Inside Out

Pixar Studios released their latest emotional journey at Cannes in mid May. A month and a half later, I saw Inside Out at the Edinburgh International Film Festival (a full month before the UK release date). Surrounding the notion that each person is led by a selection of primary emotions, Inside Out is the story of Riley and her emotions Joy, Anger, Fear, Disgust and Sadness. At 11 years old, Riley's family uproots and moves from Minnesota to San Fransisco and during this move her emotions begin to lose control. Sadness discovers she can alter memories and Joy panics that she's losing control of young Riley. As these two emotions clash, they are sucked out of their safe headquarters and find themselves lost in the cavernous long term memory section of Riley's brain.

The films message is clear throughout. It's not healthy to bottle up or conceal your feelings nor is it healthy to hide the stereotypically 'bad' emotions. Inside Out shows its audiences that sometimes allowing yourself to cry and be sad is better for your longterm happiness. In typical Pixar fashion, the film ends happily with all five emotions reunited in their headquarters and working together on each memory. An interesting, secondary, message that came across was the similarities and distinctions between people. The film delves into both of Riley's parents brains during their first family dinner in San Fransisco. Both brains have the same primary emotions as Riley but they are slightly different in their dynamics. For example, Riley's Mother had emotions with long hair and were led by Sadness (but not a destructive Sadness like the one in Riley's brain). Whereas, Riley's Father's emotions were led by Anger and had moustaches. This is one of the ways in which the film's visual design was outstanding. Each character was the same yet different. Clearly differentiated from each other yet they all were clearly connected. 

Speaking of the design... Wow. It seems like year after year, Pixar and Disney are producing better, more visually stunning work. I found myself particularly fascinated by the skin of each emotion. Almost like they were made of particles, their skin was not solid. Each particle looked soft and glistened like glitter. Especially against the stark darkness of the 'memory dump', Joy's skin was beautifully animated to stand out against the background. Another captivating aspect of the film's overall aesthetic was the use of colour. Obviously each emotion is assigned a colour that's commonly associated or the colour that is culturally appropriated to suggest a connection to a particular feeling. But outside of this, the mind landscape was filled with bright colours, colour blocking and shining balls symbolising individual memories. During the abstract thought scene, the use of colour and design was hilarious. Of course, made funnier by the running commentary from Sadness. 

I laughed out loud from beginning to end and teared up twice. Inside Out was beautiful and will likely be referred to in the future as 'classic' Pixar. Also, if you're not going to see this film at the cinema, have a look for Lava - Pixar's new short. A beautiful, musical short about a lonely volcano - it was such a wonderful way to start this film. It was probably my favourite pre-film short from Pixar since Day/Night.

Jurassic World

It is back. Fourteen years after the release of Jurassic Park III, everyone's favourite dinosaur franchise is back. To say this film was eagerly anticipated would be an understatement. Originally scheduled for a 2005 release, fans have been waiting ten years for this film. Each time the trailer appeared in the cinema, audiences hushed and everyone's full attention was directed towards the screen. After seeing the trailer for Jurassic World, about 50 times, I was hopeful that the film would live up to expectations and surpass the successes of its predecessors. A big question on the lips of thousands of die hard movie lovers is: will it be better that Jurassic Park (1993)? I've never had much interest in the second and third movies of the franchise... but the first. The first Jurassic Park was and always will be astounding. But from the promotional material released, interviews and the clear advanced technology - compared to 1993 - seen in the new film got me very, very excited. I saw the film on June 11th 2015, the day it was released here in the UK. I was not going to waste any time!

Produced, written and directed by an entirely new team of creative minds, Jurassic World stars Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard (not to be confused with Jessica Chastain!). The franchise's only returning actor, from previous instalments is B.D Wong - someone whom I only really recognise from his time on Law & Order: SVU but good for him! Director Colin Trevorrow, who also had a hand in the screenplay, guides his cast through the story of genetic mutation gone wrong. Again. Led by Pratt and Howard as Owen and Claire, the film explores the risks and failures behind genetic modification in dinosaurs. The new genetically engineered dino, Indominis Rex, is quickly discovered to have out-smarted its creators and escapes the enclosure to cause havoc in the theme park. I won't go into further plot details, in an attempt to keep this review as spoiler free as possible, but an aspect I thoroughly enjoyed was the subplot surrounding the use of the velociraptors as trained animal weapons by a private contract company!

I respected the films ability to acknowledge its past. Not only is Jurassic Park referenced but it is mentioned regularly throughout. There are visual reminders of the iconic moments from past films too, including the original squiggle animation and the waterfall from the first instalment of the series. Moments of comic relief were welcome breaks from tense dinosaur hunting and evading! Jake Johnson, who most people know from New Girl, was a fantastic addition to the team and acted as a representation of many Dino-film fans! During the film he sports a classic Jurassic Park t-shirt and decorates his work station with plastic dinosaur figurines. This was an example of respectful film making. The creative team are not ignoring the franchise's roots and the iconic images that made it so popular. This gives me hope that the new Star Wars films will be equally as accepting of the world that had already been accepted and loved by so many.

I found myself wanting less and more at times. Less of the scenes focusing on the young brothers and more of dinosaur hunting, training and killing. The brothers were a lovely addition to the film and provided depth and emotion to the otherwise cold character Claire, but there were more than several moments of unnecessary plot development for two characters who don't really matter. In particular, the scene on the monorail when Gray is telling his older brother Zach that their parents are likely getting divorced... was really boring. Especially considering the end of the film as the audience receives no indication of the families future whether that be together or apart. It was sweet to see the two bond and come together during hardship/potential death, but I would have rather had 20 minutes more of dinosaur footage. The only other aspects of the film that irked me were Howard's perfectly styled hair - no one's hair goes from bone straight to perfectly wavy without getting it wet or popping in some curlers - and everyone's ability to out run dinosaurs. Seriously, why were all of the main characters who didn't die able to out run dinosaurs that were sometimes over 10 times their size? **SPOILERS** In particular it really annoyed me that little Bryce Dallas Howard took it upon herself to lead a T-Rex into battle by running ahead of it (in heels) with a flare. He would have easily stepped over her, on her, or eaten her within three seconds of his paddock door being opened so forgive me if I found it a little unbelievable that one of the biggest and most dangerous dinosaurs just slowed his pace down so that Howard could act like the hero. 

As for the things that really made the film shine... The cast were well picked and performed well. The plot could allow for over dramatic acting but actually there were few cringe worthy moments. Howard and Pratt's on screen chemistry was sweet, though a little forced and underdeveloped at times. But a film like this should not be focusing on love interest story lines! The dinosaurs should be the real stars of the film and I believe they came close. The Velociraptors, who were surprising underdogs, were well depicted and creatively distinguished from each other - with Pratt's favourite having a blue stripe down his back. The main bitch herself, Indominis Rex, was also a wonderful display of CGI technology. Her ability to camouflage made for an interesting scene that would have looked a lot less impressive back in 1993. Even during the final dino-on-dino fight scene, the image on screen was sharp and clear. Something that doesn't always occur in CGI heavy 3D films! 

Overall I was incredibly pleased with the film and will see it again, probably in 2D so I can have a proper scan of all the smaller elements in the film. This is a fantastic reinvention and extension of an existing, wonderful franchise. Hopefully this begins a trend of respectful film making in regards to remakes and modern day sequels. 

Far From the Madding Crowd

Accompanied by my film partner-in-crime, Emma, I trotted along to the cinema for a mid-day showing of Far From the Madding Crowd. The British Drama stars Carey Mulligan and Michael Sheen alongside two of my favourites - Juno Temple and Tom Sturridge. This adaptation of Thomas Hardy's novel (there have been four in total) was released two months ago for the first time at the Istanbul Film Festival before general release on May 1st. At just under two hours long, the Victorian set film is far from being a profound piece of cinema... yes, I did just make that joke. But seriously, the film was fine. Just fine. And here is why:

The plot is basic and uninspiring with the focus of the films action left in the hands of Mulligan who often falls short in roles that many others would shine in. Perhaps directors and producers alike simply have too much faith in her abilities or are blinded by her 'classic' English beauty. This is also not the first book adaptation that Mulligan has starred in that has left me disappointed. Back in 2010 she joined Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley to publicly humiliate themselves in the adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel Never Let Me Go. But, Carey Mulligan was thankfully carried by a competent supporting cast, this time around, which resulted in a fairly easy to watch film. However, with Michael Sheen at Mulligan's side during many scenes, I had expected a little bit of his talent to rub off on her. 

Despite recieving astonishingly high reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, Far From the Madding Crowd really is not that special. Many of the novel's most famous and appreciated moments are skimmed through and overlooked by dream-like sequences. Understandably this was done to shorten the length of the film, but at the risk of diluting a plot to the point of it becoming boring? Is it really worth it? In fact, the film has strayed far from the original novel's focus on countryside society and the land from which many earn their keep. Thomas Vinterberg, the director, clearly tries to distance his adaptation from previous ones as the atmosphere in his film feels deliberately darker and less like a traditional romance that the poster [left] may suggest. Which is appropriate considering the plot is certainly not traditional. In terms of studying adaptation, however, this film is incredibly interesting because of the differing views and opinions that it offers. Proving that an adaptation does not need to stick rigidly to the structure created before it. 

As afore mentioned, I am quite a fan of Juno Temple. So I was incredibly pleased to discover that she would be playing Fanny Robin, a pivotal role within the novel's plot. Unfortunately she did not feature as heavily during the film as I would have liked. The way in which her relationship with Frank was only touched upon, left me wondering why they even bothered continuing with their story line at all. In order for viewers to understand Frank's actions and frustrations his relationship with Fanny needed to be explored properly. 

In summation, this film was more captivating than I had expected it to be with beautiful costuming, scenery and moments of real talent amongst the cast. I think that several moments could have been reexamined by the director and his team but overall the film was fine. This film has cemented one thing for me. If a man gives you a lamb, that is the man you should marry. 

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.