Now You See Me – Review

Every now and again, a movie is released that takes the audience on a wild, gripping ride, turning in on itself until it leaves the audience gasping at the final twist.
Now You See Me is one such movie.
In the “thinking movie” vein of predecessors such as Inception, Now You See Me follows four individual modern magicians – each masters in their field – brought together by an unknown beneficiary. As their magic shows evolve into Robin Hood escapades, the group is forced to evade the authorities and an ex-magician keen to expose them as frauds, whilst staying true to the mission they have been set. The audience is invited along for the ride, where the lines between real and fake blur and nothing is what it seems.
But don’t worry, this isn’t your usual magic wand and white rabbit stuff. This is the sort of trickery and illusions you might pay hundreds to see in a stadium show – all pulled off masterfully on screen.
Much of that is due to the clever cinematography. Louis Leterrier and his crew perform their own brand of magic in fast paced and often dimly lit scenes, evoking a feeling of mystery and inviting the audience to participate in each trick. Quick camera movements give the impression of sleight of hand, and it is easy to forget that this is a film.
The well-picked cast embrace their on-screen personas as much as they are able, helping Leterrier create a wholly believable world. It is a pity though that so little background is given to many of the major characters. A past is often hinted at, but very little is elaborated on. The audience is left feeling as though they do not know much about the people they are watching. But given that a sequel is planned, perhaps this was a deliberate move on Leterrier’s part.
As a stand alone though, this film works well on multiple levels. It is fun, unique and intriguing, and, as any good movie should, makes you consider all possible angles.
Overall, a well-constructed and entertaining cinematic roller coaster, that keeps you guessing until the final scene with plot twists that you won’t see coming, no matter how much you think you know. Four out of five stars.

Man of Steel Review

With Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan, the names behind some of the most widely acclaimed superhero films in recent years, on board, Man of Steel was always going to have a lot of hype to live up to. As it turns out, it hasn’t done too badly.
Reboots of superhero franchises are in vogue, with Batman and Spider-Man leading the pack, and now Superman returns to the screens in the body of English actor Henry Cavill. He is supported by an all-star cast, including Russell Crowe, Diane Lane and Amy Adams.
As a reboot, this film goes right back to the start, presenting the origin of the superhero from his birth on Krypton to his first step as Superman. With planet Krypton imploding, scientist Jor-El (Crowe) attempts to persuade the planet’s leaders to seek a new planet and begin life anew and for the better. But a military coup, led by General Zod (Michael Shannon), cuts short Jor’s plea. Determined to save the future of his people, Jor and wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer) send their newborn son to planet Earth- and thus begins the traditional tale of conflicting identities, so familiar to Superman fans.
But don’t expect to see Lex Luther in this one- there is another villain town, one with an intimate knowledge of our hero and his powers. With such an astute and powerful enemy as Zod, the scene is set for some strong action scenes. With each solid pound of gristle on muscle, we wince at the power on display here. If there is one thing director Snyder can do, it is combat scenes.
Yet even with the well coordinated action sequences, the pace itself is patchy. At times, Snyder seems unsure of where he wants to be, or where he wants to go. The camerawork is jumpy, and the battle scenes seem stretched as though trying to fill the holes in a thin story- a thin story that Snyder spends a lot of time just setting up.
In spite of this, the film has it’s good points. The actors are well cast. Chiselled and muscular with slicked back hair, Cavill is every inch Superman. His portrayal of Clark Kent is suitably clumsy and confused, evolving over the course of the film as the character begins to find himself. Amy Adams is feisty and smart as Lois Lane, with just enough of that damsel in distress quality to make her rescue scenes believable. And then there is Michael Shannon. His bulk, his sneer and his powerful delivery allow him to completely take over scenes as Zod. Special mention goes to Crowe for portraying the dignified and zealous scientist of a dying race without over-playing it. The rest of the supporting cast – Lane, Kevin Costner as Clark Kent’s earth father, Christopher Meloni as an army general determined to rid the planet of aliens- do a solid and memorable job.
As far as superhero movies go, this does not quite reach the heights of predecessors like The Dark Knight or The Avengers. But what Man of Steel does do, is deliver a highly enjoyable, action packed hero epic, setting the scene for a fun new franchise that will keep old fans going and inspire a new generation to put on red capes and fly around their backyards with Clark Kent.

Cinematic Education

“I guess movies aren’t really your strong point are they?”

My partner, to me, as we watched Ghostbusters. A movie that I’ve seen multiple times, and always enjoy. Apparently, because I hadn’t seen a host of other eighties movie “classics”, I was uneducated in the way of cinema. But why were they considered classics, I argued? Perhaps I wouldn’t like them!

Earlier that evening, at the shopping centre, we saw a replica of an exhibition displaying classic Hollywood costumes. I went ga-ga over a green dress from Gone With The Wind, while my partner first stood there looking blank, then began to walk off when he realised I might be a while at the ooh-ing and aah-ing. I complained that it was a classic movie, while he moaned about so many other classic movies that I had never seen or shown an interest in. We have this discussion regularly; I don’t like ET, refuse to watch more than the first five minutes that I have seen of Gremlins, and my knowledge of Mel Gibson is pretty limited (I do like Lethal Weapon though).

But there are certain movies which I consider to be classics, that he doesn’t like or hasn’t seen. I find it atrocious that he hasn’t watched Gone With The Wind. I did make him sit and watch Casablanca (in return, I watched Nightmare on Elm Street, which I found hilarious). He has also now seen such classic chick-flicks as Clueless and The Notebook, thanks to my instructions/coaxing/bribery. Meanwhile, I have been introduced to The Young Ones, early Batman, and Quentin Tarantino (I’m now quite a fan of all of those). He considers all of these to be compulsory viewing, in the same way that I considered Casablanca to be compulsory viewing. While the movies we chose were very different, we argued about them in the same way; it’s a classic, you must see it, you haven’t lived until…. and on and on and on.

What makes a movie a classic anyway? Some would suggest universal approval; others might suggest pioneering films, such as Star Wars and Triumph of the Will. I would add that it is when such films get into the heart of the public, right into the psyche, that they are acknowledged as a must-see.

I find it interesting, the way movies divide us, or unite us. Taste and preference with regards to movies is entirely a personal thing – and yet, somehow, people get paid to review and recommend them to others who may disagree with their opinion. Is this tactic designed to provoke, to cause people to go and view the film for themselves, that they might be able to voice their own informed opinion? Essentially, reviewers guide public thought; overwhelming negative reviews for a movie might turn other viewers off, for example, while positive word-of-mouth is known to boost ticket sales. Is it then reviewers who decide a film is a classic, or is it the people who pay money and bring their friends, or some other deciding factor?

Taste in movies is subjective, but able to be influenced by other factors. Humans are social creatures, and will flock to anything that appears “social”, including popular movies. The adjective “classic” can therefore be read as a product of popularity and time. If a movie remains steadily popular over the years, it can be considered a classic (see Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, The Sound of Music….) But “must-see viewing” is not the same thing. That comes down to personal taste. For example, if you are a sci-fi fan, I think you should take the time to watch both Star Wars and Star Trek. If you like teenage-y movies, then Ten Things I Hate About You is a necessary addition to your collection. But others might argue, and suggest another film from the sci-fi or teenager-y genres. Different tastes, different opinions… many, many classics and must-sees. Not having seen them all doesn’t mean your knowledge of movies is any less, but rather that it may be stronger in other areas.

So, while I will continue to refuse to sit and watch ET or Gremlins, that doesn’t make me cinematically uneducated. It simply means I have different taste and a right to exercise that opinion. And frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.