Jurassic World

Jurassic World was basically everything I was looking for in a Jurassic Park movie spin-off. Dinosaurs eating people, thudding footsteps in the rain, reviving the jeeps from the first film to escape Velociraptors, helicopters spiraling into aviaries filled with angry Pterodactyls, children turned upside down in vehicles while a Tyrannosaurus-type creature tried to eat them, all the 'bad' guys getting methodically eaten in some kind of moral reckoning and finally, a slight addition to expectations was the incompetent British nanny getting viciously  eaten by a ginormous water dinosaur which eats great white sharks for it's afternoon snack.

It was essentially exactly the same plot as the very first movie with some minor twists thrown into the mix such as the older sibling this time was male and... well that's about it folks. No, I'm kidding the whole idea is that the film is a deliberate throw-back to the original film (reviving the original jeeps, children screaming with one pane of glass between them and mutant T-Rex, a majestic dinosaur dying causing the unsympathetic lady of the film to re-examine herself etc.) with a genetically modified, super-intelligent, mutant T-Rex throwing the balance of the park out of sync and causing a very similar melt-down to the first film. The eventual moral of the story is once again that we cannot control nature.

Except for Chris Pratt playing Owen - he's quite handy when a Raptor is around.

The park, ten years on and supposedly learning from the lessons of the original park, is more disney-fied. And the whole movie is just too clean. Where are the mud covered children? And how did the main female lead Claire stay so clean in her white top? I needed a few more of the Kirsten Dunst, jelly-shaking-on-a-spoon terrified moments - maybe slightly less totally incompetent SWAT teams.

Overall, it was a genuinely entertaining 124 minutes. I'll admit it made me appreciate the very first Jurassic Park even more. It's amazing when you think this was made in 1993 - and somehow the CGIed dinosaurs from Jurassic World are still not living up to the awesome and perfectly realistic robotics from the 90s. And when did the raptors get so much more friendly looking?

Also, reading about the cooking up of the new mutant dinosaur and the inspiration for basically every man in the movie I can even forgive the repeat of the 90s sexism where the female lead insists on wearing heels and despite working at a living, breathing dinosaur park for 10+ years appears to know literally less than the seven year old about dinosaurs. I'm hoping in the next film we get to enjoy the presence of a female lead who ditches the heels and does a bit of prior Dino reading up.

From Russia with Love - thoughts on Anna Karenina

I've been in love with Russia for the last ten years before finally finding myself standing, in total awe, on the Red Square (Red in Russian means beautiful), walking through the endless corridors of the Hermitage and eating dumplings washed down with vodka at tiny, freezing cafes.

Our tour guide told us that Russia has three problems the roads, the idiots and the idiots on the road. Russia is Red. The palaces and residences of the Russian monarchy make English stately homes and castles look really rather quaint. The number of diamonds in the Diamond Fund housed inside the Kremlin border on suspicious.

Below (from top to bottom) is the grand entrance to the Winter Palace and Hermitage Museum, the Church of the Spilled Blood and two rooms from the Summer Palace just outside of St. Petersburg.

Our travels around Russia took us from Moscow to St. Petersburg and back again, all by bullet train in only a few hours. The train was comfortable, with free coffee and wifi, it could easily live up to, and even exceed, the unrealistic train travel expectations I have developed from Austrian public transport.

Outside the window the countryside was barren, and sparse, dotted with houses that resembled colourful garden sheds hundreds of miles apart from each other. I learnt a new word on this journey, tundra: a vast treeless zone lying between the ice cap and timberline of North American and Eurasia and having a permanently frozen subsoil.

Pulling into the station in St. Petersburg another train passed ours on the tracks. It was so full that hardly anyone had seats, the windows were grimy with metal prison-like bars stacked across them. Sitting inside our warm, spacious carriage drinking my free coffee I realised how many faces Russia has.

To keep within theme I downloaded Anna Karenina to watch during the train journey. I have been meaning to watch this film for ages it has a combination of several factors that essentially, and immediately, meant success in my eyes; Keira Knightley, Joe Wright and Russian literature. Probably there is no better time or way to watch Anna Karenina than on the bullet train between Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Initially, I did not love the key role of the theatre throughout the film. It was a little jarring. Balls, busy street scenes and even horse races are played out within the set of a theatre which is a bold and creative move by Joe Wright. Watching that other train pass us on the tracks, versus the ridiculously overstated glitz and glamour of the palaces across St. Petersburg made the idea of the Russian gentry living on a 'stage' with all of the world watching and gossiping over every single move they made perfectly logical. It's a poetic and accurate depiction of the way that Tolstoy, although I understand he hated the theatre as an art form, would have meant for the audience to perceive the story.

The story itself is undeniably beautiful and deeply sad and typically Russian in that sometimes it feels like it will never end. The novel runs 963 pages. Of course this film adaptation ran into some similar unavoidable issues. Keira Knightley, as Anna, gives a really fantastic performance - easily one of my favourite from her. Jude Law, slightly suprisingly, is awesome and not at all attractive in his role as her prim and wronged husband. Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Count Vronsky was believably self-centred and trouble - but not troubled.

Overall, sitting on that train racing across Russia I would not have chosen to watch anything else. Anna Karenina is a beautiful, bold, and slightly accidental, depiction of the theatrical and glamourous Russia that we watch on a historical stage.

Pregnant Benedict Cumberbatch is a vision at the Oscars

It's been pretty interesting over the last few days since the Oscars 2015 watching the evolution of the #AskHerMore campaign which was quickly thrown back into the spotlight. On Tuesday this week a Huffington Post article flashed up on my Facebook newsfeed related to Keira Knightley at the Oscars. The title was 'Pregnant Keira Knightley is a vision at the Oscars.' I actually clicked on it because I was expecting an ironic article about sexism on the Red Carpet.

This article sums up the whole issue quite concisely - unfortunately, with no self-awareness or irony thrown in. To keep it simplistic let's tally the times different issues are mentioned:

Pregnancy III
Outfit II
Nomination I

The one mention of her Oscar nomination was as a side-note in commas in a sentence dedicated to Keira Knightly talking to Ellen about 'being pregnant during awards season'.

There are several possible reasons why Keira Knightley gets this coverage while every other media outlet worth it's salt is quoting Benedict Cumberbatch in his interview, post losing the Actor in a Leading Role Oscar to Eddie Redmayne, saying that 'there is no such thing as 80% of losers, everyone here won' and other soundbites NOT related to his wife's pregnancy.

Keira actually has nothing else interesting to say. 
In fact, maybe Keira herself is a bit of a sexist and really does think only about a) babies and b) clothes and c) what her husband wants to eat or drink. Which is a reasonable assumption considering the only quote from Keira herself in the article again only mentions her husband and baby.

This assumption is quite easily countered by an alternative Red Carpet interview from below. Keira seems to have quite a lot to say for herself, her character and the entertainment industry in general.

So what else could it be?

Journalists are only asking what audience's want to hear.
As Oscar Raymundo suggested it's down to the fact that this, to steal a phrase from Scarlet Johanneson, rabbit-food journalism is what 'audience's are tuning in for.' It's more difficult to argue with this assumption. Is what people want to hear what is available to them?

The top three hits on YouTube as sorted by relevance for 'Keira Knightley Interview Oscars 2015' came up with this:

The first hit is just the camera panning up and down Keira's outfit. No words necessary. The second is again focusing on the pregnancy, and finally (going for the win) the third result combines both being pregnant and what she is wearing to the Oscars.

Sorting the results again by view count tells a different story - the first hit is Keira Knightley performing Lost Stars, the second is again the Jimmy Kimmel interview titled being pregnant at the Oscars and the third hit is a commentary on Best Supporting Actress winner predictions.

It's not exactly scientific but it's certainly not conclusive that audience's just want to hear about dresses, and shoes, and manicures, and babies from female stars. I'm not saying that fashion should be taken out of the equation entirely. It's important also to acknowledge the pain and effort of the many talented designers showcasing their work on the Red Carpet as well.

Instead and simply that the embarrassing, notable gap in the number of interesting and stimulating questions asked to male versus female nominees should be lessened. The common excuses of what 'the audience want to hear' or that 'the Red Carpet is just about fashion' is just not cutting it anymore. That's the real meaning of #AskHerMore.

Speaking for myself I think I can handle hearing a little bit more too.

A life through the eyes of Boyhood

Boyhood is literally stunning. Not in an artsy, quirky, trying too hard kind of way. It's authentic and raw and draws you in so that your whole life just seems like another random assortment of moments that we'll never make any sense out of. There was no story, no moral, or reason, or judgement. Shit happens, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. People take a role throughout the movie, some disappear suddenly and never reappear and some come back one day into Mason's life totally unexpectedly. The actors don't overplay dramatic scenes, it's a drama in that you feel life is just continuing for the time that the camera is not rolling. The story was just life.

Watching the actor who plays Mason, Ellar Coltrane, grow up in every sense of the word is so real it's disconcerting. The film was shot at 18 month intervals over 12 years. Richard Linklater captured Mason from the age of 6-18 years old. The transformation is awesome, and awkward, to watch. Boyhood captures Mason physically changing from a cute 6 year old with a button nose and total enthusiasm, into an awkward teenager to becoming a confident stoner college student studying photography.

His voice changes, his jaw lengthens, he goes through acne and the bit where boys grow their hair long and then one parent or another forces them to cut it under protest, the phase where his limbs are too long for his body, the dreaded chubby phase and the bit where his vocal chords flutter and stutter until they deepen and settle.

It made me think of my two little brothers. Every phase I remember (the bit with the horrible long hair and the difference it made when they were forced to cut it made me laugh) even bits they've forgotten. Somehow Linklater captured these universal moments that live in every older sibling and Mother's memory of the boys they watched grow up.


The difference about Boyhood is that this is not a movie illustrating still snapshots of someone growing older to show the aging process itself. It's about capturing moments throughout time and the piercing realisation of the rate of speed that these moments pass us by.

It's profound and it's brilliant. It's about nothing and everything. It's subtle and it's completely raw. One thing for certain: It's 100% worth the time to watch it.

50 Shades of Boring

The best way to review 50 Shades of Grey is by a list of 10 sex scenes which contained more sexual tension than the entire movie and, just to make it that bit more of a challenge (but not really), involved less nudity:

1. Leo and Kate steamy in the carriage in Titanic.

2. The Wolf of Wallstreet 'Does Daddy want some?' scene.

3. Pretty much any moment in American Pie.

4. The piano sex scene in Pretty Woman. Especially great comparison with the totally crap piano sex scene in 50 shades.

5. The Natalie Portman // Mila Kunis fantasy scene in Black Swan.

6. The before battle scene in 300.

7. The rain kiss in The Notebook.

8. Dirty Dancing - any time they dance. Particularly when Baby rubs Johnny's chest.

9. Keira Knightley and James McAvoy in the library in Atonement.

10. The pottery wheel scene in Ghost.

As it turns out trying to make 50 Shades of Grey into a family-friendly teen-focused movie does not work. How could a movie about sex be so boring?

Initial thought was the entire lack of nudity destroyed any sexiness this movie could have hoped for. However, nudity really isn't necessary to make a sex scene sexy - refer to above list. It might have been the total lack of charisma/strength/control exuding from Jamie Dornan. Granted the man is a looker, but he just does not get how to play Christian Grey. The aura from the books is simply absent.

It might have been quite possibly the worst sound track that ever happened to a movie. Particularly note the helicopter journey. Or it might have been the sex scene edits: neck, breast, from chest to navel, leg carefully angled to hide nudity, Grey's tensed ass - cut, repeat.

Entirely honestly the most exciting thing was the hilarity factor of Ana's pubes. 

Jupiter ain't no Trinity

Just like Jupiter Ascending ain't no Matrix. How could the Wachowski's have written this?

The first thing that sprung to mind after stepping out of Jupiter Ascending was well that went 'full geek.' Although it's always refreshing to watch an original sci-fi creation that hasn't been rehashed in several thousand increasingly less inspiring versions it was a wholly disappointing effort by the Wachowski's. Now I realise that the Matrix was 16 years ago. But the difference in character depth and overall storyline is so clear it's almost painful for any Matrix fan to sit through. I mean scratch the Matrix fan bit. It was just painful to sit through. (The only redeeming factor was the general spectacular spectacle of the costumes and CGI sets.)

It is obvious within Jupiter Ascending that crucial plot points were cut out for time purposes resulting in the layers of story, depth of characters and general 'sense' of the plot becoming so convoluted as to descend into pure geek fantasy. And not in a good way. Particularly the bizarre love scenes between Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis who have as much chemistry as two dead weasels thrown into a sack together.. on a good day.

I love Channing Tatum as much as the next girl. And his portrayal at Caine at least hinted at some kind of multidimensional character. But really Jupiter? She made not a single empowered choice throughout the entire movie and appeared to necessitate rescuing by another man roughly every ten minutes throughout the film. Whether it was Caine rescuing her from another bad guy or a robotic man leading her through layers of bureaucracy to claim her title. Generally it felt like a really quick who's who of ridiculous, overly-exaggerated cosmic bad guys outsmarting the unfortunate and completely passive, but dolled-up, bimbo.

And why oh why is everyone apparently fine with the fact that every other planet in the Universe is being 'harvested' and people being liquified (into life extending elixir... haha)? I mean come on Jupiter. Well you can just forget any hope of a strong female lead. Instead Jupiter goes back to her life which appears to mainly involve cleaning toilets despite this, some would consider life-altering, knowledge. And she's pretty content.. After all she got the man (slash rabid wolf) so I mean what else does a girl need? Forget the fact that we've just spent the last two hours learning that she is now Queen of the Universe and actually owns Earth. She just wants to clean toilets, date her man, forget about the liquifying of the residents of other planets and have a quiet life.

I'm not trying to embark upon a feminist rant but.. Well she's no Trinity. Who is a hacker if you remember. And fights like a badass. She don't need no man.

I feel like if Trinity had been Jupiter, and generally less make up had been used - how unpractical is it really to cake yourself to that extent while cleaning houses - and there had been some sort of thought put into character development - this whole movie could have had an entirely different reception. 

The Hobbit @ the London BFI IMAX in 3D

Inside I am a 14 year old, nerdy boy who couldn't wait long enough until season 2 of Game of Thrones came out so read all the books in anticipation. So naturally I LOVE Lord of the Rings and much of my teenage life, along with many of my generation, were filled with nightmares of Orcs.

I wasn't totally sold on The Hobbit before I saw the first one. Creating three movies out of one, relatively short, book seemed a bit of stretch. And the talking dragon bit seemed pretty lame. (Both of these points I stand by). But still it's basically Lord of the Rings and exactly the kind of film I literally adore so of course I'm a big fan and the final movie completely lived up to expectations.

When I visited London over New Years it was a necessity to go back to the amazing BFI IMAX, the largest screen in Britain don't cha know, to watch the final installation in 3D. I don't know if it was the fact that the Hobbit was painstakingly shot in real 3D no fake 2D shizzle turned via post-production into 3D here OR that I have just gotten new glasses and finally could see properly OR that I've just got so used to the underwhelming Salzburg cinema scene over the last 18 months but the experience was literally unreal.

I think it was the first time I ever actually experienced the 3D movie experience - which to me was always a bit of a gimic anyway and I didn't understand all of these people harping on at http://www.realorfake3d.com/ even one bit. I was quite literally on the edge of my seat, jumping at every hideous orc face lurching out of the screen, walking down the destroyed villages after the dragon attack - it's basically worth visiting London for, even ignoring the rest of the city.

Essentially the BFI London IMAX ruined going to the cinema for me. Thanks a lot.