San Andreas

San Andreas, where do I even start? With a screenplay written by Carlton Cuse and directed by Brad Peyton, Dwayne Johnson's latest film is even more stereotypical than his last. The role is practically made for the wrestler-turned-actor. From beginning to end, his bulging muscles and soft gooey centre are seen saving lives and kicking nature's ass. San Andreas was filmed and produced in just over a year, making it an incredibly quick process for an action film. Released worldwide on May 29th in both 2D and 3D, the film is just under two hours long and was distributed by Warner Bros Pictures with a budget of just over $100 million. The plot is simple and not over complicated, with Dwayne Johnson, playing Chief Ray Gaines, desperately trying to save his ex-wife, Emma, and daughter, Blake, from the impending doom of an earth shattering earthquake.

From the trailer, the impression I got about this film was that it was a shameless attempt for Johnson to be further branded as an action movie hero. Every clip is of him stretching his arm out to someone in need or carrying the injured. I guess you could say that from the outset, I knew this film was going to glorify Johnson (and his muscles). I'm a follower of his Instagram - which I recommend for a few giggles - and have been aware of all the promotional junkets and press surrounding the film because of this. I am also a fan of natural disaster films as I feel it is a reflection of a deep rooted societal fear and anxiety for many. And who wouldn't be intrigued to see a visual representation of the world's power and force without there being real world consequences? I saw the film on preview day at Cineworld on May 28th with one of my besties and prepared myself for a laugh. Even when explaining the film to her I used to words 'so bad it could be good'. Armed with some juice and good spirits we settled in for two hours of watching an extreme natural disaster. But it really wasn't that bad! Like really, it was kind of awesome!

There were moments of weirdness. Like the brief cameo from Kylie Minogue and the presence throughout of incredibly obvious fake teeth. But overall, San Andreas is a wonderful addition to the disaster movie catalogue. It included multiple earthquakes and a tsunami to top it off, so it certainly fits nicely into the disaster genre. The film had real heart to it. Not just from the main plot line of the Gaines family trying to find each other, but because even the subplot involving the Seismologist and reporter, was incredibly touching. There was a clear desire to stress how uncontrollable these events are, even after we've learnt how to predict them. I also enjoyed the two English brothers. Whilst the elder boy was included to provide a love interest for Blake, the younger acted as additional motivation to make it out of San Fransisco alive. I found myself rooting for the characters and on the edge of my seat as each earthquake hit.

With films like this, I can't help but feel disappointed. My parents would never be able to save me! Similarly after watching Taken, I was left wondering how quickly I would have died in the particular situation due to my parents lack of physical or lifesaving skills. My Mother and Father are great people and are wonderful high achievers in their professional and personal lives but there is no way in hell they would be able to save my from a sinking building in San Fransisco. I'm sure they would be thinking of me and worrying about me, but there is very little I can imagine they would be able to change about the situation.

Johnson, as much as I would like to make fun of him, has found his niche and he plays his role well. Although sometimes he fails to fully portray genuine emotions on screen, his acting in San Andreas was spot on. His onscreen chemistry with Carla Gugino, who played his ex-wife, was great and the two fit well together visually. I become a bigger fan of his every time I see one of his films. I think this will be a huge hit this year as it checks all of the basic boxes for action film and Summer Blockbuster! There was only one 'fucking' said too... so I suppose that's a thing that helps widen the target audience. Kids will love it, adults will love it. I loved it. 

Tomorrowland

Tomorrowland, directed by Ratatouille and The Incredibles director Brad Bird, is a film based on one of the 'themed lands' that can be found in the Disney theme parks. The world is futuristic and the film attempts to follow suit. Released in time for the USA's national holiday, Memorial Day, the film surprisingly flopped during it's opening weekend, making back less than half of the overall production costs. This was visually represented when I sat in one of the largest cinema screens accompanied by maybe 20 other people. Surrounded by empty chairs, I was confused why the film hadn't drawn a larger audience but assumed it was because I was seeing the film at 9pm on a Monday night. 

I was certainly keen to see this film considering George Clooney's participation. I am not a huge fan, although my Mother is, but I'm always interested in the sorts of film's that Hollywood heavyweight's attach themselves to. And after seeing countless trailers for the film and an extended clip before Mad Max: Fury Road, I felt like I needed to see Tomorrowland. However, this will be one of those rare, shorter reviews because I don't really have much to say.

I felt like the film missed a step. The audience get's small and rather insignificant glimpses at Tomorrowland during the film and never get to experience that futuristic and altruistic world. I think this is a huge mistake on behalf of the filmmakers. Personally, I would have liked to have seen some of the technology and fashion for longer than the short clips included in the film. The longest exposure to Tomorrowland that the viewer gets is just before Casey's pin runs out. It is the outdated advertisement for the world that sparks her desire to relentlessly pursue her dream to visit the place. And the only person who can get her there is Frank, George Clooney, and Athena, Raffey Cassidy. 

Raffey Cassidy was absolutely fantastic in her role. At 13, Cassidy plays ageless, animatronic recruiter, Athena. I didn't realise that her character would feature throughout and would become so important to the plot's arc. She was truly fantastic, and once I took into account her age, I was really blown away. She outshone both Clooney and Britt Robertson (Casey) in every scene she was in. Cassidy rocked some stunts, martial arts and **SPOILERS** even an emotional death scene. I can not wait to see what she features in next and hope that she continues to pick strong roles. 

So that's it. One bad thing and one good thing. Because at the end of the day, the film had little else to offer on either side. Hopefully the producers manage to claw back all $190 million that they spent making the film.

The Age of Adaline

I don't often eagerly anticipate this sort of film's release, but for weeks now I have been talking about The Age of Adaline with friends and begging for someone to see it with me. Admittedly my immediate attraction to this film was because of the time eras explored and the fashion in the film's trailer. The film was released here in the UK on May 8th and I rushed to the cinema on May 10th. I wasn't going to waste any time after my boyfriend agreed to see it with me!

For a film that features a strong leading female who suddenly stops ageing, it should be obvious that the film is not the most realistic feature this Summer. However, The Age of Adaline deals tactfully with the mystical and even tries to assign medical reasoning for her condition (which is predicted to be discovered in the next 20 years... it was actually a funny little moment). Such information is fed to viewers through my least favourite dramatic tool. The voiceover. The same voice heard in the trailer for the film is heard throughout to provide viewers with descriptive backstory and insight into character emotion.

As expected, the fashion throughout was wonderful. Subtle yet stunning. Lively shined in both casual and formal wear. My particular favourite outfits were her New Years Eve dress the night she meets Ellis and her casual hiking outfit from when she was dating William. But with several outfit changes through the film, there are many more outfits deserving of admiration. With the body that Lively has, very little would look unflattering on her but the careful and time-era-accurate styling helped her beauty beam through the cinema screen. And incase fashion is not your thing, Michiel Huisman (correct spelling - I fact checked) has a shirtless scene that is also a thing of beauty. Certainly the film was easy on the eye and simple to watch. 

This film is from the same team of producers who regularly work together on heart wrenching tales of lost love and forbidden romances. I was expecting some tears but instead only found myself teetering at the edge during two moments. **SPOILERS** The first scene where I found myself holding back tears and trying not to let myself go was when Adaline's dog is put down. We see how close she and Rhys, her King Charles partner in crime, are and it comes as a surprise that the dog dies. This scene is likely the beginning of Adaline's realisation that her constant running from her loved ones has left her lonely and reaching out for companionship. The second emotional scene was unsurprisingly at the climax of the film's story. Confronted by her former lover William, who is the father of her current love interest Ellis, Adaline runs for the last time. This leads to the films final turning point. Another accident. The result of which I will not spoil.

For what it was, this film was charming. I'm glad my expectations did not ruin my viewing experience and that I wasn't disappointed when I realised the film was just average. I would happily rewatch Lively live through the decades again sometime soon.

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

The third instalment of Shawn Levy's franchise begins with the discovery of Akhmenrah's tomb and the tablet - that brings life to the exhibitions within the museums in the first two films - by an archeologist and his son. We soon learn that Ben Stiller, as character Larry Daley, is still working with the museum on a night time event showcasing the oddly life like exhibitions. But with the tablet's corrosion resulting in obscure and unusual activity amongst the exhibitions, Larry tracks down the young boy from the beginning of the film - who turns out to be Cecil, the original night guard - and learns of a prophecy predicting doom. A group consisting of Larry, Roosevelt, Sacagawea, Attila, Dexter and others travel to London to meet with Akhmenrah's parents in the hopes of better understanding the prophecy. As with the second film, the tablet allows the characters in London's museum to come to life. Many strange moments ensue as the film follows the teams exploits in the UK and the discovery that the tablet and its owners must stay together. 

The film is certainly the concluding chapter to the franchise and leaves few windows open for later revival. With the replacement of Stiller by Rebel Wilson by the end of the film, I would be surprised, and disappointed, if Levy chose to continue producing more. Also, by this stage, the films have already explored the limited story lines that were available. There are only so many possibilities left for these characters, and it is better not to exhaust the original idea and lose fans along the way. And once we factor in the unfortunate passing of one of the films leading characters, Robin Williams, it would be disappointing to see the franchise continue without him.

As a British viewer, I find it problematic whenever the UK is stereotyped in American cinema. From the immediate arrival in England, Stiller encounters Rebel Wilsons character Tilly. The character is stereotypical and Wilson's accent is painful. Thankfully Dan Stevens, who plays Lancelot, is actually British. It frustrates me that with the abundance of brilliant British actors, vital roles are given to other nationalities. Wilson was no doubt hired off of the success of Pitch Perfect and her quick rise to fame following Bridesmaids. In an attempt to attract a larger audience and to include yet another famous name to the line up, Night at the Museum 3 fails to hit the mark for me.

This review is short because the film doesn't provide much food for thought. It is fine for a Sunday afternoon nursing a hangover but this film is a poor sequel to a sequel when the original was rather brilliant.

50 Shades of Grey

I begrudgingly accepted, late one night after a few glasses of wine, that 50 Shades of Grey would be a film that I'd eventually see. So accompanied by my understanding and equally as intoxicated boyfriend, we picked up some tickets and headed into the cinema. Thankfully, the film has been out for a while now and the room was close to empty. However, it still had the 50 Shades target audience - one man sitting sheepishly by himself, two middle aged women giggling and a couple of scattered couples, each trying not to give off the vibe that they were the one who suggested the film.

The film was as creepy and as uncomfortable as the media storm surrounding it had suggested. I tried hard to take the film at face value and to ignore the hoards of people opposing the abusive nature of the relationship - but I couldn't. It is undeniable that the films leads (Christian and Anastasia played by Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson) are uncomfortable with each other. Their chemistry is non-existent and their attraction to each other seems forced. I understand that they are acting - but aren't we not supposed to notice that? On top of this, the supporting actors and actresses were equally as awkward on screen. I was surprised at how small Rita Ora's role was and how little we got to see her considering she garnered a lot of attention for grabbing the role. 

Whilst watching the film, I felt constantly reminded of the story's roots. Twilight. For those who don't know by now, 50 Shades of Grey started out as dirty Twilight fan fiction. This translated well on screen. The films are undoubtedly linked through poor acting, direction and over all atmosphere. 50 Shades tried desperately to be dark and brooding but ended up feeling uncomfortable. There is simply no other word for how this movie makes you feel - uncomfortable. Perhaps if I hadn't read articles discussing the problematic nature of this film or if I hadn't loathed the book, I could have enjoyed myself. But as the film progressed, I found myself laughing and recoiling. In particular the scene just before the films end, where Christian whips Anastasia was difficult to watch. 

This brings me to another of the films bad decisions. The ending was a cliffhanger. A concept I understand and can appreciate when executed correctly. However, 50 Shades ending was a clear set up for the following films and has resulted in the first film being unable to stand on its own. Even with films such as Twilight, that from the very beginning had sequels lined up, each film (minus perhaps the two part Breaking Dawn disaster) can stand on it's own if need be. Each story is roughly summed up so audiences aren't left completely frustrated (I'm looking at you Pretty Little Liars!). This particular film is left open with several unanswered, important questions. 

The film gives off the impression that it was made in a rush and was not thoroughly thought through. This is yet another example of producers cashing in on a best seller without realising that the story is sub-par. I will not make the same mistake again and will not be seeing the second film. 

Foxcatcher

I wouldn't say that this film was a disappointment, mainly because I had no preexisting ideals about it, but I also wouldn't say it blew me away in the way that it has for others. In a year that feels somewhat dedicated to biopics, Foxcatcher gets lost in a sea of better scripts. Clever prosthetics and an interesting character cannot transform an average film into an award winner. And whilst there was the potential for this film to exceed expectations, the focus seemed to be concentrated primarily on depicting struggle without explanation.

The plot is centred around relationships first and foremost. And of the relationships within the film, the most interesting one is between John du Pont and his mother. It's clear that they have a strained relationship but as the film develops we see the impact this has had on John which gives some insight into his bizarre character. Striving for affection and approval, he begins to search for acceptance outside of his Mother's approved activities which leads him to the world of wrestling and to Dave and Mark Schultz. The Olympic gold medalist brothers are invited to train and coach as part of du Pont's Team Foxcatcher whilst living on his grounds. In the beginning Mark is excited and happy to be with du Pont and respects him and his desire for 'All American' success. But as time passes and this desire for success exceeds his desire to comfort and support Mark, Schultz begins to resent him. And once Dave finally agrees to join the Foxcatcher team, Mark begins struggling with much bigger problems than rejection. 

Based on real people, I had assumed there would have been a deeper exploration into the thought processes of each character. I felt that the film missed an opportunity to explore the lives of truly interesting and disturbed people. For example, John du Pont was notoriously paranoid and erratic yet the film only brushed upon the surface of his personality, basically suggesting that his actions nearer the end of the film were solely down to the treatment he had received from his mother during his childhood. Whereas, it was much more likely that John had bigger mental issues than Foxcatcher depicted. Equally as disappointing was the lack of attention on Mark's mental deterioration. The film could have explored the effects of olympic training on the mind or even explored his drug use on a more detailed level. 

Foxcatcher could have given itself a better chance had it been released later in the year instead of around award season with several other, well written biopics. The trailer had me thinking the film was more than a surface investigation of the life of two wrestlers and their eccentric, rich friend but sadly this was all that it was. It was interesting but not interesting enough.

Still Alice

Premièring at the 2014 Toronto Film Festival Still Alice, starring Julianne Moore, Alec Baldwin and Kristen Stewart amongst others, explores the heartbreaking effects of Alzheimers and the effects it can have on everyday life. Based on the book of the same name by Lisa Genova, the film attempts to show the somewhat frightening effects that the disease can have and how isolated it can make you feel. The story was compelling and sensitively handled with moments of realisation about a disease we still know so little about. Having said that, the film makes a few wrong turns and edges into slightly manipulative grounds during particular scenes. 

Obviously the question on everyone's lips was: is the acting Oscar worthy? Honestly, whilst Moore was spectacular in the role and provided an otherwise ordinary character with extraordinary depth, I'm unsure that an Oscar was well deserved. She's an actress who has simply got better with age and it's because of this that I believe her best work is yet to come. Whilst the internet may care more about Leonardo Dicaprio's lack of Oscar wins, it's surprising that many forget Julianne Moore when both have been on our screens prolifically since the 1990's. Personally, I would have liked to see her first Oscar come from a film than was slightly less manipulative of its audience.

Drama's are supposed to be heart wrenching and thought provoking, and is a genre above all others when it comes to evoking emotional responses from audiences. However, when dealing with a subject as sensitive as Alzheimers, film makers choices are even more important. Scenes over produced with the inclusion of soppy love songs or melodramatic music can sometimes cheapen the film's overall aesthetic. When combined with the already dramatic action on screen, adding music that sounds like it was written by a hoard of depressed teenagers can sort of ruin an otherwise poignant moment. I find this to be as cheap and annoying as a poorly used voice over to show emotional growth - which was also included in Still Alice. 

Other than the win for Best Actress, Still Alice is unlikely to garner many more accolades. Whilst it was an interesting film, it was nothing special in a year of fantastic film contenders. With several films focusing on real people, I'll be interested to see if this film will break through or not. I was however, wonderfully surprised by the supporting characters. Many have noted Kristen Stewart's surprising efforts. She was her usual brooding self but doesn't allow Moore to outshine her in their shared scenes. She was suited to her role and I didn't find myself wishing she wasn't in the film - so she must have done something right!

The films plot deals with a realistic approach to Alzheimers. It shows how the disease is ultimately a decay of memory. And how, from this, individuals find themselves confused and disorientated. I enjoyed the use of Alice's occupation. As a professor of language, and a valued one at that, the film offers a glimpse of how the disease can completely shatter someone's ability to form a cohesive thought. I've had a family member die from Dementia related illness, which is similar but separate to Alzheimers. Both deal with the slow decline of mental ability. Because of this, the film resonated with me more than I think it would have had I not experienced the disease in my family.

Ultimately, I think the film is an interesting piece of work to study in relation to mental illness and its depiction on screen. Other than that, the film is tense to watch and not typically 'enjoyable'.