Escape from Planet Earth  (2013)    61/100

Rating :   61/100                                                                       89 Min        U

The first animated theatrical release from Rainmaker Entertainment, which hits UK shores over a year after its release in the States – was it worth the wait? Well, not especially, but for its target audience of young kids it should prove visually and thematically entertaining enough, with the occasional nod to films like ‘The Artist’ (11) and ‘Monsters’ (10) to try and keep adults interested.

The story focuses on two alien brothers, one full of machismo but not the sharpest tool in the shed and the other a tech nerd and family man (his son is initially more impressed by the showmanship of his brother) at mission control – when the former is captured by the US military (many of their number have mysteriously gone missing on Earth) the more cautious brother is forced to ‘man up’ and go into the field to try and rescue him. The animation is slick and colourful, and although the story is very simple, exploring the rivalry of the brothers along with the relative pros and cons of their strengths and weaknesses, it should hold youngster’s attention throughout, although it is unlikely to become an enduring family favourite.

With voice acting from Rob Corddry, Brendan Fraser, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jessica Alba, William Shatner and Ricky Gervais.

Her  (2013)    83/100

Rating :   83/100                       Treasure Chest                     126 Min        15

With the Oscars ceremony taking place in a few hours time, this was the last of the best film nominees I had left to see, and what was a very, very strong category for me has just become even more so. It’s from writer/director Spike Jonze and takes place in an immediate future that, from the technology on display, feels like it is taking place just around the corner from where we are now. Here we meet Theodore, played wonderfully by Joaquin Phoenix (who was perfect for the part), who is about to be treated to the latest innovative piece of computer software to hit the globe in the guise of an artificially intelligent operating system for his computer.

After only briefly hesitating over whether to choose a male or a female program, he is soon greeted by the sultry tones of Scarlett Johansson emanating from his computer and, understandably, he soon falls in love with ‘her’. The story thusly plays on the idea of love and the parameters of normal relationships as Theodore finds he doesn’t really need anything physical but rather someone who is completely attentive to his needs and engages him mentally, and yet he also has the option of turning her off whenever he wants to. Or at least, in the beginning he does, as the story along with the AI continues to evolve, throwing more and more food for thought at the audience.

A couple of parts of the film don’t hold up as well as the rest, the most egregious of them being when Theodore is on a date with Olivia Wilde who’s starting to feel him up but then asks a fairly reasonable question about him taking her seriously and he bottles it. If Olivia Wilde has her hands down your pants and asks if you are going to be nice to her, you simply say YES!. Or nod your head, or groan affirmatively, this is not a scenario where there is any doubt or need to think about it. Shortly before this he implies that he could be her dragon, which she likes the sound of. Must. Interview. Her.

This is an artfully delicate and incisive film with well balanced and intelligent use of its sci-fi premise, and it may just provide an upset at the Oscars …

RoboCop  (2014)    70/100

Rating :   70/100                                                                     117 Min        12A

This is actually better than the 1987 original, although it is not without its problems, chief among them massive overuse of shaky cam in some of the action sequences. The story is similar but not identical – here America and her giant corporations seem to be steamrollering the whole world (or Iran at any rate) due in no small measure to their manufacture and deployment of robotic military equipment, but the home market has remained a no-go for the technology due to public concerns over its safety, much to the chagrin of Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton), CEO of OmniCorp the cybernetics juggernaut responsible for the mass production of robots and the prompting of the moral homeland debate (this is set slightly in the future, in case that wasn’t obvious).

The logical solution to this pesky setback is to plonk a man inside a robot who has a moral conscience, only the same conscience is a little too slow at deciding when to pull the trigger and when not to, so a little amount of cerebral ‘tinkering’ goes on behind closed doors with their first unwitting participant in the scheme (he gets blown to bits by the bad guys, fortunately one of the intact bits is his head) Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman). This tinkering and the core concept itself forms the central discussion of the film, in between RoboCop annihilating the criminals in his home town of Detroit, and it’s handled at a reasonable pace with solid performances and slick special effects, and although there are a few problems with some of the action, and it’s not especially noteworthy, it does hold its own for the most part.

Support work from Gary Oldman as ‘tinkering’ scientist Dr Dennett Norton (inspired by Norton anti-virus?), Abbie Cornish as Mrs Murphy and Samuel L. Jackson is good, and the film successfully makes the OmniCorp board seem more like morally questionable people rather than the cardboard bad guys that so often frequented eighties action movies, RoboCop amongst them. In a scene where oodles of data and perp profiles are downloaded into Murphy’s noggin so he can immediately identify people wanted for arrest, I couldn’t help but think – don’t we already have the technology to do this? There are plenty of programmes that can identify faces, just pair it with a database and strap it to an officer’s squad car/ass kicking visor and bob’s your uncle, you could even apply it to a network of surveillance cameras and call it ‘The RoboCop Protocol’ …

Mr. Peabody & Sherman  (2014)    63/100

Rating :   63/100                                                                       92 Min        U

The latest animation from Dreamworks is based on characters from the 1960’s The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show’, and focuses on the father and adopted son relationship of Mr Peabody (Ty Burrell), who happens to be a preternaturally intelligent canine that can talk, is a fully functional member of society and has invented, secretly, time travel, and his young human son Sherman (Max Charles) that he finds abandoned in an alleyway one day and who bizarrely has an IQ much closer to that of the average dog than any well adjusted member of mankind. This is the fundamental problem with the film – although the animation is fine, the protagonist is just too stupid, and his idiocy continues to set up most of the drama in the story as we see him bullied by a girl at school, who then bullies him into taking her on a jaunt through time and space.

It’s not without moral backbone, however, as Peabody attempts to rectify his son’s trouble at school by inviting the young demon and her parents over for dinner, delivering two surprisingly deep philosophical quotes to try and sell the idea to Sherman about the strongest relationships evolving through conflict and issues of self-reflection in hatred. As the narrative continues the father will have to learn to have more faith in his son and give him a bit more freedom, just as Sherman will come to see that the rules he has handed down to him have his own welfare at their heart, and the girl, Penny (Ariel Winter), will need to be rescued several times over and eventually stop being such a pain. A couple of nice jokes for adults, and perhaps a fun spattering of history for youngsters, including ancient Egypt, da Vinci and the Renaissance, the French Revolution and the siege of Troy, almost like ‘Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure’ (89) for a younger demographic (although the time machine here is remarkably similar to the one in ‘Free Birds’ for some reason), it will probably be entertaining enough for kids but I do question whether Sherman is simply so dim and irresponsible that he sets a bad example rather than functioning as the intended parabolic vehicle.

I, Frankenstein  (2014)    67/100

Rating :   67/100                                                                       92 Min        12A

This is a pretty awesome, bad film. Given the concept is that Frankenstein’s monster has not only robbed his creator of his name, but has also managed to survive until the present day and get himself involved in an eternal battle between demons and gargoyles (yes, that’s right, gargoyles – but ones that can transform into attractive humans and which serve the powers of good) that, naturally, humans are blissfully unaware of, the discovery that this is a bit rough around the edges with bad dialogue and a fair amount of ropey acting, isn’t really an astonishing surprise.

In the beginning we see Mr F dealing with a few family issues, and his voiceover comes to us ‘I though it was the end ..(long pause).. But ..(long pause).. It was just the beginning’ and we very quickly assume this is going to be a nightmare to sit through. Responsible for the somewhat lacking screenplay is Stuart Beattie, but credit where credit’s due – in his dual role as the director he has also created some pretty cool action sequences and somehow gelled everything into a very flawed, and yet very likeable film. Aaron Eckhart can take a lot of credit for anchoring the piece as Frankenstein, getting the tone spot on in what can’t have been an easy role to play, and Yvonne Strahovski as the hot blonde scientist in tight jeans adds the right touch of schlock sex appeal and the two of them, as well as the rest of the cast (Miranda Otto, Jai Courtney and Bill Nighy are in support – with the latter of those gleefully delivering his cheesy lines), with the direction, weave the right threads of ridiculousness and entertainment unashamedly together.

Not sure if this would work as well on the small screen, but I went into this in a foul and vituperative state of mind, and I left in a good mood. I’d recommend it if you’re feeling the same way.

Outlander  (2008)    59/100

Rating :   59/100                                                                     115 Min        15

Sci-fi that sees Jim Caviezel’s soldier from another humanoid race (who seem to be exactly the same as us, something never touched on – nor is their relationship with Earth explained) crash land in Norway in the year 709 AD, releasing his deadly cargo onto the harsh and beautiful Norwegian landscape (although it was mostly filmed in Canada). Encountering a local tribe led by John Hurt, he must help the natives defend themselves against the extra terrestrial beastie he has forced upon them, and will inadvertently garner the lusty attentions of the king’s daughter, played by Sophia Myles (who is essentially recreating her character from ‘Tristan + Isolde’ 06), but how will the local churls react to potentially losing one of the two attractive women we see in the village? Well, they are about to get eaten anyway, markedly improving our hero’s chances.

A reasonably interesting story with convincing sets and average-decent swordplay, but one that is sadly let down by having an all too traditional resolution and increasingly improbable action sequences.

The Hunger Games : Catching Fire  (2013)    71/100

Rating :   71/100                                                                     146 Min        12A

The sequel to last year’s first instalment in The Hunger Games trilogy (well, they are stretching the original three novels by Suzanne Collins into four films) sees the return of new best actress Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson as Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark respectively, ready to face the repercussions and responsibilities expected of them by the domineering force of The Capitol after successfully surviving the annual Hunger Games in the last film – a brutal last man standing, kill or be killed contest designed to both entertain and control the partially enslaved populace in this dystopian vision of the world’s future.

Those consequences are predictable enough – indeed the very names of the novels and films are kind of spoilers in their own right. Not that there is much in the way of originality in this teen fantasy series – the Japanese film ‘Battle Royale’ (2000) which predates all of the novels is one of many examples telling essentially the same story. However, the production value here is enormous, with a great spectrum of committed creative talent behind it. All of which ensures that the films are visually engrossing and perfect just to escape from reality for a few hours with.

Aside from an underwhelmingly abrupt ending, this is just as fun as the first one, compellingly acted and with a number of nice flourishes – like Cinna’s (Lenny Kravitz) indulgence with Katniss’s dresses …

Gravity  (2013)    0/100

Rating :   0/100              COMPLETE INCINERATION            91 Min        12A

Goodness. This is one of those films with big name stars and a huge amount of advertising behind it – all but ensuring its success despite the fact it is beyond abysmal, as the sending of Sandra Bullock into space seems to augur the destruction of pretty much every man made object orbiting the planet and we spend most of the film watching her flailing her arms around helplessly screaming ‘What do I do?! What do I do?!’. In fact, I’m surprised the moon managed to survive and wasn’t somehow thrown out of its orbit by her endless mewling.

The film opens with Bullock busying herself attaching something to the Hubble Space Telescope (which, naturally, she will represent the harbinger of doom for very quickly). We learn that NASA have sent her up there after a mere six months training (the ill fated monkeys they sent into space probably had more prep time) – the reason being she has developed some kind of new instrument for scanning deep space, despite the fact she tells us before this she worked in a hospital and it was developed for use there. Clearly, NASA did not have another astronaut capable of plugging the thing in – certainly not if her pilot George Clooney is anything to go by, whom we see whizzing by playing with his jetpack and listening to country music while she’s attaching her array. As if. One malfunction and that’s you off into deep space pal, no more “Whee Whee! Look at me I’m George Clooney!”

Having thus scuppered any pretence at realism, moments into the film we learn that Russia have missiled one of their defunct satellites which sets off a ‘chain reaction’ of debris (with the high energies involved, and the amount of things in orbit, space debris is a real danger for astronauts and the idea of a chain reaction creating more and more of the stuff has been theorised by the Kessler syndrome since the late seventies). Unfortunately for our intrepid space walkers, and their token Indian comrade, this creates a large amount of orbiting missile objects – which, despite these satellites being spread around in different orbits (and despite the lack of any coherency from what mission control are saying {which sees Ed Harris reprise his previous role from ‘Apollo 13’ before the comms go down} or indeed the lack of any visible missile going off or for that matter the feasibility of one being fired in the first place), has somehow resulted in all the debris arriving together to form one gigantic MONSTER which also just so happens to be in the exact correct path to annihilate everything else that we the human race have put into space, albeit with a little help from Sandra Bullock. Queue lots of arms flapping hopelessly around for the next hour and a half, occasionally interjected with a smug anecdote from Clooney.

The visuals of the Earth are very nice, but they are ruined by the camera spinning around constantly to the point of excess, nauseating the audience if they happen to find the Earth more interesting to look at than the principal leads. The physics never rings true, the dialogue is tragically bad, it never really feels like they’re in space and there’s even a disgustingly grotesque attempt to have Bullock float around and mimic a sort of embryo with various cords floating around her, as if director Alfonso Cuarón (‘Y Tu Mamá También’ 01, ‘Children of Men’ 06) thinks he’s Stanley Kubric. A film chock-full of stupidity from beginning to end with cringe worthy tension at best – even has Bullock running out of oxygen and Clooney decide to engage her in conversation, burning even more oxygen, plus they actually had a very obvious source of more oxygen that they completely ignored. One of the worst films for both actors – both ‘Batman & Robin’ (97) for Clooney and ‘All About Steve’ (09) for Bullock are more entertaining. Look out for the same floating pen that follows Bullock around no matter where she goes – also, the current televised ad for this film has some of John Murphy’s music playing in it: this music has nothing to do with the movie, but is in fact from Danny Boyle’s ‘Sunshine’ (07) which is ironically a much, much better science fiction film.

Ender’s Game  (2013)    75/100

Rating :   75/100                                                                     114 Min        12A

I loved this film. The premise seemed somewhat airy fairy – a young kid is selected as humanity’s best hope against an invading alien species that almost wiped us out the last time they dropped by to say hello, but actually it is delivered to us in quite a believable and entertaining way. Something anchored very strongly by Harrison Ford’s performance as the sort of grand training colonel, lending the necessary gravitas to the set up. Asa Butterfield as Ender is good, as are all the supporting young actors. There’s a decent amount of philosophy to chew on throughout the film, and the only real complaint to raise is the slight hiccup with a few minor editing choices for the last minute or two of the film – these overall don’t really matter, but it is a shame as they sort of define the feeling you walk away from the film with. Similar in essence to ‘The Hunger Games’ (12) and just as good.

About Time  (2013)    10/100

Rating :   10/100                                                                     123 Min        12A

Garbage. Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) discovers he can travel back in time to any point that he has previously experienced thanks to the time travelling gene he has inherited from his father (Bill Nighy), and so he decides to spend the majority of the film, and indeed his life, using it to get laid with Mary (Rachel McAdams – continuing her sexual perversion for time travelling lovers, after 2009’s ‘The Time Traveler’s Wife’). Actually Mary turns out to be quite easy, so it isn’t especially difficult for him and most of the film is padded out with very obvious time travelling gags as it meanders along with writer/director Richard Curtis’ upper middle class spoiled London centric characters who scarcely have any real problems to deal with, other than worrying about how to fall in love in the politest way possible and which swanky restaurant to go to. According to Curtis, the law profession that Tim chooses is entirely dominated by men – which century is he living in? And of course Tim never seems to think about using his powers to help out the people he defends in court, or indeed for doing anything especially interesting whatsoever.

Meanwhile Mary, being gainfully employed as an editor reading books for a living, which she loves, for some reason hates theatre, which makes absolutely no sense, but she is passionate about her idol Kate Moss. Kate Moss? What exactly has she ever done except stand around in her underwear posing and snorting mountains of cocaine, unless it’s dating a ‘rockstar’ so repugnant that even the press eventually got bored of him? Of course she’s in the script because Curtis has admitted his own salivary predilection for Moss. Then he gives McAdams an audience silencer of a line – whilst she’s stripping off her clothes to get information from Tim about the wedding and, upon reaching the threshold of her knickers, she asks where the honeymoon is to be, to which he suggests Scotland, her response is “I’m not taking my pants off for Scotland!”. No problem – come up north and we’ll take them off for you lass. I can only assume this references some kind of Jungian archetypal fear of the sexual prowess of the Scots. In response I think it should henceforth be every red blooded Scotsman’s duty to try and get into Rachel McAdams’ pants, although really we’d prefer Curtis had put the line in Notting Hill and we could chase Julia Roberts. Still, not sure I’d kick Rachel McAdams out of bed. Give her a good kick her up the arse, maybe…

Toward the end of the film we find motifs of death and loss and whiffs of emotional essence begin to drift into the story, and here it is more successful, but it is beyond redemption by this point. Tim’s airhead but easy to love sister (played by Lydia Wilson) is at one point taken back in time to demonstrate the man she had entered into a destructive relationship with was in fact no good, as thus now not meeting her at a party he instead simply hits on a different girl. What?! So he’s a ‘bad guy’ because he hits on girls at parties when he’s single? As if members of both sexes don’t attend parties all over the world precisely because they hope they will meet someone there, plus the girl he talks to doesn’t exactly seem upset at the attention he gives her. Is the assumption that this man is some sort of unstoppable demonic sexual force that all girls have no choice about submitting to?

This also completely ignores the enormity of the double standards that are applied throughout the story – Tim changes something which means he misses what would have been his first meeting with Mary, who instead shacks up with someone she meets AT A PARTY – someone she doesn’t know before hand and is quite clearly shown to be a creepy idiot. Tim, realising his mistake, then finds out exactly the right thing to say to Mary to impress her by repeating history again and again and again. This is somehow not intensely wrong on every level. Eventually, his lies should be unravelled and the fact their relationship is based on nothing at all unearthed, but of course it never is as he can alter everything, spending many lifetimes over perfecting his space time continuum rape of Mary, purely because he finds her hot, not really based on her personality in any meaningful way. Given the speed Mary also jumps into the sack with him, I guess she wasn’t really that fussy anyway.

Then there’s the babies – Tim cannot travel once he has created a child without altering the precise sperm and egg that met (if he goes back beyond conception that is), thus creating a different child. Somehow he corrects this error the first time he makes it and gets his young daughter back (she briefly becomes a young boy), also a little absent minded of his father not to mention this drawback, but later on when his third child is about to be born he decides to go back once again because clearly annihilating that unborn but fully formed child is fine so long as he hasn’t actually seen its face – who’ll know the difference, right?

Disgusting.