Review Category: Movie

MOVIE REVIEW: THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES / CERT: 12A / DIRECTOR: PETER JACKSON / SCREENPLAY: FRAN WALSH, PHILIPPA BOYENS, PETER JACKSON, GUILLERMO DEL TORO / STARRING: MARTIN FREEMAN, IAN MCKELLEN, CATE BLANCHETT, LUKE EVANS, BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH / RELEASE DATE: DECEMBER 12TH

After 17 hours and 12 minutes, (not counting the extra extended edition minutes!) this is where our cinematic experience of Middle Earth finally ends. We went there with The Lord of the Rings trilogy and then we’ve been back again with The Hobbit films. Christmas may never be the same again. Even if you’ve been thoroughly underwhelmed by Peter Jackson’s second Tolkien trilogy up to this point, you’ve got to admit that these films are at least better than the Star Wars prequels.

Before we get into the story of the concluding chapter (formerly titled There and Back Again, now The Battle of the Five Armies) a word of warning. For those who haven’t seen The Desolation of Smaug since last Christmas, either make a point of digging out the DVD or prepare to be thrown straight back into the action without so much as the briefest of recaps. No doubt you will remember that the big bad dragon is on his way to roasting the residents of Laketown, but as to the smaller details such as why Bard is imprisoned, why Gandalf is encaged and what exactly the rest of the ensemble are up to might be more elusive if your last trip to Middle Earth was this time last year. This is the shortest film of the entire Tolkien franchise so far and Jackson isn’t wasting any time in diving straight back into the action. Even before the title appears on screen, a major is character is dead, Laketown is toast and things are swiftly moving towards the big battle.

And as for the story of this sixth instalment, that title pretty much sums it up. Original subtitle ‘There and Back Again’ just wouldn’t have had the same sense of scale that Jackson envisaged for this almighty punch-up so it’s all there in the new title. There is one hell of a battle that lasts almost the entire running time. And by the end, there are five armies smashing their way through each other. Snuck into the mix, there is also the rise of Sauron as Jackson delivers on his promise to tie the trilogies together with a neat little knot.

What is worthwhile noting is that even with the breathless set pieces of the dragon slaying and final battle, Jackson rarely loses sight of his central characters. Unfortunately, despite almost eight hours spent with them, most of the dwarves are still indistinguishable from one another, but the relationship between Bilbo and Thorin provides frequent high points in this film. It’s a constantly developing connection and even though Bilbo often gets completely lost for large sections when the battle is in full swing, when he does get time to shine, Martin Freeman delivers a perfectly judged performance.

It’s another huge achievement from Peter Jackson, particularly in his juggling of countless characters within the endless mayhem. The standoffs between the elves and dwarves are tense, the fight scenes epic, and Jackson’s love of a good old beheading is still intact. Many problems are largely unavoidable in adapting Tolkien’s book, which doesn’t hold a candle to the epic Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, Jackson hasn’t helped himself by drawing everything out to this length either. The battle goes on and on and on and while it dwells on Legolas’ acrobatics (with increasingly questionable CGI), Tauriel and Kili’s emotional connection and Thorin’s redemption, the mass slaughter gets sidelined by the end until it seems that the battle just fizzles out in the background.

Fundamentally, The Battle of the Five Armies suffers from a bit of prequelitis in that we all know that several of our favourite characters are in no jeopardy due to their appearance in The Lord of the Rings. By relentlessly milking his Hobbit cash cow and drawing it out into three films, Jackson also invites comparisons with his own superior Tolkien trilogy and The Battle of the Five Armies inevitably fails to live up to the towering emotional payoff of The Return of the King. It also has no character even remotely as brilliant as Gollum, no matter how much Jackson tries to make us care about Thorin’s tragic descent into greed and madness.

The Battle of the Five Armies is very far from a perfect film and it’s difficult not to wonder how much better The Hobbit could have been if it had not been so prolonged. Like its two predecessors, it stomps roughly all over Tolkien’s story and bashes the audience over the head with Jackson’s typically (and increasingly) OTT action sequences. However, after all this time spent in Middle Earth, you have to admire the director’s achievement. By the time the credits roll on The Battle of the Five Armies and no matter what you think of this final film, you’re bound to want to dig out those Lord of the Rings Extended Edition DVDs for another round of Middle Earth magic.

Expected Rating: 8 out of 10
Actual Rating:
 

MOVIE REVIEW: THE WOMAN IN BLACK: ANGEL OF DEATH / CERT: 15 / DIRECTOR: TOM HARPER / SCREENPLAY: JON CROKER / STARRING: HELEN MCCRORY, JEREMY IRVINE, LEILAH DE MEZA, PHOEBE FOX, LEANNE BEST / RELEASE DATE: JANUARY 1ST 2015

During the worst days of World War II, hundreds of children were evacuated from bomb-ravaged London to the supposed safety of the countryside. But the remote area of Northeast England where a group of young evacuees – chaperoned by headmistress Mrs Hogg (McCrory) and her young assistant teacher Eve Parkins (Fox) – are sent holds its own dangers, much worse than anything the war could throw at them. For the sinister Eel Marsh House, which is to be their home for the remainder of the war, houses a dark and terrible secret that is re-awakened by their arrival with tragic results.

The secret of Hammer Films’ success – in the horror genre that cemented their worldwide reputation with the release of The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) and Dracula (1958) – was their uncanny knack at capturing the perfect period air. Though they would also try, with reasonable success, to stage chillers within contemporary environments – as with psychological horrors like Paranoiac (1963) – it was always their films set in the past that worked best and are most fondly remembered by fans and critics alike.

There was also something safe about their brand of horror. The Kensington Gore may have flowed more freely in a technicolored brilliance, but audiences knew underneath that good would win out in the end and the films always finished on the moral high ground. One of the reasons often mooted amongst scholars for the demise of the studio was the fact that they were unable, or unwilling, to offer audiences the full-on visceral horror which began to flood the market with the emergence of the slasher film from America during the latter part of the 1970s. Hammer had been born – and would die – from subtlety and suggestion, as opposed to the blatant, in-your-face approach.

All of which means that the films the studio is producing now, in an attempt to recapture their faded glory should, on the surface, work well. Their biggest hit since their recent re-emergence on the horror scene, The Woman in Black, is reputedly the most successful British horror film ever. Though cynics may claim that much of that film’s appeal was down to the presence of boy wonder Daniel Radcliffe in the central role of Arthur Kipps, there’s no denying that the adaptation of author Susan Hill’s classic English ghost story was wonderfully atmospheric, and managed to evoke some of the studio’s old magic from its glory days of the late ‘50s and ‘60s.

Which brings us to The Woman in Black: Angel of Death. Though not a direct sequel, the film does make use, indirectly, of much which happened in the 2012 hit, cleverly bringing in situations and locations and referencing characters – not least the ghostly dark lady herself – in a plot which is none-the-less original and imaginative in its own right. The main thing this film shares with its predecessor – and with the wider heritage of the studio – is its use of atmosphere and suggestion to raise old-school chills, as opposed to blatant and crass gore and mayhem. Here is a film which effectively utilises the environment and setting of Eel Marsh House – the decaying island mansion, haunted by the malevolent spirit of the ‘Woman in Black’ and where she brings turmoil to anyone who ventures within its walls – to create a feeling of remoteness and unease which seeps into the viewer’s subconscious, lingering long after the film has ended.

However, the setting may also be one of the film’s weaker points. Part of Hammer’s appeal – at least in their early days – was their ability to make use of whatever came readily to hand, whether that be props, regular cast and production crew, and, of course, settings. Though much of this was due to limited budgets, the regular appearance of locations such as Oakley Court in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire’s Black Park lent the studio’s films a continuity and simpler appeal missing from many bigger budget productions. Now, having more money behind them clearly enables the studio to indulge in bigger sets and further afield locations for films like The Woman in Black: Angel of Death. However, though this may heighten the film’s authenticity, it never the less dulls some of the homespun charm that made Hammer’s early productions what they were.

Written by Jon Croker and Susan Hill – the author of the 1980s bestseller on which the 2012 film, television production and smash hit West End play were based – the new film effectively combines elements of the original story with a new situation, taking place during World War II. This new environment provides plenty of infant fodder to stir the story’s evil, which it does with suitably chilling results. Though the cast – of whom the aloof McCrory stands out in the role of austere headmistress – give effective and believable performances, it’s really the house and surrounding marshes which are the stars; lending the film its appeal and suitably creepy ambiance.

Only time will tell whether The Woman in Black: Angel of Death will manage to continue Hammer’s much-hyped comeback on the film scene. However, as a visual embodiment of the classic Gothic air on which the studio built their fortunes, it’s an effectively unsettling addition to their canon of classic fright films.

Expected Rating: 7 out of 10

Actual Rating: 
 

VOD REVIEW: STAGE FRIGHT / CERT: 18 / DIRECTOR: JEROME STABLE / SCREENPLAY: JEROME STABLE / STARRING: ALLIE MACDONALD, MEAT LOAF ADAY, DOUGLAS SMITH, MINNIE DRIVER / RELEASE DATE: JANUARY 26TH

Written and directed by Jerome Sable, Stage Fright is a bizarre, and completely mad, hybrid of musical, horror and comedy in which a starry-eyed teenager, Camilla Swanson (MacDonald), wants to follow in her late mother’s (Driver in a fleeting cameo) footsteps and become a Broadway diva. But instead, she’s stuck working in the kitchen of her stepfather’s (Aday) snobby performing arts camp. Determined to change her own destiny, she sneaks in to audition for the summer showcase, ‘The Haunting of the Opera’, and ends up landing the lead role. However, just as rehearsals begin, blood starts to spill, and Camilla, as well as everyone else at the camp, becomes terrorized by a homicidal masked killer.

When a horror movie is billed at being “Glee meets a slasher film,” it’s understandable why that might sound like movie kryptonite for certain audiences, but the remarkable thing about Stage Fright is how completely bonkers and all-over-the-shop the film is. To put it more accurately, Stage Fright is “Glee meets a slasher movie” on acid. Tonally, it goes off on many different tangents; one minute it’s dark, bloody and strange, yet next minute it’s jolly, light-hearted and filled with gags that sometimes don’t work. That means making a decision on two things: whether you go with the film or you don’t.

The film does make a lot of satirical stabs at musical theatre culture (parodying Phantom of the Opera), and it definitely subverts every horror movie cliché in the book (Friday the 13th, Carrie, etc.). These direct gags are surprisingly wittily punchy, yet sometimes the other gags can produce more sighs than laughs (“I’m gay for musicals”). The songs are for the most part surprisingly inventive, even though they don’t really stay with you as some of the more popular musical numbers do. This is no Sweeney Todd here.

The film is stylishly shot and edited to within an inch of its life, and all the performances are completely straight-faced intentionally throughout, particularly Meat Loaf who gets in on the gag. At the centre of the movie is Allie MacDonald, who is by far and away the best thing in the film. Showing promise as a rising star, not only is she sinking her teeth into the role of a strong horror vixen here, but also of a dazzling starlet, displaying real depth and nuance to every scene she’s in and there’s no doubt she’ll have a successful future ahead of her.

So in the end, Stage Fright is not a film that’ll work for everyone and it is a mess, but yet it’s somewhat of an enjoyable fun mess nevertheless, and in a perverse way, that is more admirable than making something that could’ve been generic and formulaic. It’s insane and more unpredictable than to be expected.

Expected Rating: 6 out of 10

Expected Rating:
 

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

VOD REVIEW: STAGE FRIGHT / CERT: 18 / DIRECTOR: JEROME STABLE / SCREENPLAY: JEROME STABLE / STARRING: ALLIE MACDONALD, MEAT LOAF ADAY, DOUGLAS SMITH, MINNIE DRIVER / RELEASE DATE: JANUARY 26TH

Written and directed by Jerome Sable, Stage Fright is a bizarre, and completely mad, hybrid of musical, horror and comedy in which a starry-eyed teenager, Camilla Swanson (MacDonald), wants to follow in her late mother’s (Driver in a fleeting cameo) footsteps and become a Broadway diva. But instead, she’s stuck working in the kitchen of her stepfather’s (Aday) snobby performing arts camp. Determined to change her own destiny, she sneaks in to audition for the summer showcase, ‘The Haunting of the Opera’, and ends up landing the lead role. However, just as rehearsals begin, blood starts to spill, and Camilla, as well as everyone else at the camp, becomes terrorized by a homicidal masked killer.

When a horror movie is billed at being “Glee meets a slasher film,” it’s understandable why that might sound like movie kryptonite for certain audiences, but the remarkable thing about Stage Fright is how completely bonkers and all-over-the-shop the film is. To put it more accurately, Stage Fright is “Glee meets a slasher movie” on acid. Tonally, it goes off on many different tangents; one minute it’s dark, bloody and strange, yet next minute it’s jolly, light-hearted and filled with gags that sometimes don’t work. That means making a decision on two things: whether you go with the film or you don’t.

The film does make a lot of satirical stabs at musical theatre culture (parodying Phantom of the Opera), and it definitely subverts every horror movie cliché in the book (Friday the 13th, Carrie, etc.). These direct gags are surprisingly wittily punchy, yet sometimes the other gags can produce more sighs than laughs (“I’m gay for musicals”). The songs are for the most part surprisingly inventive, even though they don’t really stay with you as some of the more popular musical numbers do. This is no Sweeney Todd here.

The film is stylishly shot and edited to within an inch of its life, and all the performances are completely straight-faced intentionally throughout, particularly Meat Loaf who gets in on the gag. At the centre of the movie is Allie MacDonald, who is by far and away the best thing in the film. Showing promise as a rising star, not only is she sinking her teeth into the role of a strong horror vixen here, but also of a dazzling starlet, displaying real depth and nuance to every scene she’s in and there’s no doubt she’ll have a successful future ahead of her.

So in the end, Stage Fright is not a film that’ll work for everyone and it is a mess, but yet it’s somewhat of an enjoyable fun mess nevertheless, and in a perverse way, that is more admirable than making something that could’ve been generic and formulaic. It’s insane and more unpredictable than to be expected.

Expected Rating: 6 out of 10

Expected Rating:
 

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

SHORT REVIEW: THE ALPHA INVENTION / CERT: TBC / DIRECTOR: MARK TOWERS / SCREENPLAY: MARK TOWERS / STARRING: BILLY BOYD, WILLIAM HOPE / RELEASE DATE: TBC

As sci-fi tropes go, they don’t come bigger than the subject of Artificial Intelligence. A.I. in sci-fi predates even the coining of the phrase itself by Forry Ackerman. Almost a natural evolution of the Frankenstein story, A.I. was a popular ingredient of pulp sci-fi. The likes of Metropolis, R.U.R., and Blade Runner have all tried to explore the possibilities of mankind replicating the spark of consciousness – usually ending with a cybernetic uprising by a load of robots with a right monk on!

It is to the credit of director Mark Towers that in such a busy corridor of traffic he manages to bring something original and unique to the discussion with his captivating short, The Alpha Invention. From the start, The Alpha Invention oozes class. The main narrative is provided with a two-sided conversation between a programmer and another individual interested in taking advantage of this breakthrough. The entirety of the film resides within this conversation, which manages to explore the nebulous nature of human existence and consciousness adequately within its 16-minute runtime. No small achievement.

The acting by the main two leads is top notch. Billy Boyd (you know as Pippin from Lord of the Rings) is a revelation in this role, bringing a much needed sense of intensity as the conversation takes its divergent pathways. The voice acting by his co-star William Hope is also pitch-perfect. We all remember him as the useless sod, Lt Gorman, from Aliens. Ripley would have no problem with his performance on this occasion, his vocals providing a menacing presence that further elevates this movie above your average sci-fi short.

The main discussion about the meaning of life and what constitutes consciousness will be a familiar one for fans of this type of flick, but it does go that bit deeper. Introducing the casual fan to the intricacies of the Turing test, which uses a computer’s ability to engage in human conversation to ascertain how close it is to achieving A.I. status, The Alpha Invention manages to address the mind-bending reality of life creation via silicon, and the level it manages to penetrate would be admirable in a two hour sci-fi blockbuster.

Mark Towers and his DP, Michael Spry, have managed admirably to complement these big ideas and compelling performances with a gorgeous visual look that perfectly balances everything out. The Alpha Invention is one of the best sci-fi shorts I have seen in recent years. Taking on one of the biggest ideas in sci-fi, The Alpha Invention is on a mission to bring us a genuinely fresh perspective. Mission accomplished, and then some!
 

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

MOVIE REVIEW: IN THE HOUSE OF FLIES / CERT: TBC / DIRECTOR: GABRIEL CARRER / SCREENPLAY: ANGUS MCLELLAN / STARRING: LINDSAY SMITH, RYAN KOTACK, HENRY ROLLINS, RYAN BARRETT / RELEASE DATE: TBC

Set in June around 1988, In the House of Flies tells the story of a young couple, Heather (Smith) and Steve (Kotack), whose lives are inadvertently changed forever when they are abducted by an unknown assailant. They soon find themselves isolated, alone and locked in an undisclosed, suburban basement, and become pawns in a twisted, psychological, mind-game with their psychopathic host (voiced by Henry Rollins). Surrounded by several mysterious and locked suitcases – each containing various items, valuables, and clues to their very own survival – Heather and Steve must exploit what remains of their bruised intellect and depleting sanity to escape the authority of their unidentified and brutal abductor.

The film is a psychological horror film that is very tough, very nasty, and quite disturbing to its core, and if you do go and see it, you will probably come out of it wanting a stiff drink afterwards because it’s not an easy ride. The story deals with the themes of abduction, the loss of sanity, childbirth, and how far you would go to protect your loved one from harm, and the story is strong, if somewhat overstretched. The situation is thought out well, though, and builds upon the unsteady ease and tension of the drama by putting the characters, as well as us, in those tight, claustrophobic and seemingly hopeless surroundings.

The performances from the two centrals are very nuanced, and you do get a sense that this couple are being driven to the edge of their sanity as detailed by the incredibly tight close-ups on their dehydrated, worn-out faces. The concept of having the characters being forced to play out a twisted psychological game with nightmarish results has been a customary idea that has been done before in modern horror movies, whether it’s the Saw series or the Thai horror film 13 Beloved, which was typically remade recently into 13 Sins (what is it with Hollywood and remakes?).

Over the course of the drama, we’re meant to feel tension and chills, for which there are some, but it does become tedious. This might be because the concept does become stretched out to fit the 90 minute running time, and it would’ve felt more tightly constrained and focused if it was made shorter. But the two leads do give it their all and do manage to create an uncomfortable and emotional climate that did allow more connection and investment with them and their characters.

Overall, In the House of Flies isn’t something that’s going to reinvent or breathe new life into the horror genre as it’s not completely scary, despite some horrific scenes, and both the slow pace and padded-out storyline made certain sections a tad boring for some. However, the two central performances, the writing, and practical effects were solid enough for an indie film that was made on a micro-budget like this.

Expected Rating: 8 out of 10

Actual Rating:
 

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

MOVIE REVIEW: THE IMITATION GAME / CERT: 12A / DIRECTOR: MORTEN TYLDUM / SCREENPLAY: GRAHAM MOORE / STARRING: BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH, KEIRA KNIGHTLEY, MATTHEW GOODE, CHARLES DANCE, MARK STRONG / RELEASE DATE: OUT NOW

The Imitation Game gives us a chance to absorb the story of Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) and how he led the way to solving the German Enigma code in World War II.

The film, based on Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges, centres on Turing’s time at Bletchley Park with the code-breakers and spells out how hard it was to build, then tune, the machine that would eventually break the code. It also tells the wider story of his homosexuality, persecution and eventual suicide in the early 1950s. To give more depth to his character, there are also sequences set in his very British public school with a young Turing (Alex Lawther).

The story is told in a collection of moments, some of which come together well, others are provided as dots for the viewer to join in their own heads. Apart from Turing, there are several key characters; blinkered, regimented Commander Denniston (Dance); brilliant Cambridge mathematician Joan Clarke (Knightley); MI6 agent Maj Gen Menzies (Strong); and 1950s policeman Detective Nook (Rory Kinnear). A narrative is presented that gives a sense of how Turing’s personality traits (as portrayed he would be labelled as autistic in some sense) were allowed to run unchecked and were reinforced by his schooldays. There are also plenty of scenes of wooden huts, bombings, tube station bomb shelters and much else to make sure we understand the wider context of war.

The tale is also told with simple brush strokes when it covers other periods in Turing’s life, from lots of stiff upper lips at school, to one-dimensionally bigoted police officers in the early 1950s. This is where the film suffers – in seeking to tell the whole story of Turing and his mistreatment, it presents lots of material but takes no perspective. Although Turing is the focus, we learn nothing about his internal landscape beyond some measure of conflict in his relationship with Joan (who he proposes marriage to at one stage). He knows he is different on many levels and sexuality is one of these. He neither justifies nor defends this – indeed the most powerful relationship as presented on screen is that with his machine.

If the film came off the fence, there are stronger stories to tell with this material. The story of Joan Clarke dealing with prejudice against women, her struggle to have her great intelligence recognised, her marriage and her fascination with the genius of Alan Turing would be interesting and Knightley more than capable of evincing this. There is also a very powerful story to be told about Detective Nook, who suspects that behind his homosexuality there is a much deeper story about Turing, the War, and (erroneously) the Cambridge spies. How Nook discovers the truth while dealing with the simple prejudices of his contemporaries would be a good way to explore the story of Turing, though perhaps more suited to television.

Overall this is a film packed with content and strong performances from many, even if their characters never really get to grips with the film’s journey. The final measure of the quality and power of the story is the audience – when the packed cinema collectively sits in silence for thirty seconds as the film’s credits roll, then leaves in subdued conversation, that is a sign of the impact this film has on the viewer.

Expected Rating: 7 out of 10

Actual Rating:
 

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

MOVIE REVIEW: AUTOMATA / CERT: TBC / DIRECTOR: GABE IBANEZ / SCREEENPLAY: VARIOUS / STARRING: ANTONIO BANDERAS, BIRGITTE HJORT SORENSEN, MELANIE GRIFFITHS, DYLAN MCDERMOTT, TIM MCINNERNY, ROBERT FORSTER/ RELEASE DATE: TBC

2014 has seen the quiet return of intelligent science-fiction filmmaking. Edge of Tomorrow (or Live, Die, Repeat or whatever you may choose to call it) was the acceptable face of blockbuster cinema, Christopher Nolan made a decent effort at creating a 2001 for the 21st century (if you catch our drift) with Interstellar, and the year’s been peppered with oddities and curios like Under the Skin, Her and The Congress. Gabe Ibanez’ debut feature, Automata, may not quite reach such giddy heights but it’s another thoughtful, measured slice of original modern sci-fi which flies right in the face of the incessant tide of spandex superheroes, reboots, and robots and giant monsters which dominate and dumb-down the genre in the lazy, hazy days of summer.

It’s 2044 and solar flare activity has scorched the Earth and toasted over 99% of the world’s population. 21 million human survivors live in gloomy hi-tech cities and clunky robots called Pilgrims have been created to help the last of humanity thrive in an increasingly-hostile environment. In best Asimov style, the robots have two overriding protocols: they must preserve human life and they must not modify themselves. Jaded insurance investigator Jacq Vaucan (Banderas) is intrigued by reports of a robot which appears to be modifying and upgrading itself. His investigations into the underworld of the clocksmiths, who illegally tamper with robot protocols, leads him to discover that the Pilgrims may indeed be capable of independent thought and they’re no longer happy with their existence as unfeeling mechanical creatures.

By its very nature, Automata can’t help but remind us of too many other similar dystopian science-fiction futures and tales of anthropomorphised artificial intelligence. A bit of Blade Runner here, a dash of District 9 there, sprinkle a bit of I, Robot and A.I. and leave to simmer for a hundred minutes. The resulting stew has a familiar flavour which could have been enlivened by a few fresh ingredients or at least the occasional splash of something diverting and unexpected. Automata sets up its grim vision of humanity’s ultimate fate with powerful economy and there’s much promise in the scenes of streets lashed with potentially-deadly rain, outsiders scavenging in the city’s debris and the last flickering vestiges of a technology which has nothing much to offer beyond superficial stimulation and nothing at all to promise for the future of mankind. The central premise of robots striving for humanity is deftly set up but the script doesn’t seem to know what to do with it and certainly has nothing new to bring to an idea which is, in many ways, as old as sci-fi itself. To its credit, Automata is absolutely not an action movie; there’s much philosophical posturing with the idea that mankind is losing its humanity even as the robots strive to find it, and the only concession to the popcorn crowd is a brief car chase and a last-reel desert shoot out.

Occasionally ponderous but undeniably thought-provoking, Automata doesn’t quite have the courage of its convictions nor, in the end, any real idea where it wants to drive its story. There’s nothing here we’ve not seen before but it’s done with a pleasing noirish style which its relatively-tiny budget belies, and it boasts a welcome return to form for Banderas as the world-weary Vaucan and a strong supporting cast of Brits including McInnerny, Andy Nyman and David Ryall.

Resolutely grim and refreshingly low-key, Automata doesn’t always hit the spot but it’s heartening to see another slice of sci-fi cinema which suggests that the idiots haven’t necessarily completely taken over the multiplex asylum.

Expected Rating: 7 out of 10

Actual Rating:
 

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB:

MOVIE REVIEW: STARRY EYES / CERT: 18 / DIRECTORS: KEVIN KÖLSCH, DENNIS WIDMYER / SCREENPLAY: KEVIN KÖLSCH, DENNIS WIDMYER / STARRING: ALEX ESSOE, AMANDA FULLER, NOAH SEGAN / RELEASE DATE: TBC

What would you do to be a star? That’s the central question of Starry Eyes, which examines the extraordinary lengths one struggling actress will go to for a shot at stardom.

Sarah (Alex Essoe) is one of a group of wannabe stars in LA. Like a substantial proportion of the city’s inhabitants, she spends the majority of her time waiting tables, unsuccessfully attending auditions, and dreaming of making it big. Her and her friends spend their spare time sitting round swimming pools in cheap apartment blocks, dreaming of making their own low budget film, but getting no closer to achieving their dreams.

Then Sarah gets a shot at the big time. Following an unsuccessful audition for the lead in a horror movie, she’s caught self- harming. Impressed by the lengths she’s prepared to go to, she’s given a second chance via a rather unconventional audition process.

As Sarah edges closer to the role, she’s pushed further and further. Once she fully commits to doing whatever it takes, the movie descends into Cronenbergian body horror, as she begins both a physical and mental deterioration.  Her transformation from beautiful starlet to emotional and physical wreck is convincing, especially given the film’s tiny budget (largely the result of a Kickstarter campaign), featuring impressive, gory effects and a terrific central performance from Essoe

Less convincingly played is the introduction of satanic elements – all creepy looking film business types and mysterious hooded figures. These scenes aren’t played with much originality and feel derivative of other, better films. You get the distinct impression that writer/directors Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer have watched Rosemary’s Baby one too many times.

Ultimately, Starry Eyes is effectively unsettling but doesn’t quite add up to the sum of its parts. The body horror is well handled, with some genuinely creepy sequences. Alex Essoe, however, is fantastic and fully deserves to hit the big time. Hopefully her transformation will be a bit more conventional than Sarah’s.

Expected Rating: 7 out of 10

Actual Rating:
 

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW OR ON TWITTER @STARBURST_MAG

Find your local STARBURST stockist HERE, or buy direct from us HERE. For our digital edition (available to read on your iOS, Android, Amazon, Windows 8, Samsung and/or Huawei device – all for just £1.99), visit MAGZTER DIGITAL NEWSSTAND.

CLICK TO BUY!

MORE FROM AROUND THE WEB: