Project Almanac

(M) ★★½

Director: Dean Israelite.

Cast: Jonny Weston, Sofia Black D'Elia, Sam Lerner, Allen Evangelista, Virginia Gardner.

It truly was an impressive toaster.

THE lost filmmakers in The Blair Witch Project, the super-powered teens of Chronicle, the city-smashing monster of Cloverfield - these are some of the best examples of what clever directors can do with the found footage genre.

Aside from these good demonstrations of what you can do with a shakily held camera, there have been dozens of lesser ones, most of which are horror films of the "we found a killer's video camera" variety or one of the countless spin-offs/prequels/sequels of the Paranormal Activity series.

Project Almanac is certainly not a great movie, but at least it's a different take on the found footage genre. In it we have a bunch of teenagers who have a penchant for filming everything (naturally) and a gift for science... oh, and they also have in their basement the instructions for how to build a working time machine.

The clumsy set-up (there's more to it than that, but not much) is a necessary hurdle the film has to jump before it can get into the question at the heart of its premise - what would you do if you had a time machine?

As with the party-to-end-all-parties found footage film Project X, Project Almanac's best element is its wish fulfilment. Most of the movie is breezy and enjoyable as we follow the five friends as they live out their increasingly daring desires, and although the characters are under-developed, they're good company and provide a few good laughs.

But naturally the resulting consequences of getting what you want come into play, as the usual time travel movie issue - cause and effect - starts to demonstrate the unexpected ripples that follow a dive-bomb into the space-time continuum.

As such, it's an incredibly predictable film. You know that the minute they make a set of rules to follow, someone will break them, and you know that their efforts to undo what they have done will create more things to undo. The result is a film that never surprises you and does little to stick out in your memory, unlike such great time travel films as Looper, Back To The Future or 12 Monkeys.

And as with many found footage films, the need to squeeze in particular plot points and explanatory dialogue means there are quite a few "why would anyone film this?" moments. The best example of this is in the first act - an introduction that's as shaky as the majority of the footage - that ends up being distracting.

When it gets going, Project Almanac is mildly enjoyable, with a few cool special effects and good ideas (particularly the ending), but largely it's predictable, under-developed and ultimately forgettable.

Jupiter Ascending

(M) ★★½

Director: The Wachowskis.

Cast: Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Eddie Redmayne, Sean Bean, Douglas Booth, Tuppence Middleton.

Not even the weirdest bit of this movie.

"BAFFLING" is perhaps the best word to describe the latest directorial effort from The Wachowskis.

This far-flung space opera is as confounding as the filmmaking siblings' career. Since ground-breaker The Matrix, they have directed the much-maligned Matrix sequels, the downright-hated Speed Racer, and the ambitious misfire Cloud Atlas.

While Jupiter Ascending doesn't deserve to be much-maligned or downright-hated, it has all the makings of another ambitious misfire. But while it shares that present designation with Cloud Atlas, it also shares that film's destiny - both films are flawed cult-classics-in-waiting.

Kunis stars as the wonderfully named Jupiter Jones, a young woman who works as a cleaner with her mother and aunt, blissfully unaware that she is set to have a pivotal role in a messy feud between three members of the galaxy's most powerful family (played by Redmayne, Booth, and Middleton).

Jupiter's blissful ignorance is shattered when various aliens come looking for her. Among them is Caine (Tatum), a part-human, part-wolf, part-albino former soldier hired to keep her alive and take her to the other side of the galaxy to meet her destiny.

The reason Jupiter Ascending is likely to live on with a niche following is there is so much going on and so much to be impressed by, but sadly it's too much. They've created an incredibly rich universe of human hybrids, multiple alien races, and futuristic technologies that has the potential to be pored over by obsessives keen to learn everything about the Wachowskis worlds.

Unfortunately, such depth and design comes at the expense of such mainstream concerns as trying not to confuse the audience at every turn. So much of the film is spent wondering "why did they do that?", "what is that?", "who is that?" and "what the hell is going on?". There is bound to be a longer edit out there that takes its time to make sense of its characters, worlds, allegiances and "what the hell is going on?".

Seemingly important elements are given incredibly short-shrift, yet a difficult-to-follow spaceship dogfight over Chicago drags on, as does the fiery conclusion. Other bits make no sense whatsoever and, perhaps most bizarrely, one entire sequence that pokes fun at bureaucracy appears to have dropped in from a completely different movie, most likely Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy or perhaps Terry Gilliam's Brazil (Gilliam cameos just to ram that point home).

Amid its dumb mistakes, there is something oddly engaging at work. The Wachowskis have made a sporadically beautiful film containing a handful of intriguing characters. Kunis and Tatum are fun as Jupiter and Caine, and Bean's side role as Stinger is equal parts fascinating and perplexing, much like the film itself.

Meanwhile Redmayne, likely to add an Oscar to his awards cabinet on February 22, is just plain odd as chief villain Balem, who he portrays as some kind of cross between a lizard and Prince Phillip, and who says everything in a cross between a hiss and a whisper (a hissper?).

Balem is just one moment of weirdness in a film that consistently asks you to accept weird things, often with little explanation. While not having everything explained is refreshing in this age of dumbed-down blockbusters, this goes too far in the other direction.

Ultimately, Jupiter Ascending is like a Rubik's Cube - initially exciting and colourful, but predominantly baffling.

50 Shades Of Grey

(MA15+) ★★★

Director: Sam Johnson-Taylor.

Cast: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan, Eloise Mumford, Max Martini, Jennifer Ehle, Marcia Gay Harden.

"... three, two, one, okay, ready or not, here I come!"

I CAN'T believe I'm saying this, but the film adaptation of Fifty Shades Of Grey is far better than it has any right to be. Don't get me wrong - it's not great. But it's not terrible, which is what I was honestly expecting.

Given that the source material is a novel that began life as a piece of kinky Twilight fan fiction which was "dull and poorly written" (New York Times), "a sad joke" (Huffington Post), and "made Twilight look like War & Peace" (Sir Salman Rushdie), and which I've regularly heard derided as rubbish by people who've read it, my hopes were not high.

So it's a pleasant surprise that the film version of a book that spawned the term "mommy porn" and did more to boost handcuff sales than a police-themed dress-up party is reasonably solid, especially for a movie that is essentially plotless.

That's the main issue here because otherwise Fifty Shades of Grey is beautifully shot, well performed, occasionally funny, and weirdly intriguing. But the thrust (ahem) of its story is basically "boy meets girl, boy whips girl, the end".

There are lines of dialogue that hit the ground harder than a broken bed ("I'm 50 shades of f**ked up," says Christian Grey in all seriousness as if that's a common phrase), and the film edges into melodrama too often. It's also tempting to criticise its tendency to mistake "creepy" for "romantic" but I figured that was kind of the point of the whole thing. After all this is a film that exchanges love for whips and chains, and has two confused characters trying to meet somewhere in the middle.

Instead of a plot, we get a character study of a shy girl-next-door-type named Anastasia Steele (Johnson) and a sensitive-new-age-Patrick-Bateman-type called Christian Grey (Dornan), as well as an exploration of the sexual world of dominants and submissives.

Johnson is great and it's her performance that's the most impressive aspect of the film, given that it's her character's conflict that drags you along. Ana's transformation from Plain Jane Wallflower into someone who is questioning what they want and what they're willing to sacrifice to get it is compelling, as is her balance between naivety and inner strength.

Dornan is less impressive but could have been worse considering how poorly written his character is in places - given the strangeness of the subject matter (man wants woman to be his contracted sex slave) it's no wonder the script creaks under the weight of trying to explain his motives while keeping him likeable.

For all the film's faults, I can't help but feel that if this was subtitled and in Polish or French or something, then critics would be losing their collective shit over it, awarding it four and five stars for its examination of unconventional sexual peccadilloes, un-Hollywood-like denouement, and its eschewing of traditional plot techniques in favour of character exploration and inner personal journeys.

While I was totally prepared to unleash my poison pen at this film, I have to admit that was probably premeditated snobbery on my part and I can't help but wonder how many of the bad reviews it receives will be because of critics unwilling to concede it's not that bad.

Let me reiterate - it's not great. It's a bit hit and miss and it's climax (sorry) will leave some perplexed. It's definitely not as sexy or as explicit as people might think it to be, but again, I figured that was kind of the point. This is about a relationship that is basically contractually agreed-upon domestic violence.

The writers and director have dug through what was essentially an elongated Penthouse Letter Of The Month and come up with a disturbingly engaging tale about loss of innocence that serves as an allegory for spousal abuse, and in that sense, it's an intriguing film.

Or am I missing the point?

Kingsman: The Secret Service

(MA15+) ★★★½

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Cast: Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Samuel L Jackson, Sophie Cookson, Sofia Boutella, Michael Caine.

Firth knew he would regret coming to Bridget Jones Con 2014, and he was right.

REMEMBER when James Bond films used to be a bit bonkers?

It was back in a time before The Bourne Identity hit cinemas and changed the genre forever and before Daniel Craig re-invented the 007 mantle in a trio of excellent (except for Quantum of Solace) but oh-so-serious instalments of the superspy series.

Those were the days when villains had insane plans for world domination and henchmen with bizarrely useful physical attributes. Those were the days when literally anything could hide a weapon and when watches did far more than just tell the time. Those were the days when there was always a big clock counting down to armageddon and when faceless baddies couldn't shoot straight.

Kingsman: The Secret Service remembers those times and misses them dearly. It imagines an alternate history where Colin Firth was picked to play Bond instead of Pierce Brosnan and where modern movie sensibilities merged with the sense of fun found in the Connery and Moore days.

Firth is the Bond-like agent Harry Hart, codenamed Galahad and member of the ultra-secret group the Kingsman, who is charged with investigating the death of a fellow Kingsman and to put forth a candidate as a replacement.

The possible new guy (aka audience surrogate) is a young geezer from the wrong side of the tracks named Eggsy (played by coincidentally named newcomer Egerton), whose father was a Kingsman that Hart owes a debt of gratitude to.

If Eggsy can survive the recruitment process, he might just get a chance to save the world from the clutches of lisping tech billionaire Richmond Valentine (Jackson).

It's all reasonably formulaic but then that's the point - first and foremost, Kingsman: The Secret Service walks a fine line between spoof, homage and rip-off of the 007 series, so when it does deviate from what we expect (which only happens a couple of times) it actually packs a punch, which is nice.

When it's not winking at the audience with its over-the-top ridiculousness and the occasional John Barry-esque musical cue, it embraces a style all its own that sits somewhere between its comic book origins and the hyperactive editing style of modern action movies. The difference here is that we can actually see what's going on - the stylised cinematography enhances rather than gets in the way of the action.

And there is plenty of action, and the film doesn't just wear its MA15+ rating lightly. Unlike 007, Kingsman revels in getting its hands bloody and dropping a few F-bombs along the way.

But that's half the fun of the film. When was the last time we heard Michael Caine call someone a "f**king prick" or saw Firth kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes? The answer is "probably never" (unless you go to more interesting parties than I do) and it's part of what makes this such a ludicrous guilty pleasure.

Kingsman is Vaughn's second adaptation of a Mark Millar comic but it is a far looser take than Kick-Ass. It does share some similarities beyond the presence of the always dependable Mark Strong - notably the gleeful silliness, the genre subversion that's going on, and the love of a well placed bullet or curse word.

After all, it's not every film that features heads that explode in a mixture of fireworks meet mushroom clouds.

But that's the kind of thing that Kingsman revels in and it's the kind of thing that will make you see this as either an enjoyable frivolity or an absurd disappointment.


I'm going with the former.

Into The Woods

(PG) ★★★

Director: Rob Marshall.

Cast: Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt, James Corden, Anna Kendrick, Chris Pine, Daniel Huttlestone, Lilla Crawford.

"Nothin' suss," said Johnny Depp, who had apparently fallen on hard times and become a furry.

CROSSOVERS are a big deal these days, especially in superhero films - Batman will battle Superman, Iron Man and Captain America team up with the rest of the Avengers, and the old X-Men meet the new X-Men.

But before there were comic book characters, there were fairy tales, where similarly fantastical beings and magical happenings collided in a world where good hopefully triumphed over evil.

So why not have a crossover with all your favourite fairy tales and mash them up into one mega-Disney musical?

That's the idea behind Into The Woods, the big-screen version of the long-running Broadway play written by Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine, where the narratives of Rapunzel, Cinderella, Jack & The Beanstalk and Little Red Riding Hood intersect in weird and wondrous ways.

Central to the tale is The Baker (Corden) and his wife (Blunt) - a childless couple who discover the reason for their inability to breed is a hex placed on The Baker's family by the neighbourhood witch (Streep). In order to reverse the curse, they must collect four ingredients, setting in motion a chain of events that will forever change their faraway kingdom.

Meanwhile, Cinderella (Kendrick) wants to go to the ball to meet the prince (Pine), Red Riding Hood (Crawford) is being harassed on the way to Grandma's house by a wolf (a creepy cameo from Johnny Depp), Jack (Huttlestone) is on his way to market to sell his beloved cow, and Rapunzel (MacKenzie Mauzy) is destined to meet a prince of her own (Billy Magnussen).

The first half of the film is whimsically silly, filled with airy songs, light-hearted gags and nothing more serious than a whole bunch of characters seeking their hearts desires as their paths intersect in the titular forest.

The second half is a decidedly darker affair with a distinctly different tone, as if it's flown in from the next theatre over. While the latter half of the film is the more interesting and thought-provoking of the two halves, it sits awkwardly with the first half, making for a disjointed and slightly off-putting whole that doesn't quite work together.

Fortunately there are excellent performances and some good humour along the way to make it all go down a little bit more smoothly. Blunt and Corden are great - their song delivery is fantastic, but their comic timing is even better, while Kendrick is as charming as any fairytale prince.

The film's actual Prince Charming - Pine - almost accidentally steals the show with the song Agony, the only out-and-out hilarious number, while Streep is at her usual level of brilliance, relishing the eccentricities of her witchy role.

Everyone does their darnedest to hold this misshapen mash-up together, but no amount of good acting, quality singing and clever songs can cover the fact it feels less like a crossover and more like two movies stuck together.

If maybe there was more darkness in the first half, or more light in the second, then Into The Woods wouldn't feel so clumsily crafted.

Unbroken

(M) ★★★

Director: Angelina Jolie.

Cast: Jack O'Connell, Takamasa Ishihara, Domhnall Gleeson, Garrett Hedlund, Jai Courtney.

The race was going so well until Jack was attacked by a giant ribbon.

WAR is hell, but few soldiers endured as much purgatory and perdition as Louis Zamperini.

As such, his story is a compelling one that shows just how much the human spirit and body can endure. Unfortunately this tale of survival has little else to offer beyond its tale of survival.

It begins with Zamperini's time in the US Air Force during WWII, dipping in and out of bombing raids to recall his pre-war life in Torrance, California, as a troubled kid who turns his life around and becomes an Olympic runner.

But one fateful mission over the Pacific Ocean indirectly lands Zamperini in a prisoner of war camp, with the experiences that follow best likened to Dante's Inferno and its many layers of hell.

Largely unknown English actor O'Connell gives a breakout performance as the ill-fated runner/soldier, effectively portraying the pain, stoicism and large emotional range the role requires.

But it's certainly no fault of O'Connell's that we don't get a clear understanding of what made Zamperini tick. That fault lies with the script, which is so focused on its events that it forgets to give us much in the way of characters.

As a result, Zamperini is portrayed as little more than "the guy that survived" - we get no sense of what he was like as a man beyond the fact that his spirit was "unbreakable" and that he was a fairly decent guy. We are left with no idea about what really drove him and kept him going through such horrific experiences, and even less of an idea about his fellow POWs, whose names we barely even get to know.

Because of this it's a while before we gain any real empathy or context for characters, despite them enduring some terrible things.

An audience is always going to care more about people if they get to know them, but there is little in the way of introductions or development for these POWs. It's really only the relentless weight of their suffering that allows the film to break through emotionally, and as such it feels like Unbroken sells its subjects short.

This is certainly no fault of the cast, who acquit themselves well, especially O'Connell but also Ishihara as POW camp commander Mutsuhiro "Bird" Watanabe, who conveys the right amount of repulsiveness in his turn.

It's hard to fault Jolie's direction too much either. The film takes a little while to get going but moves at a decent pace in its latter half. She also avoids making the necessary violence gratuitous, while Roger Deakins' cinematography (which has earnt him an Oscar nomination) gives the film a classy look.

The problem lies with the script and its "events, not characters" approach. The film is not filled with scintillating dialogue or amazing set pieces - although the opening aerial dog fight is pretty cool and the Olympic sequence is done well - but without character depth to drive the necessary emotional punch we are left with little more beyond an hour of hardship.

The film is certainly worth a look as it's a compelling story, but you will walk away knowing what happened to Zamperini, and not who Zamperini really was.

The Imitation Game

(M) ★★★★

Director: Morten Tyldum.

Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Mark Strong, Charles Dance, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard, Rory Kinnear.

"Good Lord, I've cracked the Enigma code."
"What does it say?"
"'New phone. Who dis?'"

CERTAIN things happen when true stories get turned into films.

Real people become characters with easily defined and exaggerated traits, while real events get condensed, altered and just plain made up in order to make the realities of life fit more easily into the typical three-act structure and dramatic tension we expect in a movie.

The Imitation Game is a perfect example of that, and therein lies the film's only weakness - by squeezing this story of World War II codebreakers into the required formula, it tends to feel contrived, relying on clichés to tick the necessary narrative boxes.

But otherwise, this is a powerful and fascinating fictionalised account of the life of computing pioneer and bona fide genius Alan Turing, driven by Cumberbatch's engrossing performance in the lead role.

Skipping back and forth between three time periods, the story examines Turing's formative school years, his work cracking the Nazi's Enigma code during WWII, and his later persecution for being a homosexual in an era when such a thing was still illegal in the UK.

The main focus is the war years, where Turing is portrayed as having an Asperger's-like demeanour that puts him at odds with his fellow codebreakers (played by Knightley, Goode, Leech and Beard) as he struggles to build the machine that he believes will break the code and help win the war.

It's Cumberbatch's performance that dominates and powers the film. He is utterly mesmerising and, among a growing collection of excellent turns, this is his finest to date.

Also great and potentially in career-best form is Knightley, whose role as fellow cryptanalyst and Turing's fiancée Joan Clarke is overshadowed by Cumberbatch but no less important or impressive despite its comparative lack of dramatic fireworks. A top-notch supporting cast, particularly Goode, Strong and Dance, round things out nicely.

In general this is a fantastic story well told. With its themes of secrets and what defines a person, set against a backdrop of WWII intrigue and topped off with a sadly real coda about the persecution of homosexuals in a less enlightened time, The Imitation Game is packed with plenty of interesting ideas and plot elements.

Where it falls down is in its overly obvious efforts to fit the true story into something resembling the traditional flow of a movie. As a result we are left with such tired clichés as a race against the clock, a eureka moment, and an "if he goes, I go" speech, all of which genuinely feel out of place and lead to some moments of ham-fisted melodrama that are only saved because the cast is so damned good.

There's also the non-linear presentation, which creates some pacing issues and strangely timed reveals as the plot dives in and out of Turing's school years, war years, and post-war years.

At least Tyldum (best known for the Norwegian actioner Headhunters) and cinematographer Oscar Faura (The Impossible) give each period a subtly different look, and the direction overall is effective, even if its occasional brief war sequences are largely unnecessary.

Generally though, The Imitation Game is impressive, particularly due to Cumberbatch and Knightley and the highs and lows of Turing's truly remarkable life.