Film Review: King of Thieves

James Marsh’s King of Thieves is a broadly enjoyable crime caper drama. The second half of the film falters, compared to a peppier first half. 

An ageing group of crooks contemplate an audacious job. Hatton Garden is the home of jewellery district. The group decide to pull off a heist that could earn them millions…

Telling the story behind the 2015 Hatton Garden robbery, King of Thieves combines a crime caper with a drama. Director James Marsh (The Theory of Everything) gives character to the little-known villains, and tells the story of the heist and the subsequent fallout.

Given that the events took place in very recent history, it is forgivable to question what the the film will offer. Nevertheless, King of Thieves is sufficiently entertaining, even if all the elements are not on point. The film is one of two halves. The first focuses on the build up to the heist and the job itself. The second concentrates on the gang’s behaviour after the robbery, and the police investigation.

The introduction of the main characters is adequate. Later in the film, Marsh’s focuses on the main players in the gang, and this works well. There is humour to be found, especially in the first half. Marsh lulls viewers into a sense of familiarity with the protagonists, before reminding of their menace. The crime caper aspects work well. The film falters as it progresses, however. This is because the dramatic aspects are not that impactful. The police investigation element is depicted in an interesting enough fashion, even if the investigators are nameless. The focus on the in-fighting of the gang does not engage in the same way the lead up to the heist did.

Michael Caine and Ray Winstone are perfectly fine, although they never leave their comfort zone. Jim Broadbent steals the show, portraying a menace that is striking. Charlie Cox also does well as the youngest member of the group. King of Thieves offers a great cast, but not that memorable of a film.

Film Review: Noah

Darren Aronofsky’s Noah is an aesthetically pleasing film, that works on a certain level. Overall, hover, it is not fully satisfying.

When he receives apocalyptic visions from The Creator, Noah knows he must act. With the help of his family, Noah begins on a quest to rescue the world’s animals before the floods come…

The idea of director Darren Aronofsky helming a biblical epic is a fascinating concept. From the trailers and clips, it was not clear whether Aronofsky would deliver a traditional retelling of the tale, or offer something more complex. The finished article falls somewhere between the two.

Noah seems to be reaching for something profound, but it never quite gets there. There is a great emphasis on Noah’s struggle, which works to a certain extent. It can be difficult to identify with a protagonist in a situation so far removed from any sense of reality. The film would perhaps have benefitted from subtle shadings in the character earlier on to make the later struggle as weighty as it could be.

The story feels padded out at times, as is necessary to fill the run time and embellish the biblical tale. Some of these aspects do not gel with the story that most will be familiar with. Although the film never claims to be realistic, it would have been nice to have a few of the elements explained.

Noah‘s commentary on humanity and choice is the most fascinating aspect of the film. There is certainly an allegorical element that most will recognise. It would have been more satisfying for Aronofsky to explore these themes further.

The cinematography in Noah is excellent. The time-lapse sequences in particular are superb. Special effects are great, and the sound is also an effective accompaniment. Russell Crowe delivers a competent performance in the title role. Jennifer Connelly is not given too much to do, while Emma Watson is decent. Ray Winstone is well cast as Tubal-cain.

As a cinematic retelling of the biblical tale, Noah is certainly successful. Those hoping that Aronofsky would weave through some innovation or variance, or that it would be provocative, may be disappointed with the end product.

Film Review: Rango

In an age where almost everything animated appears in 3D, Rango refreshingly does not opt for this route. Although the film is animated and rated PG, it is more likely to appeal to adults and older children rather than younger viewers.

Rango is a lonely chameleon who puts on plays with his toys to entertain himself. When Rango accidentally finds himself in the middle of the desert, he comes across the town of Dirt. Rango takes the opportunity to invent himself as a gun-slinging hero…

Directed by Pirates of the Caribbean‘s Gore Verbinski, Rango is not the typical animated feature. The film does not seem to fit the Pixar/Dreamworks mould of combining adventure, comedy, drama and romance. Instead, Rango is best described as a western. Given its characteristics, this category seems most appropriate. However, like a film such as Back to the Future Part III, Rango will sometimes adhere to conventions, and at other times play on the familiar archetypes present.

Given this western predilection then, it is perhaps unsurprising that Rango is more likely to entertain older audience members than the young children usually targeted by animated features. The film begins rather slowly, which won’t really entice youngsters with a short attention span. Moreover, those expecting a Disneyesque movie may be disappointed by Rango‘s offbeat style.

Although humour is present in Rango, it is a hard push to describe the film as hilarious. The comedy is more self-reflexive, with jokes about performing and genre that are likely to go over the head of some. Elsewhere the humour is quirky, with the film’s narrator becoming involved in the action, for example. The narrative is interrupted on two occasions with sequences that are interesting but bizarre. Nevertheless, they do not help in making Rango enthralling;  the film lacks a good narrative.

The animation in Rango is sumptuous. Nickelodeon, ILM and the other production companies have done a fantastic job with the aesthetics. The detail in particular is amazing. Although animation tends to look better in 3D than live action generally, hopefully Rango‘s inevitable success will attest that not every new feature needs to be produced in three dimensions.

Rango features a host of famous names voicing the array of characters. Johnny Depp is suitably cast as Rango, although it is difficult to ever lose sight that it is Johnny Depp voicing the character. Isla Fisher is decent as Beans, as is Abigail Breslin as the very cute Priscilla. Ray Winstone and Bill Nighy meanwhile conform to their usual bad guy roles.

Rango is a fun movie, and something different to the usual big-budget animated fare. However, the film lacks the heart that would take it from enjoyable to amazing.

Film Review: London Boulevard

If Richard Curtis made gangster movies, they would probably be a bit like London Boulevard. The film reeks of artificiality, and the main characters are less than engaging.

Just released from prison, Mitchell intends to go straight after receiving a job offer from a reclusive but beautiful female celebrity. His friends have other things in mind, however. Mitchell is reluctantly dragged into the London underworld by a powerful gangster, but at the same time is getting to know Charlotte better…

Directed and written by William Monahan, based on Ken Bruen’s novel, London Boulevard strives to be a great British gangster film. While the story of a reformed criminal struggling to juggle his past and future is adequate (although it offers little in originality), the film lacks compelling characters. There are some amusing characters, but Mitchell is not engrossing enough to carry the film.

Ray Winstone’s Gant is a caricature East-End gangster; at times it feels like he is parodying some of his previous roles. Charlotte’s self-obsession does not make her the most appealing love interest, while there is a lack of intrigue to Mitchell. Some of the minor characters are entertaining, nonetheless. Mitchell’s friend Billy is the source of amusement, while Jordan is deliciously over the top, thanks to a great performance from David Thewlis.

London Boulevard thinks it’s cooler than it actually is, an aspect that grates increasingly as the film goes on. Despite the contemporary setting, there is very much a ‘London in the swinging sixties’ feel, generated by the music and the dated archetypes. With its gratuitous swearing and violence, it seems that Monahan aimed to make a classic gangster film, but the result appears artificial. London Boulevard is clearly a film about London from a non-Londoner. It’s romanticised depiction of the city is visually faithful, yet the atmosphere rings hollow.

Colin Farrell gives a decent performance, but his London accent is distractingly patchy. Kiera Knightly does a good job of playing herself – not much of a stretch. Ben Chaplin injects some lightheartedness as Billy, while Anna Friel is excellent as Mitchell’s chaotic sister, Briony.

Towards the end of London Boulevard, numerous plot holes appear. Certain aspects are never explained or concluded, and the climax is disorderly in its descent. Although most of the camera work is adequate, there are a few jarring episodes, such as the shaky handheld shots of Mitchell and Gant’s confrontation in the car park.

London Boulevard seems to be an attempt for Monahan to replicate his success in screenwriting The Departed. London Boulevard, however, lacks a proficient storyline as well as convincing and absorbing characters. Give it a miss.