47 RONIN

The idea of heroes going up against impossible odds has been a popular staple of fiction and legend for centuries. In the case of the 47 Ronin the story has the extra appeal of being true, or at least based on true events. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line of this story being given the Hollywood treatment, someone decided that what it really needed was big special (and noisy) effects and a famous Western face - they were wrong. What the supernatural elements and CGI effects actually do is turn what might have been a powerful dramatic story into a below-average fantasy. The presence of Keanu Reeves does nothing but make a rather insulting implication that a Western audience could not get behind a Japanese protagonist. Hence a story with so much potential is, instead bland, and uninteresting. Two things which save the film from being a complete disaster are the performances - which it has to be said - are far better from the Japanese performers. Hiroyuki Sanada is particularly good as Oishi the Samurai leader and, quite frankly, should have been the main character. Just to be clear it’s not that Reeves gives a bad performance he’s just been cast needlessly in a story where his character has no purpose in the narrative. The second thing which stops this being a complete train wreck is the finale which, for all the tedium that comes before it, manages at least to provide a well- put together set piece. These action scenes are, I might add, the ones without any CGI monsters or magic - just well directed swordplay. FINAL VERDICT 5/10 could have been a great cross-cultural telling of an inspiring tale but opted instead for mediocrity

Read More

Unknown 03:39  3 comments

THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY

THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY SYNOPIS With his job on the line perpetual daydreamer Walter Mitty must go on a very real journey that may change his life. I tend to be very unenthusiastic about films that try to tug at the heart strings, it’s not that I’m overly cynical, I just never seem to get into them enough not to see the cynical techniques behind them. Every now and then I come across a film whose character and story are compelling enough that I can really get into the film and “go with it” as it were. Walter’s story works on a couple of levels, the first is Ben Stiller’s sincere performance that makes Walter into a sympathetic character rather than simply an object of pity or ridicule. The second is the script which blends humour with drama skilfully so the film never feels contrived (though the situations mainly are). Stiller’s direction also has to be credited, switching seamlessly between the awkward clumsily real world and Walter’s slick stylised dream sequences. One of the best things about the moments when Mitty “zones out” is that they feel like little movies in themselves with real effort put in. They tend to catch the audience by surprise, with no mist on the screen or harp music so that inevitable, embarrassing, return to reality provide great humour. Some of the script’s aforementioned contrivances tend to strain a little towards the film’s end (one scene in particular would have made my eyes roll in a lesser film). That’s the key to it ,the film’s other elements - performances and direction - work so well that you can excuse some of the deus ex machine deus ex machina if you get into the film you can even go with it. FINAL VERDICT 8/10 it may be a bit on the mushy side but its delivers solid entertainment.

Read More

Unknown 03:57  No comment

ANCHORMAN 2 THE LEGENDS CONTINUES

SYNOPSIS –After being fired from his job Ron Burgundy must fight to reclaim his spot as top newsreader. When making a comedy sequel the worst thing you can do is “more of the same”. That’s not to say you can’t have many of the same elements return, but you need to give the audience something new and original. Anchorman 2 does a bit of both; there are new jokes and situations but a lot of treading over familiar ground. Not all of the new innovations are jokes, the setting is interesting with Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrel) creating the modern hype-driven news and having to deal with the consequences. The problem, when you have a film as insane and random as the first Anchorman film, is that coming up with something new can be a bit hit and miss. Hence some of the jokes work and some feel very forced and fall a bit flat. Most however work a lot more - like the giving the childlike Brick (Steve Carell) and equally mentally-vacant, a love interest. Or having the chauvinistic Ron (Will Ferrel) be dumbfounded to have a woman take the dominant role in the relationship. Steve Carell deserves major credit for brilliantly delivering gibberish lines with such utter conviction that his courtship of Chani (Kristen Wiig) is one of the film’s main highlights. Their “date” is one of the best examples of cringe comedy and will probably go down as having one of the most unique settings for a romantic encounter. The film starts to wander a bit in the middle and begins to feel like it’s losing focus (yes even in a nuts comedy like this). Luckily this turns out to be building up to one of the funniest and insane movie climaxes I have ever seen. Frustratingly I can’t tell you much of anything about it lest I ruin the jokes or take away from the total randomness. What I think I can safely say without fear of contradiction is you’ll never see it coming. FINAL VERDICT 6/10 surprisingly follows on well from the original and though not everything works enough does to put a smile on your face

Read More

Unknown 02:56  No comment

THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG

SYOPSIS –The quest to the Misty Mountain continues as a looming danger begins to make its presence felt. Don’t you just hate it when someone pontificates needlessly and makes every spurious fallacious and redundant attempt to avoid arriving at a clear concise undiluted noncomplex simplistic conclusion? Or rather don’t you hate it when someone won’t just get to the point; this was the crux of my problem with the first instalment of this trilogy (out before this blog started). Did even the most diehard Tolkien fan think we needed the song about putting Bilbo’s dishes away? In this second instalment things move much more quickly so that the long run time does not feel quite so drawn out. It helps that we get thrown right into the action after only a brief flashback (that actually serves a purpose). Because the pace feels much faster it’s easier to put up with exposition heavy scenes where we have to hear about what someone’s ancestor did that will somehow tie in later. This is good because though there is plenty of action there is also plenty of exposition and moody brooding to get through. Another reason I feel Desolation works better than an Unexpected Journey is the dwarves’ journey and the wider looming threat tie into each other better, you can see how one affects the other and, as a result, the film feels more fluid and complete. Director Peter Jackson also seems less afraid of straying from the source text when it is more pragmatic to do so for the sake of the film. Although this might provoke an outcry from the fan base it is, on the whole,better for the story. Martin Freeman continues to give a strong performance as Bilbo capturing the strength and vulnerability of the character. Richard Armitage as Thorin also stands out as a darker side begins to come to the front of his character. Though not appearing until near the film’s climax Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) does not disappoint or detract from the hype he has received, the special effects working well with Cumberbatch’s vocal performance. The dwarves feel more like a group of individuals than simply a group of faceless non-entities. Not all of the new features are for the best; we get a generic love story that sticks out from the story by its crowbarred insertion. The ending of the film feels a bit slapdash – as if Jackson suddenly realised he needed to the characters from C to E and had to skip D. On the whole though this is a solid enjoyable film and sets up the final film in the trilogy FINAL VERDICT 8/10 Good special effects and strong writing combine to make the adventure come to life.

Read More

Unknown 01:33  No comment

HOMEFRONT

HOMEFRONT SYNOPSIS –An undercover agent finds his cover blown and his daughter in danger after a feud with a local drug dealer. Any time a retired cop who is now a family man and moves to a small town you can make a safe bet that all hell is about to break loose . This is a staple element of the action genre and well within the realms of what you would expect from a screenplay by Sylvester Stallone. This is not, of course, to say that clichés instantly doom a film (see escape Plan) and this is by no means a bad film Most of the reason for this has to go to the primary protagonist Phil Brooker (Jason Statham) and antagonist Gator Bodine (James Franco) who both play their parts as though starring in a much higher quality film. Fittingly for its small town setting the action in Homeland is mostly small scale, up close and personal and hand-to-hand. Give this one a miss if your hoping for big scale explosions and car chases, the action that takes place here is decent but it feels lacking towards the film’s middle which leaves it relying on its stories and characters. This is rather problematic as the story (as noted) isn’t exactly original and the characters (lead performances aside) might as well have been cut out of cardboard. Despite this the film has sincerity about it, yes clichés abound but they are performed with conviction and the finale does pick up the pace considerably. Perhaps this isn’t going to be a particularly memorable film but it does provide a few hours entertainment, maybe not the highest praise but quite far from cinematic damnation. FINAL VERDICT 4/10 Falls short but not the complete disaster it might have been. Too much by the numbers.

Read More

Unknown 02:25  No comment

PARKLAND

SYNOPSIS – The Kennedy assassination told from the side-lines One of the most infamous days in world history, the assassination of President Kennedy has been the focus of the big screen before. Oliver Stone’s JFK (1991) came at the events from a conspiracy/political point of view and felt like a big scale detective noir movie. Parkland comes at things from a very different angle - don’t hope to see any new revelations about the shooting itself (which is dealt with in the first five minutes) - but looks instead at the aftershock on the lives of various individuals. Effective use of a quality ensemble cast means that the lack of a sole main protagonist doesn’t derail the narrative; instead it gives a feel of the scope and scale of the event’s consequences. Some of the narrative strands are more effective than others, the strongest link is definitely Robert Oswald (James Badge Dale ) a man caught between his natural love for his brother and the horror at what he has done. Abraham Zappruder’s (Paul Giamatti) gives Giamatti plenty of opportunity to deliver an emotional performance that perfectly captures the shock and horror of the average man on the ground. Zac Efron also stands out as one of the doctors who struggle to save the President’s life. The film’s high point is its coverage of the infamous day in question (it covers from the Friday to the Monday). The sense of everything that was once solid and safe and suddenly spiralling into chaos and confusion works to great effect, whether it be the fight over legal points on what to do with the body or Robert Oswald’s reaction on hearing the name of the arrested suspect. The assassination itself is treated extremely realistically, Oswald’s shots are muted and, despite knowing what is going to happen, still shocking. Effective use is made of the Zappruder film to avoid any tasteless reconstructions. Problems begin when the film gets into its third act, once things calm down the script loses some of its intensity. Once we get into the investigation its starts to feel a lot more like a detective story that we already know the solution to. There is some attempt to put in some new revelations at this point but, though intriguing, they feel a little flat. It might have been best if the film stuck to coverage of the 22nd and some of the burning intensity could have been sustained without slowing. FINAL VERDICT 6/10 despite this third act slouch the film still boasts good performances and is a respectful dignified look at tragic events.

Read More

Unknown 04:53  No comment

HUNGER GAMES: 2 CATCHING FIRE

SYNOPSIS – Katniss and Peeta find themselves used by the government and thrown into a new deadly Hunger Games . Follow-ups are always tricky things, reigniting an audience’s interest in characters they might not have seen for up to a year takes skill. Since the Hunger Games did such a good job of establishing strong characters, making use of strong performances, it would be a shame if the sequel fell short. Luckily director Gary Ross proves adept at picking up the story as though we, the audience, never left. The best sequels are those that raise the stakes and up the ante, many simply pretend to do this whilst in actual fact just change superficial things like location etc. Catching Fire takes our two protagonists and raises the stakes from their own personal survival to the fate of their families and entire district. Handily this also gives us a chance to see more of Panem, not only of the districts, but also of the vast Babylon-like Capitol. While taking about the look of the film I feel I should note a criticism that has been around since the first film. This is that the concept (a game show which features death) is not original and has in fact been done many times before (Battle Royale, The Running Man). Personally I don’t find this particularly damning,there are few concepts these days that are wholly original . Besides if you want to be picky about it the idea of youths being sacrificed to a large empire goes right the way back to Greek myth. Having similar elements does not mean that a film is somehow stealing another’s thunder and let’s be honest (eighties nostalgia aside) comparing the Running Man to the Hunger games is ridiculous. While the film sports a strong script and distinct visuals I think it’s the performances that are Catching Fire’s real ace in the hole. Jennifer Lawrence gives a (forgive the pun) performance that burns with intensity, and yet conveys how helpless her character feels in the march of events. Josh Hutcherson (Peeta) gets to bring out more of his characters cynicism without feeling like a different person. Even minor characters like Effe (Elisabeth Banks) get development, and so no one simply phone in the same performance. There are some problems with a few of the new characters; they feel a little like cannon fodder with no other purpose but to fill the death tally. You find yourself focusing on the two main leads and find yourself caring little for the other players (though I must stress this is not the fault of the performers). FINAL VERDICT 8/10 – Continuing the characters journey with a solid script and great performances.

Read More

Unknown 15:41  No comment

BASED ON TRUE EVENTS

Given Hollywood’s recent passion for films “based on true events” (because “true story” opens you up to lawsuits) I thought I would give some ideas to the many studio bosses who I know read this blog for some untapped sources 1. Harry Houdini’s life - This one has a bit of bias in it ,as a huge fan of magic and illusion , despite not even being able to shuffle a deck of cards myself, I find Houdini one of the most fascinating figures in entertainment in general. There has only been one big studio film and many more details on the man, his life and his beliefs have come to light since then. 2. Byzantium, An entire era ignored. The Byzantium Empire was the Greek half of the Roman Empire that continued on long after its parent empire fell. It contained just as much war, murder, scandal and sex as the Roman Empire and yet has been entirely skipped over by Hollywood - do they honestly think that an audience can’t cope with an unfamiliar time period? They cope with entirely made up civilisations and species all the time, I think they could get on board with this. 3. James Bond WW2 style – There are of course numerous stories of courage and valour from the battlefield of the Second World War. Less well represented on screen however are the exploits of the intelligence services that came up with some incredible plans and deceptions to fool the Nazi war machine. To my mind you could get at least ten or twelve films from these operations, the only problem might be that an audience would throw up its hands and say “oh come on that’s clearly made up”. 4. Walt Disney’, the man not the mouse – Walt Disney’s life story is one of struggles; struggle not just to see his ideas come to fruition but to keep legal ownership of those ideas. His life is fertile ground for a movie biopic. There is just one rather ironic problem, Disney-the -company is very unlikely to entrust Disney-the-man to any other studio or writers. Any Disney project that does come to then screen then will have been ..well Disneyfied 5. The Iranian embassy siege The most famous part of this story, the dramatic rescue operation by the SAS is only part of the story. The rest involved careful planning nerve racking tension and bloodshed. What you don’t want to do is turn this into your average run of the mill action movie; personally I’d like to see Paul Greengrass helm this one. If he brought even half the tension he put into Capitan Philips it would be great. These are some of my picks, what you would like to see brought to the big screen. Answers in the comments or on twiter

Read More

Unknown 07:28  No comment

THE COUNSELLOR

SYNOPSIS One man’s choices lead to devastating consequences When, on paper, you see the combination of Ridley Scott and Cormac McCarthy collaborating on a film you cannot help but get excited. What seemed so promising on paper, however, seems to have taken a decidedly more mundane turn in reality. Performance-wise the cast do their best with the material they are provided with. Michael Fassbender tries to show the pain and turmoil as the titular Counsellor (we never find out his real name) and comes close to achieving this. Cameron Diaz plays Malkina with a steely, almost emotionless, air that provides a genuine dislike with the audience and the lurking sense of real evil. Then there is Javier Brandem, who has the great misfortune to play a character (Reiner) with some of the stupidest lines in the film (quite an achievement in this film). Brad Pitt’s Westray meanwhile is so forgettable as to be pretty much superfluous to the film. Penelope Cruz manages, and this is quite an achievement for someone with her looks, to blend into the background. Both of these problems are, to be fair, more to do with their character’s role in the narrative rather than their respective performances. No, the problems with this film can only be laid at one door - the script. McCarthy has written for a visual medium before but it was for television (as well as being some time ago). What we get from this screenplay is strange dialogue that (for the most part) is not only pointless but just sounds strange coming from drug cartel leaders and crime bosses. There is one scene in particular that I am convinced read great on paper but which fails spectacularly on screen. I am referring, of course, to Malkina’ already infamous sex act with a sports car, probably the most un-erotic sex scene to come out of Hollywood in some time (and it does nothing to help the resale value of the car). The plot two feels pretty hollow, it’s like window dressing to give the characters an excuse to talk about morality, sex, consequences and more sex. There is also (in my opinion) quite a glaring hole in the narrative. Midway through something takes place which makes the rest of the film pretty much pointless, except we, the audience, still have to sit through it. FINAL VERDICT 5/10 a case of what might have been, this is all dressed up with nowhere to go.

Read More

Unknown 05:01  No comment

Saving Mr Banks

SAVING MR BANKS SYNOPSIS – The story of the struggle to bring Mary Poppins to the screen It seems these days that everything has to have an “untold story “ behind it. This apparently extends to the troubled production history of Mary Poppins; one could look at this rather cynically as an extended ‘making of’ feature. I am happy to report that Saving Mr Banks is not simply, as a friend of mine described last year’s Hitchcock, “a list of the trivia page of IMDB”. Instead the film can be fairly called a battle of two equally vibrant personalities; in one corner we have PL Travers (Emma Thompson) and in the other Walt Disney (Tom Hanks). It’s not much of an exaggeration to call this battle the core strength of the film. Thompson has to portray a character that for much of the film appears difficult and obstinate, yet ensure the audience understands the emotional roots of her attitude rather than simply seeming being labelled ‘snooty’. Hanks, meanwhile, portrays a man few are familiar with outside of the statue in the magic kingdom or old archive footage. He plays the part larger than life; you can believe that this is the man who forged an animation empire and built a theme park from a swamp. He is slightly constrained by the fact that, as this is a Disney production, the script plays it very safe. Indeed some might feel that the aforementioned statue of Walt has suddenly come to life, the image of the man rather than the man himself. Of course, in fairness, the film is not supposed to be about Disney in general but this particular part of movie history. There is a third player who is also vital to the success of the film and that is Colin Farrell who portrays Travers’ father Robert, a man tormented by his personal demons. The jumps back and forth between past and present are handled very well for the most part and give the conflict in the present times an emotional context based on our knowledge of what happened in the past. The script has a good amount of wit and humour throughout it, Travers dripping sarcasm against Disney’s plain speak. In the emotional department the story of Travers’ childhood definitely has the upper hand; it just feels a lot more sincere than some of the rather contrived scenes that take place in the main story. FINAL VERDICT 7/10 it plays it safe and has a very Disney ending but it’s still extremely enjoyable.

Read More

Unknown 06:51  No comment

GRAVITY

GRAVITY SYNOPSIS- when their space station is damaged, two astronauts must struggle to return to earth. From the first shot of space we get the sense of the majesty and breath-taking visuals that are going to mark this film. Watching Dr Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Lieutenant Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) floating through the vast expanse of space, the sense of helpless drifting is immediate. Director Alfonso Cuaron has taken a story - which a hundred years ago would have taken place on the high seas - and fits it seamlessly into the science fiction medium. Cuaron is aided greatly by both his actors giving it their all despite being in restrictive suits that rarely allow them much movement. Bullock and Clooney use their vocal and facial assets to give life to their characters and emotionally involve the audience. Their third co –star could almost said to be the earth itself, the views are so breath-taking that it can sometimes be hard to tear yourself away from them and focus on the human cast. CGI can produce wonderous images but its true place here is placing the actors in the environment and then letting the audience drink in the beauty of the ensuing images If all of these sounds like I’m waxing only positive that’s only because I’m genuinely struggling to think of any negatives. Some of the religious imagery and themes can feel a bit forced but this is only down to one’s personal preference. Some might find Clooney’s character a little too quirky, especially in some of the life or death scenarios he’s placed in. I have to admit that I’m nit-picking this is a film that will be talked about for a long time to come and if the academy awards don’t take notice then Oscar should come down from his plinth and put that sword to good use. FINAL VERDICT 10/10 No film is perfect but I’ve run out of numbers in measuring this films qualities. PS The worst mistake you can make with this movie is “wait till it’s out on DVD”

Read More

Unknown 14:57  3 comments

THOR THE DARK WORLD

SYNOPSIS –With the universe threatened by a new evil, Thor must form an uneasy alliance with his treacherous brother in order to defeat it. The first Thor film was out long before this blog began so I think it’s only fair that, before moving on to the sequel, to give some brief thoughts on the first film. I have to admit that I was not entirely wowed by the god of thunder’s first outing, it certainly wasn’t a bad film but it set things up for the Avengers movie as well. I just felt that out of the entire pre-Avenger Assemble movies it felt a little by-the-book and flat. Of course, cinema is a tricky thing and when I caught a double screening of both films last night I found myself enjoying and appreciating the first film much more. So with all the hype over the sequel can it possibly live up to the expectations? The short answer is yes. We pick up the movie a little after the end of the Avengers and the transition works well. Asgard feels like a connected piece of the larger Marvel universe as we see the chaos unleashed by Loki (Tom Hiddleston). New director Alan Taylor shows us more of the nine realms and expands Thor’s universe, as well as giving a fuller look at Asgard, which we did not get to see a great deal last time, The core of the film is the relationship between Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki, both actors show great skill in mixing the fraternal bickering with the deeper emotional scenes. Both characters progress and grow in the film and we get to see new sides of them (one of the biggest curses of franchise movies for me is this lack of development). In a nice irony we get to see Thor, who started out as a brash warmonger, be the voice of moderation to his father Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins) which marks him out as a leader of men rather than simply a muscled bruiser. Loki meanwhile gets his own journey which, whilst giving the character new ground, feels like there is more to tell (the director has signed on for a possible third film so it’s possible things are being held back for that). Whilst our heroes (well hero and anti-hero) are well developed, the villain of the piece, Malekeith (Christopher Eccleston) is a lot more ‘by the numbers’ and a bit dull. This is not Eccelston’s fault, he does his best to give the role real menace but he is hampered by clichéd dialogue and a lack of screen time. Thor’s loyal warrior companions, the warriors three, feel underused, this is a shame because as a group they have strong dynamics and it would have been nice to see more of them in action. Much more comedy has been put into this instalment and though it is very effective it sometimes can be a little jarring when we suddenly jump from laughter to serious mode. Now, of course, there was a good deal of tongue in cheek humour in the first film but some of this feels a bit out of place. FINAL VERDICT 8/10 This is how you keep a fan base interested, excited and ready for more

Read More

Unknown 15:26  No comment

JACKASS PRESENTS BAD GRANDPA

SYNOPSIS: left with his young grandson Irving Zisman (Johnny Knoxville) must get the boy to his father, causing chaos and destruction along the way The Jackass movies have never exactly been highbrow comedy (Jackass being the biggest about their brand of humour), despite this they still have managed to find an audience. One of the more popular moments in the first two movies involved star/stuntman Johnny Knoxville donning complex make up and indulging in antics as a foul mouthed old man with an equally foul mouthed grandson. In many ways the main figure in this outing is not Knoxville but Jackson Nicoll as grandson Billy. Put into situations that play his age he proves adept at getting the best comic reactions out of strangers. Some of the film’s best moments are when Billy quizzes strangers on topics and gets some of the movies best reactions. Like movies of its kind before it (Borat, Bruno) the film has a certain contrived feel as it struggles to pull hidden camera stunts and reaction shots into some kind of a story. It has to be said that, given this is coming from the Jackass team, they succeed rather well. Most of the scripted story scenes fit well and are not too numerous to distract from the laughter. Knoxville actually manages to give a decent performance as Zisman in the more emotional scenes. The main problem lies more with the trailer than with the film itself. The film has a moment that is supposed to serve as the films climax ,this moment however is shown in the films trailer and therefore much of the comic value is ruined. In many ways the film feels like it’s playing it safe compared to other Jackass productions. This might have something to do with the presence of eight year old Nicoll (though they seem fine with making him swear etc.) But it leaves the film feeling a little flat, the laughs are there but it feels like the punches are being pulled. FINAL VERDICT 7/10 it may not be on the level of previous Jackass films but it still gets the right reactions.

Read More

Unknown 14:36  No comment

ESCAPE PLAN

What do you get if you combine Rocky, Terminator and episodes of MacGyver? A surprisingly muted film that seems to be playing it safe is what you get. Though they teamed up before in The Expendables 2, this is the first film where Stallone and Schwarzenegger have teamed up properly as an action duo. As usual let’s start with what works; the buddy cop banter between the two action veterans is really enjoyable . Shwarz…… – Arnold- in particular looks like he’s having a good time and channelling the tongue-in-cheek humour that permeated his classic films of the eighties. The deadpan humour matches well with Stallone’s straight-man delivery and gives the film such much needed humour (more on that later). Another enjoyable element of the film is the A-team/MacGyver-like ways our heroes escape from their situation. Whenever an obstacle presents itself ,seeing them come up with a solution ,however ridiculous ,is always fun. What holds the film back is its very reserved ‘play it safe’ style that does not really live up to having two of cinemas biggest action stars in the same place. Given this you would expect something like Terminator meets Rocky, instead the action feels like an average Stephen Segal movie. Towards the end the film begins to degenerate into bland gunfights and fails to use any of these fights as effective set pieces . Even the final confrontation between Stallone and the tormenting head guard (played by football hard Vinnie Jones) feels flat and rather dull Should the two team up again we can only hope a stronger script will do them better justice. FINAL VERDICT 6/10 Disappointing for what could have been a really good action movie icon team up.

Read More

Unknown 12:50  No comment

Captain Philips

SYNOPSIS When his ship is threatened by pirates, the captain must try to defend it and the lives of his crew. When we first see the pirate skiffs closing in on captain Richard Philips’ (Tom Hanks) ship we get a beautiful shot of the vessel alone in an empty ocean, highlightig just how stranded they really are. This lonely, isolated, feeling is kept up throughout the film and makes for nail-biting tension. Director Paul Greengrass (who likes the ‘two sides to every story’ approach) shows us the pirates, led by Muse (Barkhad Abdi) in their preparations to go “fishing”. By giving the characters on both sides equal depth Greengrass avoids any one-dimensional caricatures, the Somali Pirates are all fleshed-out with their own individual traits and motivations. This allows the director to explore deeper political issues in the story without getting onto a soapbox or leaning to one side or another. In fact this is done so skilfully that amongst all the tension and action you might not even be aware of it until you think back on the film later. Given that this is, at its heart, a story about people the two most critical performances are Hank’s and Abdi’s. Hank’s gives a great performance as someone desperately trying to keep a grip on a situation that is rapidly spiralling out of control. Much of the attention has, however, been focused on the career debut of Barkad. His arresting portrayal of a man who is trying to keep control, not only over his hostages, but his own unruly crew, even as his bosses put on the pressure for profit, is one of the film’s central pillars. In fact it’s not too much to say that he somewhat overshadows Hanks - which is saying something for a start. The film is a little slow in getting started but once it does it keeps going at a relentless pace without feeling rushed or getting lost. FINAL VERDICT 8/10 both thought-provoking and nerve shredding, this film grips and does not let go

Read More

Unknown 12:48  No comment

Emperor

Synopsis – In post war Japan, a decision must be made which could spell the end of a two thousand year old dynasty. There are few things more frustrating than a film that sets up an interesting premise and does not take it to its full potential. Emperor sets up an interesting premise, a part of history not well known in the west, post-war Japan and the search for guilt - yet fails to make the most of it. What makes this so frustrating is that it might have so easily turned out differently. The film opens strongly with the end of World War 2 and the arrival of protagonist General Fellers (Matthew Fox) in a ruined and broken Japan. We are told very early on of what is at stake, the Emperor is still a divine figure whose trial and execution could spark fresh bloodshed. Fellers is instructed by General Douglas Macarthur (Tommy Lee Jones) to judge the guilt or innocence in starting the war. Just as things are beginning to get rolling we suddenly, and unexpectedly, stall with a clichéd and totally unnecessary love plot that, not only adds nothing to the film, but does much to divest the audience of any interest. It’s not that the performance in this plot is lacking, on the contrary there are good performances. The plot simply does not, despite the writer’s best efforts, fit at all with the tense and edgy political thriller. It feels very much like two films have been squashed uncomfortably together and the superior one suffer much for it. Where the film gets it right it does it well, Tommy Lee Jones as General Douglas Macarthur is extremely enjoyable to watch, brilliantly capturing the force of the general’s personality and his not inconsiderable ego. Matthew Fox injects emotion into the dry and by the book love story and gives a sense of drive and desperation in the main detective story. Toshiyuki Nishida is another strong element as the dignified general Kajima, a living example of the blending of old and new in Japanese culture. Ultimately the film fails to make this story the exciting and gripping one which its real life source material deserves. FINAL VERDICT 5/10 had the useless sub plot been left out this might have been a much more effective film.

Read More

Unknown 10:51  No comment

MACHETE KILLS

SYNOPSIS – After his partner is killed Machete (Danny Trejo) is sent to stop a deadly nuclear threat. There are many parody films, some based on as little as a sketch on a comedy show. There are few films, however, that can boast to be based on as little as a joke sketch. Machete was an attempt to turn a fake trailer in Quentin Tarantino’s Grindhouse double bill into an actual movie. Not everyone was convinced but enough people enjoyed the silliness for Rodriguez to try again. Now I never managed to see the first Machete film but felt reasonably assured that the sequel’s title explained just about everything one needs to know about it. Let’s start with what the film does right. Danny Trejo makes a good hero, his distinct look and growling line delivery means he stands out in a good way. The humour the film has is enough to give it a strong running start. Machete’s titular weapon is put to good use in over-the-top-gore and schlocky deaths (one of the most memorable involves an electric fence). This part plays out like a gorier Austin powers. The plot is also suitably ridiculous for this kind of ‘exploitation parody’, the cartoonish Bond villain type plan of a nuclear bomb and a walled off Mexico reads like something from the Naked Gun. Where the film goes wrong is, and I can’t believe I’m saying this about a film set in a world where Charlie Sheen is the President, it takes itself too seriously. At the screening I attended the gaps between the laughs got longer and longer. You get the distinct impression that we’re actually supposed to take the absurdities on offer and the serious stuff as well as humorous fare. Everyone plays it just a little too straight for the humour to be at its maximum potential. I am of course exempting Mr Trejo for this (mostly because I don’t want to make him angry) whose role works precisely because of the deadpan manner in which he accepts most of the insane world around him. It also doesn’t help that despite its fast and furious opening the movie lacks energy as it lurches towards its climax, some of the insane randomness is lost in an overabundance of dialogue when Machete could instead be kicking ass. For all of this it’s still an enjoyable laugh, however the sour smell of wasted potential still hangs over it. FINAL VERDICT 5/10 Only enjoyable when it could have been brilliantly insane.

Read More

Unknown 13:09  No comment

FIFTH ESTATE

SYNOPSIS – The story of how Wikileaks came to prominence as an online superpower. You would need to have been living under a rock for the past couple of years to have not heard of Wikileaks. The controversial website has made it its mission to provide a platform for whistle-blowers in any industry and on any topic, and the man at the centre of all that controversy is Julian Assange. Obviously with such a highly divisive topic as this coming up with a cohesive film script could be rather problematic. Indeed Assange himself has already denounced the film as lies and propaganda and sent star Benedict Cumberbatch an email asking him not to take part. The filmmakers use Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Daniel Bruhl), the site’s former spokesperson, as our eyes and ears into the man and the movement. Right from the start we encounter the problem that has plagued films such as this through the ages - how to make the sight of people typing on keyboards exciting. The solution offered here is the visual metaphor of a large endless office - this isn’t entirely ineffective (though wasn’t this what everyone laughed at hackers for?) The imagery does, however, being used repeatedly throughout the film, grow rather tiresome and boring. The film tends to sag towards the middle after we get a montage of Wikileak’s greatest hits and there seems little to do but wait for the big one (the infamous leak of Afgahnistan war logs). To fill the middle gap we get Domscheit-Berg’s relationship troubles and debates on the ethics of the site that feel rather like filler. Now it has to be said that once we reach the endgame things pick up and interest levels rise again. The story of the Manning (the name of the Private who leaked the documents) leak could quite easily have taken most the film and, had this been the case, the film might have had better closure. Part of my dissatisfaction with the ending might stem from the director’s efforts to put an end to a story that is still very much on-going. Credit for saving the film from its plodding plot must go to its actor Bendidict Cumberbatch. Forced to play a complex contradictory character, Cumberbatch manages to capture both the awe Assange can instil whilst exactly showing his erratic darker side that drives a wedge between him and his only real friend. Bruhl, I feel, also deserves credit for his performance, his part may be that of observer, a guest in Julian’s mad world, but he breathes life into a character that otherwise might seem a little flat or dull. FINAL VERDICT 6/10 –Overall the film entertains but feels overawed by its subject matter. Perhaps when more time has passed a stronger attempt could be made.

Read More

Unknown 13:06  No comment

How I Live Now

From our first introduction to her, it’s clear that Elisabeth (Saoirse Ronan) is not your average teenager. Plagued by doubts and insecurities that manifest through a constant stream of jumbled and confusing thoughts, she puts up a hostile front to mask these insecurities. On top of all this, she is being sent into an unfamiliar environment, her aunt’s farm in England (she’s American) The England we see her entering is like ours but is clearly very different as illustrated by her trip through customs. Eye scanners and fingerprint readers are present among the normal security checks and soldiers stand alert on guard against possible threats. Just what these threats are is kept as background noise and for the first half the film focuses on Daisy and her relationship with her cousins - Issac (Tom Holland), Piper (Harley Bird) and Edmund (George Mackay). It is Edmund who helps Elisabeth out of her shell when he begins a romantic relationship with her cousin (not a common big screen pairing ). This happiness is shattered, however, when the background tension explodes into armed conflict, starting with a nuclear device being detonated. Let’s start with the good; Saoirse Ronana’s central performance is very strong. She gives depth to what might otherwise simply be a batty and whiny teenager and allows us to see the emotional pain running beneath the surface. Her co-stars give good performances as well, of particular note being young Harley Bird who has to act in and deal with subject matter far beyond her character’s years, which she rises to admirably. The one weak link is George Mackay’s Edmund, this may not be Mackay’s fault, the part as written feels a little bland, he’s less like a person than a goal, something for Elisabeth to aim for. Also on the positive side is the film’s visuals which are used very effectively to set the tone; from the sunlit and cheery farm to the grimness of the government camp. Most effective is the wide open English countryside which seems to stretch endlessly. There are, however, problems - the way in which the nature of the war is kept vague is both a blessing and a curse to the film. On the one hand it allows us to concentrate on our protagonists, on the other hand it leaves the world the film takes place in feeling half complete. When we do see “the enemy” they feel more like generic movie thugs than a genuine threat. Pacing is also a problem, the ending feels rather rushed and it might have benefited from a slower more nuanced ending. FINAL VERDICTS 6/10 the concept is interesting and the film is entertaining but you can’t help but feel that more could have been gotten from it

Read More

Unknown 14:38  No comment

Runner Runner

SYNOPSIS –A university student is sucked into the seedy world of online gambling and soon realises that as easy as it was to get in, it may not be so easy to get out. As main character Richie (Justin Timberlake) explains statistics and numbers to one of his college professors, we immediately get the sense of the heart of this film - risk and the world of gambling. Richie, having been cheated on an online poker site travels to South America to confront its owner and ends up being offered a job. The face of online gambling we are presented with is Ivan Block (Ben Affleck). With a name that sounds like a Bond villain it’s an obvious nod to the fact that we know we can’t trust him. We’re first introduced to him sitting in a sauna, king-like on a throne, whilst addressing two American senators as if they were subjects. Affleck’s performance seems to be a mix between a mob boss and a professional salesman. He hands out trinkets and the spoils of the business at first all smiles and affability only letting his darker nature creep in gradually so that, when it does Richie is in too deep. Unfortunately when that nature does show up it is with all the subtlety of a herd of elephants, quite how our protagonist goes so long without realising that his boss may not be on the level is a little strange given his aforementioned intelligence. One of the problems with Runner Runner is that it can’t quite seem to decide what its central message is. On the one hand we are shown Block’s world as a dark place of corruption and the lurking threat of violence. On the other hand the film goes out of its way to show all the lovely things that this lifestyle can get you – e.g. the huge amounts of money to made. It’s not a little unlike last year’s Flight (2012) in which a man’s battle with drug and alcohol sat uncomfortably with an advert for the drink and drugs life style. All of this makes the main character’s desire to escape this world ring a bit hollow. This is not helped by the long and lengthy amount of time it takes him to decide it’s time to get out. FINAL VERDICT 5/10 it’s nothing new or original but it’s still entertaining

Read More

Unknown 13:32  No comment

Prisoners

There are few things more terrifying than a child going missing and in Prisoners it becomes even more terrifying when it happens in broad daylight and with the speed it occurs. Two children disappear at the same time and both families are thrown into a nightmarish scenario where the man they suspect walks free and there seems to be nothing to be done through official channels. This alone could be the set up for a good thriller, the film, however, takes this one step further when Keller (Hugh Jackman) kidnaps the man he believes to be responsible for his daughter’s disappearance and begins a brutal regime of interrogation. The film then splits its focus between Keller’s struggle to break his captive (and his struggles with his own conscience) and the efforts of detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) to find the girls whilst working within the system. From here the film takes the audience into the harrowing depths of desperation, anger, fear and redemption. Watching the families fall apart and suffer under the strain is almost more upsetting than the interrogation scenes themselves. The emotional strain is shown in slow agonising detail - Jackman in particular gives a mesmerising performance as a man teetering on the edge of a moral and spiritual abyss. Gyllenhaal gives a more subdued - but just as intense - portrayal of someone on the edge of the system, staying within the rules but being continually frustrated and thwarted by them. Some elements of the plot ring a little hollow; this is mostly due to a lack of elaboration and the dialogue in some scenes feels rather rushed. This does not derail a plot which for the most part keeps its audience enthralled in the story. If some of these plot points were a little more watertight it would help the film feel more complete and give a better feeling of closure at the finale. Overall this is a film that takes on weighty ideas and concepts. It might not succeed in adequately dealing with all of them but it does provide a gripping tale and a great character study in human frailty and evil. FINAL VERDICT 9/10 with great performances and a thrilling plot this will hold your attention from start to finish. NOTE –as there were many elements of the film which I could not discuss for fear of spoiling the plot I have decided to upload a separate article going into more detail.

Read More

Unknown 13:49  No comment

DIANA

Something which I have held to for some time is that an audience will forgive a bad film much faster than a boring one. A simply bad film can have a fascination in itself, a study in how not to do cinema that can, at best, produce genuine (if unintentional comedy). A boring film will simply send an audience to sleep or hurrying for the exits. This film is boring; it has nothing to say and nothing to add about a figure who, during her life and after her tragic death, there was a great deal of interest in. It tried right from the trailer to make this sound like some kind of earth-shattering revelation about Princess Diana (Naomi Watts) yet all this amounts to in the execution is an affair that, whilst no doubt very important to the two participants, holds no dramatic weight for the audience. Personally I think this might be down to the wrong focus, the narrative could have been more effective from the point of view of Hasnat (Naveen Andrews), a hard working doctor whose life is turned upside down by the sudden appearance of Diana and his struggle to be with her. As it is the film focuses almost entirely on the princess who, and let me be quite clear that I am taking about the character presented in this film, is rather boring. It looks like in their rush to make Watts look the part the filmmakers forgot to put in anything of substance for the part. In short its less a cinematic look at lady Di’s life and more a Madame Tussauds waxwork. I’m sorry that’s unfair, Madame Tussauds is actually really interesting. It’s not that there is nothing in the film of merit, Naveen Andrews gives a strong performance as Hasnat and the audience can feel his frustration and pain as the relationship falters. Naomi Watts does her best with the script she’s given and, with a stronger script, might well have achieved more. The scenes with the paparazzi are genuinely unsettling with them circling shark-like, barely held at bay by the royal bodyguards. Other scenes show them as almost sniper-like figures, attaching their camera lenses the way a trained marksman might his rifle scope. In an ironic twist the film starts to mirror some of these qualities, in one scene we see Diana in her crusade against landmines, she is (understandably frustrated) that the assembled press continue to quiz her on her personal life rather than the human suffering caused by landmines. The film then fails to practise what it preaches and completely focuses on her personal life; at no point does the irony seem to have occurred to the film makers. FINAL VERDICT 3/10 as a reviewer I had to stick around till the credits but I wish I could have followed the example of the four or five people who legged it early.

Read More

Unknown 15:05  No comment

RIPD

Synopsis –A murdered police officer must join a supernatural law agency to police the world of the living in order to make up for past sins. Many films can frustrate by starting a strong concept and not going anywhere with it. RIPD certainly has a strong and imaginative concept, a body that polices the afterlife. Thankfully RIPD is able to take the concept and make something of it. Our main character, Nick Walker, (Ryan Reynolds) is a flawed hero who makes a mistake early on that leads not only to his early death but ripples through the supernatural world. Giving us such a character for our protagonist raises the film above the usual ‘fish out of water’ story; our character has a clear goal and something to fight for. It has to be said that he is somewhat overshadowed by his partner Roy (Jeff Bridges) who gives an enjoyable performance that even a wild west theme show would find over the top. The extreme Odd Couple vibe that runs through the film is a main source of the fun and saves the dialogue from becoming too bogged down in plot, speaking of which. Story-wise things aren’t quite on the same level, we have one semi-decent twist that comes in the third act, both the afterlife and the world of the living interconnect throughout the story .Otherwise everything is a bit more clichéd with a magical object made of gold that comes from who-know-where. Now it’s not a bad story by any means but it does seem that the writers are sticking on very safe ground. If this film warrants a sequel I would certainly be interested in seeing our heroes thrown into a more complex adventure. We’re on a much sturdier footing in the visuals department, with “deados” (souls who have escaped judgement) literally bursting out of their skin - harking back to Men in Black (1997) Edgar (the giant cockroach in human skin) Such body horrors are distinct and grotesque in their own way (though they tend to blur a bit in the finale). Our view of the RIPD department is interesting, if a little too restrained, we get to see huge open spaces near the start but the action rarely moves from the main booking office after that. The evidence vault (literally a giant vault) is visually interesting if a little “Looney Toons”. Going back to what I said earlier about the concept, RIPD does not squander what it’s got, nor does it take it to its full potential. Take, for example, a concept the film brings up about history’s greatest law enforcement working for them. Roy is the only one we see, some other cameos like Elliot Ness or would have been interesting. FINAL VERDICT 6/10 Entertaining will be interested to see if they can take any possible sequels in new directions.

Read More

Unknown 14:54  No comment

Rush

Director Ron Howard has proven himself skilful with films based on true stories in the past. From the space survival drama Apollo 13 to the psychological thriller A Beautiful Mind, Howard has shown an inate ability to get the maximum amount of drama and emotion from the stories he directs. Rush is certainly a story full of drama, the film, set in the 70s, portrays the intense rivalry between Formula 1 drivers James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Nicky Lauda (Daniel Bruhl). Both drivers are presented as polar opposites, Hunt the brash, easy-going playboy who seems to thrive on the danger of his chosen sport, and Lauda, the determined no-nonsense professional whose confidence borders on arrogance. Neither of these extremes is shown as “the good guy” in the rational Hollywood sense, each has his own failings and insecurities that push them in their careers and growing rivalry. One of the best decisions in making this film was not to choose one driver individually as a protagonist but to use both points of view to tell the larger narrative. This prevents the audience from falling into the familiar sports movie pattern of one character the audience roots for against the other. Indeed this film is less about the races than the personal battle of the two main competitors . Each man’s rise to the top is compared and contrasted heralding their oncoming collision. The script is sufficient in this but really the lion’s share of the credit goes to leading men Hemsworth and Bruhl. Both performances draw the audiences empathy so that come the final confrontation, you really are not sure who you’re rooting for. Though the film may be based more around character than spectacle the race sequences are still a sight to behold, capturing the out-of-control nature of the sport, the ever-present danger and the lurking spectre of death. Interestingly for most of these sequences we see things not from the crowds’ eye but from the driver’s perspective . This is particularly effective for Lauda’s accident (this is in the trailer so can’t be construed as a plot spoiler). So intense is the action that the camera actually frequently gets right into the inner workings of the car showing just what a volatile mass of pistons and flammable fuel they really are. When watching this you don’t wonder if something terrible is going to happen, you just wonder when. Of great assistance in conjuring up the said intensity is Hanz Zimmer’s score. You can actually hear the pistons of the engine pounding and the roar of the engine through the soundtrack. It would have been easy to do generic “excitement music” but Zimmer reaches for something more. On the negative side there is very little but sometimes the narrations that pepper the film can feel a little forced and unnecessary FINAL VERDICT 9/10 As someone who has never watched Formula 1 and knew nothing about either man I can honestly say I found this film gripping and intense.

Read More

Unknown 12:12  No comment

Riddick

SYNOPSIS Riddick (Vin Diesel) is stranded on a hostile alien world and soon discovers he might not be alone. This film has put me in a bit of a quandary, as will soon become apparent. I enjoyed it and yet I cannot escape the suspicion that this was only because it was not the complete train wreck I expected it to be. The Riddick series, starting way back with Pitch Black, has juddered slowly onwards in spite of the box office failure of the Chronicles of Riddick. We get a strong opening with our anti-hero stranded and wounded on a strange world where he must fight for survival against an eco-system that seems determined to kill him. These mainly silent sequences, aside from the occasional narration, is a low-key start with Riddick having to struggle caveman-like for such basics as food, shelter and supplies. After this opening things start to go downhill somewhat. Among the squadron of mercenaries that arrive to capture Riddick there is only one who stands out as any kind of distinct character - John (Matt Nable), who has a past history with the title character and who’s the only person who feels like he has any kind of purpose in the story. Everyone else feels like fodder for the monsters to eat and, indeed, when the attacks start, they promptly drop like flies. Kate Sackhoff’s role is flat and boring as the cliché tough girl part that hasn’t been original or interesting since the fourth Alien movie Vin Diesel, as Riddick, has to carry the first half of the film on his own, he does this well enough being required to look tough and brooding (just within the bounds of his acting talents). His sarcastic quips and flat emotionless tone is the saving grace for a script that, owing to the blandness of the ensemble cast, keeps the audience’s attention. Action scenes are the movies’ main appeal, unfortunately we get something of a mixed-bag. The scene of Riddick stalking his human prey like a prowling animal work well and use the barren desert landscape to set up effective set pieces. Then the cgi worm-monsters show up and things take a sharp downward turn; it’s not that these scenes aren’t entertaining it’s simply that compared to what came before things just become a bit over the top. I think the main problem is that there is no sense of when and when not to show these lurking horrors. Riddick encounters them early on in the film and, though imminent arrival is foreshadowed well, there is no attempt to keep them in the shadows or perhaps have them as a completely unseen terror. Again it’s not that there isn’t anything in this last half of the film doesn’t work, most of the action is still competent enough, it could have been a lot creepier and a lot moodier. FINAL VERDICT – 6/10 A lot better than I expected it to be but it still could have used some restraint in its third act that would have brought it closer to Pitch Black.

Read More

Unknown 02:38  No comment

MORTAL INSTRUMENTS

Fantasy is perhaps my favourite genre, although even I have to concede that it is rife with clichés, and, when done badly, it can be at best laughable and at worst insulting to the audience’s intelligence. Mortal Instruments is not so bad to be laughable but it certainly is not the best example of the genre. Let’s start with the positives. Humour is one of the film’s main assets, many films of this genre get bogged down in overly serious dialogue. Some well-timed sarcastic comics peppered throughout the film keep things light and allow some of the more brazen clichés of the story to pass by more amicably. Of course it has to be said that some might not be completely intended - some lines are delivered with just that bit too much sincerity that makes the ghastly suspicion arise that this is meant to be taken completely serious. There are also several set pieces throughout that work well, a particularly effective one involves a demonic Rottweiler and another shows us a secret world below the graves of the city. These show that, either due to original novel or ingenuity on the filmmaker’s part, there was some potential in this story and that some of the lazier or borrowed plot elements (more of which in a moment) could have been left out or replaced with better plotlines. The plot itself is, for the most part, stock and trade post-twilight fantasy with our heroine being pulled into a strange world populated by fashion models who hunt demons. Right in the middle of this blandness however there is actually a very effective plot twist that not only serves to liven the story up (as well as wake the audience up) but changes the dynamics between several characters in an interesting way. The film’s main failing is our heroine Clary (Lilly Collins) she is (some inventive demon slaying at the start aside) an observer in what’s meant to be her story. She tags along being told this and that and we keep hearing how she’s the key to everything - but it’s like the film makers only remembered this in the third act. In fact her main choice in the film doesn’t seem to be how to find the mortal cup and save the world from evil, but rather whether she’ll chose Jace (Jamie Campbell Bower) or Simon (Robert Sheehan). I will give the film some credit here as to the outcome of this little love triangle - which is a little more original than most. Others in the cast appear to be under-used, Jonathan Rhys-Myers gives a good turn as the villainous Valentine but is missing for most of the film and feels like he could have made a much better impact if used more. To be fair a lot of the film’s main problems come from external factors, the main one being that it is rather late to the game in its field; the Harry Potter movies have been and gone and the Twilight series is all wrapped up. So when werewolves and vampires show up and our heroes seek refuge in a giant castle that only certain special people can see the audience could be forgiven for coming away with a sense of deja vu. Now, of course, being based on a book series they are constrained by what is in the source material but they might have tried to steer the film in a different direction so as to avoid the above comparisons (not only have they failed to do this but they seem to want to encourage it). FINAL VERDICT – 4/10 It really raises its game in the last act but mostly the film plods along. If they get the go ahead to adapt more the series it is possible they could learn from these mistakes and improve it greatly

Read More

Unknown 14:18  No comment

Pain and Gain

DIRECTOR –Michael Bay SYNOPSIS –A group of down on their luck bodybuilders decided to get more out of life by kidnapping people and forcing them to sign over all their worldly possessions. Director Michael Bay’s attempts at comedy have not inspired a great amount of confidence in the discerning movie fan. The supposed humour in the Transformers movies can best be described as a series of farting noises coupled with the occasional drug reference. Therefore Bay might not jump to mind as the first choice for a murder story with darkly comic overtones. It has to be said therefore that this film is not the comic black hole that some of Bay’s other efforts have turned out to be. Perhaps this is because the film is grounded (however loosely) in real events. Bay (who also co -wrote the film) takes (one is tempted to say is forced to take) a calmer pace throughout the film. Without his usual high octane explosions and fighter jets to fall back on attention must, for once, actually be paid to the characters – a rarity for Bay. This allows the laughs in the movie to be more downbeat and word based rather than constant visual gags. Unfortunately Bay seems to lose confidence in this approach towards the end of the film and instead gives way to a parade of increasingly grotesque visuals that do more to turn the stomach than gain a laugh. The humour in this part of the film comes mostly from the true story features as you sit and wonder “this really happened?” Mark Wahlberg’s performance as the ringleader of the criminal gang is one of the film’s main assets. His narration (one of several throughout the movie) constantly extolls virtues that an audience otherwise might find likable qualities in a protagonist ie leadership, determination and daring. It is the dark deeds he uses these qualities for, coupled with his crippling lack of actual intelligence, that distorts him and makes for an almost cult leader-like figure, albeit one who can only appeal to those with an IQ possibly lower than his own. Having this character as our principal narrator for a good portion of the film is a daring move as, the above mentioned qualities aside, he is an utterly unlikable character devoid of any redeeming features and best summed up by one accomplice as “manipulator of manipulators” With our protagonists being such an unlikable bunch the writers have something of a task on their hands in preventing our revulsion for them spoiling our enjoyment of the movie . The method they chose to accomplish this is proving rather controversial (remember this is a true story) and that’s to make the victims subtly (if never outright described as) deserving of what they get. The main victim Kershaw (Tony Shaloub) is even described in the film as difficult to sympathise with. Whether this was the right approach or not is largely a matter of one’s personal opinion. I have to admit that for myself it struck something of a sour note. As stated, our leads are pretty contemptible on their own so was there really any call to make grotesque caricatures out of their victims? This film is going to divide opinion and, frankly, my own feelings on it are rather ambiguous, yes I laughed but I can’t help but feel the story could have been better handled by a director more adapt at comedy and sympathetic to the crime victims.

Read More

Unknown 14:55  1 comment

ELYSIUM

DIRECTOR - Neil Bloomkamp SYNOPSIS: In the future mankind is divided between the haves ,who live in a utopia Elysium, and the have-nots, who toil and suffer on the polluted earth below. Matt Damon plays Max, a worker who is left with days to live and must find a way to get into Elysium. District 9 had, among its many attributes, a distinct visual style, strong performances and a message-driven story. Neil Bloomkamp's new film, Elysium, has many of the same attributes; the story is driven by the director’s clear passion for the issues being discussed (the divide between rich and poor, healthcare , immigration). In one interview the director even stated "people have asked me if I think this is what will happen in 140 years, but this isn’t science fiction. This is today. This is now,” so it is clear that it is something that stems from deep convictions The problem with Elysium is that the message it conveys is delivered in such a simplistic over-the-top manner. Of course there is the argument of keeping thing simple and not letting the meaning of the film get too convoluted. There is also, however, the very real danger that in condensing complex issues down into simple black-and-white scenarios that your film’s message loses much of its punch. The inclusion of cybernetic armour that is strapped on to our hero to help him fight is also something of a head-scracher . It feels like it’s come right out of a more action-oriented movie and could easily have been left out with little or no loss to the story. These flaws, which do much to drag the film down, are a shame because the cast are doing their best with the material on offer. Matt Damon gives a strong performance as Max, the film’s tormented hero, and through his performance we really get the sense of a man driven to extremes who will do almost anything , (even if it violates his strong moral principles), to get out of the nightmare he finds himself in. Jodie Foster is given nothing to do but look vaguely evil and to speak the most diabolical English accent (her worst act of villainy in the film) but it otherwise under-utilised her talents. Alice Brag who plays Fey, a mother struggling to save her daughter, gives a good performance though her character is mostly a passive witness to the events which unfold. Sharlto Copley (who played the lead in District 9) plays a stock psychopath with little or no depth- but to the actor’s credit he managed to do his best with the limited role and injected some menace into a rather bland part. The main failing is the script which fails to live up to the weighty material it is dealing with in favour of heavy-handed metaphors and imagery. This is not to say that film has no emotional weight and that we care nothing for the characters but that it simply feels that more could have been achieved with all the effort of the performances and the stunning visuals. FINAL VERDICT 6/10 It feels like the director is punching below his weight, we have seen him do better than this, so while this is not a complete failure it’s not all that it might have been.

Read More

Unknown 05:05  No comment

2 GUNS

DIRECTOR -Baltasar Kormákur

SYNOPSIS- A DEA agent and an army ranger are betrayed by their respective masters and must form an uneasy alliance to discover the truth.

You would not think that action and comedy would mix, well on paper at least, and yet the formula has proven surprisingly effective stretching all the way back to  the Indiana Jones films   Of course it’s not just a case of throwing everything together and hoping for the best - but there’s no denying that some producers seem to quite like this approach.

2 Guns sets the tone right from the offset when we see our two heroes burn down a diner to cover a bank robbery (which actually makes sense when put in context ………...sort of).  The fast- moving pace is kept up throughout the movie and prevents the action from stalling at any point.  Simultaneously, however, the film’s strong script allows for a plot with multiple betrayals and double crosses without tying itself in knots. This allows the film to undergo something of a tonal shift halfway through - the laughs are still there but there is a far greater threat to our heroes and far darker consequences if they fail.

Washington and Wahlberg deserve the lion’s share of the credit,in a film like this the need to empathise with our main characters is vital. Both leads do an admirable job of getting the audience behind them whilst, at the same time, still playing real (if slightly over the top) characters.   The aforementioned tonal shift would doubtless have been far more jarring and could have derailed the film if not for W + W’s efforts.  Without them then the two lead characters would have been little more than cardboard cut-outs.  Wahlberg in particular has his work cut out for him as he plays the funny man to Denzel’s (relatively) straight man who is motived by (the bog standard)cliches of ‘honour and duty’, however, the sincerity with which he plays this part enables the viewer to believe fully in what he is trying to do.

Others in the film are not so fortunate with their part; Edward James Olmos is utterly wasted (as an actor, not as in after a night of drinking) as a standard drug-kingpin who’s only there to move the plot along, Bill Paxton is entertaining as the film’s main villain, CIA agent Earl, but more could have been done besides the  well-worn crazy cop bit (he even plays Russian Roulette), Paula Patton has an interesting role which starts out boring and bland but which gets more interesting as the movie progresses.   Of course, in all fairness, the film is not called 2 Guns for a reason and the focus is very much on W + W in the mould of the best buddy cop movies.

FINAL VERDICT 8/10 Daft yes ,over the top? yes  ,Fun definitely

Read More

Unknown 14:56  No comment

KICK ASS 2

Synopsis - Kick Ass returns to his crime-fighting ways, gathers a team of amateur superheroes and tries to persuade Hit Girl to continue her father’s legacy.

The original film was out long before this blog started so I suppose I should briefly give my thoughts on it before I begin. Basically I wasn't wild on it,I could see why people like it but I just wasn't that enthusiastic about it. I felt the story could have been told better and didn't really connect with the characters of Kick Ass, Hit Girl and Big Daddy.

In going to see the sequel I tried to keep an open mind, after all it wasn't as if I hated the original and there was always the chance that I would find the characters more compelling a second time round.  In this aspect I am happy to report, I was right,I did indeed connect with the main characters a good deal more that in the first outing which helped to immerse me in the overall story a good deal more.  Unfortunately those features that put me off the Kick Ass - the violence and the crude humour - have been taken up to 11 in the mistaken belief that bigger is better for the sequel.

Not that I am the only one to think this, Jim Carrey has refused to publically endorse the movie, but without disowning the film,on the grounds of the violence   in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook School shooting.  Let’s not, however, open the debate about how violence in the movies impacts upon violence in the real world.  Officially, at least here in the UK,Kick Ass 2 has received a 15 certificate which is a surprise given the amount of swearing, knife, sword and gun play on offer.  Schwarzenegger and Van Damme at their peak have nothing on the violence in this movie.

This works against the main actors, Aaron Johnson (Kick Ass)  and Chloe Mortez ( Hit Girl)  as they give strong performances that are lost in the maelstrom of violence.   Also of note is Christopher Plazze’s performance as the world first ‘Super Villain’ (his villain-name is far too offensive to repeat here) whose scenes quite frankly almost steal the movie.

Let’s get one thing straight. I'm no prude and swearing doesn’t bother me as long as it fits the characters and situations. Here though, the swearing is more on the level of the school yard,the "I've learned a new curse word so I'm going to use as many of them as I possibly can" variety.  Action- wise too the film goes to excess unnecessarily,the story is a generally good story and makes you care about the characters -  but taking this to a higher violence level seems to be a poor choice.

One character who does not get the attention he deserves is,ironically, Jim Carrey’s character-  of Colonel Stars and Stripes.  It may be that some scenes have been cut due to his anti-violence stance on the film or it may be that they are planning a spin-off  prequelmovie (which I think is a great idea).  Either way, his character feels a little neglected given what we know of him (a reformed mafia hit man who has found Jesus – The God Father?).  Less violence and a look at his background story may have given the movie and extra depth and scope to it. 

FINAL VERDICT - 6/10 enoyable though it is the film feels half finished and could have done with some reigning in.

Read More

Unknown 16:03  2 comments