Film Review: Now You See Me

Brief review: I did, and I wouldn't again.

Longer review: A smug, ludicrous film full of the sort of overcomplicated tricks that you could never pull off. OK, you can pull them off in a magic arena where you control everything, but out in the real world? And repeatedly? Like a team that somehow, mysteriously robs a bank and is going to do it again is going to be able to go anywhere without a police surveillance team trailing their every move.

Ocean's Eleven did this, but it only had one caper, and it was done with so much more style and wit than this. And the whole point was that it had 11 people, each of whom was a specialist in a particular field to make their caper work. And George Clooney and Brad Pitt are likeable in a way that Jesse Eisenberg isn't (this helped The Social Network to work).

Film Review: Much Ado About Nothing (2012)

Much Ado About Nothing is a slightly strange film. It's shot in black and white, in modern costume, with a mostly American cast of the sort of people that appear in lots of Joss Whedon films and TV series (it was directed by Whedon). Having cast members from Firefly and The Avengers quoting Shakespeare is initially a bit strange.

Overall, I think it's a more difficult film to watch than Branagh's, but probably slightly more rewarding. Branagh's film is more sumptuous and pleasing to the eye, but the seriousness of the situation involving Hero and the surrounding characters has far greater weight in Whedon's film, which also makes the Beatrice and Benedict story more solid.

It's also, for me, better cast, mostly because I think Emma Thompson just doesn't bring out the character of Beatrice as well as Amy Acker does. Clark Gregg has the air of a powerful Governor in the way that Richard Briers doesn't. Nathan Fillion is funnier as Dogberry. And as the original had Keanu Reeves as Don John, that wasn't hard to top. On the other side, Kate Beckinsale was probably better as Hero.

In case anyone thinks I'm ill or something, reviewing romances is rare and two in a row is not a pattern, just coincidence. Normal service of superhero, gun and car chase movies will be resumed soon.

Film Review: Sunshine on Leith

It probably helps that I quite like the music of The Proclaimers, but I also rather liked the film Sunshine on Leith which is a "jukebox musical" including many of their songs.

Like most jukebox musicals (and there's nothing new about them, Singin in the Rain is almost entirely existing songs), there's a convoluted thing of creating a bit of plot that allows a song to fit (e.g. a character going to America prompts Letter from America).

But unlike most musicals, it doesn't feel like it skimped on making some good stories involving the characters, which feel more natural than most musicals. The performances by Peter Mullan and Jane Horrocks particularly stand out. And it's certainly "feel good", but where that normally is a term used to describe something schmaltzy and saccharine, it's more genuinely warm here.

Movie Review: John Carter

I've made it my new year's resolution to go and review all sorts of movies that were either famous box office or critical bombs. I'm doing it because so many people talk about what Waterworld, Heaven's Gate or Ishtar are like in conversation without ever seeing them. And I think it's only fair to make a judgement on these films rather than relying on 2nd hand judgements.

So, I started with the 2012 blockbuster swashbuckler John Carter. There's all sorts of things that are known about this film - how it cost $250m dollars, how the "of Mars" got dropped off the end from the original Edgar Rice Burroughs book, how the marketing was confusing and how the director got a lot of power in terms of the final film.

Having watched it, I think that all that background production stuff seeped into the critical faculties of the reviewers who generally panned it. And none of that should matter. The cost of a movie only matters to the people who backed it. For me, I just care if I got my £9 cinema ticket or £3.50 DVD rental's worth from the movie. Someone wants to subsidise my viewing? Thanks, please call again.

In brief, John Carter is about a civil war veteran who gets transported off to Mars and gets involved in a war between two countries. It's an action fantasy, and despite being very high tech in terms of the use of CG, in terms of story and characters and dialogue, it actually feels quite old-fashioned in that it plays it quite straight. Where the Indiana Jones or Pirates of the Caribbean series have their tongue in their cheek, and are made for a more knowing audience, John Carter doesn't. It plays it's genre straight, and is like watching an old swords and mythology films like Jason and the Argonauts or the old series of Flash Gordon. Except that you now have 21st century special effects rather than 1963 special effects (as a child, Jason and the Argonauts was simply the best thing ever, until Star Wars - which is itself a swords and sorcery epic), and unlike many films that tried to blend CG creatures with humans, it's quite seemless here and the action sequences are pretty good.

That's not to say that I think it's a masterpiece - the plot gets a bit flabby and meanders in places, but I certainly don't think it's the disaster that it's been painted as (and compared to Prince of Persia, the Star Wars prequels or Clash of the Titans, it is a masterpiece). If you grew up on Jason and the Argonauts and Star Wars, you'll probably really like it, and as you can get it for about £4 on Amazon second-hand, it's worth a shot.