'Kingsman: The Secret Service' (2015) Review

My first Bond movie was 'Casino Royale'. I had heard of the legend of James Bond and the spy genre was one that I was familiar with even though I'd never seen a spy movie myself. Films like the Incredibles, the Austin Powers franchise and countless cartoons had made the spy cliches and tropes readily apparent to me. The outlandish villains, the ridiculous gadgets, and a film score that would be one moment, a subtle bassline and then the next an exploding trumpet. All of these references I had come to know, but I'd never actually seen the source material. It seemed intimidating to get into a franchise with 20 previous iterations and nearly 50 years of history, especially to a young movie buff of 10. So there, watching 'Casino Royale', my first spy movie, I was ecstatic.

To be honest, the movie was wonderful, but my young self couldn't help but feel cheated. The music was serviceable, but not particularly thrilling. The villain was calculated but hardly larger than life. The gadgets were practical but not exactly interesting. All of the things I had been trained to look out for were nowhere to be found. I'm not saying I didn't like what I got, it just wasn't what I sought out. The opening chase scene of 'Casino Royale' is a technical marvel and one of the best action scenes of the last decade, and a steely eyed James Bond is just as entertaining as a smirking one, but when you're looking for the series known for an invisible car, a tracking device arm implant just isn't going to cut it. The spy genre is now, one of fiction, rather than fantasy.

Seriously

'Kingsman: The Secret Service' notices the recent development of spy films and harkens back to the days of Connery and Moore. Set in the present day, but seemingly on a 60s backdrop, 'Kingsman' follows the life of one Gary Unwin, known as Eggsy. Eggsy is a typical ne'er do well. Dressed constantly in a hoodie and a cap tilted sideways. Living with his mother, step-dad and baby sister, Eggsy constantly fights his inner angst, sometimes by getting into actual fights. After his latest brush with the local law enforcement, he recalls a message left by a former associate of his deceased father's, anytime he should need help. Eggsy, seeing no way out this time, relays the message through the proper channels and who should appear but Colin Firth! Mr. Andrews himself, playing Harry Hart, premier agent of the last line of defense against the evil and the maniacal. As Eggsy and Harry meet properly, the two discuss why Eggsy finds himself in these situations and suggests that he would be better off doing something else with his youth. Eggsy, having no clue what else he's to do with his life, and having seen King George VI kick enormous amounts of ass, readily accepts the offer to join the titular organisation Kingsman: The Secret Service. A spy organisation that operates with no affiliation to any government and no agenda except peace and prosperity. 

What follows is Eggsy's journey from becoming a street rat hoodlum to a gentleman spy, akin to 'Trading Places', 'My Fair Lady' and 'Pretty Woman', movies which the film itself references. Said journey is made with the type of film director Matthew Vaughn has become known for. There's lots of blood and gore, and the violence is almost another character in the film. It's very over the top and never tries to convince you that it's supposed to be gritty and realistic, as many films in this genre have become. In fact, 'Kingsman' seems to be the perfect fit for Vaughn, having directed both 'Kick Ass' and 'X-Men: First Class'. 'Kick Ass' had the brutal action and foul language, and the quick witted dialogue, but was held back by having to sell a realistic story in an obviously hyper stylized world. 'X-Men First Class' has an entire sequence in which Erik Lensherr goes from country to country in a black turtleneck and silenced handgun, that seemed more like test footage for a new Bond film rather than a superhero movie. Not to mention 'Kingsman' and 'First Class' both feature stories that involve extended training of a group of young kids all whilst preparing to fight a world destroying villain. 'Kingsman' gives Vaughn free reign to tell the type of in your face action story that he seems to have always wanted to tell.

When you have Colin Firth as a bad ass and Sam Jackson as a villain, you know you've made it as a director

However, this might be 'Kingsman's biggest problem. If you don't reserve your predilections and find it difficult to buy into a film where a woman walks around on metal stilts that she can cut a man perfectly in half with, then this movie isn't for you and you probably won't enjoy it. For myself, 'Kingsman' had such a feeling of genuine glee and silliness that I found it easy to discount the minor gripes I had with it. Yes some of the jokes are a tad bit too juvenile, but the film isn't trying to sell you on anything high brow in the slightest. In fact, the film itself touches on the dichotomy of audiences in its story. The whole point of Colin Firth appointing Eggsy as a candidate for Kingsman is that he wants the organisation to better represent members of a lower class. The leader of Kingsman, Arthur, played by Michael Caine, thinks to attempt to transfom Eggsy is a waste of time, to which Harry replies, with respect, "You're a snob". That perfectly encapsulates the film in a nutshell. There's nothing wrong with this brand of humour or cartoonish storytelling, and anyone who thinks so might just be taking themselves too seriously.

'Kingsman' follows this vein of the rich vs the poor in its story as well. Not to give away too much but, simply put, the main villain, Valentine, played by Sam Jackson, has a plan that affects the world at large, benefiting a few, but forsaking the many. While there's nothing wrong with the main conflict, it's secondhand to the action scenes. I mentioned how the violence is almost a character in the film, and that's because so much attention is given to it. Everytime there's a fight scene the movie it's as if the movie itself is getting into a fight. It stops, takes off it's earrings and gets ready to throw down. The way the scenes are shot solves an issue with how action is generally shot. The fights are either boring or too incomprehensible. In 'Kingsman', the fights have a dynamic structure to them, constantly building until its end, and adding in new forms of violence. With each one of these moves, the camera follows the final blow making each one have its own substantial impact. This is enough to keep the viewer entertained and it also never feels as if there's no reason for it, which would be completely fine considering how impressively these scenes are filmed.

As far as the performances go, young bloods Taron Egerton and Sophie Cookson hold their own among big wigs like Caine, Jackson, Firth and Strong. Especially Jackson, who clearly seems to be having a blast as the villain. Valentine as a character has an aversion to violence but has no issue ordering the slaughter of countless people and isn't the malicious type of villain. There's no scene where he gets to chew the scenery in a rage, and at most will seem like a kid who just got his favourite toy taken away. He has a childish quality that, when juxtaposed with his character, leads to plenty of funny scenes. I'm also pretty sure he said Motherfuck a few times, but that's probably a given at this point. At the heart of the whole film however, is the relationship between Eggsy and Harry. The two share a bond that drives both their motivations. Harry is like the uncle who's like a father to Eggsy seeing as his real dad is out of the picture.

Pictured above: 'Bond'ing.

As fantastical and as silly as 'Kingsman' is, it has a surprising amount of heart. When they aren't using umbrella's as deadly weapons or having a serious dinner over McDonald's, the film tries to say something about the merit that every man, woman and child has, and that because of that merit, they are owed the same respect as a lord or a king. The beauty of 'Kingsman' is that those two opposing tones never seem to clash. The humour never discounts the heartfelt moments and the heartfelt moments never seem out of place. The script is filled with biting humour, but never too snarky, and while you might roll your eyes at just how ridiculous it is, it pulls it back just a tad so that it's not too much. The characters are well defined, the action is superb, and the movie makes you want to see it again, if not just for the action scenes themselves. In a world where the spy genre is saturated by Bourne, Bond and Bauer, 'Kingsman: The Secret Service', is a welcome addition.

A.N.R = 8.9/10

Read More

'The Wedding Ringer' (2015) Review

Romantic comedies are probably one of the most laughed at genres of film out there. The high brow critics will tell you time and time again of their many tropes. Their characters are shallow, their stories are unbelievable and more than anything else, everyone in the theatre is left thinking no one on earth would act like that. I've wanted to scream at a character in a rom-com more so than any in a horror movie. How many times do characters have to overhear conversations out of context, and then for the sake of the plot, refuse to hear any explanation that would provide said context, before audiences say enough is enough?

But the thing is, audiences don't think it's enough. Romantic comedies have been around forever, and the genre is not an inherently bad one. from 'Some Like it Hot' to 'Love Actually', you can always find a good number of gems in the ilk. But even the worst ones get a lot of play, and the clichés that are trotted out time and time again are no more offensive that the ones in your cheesy action flick. In fact, comparably it's even less offensive because as frustrating as the characters might be, their predicaments are at least plausible. It's the plausibility of these stories that makes them so frustration to watch, because it seems like such an easy thing to pull off. All you have to do is craft a good love story between two people, but instead, many opt to go the fairy tale route with caricatures instead of characters and lose their grip on the movie. I suspect however, that just as one turns their brain off to watch Optimus Prime pummel a Ninja Turtle, so too does the rom-com viewer with the latest storybook love story. Yeah, you probably rolls their eyes when romantic comedies come out, but there's always going to be a group out there who adores it. To them, Katherine Heigl and Jennifer Lopez are their heroes, not Jason Statham and Gerard Butler.

Although there may be some overlap there...

'The Wedding Ringer' is the latest rom com to grace the silver screen and it comes with a premise as preposterous as ever. Josh Gad plays Doug. A young, successful, soon to be groom who is about to marry his much hotter fiancée Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting. They're young, in love and nothing could be better, except there's just one problem. Doug is a bit of a loner with neither a best man or a grooms-man in sight. Enter, the Wedding Ringer, Jimmy Callahan, played by Kevin Hart. Jimmy provides a service where he pretends to be the best man to the friendless fiancée. He does this by learning everything he can about his client, fabricating old adventures between the two and providing enough charisma for people to overlook the glaring impossibility of the premise. 

'I Love You Man' + 'Hitch' = 'The Wedding Ringer'

So Doug goes to hire Jimmy to be his best man after his wedding planner notices his side of the Church is noticeably empty. Doug explains that not only does he not have a best man but he has zero grooms-men, which is an undertaking Jimmy has never done before called the "Golden Tux". Jimmy must now put together 7 fake grooms-men to fool Doug's wife and voila, we now have an ensemble comedy. From here we watch a montage or two of Jimmy getting his guys together, his guys learning their characters, and finally trying to fool the family. These are humorous mainly because the original cast is composed of what seems to be, a harlem globetrotter, Hurley from Lost, two potential sex offenders, Joe Dirt in a wheelchair, Fat Albert's disappointed father and a grown up Charlie Brown if Charlie Brown was an actual child star and ruined his life with drugs and alcohol.

I'll let you decide who's who

I've always held that if a film has a ridiculous notion, it doesn't matter how ridiculous it is, as long as it is sold well to the audience. 'The Wedding Ringer' does this by showing Jimmy's numerous clients in the past as well as showing us him on the job itself. However, for some, it may be too much to swallow that the friends and associates of his many clients all suddenly believe that this man whom they have never met is actually the secret life long friend of the groom. As absurd as it might be the movie is actually quite entertaining if you go along with it's absurdity. 

There's a thing in comedy, which is called the "hat on hat" premise, which basically describes having one funny idea and then compounding it with another funny idea, until it becomes indigestible and it no longer resonates with the audience. With that in mind, 'The Wedding Ringer' could be accused of buying out the hat shop as a good chunk of their jokes are predicated on constant build up that doesn't always amount to any pay off. The premise itself is an example of this as we basically watch as this original lie gets bigger and bigger and essentially we're just waiting for it to fail. This is not a new type of comedy as it's been done time and time again on at least 8 episodes of your favourite sitcom.

Yes, even this one. (Foosball and Nocturnal Vigilantism)

Where the movie trots out the old it also actually has some interesting ways in which it surprises you. There are moments where the movie is making a commentary on the genre itself. Jimmy's business basically represents the romantic comedy industry. He lies in order to make the wedding go perfectly, even though it's all fake. Jimmy fulfils the desire for people to see love as they want it to be, just as rom coms give us false notions of love and human relationships. Aside from that, some of the aforementioned genre tropes are actually turned on their heads in this film. Films like 'Friends With Benefits' attempt to present us with a "different kind of comedy" but ultimately become what they were trying to mock. 'The Wedding Ringer' surprisingly kept it's integrity and stuck the landing in what it was trying to achieve.

To praise the movie more, aside from those awkward jokes that don't go anywhere, the movie is actually pretty funny. I laughed more often than I didn't and that's mostly because the cast works so well together. With the exception of Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting's character, the chemistry between the actors is stark which is why it's absurd premise and grandiose set pieces are so easy to swallow. Gad and Hart are definitely at the heart of the film and carry it for the most part. Their performances are so good at investing you in their characters, that even in scenes that don't involve them, you're picturing their reactions and laughing at their response. 

'The Wedding Ringer' is by no means the next raunchy comedy success story. It's January release almost makes sure of that. What it is, is a movie with more heart than it needed and enough entertainment value to give it the sway over whatever else is on tv at the time. It's not something you desperately rush out to the theatre to see but it's definitely not a waste of your time. I'm glad I got to see it, as a few of the scenes are still stuck in my head a week later. As a film goer, I never like going into a film with negative expectations. As hard as it may be to do, I try to go in with a completely blank slate so that I'm not let down or so that my preconceived notions of the movie don't tarnish the art. Admittedly, I didn't go in expecting much from 'The Wedding Ringer' which is probably why I liked it so much. It surprised me and made me laugh when I expected to be checking my watch the whole time. So with that in mind, it may have been just a decent film but as it stands now, I had a good time.

A.N.R = 7.7

Read More

'The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies' Review (2014)

Prequels have enjoyed a resurgence in the last few years. While the more cynical movie viewer will see the movement as a bid to forever milk a franchise dry and then milk it some more, others will see it as a chance to return to the worlds that once captivated them. Regardless of your impressions going in however, what matters is how well the job is done. Prequels however, are notoriously hard to do. Just imagine trying to develop tension for characters that the audience knows are going to survive, or having the crux of the plot be a world ending device in a world that we know remains unended. Not to mention the added pressure of having to connect your film to the original one. As difficult as it may be, it's not impossible to do it, and do it quite well.

Recent forays into the prequel territory are films such as X-Men: First Class and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Both were critical and commercial successes that garnered sequels that came out this very year. These films seemed to have, in a sense, cracked the prequel code. They embrace the fact that audiences are more than familiar with their franchises, even going so far as placing the ultimate destination in the very title. The emphasis of these films rests with the characters and their development, which in a certain sense, is the obvious place to go. The difficulty of building a world for the audience to understand is non existent as they're already well versed in it. We already know where mutants came from, what we don't know is how the X-Men became the X-men and how these characters came to be the larger than life characters we've come to enjoy. The apes were always going to seize the planet, the story comes from how such a feat is accomplished. All of this however is moot without a character to develop these stories through. The Apes film would not have been so enjoyable without the melancholy abrupt maturity of Caesar nor would First Class be worth a damn if not for the rise and fall of Erik and Charles' bromance.

The sexual tension between these two was ca-ra-zy

Which leads us to the third and final film in the Hobbit franchise, prequel to the block busting, academy award winning Lord of the Rings franchise. Cinema cynics will of course take um-bridge with the films very existence, though it's not hard to see why. Aside from being a prequel, the book on which it's based on is merely 300 pages, and was decided to be split into 3 films while production was being done on the 2nd. Add that to the fact that a portion of the story in the films was garnered from the appendices of a different book entirely. Certain characters that exist in the films were not even mentioned in the source material, so it doesn't take a degree in film studies to say that there might have been a slight advantage to the commercial over the creative in the production of this film.
Of course, all of this is speculation, conjecture and largely irrelevant when judging the film as it stands.

Starting off where the last film ended, the movie begins with...an ending. As the Desolation of Smaug ended with the terrible dragon headed to destroy the people of Lake Town, Battle of the Five Armies shows such destruction. As someone who thinks you can never have enough dragons in cinema, I personally thought this scene was perfect. Smaug remains a technical marvel and while his lines are few, Benedict Cumberbatch's performance still resonates as frightening. The issue with this scene is it feels like the ending to the last film, out of place with the larger story of Battle of the Five Armies. Everything after the opener feels a bit like an epilogue. In a sense the whole movie feels that way. The journey which Bilbo was set upon from the outset, was to recover the Lonely Mountain from the terrible dragon for the Dwarves. After the dragon falls, they've pretty much already done that. At least it doesn't have 9 different endings a la 'Return of the King'.

The latest victim of the Lord of the Rings Extended Edition

After recovering the mountain however, the story here is how valuable the mountain is and how much everyone else wants it. The Dwarves want the mountain cause it was theirs to start with, the humans want some of the gold in the mountain because they just had their hometown burned to a crisp by a dragon that was kind of the Dwarves' fault, the elves want these special diamonds that are in the mountain, and the Orcs want the mountain for the resurgent dark lord as it has some special strategic position that is never fully explained. Most of this could be sorted out with a sit down over a nice cup of mead but this isn't called the negotiation of the five figureheads. The battle that commences is mostly due to the fact that Thorin Oakenshield's mind has become corrupted by dragon's disease or the Arkenstone or gold or power, it's never really explained, but whatever it is, it's made him question the loyalty of his company and threaten his oldest friends.

The best way to put it is this. At the beginning of every fantasy movie, there's a segment that's heavy on narration and tells of a battle that happened years ago, smoothly glossing over all the minutiae that led up to such a battle. Sometimes there's a cowardly king or some other element that creates more conflict than there needed to be and the world had to suffer the consequences of that decision. It happened in Lord of The Rings, Thor and this very franchise, the Hobbit. Have you ever kinda wanted to see the movie that showed what that narrator was talking about? That's the Battle of the Five Armies. On that level it works. The Battle of the Five Armies is trying to be a movie all about a huge war, with all the pieces moving together at an inevitable rate. While it doesn't do this as excitingly or as well as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, once the battle is underway, it's engaging and fun to see it escalate. Characters actually feel to be in danger and there are genuine moments I left the theatre remembering. There are a few scenes outside of the main battle that serve as connective tissue to the Lord of the Rings films but they're so forgettable that I can't really comment on them. Thankfully they don't stay long enough to be unwanted, like that one relative last Christmas.

Needs no caption.

The movie does at times feel to be nothing but spectacle. This is not inherently a bad thing, as there are many films that can pull this off. The trick is to have enough weight in your characters to make the spectacle matter. It's why 'The Avengers' is a better film than 'Transformers'. The film is more in line with the latter. Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman both deliver their best performances in the series thus far and the movie is at its core about the strength of their friendship. The relationship drama between Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly and Aidan Turner might be too soap opera-y for most but I found it fit with the over dramatic nature of the film. Top that off with the reluctant rise to leadership of Luke Evans and there is enough character drama to keep the action from feeling empty and thankless like a mindless autobot fighting a faceless decepticon.

Ignorance and apathy

With all this it might seem like the movie has too much going on for any of it to really resonate. This isn't true for the most part, but there are elements of the film that simply feel unnecessary. The scenes involving Ryan Gage's Alfrid are bordering on painful and a good example. His character serves no purpose other than a few visual gags that fall flat. In one scene he's pretending to be a woman to avoid conscription and in another he immediately switches allegiances as a new opportunity favours his selfish desires. I say that I don't understand the point of these scenes but that's a lie. The bellows of laughter from most every child in the audience is the point. They may not be for me, and they may not even be for the movie they're in but those cheap laughs have a purpose. And that's true for many of the scenes that don't seem to work well with the rest of the film, like the ones where characters sound like they are reading from the history of Middle Earth Vol. IX. It's simple exposition that serves to connect the better scenes of the film.

The Battle of the Five Armies is by no means a bad film, but it's not a great one either. It's best moments are cheapened by it's worst ones which can sometimes run consecutively. Massive amounts of impressive action is negated by an overuse of cgi, and strong characters are measured against Alfrid. All of these things may prove to be too much for most audiences. Personally, I didn't find those knocks against the film to be all that strong. The good outweighed the bad and on the whole, the film was worth the price of admission. Of course I admit to some form of bias. I shed a tear for two reasons. One, for a particularly sad scene that the movie had earned, and two, for the idea that this would be the last cinematic venture into the land of middle earth. With that in mind, if you're not a fan of this type of film you're not going to enjoy this picture. That's just science. For what it is, the Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies, is a solid film that doesn't amaze but still entertains.

Arbitrary Numerical Rating: 7.2/10

Read More

'The Fault in Our Stars' Review (2014)

Romance is a tricky thing to portray in cinema. Simply because, everyone has their own idea of love, relationships and intimacy. Just recently it was revealed to me that most of my colleagues are of the opinion that one should not enter into a relationship without the intention of marriage. This was insane to me. Can you imagine the amount of build up one would have to do to ensure that the person they're pursuing is at least tolerable? Marriage is, theoretically, a life long commitment. To peg someone down as worthy of such a commitment is almost impossible. Mainly because it's an enormous amount of pressure to put on a person, whether they know they're being tested or not. For me, a relationship shouldn't be a litmus test for holy matrimony. Instead, it should be an exploration of another person. Getting to know their story and the idiosyncrasies that make them, them. In turn you start to find yourself feeling more and more attached to this person. They're the first ones you think of in the morning and the last at night. You make every day about them. Pinning some grand expectation on a person only sullies the time you have with them.

Of course there are those that view romantic love as a complete lie. A fabrication by the manufacturers of greeting cards and heart shaped chocolates. It's from these people that the greatest critiques of romantic movies come from. Complaints that the romantic film has unrealistic portrayals of human interaction and creates an expectation that only exists in stories. While these complaints might have been valid at a time, recently the romance movie has veered towards those who aren't necessarily looking for something as grand as a happily ever after. Mostly, the stories that are told these days try to take two people, develop them as much as they can and try to mesh them together in their idea of a relationship. The two most notable examples I can think of are 'Her' and 'Silver Linings Playbook' both took two people with their own histories, thoughts and complete characters and found a way to make them love one another. Neither were considered movies of a conventional romance however, they both were nominated for best picture in the year they came out. This just goes to show how perfect a romance movie can be. It's instantly relatable with anyone who's had feelings from someone else and it's an excuse to make a movie that's a complete character study of two individuals. Combine that with the opportunity to explore how society views certain sexual orientations and gender roles and romance movies have serious potential to be excellent.

Most of the time they're very much not excellent.

'The Fault in Our Stars' represents a different school of thought when it comes to love, the teen/young adult. These are the types that think they know more about love than their parents, teachers or anyone old enough to have seen the original M*A*S*H. This group has been represented before but the 'The Fault in Our Stars' adds an interesting hook to its premise that serves to distinguish it from the others of it's kind. The main character in 'The Fault in Our Stars' is dying and has been for years. From the very first moment you see her lying in the grass with oxygen tubes in her nose, you're immediately plunged into sympathy for the character. Initially, it feels as though the movie is unfairly tipping the scales in the main character's favour, not allowing you to feel objective about her plight. In truth, however, the movie doesn't actually ask for your sympathy but instead presents the main character, Hazel Grace Lancaster, played by 'Shailene Woodley' in way which doesn't take away from her characterization. You're not constantly thinking about her current health situation, instead you're thinking about her emotional situation.

Really, it's emotion that's the main draw in any romantic movie. That feeling one gets when they can relate to a characters nervous demeanor and desire to climb the nearest mountain and let the world know of their love. Hazel Grace is a character who tries to ignore her feelings. The fact that she hasn't much time left on this earth is reason enough for her to write off romance all together. As she reluctantly goes to her cancer support group, however, she stumbles into her male counterpart, cancer survivor, Augustus Waters. Here's all I have to say about Augustus Waters. He's one of the most obnoxious characters I've ever had the displeasure of watching. Everything about this guy screams pretension and arrogance. Having lost his leg due to his disease, you're expected to see his world view as enlightened but all it comes off as is tedious. Every time he opened his mouth I got a nice quick view of the ceiling. Here's an example; Augustus Waters is a man who stands outside of a cancer support group and holds a cigarette to his mouth. When Hazel naturally calls him out on this, he explains that he doesn't ever light it. He holds the thing which could kill him to his lips but he never gives it the power to do it. It's not so much that that isn't clever, it's just the smug look he gets on his face when he explains it to someone makes you want to knock that cigarette and a molar or two right out of his mouth.

HOW COULD ANYONE POSSIBLY STAND HIM.

As insufferable as the leading man might be, it's not as bad as the way the story develops in this movie. As I mentioned before, Hazel is a closed off individual. The movie is predicated on her changing her mindset and realizing that life is worth living even if you have to lug around an oxygen tank. The problem is, not only is her development unbelievable, but it's done in the laziest way to convey information. Open narration. I understand that the main character's insight is the crux of the film, but there are better ways to convey that than actually having her tell me what that insight is. In that case, I just feel like her therapist. While the narration only exists at the beginning and the end, it's only so frustrating simply because it's so easy to see how this information could've been conveyed better. A big issue in the movie is Hazel's relationship with her parents. I like the scenes she has with them. Her mother is irritatingly over positive, you get the sense that this is a technique she's been advised to use by an experienced counselor of sorts. It's clear that this causes tension with Hazel who would rather her mother approach the situation realistically. Compare this to the way we find out that Hazel only goes to her support group to appease her parents which is Hazel's voiceover saying "I only do this for my parents". It's not something that would be impossible to convey otherwise and it's something that we might've picked up on ourselves.

If it weren't for all this excessive information, Hazel might've been a fascinating character. A young adult who has been forced to accept the harsh realities of life simply because hers was cut short. But the movie never seems to believe in its character enough to let her stand on her own. Aside from her own development, the movie follows the romance that spurs between Augustus and Hazel. Overtime their relationship grows and she stops thinking of him as obnoxious and instead sees him as charming. (She's wrong). They find themselves on a trip to Amsterdam where Hazel will be able to confront the author of her favourite book, and finally get the answers she desires. The author, played by Willem Dafoe is hysterical. He's exactly what I imagined when I heard "Recluse author who's gone off to live in Amsterdam". His house is a mess, his glasses are huge, everyone is an idiot (especially people who read his book), he's a terrible alcoholic and he finds cultures he doesn't completely understand enlightening. The confrontation between Hazel, Augustus and the author is the very best part of the film. It perfectly encapsulates everything the movie is trying to say about life, and how your outlook on it determines it's worth to you. It's astounding that the very next scene is the absolute worst in the movie.

Every romance movie has that scene where the two lovers finally share the first kiss. It's the signal that things have gone beyond flirtations, holding hands and will they/won't they tension. Some movies make a big deal out of it, others get it over with and move on to more pressing matters. 'The Fault in Our Stars' makes a huge deal out of it. After the meeting with Norman Osborn, Hazel and Augustus journey over to the Anne Frank house as part of her day. Hazel is determined to climb the stairs herself with no assistance with her heavy oxygen tank, despite protest from Augustus. It is a very well put together scene that finally lets the character show you what it is she's going through. When they finally reach the top, she finds inspiration with the words of Anne Frank (There's a brief insinuation that the film is comparing the impending doom of cancer to the impending doom of Nazi death) and realizes that she should let caution to the wind with her last days. She turns to Augustus, who momentarily ceases with the stupid, and plants a big enlightened kiss on him. The setting alone is unsettling but worse than that is the reaction from the other tourists. After being witness to the main characters first kiss, with whom they have had no interaction with and should not at all be invested in their romance, start a slow clap that erupts into rousing applause. No one thinks this is weird, and in fact, it's treated as if something that could happen every day. Maybe that was it. The Anne Frank house just has auditions each month for people to come in and clap whenever a young couple decides to kiss.

Although it may seem like I didn't care for this movie, it really wasn't terrible. No one in the film gives a bad performance, and you do buy into the romance between the two characters. The fact that Hazel is dying doesn't detract from how good of a character she is. If only the movie itself had understood that. Augustus never stops being a tool but I suppose for the most part he's a useful one. You can definitely see how someone could in theory find him to be charming but he's certainly doesn't walk on water like the movie suggests. Since the characters are so different, with her being so down to earth and him with his head in the clouds, the attraction is clear and they play off each other rather nicely. I just wish the movie had better way of moving the development along without feeling the need to over explain it's message. Not just through the narration but through dialogue that spells everything out to you and ends up being largely pedestrian. I suppose I'm a horrible monster for not crying over two cancer kids in love, but I already shed a bucketful of tears over a boy and his dragon this week so, my quota's been filled.

Seriously though, go see this. Way better. Read all about it!

Arbitrary Numerical Rating: 6.5/10

Read More

'How to Train Your Dragon 2' Review (2014)

I sat down recently with some friends of mine, and by friends of mine I mean the two ladies on the other side of the pharmacy whose conversation I was listening in on (I don't have any real friends). They were trying to decide which film to go and see that night, and when they came to the movie which this review is about, one woman scoffed at the idea of seeing a "cartoon thing like that". Suddenly, I put down my Oreo Cadbury chocolate bar and tried to imagine the countless hours spent designing the characters, environments, animation styles, and then on top of that, having to actually make a movie with snappy yet realistic dialogue and a story that was worth a damn. Add that to the time spent training actors used to relying on more than just their vocal performance to sell a character, an animated movie is a hell of a lot of work. And yet, there are still those in this world who would rather see 'Think Like a Man Too'. Although I liked the first one, and haven't seen the sequel, movies that are set in Vegas haven't had a very good track record as of late.

These movies range from 19% - 47% on the Tomatometer. 

Of course this conversation only confirmed my long held suspicion that to the general audience, animated movies are one of the most underrated forms of cinema. I can partially understand this, as perhaps they have not been exposed to the better offerings of the genre. Lord knows that for every 'LEGO movie' there are 50 movies like 'Nut Job'. Studios often saturate the market with a plethora of films with hyper active cartoon characters for parents to shove in front of their kids to get them to stop talking for 90 minutes. However, when an animated movie is good, it's not just a fun film, but often an important one for its target audience. Because of the way animated films are indeed targeted towards children, they are used as vessels to tackle a more mature theme underneath the vibrant characters and musical numbers. 'The Lion King' helps to deal with death, responsibility and shame. 'Toy Story' movies help one understand feelings of abandonment and change and the original 'How to Train Your Dragon' makes it easier to deal with the horrible reality of traumatic amputation. Animated movies are horrendously underrated, and are considered in my view to at times be the highest form of cinema. Just not most of the time.

With that in mind, I walked into this movie with admittedly middle of the road expectations. The first film surprisingly proved itself to be a level above the regular supply of child's cinematic cocaine. This was a pure, uncut, premium, animated high. It was a comedy but it wasn't without heart and the shining aspect of the movie was its characterization. 'How to Train Your Dragon 2' relies on this strong characterization in its opening scenes. We're reintroduced into the isle of Berk, which has undergone great transformation since last we saw it. Dragons are no longer the terrors of the night sky but now aid the Vikings in what can only be described as Quidditch but with dragons instead of brooms, which ups the stakes considerably. It's been a whole 5 years since the events of the last film and although change is in the air, some fools just dare to be different. Hiccup seems to be a contrarian at heart as even though he is lauded as the pride of Berk, he still would rather spend his time discovering far off lands on the back of his night fury, Toothless.

To be honest I'm not sure I can blame him.

It's this which makes the beginning of the movie a tad bit worrying. Although the opening sequence signals that the film is a different monster than it's predecessor, the story beats can't help but feel a bit similar. The basic plot outline as its presented here is that Hiccups father, Stoick, played by Leonidas, wants Hiccup, played by the perpetually whiny Jay Baruchel, to become chief of Berk. Hiccup doesn't feel up to the job and would much rather hang out with his pet discovering the world. Compare this to the story of the original, in which Hiccup doesn't want to kill a dragon and would much rather hang out with his pet and learn how to fly, and 'How to Train Your Dragon 2' dangerously feels like it's going down the path of 'Ghostbusters II' or 'The Hangover part II' and telling a story that is simply a rehash of the original.

It's not until the very end of the first act, but once all the set up is out if the way, the movie thankfully comes into it's own and doesn't stop from then on. The movie brings along the supporting cast from the last film and they help to make the movie feel like there's always something going on. There's a sub-plot with these characters that doesn't really go anywhere but it's entertaining nonetheless mostly feeling like something that would come out of an episode of an animated kids show. The voice actors from the first film return for this one but this is slightly awkward in the case of Hiccup. Since Hiccup is now 20 instead of 15 it stands to reason that his voice would develop past that of a baby trying to speak while chewing its food. In fact, they even make fun of his lack of development in the film. When you get over that though, Baruchel actually gives quite a performance. You definitely get the sense that this is a character who has grown since you last saw him both in what he says and how he says it. 'How to Train Your Dragon 2' has uniquely created a character that will have grown alongside the audience that fell in love with him the first time.

Growth and development in a children's movie in both character and design.

The key to that growth is Hiccup's continuing search for identity. Everything may seem to be going his way; he has his dad's pride, a cute girlfriend and his relationship with Toothless is even stronger. When his dad asks him to become the new chief, he can't help but think that despite all his development he still has no idea who he is. I thought this was a very poignant storyline. While it does initially seem like a similar foil to the first film, it actually ends up being a refreshing take on how a sequel is done right. Instead of creating a completely new conflict for Hiccup to deal with, the movie services it's character by simply saying that the ideas of the first film were not ones that could be realistically resolved in a 90 minute runtime. This makes 'How to Train Your Dragon 2' feel immensely connected to its predecessor. Where Hiccup might have undergone some great change in the first film, this movie reminds us that growing up is hard and you're never quite finished with it as life will always find some way to challenge you. 

As if that weren't enough, Hiccup has to set aside his young adult identity crisis and deal with a whole other life threatening plot. When traveling on the back of Toothless, Hiccup comes across a conflict that threatens his home and everyone he loves when he comes across Eret, son of Eret (who is played unrecognisably by Jon Snow). Eret is a trapper looking to collect dragons for the evil Drago Bloodvist played by Djimon Hounsou. Drago is the films main villain and to that measure he's great. He certainly walks with a formability that a Viking would have and the movie actually paints him as quite a sympathetic villain even if his plan of rule the world with dragons is a bit played. Coming across Drago also forces Hiccup to be reunited with his long lost mother played by Cate Blanchett. This nicely fuses Hiccup's personal arc with the films plot as running into his mother not only aids in developing his identity but also in his fight against Drago. I found the portrayal of Hiccup's mother quite humorous. I won't spoil the reason for her absence as it plays into the Hiccup's journey, but it basically boils down to the mother who leaves because she feels trapped and wants to find herself on a trek through the wilderness. It works for the movie and ties in with Hiccup's personal journey but there's the feeling that maybe Hiccup forgives this a little too easily. 

With all these story elements, it's easy to assume that the movie bites off a bit more than it can chew, but it actually pulls it all off at the same time injecting the movie with some top of the line action sequences. You may have forgotten that this movie has dragons in it but damn, does it ever. Each member of the supporting cast has a dragon of their own and each one has a unique aesthetic design and personality. The first film affirmed that dragons are no more than over sized fire breathing pets, with the qualities of both a cat and a dog, and this film goes further with that notion making the beasts as loveable as ever. However, when it comes time to kick ass, asses are indeed kicked. Continuing the tradition of incredible use of 3D in Dreamworks Animated features, this movie is perhaps the only movie this year that I've seen that's deserving of the 3D price tag. You definitely feel the weight of a dragon's wings as you soar through the air at incredible speeds, and be bobbing and weaving in your seat to avoid the arrows shot your way. 

The modern audience is harder to impress than this lot

'How to Train Your Dragon 2' strikes the same notes of it's first film, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's not lazy in its storytelling and it doesn't try too hard to reinvent the wheel. It perfectly advances it's story and characters by being a true continuation of its first film. This truly feels like a movie that was born out of an actual idea. It had a place to take its characters and wasn't a platform to sell toys, tickets and promote a television show. The way the film balances it's action, humour and heartfelt moments is beautifully wrapped up in returning composer John Powell. The score here is as fantastic as it was in the first film which added a bonus to the film for me personally because I quite enjoy when a film franchise has a familiar theme throughout it's iterations. All in all this movie was wonderful and definitely worth the price of admission. I'd very much like to see it again.

Arbitrary Numerical Rating: 8.9/10

Read More