Pompeii - Review

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson Writers: Janet Scott Batchler, Lee Batchler, Michael Robert Johnson Studios: Summit Entertainment, Lionsgate Films Cast: Kit Harington, Emily Browning, Carrie-Anne Moss, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Jessica Lucas, Jared Harris, Kiefer Sutherland Release Date (UK): 30 April, 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 104 min

“Pompeii” is like Paul W.S. Anderson decided to remake “Titanic,” but with the iceberg replaced with a volcano, and Jack and Rose replaced with those floating pieces of furniture they used to cling to safety. Though its setting is ancient Rome, the story is more or less the same as James Cameron’s historical disaster romance: in the famously doomed city of Pompeii, a ruggedly handsome slave-turned-gladiator (Kit Harrington, much better as Jon Snow in “Game of Thrones”) and the beautiful daughter of a rich businessman (Emily Browning) fall in love; this, in spite of their scandalous class difference and the latter’s forced engagement to the wicked and corrupt Senator Corvus (Kiefer Sutherland), who sniffs out their romance and is determined to put an end to it. But little do they know that a dire fate awaits them and the rest of Pompeii, as foretold by the towering Mount Vesuvius grumbling ominously in the background, a warning the citizens laugh off as nothing. The fools!

There’s lots of that kind of nudge-nudge, wink-wink foreshadowing throughout “Pompeii,” as if the film is teasing us that more exciting events are to come. And indeed, once Vesuvius finally blows its fiery load, there’s plenty of apocalyptic destruction on display, with raging fireballs descending onto the city and a thick fog of ash and smoke rampaging through the streets. But the journey to that grand, Emmerichian spectacle is quite the slog, with the story playing out like a boringly typical — albeit drably romantic — swords and sandals flick, and Harrington and Browning sharing all the passion and chemistry of two mating chairs. At least we can be thankful that the good Mr. Anderson opted out of making his film the same epic, three-hour length of Cameron’s blockbuster: if he hadn’t, we surely would’ve all crumbled into a pile of ashes before the volcano had even erupted.

Rating: 4/10

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Review

Director: Marc Webb Writers: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner Studios: Columbia Pictures, Marvel Entertainment Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Colm Feore, Felicity Jones, Campbell Scott, Emberth Davidt, Paul Giamatti, Sally Field Release Date (UK): April 16, 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 142 min

Without doubt, the absolute best thing about Sony’s 2012 “Spider-Man” reboot was the pitch-perfect casting of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. As Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, the costumed webhead and his brainbox lover, Garfield and Stone are an endlessly watchable delight, bursting with personality, flaunting a warm passion and sharing a buzzing chemistry which for electrical surges rivals Electro himself. So it was with a great deal of joy that I discovered while watching “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that despite the marketing’s overwhelming showcases of special effects action and comic book villainy, director Marc Webb had decided to make Peter and Gwen’s relationship the focus of the film — a relief, considering my worries that the story was to be a cluttered, unfocused mess.

As you may recall, at the end of the first "Amazing Spider-Man," Peter broke a promise: he swore to the late Captain Stacy that he would leave Stacy's daughter alone and thus keep her safe from Spider-Man's enemies. Now Peter's having to deal with the consequences of breaking that promise: haunted by guilt, he's seeing Stacy everywhere, and it's put a strain on his and Gwen's relationship. This is what drives the drama of the film: Peter loves Gwen and wants to be with her, and she too wants to be with him, but at the same time he wishes to keep her from harm. Peter and Gwen's relationship is the core - or the heart, if you will - of the story around which everything else revolves, and it's what keeps the film from being that cluttered, unfocused mess I worried it would be.

To that effect, it's ultimately what keeps “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” from being another “Spider-Man 3.” Like Sam Raimi’s much-derided threequel, Webb’s second Spidey outing has the infamously worrying count of three villains, these being Jamie Foxx’s electrically charged Electro, Dane DeHaan’s cackling Green Goblin, and Paul Giamatti’s roaring Russian mobster Rhino. Many internet commenters feared that this was once again too much, that the film would be crushed under the weight of its villains; as Scotty from “Star Trek” would proclaim, “She cannae take anymore, captain!” But if anything, it proves that the problem with “Spider-Man 3” was not, as is so frequently claimed, the number of villains, it was the lack of focus. Raimi didn’t find a focus to his story and the result was a cluttered muddle; Webb does, and he finds it in the romance between Peter and Gwen, who through being in the spotlight give the drama and the story a focal point and a driving force.

Which is not to say that the story’s structure is not a little unwieldy: alongside Peter and Gwen there is an awful lot going on, with the rise of Electro and the Green Goblin both requiring lengthy set-ups and the mystery behind Peter’s parents finally being solved. And which is not to say that the balance is perfect: following his transformation and a brief scuffle with Spidey at Times Square, Electro is disappointingly missing from action until the big finale, for example. But in juggling many balls, Webb impressively drops very few; certainly less so than he did in the first “Amazing Spider-Man,” where Peter’s intriguing pursuit of the truth behind his parents’ death was glaringly forgotten in the film’s second half. Considering all the sub-plots it’s surprisingly coherent, which I’ll put down to two things: 1. Peter and Gwen being front and centre, and 2. The sub-plots all being related to the evil entity of OsCorp, which ties them all together in a neat and sinister little bow.

I suppose it also helps that the film as a whole is fantastic fun and that it zips along with a bouncy energy. The sights of Spidey gliding and web-swinging between the skyscrapers of New York are utterly spectacular, the splashy special effects are universally splendid, and the action, which now utilises bullet-time to incorporate our hero’s spidey-sense, is properly thrilling. But Garfield and Stone are so good together, and their chemistry so warm and engrossing, that the scenes they share are alone worth the price of admission — all that other stuff is just an extra treat. I’d also like to mention that I’ve loved this reboot’s treatment of Gwen, who at no point has been the shrieking, helpless, ever-endangered damsel in distress that Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane was rather embarrassingly reduced to in the previous trilogy. Smart, resourceful and bravely getting in on the action, she’s effectively Spider-Man’s sidekick, and I just love that.

Rating: 8/10

The Raid 2 - Review

Director: Gareth Evans Writer: Gareth Evans Studios: Sony Pictures Classics, Entertainment One, PT. Merantau Films, XYZ Films Cast: Iko Uwais, Arifin Putra, Oka Antara, Tio Pakusadewo, Alex Abbad, Julie Estelle, Ryuhei Matsuda, Kenichi Endo, Kauki Kitamura Release Date (UK): 11 April 2014 Certificate: 18 Runtime: 150 min

Poor Rama: having just barely limped his way out of one Jakartan hellhole, the battered and bruised rookie SWAT member finds himself thrown straight into another one. There’s one key difference, however: this hellhole’s considerably bigger than the tight corridors of a locked-down apartment block, with Rama thrust into a ruthless world of violent mobsters, deadly assassins and impending gang wars. With his family in danger, he’s forced to go undercover, tasked with infiltrating the Jakartan criminal underworld under the guise of a no-name thug turned foot soldier for the mob. What this means for action hero Iko Uwais and director Gareth Evans is that in sequel “The Raid 2” they have a bigger playground to play in than they did in 2011: now that we’re not stuck inside a single building, there's more room to explore and more chance for the action to be more varied and more spread out. Evans takes full advantage of this: we have a speeding car chase, a nightclub punch-up, a mud-soaked prison riot, a baseball bat attack on the street and a brawl on a subway train between knife-wielding gangsters and a character known only as “hammer girl” — no prizes for guessing her weapon of choice. What this also means is that along with the increase in scale, Evans has a bigger, more complex story to tell, which certainly shows in the runtime: clocking in at a whopping 150 minutes, it runs almost a whole hour longer than its predecessor. But though it’s certainly not as lean as “The Raid,” “The Raid 2” is just as mean, if not meaner: there’s enough broken bones and splattering blood on display to help keep Steven Seagal’s career going for the next few decades, and though the scale of the story has been greatly upped, Evans crucially keeps the action operating on the same level of bare-knuckle intensity that made the first “Raid” such a blast.

The action, as anyone could have predicted, is exhilarating, achieving the same kind of operatic, visceral mayhem achieved in the first “Raid:” you feel every punch, every kick, every baseball bat to the face and every claw hammer to the jugular. As pro ass-hander Rama, Uwais is once again an astonishing force of nature, as is Evans’ camerawork, which again matches the mesmerising, hyper-kinetic fight choreography in breathtaking agility. The difference is that there are more breathers in between the fights, with a fair chunk of the runtime spent outlining a complex story involving gangsters and their various betrayals, and following Rama as he works undercover in the mob system. This obviously won’t please everyone; this is not the non-stop thrill-ride that was “The Raid,” with the action scenes more spread out and more time spent on plot and character. But for me, “The Raid 2” does what any great sequel does: it expands on its predecessor’s universe and pushes things in a different direction, all the while retaining what made the first film tick. Evans maintains a balance between story and action and delivers a film that's equal counts an enthralling, sprawling, who-betrayed-who crime thriller in the vein of “Infernal Affairs” and a bone-snapping, jaw-dropping martial arts extravaganza guaranteed to have you gasping in awe and squirming in disgusted delight.

Rating: 10/10

Noah - Review

Director: Darren Aronofsky Writers: Darren Aronofsky, Ari Handel Studios: Paramount Pictures, Regency Enterprises, Protozoa Pictures Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins, Logan Lerman Release Date (UK): 4 April 2014 Certificate: 12A Runtime: 138 min

The story of Noah is a scary one: it is, after all, that of a man who sat in a boat while the world around him drowned. Darren Aronofsky recognises this, and so, in his new blockbuster movie “Noah,” there is a scene where the terrified screams from those swept away by God’s great flood cause Noah’s family distress as they sit in the safety of the ark. Why can’t they throw out ropes so that people can climb into the ark, they ask Noah. “There is no room for them,” comes his dismissive reply, though look into his eyes and you might detect that he too is troubled by the screams. I suppose it goes without saying that Aronofsky’s telling of this biblical tale is darker than your average Sunday School rendition: this is, after all, the man who gave us the uncompromisingly bleak “Requiem for a Dream,” which memorably ended with amputations and electro-shock therapy. Those scenes were tough to stomach, and so are moments in “Noah:” images of cannibalism fill the screen, newborn babies are placed in danger and one poor soul is unexpectedly trampled to death (don’t ask me how the film got away with a 12A rating). Not to mention that the apocalypse occurs, the horror of which Aronofsky fully embraces.

Noah is played by Russell Crowe, who performs him not as the smiling, rosy-cheeked hero you read about as a child but as a complex man, conflicted between his love of his family and nature and his need to serve his God. Crowe lends to Noah the gravitas deserving of a biblical figure. He also lends him a compelling determination which teeters dangerously close to obsession. And if there exists a running theme throughout Aronofsky’s films, surely it’s obsession — self-destructive obsession, to be precise. Most of Aronofsky’s characters share this trait, be they Sean Gullette’s isolated number theorist in his feature debut “Pi,” the various drug abusers in “Requiem for a Dream” or Natalie Portman’s perfectionist ballerina in “Black Swan.” Noah is no different, his obsession being to selflessly obey God, and his self-destruction coming when he finds himself willing to commit acts of monstrosity in the name of this obedience. At the film’s beginning we like Noah: we see that he is kind and loving and brave, and balanced between his devotion to God and his devotion to his family. Towards the end we’re not so sure: that balance is lost, and soon enough basic morals give way to thoughtless extremism.

Apologies if I’m making it all sound very bleak: as an epic fantasy blockbuster “Noah” actually works very well, with plenty of dazzling visual effects and spectacular apocalyptic destruction on display. Most enjoyable of the special effects are the stone giants, who are like stop-motion monsters out of a Ray Harryhausen production, and whose thrilling battle with violent tribesmen, as led by a remarkably slimy Ray Winstone, resembles the battle at Isengard between the Ents and the Orcs in “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.” But I do like that there’s a grit and a darkness to this, and that at the centre of it there is a Noah who is a man, complex and conflicted. After so many rumours of studio tampering and a watering down of Aronofsky’s vision, it’s a relief that the film is as bold, fierce, thoughtful and daring as it is — though I suspect it’s less the studios and more Aronofsky we have to thank for that.

Rating: 8/10