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