A NEW YORK WINTER’S TALE

SYNOPSIS –Two star crossed lovers must fight across time to be with each other There are few things more frustrating than seeing a promising concept poorly executed, so it is with a New York Winter’s tale. The set up is interesting, two lives being wrestled over by other worldly fates, is an intriguing one. Unfortunately the execution not only fails to live up to its premise but manages to create good deal of unintentional humour. Most of these problems boil down to the dialogue which could charitably be described as a ‘little off’ but might more accurately be called ‘rejected Disney dialogue’. You’re tempted to praise the performers for delivering these lines, supposedly written by an adult, without bursting out laughing (maybe there should be an Oscar category for that). This is combined with a plot that simply throws things at us out of the blue one after another. Much like darts thrown at a dartboard, some of these ideas hit their target - but quite a few miss and hit the old guy standing by the bar in the ear. There’s simply no build up to events, we’re dropped right into the middle of the action (after a cringe worthy bad introductory monologue) and things just happen from there. It doesn’t help that, talented actor though he is, Colin Farrell reacts to events such as flying horses and talk of angels and destiny with what could best be described as mild surprise. He’s less ‘everyman hero’ than ‘random man running from one plot point to the next’. One person at least looks like he’s having fun and that’s Russell Crowe as the villainous Pearly, complete with an Oirish accent on loan from Craggy Island (you half expect the music from Riverdance to start when he gets going). I knew something wasn’t right when I started rooting for the bad guy half way through the film. FINAL VERDICT 3/10 And I fear that’s being generous.

Read More

Unknown 01:11  No comment

STALINGRAD

When it comes to telling the story of the decisive history-altering Battle of Stalingrad then you would think that a Russian film would capture the true essence of the story. After all, surely native filmmakers could captures the raw emotion and human tragedy involved on screen? Sadly, the answer in this case is no. Right from the very start there are problems, we get a framing story - the purpose of which is seemingly to tie the film in to the modern age. Now I’m not an expert on Russian culture but I would guess that the impact of World War 2 and Stalingrad is still pretty well known. From this framing story we get a narration that runs through the film giving us the characters’ backstories in the most melodramatic manner possible. Another tactical misstep comes in the film’s battle scenes. In an effort to make these sequences stand out the director seems to have taken a page out of, of all people, Zach Snyder’s book. As the film 300 existed in a strange comic-book-come-to-life-like-reality, the bursts of slow motion during the action scenes worked within the film’s context. Why anyone thought the same would work here is beyond me, you can’t go from your comrades sitting brooding about their pre-war lives to scenes with them bayoneting enemy tropes in almost music video style slow motion. The scenes themselves are quite good they just don’t fit in with the rest of the movie. This is shame because the performances are generally good ,the actors are giving their all, however, much like the hard-pressed Russian army on the front lines, unsupported by good script or solid direction. FINAL VERDICT 4/10 fails to live up to either the scope or the human drama of the story it’s trying to tell.

Read More

Unknown 04:02  No comment

THE MONUMENTS MEN

Synopsis: A group of experts are tasked with recovering lost works of art before it is destroyed by the Nazis. Monuments Men deals with the fight to preserve and recover plundered Nazi treasures before they are lost forever. That sounds like a fairly straightforward, if specialised, war movie, the problem is that the film makers don’t seem quite sure what kind of film they wanted to make. To illustrate this point I will post two links at the bottom of this page, one is the first trailer, which takes a comedic tone, and a second trailer which takes a very different tone, focusing on the drama and emotional impact of the story. I think this best illustrates the main problem with the film, it doesn’t know if it’s a high spirited adventure/comedy or a moving war drama. Worse still, the weightings on the comedy side are very sparse, indeed from a comedy standpoint the film is a severe failure. There are some laughs but they are mainly muted with the main comedy set piece being shown in the trailer. If one were to go in with the expectations of the first trailer then you would be severely disappointed. On the dramatic side things are more promising; the film does a worthy job in getting its audience invested in the fate of the stolen art work. Since most of the film’s audience (myself included) will not know a Rembrandt form a Rolf Harris this is vital. Strong chemistry between the principal performers helps this process along, the ‘buddy cop’ vibe is best felt between Bill Murray’s Sgt Richard Campbell and Bob Balaban’s Preston Savitz. Even in its strongest point the film is not without problems, the drama is not consistent - some scenes have you hooked and invested in the quest only for things to come to a screeching halt at other. A plot strand involving Matt Damon is particularly guilty of this dragging on for twice as long as it feels it needs to. This is a shame because when the film gets going it can produce very moving scenes. FINAL VERDICT 5/10 there is a solid foundation that might have been built on here but it feels like the film is lacking in what it might have been. Trailer 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npBafjCCILw Trailer 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEj-UyqseU8

Read More

Unknown 03:58  No comment

LONE SURVIVOR

SYNOPSIS A four man navy seal team is trapped behind enemy lines in Afghanistan. Lone survivor is the true story of a 4-man navy seal team sent into Afghanistan to take out a high ranking Taliban leader who then find themselves trapped by enemy forces. I have to confess that I was not sure how I was going to relate to the film’s characters, after all, you know from the title that only one man is getting out of this alive. Thankfully the filmmakers are aware of this and we find out within the first moments of the film who the titular survivor is. This actually stops the audience from playing roulette with the characters and adds a sense of tragedy to their interactions. Its characters are the main weapons in Lone Survivor’s arsenal, both the script and the actors do a great job of dropping us in amongst these men and making their camaraderie and close ties meaningful. This gives the film a major boost because it means that despite the audiences foreknowledge of the outcome, the tragedy of a character’s loss still holds emotional gravitas. It’s a shame that the filmmakers don’t seem to be aware of this fact because once the shooting starts the film loses itself a little. The most blatant example of this is the film’s climax which pointlessly abandons the true narrative for a scene more akin to a crass Hollywood action movie than what this is trying to be. All of the emotional weight and tension, which the film has very successfully built up, is pointlessly put in jeopardy just so we can get some loud noises and explosions. It’s as if the director and writer suddenly lost confidence in their own premise, which is a shame as it leaves the film feeling quite uneven. FINAL VERDICT 6/10 while it feels sincere and has strong performances its finale is sadly a bit of a mess

Read More

Unknown 01:30  No comment

ROBOCOP

To say that I was not enthusiastic going into this film is an understatement. My last encounter with a big budget remake, Clash of the Titans, did not exactly inspire confidence in the ability of Hollywood to deal with such an iconic character like Robocop. Imagine my surprise therefore when this film actually makes and effort to bring itself above simply being an action movie. They’re helped in this by the performances of the two main cast members, first and foremost Joel Kinnamen as Alex Murphy. Performing as he does - mostly through facial expressions and voice intonations - Kinnamen really gets empathy from a character that, if played a little differently, might have come across as emotionless or just dull. Abbie Cornish plays Alex’s wife and shows a great deal of pain and turmoil as she struggles to find the man within the machine. Cast wise the only stumbling block is Michael Keaton as the film’s villain. It’s hard to pin down whether it’s Keaton’s performance or the script but he just seems to come across as someone reacting to events and flying by the seat of his pants rather than the evil puppet master he’s supposed to be. A more credible villain might have been Samuel L Jackson, who though mainly a spin doctor used for exposition purposes, plays the part with more menace than Keaton. The main reason this remake works, however, is (villain motivations aside) the script. The original Robocop movies were a clever satire on the culture of the day; this obviously could not be used for a modern remake. Rather than leave a gaping hole we get a modern issue put in its place – the use of drones. Drone warfare has become a big issue in recent times and this sits rather effectively with the Robocop narrative with the political pundits wondering how they can “sell” the idea of drones to the American people. Of course all this is delivered with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, but it’s not like the original films were models of restraint. One thing that might have been left out was the usual ‘America as a world police’ idea that looks rather crowbarred into the film. Isn’t the drone warfare issue enough. FINAL VERDICT 7/10 it might not be the original but it stands solidly on its own two metallic feet.

Read More

Unknown 09:20  No comment