Alien: Covenant (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 122 minutes
Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: Jack Paglen and Michael Green (story), John Logan and Dante Harper (screenplay)
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride, Carmen Ejogo, Demian Bichir, Jussie Smollett, Callie Hernandez, Amy Seimetz, Nathaniel Dean, Alexander England, Benjamin Rigby, Uli Latukefu, Tess Haubrich, James Franco (uncredited), Guy Pearce (uncredited)

Alien: Covenant will open in Australian cinemas on May 11 and in cinemas in the United States on May 12. Distributed by 20th Century Fox.

Alien: Covenant takes the Alien franchise back to it's place of origin and does so in bloody and terrifying fashion which will delight loyalists and confuse and disgust non-familairs.

Ridley Scott's latest is the follow up to 2012's Prometheus, making it the second in the prequel series of the Alien films. Alien: Covenant resembles the Sigourney Weaver led Alien films a great deal more than Prometheus did, which should excite people as Prometheus was criticised by many for how little it resembled an Alien film. However, Prometheus was a smart origins story and more of a companion piece to the franchise rather than a prequel. Alien: Covenant could not exist without Prometheus, as much of it's story is directly connected to it. It goes without saying here that anyone who has not seen Prometheus will not benefit at all from seeing Alien: Covenant as there will be a great deal that is not understood or appreciated.

The newest film in the Alien universe has already been criticised for having too much happening in it and that it should be as simplistic as it's predecessors were. Yet, Alien: Covenant does not pretend to be a straight forward action film. It picking up where Prometheus left off and still attempting to tell the origin story of these horrific extra-terrestrials, while at the same time being suspenseful, terrifying and action-packed.

Unfortunately, at times it does feel as though the film is trying a little too hard to be visually shocking by using as much blood and violence as possible to get the point across and there are several times throughout the film where the CGI isn't as realistic as it should be, particularly in the outer space sequences. Yet the recreation of the aliens using CGI is superb and this is one area that has benefited from having the universe expanded in 2017. 

One of the things that Scott has excelled at since he and screenwriter Dan O'Bannon created the Alien universe back in 1979, is incorporating female empowerment into the futuristic world of horror. Sigourney Weaver played the incredibly bad-ass Ripley in all the Alien films up until Alien Ressurection in 1997 and it is argueably her most iconic role. Ripley was a hero ahead of her time and sadly, it is only now that females are starting to play a more powerful role in action films...although we admittedly still do have a long way to go.

While Noomi Rapace was at the helm in Prometheus as Elizabeth Shaw, it is Katherine Waterston who follows in the footsteps of her and Weaver and plays Daniels in Alien: Covenant. With this film, Waterston continues to impress with her talent and versatility. Her character develops throughout the film by at first seeming vulnerable due to the sudden death of her husband (who is played by James Franco in a not uncharacteristically tiny cameo), but shows how she takes that grief and uses it as motivation to keep those around her from harm. She is strong-willed, the voice of reason and not afraid to get the most dangerous jobs done.

Waterston as the female lead is not the only piece of stellar casting. When Kong: Skull Island was released earlier this year, one of the most disappointing things about it was that it had a fantastic cast who's talents went to waste as a result of a lack lustre screenplay and direction. Alien: Covenant does the opposite. The film makes the most of it's talented cast even though the majority of the characters are underdeveloped and given little to no background. The exceptions here are, of course, Waterston's Daniels and Michael Fassbender's Walter/David. Fassbender does a strong job of playing two different roles and his David is the most interesting character in the film, but his very existence attempts to tackle the now very tired and overused sci-fi theme of artificial intelligence manipulating humans.

Ridley Scott once again does a great job at continuing to make the Alien franchise one that supports female empowerment and makes sure that Alien: Covenant succeeds in doing what it sets out to achieve, which is to entertain and terrify.

7/10

"Men of Science Fiction Vol. 1" by Dennys Ilic to be released April 22

This coming Saturday April 22, Cinematic Pictures Publishing will launch their debut coffee table book, "Men of Science Fiction Vol. 1" by renowned celebrity photographer, Dennys Ilic.

The first volume in the "Men and Women of Science Fiction" series , which will have a red carpet launch in Hollywood this weekend, features 123 beautiful photos of some of the most famous and prolific stars of the science fiction genre today, including Edward James Olmos who graces the front cover.

Originally from Geelong in Victoria, Australia, Dennys Ilic says his new book series is a tribute to the genre he grew up admiring and being influenced by.

"Many of these role models have become dear friends and continue to inspire my pursuit and passion as a photographer. In "Men of Science Fiction", I wanted to create something beautiful that could touch the fans in a similar way" explains Ilic. "Something to be enjoyed by both aficionados of the science fiction as well as photography.”

"Men of Science Fiction Vol. 1" will feature exquisite photography from actors of sci-fi television shows and movies including "Battlestar Galactica", "Star Trek", "Hemlock Grove", "The Flash", "Arrow", "Stargate", "Supernatural", "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D", Avatar, "The Shannara Chronicles", "Sanctuary", World of Warcraft, "Falling Skies", "Caprica", Apollo 18, "Smallville", "Daredevil", Pacific Rim Uprising, Dirk Gently, Robot Overlords and I Am Number Four.

Attending the star-studded Hollywood launch on Saturday night will be Ilic himself, as well as Edward James Olmos (Blade Runner 2049, Blade Runner, Battlestar Galatica), executive producer Danny Cannon ("CSI: Crime Scene Investigation", "CSI: NY", "CSI: Miami", "Gotham"),  actor Christopher Heyerdahl (Twilight, "Van Helsing", Hell on Wheels), actor Colin Ferguson ("Eureka", The Opposite of Sex, "The Vampire Diaries"), director Steven S. DeKnight (Pacific Rim Uprising), actor Daniel Feuerriegel (Pacific Rim Uprising, "Spartacus: Blood and Sand", "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D", director T.J. Scott ("Gotham", "Orphan Black", "Bates Motel") and many more.

"Men of Science Fiction Vol. 1" is now available for pre-order here and is $59 +shipping.

Colossal (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 110 minutes
Director/Writer: Nacho Vigalondo
Cast: Anne Hathaway, Jason Sudeikis, Dan Stevens, Austin Stowell, Tim Blake Nelson

Colossal is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Transmission Films.

Nacho Vigalondo's Colossal is a great success for what it represents and what is taking place behind the story as it unfolds on the screen. It is a genre-bending, original black comedy that is incredibly clever and challenges everything that it looks like it is at face value.

When Gloria (Anne Hathaway) is kicked out of her New York City apartment by her fed up boyfriend, Tim (Dan Stevens), she moves back to the quiet, uneventful town where she grew up. Things soon take an interesting turn when she is reunited with her childhood friend, Oscar (Jason Sudeikis) and he offers her a job working in his bar. Even more interesting is when a Godzilla-like monster starts appearing, causing havoc and then quickly disappearing in South Korea...and even more intriguing is that this mysterious and catastrophic phenomenon seems to have something somehow to do with Gloria.

Colossal requires a complete suspension of disbelief for it to really work in the eye of the beholder due to the unrealistic nature of the story. Unfortunately, the screenplay is the enemy of the story as it is filled with holes and a whole load of unanswered questions remain at the end. Despite this sounding like all may well be lost with Colossal, it comes as a surprise that you can actually put these rather large faults aside and praise it for the things it gets so right.

On the surface, Colossal looks like just another apocalyptic monster film. Even though it has a rather mediocre execution thanks to the screenplay, it provides something different for the monster/sci-fi genre and it's originality is commendable. Nacho Vigalondo's story may have it's ridiculous moments, but it is ultimately entertaining, unpredictable and intriguing enough to captivate and keep you guessing. It is a quiet, indie film with underlying themes that plays alongside, but at the same time is removed from the blockbuster monster film. This contrast is completely unlike the typical formula we see in such a film and is a refreshing change. By creating this distance between the characters and the actual monster of the film, there is more freedom and opportunity to do something interesting and give the human protagonist more attention.

Colossal captures the nostalgic spirit of old school horror/monster films . These were the films that were set in picturesque small towns that hardly seem sinister to begin with and were as much about the human characters as they were the beast. This film is more about the human protagonists than the actual unnamed monster of the film.

Anne Hathaway, who very rarely puts in an uninspired performance these days, shines as Gloria, who undergoes a transformation during the film from being a broken woman to being extremely strong and capable of anything...clearly. At its core, Colossal is about bullying and how it can take effect on your life in the present and future. Hathaway's Gloria is not only a strong female presence, but the only female character (besides the younger version of herself played by Hannah Cheramy, who has a Drew Barrymore Firestarter moment) and without a doubt the most likable character in the film. She is surrounded by men who take advantage of her by abusing her while she is in her fragile state or are weak and are themselves unable to stand up to those who are bullying them.

Neither Jason Sudeikis nor Dan Stevens play particularly nice characters in Colossal and represent the original bully and the bully that Gloria allows into her life because of the first bully making her believe she doesn't deserve any better. The way the film progresses in regards to Gloria and Oscar is also surprising, as it does not take the usual turn that one would be expecting. When a male and female character meet in a film the way Gloria and Oscar do here in Colossal, it is expected it is to be part of the romantic subplot of the film. However, when it looks as though this is the direction things are heading in, the story is contorted so that it shocks everyone and takes on a completely new life. By the end of the film, the perfect quote that represents Gloria is that which is taken from William Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream"......."Though she be but little, she is fierce"

Nacho Vigalondo has refused to abide by any of the rules of the Hollywood monster film genre with Colossal and it is glorious. It uses the genre only to tell an incredibly relevant human story and do so in a creative and thoroughly intriguing way.

7/10

Ghost in the Shell (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 107 minutes
Director: Rupert Sanders
Writers: Masamune Shirow (based on the comic "The Ghost in the Shell" by), Jamie Moss and William Wheeler (screenplay)
Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Pilou Asbaek, Takeshi Kitano, Juliette Binoche, Michael Carmen Pitt

Ghost in the Shell is now showing everywhere and is distributed by Paramount Pictures.

Rupert Sanders' anime to live-action redux, Ghost in the Shell takes a cinematic sci-fi concept that is rather tired and gives it yet another spin. However, with it's entrancing, spectacular visuals and cinematography, the film set's itself apart from the mould by being haunting, mesmerising and entertaining.

Yet, like several other Hollywood films this year, Ghost in the Shell has been shrouded in controversy which has inevitably hurt the film's chance of widely being accepted by fans, praised critically or receiving any spectacular box office returns.

In the not too distant future, our society has become increasingly obsessed with information sharing and as a result, terrorism has now been extended to hacking into others minds. The ultimate weapon has been created by transplanting a human brain into a cyber-enhanced body and the result is Major (Scarlett Johansson), who is the first of her kind. As a new enemy surfaces that threatens those close to Major, the ghost of who she once was in her past life starts to slip into her subconscious and leads her to question everything and everyone she trusts.

Ghost in the Shell acts as both a remake and origins story to the 1995 anime original, The Ghost in the Shell. A concept that worked so well and felt original in the mid-1990's (especially as an animation) unfortunately does not have the same impact in 2017, as we have now seen more than our fair share of Artificial Intelligence films that seek to question their ability to take on human emotions and characteristics. We could argue that if this film had been remade years ago it would have been ground-breaking and as creative as a remake could be, but it still would not have worked for avid fans of the original in regards to the casting of the likes of an actor like Scarlett Johansson.

The casting of Scarlett Johansson in the role of Major is a controversial one, but should not be used as a tool to actually review or judge the film as a whole. This topic is more one for people to discuss the issue of Hollywood white-washing. This is something that has been featured in Hollywood films for it's entire existence since the early 1900's, but in today's society it is more of an issue than it ever has been. In regards to the casting of Johansson, Michael Carmen Pitt, Juliette Binoche and Pilou Asbaek, it is not an intentional insult to Japanese actors or filmmaking. It is, however, a marketing ploy to make the film more accessible to wider audiences. Yet, with the original The Ghost in the Shell being as well known as it is, it is a useless business technique as it may well have been greater accepted by many without a Caucasian Hollywood actress in the lead.

Despite her controversial casting, Johansson is an absolute powerhouse. She has proved herself in the past few years as an outstanding action actor and her role as Major in Ghost in the Shell is physically reminiscent of that in 2014's Lucy and her Marvel persona of Natasha Romanoff/ Black Widow. It is such a shame that with the self discovery aspect to Johansson's character of Major, there is so little emotion written into the film. There is much opportunity to make the film an emotional experience and bring about a debate about the direction technology is heading, but this is left obsolete. Johansson does give a great physical performance, but the screenplay and direction don't support the level of intensity and emotion her character should have.

However, Ghost in the Shell's saving grace is in it's visual production, cinematography and incredibly haunting musical score by Lorne Balfe and Clint Mansell. The film is visually spectacular with it's amazingly detailed production design of a futuristic Tokyo and is made to be especially atmospheric with it's beautiful score accompanying it's incredible images. The cinematography by Jess Hall is also absolutely superb. It is it's outstanding visuals and special effects that make Ghost in the Shell worth watching and actually quite awe-inspiring.

Ghost in the Shell's redeeming features are in it's production, but the film as a whole lacks any emotional depth and wastes the underlying issues and acting talents of Scarlett Johansson...despite whether she was the correct casting choice or not.

6.5/10

Passengers (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 116 minutes
Director: Morten Tyldum
Writer: Jon Spaihts
Cast: Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Sheen, Laurence Fishburne

Passengers is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Roadshow Films.

In 2007, the Passengers screenplay written by Jon Spaihts was featured on the Blacklist, which is a list of the year's best scripts that have yet to developed for the screen. Now nearly 10 years later Morten Tyldum has brought Spaihts' screenplay to life.

After watching the film, it is not only obvious why the screenplay was part of the Blacklist, but it is also obvious why it took so long for it to be made. Passengers sounds as though it could be an intriguing enough story, but there is only so much that can be done with it when translated onto the screen. The end result is a film that is fine, but could never really have been something truly special.

In the future when Earth is over-inhabited, the spaceship, Starship Avalon transports 5000 passengers to Homestead Colony to set up the next stage in human existence. Although the journey is to take 120 years and all the crew and passengers are to be in hibernation pods until just before arrival, a malfunction occurs and Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) awakes 90 years ahead of schedule. He is the only being to be awake on the Avalon besides android bartender, Arthur (Michael Sheen), until he is joined a year later by Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence). The two have an instant connection, but it is a connection that may not have been made under the most ethical circumstances.

Passengers is really everything it could have been. Morten Tyldum directs it to the best of his ability and both Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence bring as much to the screen as they possibly can. The fault of the film does not lie in the production of it. There was just no possible way that the story could have been developed for the screen without it coming across as mostly unoriginal, only slightly ludicrous and mediocre at best.

The film has been likened to a cross between 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Notebook, which sounds so odd that it sets off alarm bells instantly. While the sci-fi genre is typically able to get away with an escape of realism, the whole concept of Passengers just seems too far-fetched for it to be taken seriously. It is the type of film that one watches knowing that they should be pondering the ethical dilemmas and underlying themes being presented by the characters and their situations, but they are just too far removed to make a connection. There are indeed some interesting ethical questions to be explored there, particularly in regards to Jim and Aurora's relationship origins, but it is difficult for these to become conversation starters when the ludicracy of the story is the film's main talking point

However, Passengers does have some redeeming features. The production design by Guy Hendrix Dyas of the Starship Avalon's interiors is very impressive as they are complex, but neat and linear. There are some truly spectacular celestial moments throughout the film, but it is a shame that they are few and far between. One also cannot fault the film's two stars, Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Passengers is perhaps the most intense role Pratt has had to date and he maintains the comical demeanor that he has become popular for as well as showing the needed emotions. Jennifer Lawrence gives her consistent all to the role of Aurora and has a great chemistry with Pratt onscreen.

Despite the misgivings of the film, Passengers is still watchable. It is not painful to watch by any means, but struggles to make something meaningful out of something so ridiculously far-fetched.

5/10

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 133 minutes
Director: Gareth Edwards
Writers: John Knoll and Gary Whitta (story), Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy (screenplay)
Cast: Felicity Jones, Mads Mikkelsen, Diego Luna, Alan Tudyk, Riz Ahmed, Ben Mendelsohn, Forest Whitaker, Donnie Yen, Wen Jiang

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is now showing everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

While Star Wars: The Force Awakens was an undeniable success, Rogue One brings forth the Star Wars film that people truly wanted to see with a brand new and original story that answers long held questions in the most spectacular and glorious of ways.

Rogue One is what Star Wars fans were eagerly anticipating when Disney announced their plans to expand the Star Wars universe. The Force Awakens was a great starting point for kicking off the new series of films, but many complained of it's lack of originality because of how much it resembled A New Hope. Gareth Edward's film really does expand the Star Wars universe by opening it up to include more than just the Skywalkers and their family tales, and the screenplay by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy makes the most of this freedom while also staying true and respectful to the George Lucas films.

Rogue One takes place right before 1977's Star Wars: Episode IV- A New Hope and focuses on the rebels who obtained the plans to the Death Star. Orphaned at a young age when her father, Galen (Mads Mikkelsen) is called upon to work for the Empire, Jyn (Felicity Jones) finds herself years later being recruited by the Rebellion. She discovers that her father has hidden the secret to bringing down the Empire's weapon, the Death Star in it's plans and she must lead a group of rebels into enemy territory to give them hope that the Empire and Darth Vader can be defeated.

Rogue One is a film for Star Wars lovers. It fills a great hole that was left gaping when George Lucas completed his six episodes and answers the questions you never knew you had until you watched Rogue One. Fans of the Star Wars franchise will be delighted with several Easter Eggs throughout the film and also the inclusion of unused footage from A New Hope. However, as a result, this film will mean far more and be enjoyed more by actual Star Wars fans rather than those who are indifferent. The aim of the screenplay is to primarily explain a missing piece of the Star Wars universe and to link up with A New Hope, not to tell a brand new story to appeal to an un-bias audience.

Yet, Rogue One is undeniably entertaining with it's impressive action sequences and outstanding use of CGI. The final act is particularly spectacular as well as visually stunning with a wonderful use of colour combined with high intensity action. While the large majority of the audience will know what the ending to the film will be, the journey is unpredictable and therefore, anything goes. All areas of production are, as one would expect from a Star Wars film in 2016, superb.

There has been much spoken about how the newer Star Wars films are both led by female characters and how strong the characters of Rey (portrayed by Daisy Ridley in The Force Awakens ) and Jyn Erso are. However, what is truly great about the way Star Wars has approached these characters is that they have made gender irrelevant in the creation of them. The fact that they are female in the film is not brought up at all and the respect they receive in these films are equal to that of any male counterpart. Felicity Jones is wonderful as Jyn. She brings to the character her strength as an actor and gives a heartfelt, yet stoic performance.

Ben Mendelsohn also impresses as Director Orson Krennic, but it is once again a droid who steals the show. Voiced by Alan Tudyk, K-2SO is equipped with the wittiest of lines that give the film it's comedy relief, much in the same fashion that R2-D2 and C-3PO have done in the past.

Rogue One successfully expands the Star Wars universe and is an utter treat for long time fans. It may not have the same power for those who are no overly familiar with the past films, but is still entertaining thanks to it's incredible visuals and original screenplay.

8/10

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 120 minutes
Director: Roland Emmerich
Writers: Nicolas Wright, James A. Woods, Dean Devlin, Roland Emmerich and James Vanderbilt
Cast: Jeff Goldblum, Liam Hemsworth, Bill Pullman, Jessie T. Usher, Maika Monroe, Judd Hirsch, Sela Ward, Brent Spiner, Joey King, William Fichtner, Travis Tope, Charlotte Gainsbourg

Independence Day: Resurgence is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by 20th Century Fox.

"We had twenty years to prepare. So did they"

So reads the tagline of Independence Day: Resurgence. Likewise, Roland Emmerich has had twenty years to prepare sequel to the fun, entertaining and thrilling Independence Day, but in all the excitement he has forgotten to correct what was wrong with the former. Instead, what was wrong with Independence Day is what is wrong with Independence Day: Resurgence...and that is only the beginning of it's flaws.

In an alternate world where aliens did invade Earth in 1996, 2016 looks a great deal like the futuristic world as depicted in "The Jetsons" and Disneyland's Tomorrowland. The invasion left Earth knowing a great deal more about the other life forms in our universe, but the other life forms learnt enough about our strengths and weaknesses to have another go at taking over the planet. They return to Earth with a force greater than any we have ever seen causing destruction on a grander scale than before. In other words, exactly the plot we were expecting this sequel to have. Same story, same enemies...just on a larger basis.

Independence Day: Resurgence's timing is only part of it's problem. Of course twenty years is an incredibly long time between movies and it can hardly be a surprise that ticket sales are not as spectacular as they would have liked. Independence Day fit right into 1996 when the disaster film fad was gaining momentum and an interest in the paranormal and aliens was at an all time high thanks to the hugely popular "The X Files". In 2016, the disaster film genre is tired and although there will always be an interest in whether we are alone in the universe, there is not much different that can be done with this concept in film.

Despite the screenplay being rather ridiculous at times and having some atrocious dialogue, Independence Day: Resurgence is still watchable and even surprisingly fun. It is a matter of everything being so exaggerated that makes the film actually quite funny. In reprising his role of now ex-President Thomas Whitmore, Bill Pullman gives an over-the-top patriotic speech that is supposed to be reminiscent of his infamous speech in the first film, but is almost cringe-worthy in how comical it feels. The action sequences are rather enjoyable and this is one aspect that the sequel being made in 2016 has benefit from as CGI has come a very long way since 1996.

Like it's predecessor, Roland Emmerich's second venture with this July 4 franchise doesn't have a small cast. However, one of the things that did make the first film successful was how much emotion the viewer was exposed to regardless of how many characters there were. Now it is the opposite. None of the characters have enough time to make the viewer feel anything for them, but there is undoubtedly a great deal of opportunity to make this happen with loss and love taking place all through the film.

One thing that Independence Day was criticised for (especially in Film Studies classes across the USA) was it's attitude towards women. The male characters were solely responsible for saving the world and the women either waited at home for the men to arrive or were killed off. It is as if Emmerich was aware of this criticism and really did attempt to rectify this, but with the exception of one or two characters still gets it wrong. At the beginning of the film, it looks extremely promising for women with the current President being a woman, once stripper Jasmine Hiller (Vivica A. Fox) is now in the medical profession, Patricia Whitmore (Maika Monroe) is a trained fighter pilot and one of the first people on an African base to investigate is Dr Catherine Marceaux (Charlote Gaisbourg). However, President Elizabeth Lanford and Jasmine do not reach a desirable fate, Patricia's fate is decided by a man and Dr Catherine Marceaux doesn't really do anything of any great merit in the whole film. The only female character who has any success without being supported by a man is military pilot, Rain Lao (Angelababy).

The question still hangs in the air as to why Mae Whitman, who played Patricia Whitmore as a seven year old in Independence Day was not recast in the role. Truth be told that Whitman (who is still a popular working actress) and Monroe are very different types of actresses and many are jumping to the conclusion that it was based on her looks that she was not recast. The role of Patricia Whitemore would have indeed been extremely different had Whitman been called on to reprise her role, but it would have been far more interesting if that was the case. However, Ross Bagley who played Dylan Hiller in 1996 was also not called upon to reprise his role.

The best performance in the film is by Joey King, who doesn't have anywhere near enough screen time. King plays Sam, a young girl who has had the responsibility of her three younger siblings thrust upon her since the recent disappearance of their parents. Despite her limited time in the film, she is the only one who completely captures the raw emotion of her overwhelming situation. She is struggling with the assumed death of her parents and not only taking on the parental role in her family, but becoming an adult literally overnight. She is the only character who you actually feel anything for and empathise with. Despite his dorky patriotic speech, Bill Pullman is also fine enough.

Independence Day: Resurgence is a deeply flawed film that is one of those sequels that never needed to be made. Yet, it is just the right amount of corny and impressive thrills to make it an entertaining blockbuster.

5/10

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 135 minutes
Director: J.J. Abrams
Writers: George Lucas (characters), Lawrence Kasdan, J.J. Abrams and Michael Arndt (screenplay)
Cast: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Adam Driver, Domhnall Gleeson, Andy Serkis, Gwendoline Christie, Lupita Nyong'o, Anthony Daniel, Max von Sydow, Peter Mayhew

Could Star Wars: The Force Awakens have been anything but a success both critically and at the box office? With any other film the answer would have been that failure is always possible, but failure was never an option as far as The Force Awakens was concerned. With the incredibly high expectations placed on the new film and after a set of prequels which divided opinions, it was hard to imagine that the film makers wouldn't do absolutely everything in their power to make Episode VII the best film it could possibly be. While breaking box office records all around the world, The Force Awakens is an extremely solid and impressive addition to the Star Wars universe that fans will rejoice in as it gives further excitement to the upcoming films in the saga and remains respectable to it's predecessors.

Three decades after Darth Vader and his empire were destroyed in Return of The Jedi, there is a new threat to the galaxy by the name of the First Order who are trying to wipe the existence of the Jedis. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) has disappeared and his sister, Leia (Carrie Fisher) is desperate to find him. The missing piece of the map to where he can be found is hidden by the Resistance fighter, Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) in the droid, BB-8 just as the Resistance comes under attack by the First Order and the formidable Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). BB-8 comes across scavenger, Rey (Daisy Ridley) who together with the help of renegade stormtrooper, Finn (John Boyega) seek to escape those looking to harm them. The three find themselves caught up in a war with a family they have only heard rumours about, but find themselves involved in ways they could have never imagined.

In the best possible way, The Force Awakens is hugely glorified Star Wars fan fiction on the big screen and this is in no way an insult. J. J. Abrams has made no secret of his love for the franchise and has commented in the past on the way the first films shaped his film making. While there was early talk about how Abrams was too obvious a choice for director of Episode VII due to past projects, he was and still is the perfect choice due to his admitted inner passion for Star Wars which gives him invaluable knowledge about what is desired by the ever loyal fans and what is seen as respectful towards the past films. Yet, those who have not seen the previous six films are not ostracised by the story. However in saying this, it does help if one has seen at least one or two of the Star Wars films as there are references to the George Lucas told stories and of course to the characters themselves, especially Han Solo, Leia, Luke Skywalker and brief mentions of Darth Vader. There is also a feeling a deja vu of past Star Wars films (particularly A New Hope), which may be an annoyance for some.

The Force Awakens brings the intrigue back to the franchise with much discussion to be had afterwards that will continue till Episode VIII is released in 2017. Like Episodes IV and V, there are many questions left unanswered which is all tactical rather than careless. Unlike many other franchise films, Star Wars is not based on official existing literature where fans can read what will happen in the future films. So one can translate certain aspects of the film in numerous ways, but all will not be revealed until later films and therefore increases the intrigue of the film. The Force Awakens carries this intrigue throughout the whole film without any lulls or scenes which slow down the action or story. The value placed on every moment of the film and the anticipation of information this brings increases it;s suspense and unpredictability.

As is to be expected, The Force Awakens takes full advantage of what is available to films with spectacular budgets in 2015. The film launches straight into high intensity action and establishes itself early as a visually extravagant piece of work that admirers will be easily besotted by. The action sequences are extremely impressive with the combination of incredible CGI, powerful sound and expert cinematography. John Williams returns to provide the soundtrack once again for Episode VII and although his work is as strong as it consistently is, it doesn't have the same iconic feeling as his previous Star Wars work (yet).

The casting decisions made for The Force Awakens are seemingly safe choices as they cover all bases to make sure that they cannot be criticised for any reason. Yet here safety pays off with some stunning performances by all involved. They may not be Oscar winning performances, but each actor portrays their character to the very best of their ability and pulls everything from the role that they can. Daisy Ridley emerges from being a relative unknown to giving a wonderful and strong performance as Rey. The film itself had a tremendous opportunity with Rey, as movie lovers this year have been calling for more strong female characters in film and they have absolutely made the most of this opportunity. Rey is a young woman who does not rely on anybody else for anything (regardless of whether they are male or female) and has no hesitation fighting for what she wants. However, she is not a forced character in that she is not the typical action woman associated with strong females in film, particularly those in such a genre as Star Wars is in. Rey does possess the same strong will as Leia did in the previous films, but perhaps in a more physical sense than Carrie Fisher's Leia. However, while there is much love for the female power of Rey, it is a shame that Gwendoline Christie's Captain Phasma doesn't have the right amount of screen time to have the same sense of power in the film and is rather a wasted opportunity.

As for the male side of the Star Wars casting, there are solid performances all around. John Boyega makes his entrance into the Star Wars universe and feels particularly 2015 while doing so with a modern sense of humour and use of language. He works well with Ridley and Harrison Ford and easily liked among audiences. Adam Driver as Kylo Ren has a tremendous presence about him and Domhnall Gleeson also shines as General Hux, although one would love to see more of the formidable character during Episode VII. Harrison Ford is also as heroic as is remembered and his presence is adored.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a success in every way and not just in figures at the box office. It remains extremely respectful to it's older relatives and an absolute treat for those loyal fanatics, yet has the potential to attract new loyalists to the fandom.

8.5/10

Infini (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 110 minutes
Director: Shane Abbess
Writers: Shane Abbess and Brian Cachia
Cast: Daniel MacPherson, Grace Huang, Luke Hemsworth, Bren Foster, Luke Ford, Dwaine Stevenson, Louisa Mignone, Tess Haubrich

Infini is now available on demand in Australia and is distributed by Entertainment One. Now showing in cinemas in the United States.

Although Australian film has had much success on a national and international scale with such horror pieces of cinema as Wolf Creek and The Babadook, it is not known for yet conquering the sci-fi genre. Infini is a triumph for Australian cinema that will destroy this perception with it's shocking and intense combination of futuristic thriller and horror. Towards the end of the 23rd century, off-Earth travel has been achieved through the process of slipstreaming, which is a most controversial subject due to the danger involved and it's high fatality rate. Whit Carmichael (Daniel MacPherson) is stranded on a distant mining station after a freak accident involving the rest of his team and an elite rescue team sets out to rescue him. What awaits the team on this remote station is a lethal contagion where death is only the beginning of the horror.

Opening with complete chaos, Infini is intense and action-packed from it's very first moment. The combination of the sci-fi and horror film may not be a brand new one, but Shane Abbess' film puts a new spin on what the future beholds and what new nightmares may come our way. While paying homage to Alien in it's production and ever so slightly to 1998's Phantoms with it's horror element, Infini very much knows what it is and is a survival film rather than a narrative. Incredibly intense and not for the faint-hearted or queasy, the film is unpredictable and surprising. It can be rather shocking in it's screenplay and visually, but this is an enjoyable form of confrontation for anyone who enjoys either or both sci-fi and horror.

The method of rapid and non-continuous editing that the film employs can originally feel messy and often confusing, but as the film goes on one comes to understand why this decision was made as it adds to the final revelations. The production design of the world in the 23rd century and of the mining station are very well done. Sci-fi territory tends to come with the expectation of extravagant and impressive special effects. However, while Infini has minimal special effects compared to the big budget Hollywood genre films, it does not for one moment feel as though it is lacking. All CGI and special effects are used when they need to be and used well. The absence of more isn't felt throughout the film as one is so engrossed in the story that the suspense doesn't allow you time to think otherwise and when there is the time it is something to embrace.

Daniel MacPherson gives an exceptional performance as Whit Carmichael. He is the perfect leading man for the film with his strong presence and sense of confidence that he projects on screen. Yet, his character is still very much relatable and very human as he swings between the emotions one would when they are made fully aware that survival is not guaranteed. Grace Huang is also a stand out and Luke Hemsworth, Dwaine Stevenson and Harry Pavlidis can all be rather terrifying.

Infini is a fine achievement in Australian cinema, but it is a fine film in it's own right with it's intensity and clever production.

7.5/10

Ex-Machina (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 108 minutes
Director & Writer: Alex Garland
Cast: Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, Alicia Vikander

Ex-Machina opens in limited release in Australian cinemas on May 7 and is distributed by Universal Pictures.

Ex-Machina puts a new spin on the ever present cinematic contemplation of artificial intelligence. While it is an intriguing and original notion of the creation and complexities of an AI, it's execution is rather dry due to it's lack of emotional strength and power to promote further thought. After winning the chance to participate in a social experiment at the enigmatic Nathan's (Oscar Isaac) isolated retreat, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) find's himself face to face with Nathan's creation of an AI. To Caleb's astonishment, he finds that this AI comes in the form of a beautiful young woman by the name of Ava (Alicia Vikander) who he is drawn to instantly. He forms a bond with Ava and when she feels that she can trust her new friend, she warns him about Nathan's intentions and makes him realise that he may be a very dangerous man.

Alex Garland's Ex-Machina is a particularly well made film with an original idea moulded around a concept that has been seen in many a science fiction movie in the past. The film absolutely knows who it is and has a true identity of it's own both in narrative and in appearance. The story is intriguing and even though it is of a slow pace and lacks in intense suspense, it remains clever, witty and unpredictable. The aesthetics of the film match the story. The setting of Nathan's remote house which doubles as a research facility is brilliantly designed not only from a production point of view, but also because it almost plays a role in the film with how much character it has. It adds towards the uneasy and claustrophobic atmosphere of the film with it's disconnection from the rest of the human race and the realisation of the secrets it holds. The CGI that is in place of a true body for Ava is rather stunning and completely intriguing, along with the sound effects that accompany her each and every move.

However, it is what Ex-Machina doesn't do rather than what it does do that is frustrating. While the film has some interesting themes such as reality vs. simulation and looks at the negatives involved with the creation of artificial intelligence, it doesn't encourage further thought from it's viewers and one gets the feeling that it does intend to. The film doesn't promote further contemplation of it's themes which is something it is felt it should do considering it's complex and daring ideas. However, it is the lingering thought and the lack of desire to think further that is present and rather disappointing. Emotionally the film feels as sterile as the facility which it is set in. This seems partly intentional by Garland, but many people want to be stirred by the film they see in some sort of way and they feel cheated if they are not. There is a desire for Ex-Machina to make one feel some sort of emotion such as anger or suspense, or feel something for one of the characters, but alas this is a need that is unfulfilled.

Alicia Vikander is a superb choice to portray Ava. Her face radiates with the innocence that is called upon for someone who has only been on this Earth for a short while and it is an innocence that makes her seem perfectly trustworthy and likable. Vikander's performance is certainly a very subtle one, but very interesting and memorable. Of the three main characters, she is perhaps the most likable and it is understandable how Caleb is drawn so quickly to her. Domhnall Gleeson does well enough as Caleb, but he doesn't come across as all that likable and his true feelings for Ava are assumed rather than shown. Oscar Isaac is certainly interesting as Nathan. He is indeed charismatic, but also very enigmatic and mysterious as one is never quite sure what his intentions are and how he really feels. The question that does follow him throughout the film is whether Nathan is really the bad guy, and this is an enjoyable question to ask while it lasts.

Ex-Machina may be a fine looking film with an originality that is craved in it's genre these days, but it doesn't provide a lingering presence that is craved in cinema. It does not force you to feel or think, which is what you want it to do and what the film itself wants you to do.

6/10

Insurgent (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 119 minutes
Director: Robert Schwetke
Writers: Veronica Roth (novel), Brian Duffield, Akiva Goldsman and Mark Bomback (screenplay)
Cast: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Miles Teller, Ansel Elgort, Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Jai Courtney, Octavia Spencer, Zoe Kravitz, Ashley Judd

Insurgent is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Entertainment One.

Insurgent is a fine follow up to it's predecessor, Divergent (2014). After escaping from Erudite's ruthless leader, Jeanine (Kate Winslet),  Tris (Shailene Woodley), Four (Theo James), Caleb (Ansel Elgort) and Peter (Miles Teller) are hiding out with the members of the faction Amity as fugitives while they decide what their next move against Jeanine is. A twist of fate results in three of them encountering and lodging with the factionless, a group much bigger and better equipped than they ever thought possible who are led by Evelyn (Naomi Watts). Tris finds that Evelyn is just as keen to declare war on Jeanine, but first she has to battle her own demons and make peace with herself for how her and her Divergence have impacted the lives of those around her.

As the second film in the series based on Veronica Roth's novels, Insurgent is just as action packed and thrilling as the first film. The story continues without a lapse in momentum as it wastes no time in restarting the intensity experienced in the first film and reacquainting the audience with the characters. The film does not for one moment allow itself to settle and there are no moments of tedium as there is continuous suspense and unpredictability for those who haven't read the books.
Insurgent is exceptionally strong for what it is and that is a second film. As a first, final or stand alone film it wouldn't be of substantial quality, but it is a well done second film.

Again like the first film, Insurgent's production design is extremely impressive. The city turned wasteland is visually intriguing and extremely detailed. The musical score is a perfect fit for the overall suspenseful atmosphere of the film and adds to the intensity of the story. The CGI for the most part of the film is fine, but towards the end of the film starts to look purely computer generated and not realistic, which is never what viewers want to think even when they are well aware of what is computer generated. One has a hard time taking the final scenes in which Tris is at a height seriously as the unrealistic feel of some of the images is so distracting.

The characters themselves are really quite stereotypical of the young adult novel series turned film trend that is prevalent in cinema of this day and age. However, as a result of the cast being so good in their roles the normality of their characters is both forgiven and forgotten. We have the ballsy female protagonist, the male hero, the smart mouth and the bad guy, all typical characters but well portrayed by Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Miles Teller and Jai Courtney. Each brings a great deal to their character while not overplaying the less than original character traits. The Divergent series of films are extremely well cast for this reason. Woodley once again proves her ability as a leading lady and shows so much strength in every scene throughout the film.

However, Kate Winslet's Jeanine has the opposite effect. Her character is full of normality and it isn't her acting that overdoes the character, it is the accompanying cinematography (particularly towards the end) that makes her evil characteristics laughable. Naomi Watts' Evelyn is an enigma, but not a tremendously exciting one. She does not come into intrigue until the final moments of the film and even then she does not show any particularly interesting character traits.

What one is left with at the end of Insurgent (unless they have read the complete series of books) is a loss as to where the last two films are going. The moment that can be described as the cliff hanger doesn't give away enough to make one really excited about the next film. Therefore as strong as the rest of the film is, the finale arrives and with it delivers a sense of indifference for the next film. Insurgent is a strong follow up to Divergent and a fine film in it's own identity, but unfortunately doesn't provoke a sense of excitement for the next two films.

7/10

Interstellar (2014) film review

Year: 2014
Running Time: 169 minutes
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, John Lithgow, Casey Affleck, Mackenzie Foy, Ellen Burstyn, Topher Grace

Interstellar opens in Australian cinemas on 6 November and is distributed by Roadshow Films. Opening in the United States and United Kingdom on 7 November.

Christopher Nolan's highly anticipated Interstellar is an incredible thought-provoking, visual event that simultaneously examines the scientific complexity of time relativity in space travel and the emotional depth and strength held by those directly impacted. The film is a visual masterpiece with incredible sound editing and score that support a highly intelligent screenplay that is particularly Nolan-esque. The impressive cast led by Matthew McConaughey give Interstellar the emotional backbone which allows this film to project itself into a class above other sci-fi and futuristic films.

In the future, the human race has come full circle and once again places its importance on what the land can give us rather than on technological advances, but even the land is turning on the human race. It's a world that doesn't sit well with father of two, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), who wants to be out exploring the world and it's skies. His chance comes when he and his daughter, Murphy (Mackenzie Foy) stumble upon NASA's secret headquarters and learn that they have discovered a wormhole near Saturn that leads to another galaxy where there could be another planet suitable for human life. Leaving behind a distraught and angry Murphy, Cooper sets out on the Endurance to search this galaxy for a new home for the human race while fighting against time and the dangers that space and these new worlds present.

Although Interstellar is reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and last year's Gravity for the obvious reasons, it is unique for what it brings to the group which the two mentioned films belong to. It is certainly a complex scientific film which must be applauded for it's intelligence and the originality of the journey which it's characters embark on. The real enemy of the film is time as the time in space and in distant galaxies can differ greatly from time on Earth. It is an intriguing concept, but also a very frightening one when it is realised how much is missed on Earth after so little time has passed in space.

This is where the emotional core of the film comes from. The characters come to realise that love transcends time and they all fight against time for those they love. While Interstellar is thought-provoking on a scientific level, it is also so on this emotional level. The idea of leaving ones family without the knowledge of whether or not they will return and not knowing whether they will be able to contact them is both unsettling and disturbing as it connects with the audience on such a personal level. It also prompts the audience into wondering what they would do in Cooper's situation. If you had the chance to find a way to save your family but there was no guarantee of ever seeing or hearing from them again, would you do it? When the question is asked, the answer would most probably be yes, but in Interstellar we see how much agony it would be to feel the separation.

At nearly three hours long, Interstellar does well to maintain tension and remain intriguing for this amount of time, yet at times the length is felt. Nolan has really attempted to pack as much action, emotion and information into the film as he possibly can and while this is admirable, there is still the feeling that things are missing as a result of other things being included. At such a running time, it is obvious that Nolan could not include any more in than he already had so there are some holes in the story as a result and hard facts are missing as to how and why things are this way on Earth. There are tinges of disbelief throughout the film and the notion that things may be getting a little too far-fetched, but Interstellar is not a prediction of what is to become of the human race as much as it is a piece of entertainment about the future of the human race.

Interstellar is just brilliant in it's production. Christopher Nolan shot the film using 15/70mm IMAX cameras so it is intended to be watched on such a screen and this is definitely how one will get the most out of the film. Like the film itself, many of the frames are quite complex in an interesting and positive way as there is so much to take in. While there are some glorious landscape shots, it is the CGI employed for the scenes in space which are truly memorable and exquisite. It is a gentle reminder of how beautiful the galaxy is while dangerous. The score by Hans Zimmer is also perfection and adds to the suspense of the film brilliantly. However, some may find the film a little overpowering in it's volume and high speed and erratic camera movements in it's action sequences.

Matthew McConaughey is truly wonderful as Cooper and has an incredible presence on screen. The audience takes to his character in a way which they feel a real emotional connection to him and they care a great deal about what happens to Cooper during the film. While he is a tower of strength for the majority of the film, it is in the moments which the character is at his most vulnerable that are the strongest for McConaughey. It is truly devastating and haunting watching Cooper leave his children and then receiving messages from them while on aboard.

Anne Hathaway does very well as Amelia Brand and her character continually grows on the audience throughout the film. Jessica Chastain is also very good as the adult Murphy, yet Mackenzie Foy who plays the younger version of her character gives an extremely powerful performance for such a young age. Foy and McConaughey work incredibly well as the father and daughter team and one feels the tragedy on a personal level of these two being separated.

Interstellar is a cinematic event that encourages it's audience to use their heart and mind when watching. Although not perfect on every level, it is memorable for the things it does to perfection.

8/10

Snowpiercer (2013)

Year: 2013
Running Time: 126 minutes
Director: Joon-ho Bong
Writers: Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette (based on Le Transperceneige by), Joon-ho Bong and Kelly Masterton (screenplay)
Cast: Chris Evans, Jamie Bell, John Hurt, Octavia Spencer, Tilda Swinton, Ed Harris, Kang-ho Song, Ah-sung Ko, Alison Pill

There is nothing like a film which divides people's opinions by miles. Whether you take to Joon-ho Bong's first English language film, Snowpiercer or not doesn't make any difference to the fact that it is a film which inspires ongoing thought and conversation. It is an understatement to say that this film is not a film for everyone due to it's intense violence and exceptionally dark humour, but underneath that harsh exterior is a film with an original and suspenseful screenplay and incredible production design. Snowpiercer is absolutely memorable for whatever reason you allow it to be, but your negative memories may be hiding the gem it is underneath.

Set in the future when the whole world has been frozen over and much of human life destroyed with it, what is left of the human race is aboard a continuously running high-speed train named the Snowpiercer.  The train is divided into classes with the upper class at the front of the train living in luxury with all they will need and the lower classes living at the back of the train living in worse poverty than they would be living in on the outside. After two of their young children are taken, the people at the back of the train led by Curtis (Chris Evans) decide to rebel and make their way to the front of the train to confront the train's inventor and conductor, Wilford (Ed Harris). Curtis and his group embark on a journey towards the front of the train which proves to be absolutely horrific.

It cannot be stressed enough that Snowpiercer is not a film that everyone will enjoy. Snowpiercer is by no means your run of the mill action/drama film and is shocking on so many levels. The faint hearted will find the film most shocking for it's extreme violence, which is particularly brutal and graphic with the axe among the weapons of choice and amputation a chosen form of torture. The screenplay and story itself are also rather shocking for a number of reasons. With the film's Australian premiere at the Sydney Film Festival in June, festival director Nashen Moodley likened Snowpiercer to the television show, "Game of Thrones" for the reason that nobody is ever safe. It is established early on that no character is ensured safety against harm in the film. While this is a trait we have come to associate with productions such as "Game of Thrones", it is still a relatively shocking concept as traditionally lead characters in a film or television show are immune to an early death or death at all. It is very much a case of survival of the fittest and a study of the class system, which is present in society as much in the present as in the future in the film. The weak in the lower class do not have the strength to survive in the harsh conditions they are made to endure, while the weak can survive in the higher classes as they are given the resources to be able to do so.

Although post-apocalyptic films are not particularly rare in this day and age, Snowpiercer has a great deal of originality to it based on it's dark screenplay and black sense of humour. The film is incredibly suspenseful and unpredictable due to it's early reminder of the characters mortality. The oppression felt by the main characters from the back of the train resonates and the audience experiences this on an emotional level with the characters. It is not a happy film, rather an angry one laced with rebellious hope. The film does have a sense of humour which is extremely black and could be misinterpreted by some as it trying to be serious and failing miserably. When sifting through the moments in the film which are being laughed at, it seems more than likely that director Joon-ho Bong and co-writer, Kelly Masterton are purposely using over-exaggeration in order to give the film more character and that this is turn allows for a few evil giggles. However, at the end of the day, whether people find Tilda Swinton's Mason, Alison Pill's Teacher or Chris Evan's now infamous baby quote funny is completely up to the individual.

The production design of Snowpiercer is superb. The way the train was created with each carriage having a different personality is completely intriguing. With each different carriage having to be a completely different world inside the same shaped space, the designers do so well to be able to complete this. The visions of the frozen world outside the Snowpiercer are also very well done. The cinematography employed in also intriguing, in particular in the tunnel scene. Although this is also perhaps the most violent scene in the film, the way in which shadow and light are used to observe the happenings is very interesting.

Chris Evans' Crurtis leads the charge in Snowpiercer. Evans is once again able to use his action film experience and do so in style during the film, but he also gives a very raw, human performance. It perhaps isn't a performance which oozes emotion, but he shows it where it is needed. Jamie Bell, who plays Curtis' offsider, Edgar also does well as does Octavia Spencer as Tanya. The most memorable performance is Tilda Swinton as Mason. There is so much character and intrigue when it comes to Mason. We never really find out that much about her, but she is such a great and intriguing character to watch. The way in which Swinton commits everything she has in performance and body is brilliant. Alison Pill's Teacher is another memorable character. She has very little screen time and no background story, but again, brilliant to watch and a load of fun in a dark and quirky way.

Snowpiercer is a welcomed film due to it's wicked originality and unpredictability. The reasons many will dislike it will be the reasons many will love it. It is exceptionally dark in mood and humour and rebellious towards traditional rules of the action and drama genres.

7.5/10

Gravity (2013)

Year: 2013
Running Time: 91 minutes
Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Writers: Alfonso Cuaron and Jonas Cuaron
Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, Ed Harris

Gravity is now showing in cinemas in Australia and is distributed by Roadshow. Opening in the USA on the 4th of October and the UK on the 8th of November 2013.

From the very first visual, you know you have entered into something very special with Gravity.

Alfonso Cuaron's latest film is extremely ambitious, but his risk has indeed paid off. Gravity is visual perfection accompanied by 90 minutes of on the edge of your seat tension. It reminds us of how something so beautiful can be the source of complete terror hundreds of kilometres above Earth. Even though there are some aspects of the screenplay which are not all they can be, these moments are forgiven as the rest of the film is so spectacular.

Medical engineer Dr Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) are undertaking a fairly straight forward routine maintenance on the space station when they are caught in a storm of satellite shrapnel. Their ship is destroyed and they are the only two survivors. They both begin their fight for survival on limited air and limited time.

Gravity is completely unsettling and extremely tense. The film begins with text reminding us that there is no air and therefore nothing to carry sound in space. It is completely silent and no existence can be made. It is the stuff that nightmares are made of. The enemy is all around you and you are on your own. Nobody can save you and your chance of survival is slim to none. This is what makes Gravity so terrifying as this is the situation Sandra Bullock's Stone finds herself in.

Yet for how terrifying the idea the fight for survival in this film is, it is just exquisite. Straight after the beginning text in the film comes one of the most amazing visuals ever seen in an opening of a film. As it is completely silent in space, there is no sound that accompanies an incredible panning out shot of the side of the Earth from space. After this breathless beginning, there are other absolutely stunning shots of the galaxy of stars and also more of the Earth is all it's glory below them. The end is also completely aesthetically pleasing. Director Alfonso Cuaron has ensured that the audience also see's this beauty in the optimum way. He employs 360 degree shots so that you are able to see both the characters and also plenty of the scenery. He has also made the interesting, but genius decision to allow the audience to be able to see exactly what Stone is seeing in particular key scenes. One particularly genius piece of film is when Stone is first separated from her ship and Kowalski and is spinning while she is trying to confirm a location. This puts the audience right in Stone's spacesuit and gives them the same sense of confusion and helplessness she feels from being thrown into the black, starry abyss. It is just unbelievable how far CGI has come and how it can make us feel as though we really are witnessing footage of outer space.

To be able to experience Gravity in it's full glory, it should absolutely be seen in 3D. There are so many films that have chosen to be made to accommodate 3D just because the technology is available. Gravity actually uses 3D to it's advantage and uses it so that it adds to the intensity of the film. Seeing Gravity on the biggest screen possible and combining 3D makes you feel like you are really in space and are feeling like you are being swallowed whole by the universe, much like the characters of Stone and Kowalski in the film.

This is a survival film, so the screenplay itself relies much more on film making methods rather than the story and script to create the tension. The script does allow for some cliché dialogue about survival that one would normally find in such a film. Also typical of the survival film is the unrealistic element of how much the lead can go through and not be beaten by it. However, who are we to say whether that is realistic or not considering the normal everyday person will never go into space so how do we know what would be possible and what wouldn't.

Sandra Bullock is to be given the highest praise for the film , not just because she gives a wonderful acting performance, but also because of how mentally and physically complicated the film and her character are. Bullock spends the majority of the film as the sole human being on screen and at only one point in time in the film does she have her feet on the ground. She is in a constant state of non-gravity and spends most of the film in her spacesuit. She does do an incredible job and gives a wonderful performance. George Clooney is good, but his character doesn't really give as much as what Bullock's does. He is likable and very funny, but one feels it is just George Clooney being George Clooney in space.

Gravity is an absolute cinematic spectacular. It is the one film you should definitely see in 3D this year to really get the full experience. Alfonso Cuaron has confirmed himself as one of the great filmmakers of our time with this beautiful film.

8.5/10




You may have also seen Sandra Bullock in...
The Blind Side as Leigh Anne Tuohy

You may have also seen George Clooney in....
The Ides of March as Mike Morris

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Year: 2013
Director: J.J. Abrams
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, Karl Urban, Alice Eve
Now showing in Australian, New Zealand and UK cinemas
USA release 17th May 2013

After 2009's Star Trek, it became evident that you don't need to be a Trekkie in order to appreciate the film and the same can be said for Star Trek Into Darkness.

J.J. Abrams is perhaps the most in demand director in Hollywood at the present time when it comes to sci-fi and he shows in this film why that is. Star Trek Into Darkness can be watched and enjoyed by those who are not usually sci-fi or Star Trek fans. Keep in mind though, don't expect to understand who the characters are and what they are about if you haven't seen the first film or past members of the Star Trek family.

Captain of the USS Enterprise James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) loses his position on his ship after violating prime directive in order to save Spock (Zachary Quinto). A new and dangerous enemy by the name of John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) has emerged who has a grudge against Star Fleet. The Enterprise sets out to seek Harrison and have instructions to fire all 72 torpedoes which are on board on sight. Harrison has a few surprises up his sleeve when he, Kirk, Spock and Nyota Uhura ( Zoe Saldana come face to face with each other.

Star Trek Into Darkness is an absolute treat for Trekkies, sci-fi fans and those who enjoyed the 2009 film.  The enjoyment of this film isn't restricted to those three watching categories. It has some incredible action scenes and amazing special effects. This film has more action than what many genre action films have. The sound effects are also pretty incredible that accompany the special effects, as well as being on the brink of deafening. The CGI is also amazing and the recreation of the future of San Francisco incredible.

The screenplay isn't bad. The story is easy to follow and perhaps a tad simple, but that is fine because it is executed in spectacular fashion. There are some good laughs at the hands of Kirk, Spock, Bones (Karl Urban) and Scotty (Simon Pegg).

The only real problem, if you can call it that, is that unless you have seen any of the Star Trek films, you may not enjoy this film as much as you could. The storyline itself isn't much of a challenge to understand, but it is the characters that are not able to be enjoyed for who they are. However, this is the same in any type of film in a series. It is not a major problem, but it does help to have that reference at hand.

Benedict Cumberbatch is the absolute star of the film. He is just so interesting to watch on screen and steals every scene he is in. You cannot tear your eyes away from him. The scene in which he talks about losing his crew is so powerful. Cumberbatch is brilliantly evil.

Chris Pine does well in his role, perhaps better than he was in the 2009 film. Zachary Quinto is very, very good as Spock. His dry sense of humour is fantastic and the moments when he breaks his Vulcan mode he is fantastic. The chemistry between Pine and Quinto is great, as is that of the two and Karl Urban.

Star Trek Into Darkness lives up to it's expectations of being one of the biggest blockbusters of the season. It is worth all the excitement. If action is what you want, J.J. Abrams provides.

7.5/10




On a side note.....
This is completely off topic (well, not completely), but when I saw Star Trek Into Darkness and saw Zachary Quinto on screen for the first time, this is what I thought of.




"The Big Bang Theory" has a lot to answer for when it comes to Star Trek! And when thinking about Leonard Nemoy, this is the scene I thought of.


I'm not quite sure that Trekkies will be completely impressed that I have used this space to show Star Trek references in "The Big Bang Theory", but they are always good for a bit of a giggle!