World War Z - Review

Directed by: Marc Foster

Starring: Brad Pitt, Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, Ian Bryce

Written by: Matthew M. Carnahan, Drew Goddard, Damon Lindelof

Rating: 6.5/10

Ages ago, we heard that Brad Pitt was going to do a zombie film. 

Our collective jaws dropped and we were wondering where it was headed. Fast forward a year (or two!), and we hear that World War Z will hit theatres in December 2012. Then go forward another 6 months, and we've arrived to where we are now - with a big, lumbering hulk of a zombie film - despite the stunningly quick pace of the poor infected souls in this movie. 

I always hold a particular place in my heart for the poor zombies in such a flick - our titular heroes come up with ever more creative ways to kill them - ranging from your standard gun/grenade to a fire axe, a bat, a crowbar.... whatever comes to hand really.

But, despite it all, you'll be pleasantly surprised with watching this film. It's running time feels nowhere near as long as it actually is, the performance from Pitt is well above that of the standard fare that sometimes lands into these films - the visuals and the scale of the film will also envelop you. However, with that being said, the narrative feels sluggish at times and the third act is a distant cry from the first two. Some parts feel patchy - others feel rushed. All this was down to rumours of constant shooting, reshooting, editing and re-editing. The film never really finds its footing - it's nothing spectacular in the zombie genre, but it's a decent outing. I'll chalk this up onto my "Lemonade Summer Film" list. ('Lemonade' being a term that I use to describe films that are slightly refreshing, easy to watch and are useful to alleviate the summer heat/boredom). It's an easy enough to watch film - it doesn't scare for the squeamish, but it also doesn't add enough character development to fully get to your teeth into.

The film itself is centred around Gerry (Brad Pitt) from Max Brook's novels of the same name - and a virus that, with no properly traceable point of origin for the elusive 'Patient Zero', throws Pitt in at the deep end. Pitt is an ex-UN investigator who is strong armed into helping the current UN discover any information about the virus and how to potentially stop it.

The UN's protection of Jerry's family is reliant on his compliance in helping the investigation - so despite escalating grand set pieces and zombies that sprint at an ungodly pace, he continues to throw himself into the danger zone. As he tracks the outbreak across the globe, the knowledge surrounding the virus becomes more and more diluted - but the most attentive of viewers will already start to piece together Gerry's plan before he even arrives at it during the heavily rewritten third act. Pitt's character struggles with protecting those he loves and saving the entirety of what remains of humanity. Despite flying all the way around the world, Gerry still ends up in a building in Wales, of all places.

Also, we have no grounded idea of the film's total budget - with a reported total of $200 million - but some sources claiming higher/lower. But even at the 'speculative' $200 million - which is a fair chunk of change to pay for a zombie flick at the end of the day - is still going to leave investors reeling unless the impressive box office pace continues from the film. It's a real shame when, in the world of movies designed for grand escapism, real world issues and doubts cause the magic to be lost. 

The set pieces are grand - the apocalypse is suitable (but not extraordinary) - the effects are all 'there' and all 'right'. The score is about where it should be - which was another slight disappointment considering Marco Beltrami's pedigree (the "Scream" franchise, "The Woman In Black") and other previous works. 

The zombie apocalypse is somewhat reminiscent of a cross between "I Am Legend" and Soderbergh's "Contagion". Now fast spreading viruses are nothing new - especially ones that have a nasty habit of deforming the population into mindless, flesh eating maniacs. But the rate of spread, the speed of the infected, as well as their relentless in general bring back hallmarks of the above two films and more. Gone are the days of the 80s and 90s - and even more recently, the days of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise - where zombies are slow and hulking. No - the zombies now have many upgrades that are designed to keep those with short attention spans watching. In the old days, it used to be about killing zombies. Then it was about curing them. Now it's about both and more - "Contagion" being a perfect example. In an effort to make these films intellectually stimulating, as well as the seat-of-your-pants thrill ride that they want to project in every chase sequence that make up 80% of said zombie genre's running times, they're now focusing on more scientific grounds. We're no longer killing zombies with chainsaws for the heck of it - now we're doing with a purpose of finding Patient Zero, understanding the virus and it's origins, and developing an antidote/cure. Rather than have a set of people try to make it out of a situation or simply survive - we now deal with questions of extinction, where it always falls on one (or a very small group) of unlucky souls to deal with this mammoth task. 

Credit should go, on that last point about the plucky survivors to earlier pioneer Romero - whose formula for a zombie film feels like a nostalgic memory at this point.

Fans of the book might be disappointed. 

Fans of actually scary zombie films may be disappointed. 

Fans of...

You get the idea. However, the film isn't bad, at all. It's not that the film falls down and would need even more extensive reshooting or a complete restart (like say, "Scary Movie 5" did)  - it's just that it leaves you wanting more. You can go watch it, and it'll leave you feeling content that you saw an above average zombie film. Foster (and the rest of the production crew's) grand set pieces and hard hitting scenes work well - it's the 'small' scale stuff that just leaves you wanting that extra few morsels.

But all it will leave you feeling is wanderingly content - it won't ask you for anymore. The unfulfilled potential of such a star driven vehicle leaves you wanting more.

Considering the source material, that's the real shame. 

What the Mr Thought:

Missing the book's heart by a country mile - WWZ ended up looking epic, but feeling ever-so-slightly empty. It's not disappointing overall - just slightly saddening that the

What the Misses Thought:
If you have read our About Us post you will know that horror/thriller films are something I really don't enjoy. I hate being made to jump and just get a little freaked out! However while this is a film I would normally try to avoid, I really enjoyed it! The story captivated me and I was just fascinated.


But remember, you didn't hear any of that from us,

So you know, keep it secret.

The Mr. and the Misses!

Framing Film - Two Guys and A Film - Interview - Part 1

Hey dear readers - don't say we don't spoil you for jumping onto our bandwagon early. As you know from our interview with Dave Vescio, Framing Film is a series that attempts to focus on understanding film making and adding to the discussion. We try, as any interviewer within the movie industry, to look at the process that goes into each film. Why? Because each process is relatively unique, special and possibly entertaining.

However, unlike other outlets, we don't specifically focus on A-listers, big budget films or legendary directors (but those will all hopefully fall into this interview series at some point during it's tenure!). We focus on as much variety in our interviews as possible. As interesting at is to read how the studios make films with $200 million, it is also equally important to see how features with access to less resources still end up being so great.

For this interview series, which much like any global mega studio approaching any new project, it will come in two parts. It features the two talented, and upcoming filmmakers over at 2GuysandaFilm. The '2 Guys' in the film are Canyon Prince and James Thomas (and their informative/entertaining Twitter feeds can be found here and here respectively!). The two guys have recently attended the LA Film Festival and are hard at work shooting their directive feature film debuts, "Hard Sun" and "Get Away".

Now these guys aren't just in the industry for themselves - which is what really caught our interest. Not only do they share constant behind the scenes photos, but they also engage with many of their fans/would be collaborators quite frequently - are genuinely two great guys - and on top of that, they also share first time filmmaker tips that may provide insight for novices. Which is exactly why you should 'Like' their Facebook!

Without further ado -






----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FI: So, could you tell us a little bit about yourselves and how 'Two Films and a Guy' came into being? Backgrounds, any peculiar stories or life changing moments where you had an inkling/knew this is what you wanted to do?

J: Two Guys and a Film was really born out of a passion both Canyon and I share for filmmaking. Canyon and I had worked on a couple of music videos, a webseries, and a show open for a TV pilot and really became friends from that. And so I took Canyon out to sushi for his birthday, I think it was in December of 2011, and told him that I’d been kicking around the idea of doing a feature film and immediately he was like “I’ve been thinking the same.” So we came up with this idea to shoot two features, one he would direct and one I would direct, and we would shoot them back-to-back. By January 3^rd we had scripts written and were location scouting for the films. The rest is history!

FI:  Out of interest - how did you guys come up with the name "Two Guys and a Film"? Obviously quite straightforward, but is there a story behind it at all?

J:  We wanted something funny but simple. So we got together to think of a name, and we threw out tons of names all of which sucked. Then after sitting and starring at the wall, finally Canyon was like “What about Two Guys and a Film?” And I was like “That’s funny and simple. I like it.”

C: We were so over names by the end I just said sarcastically “Why don’t we just call it Two Guys and a Film”  And then it stuck.

FI: Before we start talking companies and directing, what inspirations did you have when you set out - and what goals are you hoping to achieve? Obviously you both have directorial debuts coming up - which we'll talk about in a bit - but how where do you hope to take Two Guys and a Film?

J: We had to have crazy tunnel vision with these projects and really keep our eye on the goal of getting these two films in the can. It really wasn’t until we finished Get Away until we thought more about the broader goals of the company. Since the films, we’ve expanded into television with the pilot “Faculty Lounge” that we’ve just acquired and are in the process of packaging.

C: Yeah.  It really was just about the two films in the beginning.  But once we finished production I really started feeling like there were bigger things on the horizon.  So lately, it’s been about finishing what we’ve already done and looking forward to all the other things we want to do within the company.  It’s an exciting time.

FI: Can you guys talk a bit about 'Broken Home' - one of the shorts listed on your company page?

J: Broken Home was really just a quick action scene that we shot for our IndieGoGo pitch. It was also a test shoot for Get Away.

FI: I've been keeping up with your pictures - you guys use a 5D on set? Georgia is a photographer, so she would know more about this - but other than the color grading test you've uploaded to your blog - what differences do you find between shooting on a more 'conventional' camera like the Red series and on cameras like the 5D?

J: Yeah, we used the 5D and the 60D with Zeiss CP.2s. Red cams are still great cameras however they are slower and require a lot more man power and time to shoot with than we knew we would have on these films. And since the graded footage looked so similar we went with the cost effective Canons.

FI: Equipment wise, what set up do you guys have? Do you loan out equipment like tracks, dollies, booms, etc? Or do you have a stock currently?

J: The cameras we owned but most everything else was given, lent, or rented.

C: Yeah, I used to have a lot of gear, but recently have gotten rid of most of it.  We just rent the equipment we need or lots of times the people we hire come with a bunch of their own equipment.

FI: For software - do you guys use all of your own stuff? Can you break down your post-production process for us a bit and your workflow?

J: We shot on SD cards so ingesting footage was simple. We cut the films in Avid, which was the biggest switch for us because we’d previously only cut in Final Cut. From there we would go to Davinci for color and finish in After Effects for the vfx work that needed done. We’ve had an amazing team working on the sound design lead by Sean Hines.

C: AVID and Davinci Resolve have been the two newest additions to the arsenal.  They’re both amazing and I won’t work on anything else.

FI: Frequent collaborators? People who you've worked with in the past who joined you on this new venture perhaps - if any?

C: I tend to collect a few people from project to project.  I’ve kind of been building an Apatow style family for the last several years.  James and I had worked on several projects together before we decided to start the company and shoot these films.  J Michael Briggs, one of our producers and actors in Hard Sun, I’ve know for a decade and a half.  We always work together.  Tami Carey, who plays the role of Lucy in Hard Sun, is another one I work with a lot.   She’s been in basically everything I’ve directed the last few years.  My DP Stephen Snavely is another one who I’ve worked on multiple projects on.  I just love surrounding myself with talented people whom I enjoy being around.  You spend a ton of hours with people making a movie so you better like them.

J: I work very much the same. I always say if your not doing this with people you like, then why do it. The lead in GA, Dave Finn, worked with me on a webseries I directed and I brought him in for GA. Between people I’ve cast in past projects and people Canyon has cast previously we pretty much hand picked roles in GA. I’ve done this same thing with crew also. As a director, especially younger director, it can be hard to get people to believe in what you are doing. So, when I work well with someone and they can get behind the project, I keep them around.

FI: How important is networking to independent film-makers?

J: Hugely! It’s probably the most important thing you can do especially if you’re a first time filmmaker. Other people who’ve been there and done that and share solutions are the reason Canyon and I were able to tackle some of the problems that came up on set so easily. If you are trying to make a film, you need to surround yourself with people who’ve made films, it will push you to make sure you finish yours.

C: Every filmmaker should be networking.  There are so many great organizations like Film Independent out there.  Go and become a part of those communities.  And go support independent film.  Attend festivals.  Talk with people.  You can’t make a movie by yourself, and you’re not going to meet people sitting in front of your AVID all day.  Trust me, I know.

FI: Any social media tips to share with upcoming filmmakers, considering how important it is becoming in today's age?

J: Build your audience day 1. Don’t wait until after you shoot your film to build it. As soon as you either have the script or at least have an idea of what the film will be about, get online and build your audience.

C: Social media is all about engagement.  I see so many people using it incorrectly and then complaining that it doesn’t work.   You have to treat it like real life.  Like real human interaction.  You can’t just talk “at” someone all day long and expect them to help spread the word about your film or product or whatever.  You have to cultivate these relationships.  It has to be a two-way interaction.

FI: You guys mention that you shot the show opening for a new pilot - can you tell us about that, the experience and all? What was the live taping like?

J: Yeah, we shot the opener for a pilot called “The Men’s Room” in which Canyon directed and I helped produce.  

C: The live taping was just like any other.  Live audience, soundstage, the works.  James and I actually attended the taping of it and watched from the audience.  We were hired to shoot the show opener video that played at the top.  If the show gets picked up, we’ll be in charge of all the “film” content of the show.  All the pre-recorded stuff.  Kind of like SNL’s Digital Shorts.

FI: You guys obviously run a Behind the Scenes Experience - but you regularly do updates on location scouting that we follow with avid interest. Can you talk a bit about that? How hard/easy is it to find that perfect location for independent film makers who don't have access to multimillion dollar budgets? 

J: It’s not easy, and it takes a lot of work. Not only are you going all around town searching for locations that might work but also you have to work with the owners and make deals that make sense for both sides. We were fortunate enough to have amazing people donate locations or give us great deals.

C: You need to have a great sales person, a great negotiator to get your locations for you.  Someone who doesn’t understand the word “no”.

FI: We've followed your casting news/updates/photos for 'Hard Sun' and 'Get Away' - we also know you guys are still looking for funding - so could you talk about both films? Plot (like the fragile X-syndrome angle?) - casting - difficulties/triumphs on set, etc? Anything significant that your first feature directorial debuts are teaching you?

C: This is probably a whole separate interview in itself.  We’ll save this one for the sequel.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tune in towards the end of this week to hear more about the set and leads on their new films, talk about the LA Film Fest, funding an independent film and forming your own company, their experiences directing, risk taking and of course - our standard fare of questions about favourite influences/films!


Just another set of links, incase you guys missed it the first time round - remember to go and support these guys if you enjoyed the interview/want to find out more!


Link to their IMDb page.
Link to their Facebook page.
Link to their Twitter page.


Remember guys - if you liked the interview, share it with friends. ReTweet - share it on Facebook - shout it from the mountain tops, but just share it! As always, we welcome comments and feedback - but remember, the more exposure we get, the better it gets. Not just for us - but for the filmmakers themselves. More exposure leads to more interviews and more opportunities to be entertained/informed by (potentially) hidden/rising talent. Also - the more exposure we get, the more we can help out rising stars like Canyon and James, who heartily deserve it!

(Plus, you know, more interviews means more original content for you guys to read.)

As usual, our Twitter can be found at @bydhifu!

But most importantly, just remember, you didn't hear any of this from us,

Ferenc and Georgia

Despicable Me 2 - First Look Review

Directed by: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Starring: Steve Carell, Kristen Wiig, Russell Brand, Benjamin Bratt, Steve Coogan, Ken Jeong, Miranda Cosgrove, Elsie Fisher, Dana Gaier,
Written by: Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio

Rating: 7.5/10 

The film that's literally been advertised everywhere.

Everywhere.

They've really pushed the boat out on this one, mostly down to the numbers at the box office of the previous outing. Despite brilliant animations - the crew wouldn't be half as funny without the facial expressions and mannerisms - the excellent voice cast get easily upstaged by the Minions, who become fan favourites rather quickly.

The film's most endearing moments come from the affable crew. The film doesn't quite reach the peaks of the original, nor does it capture the original spark that made us love it. But it creates it's own brand that's appealing and a delight. The world's not-so-great villain became a reformed man in the first film - which is a hefty narrative bridge with enough pitch to pull a story along.

The only disappointment in the film is the rather reserved narrative - the lack of development for Gru's character in this instalment will leave you wanting more. It's not a classic by any definition - but it's a pretty great animation film that'll have even the most stone-hearted chortling along.

Maybe they thought the Minion jokes would be enough to cover for it all? (Just wait till the end scene to see what we mean).


Gru (Steve Carrell) returns with his horde of Minions (voiced by the directors themselves) and Doctor Nefario (Russell Brand), as a reformed villain. Yes, apparently those exist. After the dastardly attempts of the previous film where Gru stole the Moon and then put it back promptly, he is now, in his own words, 'a legitimate businessman". Since adopting the three girls in the last film - Margo (Mirando Cosgrove), Agnes (Elsie Fisher) and Edith (Dana Gaier), Gru has started taking his father role rather seriously. However, as a new villain is on the loose, the Anti-Villain League, led by Silas Ramsbottom (Steve Coogan), use Lucy Wilde (Kristen Wiig) to bring Gru in to stop the new threat. Lucy's oddball stand-out attitude quickly makes her a great pairing with Gru. Gru, in the first instalment of this series, never really fit in the rest of the villains - on a similar plane, Wilde is also an offbeat, irregular member of her organisation. The new villain is voiced by a brilliant Benjamin Bratt, who replaced Al Pacino at the last minute. Bratt's 'El Macho', like Gru, is also a father - though he seems less adverse to the role.

Laughs abound aplenty in seeing Gru dressed as a fairy godmother for a birthday party, from the Minions and all their foolish antics, from the mismatch and mayhem that the hunt for the new villain causes, as well as the newly discovered difficulty of a single father realising that one of his three daughters now takes an interest in 'boys'.

The most critical aspect of this film is the effort and love that the actors put in for their animated characters. Quite often, you'll see disappointing animated films because the voice actors don't commit to the role - after all, it's relatively difficult to put many minute inflections into your voice when just recording in front of a microphone, right? Sometimes actors and actresses just phone in the jokes for voice recordings, and the film ends up a big mess.

This film suffers none of that, however, - Carrell's Gru is as excellent as ever, Brand's understated-but-still-strong Nefario is a good fit, while Wiig holds her own as one of the newcomer 'leads' (having played a lesser role in the previous one) in the franchise. Bratt and Coogan also slot in nicely to the family - Coogan's Silas provides the perfect posh British head, while Bratt's villain is comedy evil personified. Even Ken Jeong's 'Eagle-san', despite his limited on screen time, proves to be a wonderful addition to the show.

Credit must go where credit is due. So to those who worked on this film other than the cast already mentioned - it was an outstanding job. The animation was not only hilarious (some classic slapstick moments) but also moving (Gru's looks at the three girls are priceless). The animation was also a high standard in the characterisation department - little movements didn't seem jarred or out of place as they have in some previous films in this genre. All in all, an aesthetically pleasing affair. The sound editing, the bit that no-one cares about it if it goes right and only notice if it goes wrong, was superb. The film was scored again by the brilliant team of Pharrell Williams and Heitor Pereira who played a large part in making the first film memorable.

'Chris' Meledandri, head honcho at Illumination Entertainment - which is half the team that brought you this film - has some serious animation chops, so it's no wonder that this series is doing so well. Not only did he help redefine 20th Century Fox's role in the animation industry, but he was part of the teams that brought us 'Ice Age', 'The Simpsons Movie' and 'Hop'. Sure, 'Despicable Me 2' won't have the same animation status as the heartfelt and instantly recognisable Pixar films or the trend-breaking aesthetic power of other animation companies, but the movie represents an essence of fun and light heartedness that it encapsulates perfectly.

From the end credits (and your own common sense), you'll soon realise that the Minion spin-off isn't far off. The entire film pretty much works as a set up for the little guys - not that we mind, as without them, we'd just have your average 'father struggles with raising daughters' film as he navigates the adult world. As much as we appreciate and love the little guys - could we sit through a film with no heart that was just pure yellow Minion slapstick comedy? Maybe.

Renaud and Coffin's follow-up also suffers from other major flaw - marketing. The amount of TV spots and trailers have definitely hurt the feature for the adults. Despite some of the jokes having a fair bit of replay-ability, if you've watched any of the chat shows on either side of the Atlantic or have browsed Youtube clips for this movie, you'll likely have seen half of it before you even set foot in a cinema.

And that's kind of sad.



What the Misses Thought:

I have lost count of the amount of times the Mr and I have seen the trailer for this film! Both inside the cinema and out. However this did not stop us enjoying not only the jokes and scenes from the trailer but the entire film! It was really one in a Minion! And talking of Minions, they have to be my favourite part of Despicable Me, and I certainly cannot wait to see the next one! If you have children, please take them to see this, they will love if! If not... Still see it! 

All I have to say is... BANANA!?

What the Mr Thought:
Gone are the days when one animation company ruled above all - it's nice to see the growth of the market. It's also refreshing to see such talented actors who provide families with such brilliant entertainment.

The most suited analogy that I can conjure for this film is the theme of adolescence that it so imploringly dissects - it has a few bumpy bits, and areas where you're not sure if you'll make it to the end, but it turns out alright. It's a great family film and if you have kids - you could do much worse than letting them watch this (but beware of their own Minion related emulation antics later!).

Best part: The jokes work for both adults and kids. So you don't have to sit there bored while your little one laughs along merrily without understanding the appeal. And you know, Pharrell's music makes for some sweet easy listening. You'll be humming the tune on your way out again, just like 2010.





The Sister returns for her mini review-in-a-review:

What the Sis Thought:

From the people that brought you ‘It’s so fluffy I’m gonna die’ comes the second instalment of ‘Despicable Me’.

This is definitely not a recommendation for the more seriously inclined connoisseurs of the cinematic arts, especially with a heavy dose of the ever-lovable minions and their slapstick shenanigans. Of course, also expect the usual cuteness of Agnes voiced by the young but talented Elsie Kate Fisher.

The film essentially follows a plot of the usual villain threat with new Anti Villain League (AVL) member Lucy Wilde (voiced by Kristen Wiig) recruiting Gru (Steve Carrel) to stop it, inevitably creating hilarious results along the way.

So despite this film exposing many scenes through trailers, teasers and features, it still delivers a strong visual and comedic performance with excellent voice acting. And being a fan of animation, I had been expecting this film this film eagerly ever since I had first seen a teaser and I was not disappointed. I found it to be a truly enjoyable experience upon watching for its comedic aspects (I was consistently laughing throughout) interlaced with its emotional and narrative components. And let’s not forget the true stars of this film - the Minions (who have such a wonderfully silly magnetism about them). 

But remember, you didn't hear it from us,

The Mr, the Misses and the Sis.

Much Ado About Nothing - Review

Directed by: Joss Whedon

Starring: Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Clark Gregg, Fran Kanz, Nathan Fillion, Reed Diamond, Sean Maher, Jillian Morgese

Written by: Joss Whedon (with text adapted/based on Shakespeare's original work)

Rating: 8/10

This is, in fact, Much Ado about Something - more so than the 1993 version. We think The Bard would be proud. 

A brilliant showcase in exactly just what Whedon's repertoire can extend to. Shakespeare's hallowed texts have been put on by everyone from flailing amateurs to the prestige filled halls of theatre companies. There have been a fair few movie adaptations too - but, with some safety, I can, none exactly like this one. Whedon's transition of text-to-screen is a brilliant manoeuvre - the actors (none of whom probably had to undergo the massive tradition of Shakespeare that we have over here) act as if they are in any movie and the speech flows incredibly well. The inflections, the looks and the whole atmosphere help bring Shakespeare to a new generation - perhaps one not as well known with it.  Whedon filmed this over 12 days

In more than one sense, this DIY Shakespeare. It's filmed in Whedon's home, done without a massive budget, shot in black and white, created with friends of the director. But to the entire casts credit - it does Shakespeare justice, and it does so, in a modern light. While this type of modernising adaptation never works on stage, for a play that has inspired most modern day romcoms, this was a fitting tribute. Benedick and Beatrice are one of literature's greatest witty and conflicted couples. While some adaptations of the text have been over busy or overladen, Whedon's approach makes it airy, easy to approach and relatable. Which is no easy feat, especially in such a rapid project.

What is Shakespeare to those who may not have training with the Royal Shakespearean Company here? Well, it's a large number of things - but chiefly among them, is that it can be a daunting challenge. For those unfamiliar in the traditional interpretations, the numerous school readings in literature classes and the overexposure to such works - it can be quite daunting. At times, "Much Ado" feels like an amateur company whose talented actors are digging into all their reserves to put on a show with attitude - you know, that small scale show that they really want to do well. The one where they put their heart and soul into it - and put their own ingenious spin on it. And it works - beautifully. 

The story for those unfamiliar with this literary masterpiece (of which, Whedon uses the original text) starts out in the home of Leonato (Clark Gregg). When I say 'home of', I mean 'Whedon's home'. Benedick (Alexis Denisof) is returning home, with his friend, Claudio (Fran Kanz), who falls for Leonato's daughter - Hero (Jillian Morgese). Benedick has a history with Beatrice (Amy Acker), who everyone else present resolves to bring together as they have their regular fiery exchanges. Thrown into the mix are the ever 'competent' Watch, led by Nathan Fillion as the fool Dogberry, and a few villains ready to make their mark and ruin the day's proceedings. 

This film demonstrates something very special; those directors, especially those such as Whedon who have taken on mega blockbuster films, can and do return, in spectacular style to other films. Whedon is not only capable of helming staggeringly large films ('Avengers' had a budget of over $200 million), but of down-to-earth, translucent, modest and somewhat surprising, smaller ventures. Credit goes to the score, the cast and the cinematography here too.

Whedon apparently holds Shakespeare 'brunches', where they do readings of the Bard's most famous works. 'Much Ado' was borne out of one of these readings - and we're really glad. Alexis and Amy form an apt modern pairing of Benedick and Beatrice. 

Shooting in black and white not only adds the classic feel to this ever present text - it also eliminates the need for large amounts of tricky lighting that surely would have got in the way. The score, including some really mellow pieces, especially in such a short time frame, feel right at home - despite jazz not even existing in Shakespeare's time. Goodwill, tremendously good fun taken by the actors, and a whole heaping of determination make this, one of the world's best known comedies, a must-see. It's sparing minimalistic style - there's no big budget set or visual effects to distract here - mean that the brunt of the work rests with the cast and with Whedon's direction. It's becoming rarer now to see a film carried almost entirely by it's cast, and especially with such an ensemble cast that has every member putting in every inch a triumphant performance. 

What the Mr. Thought:

See this for Nathan Fillion's "Let it be known that I am an ass" scene alone. Really. Not even kidding. 

It's great if you don't have much knowledge or exposure to the original text. Even then, it's a wonderful new adaptation that doesn't labour under the typical reconstructions of such a text on film - big budgets, tedious sequences, lack of pace....

What the Misses Thought:

Hilarious! A film I really enjoyed, not only for the amusing relationship between Beatrice and Benedick but for Whedon's interpretation of Shakespeare! While some may struggle to keep up with the script, it is well worth the watch. (I just had to pay a little more attention than normal, but I enjoyed it!)

And returning this week is the 'Sis' for her second input:

What the 'Sis' Thought:

Having never read or seen ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ in any form, this was an opportune chance for a first impression.

And boy was I impressed.

With this sleek modern adaptation employing the use of sharp suits and white transitions, Wheadon delivers a tonal masterpiece while maintaining the script and language of the original. Having a strong cast of actors who demonstrate such wonderful acting certainly doesn’t hurt either.

I particularly enjoyed Amy Acker (Beatrice) and Alexis Denisof’s (Benedick) performances as they practiced the art of camouflage and espionage while eavesdropping on their respective schemers/friends. Following this line of levity, I also enjoyed the performance of the incompetent Watch (especially Nathan Filion as Dogberry), the interesting choice of mask as Benedick’s disguise at the masquerade (complete with accent), and a scene that made me smile despite being a more serious part of the film involved Fran Kranz (Claudio) standing in a pool donning a snorkel and holding a martini glass (I previously alluded to my enjoyment of the absurd in the “Man of Steel’ review).

In addition, as for those who struggle with Shakesperian text, the music coupled with the actors’ inflections and body language expertly help guide and explain the situation (though I do recommend reading over the text beforehand or simply have a helpful friend explain it if you’re not particularly confident)

So, for a film shot in only 12 days at Joss Whedon’s house, it shows what a modest film with a dedicated cast (and a flaming marshmallow) can do – nothing short of a brilliant example of Shakespeare done right.


But remember, you didn't hear any of that, from us,

The Mr, Misses and 'Sis'.

Man of Steel - Review

Directed: Zack Snyder
Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Russell Crowe, Michael Shannon, Ayelet Zurer, Antje Traue, Harry Lennix, Christopher Meloni
Written by: Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer

Rating: 7/10

The title could have easily have been "Or how Superman left me feeling alienated."

I remember watching a lot of the made for TV superhero movies - or even some of the 'older' veterans of the genre, say Adam West's Batman or Reeve's Superman. But ever since 'Batman Begins' and 'Iron Man', Hollywood has been obsessed with flaws and extreme mortality in their heroically mythic stories. But superhero movies used to be wonderfully good at one thing; making grown adults act like giddy children and transporting them back to their childhood with a sense of wonder and excitement. 'Man of Steel', unlike previous Superman movies left me under no illusion that I was watching a careful dissection of the story and life of it's protagonist - I didn't get to escape or to live out my dream. The old Superhero movies made kids want to strap red capes to their backs and fly around the back garden as they pretended - the current generation will lead them onto quiet contemplation, and perhaps like the kid sat in front of us in the cinema, utter boredom. Cavill's Superman, where the 'S' on his chest doesn't even stand for Superman anymore, but rather a symbol denoting 'hope' from the planet Krypton won't inspire a generation the way the over the top films of the last century did. This 'Superman' film, just like the last superman franchise that Nolan worked on, is almost exclusive aimed at everyone from the end of adolescence upwards - which is a great shame, in my opinion.

Yes, I get that superhero films are made with characters that are broken or human so that we can relate to them, to show that even gods can bleed. It's great that a film series like The Dark Knight can offer me everything from action, to humour, to romance to an exposition of the condition of the human soul that even Blake would have fawned over. But sometimes, maybe just sometimes, I'm not looking for that. I went to see 'The Place Beyond The Pines', to see a hard hitting, emotionally unsettling drama. I went to see 'The Big Wedding' to see a romcom where everything goes wrong - I didn't go see 'Man of Steel' to watch a film laden with metaphorical and literal references to saviours of the human race, an exploration of the mortality of god-like alien races. I went because I saw those Reeve movies, because I read the comics. I went because it was fun. It was a part of my childhood, as it was for many other millions. I went because I like the cheesy grin, the breaking-of-the-fourth wall of Reeve's characters. I love the romance with Lois, and I love the hilarious set-ups.

Hollywood is obsessed with the story of the tragic and the broken and the wounded. So it should be - it's what puts those nice box office numbers up, because it's 'new'. It's a 'reboot'. It's 'tougher' and easier to get critical acclaim too in this fashion than with older movies with the words "POW" coming up every time our hero punches a bad guy. It delivers more.

But I remember a time when movies like this were fun. Where you didn't need a critic to explain the biblical references, or an artist to describe obscure and abstract ideas. I remember being swept up as a kid watching Reeve save the world. This movie may offer more meat and grandiosity to the adult section (read: those who can pay for tickets), but is this how we want to introduce a new generation to what is arguably one of the greatest superheroes of all time? Will kids who don't know of Superman's story, be swept up in this origin story and enjoy the large-scale visual effects and the idea that Superman is not all that he seems to be? When I watched Superman, or read the comics or heard the stories, he was always played out as this 'whiter-than-white' knight who would sacrifice everything for a race not his own. But his epic struggles would be comic and fun, rather than metaphoric and grandiose. I didn't have to sit through 20 minutes of Superman engaging in a fight with an enemy that had more than one homage to the Matrix, watching as the consequences of his fight caused wanton and realistic destruction as he tried to fight to save the ones he loved. The amount of walls that people went through in this film was incredible; it seemed that Snyder was ridiculously intent on destroying every piece of 'set' he had in his world. I miss the small pleasures that made Superman the 'comic' book superhero that he was - not the parts of his troubled existence that involves choices of genocide.

After watching Man of Steel, I asked the Misses if we had just seen The Avengers mixed with The Matrix, if it was directed by Michael Bay. Explosions, visual effects and incredibly fast paced, expensive and destructive fights that played out on a galactic scale where as far as the eye could see. But Cavill's tense and tepid moments with the woman he's meant to end up loving were less flirtatious and potential, and more burgeoning to the story. As if the beginnings of the romance just had to be included, but they weren't needed. The focus was on Cavill, his father (played by Crowe) and the fate of his people. All hefty stuff for a first origin film - 'Batman Begins' only had us think about fear, the fate of a single town and the true limits of madness. His father, despite Crowe's magnanimously stoic approach to every character he seems to play recently, had very few words of actual wisdom. Cavill's Superman had more to learn from the broken relationship with his Earth father (played by an experienced Costner) than any potential words of wisdom from his father.

Lane (Amy Adams) used to be one of the 'original' archetypes of the damsel in distress on screen - largely due to her own unheeded actions. In this film however, instead of falling for Cavill's Kal-El (it ultimately feels wrong calling him 'Superman'), she ends up simply falling from different heights.

'Man of Steel', because it's the first in a vague tribute to the Dark Knight trilogy, explores the origin story of Kal-El. It goes way back - back to before even most people would probably be interested. Crowe, in a role vaguely symbolic of his role in 'Gladiator' as Maximus, is a soldier-scientist who disagrees with the mismanagement and expansion of the Kryptonians - and he's proved right as the planet's core becomes unstable. As the planet, and literally their entire world is imploding, General Zod (played by a Michael Shannon that is less symbolic and more another off-the-shelf version of his killer-with-a-heart character) stages a military coup. Jor-El (Crowe) sends his only son to Earth where, through flashbacks, we see how the young Kal-El grew up. As Krypton goes into nuclear melt down mode, the elders of the world see it fit to banish Zod to a black hole prison - but considering they are locked away and frozen, I heavily doubt the prison would change their personalities and outlook much when they thaw out. Once General Zod has left the confines of the prison, he goes hunting for Kal-El who has grown up accustoming himself to life on Earth and coming to love it's people.

The third act also leaves me feeling rather void. Other than the obvious Matrix references with the visuals, the sheer scale of the destruction caused by Kal-El's fight, as he tries to save the people of the Earth, are also cause to stop and think. Sure, the visuals are stunning, but it's like watching the Transformers on steroids. Pretty confident that a sizeable number of human lives would be lost in the wanton destruction. The overly mythic and biblical references don't help Kal-El's case much in this regard.

Zimmer, who has scored the music to more than one childhood, sends up his usual epically inflated operatic infused score. It's on point and poignant - but also battle ready whenever it needs to be. The visual effects are similarly stunning and well done - if in some cases, also slightly overdone. The design, costume (ironic term to use once you see the film) and the whole atmosphere is beautifully crafted and shifted with a rapid intensity. The acting is professional - but Cavill's brooding no-nonsense Kal-El does leave a lot to be deserved. Shannon, Crowe, Adams, Costner and co all reprise roles that they are all one too familiar with, but to their credit, it's role types that they all handle with finesse and skill. It's a treat at times to watch the scenes between Crowe and Shannon, who are at such different ends of an acting spectrum.

Goyer brings some of his trademark Batman symbolism and metaphysical commentary over from his work at the Dark Knight, and Nolan/Thomas bring their mega film management experience to the table.

Eagle eyed audience members may also note the trucks with the LexCorp label on them towards the end - which, by the end of the film, just end up being another set of references to the Superman we all know and love. As we move from epic spectacular to wondrous spectacular in visual effects and set pieces; we have to wonder - where's the heart? Where's the human interest? It's fun watching the gods battle, but at some point, we have to see what they see to 'understand' them. You'll find very few moments like that among the million/billion dollar worth shots (depending on box office, of course) and the tumbling skyscrapers.

But the real question remains - will Cavill's Sup...sorry, reinvented-only-a-few-shades-darker Kal-El, be the Superman we imagine the next time we talk about the red caped superhero?

And... how much scope does this film leave for any sequels with so much borne out in the narrative?


What the Mr Thought:
Despite the flaws; it's a moving and epic film. It's not the greatest superhero film you'll see, but it's not the worth. It's a fitting entry to the series, despite it not being as 'enjoyable' - it definitely looks and feels better than most previous entries. The battle sequences and the shots in air are worth it alone if you go in for that during a film - it is beautiful.

What the Misses Thought:

The film itself was stunning. The visual effects, the score and the lighting were amongst my favourite things. What I loved though were the subtle hints towards a sequel and cute jokes such as "No accidents in 0 days". However (and this is a big however) the film felt lacking and in parts dragged for me (and as the Mr said, the poor fidgeting kid in front of us!)



Today, as a first time exclusive, we happened to drag along one of my siblings; here's what she had to say about the film (hopefully, she'll become an intermittent regular for the summer on here!);

What the 'Sis' Thought:
‘Man of Steel’ drops you straight in the action (and Armageddon) of a darker and ‘edgier’ Superman than any have ever seen. It approaches the topic of genocide, a bold choice for an origin film, with Michael Shannon delivering a strong performance as a General Zod. Also delivering a strong performance as Kal-El’s adoptive father Jonathan was Kevin Costner who, along with Diane Lane as Superman’s adoptive mother Martha, beautifully showed the mortal and human side of Superman film (which usually requires Kryptonite to do so). In addition, my fellow reviewers and I noted that this remake includes no trademark ‘Superman swirl’ of his hair, however does keep the iconic ‘glasses disguise’ of Clark Kent  (which I have always particularly enjoyed due to its utter absurdity) and several Lex Corp references that movie-goers should definitely keep an eye out for. So to just simply and briefly sum this film up I will let the ‘shaky cam’ fixation, mass (hopefully empty) skyscraper destruction and encroaching moral gray area of cape stardom speak for itself. 

But remember, you didn't hear that, at all, from any of us,

The Mr, Misses and 'Sis'.

The Iceman - review

Directed by: Ariel Vromen
Starring: Michael Shannon, Winona Ryder, Chris Evans, Ray Liotta, David Schwimmer
Written by: Ariel Vromen, Morgan Land

Rating: 6/10

Richard Kuklinski, AKA "The Iceman", was a real life hitman for the Mob.

He killed over a 100 people and his brutality is replicated by a strong outing from Michael Shannon. Shannon's Kuklinski is at the peak a man of frightening intensity and sadism; at the worst, a flat out character lacking depth. His most famous and sadistic murders, especially under tuition from a second killer where he develops his moniker, are recreated in gritty detail. The twisted part of the tale? Kuklinski was a passionate family man. Hollywood has had a tendency to create splashy thrillers about glamorous assassins - it's a breath of fresh air to see such a portrayal.

The opening credits feature Kuklinski in prison, so the story has a sense of inevitability about it; this aids the creation of a suffocated atmosphere in his life.
The story sets out with Kuklinski working in a film laboratory, dubbing and finishing prints. He ends up working for a smaller crime family in the Mob, whose leader, Roy (Ray Liotta) is unnerving and violently rash to a tee. David Schwimmer joins as an incompetent mobster whose efforts only worsen the situation. As the tension ratchets up, the amount of bodies dropping increases. Kuklinski becomes a varied killer, killing with almost anything that comes to hand. He's dangerous and lethal, and when he's forced to take a break, he explodes at his family. Despite a set of principles and rules that he's developed, he ends up teaming up with "Mr Softy/Mr Freezy" (Chris Evans), modelled after real life killer/mentor Robert Prongay/Pronge, who helps him develop new ways to dispose of the bodies. It's amazing that his wife, Deborah (Winona Ryder) and his two daughters, are completely oblivious to the man who returns home to them every night. Kuklinski's own tale echoes that of another reptilian killer, BTK - Dennis Rader - whose activities also went similarly undetected for a long time.

Vromen directed this, it appears, almost with a tribute in mind. There are several classic and noticeable tones that line up with giants of the genre and if you've seen a fair few Mob related films, this won't feel at all new to you. The story's main drama would always come from the conflict between two wildly different sides to Kuklinski's personality and story, and while there is sufficient tension and action, it does leave you wishing you saw more. How, and in fact why, Kuklinski was able to keep two such succinctly different areas separated for as long as he did is never really explored.

Similarly, his past and the abuse he suffered at the hands of his father, as well as the killing/raping of his brother is only briefly mentioned, as if to give the viewer some brief context.

It's this that makes the protagonist hard to find interesting at times; the action offers brief respite in between attempts to glance over large chunks of Kuklinski's life. It's a lack of depth in the exploration that, even in a soundly created atmosphere, just falls at the big hurdles. Initially, you consider whether it's the first movie that will make you sympathise with a violent killer; by the end, you'll be wondering just how many minutes of the run time are left and whether or not you should eat when you get home.



What the Mr Thought: 
You'll never look at an icecream truck or a deep freezer in the same way again. The film leaves you unsettled and uneasy, but wanting more. The pace became, part way, two steps back and one step forward, and repeated ad naseum for awhile. The cinematography and the score were pleasing but nothing noteworthy; it's a run of the mill film for typical Hollywood gangster typecasts like Ray Liotta. It's certainly gritty, and Liotta and Shannon put in commendable performances, but a lack of character exploration, generic mobster movie traits and an uninteresting devolvement in the script keep it from being great.

What The Misses Though:

This film was intense. The sort of film that you have to pay a lot of attention to, but it was very much worth it! It was chilling (as the name suggests) and the only part I couldn't take seriously was our beloved David Schwimmer! You'll see what I mean if you watch the film. However this doesn't effect the film as a whole, which is well worth a watch.


But you didn't hear that from us,

The Mr and the Misses.

Behind The Candelabra - Review

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Michael Douglas, Matt Damon, Dan Aykroyd, Debbie Reynolds, Rob Lowe, Scott Bakula
Written by: Richard LaGravenese

Rating: 8/10

Douglas' Liberace is the textbook definition of a flamboyant excess.

Toxic optimism and an opulence that could only be matched by fictional characters like Gatsby. This was Liberace's life. The film paints a stark portrait of what on behind, figuratively, closed doors. 

Liberace's turmoil filled world is blown wide open for all to see in this rich and darkly comic film. In his world, Liberace is a man torn with a desperate loneliness and a wanton need to be remembered and be loved. He's a man filled with contradictions - the lonely megastar. The film then teaches a very important lesson from his life; excess is dangerous. Liberace is oft attributed with the quote "too much of a good thing is wonderful" but it is exactly this which lands him in hot water (figuratively and literally with a highly toned Matt Damon) several times. It charts the relationship with his lover/friend/boy-toy/chauffeur/son Scott Thorson, and a very tumultuous decade of their lives together. It is based almost entirely on the book written by Thorson, "Behind the Candelabra: My life with Liberace"(1988). This film was actually a television movie (a highly expensive one with a price tag of $23 million) on HBO's channel in America. It deserves a theatrical release, as proved here - Douglas, Damon and Soderbergh come together to create a spectacular show that spirals ever downward and slowly disintigrates everything in the lives of it's characters. The movie, similarly to 'Gatsby' has a wonderfully empty feel to it - despite the love affair, the heartbreak, the wonder and the high life - much of the emotions feel, somewhat like the plastic surgery that abounds - entirely manufactured. It packs a tainted punch - it really drives home the difficulty of reading and understanding, even trusting, people in the world of superstars.

The film begins with the electric meeting backstage of Thorson (Damon) and a over-the-top, bigger than life, Liberace/"Lee" (Douglas). There is a line by Bob Black (Scott Bakula), who introduces the two, which serves as an early warning when Scott questions why the audience would like something so camp to which Bob replies with "Oh, they don't know he's gay!". Liberace famously sued and pursued any who even hinted at this possibility - and it is partly this zealous push that isolates him in the film. Thorson and Liberace quickly fall in love after Thorson, who works with animals, offers to treat one of Liberace's poodles for an eye condition. In a sense, this type of world usually ends up being almost cyclical - today's entourage will become tomorrow's history, and so and so forth. Soderbergh approaches this topic with humour and an offbeat irony; the amount of eye-rolling, people looking sullen and repeating Liberace's words as he gushes them out behind them is tremendous. It becomes evident from very early on that even those 'closest' to this great entertainer treat him with disdain. Liberace repeatedly shouts in the movie, in a self reaffirming manner, "You only want to see what you can get out of me!"

The film becomes a touching and moving look at not only this toxic relationship between Thorson and Liberace, but at the world of the entertainer. It depicts the lack of trust, love and even respect that those closest to the stars sometimes have - and how those who may actually love the star as Thorson does, get lost somewhere in the excess. Scott becomes a drug addict thanks to Liberace's addiction to plastic surgery in which Liberace forces Scott to look more like him. His initial diet and pain pills become gateway drugs - something which "Lee" often laments. The plastic surgeon, Jack Startz (Rob Lowe) becomes a spectre in the life of the young Thorson - leading him on to get him addicted. Startz was a famous plastic surgeon in the 70s and the 80s, giving rise to the popularity of silicone implants, and he apparently faced a multitude of lawsuits before he committed suicide in 1985.

Quite quickly, the relationship between Scott and Liberace becomes one of a set of terrible shared activities - addiction to drink, self affirmations, and a poisonous dependence on displayed (read: not always real) affection from each other. As Bob, the ever looming voice of reason says to Thorson when he is initially considering surgery - if Liberace doesn't get what he wants, he'll kick Scott to the curb. There are many early warning signs, such as when Thorson tells his adoptive mother that he is going into his relationship with Liberace with his eyes "wide open". This story re-creates the now run of the mill parable - too much of a good thing distorts your expectations, values and takes on reality.

Douglas's Liberace is vivacious and in constant self denial - he struggles with staying afloat in his world, which seems inhabited by radioactive people who constantly threaten to derail him as well as his own physical and mental isolation. Liberace's palace, rather bittersweetly, becomes more of a prison lockdown for him and Thorson, as well as those who inhabit his world. In his palatial home, they're trapped - they become exactly what they fear of each other. In such an environment, one at best can only become paranoid and delusional - which is exactly what happens.

The film ends, in it's third act, with a blow to both Thorson - who is forced to move out of his apartment and is visibly heartbroken by the entire process, and to Liberace - who discovers his own mortality.

The film was the last picture scored by the late and great Marvin Hamlisch - a score that is just as tragic and unsettling as the film itself.

As with many of Soderbergh's other films, he appears as his own director of photography under his father's first two names "Peter Andrews" and he also edited the film while using his classic alias of his mother's maiden name. Soderbergh's versatility echo Douglas' in his many versions of a broken and constantly shifting Liberace. With on-and-off screen legends and stars coming together to make this movie, it's no wonder that the end result is such a treat. However, in saying all this, the pace of the film does get slightly tedious about two thirds of the way in - it feels slow and sluggish compared to the hectic life presented by Liberace before who almost never seems to stay still and silent. The ending, while befitting the movie, may also leave you feeling without a concrete resolution. The set design for Liberace's would be palace is stunning and gargantuan - and the costumes stay faithful to Liberace's true form.

Damon is an adaptive and vulnerable Thorson, while Douglas is almost magically in his ability to shift gears instantly as Liberace. It's hard to find an anchor in the film, which makes it even more unsettling. Soderbergh famously stated that this would be his last movie, at least for awhile - which gives it an even more nostalgic feeling. Other than the sharply on point acting, Soderbergh's direction and structure gives life to one of the most secret-but-not-so-secret lives of one the world's greatest stars, and their eventual downfall.

What lies 'Behind the Candelabra'? Not much that we didn't already suspect - but I suppose, that's somewhat the point. 

What the Mr thought:
I'll keep this short and sweet - if you don't mind watching a torrid and exaggerated gay love affair film, I highly recommend this movie. It's a beautiful biopic, that is steeped in dark humour, foreboding signs of doom and a complete and utter devastation of the inner lives of it's characters. While not all parts of Thorson's book, and subsequently this film, may be true - it leaves a startling impression. Much like Liberace's legacy.

What the Misses thought:
Probably one of the best films I have seen for a while. The acting on the part of both Matt Damon and Michael Douglas was just so genuine and felt natural, rather than them just recounting a script. While it may feel slightly slow or disjointed, it is genuinely such an intriguing film and a must watch!

But remember, you didn't hear that from us,

The Mr and the Misses.

After Earth Film Review

After Earth (2013)

Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: Will Smith, Jaden Smith
Written by: Gary Whitta, M. Night Shyamalan

Rating: 4/10

Apparently, 'After Earth', we go back to Earth. Of sorts. Just like in most post-Earth sci-fi cliché filled film (looking at you, 'Oblivion'), humanity can't escape even accidental returns to the planet after we've destroyed it.

I think the comment that sums this movie up the most is the one my partneire dans le crime of this blog stated on our way out of the film; "this has to be the most expensive home movie/vanity project any Hollywood star has pushed out".

I laughed heartily as I remembered films like 'Cadance' and 'Zoolander' - similar attempts at the same idea. In Hollywood, there's nothing new about the bland nepotism and those who have carved out a section of the industry for themselves to push their children into the limelight. Will Smith is a talented and wonderful actor in pretty much everything he's been in - not one of the greats, but with such a charm and a charisma that you just can't help but love his characterisations. His son has apparently inherited none of this skill. It's not that Jaden Smith is bad - it's that he's generic. While Will shines (and like pretty much every movie he's been in of late - has a small tearful/emotional moment where the audience can connect with him), he does spend most of the movie in and out of consciousness. Nepotism isn't new; Nicolas Cage is part of the Coppola line, for one example. It's a part and parcel of Hollywood, so the issue wasn't with bringing in Jaden - it was the outcome of this decision that had a huge impact on the film.

The cast for the film was very limited - other than the father and son team, there were only a handful of actors/actresses in the film. Generally, this isn't a sign of quality from just the number of people - but in this case, you will wish there had been someone other else so there would have been less screen time for Jaden. Will Smith had originally envisioned the movie the first in a trilogy; a fact that is more terrifying than most of director Shyamalan's recent work.

'After Earth' is about a legendary warrior/commander, Cypher Raige (Will Smith) and what happens after the Earth becomes uninhabitable (largely due to our apparently will full destruction of it). Humanity then evacuates and moves to Nova Prime, where a race known as "Ursa", under the command of a higher alien race, attack the newly arrived humans. Cypher's only surviving child after an Ursa attack is Kitai Raige (Jaden Smith). The film opens on a crest of exposition to help the audience immerse themselves in the world inhabited after the fall of Earth. The Ursa, despite advanced human weaponry, still apparently massacred our race close to extinction; after which, Cypher became the legendary commander of The Ranger Corps, the peacekeeping organisation which protects humanity. This transformation happened, we're told, because he could "ghost"; the Ursa are vicious alien creatures that are "technically blind", but they can 'see' through their sense of smell. They detect pheromones given off, and are most prominent able to pick up on those excreted when the body's fight or flight response kicks in along with fear - as the film explains, "they literally see fear". Rather obviously, this gives them a massive advantage over humanity - but not Cypher, and subsequent Rangers. This is because Cypher is a man "without fear". He becomes a "ghost" and the Ursa can't see him - making him, in a bittersweet irony, extremely effective at countering the Ursa. The film is set on a crash landing on Earth, 1,000 years after humanity abandoned it, when the ship carrying Cypher and Kitai suffers catastrophic failures.

I find it intriguing in one sense; it turns out that Shyamalan hasn't learnt anything, and I do mean anything, from 'The Happening' and 'The Last Airbender'. Or most of his other films. A once promising talent now keeps on helming films that seem not only aimless, but almost pointless.

The film's score is, as with most summer blockbusters dribbling onto the screen currently, rather unremarkable. Which is rather surprising, consider it was scored by the rather well known James Newton Howard - a man who has worked on over a 100 films, and scored films like 'The Dark Knight'(with Zimmer) and 'The Village'. He has scored every film of Shyamalan's since 'The Sixth Sense'. It's saddening that the score on this film didn't stand out in any particular way; like most of the film, it just fell into the generic line.

The visual effects are rather subpar at points, but the film does look beautiful overall. This is because it was filmed in 4k resolution for the live action parts. The CGI shots were edited and produced in 2k so the movie does at times look a bit like a mismatch if you look close enough. The set design is brilliant and similarly to 'Oblivion' - the film looks sleek and sufficiently futuristic. And so it should, at a $130 million budget.

The film's 100 minutes felt more like 200, or even 300. The story has incredibly lacklustre pace. While the elder Smith may be able to carry large chunks of films by himself (think 'The Pursuit of Happyness') and cause an emotional impact, the younger version feels like a futuristic carbon copy that lacks all the natural charm and talent that made his father famous. After the remake of 'The Karate Kid', there had to be another stream of movies featuring Jaden. It seems that Will thought it might boost his acting credentials if he was there on the next project to help promote/push him. However, acting requires not only natural talent, but a commitment and a craftsmanship and deep respect for the craft, which takes most actors a good time to develop and tune.

The age of film actors honing their performances before with great tuition, and supplementing it with ample experience in theatre where their performance sorely affected their incomes, seems to be floating towards the horizon. Jaden, not having undergone all this and having 'acted' from a young age, despite his father's prominence, feels uncompromising and uninspiring on the silver screen. His redeeming grace is his potential - perhaps, like Nicolas Cage, once he distances himself from his family, he can find his own feet and his own voice.

Unfortunately, acting ability isn't a genetic trait - this film fully embracing the metaphor "it's not what you know, it's whom you know.

What the Mr thought:
Don't bother with the film. It's not worth the admission price; by paying it, all we do is increase the chance that we get another film like this. If you want to see a film like this, take a look at most of the sci-fi films over the past two decades - it borrows heavily from them. Then go and sit yourself down for a marathon on the Syfy channel for a weekend or two; combine the two in your mind's eye, and you'll have this film. It looks stunning, but it will leave you feeling uninspired, empty or frustrated. Like Jaden's character, you'll end up replacing one feeling with another - instead of fear, you'll replace excitement with utter boredom, however.

What the Misses thought:
Urgh! Just Urgh....really not worth watching. I felt so awkward during the narration from Jaden at the start of the film, he didn't sound natural and this just set up how the rest of the film was going to go, terribly.

Two/three reviews coming up in the next week, see you guys soon! Thanks for reading and sharing - remember to follow us on Twitter if you like our reviews or have anything to add!

But remember, you didn't hear that from us,

Mr & Misses

Podcast 2 - Epic and The Big Wedding Review

Epic 

Directed by: Chris Wedge
Starring:  Amanda Seyfried, Colin Farrell, Josh Hutcherson, Beyonce Knowles
Written by: James V. Hart, William Joyce, Daniel Shere, Tom J. Astle, Matt Ember

Rating:  6/10

The Big Wedding

Directed by: Justin Zackman
Starring:  Robert De Niro, Katherine Heigl, Diane Keaton, Amanda Seyfried, Topher Grace, Susan Sarandon, Robin Williams, Ben Barnes
Written by: Justin Zackman

Rating: 6/10

Podcast 1 - The Hangover Part III and Fast & Furious 6 Review

The Hangover Part III

Directed by: Todd Phillips
Starring:  Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Juston Bartha, Ken Jeong
Written by: Todd Phillips and Craig Mazin

Rating: 5/10



Fast & Furious 6

Directed by: Justin Lin
Starring: Vin Deisel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Jordana Brewster, Michelle Rodriguez, Sung Kang 
Written by: Chris Morgan and Gary Scott Thompson

Rating: 7/10


Hey all, sorry for the massive delay in getting this uploaded - we've had no end of troubles and issues but we are back on track now! 

Hope you enjoy the launch of our new flagship feature, "But You Didn't Hear It From Us" - which will hopefully be a relatively consistent podcast series about blockbuster films - 


We just want to thank all our readers again and hope you guys now enjoy becoming listeners!


Ferenc and Georgia