Are "Comic Book Films" Ruining Cinema?

Are ‘Comic Book’ Films ruining cinema?

It’s been way too long since I last posted a video or a review. I’ve been quite busy but I’ve also been less than inspired to go and see any of the recent big releases. So rather than not review anything I thought I’d discuss why I’m feeling un-motivated by the current crop of films.

I recently read a fantastic book on Hollywood culture by William Goldman, an Oscar winning screenwriter. In one particular chapter he talks about the vice like grip the comic book genre has on the box office. What’s important is what he defines as a “comic book film” - It is a film that displays unrealistic, improbable and often superhuman circumstances and events. For example, James Bond series is a comic book movie, as are Fast & Furious and Jurassic Park.

With that definition in mind, here are some stats. In the last year the highest grossing film for those 52 weekends in America, bar 6, has been a ‘comic book film’. In the top 50 highest grossing films worldwide, I would only consider 4 of them to not be ‘comic book’ worthy. And that’s pushing it. 

To be clear this doesn’t immediately make a film good, bad or unintelligent, but the lack of realism allows the audience to become not only passive but also lazy. It encourages the viewers to distance themselves from the events taking place rather than become engaged and moved by “real life” occurrences.

You may think what’s the real problem, people like watching those films, everyone has a right to go and see what they want. I totally agree - the problem though is that it suffocates the market. ‘Comic book’ films are breaking box office records with every new release. Even the slightly less successful ones make the studios gigantic profits. As a result the people who have the power to finance films become more and more timid. Why would you take a risk on a film that doesn’t fit the criteria that actually makes money? There is a grave danger of falling into the trap of churning out the same stale formula again and again because the executives know how to bring the audiences in. Guess what? We are already falling deep into that hole. 

Sony announced a few weeks ago that they would be re-booting the Spider-Man franchise for a 3^rd time in the past 10 years. I mean are you joking? Do they lack that much imagination that they can’t think of another film to make? Marvel recently released their slate running up to 2019. If you haven’t seen the list let me tell you this, we are in for quite a few more super hero flicks, including another Avengers film split into two parts! All this further suffocates what is already a shrinking market, putting even more pressure on the people who are willing to take a risk in the name of creating something with meaning, emotion and imagination.

Lastly, a potentially even more worrying trend is the reviews these films receive. Let’s take as an example ‘Furious 7’ and ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’. Furious 7 received many positive reviews citing its ‘energy’ and ‘passion’. Lets get this straight. Furious 7 is utterly awful. The dialogue feels like its written by a 10 year old learning to speak. The story line makes absolutely about as much sense as voting UKIP. There’s a touching tribute to the late Paul Walker at the end, but that’s it. I don’t mean to be disrespectful but that’s not enough to credit a film for in my opinion.

Now Avengers…. Critics have been applauding Joss Whedon for bringing genuine relationships and heart-warming dialogue to previously bland two-dimensional characters. Round of applause for Joss. Conversation lasted for more than ten seconds and involved Captain America stringing together a sentence lasting more than 4 words. Again its not enough to stop ‘Age of Ultron’ seeming like a clone of all of Marvel’s latest outings. Heroes are doing well, Bad guy comes along, looks like he might rule the world for a minute, then in the process of destroying yet another city our heroes come out on top. YAWN, YAWN. NO SPOILER THERE.

Maybe I’m being overly critical for no reason other than I think the genre is becoming unbearably lazy and involves no effort whatsoever. But that’s the whole point, you should have to actively watch a film, just like you consciously talk to someone or read a book. I might be asking for too much, but wouldn’t it be great to not have to watch yet another set of heroes, be them super or not so super, defeat a villain or villains (they’re on to something there). Rather be moved and impassioned by dialogue that is clever and dangerously real, or by acting that is so emotive your brought to tears. We can only pray to the gods of Asgard (Thats Thor’s universe by the way) I guess…

Since 1927, when Hollywood entered its so called 'golden age' technology has advanced beyond our wildest dreams. We are now in a time when anyone with a smartphone can go out and film the world around them. Surely we deserve something more than an endless stream of comic book movies.

Fifty Shades of Grey - (2015)

Fifty Shades of Grey - (2015)
Director: Sam Taylor-Johnson
Writers: Kelly Marcel (screenplay) E.L. James (novel)
Starring: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan

I spent £14 on a ticket to see 'Fifty Shades'. I now look back and think about all the things I could have spent £14 on... 14 mayo chickens at McDonalds, I could have topped up my oyster card by a whopping fourteen pounds, or, I could have brought a bottle of vodka to try and make me forget how dull and uninteresting this film is.

As a film enthusiast I don't like to be hyper critical, I try to find the positives, but Sam Taylor-Johnson's adaptation of E.L. James's global phenomenon, its sold over 100 million copies, makes it hard to find anything to cheer about. The soundtrack is the best thing about the film without a shadow of a doubt, that being said some of the specifically composed music is out of place and adds to the disjointed nature of the whole film.

The very least this particular film could do is entertain you, but it struggled to hold my attention after half an hour. The whole thing takes it self way too seriously, probably not helped by the rumours that E.L. James has, for some reason, taken absolute control over her 'precious' manuscript. The dialogue is so clunky it hurts. Every line is forced out and is either unbearably cringe worthy or makes you laugh out loud its so silly. For example "I don't make love... I fuck.. hard" or my personal favourite "I'm fifty shades of fucked up". It's not exactly Shakespeare.

Its an achievement in itself that the actors managed to do a single take of most scenes without bursting out laughing, maybe thats because the two leads supposedly were not the best of friends during filming, or so the rumour mill says. Jamie Dornan plays Christian Grey, the man without a penis, or so it seems. Theres not even a glimpse of Grey's manhood despite this being a film totally focused on dominant sex and what turns on this expressionless man. Despite the lack of a cock shot there's plenty of full frontal nudity from Anastasia Steele, played by the slightly watchable Dakota Johnson - who will definitely profit most from this picture. Hollywood sexism? I think so.

There are too many comically bad moments to mention them all, notably Grey and Steele's contract negotiations about what materials she can be tied up with, but the most ridiculous has to be when Grey butters up a piece of toast for Anastasia only to climb onto the bed, loom over her and 'seductively' take a bite out of it. I was struggling to contain myself with how ludicrous it was. You would think he could afford two pieces of toast considering he has a private helicopter and various other flying gadgets which we spend large parts of the film watching him fly for no apparent reason.

Apart from the obvious financial lure and a guaranteed global projection, I really wonder why any sane person would want to get involved in a project that involves so little class, technical ability and has so little meaning. Fifty shades is probably the worst film I've ever been to see at the cinema. I beg you not to go "just because everyone is talking about it" its not worth it in any way. Instead send my review to anyone thinking of going and hopefully they top up their oyster card instead...


Twitter: @josefkaplicky
Youtube Reviews: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU9qRvNMHSnZzdVcxqbgq6A?spfreload=10

Kingsman: The Secret Service - (2015)

Kingsman: The Secret Service - (2015)
Writers: Mark Millar & Dave Gibbons (original comic book), Matthew Vaughn & Jane Goldman (screenplay)
Director: Matthew Vaughn 
Starring: Colin Firth, Taron Egerton, Samuel L. Jackson and Michael Caine

Happy Monday,

This is the fourth Matthew Vaughn film I have seen and I am yet to be bored for one second. Vaughn has an ability to print his own style on each project he embarks on, yet he has managed to make four very different action films.

'Kingsman' feels like a step on from 'Kickass'. While retaining all the wonderful action scenes and comical gory violence, 'Kingsman' has a far more developed, interesting and accessible set of characters. I'm referencing mostly Big-Daddy from 'Kickass' who in this film is Galahad (Colin Firth) who takes the young Eggsy (Taron Egerton) under his wing in attempt to turn him into the latest suited and booted member of Kingsman, a secret spy organisation where it is customary for one to wear glasses while saving the world.

Eggsy comes from a working class background and has an utterly revolting, wannabe gangster step-dad who has filled the role of his father who was also a Kingsman agent killed in action. At Eggsy's first day of training, it turns out every other recruit is a windswept, rich boy, graduate from Cambridge or Oxford. Unsurprisingly, Eggsy, played with great attitude and swagger by Egerton, has more courage and inventiveness than them all put together. This is a very promising debut for Egerton, who more than holds his own despite being around such respected and talented actors as Firth, Mark Strong and Michael Caine. Watch this space

This is a genuinely gripping and tense film at points, with a brilliantly crafted skydiving stunt which had be holding firmly onto my seat. The real standout scene though is a mass brawl in a race hating church initiated by the villainous Richmond Valentine, executed with a wonderful lisp and great style by the ever amazing Samuel L. Jackson. The fight sequence seems like something out of 'The Raid’ - which, for anyone whose seen it, is a massive compliment to Vaughn and all those involved in the choreography and effects departments.

I'm a firm believer that you should not judge all films in the same way. Some are there to inspire, others to educate or provoke and some just to laugh out loud and enjoy. ‘Kingsman’ isn’t the best film I've ever seen, but it falls into the fun and entertaining category despite a slightly crass ending that takes some of the gloss off. Its thoroughly enjoyable and lighthearted. There's also a strong message from Vaughn here about the still pervasive class system and how wrong it is to judge people by the clothes they wear, their accent or haircut. Just don’t take the film too seriously and you’ll love it.


Share and comment!
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU9qRvNMHSnZzdVcxqbgq6A?spfreload=10
Twitter: @josefkaplicky

Blue Is The Warmest Colour - (2013)

Blue Is The Warmest Colour - (2013)

Director - Abdellatif Kechiche
Writers - Abdellatif Kechiche (adaptation), Julie Maroh (orginal book - "le bleu est une couleur chaude")
Starring - Adele Exarchopoulos, Lea Seydoux

Hello all, it's been far too long since I've done a written review so I thought I would go back to my roots this week. 

For Adele (Adele Exarchopoulos) Blue is the warmest colour and proves to be the key to truly finding herself. As soon as she catches sight of blue haired Emma (Lea Seydoux) Adele’s world changes forever. Almost immediately she changes from a shy girl who can only really express herself in her journal, to one who’s fallen so head over heels in love that she could hardly care what her tedious group of friends think of her walking off with the ‘dyke with blue hair’. 

With a running time of three hours, Blue is half an hour too long to keep you fully entranced the whole way through, no matter how compelling the acting is - and boy is it. That being said as an audience we benefit from the superb acting by seeing all the small nuances that makes up each character, particularly Adele. The constant messing of her hair, pulling up of her jeans and sleeping with her mouth posed ever so gently open, only add to the vulnerability and childlike quality that Exarchopoulos plays Adele with. 

Director Abdellatif Kechiche is extremely clever in his use of the colour blue throughout. Often the title of a film is a bit of a throwaway but not here. It is Emma’s bold blue hair and attitude that first catches Adele’s eye in the middle of a street and imprints her image in her mind forever. For Adele, it is the blue she really falls in love with, her bed at home is covered by a blue sheet representing the only thing she really enjoys about being at home, which is being in bed with Emma. Once Emma stops dying her hair and reverts to her natural blond, the relationship begins to take a turn for the worse, with arguments and jealousy coming from all sides including one of Adele’s male work colleagues. This culminates in Adele wearing a brilliant blue dress when returning to see Emma in the final scene of the film. It is a desperate plea to try and remind Emma of the colour and joy their relationship used to have

One of the real qualities of this film is how real it’s depiction of a sexual relationship is, and as a result, is such a no holds barred piece of cinema. There is one sex scene though that I feel pushes the boundaries so far that it becomes ineffective. I began to question the length and point of said scene. At first the graphic nature of the scene is incredibly effective in conveying the passion and desire between Emma and Adele but then I began to feel rather uncomfortable, almost like a voyeur. The scene ponders on the same idea too long to make you remember why it is there in the first place and left me slightly reeling for a while despite the film continuing to move on. 

This is so much more than just a film about sex though. The quality of the filmmaking is captivating enough to dissolve most of my criticism of said scene. ‘Blue’ maps out all the emotion, ecstasy and pain that falling in love brings, it is a very special film and deserve’s all the critical acclaim its actors and makers have received, becoming the first film to be honoured with the Palme d’Or for both director and lead actresses. If you haven't seen it you must watch and have your eyes well and truly opened. 

As always please share with your nearest and dearest. Am going to try and get another review out this week so stay tuned to the Facebook page or Twitter for a link...

Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU9qRvNMHSnZzdVcxqbgq6A?spfreload=10
Facebook : JKFilm review
Twitter : @josefkaplicky
Instagram : @Josefkaplicky

Mr. Turner (2014)

Mr. Turner (2014)
Director : Mike Leigh
Writer : Mike Leigh (screenplay)
Starring : Timothy Spall, Paul Jesson, Dorothy Atkinson

Hello all, 

After mulling over the choice between ‘Nightcrawler’ and ‘Mr. Turner’ I have plumped for the latter, mainly because my mum said she would come with me, but also because it’s more of a contrast to the previous two reviews which have been intense thrill rides. 

What makes ‘Mr. Turner’ so unique is the way in which it provides an informative and emotional depiction of one of the world’s greatest artists, yet at the same time confronts some of the most important issues in life and death, refusing to be solely bound to the genre of a biopic. 

The film’s opening shot totally sums up J.M.W Turner as a character, an eye catching landscape with two women chatting away unaware of the sun rising behind them. The camera then moves to Turner, sketching away, unaware of the women but so very present with nature and his pencil. Its just one of a number of utterly breathtaking pictures that Mike Leigh, the film’s director, paints with his own paintbrush - the camera. The film is like one big painting really with Leigh using palettes that replicate that of a Turner masterpiece. 

I know a little bit about Turner as an artist, I studied History of Art at A level, but of Turner as a person I knew little until now. Leigh shows us all of Turner’s incredibly complex relationships with women, from his maid who clearly is madly in love with him to his estranged daughter’s both who Turner shows very little emotion for. His most touching relationship though is with his father, who lived with him for the last thirty years of his life acting as his assistant. In the film Timothy Spall, who plays J.M.W Turner, is at his fathers side when he dies. It’s a really wonderful moment, a single tear drops down Spall’s face, its oscar-worthy acting but better because it’s so natural and real. This kind of moment in film tends to draw epic music and a despairing cry of anguish, instead we sit in silence watching Turner lose his best friend and the man he still calls ‘daddy'.
 Although he’s unconventional and certainly a flawed character, Turner is someone who has found their true passion in life and is unwilling to give it up for anything. When confronted with illness, Turner’s doctor, who is a fanatical fan of his, tells him to calm down or face an early grave. For Turner life is not about settling down but it is about grabbing life and extracting the maximum experience the world has to offer, which for him is through a communion with nature. Painting is the only real way Turner can express his feelings. His most common line is a grunt, and Spall does an excellent job of conveying sadness or elation through his grunting and rumblings but he is at his most emotive when silent with a brush in hand at his easel. Nothing else holds meaning for Turner, not sex, not love or money. All that he truly cares about is about painting and leaving a legacy. Turner turns down an offer equivalent to £100 million for all his drawings and paintings, instead he choses to leave his entire legacy to the British public so that they can admire his work for ever and for free.

There’s a scene towards the end of the film where Turner overhears the King and Queen berating his art, but although he is hurt he knows deep down that his work represents something bigger than them - it is a wonderful moment of revelation in the film. As one character says to him “the universe is chaotic and you make us see it”. This is so true. He found a way of showing us the world as it really is in a way that we could not have imagined but that has stayed with us for generations. Turner's impulse and passion to paint is inspiring. His emotions, his experiences and his life are all imprinted in his paintings. This film is telling us to search for that same passion in whatever field that may be. No matter how crazed he may seem, I think we could all do with having a bit of Turner inside us. 

#JKfilmreview#MrTurner

Twitter - @josefkaplicky
Instagram - josefkaplicky

Next week's review is going to have a serious twist, so be prepared, it may be later than monday though as i'm involving a friend of mine in the process. Exciting times ahead. 

As always share with your friends and family on social media 

Josef 

Fury (2014)

Fury (2014)

Director: David Ayer
Writer : David Ayer
Starring : Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal

Afternoon everybody, onto this week's film - Fury.

There's one big problem with Fury, I feel like it's a film I have seen before. It's your typical generic war film with possibly the biggest Hollywood star around. But it tackles war as it should be shown - brutally. From the outset it shows moments of ruthless bleakness. Like when the tanks, roll lethally and silently over yet another crumpled body. It is as if the soldiers relinquish their personal responsibilities and morality  to the machine. It shows us how utterly horrendous World War 2 was and indeed war  - period.

Set in April 1945, towards the end of the war, we follow 5 soldiers, led by Pitt, who make up the manpower behind the tank named Fury. David Ayer the director does a great job of conveying the chaotic state of Hitler's Germany by this point, as he threw the kitchen sink at the allies despite knowing defeat was inevitable. At one point a troop of enemy soldiers surrender to Fury and its accompanying tanks only to reveal that the troop are in fact children, boys and girls, no older than 12. This perfectly illustrates the desperate and futile attempts of a madman holding on to the phantom of power.

Fury's biggest success is it's ability to depict what became normality for war scarred soldiers like Don 'Wardaddy' Collier, Pitt's character. Pitt is at his most watchable when he isn't shouting, when he actually has time to think about his actions. Then he can reveal a touching and childlike vulnerability rather than the blind aggression and anger that comes with war. Each of the 5 heroes show us their profound anger accompanied by a range of raw expletives while fighting, yet given peace and quiet we see beyond the soldier concealed by war. It's so much more revealing to look into the deep emotion behind the eyes of the actor rather than be subsumed by their total rage.

One of my favourite scenes is when all five men are preparing the tank for what seems a certain death trap, yet despite the stress and terror they become incredibly polite all of a sudden, using their pleases and thank yous as they pass around guns and ammunition the size of a small child. It is as if they suddenly realise the futility of war and revert to behaving in a way that reminds them of home and family. You get to really understand the brotherly bond they experience when they imagine the worst. The moments they confront not just defeat but their death too.

Logan Lerman's character drags this film from the brutality of war into the realm of Hollywood endings and reminds us we are watching a blockbuster war flick. Lerman plays Norman Ellison, who has been educated in how to "type 60 words in a minute rather than shoot Nazi's". He is thrust into team Fury as the newbie of the group and finds coming to terms with killing another man virtualy impossible. Lerman is a perfectly adept actor and his puppy dog eyes are convincing but for me he symbolised the problems with this film. That's probably not his fault but it's a Hollywood interlude and it's just too easy to predict the path his character will take. I won't tell you what happens in the end but let's just say Lerman manages to overcome his original fears.

I did enjoy Fury as an action movie and the scenes in the final battle are the stand out moment visually. All the combat shots are wonderfully constructed and are what David Ayer is known for being brilliant at. However, a great tank battle isn't really enough of a springboard to jump Fury from a decent film to a film of real quality and meaning. For me there was too much of a sense of predictability to really pull on my emotional heartstrings. Fury is a good watch for someone who enjoys an action film but don’t expect it to leave you in a state of awe. 

Josef

For next weeks review I'm really can't decide between 'Nightcrawler' and 'Mr. Turner' so if you have a preference please message me on any form of social media. Also I'm planning to do something extra special in two weeks time but thats all a surprise for the moment....

Keep sharing with friends and family

#JKfilmreview
Twitter: @josefkaplicky
Instagram :@josefkaplicky

'71 - (2014)

'71 - (2014)

Director - Yann Demange 
Writer - Gregory Burke 
Starring - Jack O'Connell, Sam Reid, Sean Harris, Paul Anderson

Afternoon all,

I'm fit and healthy again which is wonderful as its time for this week's review.

'71 is a film that I came across by chance, I was on IMDB, flicking through the upcoming projects of the budding star that is Jack O'Connell and found this. A list of very promising actors with a director I had never heard of... I was intrigued. Fast forward a few weeks and '71 is getting rave reviews from basically everyone who has seen it, I watched the trailer and decided it would be perfect for this weeks blog.

'71 makes for a great comparison to 'Gone Girl' in that although they come from totally different stratospheres, in terms of budgets. 'Gone Girl cost $60million and '71 only $8million. But both films aim to grab the audience from the start and tighten their grip until the final moments. As 'Gone Girl' did, '71 succeeds in doing so too.

The story revolves around a group of trainee British solders thrust into Belfast to suppress the IRA riots of 1971. Jack O'Connell plays Gary Hook who becomes separated from the rest of his troop while trying to control a violent mob. O'Connell is probably recognised by most for his role as Cook in one of the later series of Skins. Like most of his Skins co-stars O'Connell drifted, but came back into the public eye a totally different man and actor three years later in 'Starred Up' which is fantastic incidentally. He is on a fast track to becoming a serious super star with a lead role in Angelina Jolie's directorial debut 'Unbroken' finishing off a great year for the 24 year old. O'Connell displays a great variety of emotions here, his most convincing moments come when he becomes vulnerable to the point where you can really see the fear hiding behind what seems an angry young soldier primed to fight.

The person who deserves the most credit here though is Yann Demange, the film's director. An unknown quantity to most, his talents with a camera are instantly recognisable. The film is technically brilliant. Demange manipulates light and colour in the manner of a Renaissance painter. Each shot is like a work of art, with some of the gory images of war reminding me of the intensity of a Goya painting. There's a majestic moment when our band of soldiers are huddled together on the transport truck only for a ray of light to shine through a hole in the canvas, perfectly highlighting the terror encasing every man. Its an image that has lodged in my mind.

Its a really thrilling film, one that brought genuine gasps from some of the audience at certain moments. That being said there are some quite obvious plot holes that for me held the film back from being really classy. I think that can always be a slight problem when a thriller film mainly focus's on just one character. I always have in the back of my mind they will probably make it through the whole film in one piece. I don't want to include any spoilers but let's just say that a lot of things seem to fall a little too perfectly into place for Gary Hook. I think this made me slightly drift back into the real world and not stay inside the story as I would have liked to.

Despite its setting '71 does well to stay away from making a massive political statement regarding the troubles that occurred in Northern Ireland at this time, instead it gives its main focus to the look and feel of the film and for that I credit all involved. Gregory Burke, the writer, couldn't completely resist from giving his view on war with one character summing it up as "posh c*nts telling thick c*nts to kill poor c*nts". Its a pretty shocking line, but its not something the film dwells on so neither will I.

Even with a few plot holes '71 is a really intense thrill ride that gives a real sense of the horrific state of Belfast at the time with burning cars in the road being a common sight. It's a film that I would highly recommend going to see even just for its visual quality. Its a film that most of you probably won't have heard of and it doesn't have a hollywood a-list hook but it represents the start of something very special for both O'Connell and Demange.

#JKfilmreview

Twitter - @josefkaplicky
Instagram - Josefkaplicky