Captain America: Civil War (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 146 minutes
Director: Anthony Russo and Joe Russo
Writers: Mark Millar (comic), John Simon and Jack Kirby (characters), Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (screenplay)
Cast: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Sebastian Stan, Scarlett Johansson, Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Rudd, Emily VanCamp, Tom Holland, Daniel Bruhl, Martin Freeman, William Hurt

Captain America: Civil War is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Studios.

While Captain America: Civil War is a solid and entertaining latest offering from the Marvel universe, it can thank it's release date in large for it's critical and box office success.

Captain America: Civil War is more or less The Avengers 3 with the mysterious absence of The Hulk and Thor, and is not surprisingly wonderfully action-packed, but at the same time extremely busy in the way that these multi-protagonist films can be.

The Civil War in the film's title refers to the inner battle of the Avengers with one side being led by Steve Rogers/ Captain America (Chris Evans) and the other by Tony Stark/ Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.). The trouble begins when after one too many destructive battles, the Avengers are put on notice by the American government and are prohibited to partake in activities without permission. Steve Rogers as Captain America has never had this type of restraint enforced on him and does not believe that the group of superheroes should agree to this, while Tony Stark, who has distanced himself from his alter ego of late for personal reasons, believes otherwise. Things become even more complicated and heated between the two when Steve's lifelong best friend, Bucky Barnes or the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) is convicted of a terrible act of terrorism, but wants to defend him. With the Avengers now being sliced into two, the biggest battle they face is against those who they has always fought alongside.

The idea behind Captain America: Civil War is one that seems to be an obvious one to bring the cinema crowds in and make large box office figures. The Avengers saw the coming together of the biggest superheroes in the Marvel universe, while in Captain America: Civil War we see them falling apart. However, this is an example of the filmmakers giving the audience what they want to see and that is the Avengers (plus some) fighting among themselves to determine who really is the most powerful superhero. If it wasn't for an enemy who involves Captain America more than the other characters, this would almost certainly be a film for the Avengers series.

So one may say that the title of the film is misleading as this is a film only about Captain America in part, but it is the perfect strategy from Marvel on the back of Warner Bros DC film, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Captain America: Civil War has been marketed as Captain America v. Iron Man and the poster for it looks remarkably like that for Batman v. Superman. So this is Marvel's answer to it's rival's blockbuster and it was the perfect move to release it a month after rather than at the same time. Marvel and Disney would not have known that Batman v. Superman would be such a let down for the large majority of movie goers, but they would have been ecstatic to find out that it was. Here is the film that audiences wanted Batman v. Superman to be, the battle between two superheroes who should be friends but are at odds with one another with a good reason to be.

Captain America's screenplay is more superior than it's DC counterpart with it's twist at the end being less cringe-worthy and more clever. However, it does play victim to that of all multi-protagonist films as it is not able to cover as much from each character as it is attempting to and as a result forfeits emotion and inner turmoil.

 Despite this apparently being his film, Captain America is not fleshed out in the way he should be. After the beginning of the film when he loses the love of his life, Steve Rogers as Captain America exposes himself as a man who refuses to answer to anyone and is a born leader. These are usually admirable features in a man, but in this film he just seems selfish, disloyal and childish. His loyalty extends to only one person and not to his country and their rules, which is ironic considering he is Captain America. He goes against protocol and loses his friends in the process, therefore not showing loyalty to his team. The subplot with he and Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp) is also extremely weak and has next to no time donated to it. Chris Evan's superhero shows no signs of remorse or inner turmoil despite the conflict and rift he has created and this is by no means Evans' fault as it is the way his character was written.

On the other hand, Tony Stark/ Iron Man is far more interesting as he is a character with greater depth. From his entrance in the film where we see a much younger Robert Downey Jr. in a flashback scene, the audience see's a man who is at war with himself and is greatly wounded by the distant and recent past. The final confrontation between himself and Captain America is emotionally charged from his side and shows how much his character has developed over the course of the Marvel films.

Scarlett Johnasson once again exhibits the strength needed to play a character like Natasha Romanoff/ Black Widow. Black Widow has always been an intriguing character who deserves her own film as she is so strong a character that she could easily carry a film by herself. On the other hand, it almost seems as though the screenwriters were unsure what to do with Elizabeth Olsen's Wanda Maximoff/ Scarlett Witch. Her character in this film would have been the perfect chance for the writers to flesh out the emotional anxiety experienced by those in the same position as the Avengers who deal with the deaths of innocents each time they go to battle. It is definitely touched upon, but not fleshed out which is how it should be if the issue is to be addressed at all.

The introduction of Tom Holland's Spider-Man or Peter Parker into the Marvel universe is one which is finely done and an excitement for what is to come is created. Holland is endearing in the way that a young superhero testing his boundaries should be and makes a solid first appearance as the superhero. Paul Rudd returns as Scott Lang AKA Ant-Man and brings back with him the his likable, every man persona which brings a lightness to the film which is needed.

Yet, one does not go to see a Marvel superhero film for it's depth and powerful emotion. The whole point of a superhero film in the eyes of most movie goers is the action, which is were the superheroes do what they do best. There is indeed a great deal of action and impressive special effects right from the beginning of the film. Yet much of the camera work which is supposed to reflect the high pace and intensity of certain scenes (in particular the opening scene), is too quick and jerky for one to be able to have a clear grasp of what is happening. The editing in these scenes is rather erratic and too fast moving, but it is acknowledged that if they weren't so high-paced the film would have been even longer than it's 146 minute run time.

Captain America: Civil War does do what so many franchise films neglect to do these days and that is to create a strong ending which signifies the beginning of something new and leaves the audience begging for more. Although far from the best Marvel film, Captain America: Civil War is an entertaining and enjoyable film with many characters to both like and dislike.

7/10

Transcendence (2014)

Year: 2014
Running Time: 119 minutes
Director: Wally Pfister
Writer: Jack Paglen
Cast: Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Morgan Freeman, Paul Bettany, Cillian Murphy, Kate Mara, Cole Hauser

Transcendence attempts the uncommon Hollywood walk into unprecedented territory with it's ambition and creativity. The result is a well made piece of cinema, but one that doesn't have a particularly neat screenplay. The principle that Transcendence is based on is indeed interesting, yet it tries to be too intelligent and ends up getting lost within itself. The result being a film which is enjoyable to watch, but not particularly memorable.

Will Caster (Johnny Depp) and his wife, Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) are well known researchers in the field of Artificial Intelligence, a field which many believe is unethical and are opposed to. After an encounter with a radical, Will's life becomes a time bomb and Evelyn and the Caster's friend and work colleague, Max Waters (Paul Bettany) work towards fulfilling Will's legacy with Will as the subject this time. However, nobody ever realised how far Will's memory would go.

There are two major underlying themes of Transcendence and the screenplay is moulded around these two themes. One theme is executed beautifully and the other has trouble trying to execute itself in a coherent and believable fashion. Firstly there is the theme of the ethical question of A.I. The film wants to make us ponder how far can you take A.I. before it becomes unethical. In the film we see this ideas taken to a place which demonstrates the dangers of relying on A.I., as well as on technology (a more common theme in film). However, the point which it takes us to to show us this is so extreme and it becomes a little too farfetched to be taken seriously. Not only farfetched, the basis for the story is nearly impossible and there are quite a few holes in the film which are apparent to anyone whether they are technologically minded or not. The film gives the impression of wanting to seem so spectacular and mind blowing that it ends up confusing itself as well as it's audience. It leaves the audience feeling as though they are confused, but not because of the intellectual side as much as because the execution hasn't been as believable as it should be.

The theme of grief in the film is the one that is more successful in it's execution, but clouded over by the technological side of the film. As Transcendence is first and foremost a sci-fi film, it is understandable why this theme is not the main focus, but it is still lost in the confusion more than what it should be. In the film, Evelyn is a grieving wife who's inability to let go of her husband is one of the reasons everything gets so out of hand. Her grief distorts her perception of reality, which is not uncommon for people in her situation. She hangs on to the memory of her husband and believes everything she must in order to believe that Will is still around. While grieving in the real world such a situation as this wouldn't happen, but Evelyn's behaviour is perfectly executed in the film for someone grieving the loss of their soul mate.

Despite the screenplay bringing the film down, the production side of the film is a lot more successful. Visually the film is wonderful to look at and the production design exquisite. With each location you feel as though you really are there, such as in the Caster's garden or in the laboratory. The quirky little town Evelyn travels too is incredibly interesting to see on screen.

Johnny Depp may be the top billed actor in Transcendence, but he really doesn't have too much to do in the film. There is nothing wrong with his performance, it is more that he doesn't actually physically appear in the film a great deal and his role is particularly limited in what he can do with it. A great deal more of the film belongs to Rebecca Hall. She does very well as the grieving wife and gives a particularly moving performance. Even when Will's presence is in her life after his death, she still gives the impression of a broken and fragile woman while she wasn't this before his death. The chemistry between Depp and Hall is not as strong in the first part of the film as it is in the latter part.

Paul Bettany is very good in his role as Max Waters. Bettany has the wonderful ability in this film of being able to portray exactly how he is feeling without saying a word, which is evident even in the first scene when he is in the garden. His performance is a particularly emotional and endearing one. His Max is the voice of reason in Evelyn's dark hours, but even then you can tell that it is not an easy thing for him to do.

Transcendence is a highly interesting film to talk about for it's confusing execution of an interesting subject. It tries hard, but doesn't seem to realise how to execute itself efficiently.

5.5/10

The Tourist

The Tourist
Year: 2010
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Cast: Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, Paul Bettany, Timothy Dalton

In My Own Words The combination of Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie is a film makers dream. Two of the biggest movie stars on the planet and two of my personal favourite actors. Johnny Depp is just likable in every role he has been in the past few years. Even in "The Libertine" where one of his first lines is "You are not going to like me". He failed at that because I still found him likable. He's not afraid to take risks, I think he is more afraid of taking on a role people might consider "normal". He has been nominated for 3 Oscars, but has yet to take home one. I would love to see him win one, but what will it take? He's been nominated for"Pirates Of The Carribean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl", "Finding Neverland" and "Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street". All amazing roles completely out of the ordinary yet no golden statue. What does he have to do?!

Then there is Angelina. The actress who has show-stopping beauty, but is sometimes more popular for what she does off screen than on screen. Her past romances, kissing siblings and being known as a "home wrecker" in the tabloids overshadow how truly amazing she is an an actress. She has been nominated for two Academy Awards and took home the big one in 1999 for "Girl, Interrupted". I think she is brilliant, regardless of what she does in her private life. After all, what is true about her so-called private life that we read in the celebrity gossip magazines?

I've already established that Depp and Jolie are amazing actors, but do they work together? These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Everything about "The Tourist" points towards a winning combination. It stars Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie who are two of the biggest movie stars in the world at the moment, has an Oscar winning director in Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck and it's set in a beautiful city like Venice. It seems like nothing could go wrong, or could it? "The Tourist" was always going to do well at the box office no matter what happenned in the film. It is one of those films which some people are going to love and others are going to find ridiculous. "The Tourist" is an action thriller which borders on comedy. Unfortunately, the comedy aspect makes it hard to take the film seriously when you feel like you should be taking it seriously. Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp) is a maths teacher minding his own business on a train trip to Venice when a beautiful, mysterious English woman, Elise (Angelina Jolie) sits next to him. Little does he know, he is part of a plan of Elise's elusive love, Alexander Pearce to detour the authorities and make them think that Frank is actually him.

Set against the amazing backdrop of Venice, "The Tourist" seems to be a very confused film. It is not quite sure what it is. It could have been a serious film and it seems like that is what the film makers would have wanted, but with Johnny Depp involved it doesn't come across that way. Not to say that Johnny Depp can't do serious roles because he definately can, but his character of Frank is quite comedic. On the other hand, it is not as funny as it should be to qualify as a comedy. This confusion makes the film seem a bit messy, although it does play out perfectly and runs smoothly on the screen. Visually it is an amazing film to watch. Henckel von Donnersmarck has pieced the film together beautifully and the cinematography, editing and visuals are amazing. Scriptwise, it is a good story and completely unpredictable. Everytime you think you know what is going on, something will happen to change your thoughts. It is one of those films you will walk away from and the more you think about it, the more everything will start to make sense. However, it is the scrip that provides the comedy moments which creates the confusion of the film.

Both Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie are stars, there is no doubt about that. Johnny Depp is able to show so much emotion in just his facial expressions and in his eyes. He is able to make the audience feel great pity for him at the beginning of the film. The character of Frank feels much like the Inchabod Crane who Depp played in "Sleepy Hollow". Jolie shines on the screen, the camera just adores her. Depp and Jolie visually look good on the screen together, but there isn't a great deal of chemistry between the two. Maybe they were afraid of creating too much chemistry between the two in case that started creating rumours.

If you go into "The Tourist" thinking you will see a drama, you will be disappointed. If you think it is going to be a comedy, you will also be disappointed. If you think it is a psychological action film, you may not be so disappointed. If you think it is just going to be just a good piece of entertainment and something which is visually beautiful to watch, you will enjoy the film. Visually it is amazing and beautifully directed with beautiful people, but it is just confused about what it is and what it is trying achieve.
6/10

Creation

Creation
Year: 2009
Director: Jon Amiel
Cast: Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones

In My Own Words
On the closing night of the Sydney Film Festival, I decided to see the Charles Darwin biopic, “Creation”. Perhaps the most thrilling part of seeing this film at this festival is that I got the pleasure of being at the same screening as screenwriter, John Collee. It was a great experience to listen to Collee speak and answer questions on the life of Charles Darwin, the research that went into writing the script and the making of the film. I think it is very easy to take for granted how much research goes into writing a script before the first words are even written, especially in a biopic such as “Creation”. The film was based on the book “Annie’s Box” by Randal Keynes, who is actually the great-great grandson of Charles Darwin himself. A great deal of the information in this book is correct, as Darwin was known for writing many a letter to his friends and family (as is shown in the movie) and he was a compulsive note-taker. Collee said of him “If he were around today, he would be an adamant blogger”. So Darwin would probably be one of the easier people to find information on for this reason, but nevertheless there is still much research to be completed before writing a biopic screenplay. I applaud any screenwriter for the amount of work they put in both before and during the writing of a screenplay.

I do believe that many Christians may be weary of watching this film because of the idea that Darwin’s theories are closely linked to atheism. However, there is not too much to be frightened of with this film. There are some references from other characters besides Darwin that he is in war with God and that his book would prove the church wrong, but this is not what the movie is about. It even suggests that Darwin himself may have had doubts, but was not entirely sure that his theory meant that God did not exist. It has been suggested by many people, including today by Collee, that Darwin’s book, “The Origin Of Species” was more a way of coming to terms with his anger towards God for taking his beloved daughter, Annie away from him. It does seem quite odd that if he was an atheist, why he would be buried in Westminster Abbey in London. Or was this just a goodwill gesture upon his death? Something to be pondered.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“Creation” may be about the writing of Charles Darwin’s infamous book, “The Origin Of Species”, but it is not about his evolution theories as per say. “Creation” focuses more on the relationship between Charles Darwin (Paul Bettany) and his wife, Emma (Jennifer Connelly)as they both come to grips with the death of their beloved 10-year old daughter, Annie (newcomer Martha West). Charles and Emma drift apart from each other as Emma turns to her Christian faith for comfort, while Charles stops going to church and becomes obsessed with his scientific theories of life on Earth and how it came to be. As Charles is continuously pressured by others to write his book for all those who agree with him, he feels like he is drifting further away from his wife, his children, himself and his deceased daughter.

“Creation” could have been a fantastic film, but it feels like it was just done the wrong way. The main criticism of the film is that it is far too jerky and it feels as though it does not even out until the last half an hour. It is the way in which the flashback scenes are incorporated with both the present and Darwin’s dream-like hallucinations that make the film seem far too erratic. The film would have worked far better if it was just carried through chronologically. Maybe director, Jon Amiel was trying to make the film slightly more surrealistic by piecing the film together this way, but it just seems far too jumpy and the audience is not able to take their time to enjoy a scene for what it is. However, as said before, it seems to smooth out towards the end, and the last 20 minutes are just magic. They are emotionally striking and filled with some extremely fine acting.

Attention must also be brought to the visuals of the film. There are many scenes which are truly beautiful and are stunning to watch. The period is very well represented in the costumes, visuals and the music. The script is very well written. The amount of research done is evident and well written into the film.

The acting is what makes the film work and is definitely its saving grace. Paul Bettany gives his career best in this film. Not only does he uncannily resemble a young Charles Darwin, but he gives a heartfelt performance as a husband and father struggling with both grief and his sanity. His performance will be a tough one to watch for many fathers. The real-life married couple of Bettany and Jennifer Connelly is, as it typically is, a winning choice. The chemistry is already there and shows up on the big screen in spectacular fashion. The acting from these two is great throughout the film, but, like the film, it gets better throughout the film. For one particular scene, Bettany should win an Oscar based purely on that.

“Creation” could have been a great film instead of just a good film. The jerkiness of the film is the huge downfall. A great film should be great the whole way through rather than waiting until the last quarter. However, it should be seen purely for Paul Bettany’s magic. The film takes an in-depth look at a grieving family and may strike a chord with many people who have been through a similar situation. “Creation” could have been a film about any grieving family, but is made more interesting by the family being the Darwins.
6.5/10