Defying Expectations: Science Biopics

Recently our appetite for science-fiction has been insatiable. From the Marvel franchise to Interstellar, we love to watch people push the boundaries of science. But what about the real-life scientists superheroes, without which the modern world would be very different? Science has always been the unglamorous sibling of humanities in culture, with many filmmakers being first to the post with biopics of their heroes; recent ones on the Beat Generation (Kill Your Darlings) and Alfred Hitchcock (Hitchcock), but now it’s the scientists turn to step into the limelight, with both The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything sweeping up handfuls of awards.

It’s no secret that I’m a scientist, both particle physics and mathematics are topics I study, so I was excited to see scientists make it to the big screen. The Imitation Game follows Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) codebreaking discoveries to eventually founding the beginnings of computer science, whilst The Theory of Everything follows Steven Hawking’s struggles with his disability, and the pressure of it and his work upon his marriage.

There’s an ill-informed idea that science is inaccessible for the majority of people, which is why it’s probably taken so long to produce a film on scientists. But both of these films deal with extraordinary minds and overcoming incredible adversity, and people will buy into a good story no matter what the content. Despite it being about scientists, there’s very little science, both of these films are ultimately about the humanity and challenges that faced two men, who revolutionised the world we live in.
Both men are mind-boggling. As The Imitation Game progresses, you get more of an insight into how challenging it was to break the Enigma Code, and the hard work and genius needed to do it, fathering the computer, only for to see Turing, a war hero, life destroyed by the horrific penalties for being gay. As for Hawking (Eddie Redmayne), a man who was given two years to live; continued with his life, marriage, and work, and year after year kept defying everyone’s expectations, whilst changing the way we understand time and space.


Maybe the audience is becoming more comfortable with science. Now with children learning to code based upon the work of Turing, and Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time and Space is one of the biggest bestsellers, science has become more accessible. And let’s not forget the endless fascination with science-fiction. People are starting to question more, wanting to understand more about the world and future discoveries that may impact their lives. And if that’s not science, I don’t know what is.

There’s a criticism that we raise actors and musicians to unnecessary heights, in a way we don’t for extraordinary people like, say brain surgeons. Whilst I don’t think the social construct is going to change anytime soon, I’m glad that we’re drawing some attention to the  real life superheroes who have led lives which without we would be living very differently.

Now maybe they could do a film on a woman, ey? Marie Curie or Ava Lovelace coming soon?

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Directed: James Gunn

Produced: Kevin Feige

Screenplay: James Gunn, Nicole Perlman

Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Lee Pace

When I saw the trailer of Guardians I wasn’t too excited. When Marvel resurrected its big players by the form of massive Hollywood franchises, I had at least heard of them; The Avengers, Spider-Man, and X-Men. DC chose to go with big-players Batman and Superman. However, pre-trailer, Guardians of the Galaxy was unknown to me. On top of this, it looked a bit, well, daft. Is that a talking racoon? Is that a talking tree?

Boy, I was wrong, and you are too, if you are considering giving it a miss. Marvel has made its funniest summer blockbuster yet. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't take itself seriously, and the result being it’s hilarious. It’s funnier than many self-professed “comedies”, and by switching between gags and out-of-this-world action, every moment is thoroughly entertaining.

So what’s it all about? Meet our misfits of the galaxy, the most unlikely band of heroes you will ever meet. Ex-criminals thrown together by mishaps and coincidence to become a thoroughly unwilling group, trying to protect the galaxy from a mysterious orb getting into the hands of Ronan the Accuser.

Chris Pratt stars as Peter Quill, also known as Star Lord (but no-one calls him that). Quill was abducted from Earth as a child in the 80’s, meaning he is perpetually stuck in the 80’s (leading to one of the best soundtracks to have ever featured in a superhero movie). Quill’s moral code is a bit dodgy, but his heart is in the right place, a refreshing change from all recent self-sacrificing superheroes who are concerned with the greater good. Pratt is purely funny, all quips and dancing around the screen (most of the time literally), moving through physical and verbal comedy with ease.

Quill is joined by Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), the aforementioned genetically-engineered racoon, who is obsessed by weapons and money; Groot, who is Rocket’s muscle and has three words during the whole film, which I’m sure was a challenging role for someone as notable as Vin Diesel; Drax, a blue alien caught up with righting the wrongs against him, and more importantly, does not get metaphors; and Zoe Saldana’s kick-ass Gamora, who provides the necessary voice of sanity.

Marvel may have not invested as much into Guardian’s as it has done with its bigger brothers, but that doesn’t detract from the usual Marvel antics, with explosion and colour. This film took you on a trip around the Galaxy that Marvel brags about it in its other films, but we have yet to witness, and it’s just as wonderful and inventive as the hints we’ve previously had.

Just as the film doesn’t take itself seriously, it’s important that you don’t either. Yes it’s a bit crazy, it’s totally silly, highly irrelevant, but mostly incredibly fun.

Rating: 10/10

Maleficent (2014)

Director: Robert Stromberg
Producer: Joe Roth
Writer: Linda Woolverton
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Sharlto Copley, Elle Fanning
Rating: PG
                                                                                                             
Angelina Jolie is a force to be reckoned with in Disney’s new spin on its classic tale of Sleeping Beauty. Disney has stuck to its recent theme of that there are no heroes and villains, although with a darker tone than Frozen.

Meet young Maleficent, a fairy who is not as evil as her name suggests. She whizzes around on her awesome wings, and all is fine and dandy in the incredibly CGI’d magical forest. Until she meets Stefan, a young boy who has snuck into the forest. And since this is Disney, they grow up together and fall in love. Stefan grows into ambitious adult Stefan, and due to his greed, he betrays Maleficent in a gut-wrenching scene where he drugs her and cuts off her wings. Soon Stefan is king and about to have a baby, and in a fit of rage Maleficent… Well we all know they story from there.

The visuals were spectacular. Director Stromberg is a well-known special effects artist; his past credits include Alice in Wonderland and Avatar, and he did not let fans down in this respect. The forest glittered and unfurled magically before your eyes; strange creatures whirled and snarled, and even the CGI on Jolie’s face looked bizarrely believable.

This was a one-woman-show at heart, that woman being Jolie, and with piercing cheekbones and glint in her eye; she swept sweet Elle Fanning’s Aurora and tormented Sharlto Copey’s King Stefan away. Maleficent was a women of few words, but that didn’t stop all eyes on Jolie, whose angry roars, heart-wrenching sobs, and knowing smirks says all.

Though the film may have benefited from some more words. Or plot. The obvious comparison to Maleficent is Wicked, the retelling of the story from the villains perspective, where we find out that they are not as evil as they seem. But while Wicked leaves you in awe of the cleverness and richness of the story, Maleficent is severely lacking in this area. Maleficent is betrayed, Maleficent becomes angry, Maleficent regrets her actions. Disney desire to stick rigidly to the 1959 original has caused this retelling to revert to a darker live-action version replica. And considering Linda Woolverton also wrote classics such as Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, the standard of plot is sub-par.

It’s hard to not initially be bowled over by Maleficent, whose world it is too easy to be absorbed into. The film taps into truths of real life, from love and betrayal, to friendship and fear. But once the magical dust has settled, and your eyes are exhausted from the visual assault, the sour taste of disappointment remains.

Rating: 6/10

The Wolf of Wall Street

Director:  Martin Scorsese
Producers: Martin Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio, Riza Aziz, Joey McFarland, Emma Tillinger Koskoff
Writer: Terence Winter
Based on The Wolf of Wall Street by Jordan Belfort
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie
Rating: 18

Greed and lust. There’s the plot in two words. Want some more words? Lies, drugs, sex, swearing, and of course, money. This is the terrifyingly true story of the rise and fall of stockbroker Jordan Belfort, a man in the late 80’s went from conning the working-class to opening Stratton Oakmont, where his illegal dealings went mass market. Belfort is a hedonist; snorting coke, popping Qualuudes, and sleeping his way through New York. But his biggest addiction lies at the heart of the film: money.

The Wolf of Wall Street is mesmerising and unyielding. You are sucked into an incomprehensible world, where there’s a hooker every day and throwing dwarves is a reasonable thing to do. And that’s just in the office. It’s sleazy, it’s immoral, but you can’t tear your eyes away.

A mixture of hilarity, vulgarity, and violence; it engaged every emotion from laugh-out-loud laughter, to jaw-dropping surprise, to pure horror. At three hours long, the film was pushing it, but considering the amount of excess lavished in the film, what are minutes alongside everything else?

Credit where credit’s due (which is something the stockbrokers did not say), the film is genuinely funny. DiCaprio has once again proved himself by playing a despicable character, and his versatility is shown as he slips from smooth salesman to drugged-up crack-head. Belford is utterly unlikeable, yet completely watchable. He has no morals, no guilt, which is important because as much as we enjoy watching him, we never empathise with him.

Whilst watching, we’re all Jordan Belfort. The film is like one of his Qualuudes dropped in water, fizzing and ready to explode as we start to swig it in. It takes us on a high; we’re drawn into a dysmorphic world that is nothing is like the reality we live in, and we can’t get enough of it. But the crash is hard and painful, and only on exiting the cinema do the thoughts creep in. Why are we so obsessed with greed? Why were no victims shown? And is it okay that Belford is profiting with his new-found celebrity?

Overall: Decadent and disgraceful, no matter how much you want to, you won't be able to take your eyes of the screen.

Rating: 9/10

Borrowed Time (2013)

Director: Jules Bishop

Writer: Jules Bishop

Starring: Philip Davis, Theo Barklem-Biggs, Juliet Oldfield 

Rating: 15

It’s times like this that I am grateful for Kickstarter. Just wow. Borrowed Time is a British independent film that features the writing and directing debut of Jules Bishop and tackles some of the social issues faced in Britain in a funny, upbeat, and gritty way. If you a British teenager, please go see this, you won’t regret it. It’s the film equivalent of a UKYA book. 

The story takes place in East London, and follows Kevin (Theo Barklem-Biggs), a guy who just wants to get his mother’s clock back for his sister after he pawned it away. Unfortunately, to get hold of the money to buy back the clock, he gets involved with “Ninja” Nigel (Warren Brown), and ends up owing him money. This leads him to cross paths with pensioner Phillip (Phil Davies) and an unlikely bond is formed. 

This is British film as it should be. Never afraid to tackle issues and it does it in an intelligent and witty way. And in a time where both youth and elderly are demonized by the rest of society, there couldn’t be a better time for it. This was writer and director Jules Bishop’s debut, and his vision was seen throughout. I attended a Q+A for the film, and he came from a similar background to the film, which could be seen through the honesty and social realism that he painted. It’s also very hard to describe how funny the film was, because it was funny in the way real life can be funny. It’s like those little moments you share with your mates, except it’s on the big screen.

There were some very strong characters seen through the film, whether it be nutty Ninja Nigel, or bitter Phillip, to shy, understated Kevin, and every part was well acted. The speech was very natural and clever, which I found impressive as I feel that usually young people’s speech can go awry in films. Phil Davies and Theo Barklem-Biggs was a strange pair, but they made it work. Most importantly, they channelled these very real issues affecting their characters and the prejudices each have towards each other.

On a small note, I also really loved the little motifs that cropped up. Time in the title, and time in the nature. The clock references were a constant reminder of the coming of age for Kevin, and the passing of time for Phillip. The film was also shot on 16mm film and not on digital, which basically meant that it had the grainy, traditional quality to a film. This added to the “rough-around-the-edges” feel it had.

In a time where “urban” films are dark and violent, it was refreshing to find one upbeat but never drawing away from the seriousness of the issues it tackled. For me, Borrowed Time addressed the real truth of London life, it’s dark and dangerous, but it’s still life, so it’s also sweet and fun. And it’s that range of emotions which ultimately captured my love. I can’t wait to see what Jules Bishop does next.

Overall: A clever, witty take on urban youth in London, and I thought it was simply fantastic.

Rating: 10/10

About Time (2013)

Director: Richard Curtis
Producer: Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Nicky Kentish Barnes
Writer: Richard Curtis
Starring: Domhnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, Bill Nighy
Rating: 12A/ R
                                                                                       
So Richard Curtis has done it again and produced another great, feel-good fantasy-rom-comedy, but this time without Hugh Grant in sight.

Meet Tim, who discovers that all the men in his family can travel back in time to points in their own timeline. Tim then decides he will use his power for one goal: getting a girlfriend. The rest of the story is slightly predictable when it comes to Curtis, just like Notting Hill and Four Weddings and a Funeral, Tim falls for the all-American girl (and this one has a bizarre dress sense).

Did I enjoy this film? Yes. Did I have to suspend belief to enjoy it? Yes. About Time was genuinely very funny. The witty one-liners, the dry humour, and the occasional dash of slapstick captured British humour at its best. So comedy check. How about the romantic? Definitely check. MacAdams and Gleeson had great chemistry, which sizzled through the soppy through to the downright awkward parts of Tim and Mary’s relationship. So we’ve got a good rom-com. The fantasy? Nothing about the time-travel was explained, no real inventiveness was used with it, but once you accepted it, the plot moved along nicely.

Surprisingly the film was genuinely profound and moving. The characters were all endearing and likable, right down to pessimistic, grouchy, playwright Harry. Interesting points about life was raised, and it wasn’t just Tim and Mary’s relationship that was showcased. Bill Nighly as Tim’s father provided another dimension to the film, as we take a glimpse into a loving, albeit comical, father-son relationship.

Is it possible to be type-casted as a time-traveller’s wife? Because in the past five years Rachel MacAdams has managed to play the role twice, the first being in The Time Traveller’s Wife. Comparison is unavoidable. About Time is more quirky, profounder, and funnier, on top of having a more rounded plot, which takes a look further than the scope of one relationship. However, and this is a real sticking point with About Time, the relationship is far less realistic. Tim never tells Mary that he’s a time-traveller, and I was half-expecting a moment at the end where he tells her all the times he redone the events and they have a good giggle about it, and that never came. Truthfully, it’s a little creepy that he’s redone so much of their life together and she has no idea, no matter of his revelation at the end.

Ultimately, this was one of my favourite Curtis movies, and it has nothing to do with the lack of Hugh Grant. About Time is simply timeless (no pun intended) in themes, relationships, and humour, and as long as you take it with a pinch of salt (or sugar may be more apt here), it really is a great British film.

Overall: The only type of people who shouldn’t watch this are people who despise Richard Curtis films (unless they only hate them because they have Hugh Grant in them).

Rating: 8/10

The World's End (2013)

Director: Edgar Wright
Producer: Nira Park, Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner
Writers: Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg
Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Paddy Considine, Martin Freeman

The World’s End comes from the eclectic duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead), and is the finale in their “Cornetto Trilogy” (using the world “trilogy” in the loosest sense). Gary King (Pegg), a man living in the past, is determined to reunite his old gang (Frost, Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan, and Paddy Considine) to complete a pub crawl from their youth in their childhood town. However, all is not as it seems in their hometown, and suddenly everything turns, well, a bit apocalyptic.

It was fun, I’ll give it that. Pegg and Frost chemistry and friendship just sizzles across the screen, and there were enough jokes and character to keep it entertaining. I loved how all the characters took individual journeys and the writers were committed to having character development within all the chaos that was going on. But the main problem I had was the trailer had given away its biggest plot twist: the alien apocalypse. This meant I found the rest of the film fairly predictable, until it got to a shocking last fifteen minutes.

Plot aside; it was the characters which really made the film. There was something distinctly sorry and funny about King, who is clinging onto memories of old, and Pegg has never had a better formed character: obsessive, compulsive, and plain deluded, which makes a great comic character. Frost’s role as Andrew was the stark contrast to Gary (he hadn’t drunk in sixteen years), and he provided a clever humour, as well as a balance to everyone. The World’s End really highlighted good British comedy, within the high budget extravaganza. It was less slapstick and more witty, and you can see it shine through the American films in the same genre.

In the end, The World’s End didn’t live up to my expectations. Explosions, robots, and fight-sequences were tossed out every ten seconds and after a while the drinking and fighting got a bit repetitive. It was only the gems in between which saved it. I got that it was meant to be an alien invasion-comedy crossover, but it didn’t make enough sense to be a good alien invasion, and it was so caught up with trying to be one, that some of the comedy got left behind.

Sum It Up: Not as clever as their previous work, but still funny and with a heart. And lots of explosions.

Rating: 7/10

Monsters University (2013)

Director: Dan Scanlon

Producer: Kori Rae

Screenwriters: Daniel Gerson, Robert L. Baird, Dan Scanlon

Starring: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi

Rating: U/ G

I have a strong feeling that my nostalgia for Monsters Inc. is going to bias this review, but I’ll say it anyway, I loved this film! There, I said it.

Monsters University is the prequel to Monsters Inc. and follows Mike and Sully before they became the scare duo of the original film, back to their “collage” years. Mike and Sully are initially enemies, due to Sully’s lazy attitude, and Mike’s lack of scariness. After nearly getting expelled, they are forced to compete in the “Scare Games” together, where they bond and discover what a great team they are.

Mike and Sully are as great as they were in the original. They contrasted each other and reflected a little bit of everyone. Pixar really tapped into everyone’s love of the underdog, and the supporting cast of Oozma Kappa was hilarious. Helen Mirren’s first voice acting role deserves a mention, as she was definitely the scariest monster of them all.

It’s very predictable up till the end, and for once I don’t care. Because Monsters University has all the charm, character, and wit of the original. It reminded me off my childhood love of Pixar, and the universality of its stories. Or maybe it has a little to do with me going to university this year… Was it the best Pixar film ever made? No. But Pixar’s bar is pretty high. The entertainment for adults as well as children was showcased through the film, with plithy remarks that were sure to skim over children’s heads but into adult mind. Most importantly, it tugged at your heart-strings. I genuinely cared about all the characters, and although I could guess at the ending, it didn’t make the journey any less enjoyable.

What I liked the most about the story was the message it sent out. In a society where a university degree seems like everything, and the attitude of “ you can do whatever you want to”, Monsters University took a daring stance on it. Despite studying his hardest, Mike was not cut out to be a scarer like he dreamed off, but he found out that there was something he was better at instead. The ending also showed that you don’t need a university degree to achieve what you want, but hard work and effort.

As for the animation? Pixar is upping its game with each production. Fur was a breakthrough back in 2001, but now the backgrounds are starting to look more like film clips from the real world. For me, the real testament of Pixar’s true ability was in the six-minute short film The Blue Umbrella before the main film, which not only showcased Pixar’s astonishing skills (for the first minute I honestly thought there was real world shots), but its ability to make you feel things you never thought you could.

Pixar may not be quite back to its former glory, but this film is a step closer to it, and gives me faith for Finding Dory, its next sequel.

Sum It Up: Funny and sincere, Pixar’s film will appeal to children, older original watchers of Monsters Inc. and adults. So really, it’s just for everyone.

Rating: 9/10

Much Ado About Nothing (2013)

Director: Joss Whedon

Screenplay: Joss Whedon and based on Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare

Starring: Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Reed Diamond, Nathan Fillion

Rating: 12A/ PG-13

Wit, sexiness, and deception oozed out of Shakespeare’s timeless play in this modern adaptation by geek favourite, Joss Whedon. I have to say, I am a huge fan of Whedon and Shakespeare, and was eager to see what this partnership would bring. What I saw was one of the best modern Shakespeare adaptation I have seen, even surpassing, dare I say it, Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet.

It’s very easy for Shakespeare to pass right over people’s heads if it is not performed properly. I’m happy to say, even if you are not familiar with the play, you can grasp the plot as it was executed so well. The tale goes as Benedick (Alexis Denisoff) arrives with Don Pedro (Reed Diamond) and Claudio (Fran Kranz) to the home of Leonarto (Clark Gregg). Claudio instantly falls for Leonarto’s daughter, Hero (Jillian Morgese), while Benedick and Beatrice (Amy Acker) continue their sexual tension fuelled sparring. However Don John (Sean Maher) is there to throw a spanner into the works. The rest is history. Or a 400 year old play.

Whedon fans will recognise most of the names off the cast list. Nearly every single cast member has appeared in Whedonverse. 

That’s not to say that they didn’t deserve the parts they were given. I have to say, this was an exquisitely cast film. The stars were Denisoff and Acker, playing witty partners Benedick and Beatrice, who were chock full of on-screen chemistry. I have never laughed so much at a Shakespeare adaptation then I did because of the two of them. I’m glad Whedon didn’t throw Nathan Fillion into a more central role because he was one of the biggest names there, but gave him the role of Dogberry, and him and Tom Lenk provided such a good laugh that they should consider becoming a double act.

Set in a modern day period with technology playing a part, yet shot in timeless black and white, Whedon’s direction is written all over the film. The booze and sex really glams up the play, opposed to cheapening it. There were clever and inventive background stories which played upon the Shakespearian script, such as Beatrice and Benedick’s history, and Don John’s and Conrade’s affair. Then there was the glitz and glam of the masquerade, the soliloquies with context, and the personal quality of the whole film being shot entirely in Whedon’s home. Not to mention the score. Whedon scored the film himself, and some of the songs included modernised versions of Shakespeare’s original songs for the play.

Much Ado About Nothing has the spark and chemistry of the 400 year old play, which keeps its relevance right to today. It is never overshadowed by its language and history, but instead plays with it in a quirky and dynamic way. The story is beautifully illustrated and exceptionally cast, and I am glad Whedon tossed aside high value production costs, in favour for something simpler, but no less spectacular.

Sum It Up: You like Shakespeare? Go see this. You like Whedon? Go see this. You like films? Go see this. It’s a beautiful, intelligent film, which captures the essence of Much Ado About Nothing with charm and wit.

Rating: 10/10

Man of Steel (2013)

Directed by Zack Snyder
Produced by Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, Emma Thomas, Deborah Snyder
Screenplay by David S. Goyer and based on Superman by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster
Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe
Rating: 12A/ PG-13

So Superman is back, and smashing its way through the box office. With the hype surrounding the film, Man of Steel had a lot to live up too. It was good, but it stopped short of the height it was meant to fly too.

Superman lore is not a new concept of me, and as a fan I was incredibly excited for the film. Disappointingly, for a film so long, the plot was incredibly simple, especially when parts of it are integrated into popular culture knowledge. Superman leaves Krypton, arrives on Earth, grows up on Earth, the bad guy comes, and Superman saves the day… In a movie where everyone knows the general storyline, you expect a few more plot twists. Major parts of the film were given to intense, long action sequences that eventually became tedious, and felt like a rip-off  of certain movies (*cough* The Avengers). In all the time they wasted on that, they could have created a complex plot, especially considering Nolan’s involvement and his clever Dark Knight trilogy.  The saving grace of the storyline was the intertwining flashbacks to Clark’s childhood and his early days before the cape, with the struggle he had with family, choice, and destiny.

Henry Cavill was a good Clark Kent/ Superman, and certainly looks the part, but if he had been given a better script, he could have been a great one. But thinking back on the film, he was barely in it. Half of the film was dedicated to Krypton, Zod, or flashbacks. It seems all he was there was to throw punches around, meaning the character had barely any connection to the audience. But when he did get a chance to make a connection, boy, did he do it well. The fragility within the character was really shown when Clark was restraining himself in his early days or in the moments with Lois. I particularly liked Adams and Cavill’s chemistry, and Adams was a good Lois Lane, feisty and headstrong, if underdeveloped. In fact, all the acting was really good; it was the meagre script which let everyone down.

Gaping plot issues aside, Man of Steel wasn’t a bad film for numerous reasons. It played to the classic, feel-good blockbuster routine: attractive hero, lots of action, and the occasional injection of emotion to lift it up. A quirky feature I did like was that it was more light-hearted than The Dark Knight with the occasional quip here and there. And don’t get me wrong, the action sequences were exhilarating for the first 10 minutes worth. Most importantly, there were rare occasions where script, cinematography, and acting came together to produce something out of this world, which made the dire bits worthwhile.

I would say Man of Steel is worth a watch if you don’t expect too much of it; if you do, you will surely be disappointed. It lacked the fun and wit of Marvel, and the exciting plot of The Dark Knight, but made up in visuals, style, and the occasional glimpse into something great. I wonder if all the fun went with the red pants of Superman’s costume…

Sum It Up: Definitely worth a watch, bound to be a hit for those who like a lot of explosions, but don't expect anything more than a generic superhero film.

Rating: 6/10

The Great Gatsby (2013)

Directed by Baz Luhrmann

Produced by Baz Luhrmann, Douglas Wick, Lucy Fisher, Catherine Martin, Catherine Knapman

Screenplay by Baz Luhrmann, Craig Pearce and based on The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher

The Great Gatsby is a visual and audial assault, which takes the symbolism, words, and plot of F. Scott’s Fitzgerald’s original novel, and laces it with the glitz and glam of the roaring 20’s. As a huge fan of the novel, I was apprehensive of the film feeling like the symbolism and power of the book will be overtaken by a “Hollywood make-over”. It was, but it was a surprisingly good make-over at 

The film is extremely faithful to the book, which I applaud Luhrmann for, but I can’t help feel it was an effort to keep literary fans at bay. The tale of Nick Carraway meeting the illustrious Gatsby and being pulled into his decadent world was accurately told. Most of the language was from the novel, and the symbols within the book was carefully brought to light, however as the camera kept blatantly staring at them, they started to lose their significance. The green light, which was so vaguely mentioned in the book, an idea for the reader to ponder over, was suddenly shouted about at every moment. As for the themes, I am left unsure. There was a lot of wealth and a lot of dangerous obsession, but I feel like it did not truly transpire Fitzgerald’s message, and it was more me projecting the message I knew onto the film.

Acting wise, there is not much to say. Tobey Maguire made an apt Nick Carraway, but failed to provide much of a personality for him. Carey Mulligan was an interesting Daisy, but yet again, I feel like the actors used the 20’s setting as an excuse for not portraying half as much personality as required. The real stars was Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher, and, of course, Leonardo Di Caprio. Edgerton’s Tom really felt like the character of the book: arrogant and prejudiced, with glimpses of human hope. As for Fisher, I wished she had some more screen time, as I found watching her as Myrtle was far more fun than reading about her. And Di Caprio? He caught Gatsby’s mystery, shadiness, obsession, and hope all at once. Maguire may have been the lead, but it was really Di Caprio who shone through.

So if the acting and adaptation standard was average, why did I find the movie so good? The answer lies with Baz Luhrmann. The Great Gatsby follows Luhrmann’s previous style of changing pace and flashy scenes, and the cinematography and visuals were phenomenal. Colour and action bloomed from every part of the screen, and the story kept on going. On occasion, it did seem a bit over the top, but generally I excused that. The soundtrack also deserves a mention. The juxtaposition between old 20’s and modern tracks, really brought forward the relevance of the themes of money, beauty, and youth to today.

I realise in this analysis it does not look like I liked the film at all. However, if you take the film without any expectations from the book, it would seem an excellent movie. On sheer entertainment factor, I enjoyed it very much. Did it capture Fitzgerald’s novel? Only if you take it on a literal sense with the words that it spilled out, but in heart I felt it didn’t. If the movie hadn’t taken itself so seriously I would have given it a higher rating, but sadly nobody likes a try-hard.

Sum It Up: For fans of Fitzgerald's book, this film will be a let down, however, if you haven't read the book, and are a fan of Luhrrman's previous work, you will undoubtedly be blown away. 

Rating: 7 /10

Iron Man 3 (2013)

Marvel had a lot to live up to after The Avengers. Iron Man was the first in the instalments, and brought to us witty dialogue, action, and a superhero plot. Each instalment had to match the previous, only to be completely tied together and blown out of the water by the epic Avengers. To say my expectations were high wouldn’t cover it.

Thankfully Iron Man 3 exceeded them.

Iron Man 3 takes place after the Avengers, and, without giving too much away, involves a lot of bio-technology jargon, explosions, and characters from Tony’s past. Shane Black and Drew Pearce has not let us down with hilarious not-quite-villains (Ben Kingsley I salute you), sharp one liners, and an twisting and turning superhero plot. The action sequences and special effects were a visual spectacle, and I would expect no less considering what they had pulled off with The Avengers.

As for the man himself? Downey Jr. was the Tony Stark that we all know and love. He was funny, he was egotistical, and he was human. And when we’re watching an iron suit, is an important thing to remember. I was glad to see Stark was affected by what happened in The Avengers, it gave the sense that Iron Man 3 was trying to stand by The Avengers, instead of trying to brush past it, as well as reminding us that our superhero was mortal. Tony Stark has always been my favourite Avenger, he always seemed to be the most robust character, the most charismatic, and in the end, the one you didn’t mind seeing a one man show of.

If anything, that’s the only negative I had to this film, the lack of development in most of the other characters. I really felt like they could have pushed a lot further with Pepper Potts and their relationship, instead of having her hanging on for her life in a sports bra and using her as a plot device to express Starks obsession with Iron Man. I suspect Paltrow is a better actress than the character shows off. Rebecca Hall’s character, Maya, had a strong start as strong female scientist, and then went absolutely nowhere. Guy Pearce as Killian, the villain, is a tricky one. I understood his motives and found him despicable enough to hate, but it felt that I hated his actions more than his character.

There were two secret stars to this film though: Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin, and Ty Simpkins as Harley, a 10 year old boy. I was utterly impressed by the way Kingsley moved effortlessly through the different dimensions of his character, and Simpkins, the first prominent child in a Marvel film, was intelligent, funny, and adorable.

Would I watch Iron Man 3 again? Yes. This film had what all Marvel films have, the enjoyment factor, which is hard to get anywhere else. Iron Man 3 may seem like a one man show at some points, but it's a damn good one.

Rating: 8/10