Tracks (2013, Dir. John Curran, Australia) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ***

Starring: Mia Waskiowska, Adam Driver, Roly Mintuma

Looking for excitement and to explore the environment she loves, Robyn Davidson (Wasikowska) leaves her home in Alice Springs in 1977 with four camels and her dog Diggity, walking over 2000 miles through the Australian outback to the Indian Ocean. On the way, Robyn routinely meets with American photographer Rick Smolan (Driver), documenting her journey for National Geographic as Robyn tries to do what many consider to be impossible.

Whilst it may nor be a very well known story internationally, there has long been talk of a film adaptation of Tracks, Robyn Davidson's non-fiction account of her trek through the outback. In fact, film projects based the book (with Davidson's role being bandied around the likes of Julia Roberts and Nicole Kidman) have been around before the birth of the film's ultimate lead, twenty-four-year-old Mia Wasikowska. So with the film finally here the results are fine, impressive in places, but not perfect.

Fittingly, Tracks is a film centred around its landscape. Almost all of the movie takes place against the backdrop of the Australian outback, awash with orange sand and the use of camera angles (often very close to Wasikowska) emphasise the sheer expanse of the region to the point where it almost seems limitless, yet the character of Australia is very much present. Robyn Davidson may be the main character, but in many ways Australia is the star, tapping into the varied wildlife and also giving an insight into the various aboriginal communities and their customs, which the film treats an extremely high level of respect (the film even opens with a disclaimer warning certain groups that the depiction of dead bodies in the film may offend their cultural beliefs).

With it's theme of a lone individual striving through the wilderness in an almost philosophical fashion, there are comparisons to be made with the work of Werner Herzog, albeit this is far lighter than most Herzog's fare (even Fitzacarraldo (1981) one of Herzog's friendlier features is tougher than this) but rather than Herzog's distinctive Bavarian whisper telling of the fragile nature of man in a world he assumes as his own, we instead get Mia Wasikowska's Robyn giving account to her journey and her view on life. Wasikowska's a fine actress and an interesting screen presence, but her voiceover segments lack some of the passion needed, especially in the early going. Adam Driver makes for a likeable nice guy in the second-highest role as an American photographer, but it's a standard role that presents little challenge. Unknown Roly Mimtura is very enjoyable in his role as an elderly aboriginal, tasked with leading Robyn through areas forbidden for lone female travellers.

Tracks is a reverent piece of film in both good and bad ways. On the down side, the film sometimes lacks momentum as it gets bogged down in portentousness, but it's a film of visual splendour that really goves the sense of a journey travelled down a dusty, but undeniably beautiful, trail.

SNEAK PREVIEW: Tarzan (3D) (2013, Dir. Reinhard Klooss, Germany) (Cert: PG/PG) *

Starring: Kellan Lutz, Spencer Locke, Trevor St. John 

In the heart of the African jungle, John Greystoke (Mark Decklin) makes a discovery of a strange asteroid. Upon extracting a fragment from it, elemental forces cause the death of him and his wife (Jaime Ray Newman). Their son, J.J (Craig Garner, Lutz) is raised amongst the apes and adopts the name, Tarzan. Years later, Jane Porter (Locke) discovers Tarzan and the two work together to stop a greedy CEO (St, John) from finding the asteroid and destroying the habitat.

Tarzan is no stranger to the big screen. Going all the way back to the older films and serials, the most famous starring Olympic swimmer Johnny Weismuller as the loinclothed one, all the way up to the animated take on Tarzan in 1999. This time, German studio Constantin Film bring a 3D computer animated version of the story and update it with a science-fiction storyline thrown in for good measure. Oh, how they should never have bothered.

There's no great mystery or intellectual reason why Tarzan doesn't work. The problems are pretty blatant. First and foremost for a computer animated film, it is simply ugly. The characters' movements are stiff and awkward, their eyes often seem glassy and lacking any kind of emotion and the production values seem more in line with cut scenes from an old video game than a major movie studio production and the 3D is almost entirely without pointe except for the end of the film.

The writing is similarly poor. The dialogue is bland and on occasion delivered in a strange stilted fashion, and the narration (on top of being almost completely uneccesary at times) is far too abstract for a movie of this kind, giving off a strange dissonance. As for the plot, a modernisation of Tarzan could've been interesting, even if the jungle environment is more or less devoid of giving any historial context. Here, the Tarzan story compares clumsily with plot elements from Avatar (2009) and, in a strange move, Superman Returns (2006).

In short, Tarzan is probably not going to be very popular with audiences. A film that fails not only on an aesthetic level, but pretty much every other level as well. Hopefully someday, the film makers will prosper into something better, but this is sorely troubled and the effort put into promoting it is a complete mystery to me.

Tarzan gets a wide release in the UK on the 2nd of May. There is currently no release date for the US.

The Other Woman (2014, Dir. Nick Cassavettes, USA) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) **

Starring: Cameron Diaz, Leslie Mann, Kate Upton

Promiscuous lawyer Carly (Diaz) has had a string of short flings with men, but thinks she's found a man to have a steady relationship with in Mark (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau). Handsome and charming, Mark is also married, which Carly only discovers after bumping into Mark's wife, Kate (Mann). Hurt by Mark's serial infidelity, Carly and Kate team up with Amber (Upton), another of Mark's mistresses, to make him pay.

There's a time and a place for The Other Woman. It's the kind of movie you reserve for a quiet night in with girlfriends (of the platonic variety, of course). It's safe and by-the-numbers and whilst the plot is fairly interesting, the sister solidarity element is touched upon a little too lightly It's certainly not a strong player for the emotions of other female empowerment movies like Thelma And Louise (1991) either but bubbles along in its own light and comedic way.

That is save for the fact that the film simply isn't very funny. Some of the reasons are just specifically not great places to go for intelligent humour (Ahh, toilet humour, my old nemesis. We meet again.) but a lot of it is also because the characters aren't that engaging. Cameron Diaz can be a fine actress and certainly can be a charismatic and lively presence on screen. Here, she's just a generic independent career woman who shows little original character even if she's given a whole supporting character (her sassy PA played by Nicki Minaj) dedicated almost entirely to interacting with her. Kate Upton is similarly a little lost, initially introduced as a sweet but slightly dim bimbo, even this is lost whilst her role simply devolves into posing (what are we to make of a character whose main asset is literally referred to as "the boobs"?). Leslie Mann gives the most energetic and strongest performance of the main trio, but it's old hat for her and it's not exactly a great turn.

The editing is pretty messy. I get the feeling that at one point there was a much bigger and more detailed movie that got clipped a lot in post-production. Plot lines and jokes seem to lose track but there are some shots and cutaways that seem almost unnecessary, oddly one of the last things you'd expect from such a seemingly heavily-edited product. I understand I (as a man) am probably not the film's target demographic and whilst I may be harsh towards the film, it does have an interesting idea and raises at least the occasional smile, even if it doesn't illicit much laughter. There is probably an audience that would lap this film up, and that is fine. But there's probably just as big an audience that would find this film intolerable.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (3D) (2014, Dir. Marc Webb, USA) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ***

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Dane DeHaaan

Having previously saved the people of New York City from the dangerous Lizard, Spider-Man has become a hero to the city (although not without his share of critics). Peter Parker (Garfield) struggles to keep his identity as Spider-Man a secret and protecting the one person who knows the truth, his girlfriend Gwen Stacey (Stone). Meanwhile, Harry Osborne (DeHaaan) a childhood friend of Peter's and Electro (Jamie Foxx) a new super-villain and former fan of Spider-Man join forces to take down New York's resident superhero.

Looking at the current reception of Marvel's line of movie adaptations of superheroes, it's hard to deny that this run of success seems like it's not going to run out of steam anytime soon. This seems particularly true with the superheroes surrounding the Avengers franchise (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor etc.). Spider-Man, another Marvel property, has fallen behind a little. This is probably a combination of the fact that the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spiderman films (yes, the spelling difference is intentional)

is still in recent memory and with ol' Spidey cut off from his Avenger contemporaries, he feels somewhat out of the loop and doesn't have much of a sense of being original. However, that doesn't mean that an unoriginal take is a bad one, by and large.

Whilst 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man felt a little bland, Part 2 is more confident and does well because of that. Andrew Garfield's teen prankster schtick that helped give the first film an edge is still present and he's enjoyable on screen. Emma Stone, despite her youth, felt miscast in the first film as a seventeen-year-old high schooler (Shailene Woodley, who was cut from this film having had scenes as Mary Jane and now riding success with Divergent (2014), would probably fit that mould better) but as an older character, Stone has found her niche.

Dane DeHaan is a gifted actor and has an interesting presence in some roles, but as Harry Osborne he feels too much like petulant and spoiled brat for us to feel anything for him in a performance that's a little overcooked, though Dehaan does have a very DiCaprio-esque presence and the last act twist makes him more rewarding, even if it's brief. Jamie Foxx, as big and cool as he is, feels a little lost as super-villain Electro, but Foxx's career in comedy means that his earlier identity as the nerdy Max Dillon is more entertaining and where Foxx seems most comfortable.

On a technical level, the film is about average and unremarkable (though with a little too much slow-mo with the 3D only really being relevant in the Batman (1989) styled finale but after an unsteady start, The Amazing Spider-Man has found a direction and I hope the series follows it.

Reviews: Under The Skin/The Zero Theorem

(Once again, in order of reccomendation)

The Zero Theorem (15/TBC) (***)

We venture once more into that incredibly unique mind of Terry Gilliam as we see the story of Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz), a terminally-ill man in search of, at the request of his superiors, Proof that life is completely meaningless. Waltz, as usual, does a good job but his often manic performance clashes with his more sedate style which is shown in his best work. The film is unmistakably a Gilliam creation, even to a fault, with the film drifting perilously close in theme and style to Brazil (1985), Gilliam's undisputed master-work (at least outside of Monty Python). 

The film's alarmingly ambitious concept and the (at least slightly intentional) kitsch aesthetic may draw people away from the film and so I doubt this film will subvert Gilliam's history of good reviews but disastrous financial results but whilst the film offers nothing particularly  new, it has some interesting ideas.

Under The Skin (15/R) (***)

Lying somewhere between art cinema, sci-fi and horror, Under The Skin is the tale of an alien life form on Earth that seduces and ensnares victims in a thick black ooze. There are obvious stylistic comparisons to various other films, Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and The Shining (1980) are clear influences with the often stunning visuals and the film does bare some thematic comparisons with The Man Who Fell To Earth (1976), although swapping some of the mania of the older David Bowie vehicle for some truly gripping and sinister atmosphere.

 It does suffer from being ponderous and doubtlessly alienating whilst more could've been made of lead, Scarlett Johannson, but she does boast a surprisingly convincing accent. Sure to divide opinions and will simply be too strange for a lot of people, you have to check this film out to really get a thorough idea of the dark mystery in store.

Reviews (Friday 7th of March - Friday 14th of March) Best To Worst

Owing to a busy schedule. I'm probably going to be publishing a number of smaller reviews together, probably on a weekly basis for the time being. The reviews are in order of star rating and recommendation. Here's the first batch.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (15/R) (****)

Gloriously madcap comedy from cinema's king of quirk, Wes Anderson. Ralph Fiennes shows a rarely-exhibited comic talent as camp womaniser, Gustav Hand the film has an absolutely charming aesthetic and sense of comic timing, even if the film is slow to start.

 

Les S*laudes (B*stards) (18/TBC) (**)

Euro-thriller tries to be edgy and mysterious but instead provides an nearly-impenetrable first half with and never fully makes up for it later on. Two plots (one detailing an adulterous affair, the other the disappearance of a sexual torture victim) that would both make good movies but meshed together, neither is explored to their fullest.

Need For Speed (12a/PG-13) (**)

Whilst movies about video games are often good (Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010), Wreck-It Ralph (2012)) adaptations of specific games to the big screen has met with a more negative response (oh, way too many to count). The world has yet to find a truly popular adaptation (arguably the Resident Evil franchise has come closest) and will have to keep on looking beyond Need For Speed.

The film starts strong with a blistering race sequence and if the film was satisfied with dumb action for 90 minutes, it would be fine. Instead, the film limply drags around a cliched plot as if by obligation and pushing way beyond an appropriate run-time. Even Michael Keaton doesn't come out of this wreck unscathed.

300: Rise Of An Empire (15/R) (**)

No way was this cash-cow franchise going to lie still after 300 stormed theatres in 2006 and what we get is not really an improvement, but not a disappointment either. Instead we get a similarly dopy dose of style over substance where historical accuracy means little and character development means even less. CGI blood, annoying as ever, flies at the screen in an almost fetishistic way (although the film is not quite a thorough gore-fest) and lead Sullivan Stapleton stands around looking imposing and seemingly not putting in much acting effort beyond that. At least Gerard Butler had some bravado. Eva Green is perhaps the best thing about this movie and she has to slog through what will probably be the most awkward scene of "passion" in her whole career.

The film does side-step some of the more...uncomfortable political overtones of the first film, and if this is your thing, fine. It simply isn't mine.

Non-Stop (2014, Dir. Jaum Collet-Serra, UK/France/USA) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ***

Starring: Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore, Michelle Dockery

An alcoholic with a hatred of flying, Air Marshall Bill Marks (Neeson) is nonetheless called upon by his superiors to board a non-stop trans-Atlantic flight from New York to London. At first everything seems routine, until Marks receives messages from elsewhere in the plane, demanding money or a passenger will die every twenty minutes.

Airplanes are, for several reasons, ideal settings for the thriller genre. An enclosed space, miles above any kind of sanctuary and no means of escape as well as the potential for a fixed cast of characters for the same reasons. Film-makers have recognised that potential with the likes of Air Force One (1997) and Flightplan (2005), even Alien (1979) is sort of cut from the same cloth. Within this form of the thriller genre, lies Non-Stop and it's okay and serviceable fare, even if it doesn't really show you anything that surprising.

Liam Neeson is moving through the character type that he's been making his own these last few years. The aging action hero is somewhere around retirement from active duty. He's competent and capable and mutters things in his gruff Northern Irish accent (here, for a change he reason for the accent for a supposed American is at least briefly explained) whilst Julianne Moore is the likeable, slightly kooky, middle-aged woman.

Aside from the nuts and bolts, there's a lot of oddities that strain audience plausibility. Much of what takes place defies common sense, but rather than allowing a greater level of enjoyment, it instead leads to a lot of head-scratching frustration. However, the film is dealt with a competent enough hand with right mixture of drama and tension to help serve its purpose as an entertaining thriller. It just probably needed mor confidence in its intrinsic strengths and not resort to the ridiculous gimmicks that dot around the plot.