Off the Cuff Reviews Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva (2009)

Today, I present to you, not a review, but proof that it is possible to do a good movie adaptation of a video game. I've been a huge fan of the Professor Layton series for close to 15 years now, and I was excited when I heard that a movie was being made. I was even happier to discover that Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva (2009) is not only a great video game-movie adaptation, but a great movie in general. Starring Christopher Robin Miller as Professor Hershel Layton, Maria Darling as Luke Triton, Emma Tate as Emmy Altava and Janice Quatlane, and Stuart Organ as Inspector Clamp Grosky.

Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva (2009)

Starting off, the animation is beautiful. Not only is it entirely in the style of the anime cutscenes from the games, but the movie blends 2D animation with 3D animation almost effortlessly, to the point where when it first came up I was almost stunned with how great it looked. The character models and some environments are all 2D animated, while the 3D animation is typically reserved for the big set-pieces and landmarks, and it never feels out of place or distracting. The music is also divine, and I'm not joking when I say it's one of my favourite OSTs of all time. Granted, a large part of that is how they handle the remixes of songs from the games, which all sound amazing, but there's a big selection of original tracks specifically for this movie, and they all sound amazing, too. The movie is essentially based around an opera, so the music had better deliver on that front, and it absolutely does. I implore you to look up the soundtrack to this film on your own time, if you're not going to watch the movie yourself, that is. Each track fits the tone of the moment perfectly, and they even use the music to throw a few easter eggs to the game fans out there, and those are wonderful when they come up without being quizzically distracting for newcomers.

Maria Darling as Luke Triton and Christopher Robin Miller as Professor Layton

The story is told in a really intelligent way, as well. Much like a typical Layton game, there's a lot of different plot threads that weave throughout, and a bunch of different mysteries to solve. What's great about the story on that front is that rather than take a story from one of the games and try to compact it into an hour and a half, they decide to tell an original story with an entirely new cast of characters. They can tell a story that will work with the medium instead of attempting to adapt a story originally designed for a game which, in my opinion, is part of the reason why so many movie adaptations of video games fail from the get go. Sometimes it's just impossible to cram a potential 30+ hours of game and story into under 2 hours, so this movie doesn't even try. Granted, the wrap-up does get a little convoluted by the end, as we get answer after answer, but it's not that hard to keep up with if you're really paying attention, and if you're not really paying attention to the resolution and explanation in a mystery movie, something's gone wrong. In any case, the story they decide to tell here is a compelling one, a story that hooks you from the beginning and doesn't let you go, and it's a story that really feels like it could have existed as one of the games, after a few tweaks, which is another reason this adaptation just works so well. The story even gives the audience a handful of puzzles for them to solve along the way, just like the games. These puzzles never take you out of the experience, they're easy enough to solve that it's not a distraction and it's a nice challenge to see if you can solve them before the professor can. Without these puzzles, this movie wouldn't have felt nearly as true to the series it came from, and I was amazed when I saw them for the first time.

Emma Tate as Emmy Altava

I mentioned the characters earlier, and in typical Layton fashion, they're all great. Layton himself shows in this movie why he is drastically under-rated as a video game protagonist and, for lack of a better term, a 'badass'. He's just got everything: the quick thinking of Sherlock Holmes, the sense of adventure of Indiana Jones and the ingenuity of MacGyver. Combine all of that with his gentlemanly nature and it's really easy to fall in love with this guy, and this film does a great job of showing off Layton's skillset. A lot of people have mixed feelings about Luke Triton, the professor's self-proclaimed apprentice, and if you didn't like Luke in the games, you won't like him here, which just means they kept the character true to who he is. I personally like Luke; I think he's a perfect match to bounce questions off the professor, and this movie gives him by far his best moment in the series. The other characters get their moments: Emmy shows us why she's a great pick for the professor's assistant and Inspector Grosky is amazing as he's always been. It's just a shame that these two characters don't have the same voice actors from the games, which are significantly better than what we're given here, especially in Emmy's case. The upside to this, however, is that we get Luke's British voice actor, who I overwhelmingly prefer to Luke's American voice. The minor characters new to this movie don't get a lot of time to themselves, but the ones that are given a focus get just enough to let us know who they are and what their motivations are. They also all feel like they fit right in with the world of the games. These could all have been NPCs in one of the games, and for spoiler reasons, I can't go into too much depth, but just know the ones that movie wants to give more of a focus to have depth and heart, which is all one can ask for of one-off characters in an established franchise.

Emma Tate as Janice Quatlane

Now, let me touch quickly on how the movie fares for newcomers to the Layton franchise, because it is important. I will say that this probably shouldn't be your introduction to the series, although the opening sequence does an excellent job at getting you acquainted with all you need to know for the story, including giving you a taste of what I'm calling 'Layton logic'. Because, and this is important to remember, this series does not take place in our world. This is a world where giant weaponised robots are a more common occurrence than you might think, grown men can disguise themselves as young girls without anyone noticing, and a man can run to a remote town almost as fast as someone on a moped can. Those are all examples from the games, and there's quite a bit of that in this movie too, especially concerning the resolution. That and a couple of other spoiler-related reasons probably means that this shouldn't be the first piece of Professor Layton media you expose yourselves to. That said, it isn't a bad film for newcomers and, like I said, it does a well enough job of acquainting you with the world and its rules that you should be able to enjoy it as your first Layton experience. That, and the games are incredible, so you should play them. I'll definitely get around to reviewing them at some point. In fact, I'm a little annoyed at myself that I decided to do this first, for one important reason: this movie is canon to the games. It's established in the lore that this movie actually exists in the official Layton timeline between the 4th and 5th games in the series, right in the middle of the prequel trilogy. It was made by the same team that made the games, so you know they were going to get it right.

Stuart Organ as Inspector Grosky

So, yeah, beautiful visuals, a perfect soundtrack, great characters and a compelling story turn Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva (2009) into a fantastically entertaining time whether you're a long time Layton fan or not. It's obviously more fulfilling to watch if you are a fan of the franchise, but it's still an excellent movie regardless. If all movie adaptations of video games were like this, I would be a very happy man. It's just a shame this is the exception to the rule. 9/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Iron Man 2 (2010)

Following the critical and commercial success of Iron Man, it's no surprise that a sequel was put into production very quickly. Iron Man 2 (2010) makes up the third film in the MCU and its first sequel. It's going to be a little difficult to work out where I stand on this one, as while I do enjoy it, I find this is the MCU film I remember the least. This is the one that if I completely forgot about it in my marathon, I'm not sure how long it would take me to notice. That's not to say I think it's bad, but sort of... okayish. Starring Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man, Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, Don Cheadle as James 'Rhodey' Rhodes, Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman / Natasha Romanoff, Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Alright, so what is it about this movie that I find the most 'meh' out of the entirety of the MCU? Well, for one thing, the story is really kind of weak. There's some interesting stuff in there: Stark's arc reactor slowly killing him making Tony go nihilistic is a nice direction to take the story after the first one, and the general plot surrounding Vanko is interesting, but beyond that, I didn't really find myself caring all that much. The rest of the movie basically deals with Stark Industries and Hammer Tech facing off, and I just don't find that kind of story inherently fun to watch. It doesn't help that, though Stark's story in this movie is a good one, especially when you throw his dad into the mix, Tony himself kind of just does his own thing throughout the movie, and doesn't really become proactive in dealing with the problem until the third act. For the most part, it's just him kinda moping about dying, and then just doing whatever for the rest. Also, the stuff with his father comes in so late it almost feels like an afterthought. If the movie had done a better job building up this relationship, it might have paid off by the end, but as it is, it's just an unfocused story, and though the original also jumped around a lot, it managed to disguise it better and keep all the story elements interlinked and interesting on their own. It sadly just doesn't work here, which is a real shame, since the general idea of Tony Stark dying and just living how he wants for a bit is an interesting story, but the fact that the direction it takes almost has him unlearning some of the lessons he learnt in Iron Man 1 is a little depressing. Also, I never wanted to see Tony Stark take a piss in the Iron Man suit. I want that on the record. I never wanted to see that, and neither should you.

Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark

It also doesn't help that the action has a similar problem that the original did, in that it peaked far too early. The best set piece in the movie by far is the one that closes the first act: Whiplash attacking Stark on the racetrack. Not only is it a unique encounter but similar enough to give the fight somewhat personal stakes, but it's also just something we haven't seen yet, which makes it all the more disappointing when the final big action scenes basically pit Iron Man suits against Iron Man suits. The scenes with War Machine going after Iron Man are engaging, and parts of the final fight are cool, but there's little else besides that, apart from Stark and Rhodes teaming up in the end, but it's easy to see that coming. I don't know, part of me wanted to see the raw Whiplash suit come back, instead of basically another Iron Monger from the first film. It also makes it feel sort of disconnected that, for the bulk of the second act, Justin Hammer is treated as the main villain. It's a weird pacing, and I'll get to my personal feelings on Hammer later, but Vanko really should have been given more of a focus. It's almost like the writer got sidetracked halfway through and started writing more and more funny stuff for Sam Rockwell to say before realising that Vanko should have been the bigger focus. Regarding the action, I will say this: the way this movie introduces Black Widow to the MCU is great. She gets her own set-piece all to herself to show what she can do, and she kicks all the ass in such an entertaining way. They also gave Romanoff enough presence in the movie that it feels entirely earned when this side of the character comes out.

Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow

On that note, Scarlett Johansson does a great job here. It's a weirdly nuanced performance, in that were you to go into this movie with no idea that Johansson was playing an important character in the MCU, you wouldn't really see the twist coming, yet when you know the secret, you can see it easily on the screen. A big part of that comes down to how Johannson plays it, in that it's brutally obvious on repeat viewings who she really is, but you don't really think about it on your first time through. This film also gives us our first big look at Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, and he proves why he was the obvious choice for the role. Any scene he's in, he knows exactly what he's doing, and he nails the character of Fury to a tee. This movie also gives us Don Cheadle, who I prefer over Terrence Howard in the role of Rhodes. Cheadle just plays it that little bit more relatably, and he's just a little more likeable here. Paltrow returns as Pepper Potts, and I'm not going to lie when I say that the way Potts and Stark end up getting together in this film is a little odd, especially given the direction their arc went in the first one. Downey Jr. and Paltrow's chemistry is ultimately what saves it, and makes it much more believable for me, but there is something about how fast it happens given Stark's actions throughout this film that is a little off-putting for me.

Mickey Rourke as Whiplash

Now, let's talk about our villains. I've already mentioned that I really love the story they were telling with Vanko, and the parallels he shares with Stark makes him a great matchup in this movie. It also helps that Mickey Rourke absolutely kills it in this role. It's understated in some moments, and overplayed in others, but it never feels off or out of character. I'm not sure what it is, but Rourke plays it off really well, and it makes me wish all the more that he'd been given more screentime and just a little more development overall. Sadly, for a bulk of the film, he's given a backseat to Justin Hammer, who I just don't find that compelling as a villain. When you consider that he's there to draw parallels to Stark from a business level, it's a little better, but he's just not as interesting or unique as Vanko. I also really didn't want to see another 'rich guy in a suit' villain from Iron Man. I get that Tony's a businessman and it's natural that he'd have these kinds of villains, but we've seen it already with Stane. Give us something new. Vanko was something new. Just give us Vanko. The saving grace with Hammer is that Sam Rockwell absolutely crushes it. Rockwell is far and away the most entertaining thing about this film, which is weird to say given all I've said about his character. It's just the way he plays the character that really elevates it for me. He was the one I enjoyed watching the most, he was the one making me laugh the most, he was the one where every time he came on, I perked up a little in my seat. In many ways, Hammer works far better as comedy relief than as a villain, which is why the sudden focus shift to make him more of a villain in act 2 was so strange. With a few tweaks, you could have kept Rockwell as more of a comedy relief / secondary villain and give Vanko more focus as a main villain without compromising the great back-and-forth that the two have throughout that second act. You can see how conflicted I am with this one, right? I want to love this movie; it has so many great elements in it, but they just don't blend with each other to make the best overall package.

Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer

Iron Man 2 (2010) is unfortunately less than the sum of its parts, which is a real shame given how great some of those parts are. I'm not sure if at this point I can confidently say this is my least favourite MCU film or not, but it's definitely my least favourite Iron Man film. I can still watch it and have a good time, but as a critic, I can't say it's all that great. 6/10.

Next: it's Thor.

Off the Cuff Reviews The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Of all the MCU movies, this is the one that gets overlooked the most. Whether this is because this film contains the most drastic cast change between instalments or the movie itself is considered bad by the general public remains to be seen, but as it stands, The Incredible Hulk (2008) is a perfectly good movie. I like it fine, though I can admit it does have its fair share of issues, especially when compared to other MCU, and superhero, films. Starring Edward Norton as Bruce Banner / The Hulk, Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky / Abomination, Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns, Ty Burrell as Leonard Samson and William Hurt as Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Let me begin by sort of rehashing myself from my Iron Man review, as I do feel like this movie and that movie are very similar in my eyes. Not necessarily in terms of content or tone, but the general atmosphere. Like Iron Man, the first act of this movie is my undisputed favourite part of the entire film. Watching Bruce's life in South America is interesting to see how familiar his routine has become, and the ways he attempts to keep himself under control. It's also a good idea to only really touch on the 'origin story' in an opening credits montage. Granted, with this formula we lose the 'discovering the powers' segment of the movie, but you don't really need that with the Hulk. Everyone basically knows the gist of the character, so if you don't need to waste time with the backstory in order to devote as much time as possible to telling the story you want to tell, then don't. It's also worth noting that I'm especially impressed with how long they kept the Hulk back from the audience. We barely get a good look at him during his first attack scene in the bottling factory, and he comes across like a monster movie creature. It's a similar tactic they used in Alien: only giving us glimpses of the threat in order to build up its later appearance, and it works really well here.

Edward Norton as Bruce Banner

The middle section of the film is where a lot of the more character-driven stuff happens, and it's probably the slowest part of the film, but it's not necessarily my least favourite. The pacing slows down a lot after the first Hulk scene, but not unbearably. The movie takes its time to focus more on Banner and Betty, as well as the army guys. I'll use this time to note that I really like Edward Norton in this role. He's apparently been a Hulk fan for a while, and re-wrote parts of the script. His is a very grounded performance, and it helps us to relate to Banner so we can sympathise with him when he turns into a giant, green monster. Liv Tyler's performance is also really nice, and she and Norton have good chemistry with each other. Betty Ross herself isn't a very well fleshed-out character, and she's really only there to service Banner's story, but she plays her part fine. Honestly, it would look a little out of place if she were standing up to the great hulking masses and attempting to go toe-to-toe with them, and her scenes alongside the Hulk are really well handled, especially the one in the mountainside cave. The other actors do a well enough job. William Hurt does a great general, Tim Blake Nelson is the comedic highlight and Ty Burrell is criminally underused in this role.

Liv Tyler as Betty Ross

Tim Roth, however? Yeah, this was a good choice. Blonsky isn't necessarily the deepest character in this film, but his journey is probably the most interesting. It's tough to say, but I honestly prefer his scenes to a lot of Banner's ones. At the end of the day, I just don't find Bruce Banner that interesting a person in this movie. His motivations are fairly one-note, and there's nothing wrong with that in a movie like this, but it just seems a little flat at times. Blonsky, on the other hand? This is an interesting character. Does it make for the most interesting villain? No, and I'll touch on that in a moment, but Blonsky's journey in this film is certainly interesting to watch. His morbid fascination with the Hulk and its power is fascinating, especially in that one fight scene where he's almost a match for the Hulk pre-transformation. On that note, all the Hulk fight scenes in this movie are incredibly entertaining to watch, and the CGI is good enough for 2008 that it holds up fine today. The Hulk will certainly look better as time goes on, but that's to be expected.

Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky

Time for me to continue mirroring my last review in saying that the final act of this movie kind of drops the ball a little. The Hulk vs Abomination fight is fun to watch, but I feel like Banner's journey to get to that point was a little too sudden. If it was a more gradual growth to get to the point where he could see the positives of being the Hulk, I could get on board with his arc, but for the vast majority of the movie, not only is he constantly pointing out how bad it is, but the movie presents it that way as well. Yeah, it's perfectly natural that he would come to that decision upon seeing the carnage going on, but in terms of a progression of character, it was all a little sudden. Plus, while the fight itself was entertaining, I was constantly distracted by the endless hordes of onlookers constantly running away. It's not like the two Hulks were taking the fight to the citizens. At least while it was on the street, it was pretty static. And, yet, there are constantly extras in the background fleeing for their lives. You'd think that after the first few minutes they would all have evacuated, but it's almost like they were too busy watching the fight to know to back off until the struggle got within about 10 metres of them. It all just felt a little excessive. Also, and this is unrelated, but I need to bring this up now because the review's almost over: the story is somewhat predictable. You can kind of guess at where Banner will end up by the end from the start. Granted, how he gets there is not necessarily predictable, but you can essentially gather from the beginning that by the end he'll have accepted being the Hulk for the good it can do. And, yeah, that's what happens. Coming right off the back of Iron Man, I think it's pretty easy to see why this film didn't do as good. Not that it's bad, but let me put it this way: the movie sets up a cliffhanger or two that, so far, hasn't been addressed in the entirety of the MCU, and I'm sort of okay with it. That's not to say that I'd not be interested to see where it would have gone, but I'm not screaming at the gates for a sequel, lets put it that way.

William Hurt as Thunderbolt Ross

The Incredible Hulk (2008) is a fine movie. More entertaining than not, and I'd certainly recommend it, but it's not as grand or epic as a character like the Hulk deserves. There is a terrific Hulk movie that can be made, I know it, as there's just so much untapped potential in there. They've yet to find that magic on the big screen, however, at least as far as a solo movie is concerned. 7/10.

Next: it's Iron Man 2.

Off the Cuff Reviews Iron Man (2008)

I've reviewed some of the newer MCU movies in the past, but with my OCD being what it is, I thought I should go back to the beginning and put this entire franchise under the 'Off the Cuff Reviews' banner. It's going to be a mammoth undertaking, especially considering I'd like to get it all done before Avengers: Endgame releases, but here we are. So, let's take a look at Iron Man (2008), the film that started the whole thing. Starring Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man, Terrence Howard as James 'Rhodey' Rhodes, Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane, Shaun Toub as Yinsen and Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts.

Iron Man (2008)

Okay, before I get into this review properly, it's worth talking about its origins, and the origins of the MCU in general. Marvel were going bankrupt in the 90s, and sold off the film rights for their more well-known characters to other studios. Sony got Spider-Man, Fox got the X-Men and the Fantastic Four, while Marvel held onto their B-listers, so to speak. So, when Marvel Studios wanted to kickstart a cinematic universe, they couldn't rely on these characters that the general public knew about, and had to pick from their reserves. This, in my opinion, was a very smart way of going about it, rather campaigning or begging for the rights to their A-listers back. By starting off with the generally lesser-known heroes like Iron Man, Thor, etc, they had a failsafe for if the films were poorly received, and could turn these properties into household names. Before 2008, Iron Man wasn't nearly as widely known as he is today, and a lot of that has to do with this film's overwhelming success. Also, by keeping the references to a larger universe fairly constrained in the first few films, should the MCU not happen in the end, they can just be labelled 'easter eggs' and left it at that. Because, let's be honest, an incredibly slim minority of people would have stayed back in the cinema sitting through the credits expecting something at the end. In any case, this film did succeed, and it gave us one of the biggest cinematic empires of our time, and revisiting where that all began was a joy.

Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man

I feel like I should take this review act by act, because this film really is split, in that each act feels very different. It does make the film feel a little more segmented, which is a gripe I have with the movie overall, but for the story they're telling, it was a necessary evil. The first act gives us a glimpse at Tony Stark at peak a**hole, before getting captured be terrorists and left with shrapnel from one of his own weapons stuck precariously close to his heart. It's worth noting in this first section that not only was Robert Downey Jr. the perfect choice for this character, considering his past, but he also absolutely nails the characterisation in this movie. Even from just the first act, we get to see Tony Stark at his highest highs and his lowest lows, and he absolutely delivers on all fronts. Just the fact that the Jericho speech was apparently improvised by Downey and it all feels completely natural and in character is impressive in and of itself. It also helps that this first act is probably my favourite part of the movie. I just like watching Stark and Yinsen hold onto hope and science their way out of a really terrifying situation, and the first Iron Man suit is not only great to watch in action, but also quite scary itself, especially the way that escape scene is shot. It's almost presented like a horror movie, and it's so goddamn entertaining.

Shaun Toub as Yinsen

The second act predominantly consists of Stark perfecting what we would come to know as the 'original' Iron Man suit, and it's also the segment where we really get to see the toll that being taken prisoner has taken on Tony. Right from the moment he gets back to America, it's made painfully clear that he is a changed man, not just regarding his company, but the way he treats people in general. This is highlighted through his relationship with Pepper Potts, and I really like this pairing. Not only does Paltrow do a great job in the movie, but she has fantastic chemistry with Downey Jr., and the relationship between the two characters is a really different one than we usually get in a movie like this. It's a lot more believable, especially considering where the two come from at the start of the movie, and I also love that Potts isn't just an assistant the entire time, and she actually takes proactive steps to resolve the conflicts and assists where needed while not being taken captive even once. For as 'standard' as people generally like to say these kinds of movies are, this was a great breath of fresh air, especially for 2008. Anyway, watching Tony build the suit is great fun, and when he finally perfects it, watching him in action is especially entertaining. The flight scenes are exhilarating, and you can really feel the speed and power of the suit while its in the air. Typically, the 'testing the powers' section of a superhero movie is a lot of fun, and this is no exception.

Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts

The third act deals with the villain and focuses on Stark Industries, and this is certainly the weakest part of the movie. Jeff Bridges does a fantastic job, and he's truly intimidating, but I generally don't have a big interest with what's happening at the company. Part of that is because, for a lot of the movie, neither does Stark, and that is a bit of a problem when that happens to be central to the final act of your movie. I wouldn't say there's anything in this final section that's 'bad'; the final fight is fun to watch, even if Jeff Bridges looks absolutely ridiculous in that giant suit. I guess the biggest problem is that the movie was building up this one terrorist as the villain, and though the bait-and-switch is shocking, it's less interesting. The reveal that Stane was behind Stark's abduction really doesn't add much to the movie overall. That said, one of my favourite sequences in the entire movie is that part where Stark is paralysed and gets the arc reactor taken out of his chest. Not only is it tense and unsettling, but you can almost feel Stark's pain as you're watching it. As it happens, you almost find yourself frozen in your seat as well. A huge part of that is down to the audience's connection with Stark, and this movie does not work nearly as well if this aspect isn't nailed. The film does a fantastic job of highlighting Stark's growth as a character, and redemption stories like this can easily fall flat if the protagonist is either too much of a dick early on, or if his change is unbelievable. Here, it all feels completely natural, and this, I think, is the secret sauce to what makes this movie work so well. Combine that with exciting action scenes, great acting and a unique tone overall, and you have yourself an excellent movie right there.

Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane

It's easy to see why Iron Man (2008) was, and is, so loved by audiences and critics alike. I saw this film in cinemas in 2008 and I was blown away. Of course, at the time, I had no idea what would come next, but even if I'd never seen another MCU film, I'd still be in love with this movie even to this day. 8.5/10.

Next: The Incredible Hulk

Off the Cuff Reviews Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

Yep. I willingly decided to do this to myself. I'm not sure what that says about me; whether it's that I take my job as a critic seriously enough to put up with garbage like this every now and then, or that I hate myself, or maybe even both, but here we are. Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) is every bit the piece of s*** that you thought it was. And I never try to go into movies with a preconceived notion of what I'll think of it, but I feel like it was inevitable in this instance. And, to be fair, I actually didn't hate this as much as I thought I would. I hated it even more. Starring Dakota Johnson as Anastasia Steele, Jamie Dornan as Christian Grey, Eloise Mumford as Katherine Kavanagh, Jennifer Ehle as Carla Wilks and Marcia Gay Harden as Dr. Grace Trevelyan Grey.

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

Okay, where to start? Well, I feel like it's important, before talking about the film itself, to discuss its origins. Because, yeah, the original Fifty Shades of Grey novel started out as Twilight fanfiction. The author wrote it on her Blackberry. And, if this is the movie that it spawned, it's entirely noticeable. All of these characters fall into the general tropes of the Twilight characters. You've got the reserved protagonist, the mysterious love-interest, the 'friend-zoned' bestie, the well-meaning parent, they're all here. They even make Anastasia bite her lip constantly; a clear reference to Bella. It's just Twilight, but if vampirism were replaced with bondage. And, if you'll recall, when I reviewed the Twilight movies, I mentioned several times that the vampire/werewolf stuff could have been interesting had it been given more of a focus. So, it's Twilight, but removing the only thing that could have made the stories somewhat interesting. Great, that just means this movie has to try even harder to interest me. However, there's a key point I need to bring up here. And that's in order to 'try harder', you first need to 'try'.

Dakota Johnson as Anastasia Steele

Because, good God, there's just nothing in this movie. I have no idea how I'm supposed to squeeze another 3 paragraphs out of this review, because there's really not a lot to comment on. The characters are just as bland as their Twilight counterparts, if not worse. I literally just finished watching the movie, and I don't know if I can tell you a single unique character trait for anyone. Anastasia is such a blank slate, and she's so nothing that I couldn't tell you why Christian Grey has such a fascination with her, though I'll talk about the relationship itself in a second. Grey himself does far too well a job of being mysterious, in that the movie ends and I genuinely don't know a goddamn thing about him. He's too closed off for the film's own good, and it might have worked if we learned something super shocking about him by the end, but we don't. The film hints at a darker backstory, and to be honest, this is the only time the film gets somewhat interesting, but it's never explored, or even touched on. It probably gets, at most, about a minute of total screentime, and the rest is just... just nothing. Disappointingly, there's not even a fun parent character who grounds the protagonist, like in Twilight. Neither parent figure here is given any time to define themselves as a character. Let me put it this way: the highlight of any character moment in the entire film was recognising someone from Arrow. That's not good.

Eloise Mumford as Kate

And the relationship itself, the driving force for the entire film, is utter garbage. Right from the introduction to the two main characters, the movie gives us zero reasons why these two characters are compatible, or how the click, or even why they would be interested in each other. In fact, the opening scene does not present Anastasia in a positive light towards Christian at all, so I cannot understand why he would be so fascinated by her. But, but but but, then, after two interactions, Christian already starts to act controlling. He's telling her when to eat, he's controlling her schedule and what she wears and he even has the gall to lecture her about drinking (to the point where he rushes over to get her after a 30 second drunk phone call) after they can't have known each other for more than an hour. I'm sorry, if I'm Anastasia in this scenario, I'm seeing red flag after red flag after red flag with barely any perks to be gained from a relationship like that. Except, oh wait, except for all the s*** he keeps buying her. I know that's not how the film presents it, but if I'm looking at this relationship from outside the context of a romantic film, I would 100% be on board with the theory that she was only dating him because of the money. She even says in the movie that she's had offers in the past, but none she was interested in. I can't imagine Christian Grey, handsome as he is, is the best looking offer she's been given, and even if it is that's extremely shallow anyway. Basically, the relationship does not present either of the two in a positive light, and at that point, the relationship becomes unbelievable, which wouldn't be a problem if the film wasn't trying to present it as the greatest love story ever told.

Jamie Dornan as Christian Grey

The only unique thing this movie has going for it is the BDSM stuff, and even that's boring to watch. Not only is it barely in the movie, but because the movie so badly wants a theatrical release, it can't be nearly as graphic is the source material intends it to be, at which point you lose a key part of what made you stand out in the first place. If it had a bigger focus, maybe it could've added something, anything, to the movie, but as it is, you're stuck watching this horrible relationship progress beyond the point where it should. And, theoretically, a relationship like this can, and probably has, worked in the real world, but the way it's presented here is just toxic. It seems weird to keep harping on about the relationship this long, but that's really all this movie is. There's no B-story running underneath the whole thing, no larger plot being woven, no plot threads being woven throughout the 2 hours of screentime this story is gratuitously given; there's absolutely f***ing nothing else here. So you're stuck watching this relationship that you don't care about and shouldn't exist and there's nothing you can do. You're just stuck there, and the writing is so, SO painful that it just makes it even more unbearable, and the acting is okay, I guess, but because the two main actors aren't given any decent material to work with, the performances comes across as kind of stale at times, meaning there's no chemistry between the two in the first place. The writing is so unfocused, in fact, that there's a point where Anastasia is reading the contract, and Grey is clearly narrating the words onscreen, and the narration does not in any way match what's shown, and it directly follows on from an above passage that was the same, so it wasn't a later excerpt. I'm sorry, there really is nothing else here, and if, in a romance film, you're love interest exhibits all the signs of an unstable cult leader and the movie attempts to pass that off as charm, you've got yourselves a travesty on your hands.

Jennifer Ehle as Carla

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) is just awful. I've certainly gotten angrier at other movies, but I can't really say I haven't been more bored in one. This is just such a nothing movie. And I think you know what kind of treatment that deserves. And I really didn't want to do this. It's so predictable. But, the film gave me no choice. I've only ever done this to two other movies in the past. Welcome to the club. 0/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Vertigo (1958)

Okay, as of this review, this is the oldest movie I've seen for this blog. In general, I try not to judge things by when they were made, since a movie produced in the 70s or earlier can sometimes have aged better than a movie made in the 2000s. That said, if a movie hasn't aged tremendously well, it can take its toll on the quality of the film overall. To that effect, I'm kind of split on Vertigo (1958), which is the first movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock that I've seen. In general it's a great movie, but it does show its age a little. Not a lot, but a little. Starring James Stewart as John 'Scottie' Ferguson, Kim Novak as Madeleine Elster, Barbara Bel Geddes as Midge Wood and Tom Helmore as Gavin Elster.

Vertigo (1958)

Okay, I know I just talked about how this movie hasn't aged the most gracefully, let me just touch on the ways I think the film shows its age in a good way. There's a sort of charm to this movie that I think you'd find in a lot of movies made around this time. The way the backgrounds tend to look like paintings; I find that charming. The way the dialogue is written and the scenes are structured; it almost feels like a play at times. There's a lot of expository dialogue, not a lot of real-estate is wasted. The opening scene with Scottie and Midge especially had that vibe: long dialogue heavy scenes with shots that last longer than they would in films made today. Follow that up with another expository scene between Scottie and Gavin, and follow that up with a long series of short scenes with no dialogue... it's a really unique style that probably wasn't so unique back then, and it does add a lot of charm to the movie.

James Stewart as John Ferguson

The acting across the board was really good. Of course, the easiest person to praise is James Stewart. He's given a lot of time and variety in this film and he handles it all incredibly well. He plays it so likeably that we really want to see him push through his acrophobia and work out the mystery. They don't spend a lot of time delving into what makes Scottie work as a character, and I think a part of that is because we basically learn all there is to know about him through Stewart's performance. Kim Novak is the other person who's given a lot of screentime, and she was great too. It's an interesting performance, in that the entire point of her character is that it's a mystery and she's supposed to be confusing and hard to work out, but Novak's performance allows the character to shine through underneath. The two of them have a really good chemistry together, which is good because of reasons I'll get into later. The only other character I really need to mention is Midge. She's the best and she should have gotten more screentime. The movie hints at an arc with her character and just doesn't do anything with it, which is a shame, as I feel like both Midge and Barbara Bel Geddes were underused here.

Barbara Bel Geddes as Midge

Right, now let me just talk for a moment about the ways the movie maybe hasn't aged quite so well. I mean, it came out 61 years ago, it's almost inevitable that not everything held up extraordinarily well. And, let me just come out and say it: the romance. It's really the only part of the movie that I wouldn't say is 'charming' so much as it is 'icky'. That was my first thought when it came up, and while the movie did prove me somewhat wrong, it was still a little icky to me. I'm not sure if that was the intention or not, but it was still a little off by today's standards. First of all, there is clearly at least a 20-year time difference between the two, but that's neither here nor there. It's more that, by the film's own admission, they'd only known each other for 2 days before they were saying they loved each other. That just wouldn't fly now, and that's a big problem, especially when the entire back half of the movie is based around the romance. Like I said, it could have been a lot worse, and the twist the movie pulls did win me over a little bit, but it wasn't enough to render me 100% on board. I also feel that there was an issue with pacing in general here. There's nothing wrong with a slower-paced movie, but this, I felt, was a little too slow. I was on board with the slow first act; it did a good job building the intrigue. Then something happened at the end of the first act that had me thinking this was when it would pick up, but it didn't. It kept that pace for the second act, which I also thought was fine, as it was establishing the romance. Then something major happens at the second act break, but the third act basically kept the exact same pace until around 20 minutes until the end. There's a slow pace that builds throughout the story, and then there's a slow pace that just happens for almost 2 hours. I do feel like it is a problem with the script, and it could have maybe been a little more focused. The first scene is laser-focused on Scottie's acrophobia, to the point where they use the word 'acrophobia' 3 or 4 times in the one scene, and it only becomes relevant to the story again at the 74 minute mark. I don't need every story beat to harken back to it, but if the movie wasn't titled 'Vertigo', I would have completely forgotten it was a thing. Let me put it this way: at some point in this movie there's a pretty sizeable time jump, and I didn't even know we'd jumped ahead until 15 minutes after we had. And I don't need a title card for every time jump, but some indicator would have been nice. Or maybe another draft would have fixed everything, as at times this script felt a little messy to me.

Kim Novak as Madeleine Elster

However, Alfred Hitchcock did a fantastic job with what he was given. It should be clear to anyone who knows cinema, but this man knows how to create and build tension. The atmosphere he creates for this story and the suspense that rises is so masterfully done that it's unsettling. It's hard for me to describe, but he does a great job of putting you in the shoes of Scottie, and he sort of creates acrophobia for the viewer. I'm pretty afraid of heights myself, and this movie does a great job of showing us how that manifests. Let me put it this way: the movie is not 10 minutes in, and Hitchcock manages to turn walking up a stepladder into a genuinely nerve-wracking experience, and that's a situation where everyone, including the characters, know that there's no harm that can come from this situation. It's one of those things where if you told me beforehand that I'd be on the edge of my seat watching a man climb a stepladder, I'd laugh in your face. Granted, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it's kind of true. The direction in this movie is world class, and had anyone else attempted this story, I don't think it would have come out nearly as well, and it makes me overlook some of the bigger problems I have with the movie, or, at least, to not dwell on them as much.

Tom Helmore as Gavin Elster

Vertigo (1958) is an imperfect movie that I really enjoyed and would watch many times in the future. It's gotten me in the mood to review more classic films, or at least more Hitchcock films. Who knows? You may see some more soon. Don't hold me to that, though. 8/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Groundhog Day (1993)

This one's been on my radar for a while now. I really can't believe it's taken me this long to get around to it, and now that I've seen it, I'm certainly not disappointed. Groundhog Day (1993) has quickly shot up the list of my favourite movies, and I'm really not sure what I can say about it that no one else has. In that sense, it's actually a shame my movie catalogue is so small, since watching all of these classics is significantly more for my benefit than yours. Nevertheless, here we are, and I'm going to try to put my own spin on this commentary. Starring Bill Murray as Phil Connors, Andie MacDowell as Rita Hanson and Chris Elliott as Larry.

Groundhog Day (1993)

If you know me, you know I'm a sucker for a sci-fi concept told through comedy, and you'll also know that I'm familiar with the 'time loop' story. Granted, I've never seen it taken to its logical extreme, like it is here, but the point is, these kinds of stories are right up my alley. So, it should come as no shock to you when I say that not only did this concept hook me right from the moment it was introduced, but the amount of variety they manage to squeeze into under 90 minutes of screentime is actually incredibly impressive. If there's one thing I hate in fiction it's an interesting and unique concept that goes nowhere and just stagnates, and this does anything but. Yeah, they don't move the time loop anywhere beyond what it is, they don't bring any external elements into the mix, they don't even explain why it happened or how it stopped, but you don't need to for this story. It's not a sci-fi movie, it's a comedy. You just want to watch this guy go mental. And you get what you'd expect out of this: the initial confusion, rampant fun, nihilism, depression, a new outlook on life; not only is it all here, but it all feels incredibly natural for this character. I'll get back to Phil and, specifically, Bill Murray later, but for now, just know that they don't waste this concept. In fact, they push it to its limit, and it's all the funnier for it.

Scooter as Phil the Groundhog

Because, yeah, this is a really funny movie. A lot of it is down to Bill Murray's performance, but a lot of praise has to go to this writing, too. This is an intelligently written movie. It's quick, it rarely lingers in one joke for too long, it's varied, and there aren't as many 'wink-at-the-audience' references as you'd think. There are some, don't get me wrong, but I could probably count on one hand the amount of times the film goes for the 'You have no idea' punchline that you see so often when one character is experiencing something that no one else is. They get a lot of mileage out of the various residents of the town, and a lot of these people get one or two lines that are real zingers. One of the residents only says the words 'I am' and it's one of the biggest laughs of the scene. I really can't sing the praises of this script enough, and what's impressive is how they handle the more emotional scenes. There are never any tear-jerker moments, but it's not like the more heartfelt scenes don't fall flat. I could see the romance coming, but the way it built up, I was never rolling my eyes at it. I don't usually drone on about a script for this long, but I can't help it. I'm a writer, and I can't come across a script this good without singing its praises to the heavens. In fact, I don't normally do this, but it feels justified. This film was written by Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis. Excellent work, you two. Because I know you're reading this and my opinion matters very much to you.

Andie MacDowell as Rita

Now, let's talk a little more about the cast. There's not really much I can say here, so I'll keep it brief. Andie MacDowell does a fantastic job as Rita, and she's by far the most down-to earth person in the film. She feels the most grounded, and the portrayal from MacDowell goes a long way to endearing her to the audience. After Murray, she has the most range here, and she runs the gambit really well. The only other main actor worth mentioning here is Chris Elliott as Larry and, let me just say, when he appeared on screen at the beginning of the movie, I got very excited. I haven't seen him in much prior to this, just as a recurring character in How I Met Your Mother and a guest appearance in Community, and I loved him in both. That's why I was so happy to love him in this as well. Again, I haven't seen everything he's done, but in everything I've seen him do, his comedic timing has always been perfect, and this is no exception. He's not given much to do here, but he nails it all, and he gets an awful lot of laughs for the amount of time he's onscreen.

Chris Elliot as Larry

Okay, time for the main event: Bill Murray. I shouldn't even need to tell you how brilliant he was in this, but here we are. I'm honestly a little shocked he didn't even get an Oscar nomination for this role. Yeah, it's not a huge performance, certainly not an over-the-top emotional one, but it's one of the more nuanced performances I've ever seen an actor give. With a concept and role like this, you could easily expect the main actor to go to Jim Carrey levels of over-the-top with it, but Murray plays it more subtle and, really, more relatable. It's very easy to relate to this guy, which is a big secret to this film's success. Yeah, the entire opening of the film is Phil acting like a jerk, but not only does Murray never go too unlikable with it, but we also get a lot of moments of the light-hearted Phil coming out to warm us up to him. Opening with that weather forecast was exactly what this film needed to do, and juxtaposing that with Rita's introduction goes a million miles to helping us buy into why they may get together later on. I know I'm talking more about the script again, but I can't help it! This is such a clever film! Murray's comedic timing, the softer moments, the concepts, the execution, the character progression... gah! I'm in love with this movie. Don't even ask me to criticise it right now. If you had a gun to my head and demanded me to say something bad about this movie, my response would be 'It's too good'.

Bill Murray as Phil

Groundhog Day (1993) just ticks all of my boxes for a comedy, and will likely get even better on repeat viewings. Let me put it this way: the film doesn't even bother to explain how or why the film's happening, and it doesn't feel emptier for it. This is easily one of my favourite movies I've ever seen, and you should absolutely watch it if you haven't already. 10/10