story arcs (at home and at the water park) are too disjointed. Liam James does a reasonably good job playing Duncan, although I would have liked some more interesting dialogue from him.

This is a good film that you can't really go wrong with. Directors Jim Rash and Nat Faxon played it a bit safe for my liking but that might have been what they were going for. I like the fact it is short and concise, but I would have liked a bit more character development and a deeper exploration into Duncan's psychological development. Nevertheless this is a real feel-good summer film that will no doubt put a smile on the face of anyone who chooses to watch it.

Acting: 70
Narrative: 65
Visuals: 70
Music: 70

Overall: 69/100

MOVIE REVIEW: Straight Outta Compton (2015)

Being a big biopic fan, and an even bigger hip hop fan, Straight Outta Compton ranked among my most anticipated films of the 2015. Despite my passion for rap both historic and contemporary though, I was not 100% familiar with NWA's story. I knew a few things, but this was also a chance for me to learn about the group, their backgrounds and relationships.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, though it most definitely had its fair share of highs and lows. The opening scene was a standout, in which we are introduced to Eazy-E in the midst of some kind of undercover dispute with a few heavily armed individuals. We get an intense chase scene as the police find the house and literally tear it to the ground as Eazy tries to escape. The film then goes about introducing the rest of NWA and we get an instant sense of the racial and political tension surrounding Compton at that time. After the group become fully formed and we meet the manager, Jerry Heller, it is not long before the film takes us to the making of the group's most famous album "Straight Outta Compton" and the subsequent tour that changed the face of hip hop forever.

The second half of the film deals more with the breakdown of the group and mounting pressure between the members and managers. I feel like this is where the film runs into problems. First of all, much of the dialogue that was entertaining in the first half becomes stale and slightly obsolete as the film develops. I feel like as the group matured and the relationships started to show signs of strain, we should have got some more complex scripting. Instead it is all played rather safe, and the intimate interactions between Eazy, Dre, Cube and Jerry Heller seem quite predictable and lacking in inspiration. However the film maintains some very compelling plot points, whilst omitting other key ones (to the disappointment of many hardcore NWA fans). The scene in which we get to see the group reacting to Cube's "No Vaseline" diss is hilarious and one of the standouts in the whole movie. It was equally cool seeing Dre leaving the group to pursue his own ventures with Suge Knight, although I wasn't convinced by the portrayal of Suge by R Marcus. Taylor.

The emotional scenes in the film were also executed reasonably well. Obviously a prominent thread was racial discrimination, which although I knew a lot about already was still shocking to see played out in such a brash manner. One of the scenes depicts a real moment in which the group were warned not to play "Fuck The Police" in concert by the FBI. But in a true act of rebellion they do it anyway and quickly feel the inevitable consequences when they are taken away in police vans. It underlined the genuine threat to free speech that was almost tangible then, but is still definitely present today. Dre hearing that his brother had been killed was probably the saddest moment in the film for me, and definitely had me shedding a few tears. And of course, the death of Eazy-E to AIDS at the backend of the film was also heartbreaking to watch. To see the genuine agony of someone hearing the news that they were going to die at the peak of their powers was profoundly distressing and upsetting.

My main issue with the film was the omission of several key events in NWA's long and busy history that I felt might have been left out intentionally in order to paint Dre and Cube (especially Dre) as better people than perhaps they were back in those days. I thought Eazy was portrayed most accurately, but was demonised slightly for how he handled the band's contracts with Heller. The omission of Eazy's beef with Dre was unforgivable considering it lasted years and would have made for a really interesting dynamic in the latter half of the film. I would have also liked to have seen MC Ren and DJ Yella given more screen time, but I'll let them off considering how much they had to fit into 147 minutes. Apart from that, the film had me gripped for most of the lengthy running time. The performances from the key members were all excellent and of course, the music and live performances of some of my favourite hip hop songs were all thrilling to hear and watch in a cinema setting. For the most part, the film succeeds admirably in giving an exciting overview of the beginning, middle and end of NWA, and all of the people on the periphery of the group back in the day.

All I can say is THANK GOD we didn't get another train-wreck like "Notorious". What we got was a very solid biopic with great acting, compelling action sequences, an insight into racism and hood life in America at that time and of course, some of the best music ever put to tape. What I most liked about it was its accessibility to both newcomers to NWA and long-standing fans of the group. I can even see non-hip hop fans getting something out of this film. A must see for sure!

Acting: 85
Narrative: 70
Visuals: 75
Music: 90

Overall: 80/100