SIN CITY A DAME TO KILL FOR (BUT NOT SADLY A FILM TO DO LIKEWISE WITH)

It’s easy to forget how revolutionary Sin City was when it was released now that motion capture techniques have come to the forefront. Aesthetically the sequel keeps the slick visual style of its predecessor - a particular favourite was villainous Senator Roark towering over a stack of poker chips which double for the skyscrapers of the city he lords it over. The core problem is that whilst the film is visually strong, its substance does not match its style. Like the first film different stories are told throughout, sometimes interconnecting. Unlike the first film none of these stories gel the way they did in the original. They feel far more like episodic stories stitched into a film rather than a larger narrative with different stories. This is a shame because the cast all give good performances, Mickey Rourke’s Marv, who was one of the most popular characters from the first film, feels wasted as a third wheel . Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Johnny, a debonair card shark, is let down by his story’s lacklustre ending. Jessica Alba gives a good performances as Nancy Callahan, considering her character was rather boring first time around (looks aside). One of the biggest casting casualties is the absence of Clive Owen despite the fact that his character Dwight is featured. Finally, at a mere 1 hour 40 minutes, the film feels like it ends way too soon. One has to wonder what has been cut and whether it should have been. Or was it a case of stretching the original too much? All in all the film is entertaining but it lacks the punch of the original and feels like it’s lost something in translation from page to screen. FINAL VERDICT 5/10

Read More

Unknown 08:59  No comment

EXPENDABLES 3

If I had been asked to identify problems that would befall Expendables 3, it is safe to say that “takes itself too seriously “was not one I anticipated. Its two predecessors, after all, were not exactly weighed down with a sense of their own seriousness and self-importance. Somewhere during the creative process the filmmakers seem to have decided that what we really need is a lot of moping and navel gazing. It doesn’t help that the main mouthpiece for much of this is Sly Stallone who struggles valiantly against the half of his face that has suffered an OD of Botox. This is a problem for me because it’s not as if he has an incredible range of facial expressions to begin with . The sad thing is that when it wants to the film can also be refreshingly silly and makes some sly (pun intended) in jokes about its cast and their more well-known action outings. The two cast members who clearly remember exactly what film they’re in do much to lift the mood, the first is Mel Gibson as villainous Conrad Stonebanks who saunters through the chaos only mildly surprised by anything. The other is Galgo, played by Antonio Banderas, who bounces from scene to scene infecting the audience with his enthusiasm. These two performances are exactly what the others should have been providing, where’s that energy from the rest of the cast? It’s not that they give bad performances it’s just that with films like this you need to go all in or nothing. It remains to be seen whether or not a fourth film could be a possibility but one can only hope that if this comes to pass they ramp the insanity up to eleven. FINAL VERDICT 5/10 I was by no means bored but feel we’re missing something from the first two films.

Read More

Unknown 02:35  No comment

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

It’s a rare film that can successfully mix action and comedy, oh many think they can do it but only a few can blend the two well. Guardians of the Galaxy is one of those films that can make fun of itself even as it keeps you hooked on the action scenes and characters. Even more impressive is the fact that all of this is preceded by an opening that looks like it’s been spliced in from another movie and it’s to the credit of director James Gunn and child actor Wyatt Olef that this works. Once the movie gets rolling we’re introduced to each of the titular guardians. The chemistry of the cast (despite two of them not being psychically present on set) combines with a witty and well written script to make us believe not only in the individual characters but the team as a whole (even before the characters themselves perhaps). Performance wise Chris Pratt makes a convincing anti-hero but in some respects he is outshone by Rocket (Bradley Cooper ) whose sharp and sarcastic tone often makes you forget you’re watching a talking racoon, and Drax, played by David Bautista (better known by wrestling fans as Batista). One of the funniest things about Guardians is how it can laugh at itself and its clichés without descending into parody. For example, the slow motion walk down the corridor, the inspiring speech etc are all there but with a unique twist that gets a laugh even as you still take the story seriously. The only downsides come from some aspects of the plot with some unneeded sentiment near the film’s ending seeming a bit out of place. The villain Ronan (Lee Pace) seems a bit same old-same old and dull compared to the lively cast of heroes. These, however, are both things that can be fixed with a future sequel which, given the success the film is enjoying, seems guaranteed FINAL VERDICT 9/10 A solid example of how to do an adventure film

Read More

Unknown 14:43  1 comment

HERCULES (2014)

It is quite remarkable that we get two movies in recent months based on the epic Greek myths of Hercules; it’s also remarkable that both (for quite different reasons) fail to live up to the source material. Hercules has, at least on paper, some advantages over the previously reviewed ‘The Legend of Hercules’. Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson makes a far more convincing son of Zeus than Kellan Lutz and his ancient Greek crew cut. His wrestling background also makes him a more convincing on-screen hero making him believable as a larger than life, battle-hardened champion. What we don’t get, sadly, is a better written, more interesting plot - there are holes in this one that you could drive a one-eyed, three-headed, chariot-riding demon through. And it is this, the real failing of Hercules - the story is just not up to the job. The film limps from one action scene to the other hoping the audience won’t fall asleep along the way. When it gets to the action the filmmakers suddenly recover their confidence and are able to put together several competent battle scenes that give glimmers of what of the film might have been. The problem is that for supposedly action-packed adventures there are surprisingly large gaps between the scenes that forces the film to fall back on its characters (mostly one-dimensional) and its script (which is hardly Shakespeare). It is only fair to note that the film is clearly not meant to be taken too seriously and so any deep analysis is obviously not relevant. Even if it was aiming for a silly adventure film it still does not measure up to better efforts in the genre. FINAL VERDICT 5/10 It’s not dull but it could have been much more exciting.

Read More

Unknown 03:29  No comment