Edge of Tomorrow

Some people have a big problem with Tom Cruise. And it's not just the whole Scientology thing. He is somewhat of a divisive screen presence but, love him or hate him, he can certainly claim to be one of the biggest film stars in the world. Personally, I find him to be an engaging leading man and far from irritating (if the role is suited to his performance style, that is). In Edge of Tomorrow, Cruise starts out (or at least his character does) as an arrogant, pathetic and oily army officer but by the end, is transformed into a character with which the audience can empathise. And he acts the whole thing rather well.

Edge of Tomorrow is based on a science fiction novel by Japanese writer Hiroshi Sakurazaka and sees Cruise play military PR guy Major William Cage in a future world, who is deployed on the beaches of France to fight an alien invasion which is threatening the whole of humanity. Major Cage is, quite understandably, rather unwilling to march – or in this case, be dropped from a plane – to certain death, but despite his protestations, finds himself in the midst of a beach battle which looks rather like a futuristic version of the opening of Saving Private Ryan. In a plot twist, Cage gets sucked into a time-travelling system which means that every time he is killed, he is transported back to the beginning of the previous day, only to do it all again.

Now, many films have tangled themselves in fatal knots when it comes to time travel plot devices but director Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity) manages to keep the narrative relatively-coherent, whilst exploring many engaging moments which such a concept offers. Cage soon becomes entangled with bad-ass soldier Rita (played by Emily Blunt) and the two set out to destroy the alien monsters by fighting the same battles over and over again and learning something new each time.

It sounds as though this could become very tiresome, very quickly, but the film's skill in its action set-pieces and its use of humour means that the whole time travel gag works quite well. Of course, it can't run for the entire film but Liman performs a good juggling act between rather abstract ideas and adrenaline-pumping fighting. Just what the characters were fighting for, however, was rather intangible. Sure, the survival of humanity was at stake but the shots of London and a Paris felt rather idea empty: there was no real sense of the high stakes for which the characters were fighting for.

Both Cruise and Blunt put in nice performances, although some have complained of a lack of chemistry between the pair. But this isn't, in my mind, the point of the film and I found it quite refreshing that their relationship took a secondary position in narrative terms. The script kept the time travel stuff in-check and contained one or two good one-liners which lifted the film at the right points, just when it threatened to take itself too seriously.

Edge of Tomorrow is not ground-breaking or anything extraordinary but it is a solid, well-constructed and entertaining piece. It plays the time-travelling gimmick with enough invention and cohesiveness to carry the audience along and it does get rather exciting. Oh, and if you still don't want to see it because of your dislike of Tom Cruise, think about this: you get to see him killed over and over and over again. This is the perfect film for you. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

The Other Woman

There is, unfortunately, a widely-held belief that 'chick flicks' or romantic comedies are, by their very nature, rather inferior to other film genres. Time and time again I've heard people review a romantic comedy with words to the effect of “well, it was never going to be good, what did you expect from a chick flick?!” It's almost as if people automatically enter the cinema with astronomically low expectations and simply accept a film's faults because it is a rom-com. This is both unfair and illogical. Look at the fantastic films which can be classed as chick flicks: Mean Girls, Breakfast at Tiffany's and Bridesmaids all have something intelligent and funny to say. And then there are films like The Other Woman.

Whilst reading this, just imagine me sighing throughout and you'll get the idea of just how rubbish this film is. Indeed, I'd rather not waste precious energy on lifting my fingers to type a review of a film which is completely without merit, inventiveness or spark. The Other Woman follows three women who have all been seeing the same man (played by Nikolaj Coster-Waldau). Leslie Mann plays his wife who lives in a big, lovely house and when Cameron Diaz's high-flying lawyer character turns up at their front door, the two realise that the man of their dreams is, in fact, a serial cheater. Then, would you believe it, they find out that he has been cheating on them both with Kate Upton. Mental. The trio then decide to team up and get their own back, with hilarious consequences. Or so the trailer would have you believe.

So, from the set-up, we can hope for a film about sisters doing it for themselves, a triumph of feminism, female empowerment and a witty subversion of gender roles. In reality, the resulting film is a vacuous re-hash of banal stereotypes with a limp script and none of the biting wit which could have worked so well in such a set-up. From a characterisation perspective, the three women are standard constructions of Hollywood femininity: there's the intelligent one, the busty one and the mad, cries-all-the-time kooky one (it's all about feng shui darling). Wow, that's so innovative. Indeed, there's a tendency nowadays in comedy to simply fall-back on actors shouting and gradually becoming more and more hysterical in a scene in order to create laughs. Whilst this may work for the first few occasions, a film which relies on such humour quickly becomes dull. Leslie Mann's character, in particular, suffered from this and her performance quickly grates on the audience. Cameron Diaz played, well, Cameron Diaz.

The fundamental issue with the film is this: if its main theme is one of female empowerment and women getting one over nasty, horrible men, then why are the characters themselves so hypocritical. The Other Woman would totally fail the Bechdel Test (Google it) as nearly every conversation in the film is about a man. The women initially bemoan the loss of their man, then realise they can get revenge with hair removal cream, growth hormones and laxatives, only to then to come to the conclusion that they can not live without a man for a few months. But never mind, these women are independent and head-strong, who can afford to fly off to Barbados at a moment's notice, stay in posh hotels, drive nice cars and waste time spying on their ex. Oh no, sorry, in the end they have to fill their vacuous lives with a rich man and a guy who owns a beautiful house on a beach front. I get that it's a film, but really?!

For a film with a good concept, The Other Woman simply fails to deliver anything new, witty or engaging. Annoying characters, contrived plot points and a lack of a decent script all amounts to a film with very questionable gender politics and tired jokes. Do yourself a favour girls, go and see When Harry Met Sally and see how it's really done. 

Clapperboard Rating: * *  

Bad Neighbours

It would be very easy for me to overuse a certain adjective in this review, and that adjective can be found in the film's title. Bad Neighbours (or, as it is known in America, Neighbors) will, I fear, perform well at the box office (indeed, it has knocked Spiderman 2 off the top spot in the US). This is both depressing and indicative of a cinema audience that has come to accept bawdy, lowest common denominator humour as the best that Hollywood comedy has to offer.

From a plot perspective, Bad Neighbours is very simple to explain: a couple (played by Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne) with a young child are enjoying suburban life until a college fraternity – led by Zac Efron – move in next door and disrupt their quiet existence. What ensues promises to be (from the trailer, at least) an exciting riot of sex, parties and sparky humour as two lifestyles collide head-on. In reality, however, the film is annoying, boring, under-written, unfunny, crude, narratively-anaemic and disappointing in almost every respect.

Let's begin with the performances. To say that Efron spends half of the film with his shirt off would be unfair, but it is apparent that his casting was largely based on his star power and physical screen presence; his character is certainly not likeable. Rogen plays the standard, shouty and slightly irritating frat boy character seen in many an American comedy and only Rose Byrne adds any sense of comedic subtlety to proceedings.

Despite a cast which is sure to attract audiences, the main issue with the performances is that they are not controlled or moderated by director Nicholas Stoller (Get Him to the Greek, Forgetting Sarah Marshall). The actors certainly seem to be having a whale of a time in front of the camera, but at the expense of comedic tempo. Stoller seems to have just shouted “action!” and let the dialogue run aimlessly without any discipline over the improvisation. As a result, jokes fail to hit their mark time and time again and I was left totally uninterested with the whole thing.

It is not just the lack of control over the comedy, the type of humour in the film presents significant problems. The jokes either centre on sex or bad language and the script's fundamental reliance on these begins to grate after only twenty minutes into the film. There's little true wit, comedic intelligence or engagement with such jokes. As a result, the performances struggle to rise above such a dull approach to laughs and Efron, in particular, feels underused and rather objectified. As for a narrative, well, you'd have to look pretty hard for one which has any sense of logic or which is remotely engaging.

Bad Neighbours is, in a word, bad. Badly-written, badly-directed and badly-constructed. Its style of comedy has the potential to shock and is almost as bad as the film's narrative which meanders all over the place. The end result, I'm afraid, is a boring and inert film – quite the opposite to a college fraternity party. If you still want to watch it, watch the trailer: all the best gags are in there. 

Clapperboard Rating: * *  

Pompeii

Don't get me wrong, I do like a bit of nonsensical entertainment every now and then. Sometimes, there's nothing better than sitting back in a cinema seat and letting bonkers visuals, thundering explosions and ridiculous story lines sweep you along in a cinematic whirlwind of delight. There is, however, a small caveat to this: no matter how mindless (and I don't use this term in a detrimental fashion) a film is, there needs to be some sense of an engaging narrative and compelling characters. Pompeii, marketed as a historical disaster epic, offers few surprises and even fewer thrills, mindless or otherwise.

It won't take much to explain the plot of Pompeii (which is, after all, one of the most famous stories from ancient times). Slave-turned-gladiator Milo must rescue his love from the corrupt Roman Senator Corvus against the backdrop of Mount Vesuvius, which erupts with devastating consequences for both Milo and the people of Pompeii. Kit Harington (of Game of Thrones fame) plays our hero and, it has to be said, does a fairly decent job, given the hammy dialogue which plagues the whole screenplay. He is, however, far too well-groomed for a Roman slave. Kiefer Sutherland's accent as Senator Corvus is certainly questionable but as a baddie, his performance is perfectly watchable. Every single role, however, felt under-written and lacked any true emotional depth. Whilst I was watching Pompeii, I was constantly comparing it with Gladiator and, as a result, the whole film felt rather sub-standard, superficial and flat.

In terms of spectacle, director Paul W. S. Anderson clearly set out to create a film which would make the most of the 3D format. The screening I attended was, however, in 2D (not a problem for me!) and it was plain to see that much of the shot construction and camera movement was geared towards 3D. I suppose that, if any film was going to use the technology, then a film with spewing lava, violent ash clouds and pyroclastic flows was probably going to make the most of the medium. Whilst the erupting Vesuvius was quite a spectacle, it seemed as though all the special effects budget had been blown (sorry!) on the volcano sequences, at the expense of the CGI city, which was a bit creaky at best.

That said, the fight sequences were quite exciting and woke me up when I found myself slipping into a stupor during the dull drama scenes. There was, fundamentally, a lack of emotional depth for a film about mass death and destruction: indeed, I've seen TV docu-dramas reconstruct the horror of Pompeii in a more affective and effective way. The love story narrative was absurd, making the Rose/Jack romance in Titanic look like Romeo and Juliet, and the contrived motivations for Milo's seeking revenge on Senator Corvus (who killed Milo's family) felt predictable and tired.

All in all, Pompeii simply lacks any realistic feeling, is undermined by poor characterisation and any compelling narrative. For all its crashing visuals, blood and epic ambitions, it is somewhat unremarkable and rather inert. Ironic, really, for a film with a massive explosion.

Clapperboard Rating: * *