Jurassic World (2015) Review

Jurassic World is going to be the biggest film of the summer, and will compete with Star Wars for the biggest film of the year. Jurassic Park fans like myself have waited with bated breath for this film as it has been teased for the past five years (at least) and with that anticipation comes a huge responsibility to not disappoint. The original film holds a special place in many hearts as a childhood film, as do many Spielberg films, and even though he is still making films, Jurassic Park feels like his last true classic. It was really important for Jurassic World to avoid dwelling too much on the nostalgic factor. The truth about the Jurassic Park films is that the story does not need to follow certain people to keep fans interested, the concept itself is the headline and can be utilized with different characters. Director Colin Trevorrow made a great decision to not feature the old cast, and while there are multiple nods to the original, he does a wonderful job of creating a new atmosphere. 

The old cast of the original Star Wars will feature in the new film, and Harrison Ford was still playing Indiana Jones in 2008. Jurassic World could have so easily fallen victim to this trend, but thankfully it did not. Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard perform their leading roles excellently. Chris Pratt reminds me of a modern day Harrison Ford. He has a certain presence that brings a sense of importance to his role in the film. Another actor in this role probably would have made the entire film feel flat. Vincent D'Onofrio plays the bad guy really well, similar to his character in Daredevil. The only issue I have in terms of characters are the two kids. The story follows them and that allows the film to show off its attractions, but it was hard to care about them because I didn't have a reason to. The kids in Jurassic Park were much more integrated into the story and warranted empathy, but in this film I just wanted to see what happened with Claire and Owen. 

Product placement distracted the first hour of the film. I can recall eight brands I saw throughout. Trevorrow has insisted that the use of product placement is a satirical depiction of the corporate exploitation of popular entertainment, but that sounds like a poor excuse. If he really wanted to make such commentary, overexposing fake brands would have been much more effective. They should have focused on selling me Jurassic World, not Starbucks and Coca Cola. 

The plot of the film made sense aside from a few holes. It certainly didn't feel like it was written just for the sake of churning out another franchise film, and the different stories intertwined really well to create an exemplary climax. My main issue in terms of the plot (possible spoilers) is why the Velociraptors attacked Owen at the start but then didn't attack him later when they had the chance. The circumstances didn't change. Such issues didn't affect my overall enjoyment of the film though.

On a final note, this film isn't as quotable as the original film, and the imagery isn't quite as memorable but it comes pretty close. A lot of care was put into the production of Jurassic World and it certainly pays off. It is definitely worth watching whether you like the original or not, because it is a lot of fun. It is head and shoulders above the other two sequels and has set the standard for sequels to classic films. Star Wars, do your worst. 

5/7

Poltergeist (2015) Review

The Poltergeist remake is the latest addition to a quickly expanding group of poor and unimaginative horror remakes. It's hard to look at any remake as a standalone film without making comparisons to the original. It would have been more exciting to see a sequel years on from the original, like The Town that Dreaded Sundown (2014) and Scream 4 (2010). Maybe we could have seen Carol Ann grown up with kids of her own and seeing the story develop in that way. But no, this 2015 remake regurgitates the exact same story from the first but in a contemporary setting. 

Modern aspects add nothing to the film. Mobile phones, drones, and GPS systems are used and the only way they actually contribute to the story is that we get to see inside the other world as a camera is flown in on a drone. Do we really need to see what it looks like where the child goes? It just looked like a CGI zombie movie. Some things are better left to the imagination. We don't see inside in the original because we don't need to. 

The original 1982 Poltergeist was written and produced by Steven Spielberg, and we can see that evidently in the qualities of the film. He describes E.T. the Extra Terrestrial (1982) as a suburban dream while Poltergeist (1982) was a suburban nightmare. We see a Reagan-era family growing up in American suburbs and it was probably easy to relate to that in 1982. The 2015 film fails to possess these same qualities as we see the struggling family move into a really big house. All of the character are difficult to engage with from the beginning. 

On the topic of qualities, there is some pretty poor CGI in the original, but it adds a sense of charm to it and makes it feel like an 80's classic. This obviously cannot be reproduced in the remake, but the CGI in place was just boring and annoying. This is going to be a problem with the new Ghostbusters film if it ever happens. On top of all this, jokes are recycled from the original film, and that might generate a laugh or two, but it still offers nothing new. It relies heavily on jump scares to make the film seem scary, but it only made it feel like a Blumhouse film. 

The evidence of lazy writing and general film making is so clear throughout this film. The original can't be surpassed so why bother making a remake? It's a lazy method of generating money for movie studios. Original films like It Follows and Unfriended have been released this year and that's really exciting to see, but the Poltergeist remake is a setback for the horror genre. If anything good can come from it, remakes might stop getting made. Revisit the original at home instead of wasting your money on this film.

Oh, and a blue flatscreen has nothing on a static television set, but I guess that epitomizes this remake.

1/7 

Tomorrowland: A World Beyond (2015) Review

Before I begin to talk about Tomorrowland, it is probably important to note that I am a huge fan of Disney theme parks. I love all of the old documentaries about Walt Disney's vision of Tomorrow, his plans for Epcot (a utopian city in Walt Disney World that people could actually live in, but never got built) and the general retro-futuristic idea of the future that existed in the 1960s. Tomorrowland is an area in Disneyland theme parks that is modelled to that 1960's concept, and this film is based on this same idea.

I think it's important to realise that these retro-futuristic ideas that existed during the space age are not naive or even tongue-in-cheek, but they actually reflect the values of the people who lived in that era. Space missions were being launched and people honestly believed that jet-packs and robots were not too far away. Tomorrowland is a special place because it is built with those honest values and is not a replica. This film showcases these values too, but it does replicate them, naturally. It makes a solid comparison between the optimistic view of the future then and the pessimistic view now, and how that view can have a negative affect on society. David Nix (Hugh Laurie) turns the camera back to us in a memorable scene and asks us what we're doing to make the world a better place.

The film makes more social commentary in this regard as we see this future utopia in ruins, maybe suggesting that what could have been has been ruined by society's negative mindset. Director Brad Bird creates wonderful visual imagery to portray the utopian Tomorrowland that could exist. The main problem for this film is the confusing story line. It is hard to follow, not because it is cleverly complex, but because it just doesn't really make much sense. A lot of questions go unanswered and the ending feels a little bit lacklustre. The whole idea has a lot of potential but it doesn't hit hard enough when it needed to.

In terms of performances, all three of the main characters (George Clooney, Britt Robertson, Raffey Cassidy) perform their roles nicely and are well cast. Clooney's character is engaging and probably relatable for people that grew up in the 60's era. What this film lacks is a real antagonist. Instead, we have half of one who doesn't seem too evil and doesn't even really know what he's doing wrong. A real sense of evil would have added so much more depth to the story line and lifted some of the confusion.

Without spoiling the film, badges are given to those who have the ability to make the world a better place. The audience is confronted with another reflection of themselves. Do I get a badge? Do I deserve a badge? The film succeeds in terms of trying to restore and reproduce those old values and inspire the audience to have a positive outlook, but fails in terms of telling a story. It was an enjoyable film nonetheless and the visuals were wonderful throughout, but I'm not quite sure who the target audience is. It is supposed to be a family film but it is too complex for children and there are too many childish jokes for adults.

4/7

Daredevil Season 1 (2015) Review

I shouldn't really be writing a review about Daredevil for two reasons; 1) it's a TV show and 2) I'm not a big fan of superheroes. But good ratings and free time led me to watch it anyway. There are no spoilers, for those who haven't seen it or aren't finished yet.

This show is going to be compared to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy because it is similarly dark and not particularly aimed at kids, whereas most films that Marvel produce are. This follows in the footsteps of other superhero stories being made into television shows, like Flash, Arrow and Gotham. I haven't seen any of these shows but none of them were as attractive as Daredevil to me before even seeing it, so Netflix did a really good job of marketing this show.

The chemistry between the three main characters is really strong from the get-go and makes them all feel really relatable. I had to keep reminding myself that Karen and Foggy didn't know that Matthew was Daredevil, so maybe that wasn't emphasised enough. For those who don't know (not really a spoiler) Matthew Murdoch/Daredevil is blind, and the show explains superbly how he reacts to his surroundings. The camera work and editing really portrays his level of hearing and sense of touch. It wouldn't feel believable if he moved so coordinately without an explanation, but in the early episodes you understand that he has enhanced hearing which allows him to act the way he does, so it is justified when he moves and fights that way for the rest of the season.

In terms of performances, Vincent D'Onofrio (Wilson Fisk) really stands out above the rest. An insight is given into this villain's back story and you can understand why he acts the way he does. There were moments where I was really surprised to find myself sympathizing with Fisk and somewhat rooting for him. This does not, however, take away from the heroes of the show. I didn't want the bad guy to win or lose but still wanted the good guys to win, which allowed be to sit back and enjoy the show. It was really refreshing to not have to hate the bad guy like in most stories like this, and I think D'Onofrio did an excellent job in playing Wilson Fisk.

Lastly, the action scenes throughout the season are  neat, well coordinated and most of the time, pretty ferocious. The choreography is good because no one is ever standing around waiting to be punched, and it looks like some stunt people took some really heavy hits in order to get the scenes looking right. That said, A lot of these scenes got pretty repetitive and I found myself longing for more intense moments rather than fight scenes, but it had a good share of them too.

Not to be missed.

5/7

It Follows (2014) Review

I saw It Follows in the cinema twice in the space of a week. The first time, I hadn't seen the trailer before watching it and I was expecting a typical modern horror film. After the very first scene I knew that this film was not going to be what I had expected.

If you haven't seen the film, the premise is that a girl obtains a curse after having sex and she is constantly being followed by "It". There is only one of it, but it can look like anyone or anything. It does whatever it has to do to get close to you, we are told.

The soundtrack for this film is a nostalgic synthesised soundtrack that sounds like a homage to 80's slasher movies and sets the overall theme of the film. It ranges from peaceful melodies to genuinely frightening and distressing at times.

The director of this film, David Robert Mitchell, uses really unusual camera techniques throughout the film. There are several 360 shots like in the opening scene where the camera rotates slowly, along with a lot of panning and zooming in most scenes. He's a relatively new director with only one previous feature film, and it's exciting to see confident techniques used by someone like that. I am already looking forward to see what he does next.

Two things stood out to me particularly about It Follows. It has a sense of timelessness and there is a noticeable absence of parents throughout the film. In the first couple of minutes, I had come to the conclusion that the film was set in the 70's or 80's due to the box television sets, but after a girl uses a weird shell type touch screen phone, it became clear that this film was intentionally not set in any time period. We see the protagonist's mother sit at the table in the background facing away from the camera and otherwise we don't see her at all. The only characters we see that speak are all teenagers, making them seem isolated and helpless to the problem that they face.

I have read some reviews that have criticised the film for lacking originality and paying too much homage to older films. I disagree. This film breaks the rules of its predecessors. The final girl is not a virgin and her problems stem from that very fact. It has broken barriers, it is likely to be copied and gain a cult following.

All of these features make for a really enjoyable film, and on top of it all, the plot of the film is actually scary. While not exactly a relatable story, it feels like it doesn't matter because the characters are. My only criticism is that the momentum gets a bit lost leading up to the climax and the energy that is built in the first hour of the film should have been carried better up to the end. But overall it is incredibly enjoyable and deserves the praise it has so far gotten. I have rarely gotten to the end of a film and felt the need for a second viewing, particularly in the cinema.

6/7