Review: Why 'The Way Back' gets a little lost

The fact that “The Way Back” is only loosely adapted from a historically unreliable and largely discredited memoir by Slavomir Rawicz ultimately proves to be its major weakness. If this story was true, then it would be amazing enough to gloss over the uneven pacing present throughout Peter Weir’s film adaptation. If people really had trekked 6500 kilometres from a Siberian Gulag prison camp into India, travelling through gruelling conditions, harsh terrain and the most horrifying deprivations, then we could forgive the lack of compelling characterisation and story because the historical veracity would speak loudly enough to fill the gaps. However, since this never actually happened, a potentially great story is relegated to being merely a good one - enjoyable, but nowhere near as gripping as it could have been. As it should have been.

The movie opens in 1940 Russia with a Polish army officer named Janusz (Jim Sturgess) being betrayed by his wife after Soviet Communists beat a confession against him out of her. Condemned as a spy, Janusz is transported to a freezing Siberian prison camp where he meets up with an imprisoned actor who outlines an escape plan. The actor is more of a talker than a doer, so Janusz ends up escaping during a snow blizzard with some other prisoners. These prisoners include a mysterious American known only as Mr. Smith (Ed Harris), a psychopath criminal named Valka (Colin Farrell), and a few others. Thus begins an epic journey of thousands of miles in which not all of them will survive. Along the way they are joined by a young Polish women named Irene (Saoirse Ronan) who joins them on their quest for freedom.

Weir certainly does justice to the journey itself, through a superb combination of wide and magnificent sweeping landscape views, to some rather raw and visceral narrowed down shots of the group struggling to hold onto their humanity as they starve, freeze and generally suffer to the very limits of human endurance. This is the one issue Weir interrogates really well as when men see birds and wolves tearing at carrion and then run to gorge themselves on it in similar fashion, then how much of themselves do they lose in the process? Or do they gain something by being humbled and reminded of their essential humanity and their kinship with other animals? The savage effects of the journey are never hidden from us, as we see characters slowly being stripped away by the harshness of life in the wild until there is not enough of them left to carry on. They wither and fade into the icy snow, or disintegrate to the point they are swept away like so much dust in the wild, desert winds.

This is where I am brought back to my original point: That because this story did not really happen, the emotional effect of any decline and loss is almost completely flattened out. Much time is taken up watching others journey and suffer, but almost no time is spent getting to know them and building any sense of connection. Other than Jim Sturgess himself, and the Polish lass who has a few deeply touching scenes with the always effective Ed Harris, the rest of the characters are neither here nor there. Colin Farrell’s Russian criminal only stands out because he is given a little more screen time, although Farrell does the character no justice with his over the top portrayal.

Don’t get me wrong, “The Way Back” is a better than average movie, but it does seem to get a little lost on its own particular journey. There is much to commend it but I guess after movies like ‘The Truman Show’ and ‘Master and Commander,’ one begins to expect more from Peter Weir. Three (and a half) stars out of five.

Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Four years since he last minced onto the big screen as Cap’n Jack Sparrow, Johnny Depp is back reprising one of the most iconic roles of the last decade.

The last ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ hinted it was the closing chapter of a trilogy, so it was somewhat of a surprise to hear a fourth was being made, although mercifully without the rather bland pairing of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, who presumably were told to take a long walk off a short plank.

What is even more surprising is that Hollywood would risk a fourth, since by the end of the trilogy the whole franchise was tired, but true to any good pirate adventure, it seems that money is the real motivation behind Disney’s decision to continue their most successful movie franchise ever.

The plot involves a convoluted chase after the ‘Fountain of Youth’ (is Hollywood lampooning themselves here or not?) where Sparrow is pitted against his old nemesis Captain Barbossa (a brilliant Geoffrey Rush), as well as the Spanish navy and the ‘pirate other pirates most fear’ in Blackbeard (Ian McShane). Thrown into the mix is the fiery Angelica (the Oscar winning Penelope Cruz) who almost manages to out-swashbuckle even the renowned Sparrow.

Talking about Jack Sparrow, has there ever been a more original character? How does Depp pull off someone so unbelievably off-the-wall and yet never make him hammy? The full impact of Depp’s performance can be appreciated if you consider one simple question: ‘Just how boring would these movies be if Depp had played the character straight?’

Even with that in mind, the honest truth is that the Pirate movies don’t offer a whole lot more than endless crazy action scenes interspersed with Depp kookiness, and as entertaining as that sounds it can start to feel a little thin after a while.

All four of the main actors provide acting punch and star quality, while new director Robb Marshall does bring something fresh with a slightly darker ‘Pirates’ (including the scariest Mermaids I have ever seen).

What little dialogue is squeezed in is generally excellent - I suspect one or two lines may become cult classics over time. Watch out for a stunning guest appearance from Rolling Stone’s Keith Richards, who plays Jack’s pirate father.

The idealistic clergyman played by Sam Claflin provides Sparrow his straight man foil but also generally represents faith in a surprisingly positive light, especially set up against the typical ‘Spanish Inquisition’ style bad guys they are battling against.

There is nothing brilliant in version 4 of 'Pirates' other than Depp being Depp, and it certainly won’t teach you anything or leave lasting impressions, although it does take the task of entertaining you seriously. In truth, it is much like the theme park ride at Disney World that it is based upon - it will take you on a hair-raising journey, but will drop you off at exactly the same point it picked you up - just a little more breathless than before.

Two and a half stars out of five.

Movies with Meaning: 'Get Low' manages to hit some real high points

Lewis Smedes oft-quoted statement “To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner was you,” could have been written with ‘Get Low’ in mind. Except that the forgiveness the central character struggles to deliver in this profoundly moving film is towards no one else but himself.

Robert Duvall plays a cantankerous old hermit named Felix Bush, who forty years previously failed to save the love of his life from a burning house. Now living in the 1930‘s Bush literally makes himself a prisoner of his own inability to self-forgive; he judges that his failure means he has no right to enjoy a normal life with family and loved ones, and so spends decades shut away as a total recluse. He refuses the comforts of social companionship and holes himself up in his property just outside a rural Tennessee community.

Bush stoically weathers both the vicious rumours surrounding him and the deep-rooted suspicion that he is regarded with by the local townspeople. That is until he figures a worsening heart condition means his death is imminent and decides to clear his name. Bush announces he will stage his own funeral before he dies and invites folk to come and tell stories about him. His hope is to set the record straight and somehow find inner peace before his death. When a church minister (Gerald McRaney) refuses to assist him in his ‘live’ funeral, Bush approaches the local undertaker Frank Quinn (Bill Murray) who is swayed to help by the large wad of cash thrown at him. Quinn’s assistant Buddy (Lucas Black) is roped into assisting as well and he provides a strong moral compass for the story, as does another minister Rev Jackson (Bill Cobbs), who helped steer Bush through the lowest point of his life forty years ago.

‘Get Low’s’ strength lies in the fact it combines both subtlety and simplicity, and yet deals with complex characters and a weighty story. The different shades and hues of each character are superbly fleshed out by the powerful acting. Robert Duvall is brilliant as Bush, a man with endless depths and inner slippery crevices. Bill Murray is another class act - his particular gift is in making his somewhat sleazy characters both totally human and immensely likeable. Special mention should also be made of Bill Cobbs, who contrary to the way Hollywood normally portrays preachers, develops a character more akin to Desmond Tutu than Jimmy Swaggert.

While Bush is a fairly anti-religion kind of character, ‘Get Low’ itself is an intrinsically spiritual movie. Bush is not against religion as such, but rather he is anti-love and anything that represents love, because he does not feel worthy of ever experiencing it’s benefits again. Yet, in the process of planning his funeral, Bush is forced to reconnect some old relationships that slowly, but surely, begin to water his parched, old soul. Bush has spent his whole life avoiding people, but to come clean before he ‘get’s low’ (buried) he has to revive his ability to relate, and quite to his surprise he simultaneously awakens aspects of his character he thought long dead and buried. Rooted as it is in themes of guilt, regret and free will, ‘Get Low’ takes its viewers on a journey of redemption and reconciliation that anyone can relate to, and offers a new ‘lens’ through which to view the world that is cleaner and more compassionate.

‘Get Low’ is the kind of movie that should be made more often, but is made even more special by the fact that it isn’t. It is hard to believe that a movie with such bottomless depth is director Aaron Schneider’s first film and I look forward to more from him. Four and a half stars out of five.

Review: Why spending a few hours with Thor isn't the worst idea in the world

Thor is the latest in a long list of superhero movies and could well be the best of the lot, simply because it doesn’t take itself too seriously but is still serious about what it does, if that makes any sense at all. Thor doesn’t pretend to be what it is not, and instead throws all its efforts at entertaining you - and this is does with unerring Mjolnir-like accuracy.

At first impression it seemed a bad fit to ask Kenneth Branagh, a man famous for his film versions of Shakespeare’s plays, to direct a super hero movie. In fact, Branagh makes this work for him as he seizes upon the Shakespearean themes in the Thor story like sibling rivalry, attempted regicide and dynastic squabbling and draws them cleverly onto the big screen. Branagh adroitly weaves them in with normal superhero movie themes like action, fantasy, and romance and gets the tone exactly right in each scene, blending them in such a way so that no one theme overwhelms the others. The script is highly entertaining as it moves along at a good pace and is blessedly free of one of those overlong background stories that superhero movies make way too much of. The acting is also top-notch without a weak performance in sight. The entire cast of actors from Anthony Hopkins down is excellent with the charismatic lead Chris Hemsworth announcing his rising star (and washboard abs) in no uncertain terms.

Thor is based on the Marvel Comics superhero - a Norse god who is about to be crowned king of Asgard by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins). Thor’s pride is expertly manipulated by his jealous younger brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) who wants to ensure that he is crowned king instead. Prompted by Loki, Thor sparks a war with the Frost Giants, which results in Odin stripping him of his powers and banishing him to earth. Odin wants his hulking blonde son to learn some humility and compassion while walking earth as mortal weakling.

After crash-landing in New Mexico, Thor is rescued by a scientist called Jane (Natalie Portman) along with a colleague Erik (Stellan Skarsgard), and their very funny scene-stealing assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings). The separate arrival of Thor’s unliftable hammer Mjolnir attracts the attention of SHIELD agent Coulson (Clark Gregg, you may have seen him in Iron Man). Thor attempts to retrieve his hammer and adjust to life on earth, all the while Loki continues scheming to be named king and dispatches the Destroyer (a giant robot) to kill his still powerless brother. As an aside, the scriptwriters had a lot of fun playing around with Thor adjusting to his new life without super powers, and some of these scenes are guaranteed to leave you smiling.

Don’t expect much from Thor, but do expect to be thoroughly entertained. In short, Thor is a lot of fun and as such is a great way to spend a few hours relaxing over the holidays. Three and a half stars out of five for Thor.

Review: Does Sucker Punch manage to 'sucker punch' me? You decide!

Sucker Punch is a modern day ‘The Emperor’s Clothes,’ but not on purpose. Director Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) has already argued that those dismissing this movie as sensationalist trash for its use of scantily clad woman and over-the-top action, are ironically enough, the ones being sucker punched. This is because Snyder’s whole intent was to challenge those who leer at but cannot emotionally connect with women. The eye candy is a way of getting you to sit quietly on your cinema seat so that the true message of the horrors of sexual abuse and oppression can be communicated. Snyder wants to blindside people in a multilevel kind of way, and feels that as long as they are talking about whether Sucker Punch is sexist or not, then the movie is a success.

This is the point, where, just as with the ‘The Emperor’s Clothes,’ we need voices from the crowd to shout out, “But he actually has no clothes on!” For the weakness of Sucker Punch is that like the con men in the children’s story, it spins a lot of style, but almost no substance. You cannot tell a story without having a story. I refused to be conned on this one - the reason I did not emotionally connect with the female leads is not because I am a leering pervert, but simply because the movie was 99% visual stimulation and 1% story. Yes, it undoubtedly has wonderfully imaginative visuals, and yes, the video-game style of rapidly-changing and often bizarre looking scenes are cleverly used to represent the differing realities within the perspectives of the central characters. But style alone is never enough to drive a really good movie, for that you need substance, and at the end of the day, the story doesn’t carry this movie, rather the dramatic action and arresting visuals do, and they, frankly, are not intrinsically weighty enough to do the job.

What story there is has Emily Browning playing a 20-year old woman placed in a mental institution by her sexually deviant stepfather who wants her lobotomised. Nicknamed Baby Doll, she resorts to multilayered fantasies as a means of contending with her monstrous reality, and as a way of gaining the strength she needs to break free. Along the way she meets four other beautiful young women who are similarly vulnerable because of their gender and lack of social punching power, and they join forces to search for the five essential items that will enable their escape.

While the core message is commendable, and the use of metaphor in the action scenes is clever if not brilliant, ultimately it is hard to escape the fact Snyder is still using scantily clad women to communicate the wrongness of over-sexualising others. This brings me to the crux of my argument, in that this intended paradox is not enough to climb out of a seedy, sensationalist pit, simply because the story is weak and the acting ineffectual. A compelling human message needs the substance of compelling human drama to pull it through, while a fancy parade of colourful scenes is nothing more than exactly that, a parade and not a story, and therefore neither is it a message.

Yet, I suspect if I had to argue this with Snyder in person, we would go around in endless circles with him saying, “Exactly! How ironic because you have been sucker punched!” while I would be responding, “But Emperor Zack, this whole thing feels naked!”

One and a half stars out of five for Sucker Punch and be aware that it fully earns its PG13 rating.

Review: ‘Limitless’ is a movie that overdosed on stupid pills

‘Limitless’ is a movie that seems to have taken an overdose of stupid pills.

How else do you explain a production lucky enough to have a fantastic central idea combined with charismatic acting, yet ultimately it manages to deliver nothing special at all? Really, this movie seems to use only 20% of it’s brain, probably due in the main to a weak script that clothes ‘Limitless’ with a B-grade feel, especially compared with the movies it tries to match up to like ‘Inception’ and ‘Source Code’.

‘Limitless’ stars Bradley Cooper (‘Hangover’ and ‘A-Team’) as Eddie, a writer with a mental block whose life is going nowhere. When his girlfriend dumps him Eddie hits rock bottom, which is why when offered access to a revolutionary new drug called NZT that allows the user to access 100% of their brain capacity, Eddie jumps at the opportunity with very little moral angst. Eddie’s life turns completely around as he quickly gains immense financial and personal success from a drug that enables him to remember everything he ever read or experienced, learn new languages in 24 hours, master complex equations in a moment, mastermind Wall Street, and, presumably, (wait for it) even completely understand the plot of 'Inception.'

There is a strong drug danger warning behind 'Limitless', because we soon see that all this glory comes at a price. It seems there are limits to being ‘limitless’ because Eddie falls foul of some powerful people who would do anything to get their hands on his stash of NZT. Included in this list are the obligatory Russian mobsters, and also a ruthless Wall Street supremo played with cunning menace by Robert de Niro. Eddie's life is further complicated by the side effects of the drug, which without spoiling it for you, are pretty hectic.

The first third of ‘Limitless’ matches its intriguing central idea, but ultimately a promising start is not capitalised on. Despite the charm and intensity that Bradley Cooper brings, ‘Limitless’ descends to being nothing more than mere popcorn fodder. The last quarter is actually rather dark and violent (you might want to have finished your popcorn by then), and while the final resolution is satisfying enough, it is hard to shake the disturbing events leading up to that.

Ultimately, Eddie proves to us that having all the smarts in the world does not actually make you wiser. He chooses to use his new-found brilliance to make money and impress people, but it doesn’t even cross his mind to do something truly useful like working on a cure for cancer. Clever Eddie does some profoundly stupid and selfish things, which Robert de Niro’s character correctly understands as because Eddie did not have to work for his gift - he sacrificed nothing to develop his talent, and thus cannot handle it without causing destruction.

Two and a half stars for a movie whose imaginative idea was sorely limited by unimaginative writing and a failure to get to grips with the fact you don’t necessarily need to dumb down to be entertaining. Be warned that there is plenty of violence and bad language throughout.

A Movie with Meaning: Somewhere

I can think of few people better than Sofia Coppola to produce an autobiographical commentary on Hollywood. From her experiences as a little girl and then later a young actress on the sets of her father’s movies, Coppola finds herself able to bring into her stories the reality of life behind ‘celebrity,’ much as she did in the fabulous ‘Lost in Translation.’ Coppola grew up with a front row seat of various celebrities at the pinnacle of their careers, and brings her sharp and nuanced observations into play in all her work, just as she has done here in ‘Somewhere.’

Coppola’s message is simple: Fame (much like money or other forms of outward ‘success’) won’t give your life meaning. These things won’t bring you substance, depth or provide any lasting joy. In fact, just the opposite, they will leave you constantly hungry for more, always needing another quick fix of nothing. In ‘Somewhere,’ Stephen Dorff plays the American actor Johnny Marco, and he is the ultimate hollow man. His life is much like the archetypal couch potato lying in front of the TV eating crisps, except Johnny languishes on a celebrity sofa of emptiness, watching movies of himself doing nothing, while consuming endless amounts of money and sex. The reality of his tragic inner nothingness is superbly communicated in an opening scene that depicts him driving his black Ferrari in monotonous circles around a racing track. He has the car, but he has nowhere real to drive to, and his self-absorption has rendered him incapable of being able to share the joy of the moment with others.

Johnny Marco’s life has very little, if any, meaning and Coppola communicates this message through the use of a technique I call ‘savage boredom.’ By ‘savage’ I mean she ruthlessly shows up the complete banality of people like Johnny, but she does this through allowing us to share in his boredom. Johnny spends much of his time wondering what to do next, staring at walls, while the camera stares back at him. Some people are afraid of silences in conversation, but Coppola is completely unafraid of similar awkward silences in movies - moments of sheer nothingness that actually say far more than any sermonising would.

However, ‘Somewhere’ is not just a dark glimpse into Hollywood, but is also a beautiful picture of redemption. Johnny’s redemptive opportunity comes when he is forced into a real relationship with his 11-year old daughter Cleo (Elle Fanning). Slowly, slowly Johnny starts to awaken to meaning as he grapples with looking after someone other than himself. Johnny is almost completely dead to life, emotionally and spiritually he is nothing but a zombie, even sex is just a mindless manipulation of genitals. But his relationship with Elle slowly breathes life back into him. Not perfectly, and not all at once, but gradually Johnny awakens, and starts to turn his life in a direction that will actually take him somewhere.

Relationship is eventually what saves Johnny, yet thankfully Coppola depicts this without sentimentality or twee neatness. The growing meaning his daughter brings him is not Johnny’s salvation, but rather it is a catalyst moment, an opportunity to launch himself in new directions. Johnny’s car is constantly symbolic throughout the story, and is used again by Coppola in the final scene as she shows him walking away from the vehicle, as if to say that he has finally had enough of nothing and nowhere.

‘Somewhere’ has an undeniable charm, with strong yet understated acting, and striking visuals and cinematography. It is not the most entertaining movie to watch, in fact, frankly speaking, it can even be a little boring at times. Yet, as already mentioned, the ‘boring’ parts are intentionally structured in, and by including them Coppola shows the courage of her convictions. Boring at times it may be, yet strangely enough ‘Somewhere’ will not let go of you once you have walked out of the cinema. It’s message gnaws away, asking you to assess the ‘movie’ of your own life, to investigate your particular story and whether you are also just going through the motions, less spectacularly than Johnny perhaps, but no less emptily. In the end, Coppola’s final scene of hope is angled just right - Johnny’s redemption is at hand, but the decision of living with more meaning and purpose is one he will need to make everyday. And so will we.

Three and a half stars for ‘Somewhere’. Please note that 13 age restriction is well earned with plenty of nudity, sex and bad language.