Bridesmaids

It is disparaging to hear that people are as shocked by "Bridesmaids" as they are. A truly funny comedy with women, which out-grosses and outshines any other male dominated funny this year? Is it really so hard to believe?  Almost inevitably, others have lazily dubbed it, 'the female "Hangover"'. Well this is not the case, because plain and simple "Bridesmaids" is a very funny film, regardless of any comparison to any others in breaking new ground. There is no novelty to be found here; women are funny and any men going into this surprised that Kristen Wiig could make them laugh harder than anything else in multiplexes this year, really needs to get out more. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are both successful graduates of SNL, working in two of the highest rated shows on TV. Sarah Silverman might have her detractors, but that hasn't stopped her going on to becoming one of the most thriving female comediennes in recent memory. Jessica Stevenson (née, Hynes), wrote and starred in "Spaced" with Simon Pegg well before Hollywood came knocking on their doors. Joan Rivers is still delivering sardonic quips on stage and television after all of these years. If this is still under discussion after "Bridesmaids", then ignorance has completely given over to sexism. Surprise, surprise, these women are funny. Have been for years. Will continue to be. Not to say that there aren't unfunny women in comedy out there, but this pertains to there being plenty of men who also share that unfunny bone in their body. And with this film, they get the best platform in years to prove that point. Kristen Wiig has for some time now, become a quality answer to that guy who suggests that women might lack any mirth or merriment. Week after week, she completely outshines her male co-stars on SNL, being the only consistant member in the whole cast. She is a natural and gifted performer; completely giving herself over to any role, whether it be at the expense of vanity or class. That is perhaps her biggest asset; that in disregarding all these things in her search for the 'realness' in characters, she always manages to retain a sense of humanity and dignity in her comedy, even when she may look and act anything but. That the film is the success it is, is down to her.

The balance that the film so finely straddles, is in finding the truth in even it's most outrageous moments. It carries it's fair share of disgraceful and foul mouthed humour, but it's gags would not work as well were it not for it's cast. Kristin Wiig is Annie, recently chosen by her BFF Lillian (Maya Rudolph) to be her Maid Of Honour. Unfortunately for Annie, this brings back up a swirl of passive resentment and panic that her own life, is not going as neatly or as well as it should. Along the way she has to contend with the gang of Bridesmaids and Rose Byrne's Helen, who vies with Annie for Lillians attention and approval every step of the way. With her subtle undermining of Annie, along with work, money and man woes, she begins to crack under the pressure of organising the run up to her best friends big day. Annie's reaction of trying to be happy for that special someone's achievements, when you are so very far away from them in your own life, is a searingly relatable position. Sure maybe women might inherently get it's neuroses that bit more but this should not deter men from their own enjoyment of the film. Anyone can laugh at the scatalogical gross out of that dress fitting scene no matter what your sex, especially when delivered as well as it is. Although Wiig herself co-wrote the script, she is a very giving actor, letting each of the Bridesmaids to get at least one chance to shine. In fact it is only truly in one scene that she let's herself radiate as her airplane trip from hell translates into comedy gold for us in quite possibly the funniest scene in the film. As far as the cast goes, it is Melissa McCarthy as Megan who gets the breakout here, gaining the lions share of laughs. Chris O'Dowd shows why he is making waves across the Atlantic in a confidant and charming display of his talents. Although serving only as Wiig's potential love interest, he nontheless makes the most in every scene he is in. Sure some of the maids don't register as deeply as others but the film just couldn't reasonably fit them all in, and any more would certainly outstay it's already generous 2 hour running time. But they are cast impeccably and add to the films considerable charms.

The film has been already proclaimed as the break out comedy hit of the Summer - there is usually one that the distributers bet their money on to clean up at the box office despite it's moderate budget. While there have been plenty of comedies this year that have tried and failed to make us laugh, it seems that "Bridesmaids" is the first one to truly stand out from the crowd. The film mixes deft and engaging humour, with a sweet emotional undercurrent to the madcap shenanigans. There is no trick to the films success; it is simply a perfect marriage of script and cast. Director Paul Feig, himself a graduate of TV's "The Office", "Arrested Development" and "Mad Men" handles events more than competently. In fact I'm sure on set the issue of whether or not these girls were funny was never raised; rather that they are too funny. Judging by the comfortable improvisational skills they all had, along with most being friends prior to filming, means that there must have been a heavy abundance of great stuff that just couldn't be wedged in, left on the cutting room floor. It doesn't matter whether you be boy or girl, you will find this film funny. Sure, those without X Chromosomes may wince that slight bit more at the antics on screen, but only in the same way guys may feel that only they truly get a film like "The Hangover". A good film is a good film and that fact of whether you are male or female is irrelevant to having a great time experiencing it.

Verdict: 8/10
The funniest comedy so far this year, deftly mixes off the wall, sidesplitting chunks of humour, with a genuine and none too mawkish sentiment. Although the notoriously prickly Academy tends to ignore comedy, the consideration for Kristin Wiig for Best Actress begins here. She really is that good. Of course, this is something we always knew.

"Bridesmaids" Trailer

X-Men: First Class

It might be churlish of me, but where was Matthew Vaughn five years ago? Making "Stardust" probably; a reasonably successful fantasy/romance hybrid. But more importantly he was not making "X-Men: The Last Stand". You see when Bryan Singer decided to make the eternally lamentable "Superman Returns" and ditch the franchise that had been his calling, he left a very big void in his absence. Of course, everybody knows how bad that decison was in retrospect: arguably Singers career has not fully recovered from the response that film received. After working steadily up with some classy and stunningly well made indie thrillers, his jump to the big time resulted in (along with "Blade") two films that kick started the craze for comic book films that have been ever popular for over a decade now. "X-Men" was fantastic success for a number of reasons. It appealed to people who thought they didn't like comic books, it led to one of the best sequels of all time, and it proved that comic book movies could be a valuable commodity. So after two highly successful movies Singer was faced with either making the third and possibly fourth chapter in the franchise, or with rebooting Superman for a new generation. Fox denounced him to do both and so Singer chose Superman and placed a young up and coming director in his place. Someone he could trust with the franchise. Someone with an eye and a vision on where to take it all. Vaughn, fresh off the success he had with his directorial debut "Layer Cake" was that man. And he.......didn't take the job. After all that, the man walked away from the project. Vaughn cited the reasons for his departure as the simple fact as that he was still learning the ropes of his profession. The deadline for the release of "X-Men 3" was rapidly nearing and the time he was alloted to film the movie was too small. So Vaughn walked and Fox brought on board hack for hire, Brett Ratner to helm the final installment and thus irrevocably screwed up the entire franchise; destroying any possibility for a fourth chapter and beginning the downward spiral continued by "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" three short years later. Early last year and word comes that Fox are planning a prequel/reboot to their franchise. Gossip hinted that none other than Singer was back on board to save the flailing franchise. But then wouldn't ya know it, yet another film steals him away. That film "Jack, The Giant Killer" is not due out till next year but that still left a void in who would take over for First Class. Enter yet again, one Matthew Vaughn, riding high on the critical and cult success of "Kick-Ass", a gloriously morally questionable and hilariously anti-superhero film. Now this is where it gets ironic. With just a little over a year to deliver the film (most of these types of big budget and effects laden extravaganzas usually take two years to finish) the man actually takes the job. So in a round about way, it brings me back to my original point: Where was he when we needed him? It seems odd that he is a directing a film that has the same deadline as the very similar one he stepped away from did, five years ago. Where was he then? As this film testifies to, he is more than up to the job and could have saved us the travesties of the last two films. But is his return too late?

Prequels, by their nature have an uphill struggle ahead of them. Put simply, fans of the original films will always know how a prequel must end, if it wants to segue effortlessly in with it's older siblings. However, more times than not this robs it of any natural tension the story line should have. It is one of the main reasons why Lucas' new "Star Wars" films didn't work. We knew how everything would turn out. So going into this, we have a certain expectation for the characters in knowing how they are going to get to the people that begin the original film. This is a problem that "X-Men: First Class" very neatly manages to sidestep almost entirely throughout it's running time. Sure there were a few moments here and there I caught myself anticipating a plot point as a result of having seen all the other films that happen after this one, but for the most part Vaughn and writing partner Jane Goldman's script managed to keep me enthralled. In this film we follow a young Eric Lensherr (a typically fantastic Michael Fassbender), better known to you and I as Magneto, and Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and find out how they became friends, before turning into the characters from the original trilogy. Set during the Cuban Missile Crisis, this is the first film in the franchise to successfully have a distinct look and feel, completely separate to that which has gone before it. Vaughn has great fun with his swinging 60's, putting the soon to be called X-Men into all sorts of adventures by way of the old James Bond flicks. The main bad guy even has his own villainous submarine. So as evil Kevin Bacon plots to start a nuclear war for his own nefarious reasons, it also coincides with the discovery that there are those in the world with mutant super powers. Vaughn takes time introducing his cast, contrasting following Prof X as he tries to find more of his kind with Lensherr on his own personal man hunt to get revenge on the Nazis responsible for all sorts of horrible antics to him when he was a child. To be fair, Lensherr is the more interesting of the two; barely containing a past full of intense rage and sadness. So while we get to know Prof X and Magneto fairly well, some of the other mutants feel slightly short changed, with only an extremely cringe worthy scene in a mess hall serving as to introduce them. Only Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones) make the most of their limited time to truly make an impression. Everyone else feels entirely forgettable. Worse still is poor Kevin Bacons 'Hellfire Club'. Sure his Sebastian Shaw is an acceptable villain - his subordinates are atrocious. One mute (who's name I'm nearly certain is never mentioned) does nothing but make poorly rendered CG storms, Azazel (Jason Flemyng) does nothing but look cool and Emma Frost (January Jones) seems completely lost in the mix. Jones drowns amongst the cast, serving as the only real weak link among them all. In fact, it stands out more when the casting is one of the main reasons the film works as well as it does. With such a huge ensemble and interweaving story line to work from, Vaughn had an awful lot to fit into the running time, even at it's 2 hours and 20 minutes. But somehow, just when it seems like he's going to drop the ball, he manages to keep everything on track. But as much as the film is good, it never really manages to feel anything less than rushed.

Vaughn had an extremely tough deadline to make this film. Initial glimpses of characters seemed atrociously photoshopped together as an afterthought. For more proof, see the main poster up above. Fox had no time to market this film as they would have liked. Every interview Vaughn gave from set told how unforgiving the schedule was and how he was feeling the pressure of it all. But somehow, I kept the faith in the movie. And how right I was, because even though the film has it's fair share of faults, it goes some way to getting the franchise back on track. The film has a few plot holes, (why exactly is Shaw doing what he's doing?) characters are forgotten (where does Rose Byrne go for the second act?) and some lines of dialogue are pretty harsh on the ears (baby Xavier and baby Mystique's first meeting comes to mind) but overall, the film is pretty darn enjoyable. A fantastic split screen montage of the newly formed X-men training their freshly honed powers works far better than that opening bonding moment mentioned earlier. The main dichotomy between Magneto and Professor X is what gives the film it's soul. Xavier's naivety mixed with Lensherr's frustration at being an outcast is always compelling. An interesting argument about acceptance that is only fueled by the fact that both are neither entirely right or wrong in their opinions. Vaughn paces the film incredibly so you won't have time to pick up on continuity errors (linking it into the films gone before it casts immediate 'No, it couldn't have happened like that because in [insert X-Men film here], [insert X-Men character here] is doing/saying [insert impossible X-Men continuity error here]' over all the other films) and other minor quibbles. Anyway, by the time that fantastic extended action climax happens you won't care too much about such things. However after it's underwhelming opening last week, it might be a case of too little too late from Fox. Fans have been burned by two sub standard "X-Men" films before and might be unwilling to take another chance on one. It's a shame, as this film mixes interesting discussion on themes of intolerence and discrimination, fun fan boy details (love that cameo!) and fantastic effects-laden action sequences. If this is what Vaughn can do with such a small amount of time, then imagine what he'll do with the sequel.

Verdict: 6/10

Matthew Vaughn manages to turn in the complete polar opposite of his last comic book movie. The film is always fun and interesting and gets the franchise on track in a big way, but some annoyances in plot and dialogue only enhances the fact that the film could have been something really special, had they just had a little more time.

"X-Men: First Class" Trailer

Insidious

When you think about it, horror is a tricky genre to get right. How hard is it to scare, I mean genuinely scare people? The line between something terrifying and something that is unintentionally funny is sometimes hard to traverse. Of course some films use this to their advantage, ranging from "The Evil Dead" series, to "Shaun of the Dead" to "An American Werewolf in London" right up to "Drag Me To Hell"; a film that shares a few parallels with "Insidious". It's a difficult balance and one that "Insidious" never fully commits to throughout its running time. For most of it, the film is a deliberately creepy and deliciously unnerving jaunt through a haunted house; a sub-genre I haven't seen in a few years. And yet, as atmospheric and tense as it gets, there are moments in this which are decidedly more eccentric than the average horror cinema goer might like. This is by no means a bad thing; in fact it was something I was lapping up throughout. For two thirds, the film is by far, one of the better shockers I have seen in recent memory. But then the dreaded third act curse happened. This is something I cannot fathom when it rears its ugly head. Simply put, this film had me. I was prepared to let myself jump and squirm along with the audience, and loving where it was bringing me. But the problem with these types of horrors, is that they have to inevitably explain where the danger and spiritual threat is coming from. And so the film succumbs to three of the things that always render any horror film unscary, in my opinion. It tells us where the menace is coming from, why, and then shows us what it is. Things hidden and barely hinted at will always go farther in audiences head, than anything film makers can explain or show us. Which brings me back to my point; where the film more at ease with its humour, the ending could have worked better. You see when the film decided to forgo any of its mystery then the oddity of where the film takes us would have delivered had it utilised some of its more humourous undertones. Rather than this almost-great horror film we have here; something far more annoying than any bad film could ever be. Like a loved one, this film had won my trust and respect. I cared about its characters and story. Then it betrayed me. This is far worse than a film I never held any feeling for could ever do.

The film is set with a young family moving into the 'house of their dreams'. Then small but strange things happen around the house. Things get moved, odd sounds are heard, and there are brief visions glimpsed. Suddenly, one of their children Dalton, goes into a coma. The Doctors don't seem to know what is wrong with him and he is not responding to anything. It seems he is just an empty vessel. As they bring their young child back home, more and more creepy doings occur, all the while sending the young couple, Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Renai (Rose Byrne) into an ever more frenzied state. When they turn to a medium (Lin Shaye) things get really scary. For most of its running time, the film effortlessly builds tension. Most of the fantastic shocks and jumps that happen nearly all land because the film has earned them. The cast all help sell the scares as the talented Wilson and Byrne have a track record of doing. However credit where credit is due, the films success is down to director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell, the duo best known for creating the "Saw" franchise. Now while I was never a fan of any of those exercises in gore, I was most pleasantly surprised that they both eschew from any violence or viscera to help the scares in this film. They rely on atmosphere, and the film works wonders because of this. Littered throughout, is obvious, loving homages to their favourite horror films; a bit of Raimi here, a dollop of "The Shining", "Poltergeist" and "Susperia" there. It also is linked to producer Oren Pelis "Paranormal Activity", of which he himself wrote and directed, and something which I'm sure was a friendly source of rivalry on set. Put simply, when this film is good, it more than delivers on shocks. But then that ending happens.

These guys know their horror and have proved that they know how to do it without relying on gore effects and elaborate and overly confusing/nonsensical plotting. The film is pleasingly simple. It follows a nice line of atmospheric set up-jump-laugh-rinse and repeat formula. Before it is fully revealed, it has a great demon antagonist who is after Daltons body. But then the creators go too far into their retro homaging. Put simply, some might not like the slightly cheesy, smoke machine infused and dimly lit world they bring us into for the films climax. It is a misjudged step too far. I know for me, it spoiled everything that had gone before it. This is a huge shame. "Insidious" had a great chance at being one of my favourite recent horror films, something that is few and far between nowadays. The cast all deliver, and the film has the best scares you may see all year, but it is the director/writers own instincts, which hamstrings them.

Verdict: 6/10

For two thirds of its running time this is a fantastic throughback haunted house movie. Pity it doesn't stay true to its initial set up for the denouement. That which is in the shadows is always going to be more scary, than anything that is revealed.

"Insidious" Trailer