obro Reviews

Southpaw (2015)

A Powerful Cliché

[7/10 · 5 August 2015]

Boxing films tend to follow a formula, Southpaw is no different. We see a champion at the top of his game, he is later faced with tragedy,and then he spends the rest of the film trying to repair his life and regain his title in one last fight against an impressive opponent who has done wrong by him. Also they didn't forget to include a good old training montage.Southpaw really does hit all the clichés of the genre.

There is more going for this movie than these clichés though. Firstly the performances are great. Jake Gyllenhaal delivers a performance that demonstrates his dedication to the role. He once again showed that he can transform himself physically to bring authenticity to his characters. Beyond his appearance he is very believable and likable which is actually quite important because when his character's life falls apart he spends a lot of time feeling sorry for himself and so the fact that the audience likes him and supports him is important so that they can feel sorry for him too. Another fantastic performance can be seen from Forest Whitaker although I think the stand out supporting performance in the film is from Oona Laurence who played the daughter of Gyllenhaal's character. I thought she gave an incredibly compelling performance especially for such a young actress with little. Her scenes with Jake Gyllenhaal were excellent too they had good chemistry and they really played off each other well as father and daughter.

The high standard of the performances helped to sell the drama in Southpaw, this was a relief to me because it meant that at least whilst watching the film the audience forgot that the what they were seeing was really nothing new or particularly special. Overall though the drama in Southpaw was quite captivating. As I've already mentioned the performances from Gyllenhaal and Laurence were great and so some scenes I thought were genuinely heartbreaking.

I can't review a boxing film without commenting on the scenes where there is actual boxing. Frankly they were superb. The way Antoine Fuqua decided to film the fight scenes is very raw and it's clear that realism was important to him. There were some brilliant shots in one of the fights where the camera acted as a first person view from one of the boxers and the opponent fighter would punch at the camera whilst it ducked and swayed. It was executed with skill and was therefore effective at throwing the audience straight into the brutality of a boxing match.

Southpaw was very entertaining, and as I didn't go into this expecting a masterpiece I was satisfied. It certainly wasn't the most original film I've ever seen but the powerful performances and the realistic boxing matches carried it over its cliché filled plot.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

A Triumph of Epic Proportion

[10/10 · 21 July 2015]

With a run time of 3 hours and 49 minutes this film certainly is epic, and it needs to be as Sergio Leone depicts the entire life of a New York gangster in what is his greatest triumph.

There is a worry with making a film this long, it can become bloated and may even seem quite pretentious. Leone pulls it off perfectly however. I watched the film in one sitting, which I strongly recommend to first time viewers, and not at any point did I lose interest. The long run time allowed Leone to really flesh out the story and the characters to an incredible level of detail. This allows audiences to become involved in the narrative and so attention is kept entirely on the film as the tale develops. Sergio Leone's direction is sublime which also aids in captivating the audience. He created a film that is visually stunning by filming in locations throughout New York city, and despite the movie not being in chronological order it still flows seamlessly.

Many films suffer from having underdeveloped characters but with Once Upon a Time in America this is an impossibility as we nearly witness the protagonist's entire life and so the audience can really get to know and understand the character. It is excellent to see him progress from a boy filled with energy and ambition to an old man who is heavy with remorse and is haunted by ghosts of his past.

Once Upon a Time in America is one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever created. It is often forgotten when one thinks of the best gangster movies but it has one of the most compelling and perfect stories ever put to screen and the brilliant script is performed effortlessly by such actors as Robert De Niro, James Woods, Joe Pesci and a young Jennifer Connelly. It is stylish and sleek and will leave a lasting impression on you.

Batman (1989)

Decent

[7/10 · 20 July 2015]

Tim Burton's first outing into the world of Batman was moderately successful. I do think that it's the best live-action Batman film until Christopher Nolan took the reigns but it's not without its flaws.

I liked the pacing of the film. It was fast which helped keep the film interesting by avoiding having many scenes that felt pointless and unneeded although there were a couple. Having a fast pace and a story that remains coherent and compelling is an important balance to hit when making a superhero movie because fans want to get to know and get inside the heads of their favourite heroes but they also of course want to see the action. I think Tim Burton managed this. I also enjoyed Jack Nicholson's performance as the Joker. The casting choice was great as at the time of production Jack Nicholson had already proved himself to be a good psychopath as Jack Torrance in The Shining so he portrayed the Joker with ease.

I did have some problems though. The most prominent of which were my issues with the script. To me it seemed like the writing of the script was rushed and therefore some elements of the story and the development of some characters seemed rushed also. And there were a few noticeable plot holes that I struggled to ignore. Also I had some issues with Burton's direction. With him at the helm of the fight scenes it made them quite disjointed and it was often hard to follow what was happening. The direction of Batman also wasn't handled very well. At multiple points in the film we saw Batman simply walking around, whether it was down a street or up a long flight of stairs he would simply just walk places with no sense of urgency so the character wasn't as dynamic as he should have been. Plus seeing Batman waddle around in his uncomfortable rubber suit really emphasised the fact that Batman is really just a rich guy in a suit. Instead we should have seen Batman disappearing into the shadows and then suddenly reappearing to surprise his enemies which would have kept his reputation as the Dark Knight intact.

As a whole though this movie pleases fans of the character and casual views will also find enjoyment throughout most of the film.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Very Enjoyable

[8/10 · 30 May 2015]

This was in my top 3 most anticipated movies of 2015, I was so excited to see this film! And I'd say it more or less delivered.

I'll start with the positives. Firstly, it's great to see the team back together. By this point each of the Avengers are beloved characters in their own right and to see Earth's mightiest heroes back together is of course fantastic, especially for big Marvel fans like myself. The entertaining chemistry among the group that we saw in the first film is even stronger in Age of Ultron which allows for plenty of comic relief which is always refreshing. I've seen some negative comments about the humour in this film which I think is ridiculous. The Avengers are a team, they're friends, of course they're going to crack jokes they're not zombies. Plus DC already supplies us with the bleak side of comic book movies so I think it's nice that Marvel want to make their films a bit more colourful. Also I think that the new additions to the team, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, will please audiences, although I do think that Quicksilver was better portrayed in X:men: Days of Future Past.

I like Ultron as the villain as well. James Spader voices him perfectly, giving the character an intriguing charm but making him the sinister supervillain that we deserved. Ultron was quite an intelligent adversary for the Avengers so he wasn't simply physically menacing.

I was happy with the pacing of the film as well, the action started immediately and continued throughout, although there were of course pauses in the action to give room for the narrative. However I do think certain aspects of Ultron's character were rushed but overall the pacing was fast which works well in a film like the Avengers.

The action sequences are of course great. The visual effects are stunning and as I've already outlined seeing all of the Avengers together battling an army is glorious. I do accept however that seeing this for the first time in the first movie was probably more incredible.

As a big fan of Marvel I went into this film with some hopes, a sought of checklist for things I wanted to see and questions that I wanted to be answered. For the most part my desires were met but there was one question in particular concerning how Captain America's shield is broken. The broken shield was shown at the end of the first trailer and although it was addressed in the film, I wasn't satisfied with it's reveal when I finally saw the film because me and my friends had come up with so many cool theories as to how it could have been broken and who could have broken it.

As a whole though I had a lot of fun with Avengers: Age of Ultron. Fans on Marvel should enjoy this movie a lot and for those who are not seasoned Marvel fans this film is very accessible.

Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2010)

Disgraceful

[1/10 · 29 May 2015]

I hate this film. I don't even want to give this film my attention by reviewing it but I feel like I have to in order to warn anyone thinking of watching it. I suppose I can try to enjoy this as much as possible by tearing this film apart.

I'll start by saying that this is the worst film ever made. This film is impossibly bad. In fact whilst watching this I did consider how it's possible to make a film so terrible, unless you were doing it on purpose... But alas this wasn't intentional. I've seen interviews with the director of this film, James Nguyen, where he states that this film is a 'serious romantic thriller', and that it is 'shocking and terrifying' and looks like a 'one hundred million dollar picture'. Shut up James.

I despise everything about this film. Firstly the acting is of course abysmal. Nguyen made this film with the less than $10000 dollars he had saved from his day job so obviously the actors are not exactly professional. Also to be fair at times (mostly during the 'bird' attacks) it is extremely obvious that the actors have absolutely no idea what they are meant to be doing because the directing is basically none existent in this film.

Briefly I'll mention the camera work. It's bad. It's really, really bad. You know that you're about to witness an awful movie when the opening shot is of a car moving painfully slowly which the camera fails to catch in the tracking shot, despite the slow speed of the car. Seriously, how could you miss the car! Also there are time where the camera is held at a dutch angle, and I really don't believe that this was done on purpose, I simply think that Nguyen or whoever was holding the camera was just accidentally tilting the camera because they didn't know how to hold it. I might as well talk about the lighting quickly whilst I'm here. I'm not sure any kind of additional lighting was used so some scenes are dull and some are painfully bright. Brilliant, just brilliant.

Oh no, the editing. Well the cuts are timed poorly. Two characters may finish talking because they have ran out of script for that scene but instead of cutting out the strange silence that follows this like any sane person would do, this lull is just left in, and so the final product it filled with moments where the actors stand awkwardly waiting for the camera to be turned off. Also the sound drops out constantly. Two people are credited as being 'boom operators' in this film. What?! Were boom mics even used? If they were, how could the audio be so dreadful? You can't even hear the last line of this film because of the wind! Were the boom operators facing the wrong way? Were the mics turned off?

Finally, I would like to address the special effects. It honestly looks like the actors are being attacked by JPEGs of birds. Nguyen couldn't get one real bird for any of the film, not one. However it's always good to see random real birds just flying around in the background which aren't dive bombing anyone because most of the film is shot outside, a very smart move on Nguyen part there. The slash wounds from the bird attacks are quite horrible as well as they are clearly done with Halloween makeup bought from a costume shop. All of the victims have exactly the same cuts on their cheeks and sometimes their necks, which is just so lazy! Come on could you seriously not be more creative than that?!

Overall I struggle to fathom how this movie came into existence. Did no one involved with the making of this film think whilst it was being made that maybe it was simply a huge failure? Did none of the actors question the script? During the editing process was it not clear that there were audio and visual issues with almost every shot of the film? However despite it being an atrocity, like other bad films such as 'The Room' Birdemic has garnered a cult following because many people view it as being so bad that it's good. I've still not entirely decided if I believe that anything can be so bad that it's good, but I know that Birdemic could never be deemed as good, not in any sense of the word. It is disgraceful.

P.S. The sound effect of the birds will make your ears bleed.

12 Angry Men (1957)

Simple. Genius. Immortal.

[10/10 · 29 May 2015]

This film provides audiences with a white knuckle thrill ride that they can't turn away from. But there are no car chases and punch ups, in fact the entire movie takes place in one room, and the narrative simply follows a discussion between 12 angry men. So how could it be so enthralling to watch?

Well, unsurprisingly, it's really the dialogue. The writing in this film is genius. Every time I watch this movie I am gripped by every word, even when I already know what is about to be said. It is some of the most provocative dialogue ever put to film. I literally get goosebumps at certain parts of this film because it is so intelligent and it gives you pleasure as a viewer that you can just relish in the brilliant and thought provoking debate that is being presented to you. The fact that the film seems like an adrenaline ride is a real testament to the screenplay that Reginald Rose created. As I said earlier this movie takes place in one room, the audience is given one environment and it never changes. The writing is so clever and so thought through that despite the never changing surroundings of the room the audiences never loses focus, never loses interest. It is simply delicious writing.

The performances are of course fantastic as well. Each of the 12 men have their own personalities and their own personal thoughts on the case at hand. Each actor really captures their character to the extent that the audience can start to put together a picture of what kind of man each of the men really is, despite the fact that we never even learn such basic information as their names. Henry Fonda however does stand out as being especially powerful as Juror #8. I'd like to just quickly say that Juror #8 is probably the most underrated movie hero of all time. Fonda brings a degree of charm to his role which makes him extremely likable for audiences and so you find yourself strongly rooting for him, just another element that takes the audience deeper into the world of the film.

Frankly this is one of the best films I have ever seen. It is such a simple concept and because of that it was possible for all of the aspects of this film to be executed to very a high standard. This is one of those films that everyone has to watch at some point in their lives, and despite the fact that it was made in 1957 I promise it won't seem dated when you watch it if that's something you might be cautious of going into this movie. The fact that it was made such a long time ago shows it stands the test of time. Simple. Genius. Immortal.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Thank You George Miller

[10/10 · 27 May 2015]

I went into this film with pretty high expectations. I'm a fan of the earlier Mad Max movies and by the time I saw it the initial reviews were in and they were all very positive. I was excited to see it and, simply put, it was incredible!

I could not believe how much fun I had with this film. I loved more or less everything about it. I thought Tom Hardy did a great job as Max and that's coming from a big fan of Mel Gibson's portrayal in the first three. I loved Charlize Theron in this movie too. She was an absolute badass but at the same time she brought a refreshing amount of emotion and heart to the chaotic wastelands of 'Mad Max:Fury Road'. It really is just nice to see a strong female character after so far this year just being given Anastasia Steele (Fifty Shades of Grey) and Jupiter Jones (Jupiter Ascending). The actors gave performances that were compelling, but it was the man behind the camera that impressed me the most.

Directors that are making an action movie can learn from George Miller as 'Mad Max:Fury Road' is a tutorial for film makers on how to make an action movie correctly! These days action movies suffer because their directors choose to use quick cuts, extreme close ups and worst of all shaky cam when they're creating their action sequences. This causes car chases and fist fights to become confusing and hard follow. George Miller throws this lazy technique out the window, rightly. Fury Road sees Miller create scenes of absolute carnage and mayhem with car crashes and explosions, whilst capturing all this chaos within beautiful wide shots with no shaky cam to be found so all the glorious destruction is clearly visible for the audience's pleasure. And another big plus is that the viewer isn't left feeling detached from the world of the film by poor CGI because Miller uses practical effects, the car crashes seem so real because they are. Furthermore, I was clenching my fists as I watched Max face peril at every turn. Unlike action heroes nowadays that seem to be indestructible, Miller puts our protagonist in danger constantly, he is vulnerable just like the rest of us and I worried for his life at times, it was fantastic! I was full of adrenaline and grinning uncontrollably throughout the entire run time.

If you have not seen 'Mad Mad: Fury Road' yet I strongly suggest you fix that as this film deserves all the money that can be thrown at it. You will be left drooling as you witness George Miller's return to the Mad Max franchise that he executes with such grace and expertise. Michael Bay take note! Thank you George Miller.