Reviews

The narrative of "Fury" (Ayer 2014) is laden with war film clichés, but they all work as a vehicle for character development and interaction, which makes them more effective than a completely original and surprising narrative which doesn't leave enough space for the story to be told.

It's been a while since we've had a war film on the circuit where the war and the fighting of the war is a main plot line. Reality has become more and more important in cinematic story telling over the last decade or so with films striving to get closer to what events would look, sound and be like if they weren't choreographed by a screen writer, and watching a world war two tank film with this as a key element is incredible. Ayer did an amazing job in making a tank feel vulnerable and indestructible where many other films and TV shows have mostly shown them as plain war machines. The film plays with tension and anticipation incredibly well and I can't remember when last I felt this emotionally involved in the development of a war film. INSERT: The reason for this is the solid characters, their interactions, relationships and development, which is the best narrative part of this film, as it should be.

I'm slightly disappointed in the ending of the film as the first three quarters works really hard to convince you that it's all real and it succeeds at it, then the conclusion is so censored for audience approval that it subverts a lot of the force the film builds up. To hold off on any spoilers I'll just say that the film is violent and gory; at the pinnacle of the story however it tones down on the gore to not leave the audience with a bad taste in their mouth, while also keeping the romanticized war idea alive. That was disappointing.

The most powerful war films are those that don't try and sprinkle your drink with essence of rose; war is violent, people die, and they don't look pretty when they do it.

Shia LaBeouf is really starting to make a name for himself as a serious actor and the role he portrays in "Fury" (Ayer 2014), and the way he portrays said role, really counts in his favor. Likewise, it's been a while since I've seen Brad Pitt in a film that requires more of him than just arriving on set and he how fulfilling it is to see him really act. This is not to say the other members of the tank crew didn't do an amazing (acting) job; Jon Bernthal specifically was incredibly effective in his role and I had the appropriate mixed feelings towards his character as a result.

This film could have been better, and I blame a need to be accessible and enjoyed as entertainment for this shortcoming. Ayer should have stuck with the power he started with and while some audience members might have left the cinema a little distraught than you would have wanted, the story of "Fury" (Ayer 2014) would have been much better for it.

The story behind this film is interesting - I don't like the fact that it opens by stating 'A True Story' as the art of film is consciously choosing a perspective, and 'truth' is, or at least should be, outside perspective. I would much prefer 'based on true events' or 'inspired by real events', that way the filmmaker acknowledges that there is more to the content than what will be presented. Moving along.

"Unbroken" (Jolie 2014) is too long. It could easily have been an incredibly powerful miniseries of four one hour episodes as the story has four definite 'chapters'. Think "Band of Brothers" (Frankel 2001). This story has that much potential. The film does the story justice; there are some beautiful, powerful and beautifully powerful moments which makes the film work. There are however one or two moments where the emotions are indulged in and that breaks from the immersion a 'true story' should long for; every moment should to be completely believable. These moments make me question some of the creative license Jolie took with the detail of the facts which, if she did in fact not, means this film could have had a much greater effect on me.

For the fact that it is a single feature film, Jolie should have cut a lot of the content. The film is very obviously not a documentary which means narrative should be king (even where based on true events) and for this reason Jolie should have focused more on the moment, the people, the actions and the reactions than the amount of terrible things the characters had to survive. Taking any two of the four chapters, fleshing them out in terms of story and cutting down on the running time would have made this a stronger film.

Casting was well done, the actors look like the characters in a natural way. Jack O'Connell played a difficult role well for the most part. There are a few moments where you can see the actor trying to achieve an emotional and physical expression which he has very deliberately been directed into; which is a weakness. I do consider the fact that the actors had to portray people who had lived in horrible living conditions and that there is a definite threshold where your imagination starts filling in the blanks, it's usually around this point in time where disbelief sets in.

In terms of the quality of the film, it's top notch. The camera work and sound is great, the editing is mostly really good as well and any noticeable short comings really come down to story (as I've mentioned that the acting was effective as well – the short comings in the acting I credit to the short comings in the story and directing.

This is a good film, but it probably won't stay with you, it's memorable in that you will remember the greater story and the fact that this man survived a whole lot of terrible things, but you won't remember the man. You won't remember any one moment, and the moments you will remember you will remember as being obvious and forced.

In terms of a story "Foxcatcher" (Miller 2014) doesn't really have a lot to work with at first glance. It's a story about a – in some or another way – down and out sports person who has to rise to the challenge, or not. These are stories that have been around the block with pretty much any sport you can think of, but "Foxcatcher" is not another one of those films. This 'straight forward' narrative is laced with character content making what could easily have been dull or boring scenes informative and engaging. The plot generally develops the way you expect it to, until the moment where what you should have seen coming catches you - and the lady somewhere behind you - off guard with a yelp. There are two elements of 'setup' for important things to come in this film and they are both done wonderfully. In retrospect you realize that the script and director were giving you a hint but in the moment of the scene there is no reason for you to suspect it; and that is how a setup is done correctly. As mentioned, the acting is praiseworthy and I fully support the freshly released 87th Academy Award nominations for Steve Carell (Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role) and Mark Ruffalo (Best Performance of an Actor in a Supporting Role). Both these actors performed well above what we've come to expect from them and that does not exclude Channing Tatum, who embodies the physicality of the screen character of Mark Schultz remarkable well. Besides the obvious credit going to the actors, Director Bennett Miller also deserves his nomination for the 'Best Achievement in Directing' Oscar as he created an environment and world that made everything believable. Not for one second did I question the location, the time, the characters, their responses – and there were some out of the ordinary responses - or the action(s) around their lives. Miller and his crew put so much attention in the detail without losing sight of the big picture which is remarkable (here's to hoping the 'Best Directing' award from the Cannes Film Festival is a predictor for the Oscars). The cinematography was clean, precise and functional. The framing of certain moments and scenes were powerful but the camera never drew attention to itself and its art form, which in the case of a dramatic film like "Foxcatcher" is a very good thing. The sound however, drew my attention, but in a good way. The quality of the audio work in this film is beyond impressive. They used silence like very few films do, they used music and scoring sparsely which made the moments where there was scoring more effective. As a technical whole I think there is little that could have been done to improve this film. Cinematographer, Greig Frasera and his team, along with the substantial sound department did great work. "Foxcatcher" is well rounded in every facet, dramatic, beautiful, engaging, and with a powerful, unexpected climatic moment; a worthwhile film experience.

It's not an awful film but if you want to see something new, anything new, then this isn't the film to look at. The production quality is high; things look good. They're shot well and you can see a lot of time and effort went into creating it. But I have to ask, if you're going to put that much time and effort into a project, why not do something new/fresh/unique/original?

The narrative is more predictable than a Dungeons and Dragons rulebook and when the description for a monster was presented as a "level six monster" I had to take a moment to ensure my jaw wasn't on my lap. The character archetypes walk straight of the pages of any explanation of the Monomyth or Three Act Play. The mentor is a grumpy old man who gets disrespected by everyone but who is 'the most incredible fighter of evil'. The hero is 'the most unlikely candidate' to past the trails of being a Spook. Yes, the greatest warriors against evil are called Spooks – sounds too much like lazy writing to ignore. They have to defeat the 'greatest evil' before the 'blood moon' is full. The most generic fantasy content and lingo.

Some of the dialog was also atrocious. In a fight one character comments "(y)ou know nothing of dragons." This intimidating comment is either completely useless as there are no other reference to dragons and if it turns out that the flying baddies are dragons then the statement is incorrect as the person the comment was aimed at knows the one quite intimately. Another such comment was "his reign of terror". The him that is referred to here holds no station of power beyond the power he claims over any person he faces in single combat, hardly a reign of any kind.

The representation of the antagonists was interesting, visually at least. The master assassin couldn't be bothered to do anything sneaky or stealthily. His 'army of assassins' are incorrectly introduced as, well, assassins when really they're just 'random cannon fodder for the slaughter' to fill in the fight scenes between Lieutenants; yes the bad guys (who are witches) have a queen and she has lieutenants.

The hero goes through the minimal required amount of character development, just like everyone else. Everyone who has to die, dies on cue. The love interest is a shallow relationship that starts with eye contact and ends with betraying their respective parties at one point or another, with little other than a single make out session in between.

I'm looking for a saving grace and I'm having trouble coming up with one. It's like drinking a glass of tap water, not bad but it's not going to tickle your taste buds.

This film runs deep into the psyche of the artist. It's the sum of itself and won't leave the cinema in your head but in your heart. The narrative never asks the audience any questions, it simply presents you with a possible truth and through the nature of the medium the audience superimposes this truth onto themselves and then assesses the result; and that is power. A straightforward narrative in the broad sense, there are few surprises in the plot and the 'big wow' moment is setup in a fairly blatant manor early on. I was a little disappointed by this setup. The presentation of the content had me off balance for most of the film, like I said it made me ask a lot of questions of myself and if the 'big wow' was more of a surprise it might just have led to a profound personal experience. The acting and potential for acting is phenomenal. This script is one of those rare treasures where it's pretty good on the page but give it to a talented cast that can connect with what lies beyond the lines and you have an incredible film. The performance gives it power. Making the audience believe that they are somehow looking in on the truth of what happens in the lives of these people (like films rarely do) becomes super-realistic as people are rarely that honest with each other in their own lives. The characters are rich and vibrant with challenging character flaws and strengths that are complex and informative of the characters. You get to see them when they are lying to each other, then you get to see they turn around and share an honest reaction with themselves. The supernatural element that is and isn't important, which is or isn't a delusion, and that is or isn't real, flows easily into the film. It makes you obviously aware of the film and the medium while keeping you focused on yourself, I mean the character; what better way to get people to question themselves? Never allow full immersion but being so truthful that you can't help but allow it into your mind. Cinematographically the film keeps the unity with extended shots, lapsing time and blending scenes into one another without overtly cutting in the edit. This makes the audience feel more present, more like a peeping tom, more like an invader in this other person's life that makes you uncomfortable, conscious and questioning. The lighting is immaculately done though the flares got a bit much. Costuming and props were spot on, the presence of the wig and the magic of backstage in a theater during a performance, all contributed to the most subconsciously conscious film I've watched in a very long while - consuming more mainstream pop culture than festival films might mean that's a deficit on my part. I'll end off with the dialog that made me cringe and smile. It's a quote from French Novelist Gustave Flaubert and reads; "One becomes a critic when one cannot be an artist, just as a man becomes a(n informant) (original - stool pigeon) when he cannot be a soldier" (October 22, 1846). There, in questioning identity, is the power of "Birdman" (Iñárritu 2014).

"The Judge" (Dobkin 2014) is a human story about everyday people living their everyday lives and it is beautifully told. I say everyday lives but obviously any film aimed for popular consumption will have a certain amount of 'not your average day'. That being said, this is a simple story told in a simple way. Contrary to my usual opinion this works really well as the simple plot leaves space for story that's generated between the characters. Also incredibly refreshing is the fact that the characters develop from beginning till end and that development isn't limited to the leads. All the secondary characters keep developing till the end of the film which keeps you surprised and the story interesting.

The endings of films like these I often find a little awkward, the usual suspect for an ending is 'now that all the challenges have been dealt with everyone returns to what they were doing before', which can be boring or too ideal; let's be honest happy endings are disappointing in dramatic films. This film doesn't suffer from this. The ending leaves the viewer with a thought for what the character(s) might do next and not just 'they return to their lives'.

The mention of the ending brings up the cinematography; the closing shot is incredibly well executed. Without a word the camera gives you a power relation, a personal revelation, a sense of closure and/or a wonder for what might happen next, all in some beautiful framing, blocking and editing. Beyond that scene the film is littered with beautiful camera work that contribute to the film beyond just showing the audience what's happening. The framing and blocking of action is artistic in quite a few scenes but not artistic in that it's trying to be; the honest artistic where the Director of Photography is on- board with the story and doing his creative part in telling the story though his medium. Now, to nitpick the photography I will mention that some of the aerial shots feel a little out-of-place. Like the rest of the film the aerials are beautifully shot and the movement is fluid, and there is almost the problem. We're not used to seeing traveling shots with perfect movement, stability and fluidness so when there's a scene where we're keeping pace with a bicycle and the cut of the edit is between two different aerial shots, it draws attention. I would have loved one of these cameras to be on a different rig – car mount or static wide.

The casting was brilliant, I enjoyed all the characters and I enjoyed all the actors as their respective characters; the casting definitely plays to the strengths of the actors and the ensemble of actors plays to the strength of the narrative. As with any narrative story not all characters are made equally but "The Judge" (Dobkin 2014) allows each character a story, with emotion, cognition and background to the story and as an active viewer, that's lovely as it allows you to see beyond the frame on the screen with ease.

I really enjoyed watching this film, I walked into the cinema with no specific expectation and I walked out having experienced an emotional journey with some engaging characters wondering what would be next for them.

I believe some of the best narratives are complicated in its story but simple in its telling. If an audience needs to start looking for reasons as to why a film was produced then the narrative has failed and in this sense "Into the Woods" (Marshall 2014) fails. The difference in the accents of the cast is incredibly distracting; American, Standard English, and British all in the mix making it an effort to immerse yourself in the fantastical location of the film.

The narrative starts out easy to watch and standard with regards to expectations for a fairy-tale themed musical. The way the different traditional stories flow into one another is enticing and some of the characters have unexpected personalities, which I thoroughly enjoyed. The hand costuming/prosthetics for the Wolf and the Witch are disappointing though. Hands are important, especially when you're working with music; people gesture and strike poses, and spotting something like prosthetics in those moments spoil them. It did however remind me of theater and I would love to see the stage production as it does feel like it belongs to theater more than to film – being based on a theater text that's understandable but as this comes across in the acting it becomes a weakness to the film.

What makes you realize that the film is just over two hours long is how the musical changes pace. The first third of the film is all but constant singing intertwining scenes and stories with music and melodies, the second third is lots of singing but less lased from scene to scene and more short aria style pieces and the last third of the film actually has minimal singing and songs seem reserved for all the pinnacle moments. Besides the change in pace and disconnected feeling this gives the narrative, the final third of the film still has the actors acting out in a theatrical and musical styled movement which is over the top and communicative but not at all believable. When people are singing everything the overly theatrical movements hardly bothers you but when everything becomes more dramatic and lines are delivered as dialog it starts feeling awkward and un-cinematic.

The darker twist to the story comes out of nowhere and is very suburban for a fairy tale. Around the same time the already complicated narrative is made even more complicated by taking what the audience knows of the different fairy tales and what they've been setup to expect (by the story itself) and completely changing direction with it; quite ineffectively. It could have reached much of the same results by sticking to its guns and riding out the fairy tale story it was shaping up to be.

The sound – beyond the accents – constantly draws your ear's attention as it sounds like you're listening to an album and not a film. The quality is great and the vocalists are, for the most part, quite pleasing but it sounds flat stereo when characters are singing and the soundscape takes a definite back seat to the music and singing. On one or two occasions the ADR (Automated Dialogue Replacement – recording the sound after the fact) didn't synch up quite too well with the studio recording; so you can hear the characters and how they're singing in a studio while watching them travel through a forest at a distance.

Scene for scene the film is effective and the production value is well worth spending the ticket money on. The cast is well picked and very enjoyable even with some of the theater acting. Overall, the narrative pulls the film down to a slight disappointment.

Big Hero 6 is the kind of film I enjoy watching for entertainment – yes, a bit of a redundant statement. You walk in expecting a fun animated film with wholesome family values and you walk out feeling like you got so much more. The narrative is easy to pull apart. It's a simple story told in a simple way; effective but shallow. Usually this will be a sore point as the narrative is the most important element in my opinion. Considering the genre and form of the film – 'fun animation' remember - I won't hammer on that. The narrative is rich with moments that are emotionally enthralling. The exciting moments are somehow extra exciting and the sad moments extra sad. The characters start off looking rich and promising but soon turn flat. The lead character is great, I enjoyed the development there and most of the other characters go through a small but significant development as well; right at the 'save the day' moment which is predictable but nicely done. The character of the villain however is disappointing. The change in the character is such a huge stretch and a lot of the setup for the villain is just nonsensical. The ending is cute but a team of tech savvy crime fighters made me sigh, why is returning to a life of science not enough? As a bit of an aside, the resolution for the villain is surprisingly bleak and effects more people than just the villain; none of them in a positive way. With the values the film present and the family friendly attitude of the story, I found that character resolution a shock. Not necessarily a bad thing, the complexities of responsibility is also a valuable lesson even though you wouldn't expect to find it in a friendly animation film. The style of the film is beautiful. The animation and the sound is immersive and the moments get their intent spot on; funny is really funny, sad is really sad, disappointing is uncomfortably disappointing, and that makes this an entertaining film in the moment. I found it didn't leave me with any afterthought (perfectly acceptable) but it did leave me with a smile on my face and thoughts of when I was younger.

Exodus is an impeccably crafted film. Everything is big and beautiful (or equally ugly where appropriate). I quite enjoyed the casting and the acting was engaging but for one or two moments. It achieves the grandeur required with excellence and is also most definitely a Ridley Scott film. Turning religious stories into films are dangerous as it can very easily draw ridicule. At the same time, removing yourself from the spiritual aspect of a story (as the story teller) is necessary if your aim is for the film to be accessible to a wider audience; for whatever reason. This narrative stays true to the greater biblical tale of Moses, the ten plagues and the Hebrew exodus from Egypt. The ten plagues are presented in a very non supernatural way, allowing the godly influence to be called into question. That is until the tenth plague strikes, which is ominous, unexplained and beautifully captured in the visual expression. The pace and tension between the characters and in the narrative is so tangible that there is no need for an explanation, it happens and resolves a greater story which drives the film forward. This was impressively done even if the first nine plagues became a little dull, going from one to the other for no other reason than, it needs to. My biggest grip with the film, beyond the tragic cinematic resolution of the Red Sea, is the character development of Moses, or lack thereof. Considering the life experiences Moses had to endure and with the great changes in scenery, there could have been a greater development in the man. The film stretches over multiple decades, which it goes quite well, but it doesn't come across in the character of Moses. From being an upper class citizen in Egypt to a shepherd in rural community, surely a person's character, or at least his demeanor, would change. I enjoyed the fact that the audience is warmed up to some of the Egyptian characters, it makes for perspective. The portrayal of the Hebrew God was strange. You can't really tell the story of Moses without involving 'God' and 'God' is a difficult character to work with. 'God' is all knowing and all powerful and we as human beings can't comprehend that, so having that in a film becomes problematic as it's not filmic. Scott did a good job at it though and the only thing that could have made it better was greater and more meaningful interactions between Moses and 'God'. The amount of interaction was fine - that played well to the concept of faith - but in the interactions I wanted more. Here is a mortal man, with his opinions on life and the world faced with the all-knowing all powerful but merciful and loving 'God'; now that has the potential for some incredible film and some incredible acting opportunity for Christian Bale who could handle it. The physical portrayal of God is effective; it works well with other Christian elements while also being a little strange. Technically Exodus is what you expect it to be, solid, beautiful and clean. The characters are mostly what and who you expect them to be and they act the way you expect them to act - especially if you've heard the story before – but that's it. There's nothing 'new'. There's no insight, no angle on the story to get you thinking on something other than the obvious hitting points of the greater story. I enjoyed it, but I wanted more from the film than just a visual telling of a story I'd heard before.

Since the first preview of the first "Night at the Museum" (Levy 2006) film I thought the story concept was promising. It has so much potential for content, interaction and character; so when the second film came around I was sceptical but pleasantly surprised. Then with the third I was looking forward to walking into the cinema and seeing how they incorporated the London content into the established story and characters. I was disappointed. They hardly used any content regarding London beyond the utterly unrealistic and over the top stereotypical British security guard. They had a treasure trove of narrative potential; access to pretty much limitless character options of which they used less than a hand full and even those weren't of the calibre of Attila the Hun or Teddy Roosevelt. Not that the British don't have that calibre of historical figures that could have made for beautiful, natural comedy, drama, romance, horror or whatever else you might want to generate with a script. The film's writing and story staff more than doubled since the first film and yet somehow they decided to only rehash the same story elements from the previous two films, which makes the narrative frustratingly predictable. I'm not expecting a film like "Secret of the Tomb" (Levy 2014) to reinvent the comic or family film wheel but there is no reason to not strive for something more than the first thing you can think of. The direction of the film is forced. Director Levy's desires are visible in most of the scenes which is distracting, especially when the forced, awkward comedy elements are dropped into what was a faster paced scene, or just before or just after a potentially dramatic and/or emotional scene, or instead of a dramatic or emotional scene. This draws the film away from the emotional ending that you expect from the genre and franchise. I find very little else of the film really worth commenting on, the effects are well done, the characters look great in terms of costume and makeup, the sound is quality though the soundtrack isn't specifically memorable. The film falls short in that it feels creatively amateur. The technical side of the film is quite enjoyable and I did enjoy it, but the creative decisions feel like they were made by an inexperienced writing, production and directing team. I get no spirit from this film, like the film makers made it because they'd signed the contract to make it.

All and all I'm disappointed. The film drew attention to the act of film making in the cinema and didn't leave mush of a narrative; the most profound character development is presented in passing conversation right at the end of the film and that is disappointing.

It's generally difficult to comment on story when it comes to something like The Hobbit seeing as its usually an incredible well written story adapted by strong screen writers. Unfortunately that's not the case with The Battle of the Five Armies.

Some of the heavier emotional moments were milked for all their worth while some of the potentially epic moments came and went with minimal attention, which is disappointing. A lot of the film felt cluttered with story elements, too many characters needing screen time and too many stories wanting to be told. At one point I found myself more interested in one of the secondary stories than the main plot – there's only so much brooding and call to bravery one can watch before it become predictable and boring. The chaos of war came across nicely but I'm not convinced it was deliberate where the 'sad' ending is definitely deliberate and quite effective. Another plot element that really draws attention to itself in a bad way is the sense of time. Jackson and his team usually excel at taking Tolkien's extended timeline and compressing it into a flowing film where everything seems to happen in close proximity while holding onto the greater integrity of the plot. The Battle of the Five Armies doesn't excel at this at all. There are references in the film that makes the viewer aware that more time has passed than what was presented which makes me cringe – the act of announcing a detail out loud to make sure the audience understands the full reach of the happenings is something you'd expect from unseasoned film makers. To throw wood on the fire the opposite time effect also occurs where the film effectively compounds time into making the audience believe that less time has passed (to keep pace) but then, the viewer is presented with the results of what should have been weeks or months and I find myself wondering about the validity of the narrative concept – which is something that shouldn't be anywhere near this immaculately written Fiction. In short, the film feels rushed, like it wasn't enjoying the full attention of its highly talented crew.

Some of the acting performances were disappointing. The characters are difficult to get your head around and there are some obvious traits and mannerisms that are required of the actors, which lead to some of the performances getting lost in character. Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield was great. The brooding again became a bit much but such is the requirements of the role and he did a splendid job at it. Lots of the fighting was weird to watch and more than once I felt Middle-Earth's physics fail. The fighting doesn't feel authentic neither does it sound it. A lot of the physical action reads like performers running through choreography which destroys the believably of the actions and characters in those moments. Again, this brings up that underlying feeling that somehow, the project was rushed.

Greater than my deflated expectations for The Return of the King (Jackson 2003) level grandeur and epic was the confusion I experienced with regards to the style and edit of the film. I remember The Hobbit parts I and II having a different style in terms of the edit, lighting and cinematography. Immediately after the credits rolled I checked to see if any of the key crew members had changed but no, the team is the same as Parts I and II, so maybe it's just me, but the style feels different. Post-Production also feels rushed. Some of the cuts in the edit are abrupt, the shots different to the style I've gotten used to and some of the effects seemed 'cheap', like Post didn't have enough time to give everything the attention it needed so they rushed to get everything done. Even the opening and closing credits felt alien to the other films in the series.

I love Fantasy film which usually means I take care not to coddle films in this genre and maybe in the case of The Battle of the Five Armies this has made me overly critical. That being said, I enjoyed it, but I definitely have some disappointment to this, the final installment of The Hobbit.

I need to start by stating that I am not a great fan of the Hunger Games Franchise. I have not read the books and so the films have been my only exposure to the series. That obviously coloring my opinion of the films; I quite enjoyed Mockingjay Part I albeit for a relatively singular reason. The story and content of the plot is rich, engaging and enticing.

Mockingjay Part I feels like the (partial) culmination of the first two films that come before it. This should be an obvious statement but important as each following film seems to be less independent from the greater whole. The previous films build into the effectiveness of this offering and with your audience primed for hating 'The Man' and baring witness to the difficulties of an essential uprising in the name of freedom which starts Mockingjay on a high and thankfully, it stays there. There are impeccable story moments that Director Francis Lawrence use incredibly well, as well as a few of the expected but emotion provoking 'moments of grandeur' and even the predictable moments similar story arches tend to enjoy. My criticism on this film is that it is too connected and depended on what came before and what will come after. The film is powerful but much of the content is assumed straight from Catching Fire which left me trying to remember exactly where certain characters fit in and which also left me with ample anticipation for Part II of the series resolution, but what does that say of this film? The greater story feels lost while we wait for the conclusion though soaking up such effective story telling while you wait definitely scores some points.

I find it a little hard to pin down an opinion on much of the performance of the film. The acting is definitely effective and there is a moment where Jennifer Lawrence really impressed me (I won't spoil beyond mentioning that having an actor in character act badly and keep character is not always that easy and is something I hold commendable). Beyond that the characters do what you expect them to. They react to what you expect in the way you expect, which is a little disappointing. The plot throws a lot of curve balls (in various degrees) at the characters and diversifying their responses would have enriched the whole film to me, but I'm not complaining on what is presented on screen. The style of filming drew my attention a bit, which I always consider a bad thing – unless it is very deliberate. It bothered me the most in the exposition of the film where the change from hand held to stabilized shots felt messy. Some of the editing cuts also felt abrupt (early in the film) which made me aware of 'the line', continuity and other film making concepts I expect film makers to know but which I would like to forget when enjoying a film. The plot didn't really allow for too much use of music to enhance the visuals though I expect we'll be seeing more of that when (if?) the war finally breaks out in the final part of the series.

In closing, I enjoyed sitting in the cinema and watching this film. I took some food for thought from it (the main and overly perpetuated theme of the series) and I'm looking forward to the next one. Beyond that, I fear Mockingjay Part I will fade into insignificance.

Interstellar is the kind of film I've come to expect from screen writer and film maker Christopher Nolan, baring his DC Comic related films. The depth of his story telling is engulfing, well executed and always engaging. I tend to find myself considering my watch at least once during most of his films but, that doesn't make him any less of an impeccable story teller and Interstellar is definitely a credit to his abilities (and to the abilities of everyone who had a hand in the creation of this film).

The focus of the story falls slightly more on the content of what makes it worth telling than the characters caught up in the story which I find to be something I see often in Cinematic screen writers' work; writers writing with the greater visual picture in mind but who still have a strong sense of story. Interstellar is a powerful story that could have gotten even more out of its characters, though some of the content would have needed to be dropped to accommodate this; honestly I think it would have been worth it. The challenges the characters are faced with are huge, valuable and in certain cases excruciating. Nolan and Nolan draw on the kind of things that all humans inherently understand without needing to put ourselves in their shoes and Interstellar is littered with slightly underwhelming exploitation of these kinds of challenges.

The story becomes very visual and is very visually pleasing (beyond some of the focus issues) but the narrative loses some of its potential which makes the whole experience of the film slightly 'less' to me. At one point I expected the film to cause a lot of thought but it never quite got there. It constantly feels like you're moving from one point to get to the next point and ultimately the well rounded Hollywood ending. That disappoints me as I wanted to get involved with the moments of the film and not just with the film as a whole. Interstellar feels well planned, well thought through and well executed (even though some of the science feels like a bit of a bigger reach to fiction than the narrative had room for) but, it feels too clinical. The messy element of emotion in story is missing. This story has the potential to tear open your chest and break your heart but it doesn't; we don't want to think about this kind of content, we want to feel it and feelings are messy.

The music understands this.

Hans Zimmer has a way of approaching music that makes it emotional beyond what one would expect to find in a recording studio, but is what we want from our film scores. There are moments where the music becomes somewhat repetitive but in the moments where it connects, Hans Zimmer takes the visual and narrative story and utterly captures the emotions with the score, contributing substantially to the feeling of the film. I always consider Zimmer's use of instrumentation and arrangement when I watch a film he scored as he has an iconic way with sound; the organ and bass drones in Interstellar captures the grandeur and terror of space wonderfully.

Interstellar is an powerful and ambitious film and the film makers succeeded with what I think must have been a daunting task.