Comic Book Reboots: The Good, The Bad & The Unnecessary

Partial Education Presents:

Comic Book Reboots: The Good, The Bad & The Unnecessary

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of (in order):

Batman Begins

The Incredible Hulk

The Amazing Spider-Man

Dredd

and

Man Of Steel

A generally accepted mentality when it comes to comic book films: if it's crap, start again.

The only problem with this is that there are precisely zero shades of grey when it comes to fan opinion on adaptations. If a film isn't excellent, it becomes widely regarded as awful. Perhaps this is down to incredibly high expectations, but, whatever the reasons, there are very few comic book adaptations that have survived a lacklustre instalment without getting rebooted. Here are reviews of five of the more recent examples of a franchise reboot, including whether or not it was actually necessary.

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Starring Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson and Morgan Freeman

We now live in a world in which Christopher Nolan can do no wrong in the eyes of many. Back in 2005 though, there wasn't enough to back up that mentality. He hadn't made a bad film (and the respect for Memento only grows with time), he just hadn't made too many of them and Batman Begins was a huge leap in both budget and ambition. I'm working on the basis that the majority of people reading this will have seen Batman Begins and so I'm not going to pretend like people don't know it's at least bordering on, if not achieving, masterpiece status.

It's got an advantage in that the origin story has never really been told on film. Tim Burton may have covered it in his first film, but it was used to create far more tension to the plot of that film than the overarching story of why Bruce Wayne does what he does. Here, Wayne's parents fall victim to a burglary gone wrong. Instead of this then becoming the revenge story to spread across the whole film, it becomes the context for Bruce's actions over the whole trilogy. His training from Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson, outstanding) and Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, underused) serves to create his own ideals, both through his learnings of combat and self-defence and his rebellion against their own "death sentence" mentality. It needs a damn fine actor to do this and they got one in Christian Bale (again, a gamble at that point in time). I've always felt that Bale was at his best in this part of the trilogy. Though the origins of his deep-voiced "I am the Batman" snarl are present here, they're nowhere near as ridiculous as the levels they would get to. He's a much more playful Bruce Wayne here, rather than the mopey billionaire that he would later become.

The true master of this though is Christopher Nolan, as he achieves the incredibly difficult task of combining a moody atmosphere with a quick pace. Some scenes may finish a little quicker than you'd have liked (Bale and Tom Wilkinson's one conversation is really short), but this is far better than them sticking around too long. In addition, he and his favourite cinematographer Wally Pfister manage to create a beautifully dark film, whilst remembering that darkness is fine, so long as the audience can actually see. The one solace we can take from the tanking of Transcendence is that it may signal Pfister's return to working with Nolan. Batman Begins was, is and will remain not just the start of a genre-defining trilogy, but the vital rejuvenation of a comic book institution.

FIVE out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: Anyone who needs an answer to that question, needs reminding of this…

…this…

…and THESE!

Directed by Louis Leterrier

Starring Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth and William Hurt

How's this for a frightening prospect? The same guy who was responsible for The Transporter and the remake of Clash Of The Titans created a far better Incredible Hulk film than the guy who made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Life Of Pi. To be honest, The Incredible Hulk is never a character I gave any particular attention to. He's green, he's big, he smashes things. That's all well and good (and, I will confess, cruder than deserved), but the thought of turning that into a 90-minute plus film isn't particularly appetising.

Director Louis Leterrier plays things well, covering the entire origin story within the opening credits, as an acknowledgment that most of the people watching this film already know it. The film's not a complete reboot either. Where the original film ended with Bruce Banner in another country, so too does this, beginning with him hiding in Rio while General Ross (William Hurt) hunts him down. Upon discovering Banner's whereabouts, Ross sends out Commando Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to bring him back. Banner escapes, but still returns to the United States in the hope that he has found a way to cure himself. Cue the introduction of faeces to fans. 

As Banner, Edward Norton is great, just as great as Eric Bana was (let's not pretend the cast had anything to do with the first film's flaws), but the best thing about the film is Tim Roth. He's chewing scenery in the best possible way that you can. It doesn't feel like he's trying to say he's above the film, instead it feels like he's there to have a good time and, as a result, you have it with him. There's not much depth to Blonsky and pretty much zip when it comes to understandable shades of conscience to his villainy. He's just a villain, meaning that any encounters between Blonsky and Banner, or Hulk and Abomination, aren't dogged down by a moral dilemma. They just beat the tar out of each other. There's no subtlety to The Incredible Hulk and that's why it works. It's a brainless, fun romp that pretty much justifies it's running time and strips away all the pretension that dogged down the previous film. It's never going to be seen as a classic and Joss Whedon's ingenious handling of Hulk as a character means that this doesn't seem quite as good now. Taken on it's own merits though…

FOUR out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: I go back and forth on this. The biggest problem with the 2003 film was Ang Lee, as he forgot to make a Hulk film and tried to make an Ang Lee film. Take him away and sort the tone out and you still had an alright film with an excellent cast. Things needed sorting, but I think the cast could have stayed (if they wanted to). They pushed this as more of a loose sequel than a reboot. They're kidding themselves. It's a reboot.

Directed by Marc Webb

Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Sally Field

The biggest problem The Amazing Spider-Man has is director Marc Webb. With the solid (500) Days Of Summer behind him, perhaps the studio thought they could take a gamble on him, but his inexperience when it comes to action shows itself quite badly. In the aspects more akin to (500 Days…, Webb plays his strongest hand and plays it very well indeed. The relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey is leaps and bounds above the one between Parker and Mary Jane in the Sam Ramis films. It's believable and there isn't that need to fall back on domestic tension in order to provide the film with conflict. Writing a happy relationship is far harder than writing a tense one and the trio of writers have done that well here, with the performances and direction doing the rest.

Also on the positive side, Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is far more entertaining than the wet, goody-two-shoes style that Tobey Maguire went for. He's a sarcastic little sod, which may manifest itself in brattishness when out of the costume, but serves to create some genuinely fun one-liners and some great chances for Spider-Man and Denis Leary's Captain Stacey to play off each other. Sadly, the action is a little bit stale, seriously hampered by Rhys Ifan's bland turn as Curt Connors / The Lizard. Adopting the "tortured villain with initially noble intentions" approach, the biggest problem is that the trope has become slightly stale and they don't find a way of adding anything new to it. This renders the fight scenes slightly soulless and the emotional aspect has to pulled in from elsewhere (I'm avoiding spoilers), because there's simply nothing to help you invest in the fight between Spider-Man and Lizard.

All this serves to render The Amazing Spider-Man a good, but deeply flawed, superhero film that, despite some improvements on Ramis' style, falls way short of the original trilogy's highest moments.

THREE out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: No, no, no, no, no and a thousand times more. Going back to the whole "if it's not excellent, it's awful" mentality, Spider-Man 3 was a huge fall from grace and fumbled Venom terribly, but it was NOT an awful film and the series was very much salvageable. The only way they could reboot the franchise was to retread a hell of a lot of material that had been done only 10 years prior. The Amazing Spider-Man feels, at times, far too similar to the first Ramis film and the reboot treatment came far sooner than was needed.

Directed by Pete Travis

Starring Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby, Wood Harris and Lena Headey

The plot is simple enough: after answering a distress call, Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) and his trainee, Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), find themselves involved in the world's largest lock-in, as vicious gang leader Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) shuts them inside one of the worst MegaBlocks (think uber-skycraper) in the city, refusing to open the doors until one of the 200 or so residents has killed off the judges. Cue violence and lots of it. Now, if you're thinking this sounds a lot like The Raid, you're not alone in that. However, the incredibly close proximity that the films had vis-à-vis release dates makes this a coincidence, rather than being able to accuse Dredd of being a rip-off. If you move beyond this and just accept that this is an hour and a half of shooting anything that moves and a fair few things that don't, then you will find one of the most enjoyably brainless B-movies ever to disguise itself as a blockbuster.

It helps that the film rights the wrongs of the 1995 Sylvester Stallone movie, by being faithful to the source material. Dredd never removes his helmet, something that any fan of the comics knows should be a given, and Urban excels in the role despite the fact that the only parts of him we can see are his chin and mouth. Giving Tommy Lee Jones a run for his money, as far as deadpan delivery goes, Dredd could be an insufferable high-and-mighty bore. To be fair, he kind of is, but Urban knows this and plays it to a tee, letting the laughs come from Dredd being Dredd. Thirlby does well as Anderson too, representing the emotional side to the law that Dredd has long forgotten in his strict adherence to the rules. As Ma-Ma, Headey puts the menace on (and then some), but it's just great to find her making the most of her success in Game Of Thrones, a far cry from her bland, boredom inducing turn in that god-awful Terminator series.

This is not just a success because of the actors though, as director Pete Travis nails it, displaying the sort of visual flair that takes the brutal violence and somehow makes it artistic, without feeling forced. As for his use of slow-motion, he's putting Zack Snyder (I'm coming to him) to shame. The main drug peddled by Ma-Ma is Slow-Mo, which, as I'm sure you can guess, makes everything move slower. It's incredibly gimmicky, but it's used brilliantly and when combined with the perfect, almost haunting, score from Paul Leonard-Morgan, it can take the way a belly ripples when a bullet penetrates it and make it both horrific and mesmerising at the same time. Dredd was a failure if you're a business-man (it's box office stank), but if this is failure, I don't know that I want to see success.

FOUR out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: They'd never made a Judge Dredd film before this, they'd made a Sylvester Stallone film. This mends injustices of that previous film. Yes, the reboot was necessary.

Directed by Zack Snyder

Starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne and Russell Crowe

Where to begin with Zack Snyder? A man who discovered the slow-mo button and decided this was enough to apply the title 'visionary' to himself. From 300 onwards, his films have been one long line of crushing disappointments. That's not to say I hated all of them. Watchmen was alright, good even, but disappointing in that good was as far as you could take it. I could get started on Sucker Punch, but let's save that for another day.

Man Of Steel provides us with the reboot that should have probably occurred when they made Superman Returns, a film which I will happily accept disappointed many, even if I don't share the animosity. In the interests of fairness, here is what's good about Man Of Steel:

1. Snyder wisely keeps the origin story as short as possible, accepting the fact that everyone already knows it (even more than The Incredible Hulk) and, as a result, getting to the action as quick as possible, using flashback to intersperse the rest of the origin story quickly and efficiently.

2. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are both really good, in particular Lane, as Clark Kent's "Earth parents", serving clearly defined roles and playing them to a tee.

3. You do eventually get to the point where the film ends and the sense of relief is quite something.

All of those positives are entirely negated though, because Man Of Steel is a witless, soulless, dull and resoundingly pretentious film. With the above exceptions, the acting is awful. Henry Cavill lacks the remotest element of personality to him, perhaps harmed by the fact that the Clark Kent personality is never properly separated from Superman, stripping away what made the Christopher Reeve films so enjoyable. In the chief villain role of General Zod, Michael Shannon sets his face to intense and then overacts to the point of irritation. The truest blight of them all though is Russell Crowe as Jor-El, husband to a blown-up wife, father to an adopted son. Having still failed to recover from Robin Hood, Crowe has been getting worse and worse with the horrors of his singing voice being nothing compared to the abortive attempts at gravitas that he's going for in every one of his scenes here.

Of course, this is a comic book film, so the acting is only part of the necessities. There's the action as well and if you enjoy watching people getting thrown through walls, you'll love it. Be warned though, you REALLY need to love it because it happens again and again and again. From the halfway point, procedures get brain-thumpingly loud, with the small let-ups being far from enough to prepare us for the next infliction of chaos. People are concerned about Ben Affleck and Jesse Eisenberg in the upcoming Batman VS Superman film. May I suggest voicing your concerns as a result of what's been proven. Zack Snyder has no idea what he is doing.

ONE out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: If you're going off the basis of the general reaction to Superman Returns, then yes. Despite my own opinions that Superman Returns is decent (it's flawed, but come on, there's much worse out there), the film has become accepted as a misfire by some and a disaster by others. To be honest though, after Man Of Steel, I really don't care.

----

Thanks for reading. I'm off to torture myself, because...

Next Time (22nd May): The Horrific Nature of the Scary Movie Franchise.

The Day De Niro Got Ditched - The Films Of Scorsese & DiCaprio

Partial Education Presents:

The Day De Niro Got Ditched: The Films Of Scorsese & DiCaprio

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of (in order):
Gangs Of New York
The Aviator
The Departed
Shutter Island
and
The Wolf Of Wall Street

Before the review, a quick note. I have slowly grown to realise that I will never get to a "fully educated" review if I'm only doing one review a week. As a result, I've decided that single film reviews will be saved until that point and I will now be doing themed posts with a few, shorter reviews in each one. As a result, weeks will get missed if I haven't been able to watch enough films as a result of needing to earn actual useable money.

In 1995, Martin Scorsese made Casino, his 8th and final film to date with Robert De Niro. Though there haven't been any falling outs or sinister occurrences in the aftermath to prevent the two from working together again, it does seem like Scorsese has chosen his new golden boy in the form of Leonardo DiCaprio. Obviously, it's worked out fairly well for them, as they're only three films short of matching the number of films that De Niro and Scorsese did together. The thing is; when working with De Niro, Scorsese produced some his best work, with Casino standing right at the top of that pile for me. Does his work with DiCaprio come even close?

No.

But that doesn't mean it's bad.

There's two problems for DiCaprio when placed into Gangs Of New York. The first is that no amount of beard or long hair could prevent him from still looking like a taller version of that kid from What's Eating Gilbert Grape. The second is that he's up against Daniel Day-Lewis. Now, there could be an argument made that any actor who has ever gone up against Day-Lewis has paled when placed against him (to that I serve you Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood). This is one of Day-Lewis' most fun performances. Fun may be a poor choice of word, as William Cutting is a merciless fiend, inflicting some horrifically violent acts and abject misery upon anyone who wishes to cross him, but Day-Lewis goes so heavily for broke that the film is so much more enjoyable when he's in it.

In contrast, when he isn't around, it all feels a bit pedestrian. DiCaprio's OK, but he's ever so slightly dull and never fully establishes himself in the way where you could ever believe in him as the man who will stop Cutting. Furthermore, the forming of his gang feels horribly forced. Yes, people are scared of Cutting, but there's little to suggest that DiCaprio is out for anything more than revenge, with the "greater good" feeling a bit surplus to requirements. As for Cameron Diaz, her "will they, won't they, is the latter even an option?" romance with DiCaprio is nothing that you haven't seen many times before. 

What of the film itself? It's good, but it's nothing to write home about. The narrative of the main revenge story is predictable and, for the side-plots, it's handling of wider issues spreads itself incredibly thin by trying to deal with too much and not really having a whole lot to say that you won't already know. Apparently, racism's bad. Who'd have thought? Genuine glimpses of excellence are few. In fact, there's two of them. One's Day-Lewis and the other is the fantastically shot final fight amongst a thick fog of cannon fire dust. Gangs Of New York is fine, but it's a shaky start to this partnership and, at times, it can be hard to see exactly what Scorsese saw in DiCaprio. The constant delays the film endured, along with frequent references to "Scorsese's vision", paved two roads with one going to disaster and the other to masterpiece. Along the way, Scorsese laid another one right down the middle.

THREE out of five

Scorsese's love and impressive knowledge of the history of film would naturally lead him to Howard Hughes, one of the biggest rebels in the history of the film industry. I have to be honest though; The Aviator was never a film that particularly appealed to me, with my own tastes leaning more towards the Spruce Moose than the Spruce Goose. 

As a result, it's the only one of these films that I hadn't seen prior to starting this review. Nice to report, that it's one of the best. In, what I consider, the best role of his five here, DiCaprio is brilliant. It has to be said that despite the film spanning a timeframe of around 20 years, DiCaprio once again decides that the only way you need to show ageing is via a beard, but he is mostly capable of making you forget that. Hughes may come off as arrogant and at times even deluded, but the personality he presented to the outside world is played brilliantly at odds with the private Hughes, halted by a crippling level of OCD. A fantastic scene where Hughes speaks to business rival Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin) through a door displays the confidence of Hughes through voice, against the frailty of him through appearance and it's moments like these that make it one of the best, or possibly THE best performance of DiCaprio's career so far.

The real "ace in the hole" though is when it comes to cinematography. In that department, this marks Scorsese's third collaboration with Robert Richardson and it begs the question of why Scorsese doesn't work with Richardson on all his films. He's not always worked on the director's best films (one of them's coming up), but he has always excelled and has managed to earn two Oscars for a Scorsese film (this and Hugo). Matching pace with mood, Richardson keeps things fast and frenetic during the exhilarating filming of the dogfight from Hell's Angels and then slows things right down as Hughes reaches his lowest point.

It's not all flawless. Scorsese's films have often felt a bit like a Boy's Club and this is no different. Cate Blanchett gets the best roll of the dice, receiving both moderate screen time and something resembling a fleshed-out role as Katharine Hepburn. Elsewhere though, Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner is just there, appearing every so often, but never getting her moment to stand out, while Gwen Stefani (yes, that one) and Kelli Garner, as the other notable women in Hughes' life, get the same treatment, only even worse. This is the best film that Scorsese and DiCaprio have done together, but to pretend it's a flawless one would be untrue.

FOUR out of five

There's a well-subscribed school of thought when it comes to The Departed and that's that it is far from Scorsese's best work. As a result of this, his Oscar win is often seen as a sympathy win in return for all the times he missed out. This means three questions need answering.

1. Is The Departed a bad film? In my opinion, no.

2. Was Scorsese's win a sympathy win? Quite probably, yes.

3. Was there a more deserving winner on the night? Yes. United 93 should have won Best Director and Best Film, but wasn't even nominated in the latter category.

So, there we go, I mostly agree with the consensus when it comes to The Departed, but to class it as a bad film is, frankly, a bit ridiculous, reminiscent of the sort of hysteria that's always generated when personal favourites don't get the award wins.

With a huge cast, favour is falling firmly in the laps of DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson and Matt Damon when it comes to screen time. As a result, some parts are brutally underdeveloped, most notable being James Badge Dale and Anthony Anderson as the respective training buddies of Damon and DiCaprio. They're introduced and then swiftly forgotten about, only to reappear when it's absolutely necessary and then be forgotten about again. The handling of this is crass and, though they represent the greatest extent of this, there are other characters who suffer similar fates.

In general though, the acting is brilliant, with the only real notable blip being Ray Winstone's embarrassingly awful attempt at a Boston accent. DiCaprio manages to break through a barrier here though. Arriving with his baby face looks, his performance serves as the way that he finally sheds this, as he not only appears physically older as the film progresses, but matures in himself to reflect the further horrors that he both witnesses and is subjected to. Combined with Blood Diamond, this helped in the vital task of shedding the boyhood image from DiCaprio that was starting to dog him.

No, The Departed is not Scorsese's finest moment and there's even some really grating errors of judgment in it, most notably in some cinematography twitches that should have never made it past the editing suite. The way the camera zooms in on Matt Damon's face as he says "the departed" couldn't have felt more forced if they'd stuck a musical flourish in there with it. Despite all of this though, The Departed is decent. It's never boring, which hasn't always been the case when Scorsese breaches two hours, and there's a real sense of fun about the film. Had this film taken itself too seriously, it would have been disastrous.

FOUR out five

Speaking of taking things too seriously...

Novelist Dennis Lehane has been fairly lucky when it comes to adaptations of his work. Mystic River wasn't quite flawless, but it was still pretty good. Meanwhile, Gone Baby Gone served as Ben Affleck's directorial debut, a risk that has more than paid off. So, to say that Shutter Island is the worst of the Lehane adaptations is true, but isn't necessarily meant to mean it's a bad film. From an artistic standpoint it sees Scorsese at his most creative. If we go back to The Aviator, the less-naturalistic, almost fantastical, opening of that film serves as a precursor to his approach on Shutter Island. Dream sequences pepper the film throughout, providing clues about the eventual destination. If anything, they could have done with being a little more abstract, as they do give a bit too much away, but the journey there is good fun.

In fact, the whole first three quarters of the film serve it well, with great acting and beautifully menacing cinematography (it's Robert Richardson again). It's a little cliched though, ticking all the boxes you'd expect from a less-respected director and when it comes to the portrayal of mental patients, you're just waiting for one of them to start slapping themself in the head whilst sweetly singing The Itsy Bitsy Spider. It's heavily focussed on DiCaprio (the action never moves away from him) and he is by far the best thing about it, adopting a more melodramatic approach that actually serves to suit the general tone.

It's the ending though that really lets Shutter Island down, hinging on a twist that M. Night Shyamalan would probably consider subtle and ingenious, but in reality, is a little forced and incredibly hard to believe. The bits that you will probably predict work, but the ways in which it takes it further mean that it falls on the wrong side of ridiculous. It doesn't seem to realise this either, with the filmmakers evidently convinced of it's own genius. Of all the DiCaprio/Scorsese team-ups, this is on par with Gangs Of New York as their weakest effort. That's not to say it's bad, but instead it's a deeply flawed film with a poor ending that is only partially rectified by an amazing and perfectly executed final exchange.

THREE out of five

If taken as a portrait of a world, through the eyes of the parasites that inhabit it, The Wolf Of Wall Street works. At the end of the day, Jordan Belfort and chums were (and possibly still are) reprehensible manifestations of greed and arrogance, partially as a result of becoming products of an equally detestable environment. For the most part, the film seems to be aware of this and any sympathy you may feel towards the characters will serve as more of a comment on your own mentality than the film's portrayal of them. On occasion though, it does start to slip into slightly celebratory (and even admiring) territory as the backslapping they give themselves feels a little too revelled in by the film itself.

Despite this, performances are excellent, with DiCaprio (and I'm aware the record is stuck) standing out. This, combined with Django Unchained, is probably the most unhinged you've seen him, looking like he's about to burst a blood vessel at any point. Belfort is a snail of a man, leaving a putrid trail of debauchery and immorality in any area that he decides to inflict himself upon. DiCaprio is out to portray the character with all the bravado and over-the-top personality traits that Belfort would either have had or would have had to adopt to survive. The one thing that felt missing for me was more of Belfort by himself, as I fail to believe anyone with that much bravado doesn't have inferiority issues outside of public view.

The Wolf Of Wall Street is really good, but not quite excellent. It's handling of humour is efficient, mostly feeling as though it's coming at the expense of the characters (see the Lemmons scene for an excellent example). At 3 hours though, the film is too long and is as excessive as the lifestyle that Belfort lived, but in banishing The Great Gatsby from my mind as the most recent work from DiCaprio, it has earned my respect and gratitude. 

FOUR out of five

Next Time: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a plank of wood.

The New Partial Education... Eventually.

RETURNS NEXT WEEK!

New look

New style

Same loser

Need For Speed

A Partially Educated Review of Need For Speed

In which we have vrooms, followed by screeches, followed by snoring

It's a video-game adaptation, so you may commence eye-rolling at will and I won't blame you. Need For Speed is a cynical product, with the only ties to the game series lying in the fact that there's cars in it. It's almost as though they've decided fast car films might be catching on or something. Not sure what would have given them that idea. I say this to make my stance clear though, because I don't at one point want to seem as though I'm trying to justify Need For Speed as a good film. It isn't. At all. In the pantheon of video-game based movies though, it's nowhere near as bad as it could have been.

Things start off boringly enough, as it becomes readily apparent that this is going to be The Fast And The Furious-lite, if such a thing is possible. To be fair, that's a franchise I've always been able to tolerate so if it that one pushes all the wrong buttons for you, then steer well clear. Sorry, I've just realised the (very unintentional) pun. Also, the film takes FOOOOOREVER to get to the point and it's main plot. When it does get to that, things do get a little more entertaining, but only as much as a throw-away revenge plot allows.

I'd dissect the acting, but it's all a little pointless really. Aaron Paul is fairly acceptable, Imogen Poots is fairly annoying, Dominic Cooper is fairly sneery and Dakota Johnson is fairly bland, which at least provides me with another reason to not watch the Fifty Shades Of Grey film. The only true blemish is Kid Cudi, who, I confess, I didn't realise was Kid Cudi until I looked it up. Serving as the film's comic relief, the only time he generates any sort of relief is when he disappears from the screen. So cloyingly unfunny, it's partly his fault because his general presence is gratingly irritating and partly the script's fault because it hasn't got the remotest understanding of what constitutes wit.

The one thing though that it does need to get right is the racing scenes. They're alright, I guess. Though they're pretty much just an exercise in box ticking. You name it, it's in here. Driving on the wrong side of the road, winning the race by a nose, the moral dilemma when a car crashes. It's all here and it's all been done before. It's also loud. So, if that's your sort of thing, knock yourself out. Be ready, though. This is ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY MINUTES LONG! A breach of two hours has rarely felt more like a breach of human decency.

As I've already said, Need For Speed isn't good. In a year's time, it will be consigned to it's fate as yet another poor video game adaptation and then swiftly forgotten about, as it's nowhere near bad enough to live in the territory of Super Mario Bros. infamy. On that basis, I guess it can rest easy that it's not a complete disaster. The question is whether the filmmaker's would rather it would be remembered.

TWO out of five

Dallas Buyers Club

A Partially Educated Review of Dallas Buyers Club

In which the McConaissance is proven to be more than just a flash in the pan

If, three years ago, you had presented me with a film that stars Matthew McConaughey, Jared Leto and Jennifer Garner, you'd have probably witnessed my sanity consciously uncouple from the rest of me. To be honest, I still balk at anything which involves the walking God complex that is Mr Leto. It's an issue that can be traced all the way back to a traumatic event in my life that occurred at Manchester Central on the 4th of December, 2010: the day I saw 30 Seconds To Mars live.

All jokes and mental scars aside, I can, in all honesty, say that I went into Dallas Buyers Club with an open mind. Of course, the hype helped, but so too did the facts that I both wanted to see the film and that McConaughey already won me over a few years ago with The Lincoln Lawyer. Also, bar Garner's two turns as Electric Nachos, I can't think of anything she's done of particular disgrace. Leto was the hardest one to clear my mind on, but that was just something I needed to get over. It didn't take long though, because he is every bit as good as the multitude of awards that he was won would suggest. In fact, all three of them are and there's a reason why the performances have been the primary focus of any and all reviews. It's because they are, by far, the film's strongest asset.

As far as McConaughey is concerned, I struggled to see how anyone could have warranted Best Actor awards over Chiwetel Ejiofor in 12 Years A Slave, but reserved judgment until seeing Dallas Buyers Club. While I don't necessarily think McConaughey's performance is better than Ejiofor's, I have no desire to start comparing them in an attempt to prove whose was better. It just seems a bit pointless when they're both as good as this. Throughout the course of the film, Ron Woodroof goes through a much bigger character change than any of the others. He's the main character, so that's to be expected, but McConaughey is able to seamlessly transition from bravado one moment to breaking point the next, nailing every stage and fluctuation between them.

For Leto, there's a subtlety that he creates within his performance that only runs at odds with the appearance of his character because it needs to. Without it, the performance would have become more about Leto portraying a transsexual, but instead he has (rightfully) focussed on portraying a human being. Rayon is the film's voice of reason, instilling the bits of humanity in McConaughey that the contraction of HIV hasn't managed to. In addition, any pathos that the film provides comes mostly as a result of Leto's character, but this is not done in an overly manipulative way. Instead, it's achieved through the very human way in which the film is laid out. There's no sweeping score here to tell you how to feel because it isn't required.

Finally though, we have Jennifer Garner, someone who I've made particular note of mentioning because the quality of her two co-stars' performances has left her to be a bit of a side note when it comes to praise. This is the best role I have ever seen her in. You may snort and point out that the competition for her performances isn't exactly strong, but I don't mean this praise in a "most improved" kind of way. I mean it in a "bloody good job" kind of way. Her character isn't as fleshed out as the other two, but this doesn't stop her and, for the first time in (I think) ever, she completely held my attention beyond simple competency.

The only problem with the performances is that they are better than the film they are in. I don't mean that as if to say that Dallas Buyers Club is a bad film. It isn't. It is a very good film; at times, excellent. It has two problems though. The first is that it's never surprising. I'm not suggesting they should have taken liberties with the story, but there is nothing within this that will leap out at you or surprise you. The second issue is that it seems to think it's message is a lot more revolutionary than it actually is. The transgressions committed and ignorance shown towards people with HIV and AIDS was awful and not something that I am going to pretend to even have half of the knowledge about that others will. That said, it doesn't take an extensive knowledge to know that treatment of the disease has improved greatly and we are now leaps and bounds beyond the level that we were at 30 years ago. In condemning past errors, any comment on where we are at with the disease today seems missing and, as a result, the film feels more like an historical document than anything else. Certainly, the film's portrayal of homosexuality and the intolerance around it ring truer to today, but it's comments on HIV feel firmly rooted in the 80's and 90's.

Despite this, Dallas Buyer Club is still a great film, just one that is designed for performances. In pushing these to the front and keeping them as the focus, it's putting his strongest hand out there for everyone to see. McConaughey's past has been forgiven a long time ago. I'm also interested to see if Jennifer Garner can capitalise on her successes here. Finally though, while I may not be quite able to forget the 4th of December, 2010, I might be warming to Jared Leto.

Emphasis on the MIGHT!

FOUR out of five

This Is The End

A Partially Educated Review of This Is The End

In which the prospect of Seth Rogen and friends dying is apparently enough to make them funny again

To say that things have been going a bit stale for Seth Rogen and his friends as of late isn't too far off the mark. Though it didn't take long for the cracks to start showing, it seems like The Green Hornet signalled the true downward slide for Rogen and, while there's been the odd highlight (50/50), it's all started to get a little bit annoying. So, on that basis, a film which mostly comprises of Seth Rogen and his friends playing themselves whilst trapped inside a house could very well have ended up unbearable. It isn't.

While the end of the world plot device does provide a number of the film's gags, the focus instead is on sending themselves up as characters, taking the perceived notions of how they would be based on their career paths and using this to provide the laughs. While Jay Baruchel serves as the hipster loner that hasn't had as much success as the others, Danny McBride is selfish, irritating and slightly evil, managing the incredibly difficult task of being annoying, but using that to create humour rather than just irritation. This, of course, begs the question of why McBride can't do that in all of his other films. 

The best comedy, however, comes from the triumvirate that is James Franco, Jonah Hill and Craig Robinson. Franco and Hill both latch on to their successes outside of comedy with Franco falling head-long into pretension. Hill, meanwhile, is trying to avoid this, but failing miserably. As he takes a moment to pray, he makes sure that God realises he is "Jonah Hill from Moneyball". Robinson, on the other hand, plays the same character he plays in everything else, but, much like McBride, has somehow found a way to make it funny. He comes out as the most likeable by far, serving as the biggest peacekeeper in the house, but avoiding the whininess this could cause. While many of the film's highlights come from the actor's video testimonials, Robinson's is of particular note.

Strange then that Seth Rogen doesn't achieve the same quality, despite the fact that he's one of the writers. It could have gone far better than it does, as an early send-up of the "Seth Rogen laugh" suggests that he's going to try something a bit different, but he really hasn't. Instead, he falls back into the same character that Rogen always plays. It may be that the character is how he is in real life, but bar one notable moment (also on a video testimonial), I can't remember any of the other points where he actually made me laugh. I'm fairly certain that's because he didn't.

He does, however, fare better in his other role as co-director with Evan Goldberg. The end of the world plot could leave this open for set-piece after set-piece, going for the easy laughs with the character's reactions. While there are some of these and, to be fair, they mostly work, the film is at it's best and funniest when the characters are allowed to just be themselves within the confines of the house. As a result, (and without giving anything away) the ending marks a slight drop in the laugh count with the very last scenes lacking the final laughs that the film deserved. In addition, the ending hosts a notable cameo that's good for nostalgia, but still feels a little cheap. This is a shame as the abundance of cameos throughout the rest of the film are all handled really well and provide genuine laughs, with top prizes going to Michael Cera and Danny McBride's, shall we say, "companion".

There was always the risk that this was going to be a vanity project. To be fair, it is a vanity project, but it's one that has the decency to be funny with it. It's not just some well-established comedy actors laughing at how funny they are, but instead them lamenting about how annoying they've all got and leaving us to do the laughing on their behalf. When you take into account that last year's other source of multiple comic actors coming together in the name of film was Grown Ups 2, This Is The End feels like a masterpiece.

FOUR out of five

Pain & Gain

A Partially Educated Review of Pain & Gain

In which Michael Bay manages to make me feel more uncomfortable than I did whilst watching Pearl Harbo(u)r

Before I begin, I feel it is necessary for me to state my stance on the films of Michael Bay. In general, I don't like them, but for me to claim that he is incapable of making a decent film would be a lie as there are a couple of instances where he was successful, namely The Rock (which many agree with me on) and The Island (which no one agrees with me on). Now that's said and I have clarified that I am perfectly open to the possibility of Michael Bay creating a decent film, let's move on to Pain & Gain.

There are some out there who have really been rubbed up the wrong way by this film, to the point where Mark Kermode even called it "a vile, loathsome, nasty, stupid and, let's be honest about this, slightly evil movie". While this may say a hell of a lot about my own sense of morbid curiosity, all that anger just made me want to watch it more, mainly to see whether or not this film actually is as horrific as some say it is. For me, it's certainly uncomfortable viewing. On that note, it's also fairly boring, relying on the same sort of shock tactics you'd expect from the Saw or Human Centipede films (although not quite to the level of gore) in order to create the sort of reactionary responses that they would class as success. My main criticism though isn't that I'm convinced the film is evil. It's that I'm positive it's deluded. Everything that this film does wrong is something it's convinced it's done right.

A mentality is stated early on when an opening voiceover states that the film is a true story, unfortunately. While this would serve as preparation for the fact that what you are about to watch isn't going to be easy viewing, you wouldn't necessarily suspect that they're going to take the true story of these deeply horrible and unsettling crimes and turn them into a black comedy. Worse still, you wouldn't expect a lot of the comedy to come at the expense of one of the victims, but it does, namely Tony Shalhoub as Victor Kershaw. He's not the nicest of characters and, at times, he's downright odious. That, in itself, isn't an issue. Crimes don't only happen to nice people. However, once he becomes the victim of kidnap, blackmail and eventually torture, it still feels like he's designed to be ridiculed not just by the members of the gang, but also by the audience. This is where the real problems start.

Black comedy is a dangerous territory. Get it right and you can carve out some real satirical bite. Get it wrong and you become Frankie Boyle, pushing all the wrong buttons, but failing to justify why. Pain & Gain falls into the latter camp. The three members of the gang are meatheads, pure and simple. They're not portrayed as though you should be admiring them, but the way in which they are played feels more like a Three Stooges sketch than it does a real portrayal of the contemptuous wastes of human flesh that they are. If you've seen the Three Murderers sketch in South Park, you won't be hard pushed to see the similarities here. The difference is that South Park's funny and Pain & Gain isn't. Why? Because, once again, you sit there realising that this all actually happened and any uncomfortable feelings in your stomach will stem from revulsion.

In the end, blame is spread moderately evenly. Writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely are responsible for the bad jokes and the dodgy tone. Michael Bay is responsible for taking that tone from dodgy to worrying, littering the most horrific scenes with music designed to lighten the mood. He also continues his war against the remotest signs of female character development. While all the female roles are underwritten, Bay frames them as little more than supple breasts and nice arses. Misogyny, thy name is Bay!

Mark Wahlberg also holds some of the blame, his performance taking on the sort of unhinged lack of restraint that gives you a headache. Someone needed to tell him that less is more, but that's probably a big ask considering the director. To be fair to the other actors, he's the worst by a distance. Most are competent and Dwayne Johnson is actually pretty good. It's not a performance that you'll take much pleasure in watching, but it does at least feel like an accurate one.

All in all, Pain & Gain isn't good and while I wouldn't go as far as to join the Evil Parade, it's still not exactly pleasant. What saves it from complete drudgery is some decent performances and one very important element that I would be remiss to ignore: I wanted to see how it ended, less because I was enjoying it, but more because I was interested in seeing the real-life fates of these characters. If it's not quite all pain and no gain, it is still mostly the former.

TWO out of five