Bright Star

Jane Campion’s Bright Star tells the story of the romance between John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish). If you already know the background to Keats you know this won’t end well, and even if you don’t, Campion puts enough markers in the film to suggest hankies will be needed at some point. The film itself is beautiful to look at and acted solidly across the board. However, it doesn’t hook you as it should and you feel like you are an outsider looking in, as opposed to being absorbed in the relationship between Keats and Brawne. On this note, Keats doesn’t come across as a poetic genius (which, to be fair, he wasn’t seen at the time) or particularly interesting. Why Brawne should fall so hard for him is a bit of a mystery. Especially as Keats’ puts his literature before their relationship on more than one occasion. There is also a third party indirectly involved, that in the shape of Charles Brown (an excellent Paul Schneider). Keats and Brown are two peas from a very different pod, but with literature as their common goal. Would this be enough though for Keats to sit back and watch Brown abuse Brawne verbally? This isn’t a bad film at all, but it goes on far too long and fails to maintain the interest in the main players.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Nice to look at, but not engaging enough for us to ride the full emotional roller coaster that the protagonists endure. Rating: 5/10.

The Box

Though Richard Kelly wowed everyone back in 2001 with Donnie Darko, it was still too confusing and ambiguous for some. Instead of addressing this with Southland Tales, Kelly went even further in terms of a screen play that was a myriad of plots and ideas and went on to become one of the worst reviewed films in recent history. Lessons haven’t been learnt with The Box. Based on the Richard Matheson short story (Button Button), Kelly’s film concerns a married couple who receive a box with a button in it and are told that if they press said button they will receive a million dollars, but somewhere someone they don’t know will die. It’s a great premise for a short story and a Twlight Zone episode, but stretching it out to a two hour feature film is a mistake. Ironically, the film starts to meander at the halfway point, just going to prove that this is better suited to the shorter treatment. The first half of the film is actually quite decent with the 1970’s setting being well conveyed and a sense of dread and unease leaking off the screen. How quickly it changes though. Once Kelly begins to tell the back story behind the box (which appeared to me to be a slight knock off of The Day The Earth Stood Still) all the tension dissipates amid some terrible direction and acting. At times it’s like watching the worst parts of The Happening and Oliver Hirschbiegel's The Invasion. Of the acting, Frank Langella escapes with his reputation intact, but Cameron Diaz and James Marsden struggle badly at times, especially in the more emotive scenes. There’s obviously some existentialism gumph going on here, but you’ll be too bored to address anything like that and instead will be counting down the minutes before this well below par episode of the X-Files ends.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A decent start is quickly forgotten as the film slowly meanders down confusing plot cul-de-sac's coupled with some dire acting. Rating: 3/10.

Law Abiding Citizen

There’s been quite a few sniffy reviews for Law Abiding Citizen, which is a shame, as though it is outrageously stupid, it’s also perfectly dumb Friday night entertainment. After his wife and child are murdered at the start of the film, Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) spends the next 10 years planning his revenge on the killer who missed his ride in the electric chair, and the legal team (headed by Jamie Foxx) that cut a deal with the killer during his trial. The way Shelton goes about his revenge is ludicrous to say the least (especially the twist ending), but something so absurd can only be taken with many pinches of salt. Butler seems to pick up on this and appears to be having a blast as he hams his way through the film. Foxx fares less well though and plays his part far too straight. There’s been talk of a Saw feel to the film, but this is somewhat wide of the mark. However, there is a brutal murder scene in a prison (which no doubt pushed this up to an 18 certificate) which is at odds with the “motive” of the film and is a bad misjudgement from director F. Gary Gray. Gray does at least move the film along at a fair pace, which is always necessary in a film of this nature. Just strap yourself, don’t stop to think, and look out for a cracking jump shock involving a item of communication.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Enjoy the film, enjoy picking holes in it afterwards, enjoy never watching it again. Rating: 6/10.

Bunny and The Bull

Bunny and The Bull has shot in and out of cinemas in a flash, which is a shame as there’s more imagination here than a 100 blockbusters put together. Having said that this is such a low key effort it feels a bit out of place on the cinema screen, but I expect it to gain a cult following on DVD. In fact, that’s hardly surprising considering first time director Paul King has previously worked on Dark Place and The Mighty Boosh. For his cinematic debut King tells us the story of Stephen (Edward Hogg), a shut-in who, by a series of visions, recalls his European trip of the previous year with his friend Bunny (Simon Farnaby). The problem with flash backs is that the narrative structure can become just a series of scenes thrown together, or in this instance, sketches thrown together. This isn’t all bad though, with some of the situational comedy providing some ripe laughs. Some scenes though stutter badly, including a crass mini cameo from Boosh alumnus Julian Barratt. Where the film does score heavily though is in its inspired use of set design and animation. It’s like the characters have walked into the love child of Gilliam and Gondry. The effect is wondrous at times and adds a charm to the film that otherwise may have been lacking. King also does well in handling the relationship between the male friends which leads to a surprisingly touching dénouement. This may be a bit too off the wall for some, but by giving films like this a chance it means they’ll always be an alternative to the standard blockbuster formula.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Flimsy at times, but good gags, great animation and a poignant finish all add up to a surreal and enjoyable little film. Rating: 7/10.

The White Ribbon

Michael Haneke’s films regularly have violence as their central issue. The White Ribbon is no exception, but as with most of his films to date, the violence is only swiftly shown or not shown at all. What causes violence? Haneke himself doesn’t know, and his films are always open ended on the issue and open to interpretation. The White Ribbon is the most ambiguous of all. Set in northern Germany, just before the outbreak of the World War I, the film focuses on a small village and the seemingly random acts of vandalism and violence that befall it’s inhabitants. This isn’t riveting stuff though. Black and white, slow paced, confusing. It sounds like the dream film for the jury at Cannes (it was, winning the 2009 Palme d’Or). However, this film does get under your skin, even if you don’t realise it at the time. Though beautifully shot, the village is a desperate place to live. Children are abused, the women are repressed and the rich have the poor’s livelihoods' in their hands. As violent incidents begin to occur it’s never explained who is doing them and what their motive is. There are plenty of reasons and motives that could be applied, but there are no answers given (classic Haneke). It’s too trite to say Haneke is using the village as an allegory of the whole of Germany at that time. However, it’s fair to interpret the unsettling and untrusting tone as a hint at the fascism that was to come. Haneke originally planned this as a mini series, which possibly may have worked as a better vehicle for his vision. However, it that had happened it’s unlikely to have reached such a wider audience, of which this is definitely deserving. This isn’t Haneke’s greatest film, but it’s certainly his most mature.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not the masterpiece it’s been made out to be, but this is a serious film dealing with serious issues and will certainly have you thinking back to it many days after you have left the cinema. Rating: 7/10.

Paranormal Activity

Paranormal Activity seems to have a lot going for it. Spielberg endorsed, creepy trailer, solid US Box Office. There’s one major problem though. Despite it having been advertised as a film that will have you sleeping with the lights on for weeks….it just isn’t scary enough. What we have here is a classic example of hype exceeding expectations. Director and screenwriter Oren Peli’s lengthy journey to get Paranormal Activity made and eventually released has been well documented elsewhere and all credit to him for getting his vision out there. The storyline concerns a couple who set up a camera in their bedroom to record the unusual and unexplained activities that have previously occurred in their house. Before long we’re being witness to the old haunted house staples of creaking steps, slamming doors and loud noises. This is all mildly effective, but really isn’t nothing new. Peli then makes the error of showing his hand too soon with some scenes that reveal far too much, when the idea of suggestion is all the more terrifying in films of this nature. This all leads up to an ending which is far too OTT when the focus should have remained on the earlier more efficient lower key scares. Overall, it seems to me this is a case of quality marketing over a less than quality film. However, I don’t want to be too harsh on a first time effort. If you’re a horror veteran than you’ll probably not even feel your pulse increase when watching this. If you’re of a more sensitive disposition though, there’s just enough here for you to grip the arm of the person next to you on a number of occasions.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This is definitely a case of “print the legend”. However, there’s a few jumps to be had and kudos to Peli for getting his film into the mainstream. Rating: 5/10.

A Serious Man

When it comes to the Coen brothers, there’s a school of thought that they do one film for “them” (the studios) and one film for themselves. Whereas the studio films have mainly been a success, their more personal films have left some people feeling cold. A Serious Man feels like the Coen's most personal film and though reviews have been mainly positive, I found this to be a little too self-indulgent. The theme of A Serious Man is one of uncertainty as Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) finds his reasonably comfortable life begin to unravel around him in what most critics would refer to as “classic Coen black comedy style”. Having said that, there really aren’t that many laughs to be had. Though we sympathise with Gopnik, the problem with the film, much like Burn After Reading, is that none of the characters are likable and the humour is more belittling than actually black. Plus, though obviously filmed as such, the confusion of Gopniks life is mirrored in the screenplay and editing of the film. The overall message of the film is open to interpretation, but the way it’s told, with many unanswered loose ends, may leave you unmoved as opposed to taking time to read between the lines. Of course being the Coen’s it’s can’t be all bad. The actual look of the film is lesson to film makers everywhere. The cinematography, framing and lighting is as solid as it comes. It’s a shame the rest of the film doesn’t reach similar heights.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The Coen brothers tick a lot of their usual boxes in this low key effort. The box marked “entertaining” remains blank though. Rating: 5/10.

New Moon

Is there any point reviewing a film such as New Moon? There is already a mass (mainly teenage and female) audience foaming at the mouth for the next instalment of Bella, Edward etc, and even if the film was a dud they would still shriek it’s brilliance to the rafters. So, is it any good? Not really, but for what its target audience is, you could say it’s a smart approach. What the audience demand, they get. Teenage sulks, rippling six packs, a lot of pouting; its all here and more. As for the acting, Kristen Stewart gives a much improved performance, but Robert Pattinson is totally charisma free. There are also a few laughs to be had (a dodgy airplane joke being the best one), though quite a few of them unintentional. However, this all kind of adds to its charm. I watched it in a full cinema on opening night and the audience reaction was almost one of Rocky Horror Picture Show-esque proportions. So, while it’s hardly cinematic brilliance, you should still be guaranteed an entertaining night out.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Is teenage pouting and men running around with their shirts off really a basis for a film? Adjust rating either way depending on your view of this statement. Rating: 5/10

A Christmas Carol

Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is such a classic story that it’s almost impossible for a film maker to make a baubles of it and Robert Zemeckis’ animated film is a delight to watch, but with a surprisingly hard edge. Next time you fall asleep when someone’s telling you about how “dark” the next Harry Potter instalment will (inevitably not) be, point them in the direction of this to see how it should be done. Zemeckis really tightens the tension drum at times on this one, giving the impression you’ve walked into a hybrid Burton / Del Toro animation by accident. The scene alone where the ghost of Jacob Marley first visits Scrooge is classic haunted house delivery and will have the youngsters watching through their fingers. In fact, it’s surprising that this has escaped with a PG certificate, as many scenes will truly terrify youngsters. As for the animation, its scores heavily in most places and the 3D actually seems to add something for once, including some fantastic flying camera sequences over Victorian London. However, Jim Carrey as Scrooge doesn’t really set the screen alight, as his performance consists of mumbling and not much else. I’m sure Disney thought putting Carrey’s name up in lights would entice people into the cinema, but they could have saved quite a few pennies by recruiting a less famous voice cast, which I’m sure Scrooge himself would have agreed made financial sense. Humbug indeed.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A decent take on a classic tale, but even though it’s an uplifting story, many moments will have kids cowering in fright. Rating: 7/10.

Harry Brown

Daniel Barber’s Harry Brown begins with an act of shocking violence followed by a bone crunching car accident, all captured by nausea inducing shaky camera work. It is an assault on the senses that leaves you gasping for breath. However, the film then slows down to walking pace and lasts that way until the end with the occasional scene to set the pulse racing. This isn’t to say the film doesn’t grip though. The storyline concerns Michael Caine as the eponymous title character and his pursuit of a teenage gang who kill an elderly friend of his. The main point of discussion of the film has been it’s portrayal of vigilantism. Barber doesn’t point the audience in either direction as to what’s acceptable and what isn’t, but he is careful to make the teenage gang repulsive individuals which somewhat dilutes any moral concerns you may have as Caine goes to work. Caine himself is superb and his performance is another major triumph is his everlasting Indian Summer. Less successful are some of the other actors whose caricatures give the impression of watching an X-rated version of The Bill at some points. On this point, Emily Mortimer is horribly miscast as the plod on the case, coming across so wet it’s hard to believe she could open the police station door let alone take on the gangs of the means streets of London. Talking of that, Barber’s film is well shot and superbly lighted. It may seem over the top at times, but it gives a fairly accurate (if depressing) description of life in a less than salubrious estate of modern England. Not one for the tourist board then.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not really a film to “enjoy” as such, but it will leave you with much to ponder, and Caine is fantastic. Rating: 6/10.

2012

In interviews Roland Emmerich comes across as a decent chap with a self depreciating sense of humour. He seems pretty aware that the majority of his output, though enjoyable in parts, is nonsense. So lets make one thing clear about 2012. It is total nonsense. So far, no surprise there then. What’s frustrating though is that Emmerich has no interest in addressing the same criticisms that permeate his previous efforts. 2012 is full of wooden acting, terrible dialogue and the worst kind of emotional cheese. That’s a pretty bad combination for a film that’s 158 minutes in length. If only Emmerich would tackle those problems instead of letting the film succeed or fail on the strength of the special effects and marketing alone. As for the effects, they are spectacular at times, but are oddly un-thrilling. It’s the end of the world, but you frankly don’t care. This just proves the major problem with CGI in modern movies. When there isn’t a single ounce of threat or apprehension in 158 minutes of a film you’re watching about death and destruction then there is a major problem somewhere. Of course, if you are going to show the end of the world in such a fashion, CGI is the only way it can be told. However, if all your movies got is a load of CGI and nothing else, then you’re never going to hold an audiences attention for one hour, let alone almost three. Of course, it’s not all bad. The ending is mildly thrilling for a while, and Chiwetel Ejiofor never gives a bad performance. Then again, he got paid for starring in this. You have to pay to see it. Something not quite right there.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A film of eye-catching but unemotional special effects, littered with attritions dialogue. You’ll be entertained in parts, but this can easily be described as a disaster movie in both senses of the phrase. Rating: 4/10.

The Men Who Stare At Goats

Grant Heslov’s The Men Who Stare at Goats is based on Jon Ronson’s book, in which the author investigates reports of the US military using soldiers who have psychic powers. I saw a documentary a number of years ago on the same subject and that struggled to command the attention for an hour, so it’s no surprise that a feature length film also has difficulty in keeping us entertained. This fact is well highlighted by an ending which feels totally superfluous to the psychic “super soldiers” storyline, and though it doesn’t feel tacked on, it definitely gives the impression the writers were running out of ideas. Leading up to this we mainly focus on Ewan McGregor and George Clooney as journalist and psychic “super soldier”, respectively. Both actors put in decent performances and seem to be enjoying themselves. They can’t do much with the problematic screenplay though which is neither funny enough nor satirical enough to fit into either genre. The message of the film is confused as well. Are we mocking the “super soldiers” for their supposed abilities? Or are they misunderstood outsiders who can “burst” clouds just by looking at them? Nothing is really clear, and though the over riding aura of the film is meant to be one of confusion, as there is no real resolution as we go along, you’ll be scratching your head in bemusement rather than amusement.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
It’s hard to really slate this, but it really isn’t one thing or the other and it runs out of steam long before the ridiculous ending. Rating: 4/10.

Couples Retreat

Just the trailer for Couples Retreat will have many people running for cover. The last time Vince Vaughan and Jon Favreau were in a film together was the below average Four Christmases, and the mirth free trailer for Couples Retreat won’t have any non believers converting and rushing for tickets. The film itself centres around four couples who fly to a tropical island resort for a holiday, which instead turns out to be a couples therapy holiday as opposed to Jet Ski’s and cocktails. Do hilarious consequences ensue? Not really, but with Vaughan and Favreau as co-writers there are a few laughs smattered around the place. The biggest problem is that none of the characters, or their relationships, is believable in the slightest. Therefore we need gags to plug these emotional holes, and these gags are few and far between. One other problem is that the producers must have spent quite a bit on securing a relatively decent Hollywood cast as they appear to have no money left for location shots or decent studio sets. Some of the wonky sets make Roger Moore’s The Saint look like cutting edge CGI. Throw in the hackneyed finale and you're left with a film that doesn’t look funny on paper and isn’t much better on celluloid.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
To be fair this could have been a lot worse, but this still feels like a 20 minute episode of a sitcom stretched to two, mostly unfunny, hours. Rating: 3/10.

9

First of all, the little sack dolls of Shane Acker’s 9 were designed well before Little Big Planet’s Sackboy. In fact they first appeared in 2005, in the directors short film of the same name from which 9 has been expanded. The story begins with doll number 9 waking up to discover a world bereft of humans, but full of nasty looking machines. He then embarks on an adventure that involves meeting various other numbered sack dolls and their battle to avoid being attacked by the robotic beasts. A post apocalyptical world in which computers have destroyed mankind is hardly an original background, but Acker’s film makes up for this with some superb animation, including an outstanding sequence where a number of the dolls are attacked by a pterodactyl like creature. Speaking of this scene it’s no surprise this film has picked up a 12A certificate in the UK as there are a number of scenes that would give children nightmares for weeks (hardly surprisingly when you consider that Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov are the producers). In addition, despite being made of burlap, Acker does succeed in making us engage emotionally with the protagonists. This is crucial, especially towards the end of the film where the storyline becomes seriously stretched and somewhat confusing. Overall, this is much like one of its sack dolls. Good to look at, but a little frayed around the edges.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not much originality, but some stunning animated scenes, coupled with a bit of heart, make for a breezy and enjoyable 80 minutes. Rating: 7/10.

Saw VI

This’ll be a quick and simple review. If you’re not a fan of the series then you certainly wouldn’t have made it through to this, the sixth instalment. If you are a fan of the series, then you are not going to want any spoilers. The first Saw still stands alone as an ingenious thriller with a bit of gore, which, in hindsight, due to the carnage of the rest of the franchise, seems almost tame now. Saw II was passable for a sequel with a decent twist at the end. Saw VI, continues on in very much the same vain as the previous three films. More traps (you'll need a strong stomach for the opening scene), more outrageous plot lines (holes!) and a smart twist at the end. It really does feel like we’re seen it all before now though, and the twist for Saw VI, though you don’t see it coming, is the weakest of the series so far. One of the taglines for the film was “The game comes full circle”. With Saw’s VII and VIII having already been given the green light, you might suggest the producers have put said circle in their beloved reverse Venus Fly/Head trap.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
It’s been trying its best, but “the game” really does seem to be up now. Rating: 4/10

An Education

Lone Schefrig’s An Education won the best cinematography award at Sundance and you can see why. The film is gorgeously shot, helped by a keen eye for 1960’s period detail. It also contains strong performances from all involved. Based on a memoir by British journalist Lynn Barber, and co-written by Nick Hornby, the story is billed as a coming of age tale concerning 16 year old school girl Jenny (Carey Mulligan) and her relationship with David (Peter Sarsgaard), an older man. The film begins with the uniformed Jenny waiting in the rain for a bus outside her school. David pulls up in his car and sweet talks her into giving her a lift home. Who is this David? Is it her brother? A friend? Her father, even? Nope, he’s an older man picking up a schoolgirl in a car. From this uneasy beginning things don’t improve, with the fact that the characters in the story seem to think this is totally normal behaviour and there are only a few quips made about Jenny’s “older man”. Whether this may have been socially acceptable in the 1960’s is a moot point, as for the modern viewer this type of behaviour raises an eyebrow and leaves you squirming in your seat somewhat. David is eventually shown to be the slime ball that he is, but the tone of the film never feels right. One scene in particular, where Jenny partially undresses for David, is very uncomfortable indeed. As mentioned above, the acting across the board is excellent, with Carey Mulligan giving a great turn as the ever more confused Jenny. However, this isn’t enough for you to dismiss the white elephant on the screen that never seems to be fully addressed.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Superbly acted, but the whole thing feels far too sordid to really be an enjoyable watch. Rating: 4/10.

Fantastic Mr Fox

For his latest, Fantastic Mr Fox, Wes Anderson turns in a stop motion tale loosely based on the Roald Dahl novel. Anderson's’ films certainly divide opinion, and this will be no different. The first problem arises from the fact that whilst Dahl’s novels could be enjoyed by young and old minds alike, Anderson’s film, despite appearances, will certainly not appeal to children. They may enjoy a few cute characters, but the humour is too dry and the film too talky for nippers to sit through for 90 minutes. So, can the adults indulge? If you like Anderson's’ previous work you’ll certainly enjoy the dialogue and quirkiness. In addition, despite some excellent recent CGI animations, the stop motion technique feels fresh and deserves praise. On the downside, the majority of characters are voiced by major Hollywood players, including many of Anderson’s usual stable. This is too distracting for a movie of this kind (though a cameo by Jarvis Cocker does provide the movies best gag). In addition, despite a few nifty scenes, the film becomes too dialogue heavy at times and the pace starts to drag. Overall, like a lot of Anderson's work, there are a number of great moments, but they are too few and far between to enthral the majority.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This will be too odd for some tastes, but it does have its charms. Add an extra mark to the rating if you’re an Anderson fan. Rating: 5/10.

Up

At first glance this looks like a hard sell. The story of a 78 year old man who attaches thousands of balloons to his house and flies it to South America. Now replace the word “the” from the previous sentence with the word “Pixar’s” and things suddenly seem more promising. In fact, Pixar’s golden touch on nearly everything they do could even help out some of Alan Partridge’s crazy pitches. Pixar’s Monkey Tennis, anyone? Having said that, at times Up is so out there you wouldn’t be surprised to actually see some monkeys playing said game. Up was the first animated film to be chosen to open Cannes and it delivers in every aspect. Pixar’s MO has always been to match storyline with sightline, and the visual treats on display here are complimented by a touching and poignant screenplay. You really invest with the characters whether it’s a cantankerous elderly gent, an 8 year old boy, a talking dog or a giant flightless bird. Along with the tugging of the heart strings, this is also hilariously funny. One liners and visual gags come think and fast (the mannerisms of the giant bird (christened Kevin) alone could carry the film in itself). Pixar has also made the wise decision of not plucking the voice cast from the Hollywood A-list. This certainly helps you relate to the protagonists more. It all leads to the usual breathless Pixar finale, this time an edge of the seat battle thousands of feet up in the sky. Pixar’s greatest film? That’s an argument for another time. One thing you can be sure of though, this is greatness.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Pixar triumph again with this perfect balance of drama and humour for adults and kids alike. Rating: 9/10.

The Invention Of Lying

After a reasonable attempt at being a leading man in Ghost Town, Ricky Gervais returns in a further dramedy, this one concerning the tale of Mark Bellison (Gervais), a man who lives in a world where people only tell the truth, only for Bellison to invent lying. This sounds a lot better than it is. The start of the film is very slow, with Bellison being abused via “truthful” comments regarding his looks, job, etc. This type of humour is Gervais’s calling card and in his other shows it’s been successful. Here, however, it falls very flat indeed and the film never really recovers. After Bellison “invents” lying the film gets very messy and confused, with the focus more on drama and a God like analogy. What the message of the film is is anyone’s guess. Throw in some badly misplaced cameos by Gervais’s friends, and some of the worst product placement seen since Casino Royale, you have a film which can be described using any number of negative adjectives, and which ever one you use to describe this film, you certainly wouldn’t be lying.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Gervais’s touch deserts him here in quite a spectacular way. Roll on Cemetery Junction. Rating: 2/10.

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs arrives with very little fanfare and what advertising there is seems aimed at the younger audience. This is a shame as this is a very funny animated film which both adults and children alike will enjoy. Based on the book of the same name Cloudy concerns would be inventor Flint and his latest project, which, through an accident, ends up raining various food stuffs from the sky. As the chow thunders down we are treated to some excellent animation and visual gags. The first half of this film is very funny with some genuine laugh out loud moments. Though the humour is quite dry at times and some jokes will no doubt go over the little ones heads. However, they are compensated for in the films final act which reverts to classic chase / race against the clock animation standard. With a great vocal cast and some Pixar worthy scenes, and despite running out of steam towards the end, this is a bright, breezy and enjoyable film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A film of two half’s. The first for adults, the second for kids. Combined together they make a tasty treat. Rating: 7/10.

Zombieland

Zombieland director Ruben Fleischer is on record as saying that he was inspired to make this film by Shaun of the Dead. While his attempt falls well short of Edgar Wright’s and Simon Pegg’s calling card, it is still entertaining Friday night fare. Clocking in at only 80 minutes, Fleischer makes the right call in getting the action underway from the first minute, which includes an explanatory voice over from Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) and a terrific zombiefied credits sequence. Shortly, Columbus meets Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) and then eventually Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). As with all zombie movies, the protagonists keep on the move the majority of the time until the Adventure Theme Park conclusion. During this time, Fleischer does his best to try to get us to emphasise with the characters, but it doesn’t really work (especially with Wichita and Little Rock). In addition, though this is bracketed in the horror comedy genre, real scares and gore are at a premium. Indeed, the entire middle third of the film is pretty much zombie free. This is counter balanced though by a hugely witty script, apparently touched up by screen writing veteran William Goldman. The gags come thick and fast, though the films celebrated joke involving Bill Murray seemed pretty telegraphed to me. Acting honours go to Harrelson who chews up the scenery as the Twinkie hunting, shotgun and banjo packing Tallahassee. Another nice touch is having Columbus’s rules for surviving Zombieland flash up on screen. So, horror? Not really. Comedy? Very much so. Entertaining? Definitely.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Despite first impressions this isn’t actually all that original, but it does have some smart moments, a great performance from Harrelson and, crucially, it’s very funny indeed. Rating: 7/10.

Dorian Gray

If you’ve yet to read Oscar Wilde’s novel here’s a quick surmise. Dorian Gray is an impressionable young man who, on meeting Lord Henry Wotton, undertakes a more and more hedonistic lifestyle, but at the expense of selling his soul so that he won’t physically age. However, the aging process is gradually shown on a picture of Gray painted by his friend Basil. Oliver Parker’s film Dorian Gray is fairly faithful to the source material, until it goes off on its own tangent towards the end. In the film Gray is played by Ben Barnes and Wotton by Colin Firth. Barnes, though he never totally convinces, has a decent crack at showing Gray’s slow descent into madness. Firth rarely gives a bad performance and doesn’t here either, though he does seem uncomfortable at times spouting some of Wilde’s pretentious dialogue. Where the film is let down is by Parker not moving the storyline along quickly enough and a hugely obtrusive score. I can only assume the “picture” of the title has been dropped as the actual picture in the film is hidden away for long periods and only raises its head with some ugly CGI later on. This is an error as the picture is meant to shown how Gray is aging and how his soul is decaying. Without this, watching Barnes cavorting around grows dull very quickly indeed. As for the score, it seriously needs to be toned down. Even simple actions like opening a door are met with a wailing and crashing crescendo of portentous intent. This is also the same MO used for a few admittedly decent jumps, but its overuse grates and is distracting. Overall this is neither hit nor miss, but a few nude scenes and a fair helping of gore make this a more adult film then you might expect.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A little bit messy and drawn out, but there are a few neat little scares and the base material is still an intriguing story. Rating: 5/10.

The Soloist

The Soloist originally looked like being an Oscar baiting production. Joe Wright, hot from Atonement, directing two solid starts in a tale regarding mental illness. However, something’s gone wrong somewhere. All the above elements are correct and reporting for duty, but nothing seems to connect up and we’re left with a film with a sprawling narrative that goes nowhere slowly. Oh, so slowly. The two stars in question are Robert Downey Jr and Jamie Foxx, as respectively, Steve Lopez, an LA journalist, who befriends homeless musician, Nathaniel Ayers. The film is based on the real life meeting between the two and Lopez's subsequent attempt to help Ayers off the street and into rehab. Ayers suffers from schizophrenia and the most successful scenes in the film are the short flashbacks which show him gradually succumbing to the illness. However, Foxx’s constant muttering and paranoia in the main sections of the film just irritate when they are supposed to illicit sympathy. Obviously this is a difficult subject to analysis at the best of times, but Wright never seems to get the tone right. In addition, Wright also stretches the running time with many unnecessary fancy shots, a few of which seem have been lifted straight from LA überlenser Michael Mann. Wright fares better with his portrayal of the Lamp Community centre in LA and the plight of the LA homeless. It’s no surprise to read that many of the “actors” in the film are homeless in reality. Which does pose the question why this film was made in the first place? The story of Ayers is an intriguing one, but not for a 2 hour long film. I’d suggest a real life documentary about Lamp and the homeless people portrayed in the film would have been money better spent and more worthy of our attention.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Hard to explain what happened here. The film just never gets going and tonally it’s all over the place. As opposed to being a sympathetic portrayal of mental illness, it ends up feeling preachy and even then you’re not too sure what about. Rating: 4/10.

Julie & Julia

Nora Ephron’s latest is an amalgamation of two books, My Life in France, a memoir by the cook Julia Child, and Julie and Julia: 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen, by Julie Powell. Powell’s book is based on her blog, where she cooked the aforementioned number of recipes (by Child) in a year. The film itself is a two handed as we switch backwards and forwards between Child in 1940’s/50’s Paris and Powell in New York City in 2002. This device works well as, Meryl Streep as Julia Child, and Amy Adams as Julie Powell, both hold the screen when it is their vignette, but, for different reasons, each start to grate after more then 15 minutes. Streep’s performance is somewhat over the top, but apparently a pretty accurate portrayal of Child. As expected she dominates the film. Her hilarious mannerisms and one-liners give us many a laugh and her chemistry with Stanley Tucci is excellent. However, it is a relief when we swap back to New York as Child’s eccentricity gets a bit too much too quickly. Adams is perfectly fine as Powell, but her role quite simply doesn’t have enough emotional depth to engage us. She has a rubbish job (hey, who doesn’t?), wants a better flat (hey, who doesn’t?) and cooks (hey, who…well, you get the point). In reality the experiment caused major problems in her life, but in the film this is shown as a (totally unbelievable) argument with her husband. In addition, Paul Child’s grilling at the hands of a McCarthy interview board was probably harder to get over than a cuddle in bed. However, let’s not be too hard here. This isn’t a hard hitting drama, but pure light entertainment with some fun performances. In addition, there is some excellent attention to detail ranging from the eye catching Parisian sets to some smart camera tricks to make Streep look like the lanky 6’2’’ Child.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
As expected, very fluffy, but also very funny. Streep is hilarious at times, and yes, you will be hungry by the end of the film. Rating: 7/10.

Broken Embraces

Pedro Almodóvar is reunited with Penelope Cruz for Broken Embraces, his latest statement on people’s lives, loves and secrets. Mainly told in flashback (though 1994 onwards couldn’t look more 2009) we follow the history of blind writer Harry Caine and his liaison with Cruz. As always with Almodóvar things are not what they seem, but he spends too long with the set up and by the time of the films ending you would have worked out any twists long ago. The main problem is that while there are some good Hitchcockian touches here (and some De Palma), the storyline is too weak the last the over indulgent running time. There are also a few ambiguous scenes which will provide conversation at the end, but are also frustrating. Rumours of a three hour cut of the film mean that if that version ever sees the light of day we may get a clearer picture of what Almodóvar was trying to show us. In the meanwhile, whilst this film contains decent acting across the board, this can’t stop it from being a curious failure

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A nice concept, but an uneven approach and a slow finish means this drags when it should intrigue. Rating: 5/10.

Surrogates

Jonathon Mostow’s latest, Surrogates, is a future set whodunit where humans live their lives by interacting through surrogate robots. Hardly an original idea, and the list of references and influences on the screenplay, and the look of the film, ranges from A.I. to The Matrix, via Minority Report, with a mix of cyberpunk authors Neal Stephenson and William Gibson thrown in for good measure. However, despite the feeling of deja-vu, this is still an entertaining film, with some decent effects and a couple of nice little twists. It’s been a while since Mostow gave us a half decent film and while he doesn’t pull up many trees here, he still provides a steady enough hand to guide us through the short running time. In fact, the short running time does mean that the film nips along at a fair pace and doesn’t lag at any point. This is actually a good thing for another reason as you don’t have time to think about the outrageous plot holes that litter the screenplay. These are actually the main detraction from the film (well, that and Bruce Willis’ outrageous rug). Nonetheless, if you like a bit of detective work with your sci-fi landscape, then you’ll get some enjoyment from this.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Unoriginal and instantly forgettable, but a short running time and a quick tempo provides balance to an enjoyable, if nonthreatening, slice of future hokum. Rating: 6/10.

Gamer

“It’s the worst film I’ve even seen!”. How often have you heard that statement or said it yourself? More than once I expect. However, for every utterance of said statement there is a whole lot worse you have yet to discover on straight to DVD films. Gamer should have been one of these straight to DVD films. Somehow (probably due to star Gerard Butler’s increasing popularity) it has got a mainstream cinema release. Instead of watching this film, I suggest you wait outside the screen and listen to peoples comments as they leave. It surely will only be a few seconds before you hear someone pronounce the above. It really is that bad. The storyline is a blatant rip off of the Running Man, mixed with a bit of Death Race and The Sims computer game. The twist here being that Kable (Butler) is controlled by a teenager who “plays” him in real life multi-player shoot em ups. Any plot there is soon disappears quicker than one of the hundreds of kinetic jump cuts, and has more holes than one of the many bullet ridden bodies that litter the streets of the “game” world that Kable plays in. The acting is atrocious from everyone, even the usually reliable Butler, who looks as confused as his character as to how on earth he’s ended up in this cinematic car crash. Everything about this film is appalling. It’s depressing to think something like this gets a green light, when there’s thousands of aspiring film makers out there struggling for finance. Writer/Directors Nevedline and Taylor were behind the silly but entertaining Crank, but that films follow up was a huge disappointment. This makes Crank: High Voltage look like Die Hard. Some people have also said that Nevedline and Taylor's films are misogynist. Well, I’m not saying anything either way, but this film is crammed with T & A totally superfluous to the storyline. One character at one point wears a t-shirt with a pair of breasts on it. I’d suggest a pair of testicles on the t-shirt would have given a more apt description to this cinematic nightmare.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing about this. Just an utter mess from start to finish. Rating: 0/10.

Away We Go

After all the hype and publicity of Revolutionary Road, Sam Mendes returns to the big screen sneaking Away We Go in under the radar. In the film we follow Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph), an unmarried couple who are shortly expecting the birth of their first child. Circumstances dictate they go on a road trip to find a new city in which to move too. In each city they meet up with friends or family and….errr….that’s pretty much it. This actually feels more like a stage play (each city is even introduced as it’s own “act” with the help of a title card), something which has been said before about Mendes’ films (though hardly surprising considering his background). There is some good acting going on in this “play” though, with a number of idiosyncratic characters introduced in each city, which provide a few laughs and have Burt and Verona scuttling off to the next city as soon as possible. However, this does raise a major problem with the film. Some of the individuals that Burt and Verona meet are pretty unlikeable, but Mendes’ message seems to be that Burt and Verona are superior to them. Why’s that then? Because they don’t live or raise their children the way Burt and Verona plan too? This smugness from the main two characters does detract from the film, which is a shame as, despite the bland structuring, there are some genuine moments of mirth and drama.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Very funny in parts, but it’s coating of self-righteousness will be a turn off for many. Rating: 6/10.

Adventureland

Writer / Director Greg Mottola’s Adventureland recalls memories of grubby summer jobs taken during those innocent(?) teenage years. The job in this instance is helping out at a dodgy theme park in Pittsburgh. It’s 1987 and James (Jesse Eisenberg) is said teenager taking said job, where he falls for Em (Kristen Stewart). As the weeks pass he discovers more about life then any University / College course could teach him. Let’s be honest, this is hardly original territory. Teenage coming of age films are everywhere, but as this is Mottola’s follow up to Superbad (which, granted he didn’t write the screenplay for) you may be pleasantly surprised by the warmth and subtlety shown. Some may be put off by the number of quirky characters shoe-horned into the park, but there’s no denying there’s a few people there we can all relate to meeting at some time in our lives. Eisenberg plays the bumbling but sharp James just the right side of smug, though it’s Bill Hader who steals the show in a number of extended hilarious cameo’s as the theme parks supervisor. There are some quibbles though. Stewart’s Em is so bland it’s hard to believe that she has so many potential suitors, and the lack of attention to detail at times means the film looks like it could be set anytime between 1967 and 1997. The hardcore Superbad crowd may find this all a bit tame and slow, but for the rest of us this is an enjoyable little film, and though it may feel overwrought at times, there’s enough here to provide some smiles as you recall those fumbling teenage days.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A bit twee at times, but a knowing and witty script mean that you’ll pay for a ticket for Adventureland and not leave disappointed. Rating: 6/10.

The Hurt Locker

It’s been six long years (this finished lensing in 2008) since Kathryn Bigelow last stepped behind the camera for a feature length production. Back in 2002 it was the poorly received K-19. Probably the less said about that the better. However, someone with a track record as strong as Bigelow’s doesn’t lose the midas touch overnight (or six years in this instance). Her latest film, The Hurt Locker, follows an army bomb disposal unit as it undertakes it’s heart pounding role though the chaotic streets of Iraq. We focus mainly on Sgt William James (Jeremy Renner), a bomb disposal expert who’s reckless / fearless approach brings scorn from his squad, but praise from his superiors. Unsurprisingly, Bigelow handles the set pieces with aplomb, though a scene involving clumsy Brits is somewhat ham-fisted. The acting is solid, with Renner excelling as the cowboy James. The only problem is we wait six years for a Bigelow film, and it turns out to be an Iraqi war film of which there’s been a plethora during the last few years. Things on screen actually look and feel somewhat stale, as we’ve seen this all before recently, and Bigelow makes her own political feelings clear. However, a high proportion of war films improve with age and James Cameron (Bigelow’s ex-squeeze) said it could be a Platoon for the Iraq War. I doubt it will ever be praised that highly in the future, but it will be remembered for what it is, that being a highly accomplished drama. Let’s just hope we don’t have to wait another six years for Bigelow’s next outing.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not quite the nerve shredder it could have been, but this is a solid return to form for Bigelow. Broccoli and Wilson should give her the nod for the next Bond assignment. Rating: 7/10.

District 9

In District 9 director and co-screen writer Neill Blomkamp adapts his earlier short film, Alive in Joburg, into a barmy feature length movie concerning an Alien race forced to live in slum-like conditions in Johannesburg. In the movie we follow Wikus Van De Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley), the leader of a human task force who’s job it is to move over a million of the aliens (known as “prawns” in the film) out of their slum (District 9) into new, and supposedly better, living conditions. The film is shot as part faux documentary and part movie. At times this doesn’t work all that well, especially in some of the earlier scenes with Copley’s weak improvising a stark contrast when compared to his assured “movie” performance later on (in terms of acting he has to carry virtually the whole film on his shoulders). The good news is that in terms of the negative stuff, that’s about it. Some people may find the obvious apartheid allegory a touch trite, but this film can be enjoyed on many levels and is all the better for it. It scores heavily in many areas, but the main highlights are a clever screenplay and some truly stunning special effects. I won’t go into what happens, but even as a genre this is difficult to pigeon hole. Conspiracy thriller? Horror? Allegorical Drama? Shoot em-up? Comedy? All of the above and more are thrown in. All this, and the greatest gag about shooting a pig to ever grace the screen. What more do you want?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A bonkers, but smart and entertaining story that can be enjoyed by cinephiles and blockbuster lovers alike. Michael Bay can only dream of producing something like this. Rating: 8/10.

(500) Days of Summer

One of the tag lines for (500) Days of Summer is “Boy meets girl. Boy falls in love. Girl doesn't”. In terms of a Hollywood pitch that’s hardly a classic, and you’d wonder what else happens over the 90 minute running time to develop such a statement. Well, in 500 Days you get comedy, romance and drama, all done to a competent and entertaining level. In the film Joseph Gordon-Levitt start as Tom Hansen, a bright but unfulfilled employee of a greetings card company. When new girl in town Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) joins the same firm they eventually begin a relationship (500 days worth. Duh). We then follow their “romance” throughout the course of the film, time jumping from one random day to another. This is a well written little film and perfectly encapsulates the highs and lows of young love. Though, in this case, the love is only going in one direction. On this note, director Marc Webb does well not to demonise Summer as some sort of feelings free ice maiden. As the love less Summer, the acquired taste that is Deschanel offers us a necessarily restrained performance, but it’s Gordon-Levitt who excels as the hang dog Tom. The time jumping device works well and the wry and amusing screenplay provokes moments of sadness, tenderness and hilarity. Overall, this is an original look at the recently over subscribed relationship genre and a film that both sexes can enjoy and relate too.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Great stuff here. A bittersweet approach to a somewhat tired format mixes effortlessly with a perfect balance between sighs, ahs and laughs. Rating: 8/10.

Funny People

After a promising start Judd Apatow has quickly fallen into love him or hate him territory. The main criticisms Apatow receives are that his films are over indulgent and his reliance on the same clique of actors. Well, this film is almost 2 and a half hours long and stars Leslie Mann, Seth Rogan and Jonah Hill. Ahem. Funny People revolves around a period of time that successful comedian George Simmons (played by Adam Sandler) contracts a rare form of leukaemia, which he then appears to recover from due to medication. During his illness Simmond's hires Ira (played smartly by Seth Rogen) to write new stand up material for him as well as being his general dogsbody. The first problem with the film is that, with the exception of Ira, the majority of characters elicit very little sympathy. Simmond’s comes across as such a selfish and ungrateful individual that you don’t really care if he recovers from his illness or not. This may be on purpose by Apatow, but if it was, Simmond’s about turn of character in the films final scene will only have you thinking “Yeah, right”. In addition, there’s no doubt that some people would endure the abuse that Ira gets from Simmond’s in order to get to the top, but from the way Rogan’s character is written, it seems somewhat unrealistic. The second problem is that though this is very funny in parts, Apatow reverts to an overload of the same tire jokes. Seth Rogan not getting laid? More knob jokes? Haven’t we been here before? This is a shame, and a decent editor would have cut some of this dross out and concentrated more on the quality. Talking of quality, Eric Bana almost saves everything towards the end with a decent little role as the husband of Simmond's previous girlfriend. Overall though, this film is neither one thing nor the other and it’s frustrating as you think with a little more guidance from outside sources Apatow could have given us something very good indeed. Especially if that would mean exorcising the scene where Leslie Mann does a jokey Australian accent. Surely the outright winner for the most embarrassingly cringe worthy scene of the year

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A dramedy that’s neither comic enough nor dramatic enough to sustain the attention over the unnecessarily long running time. A lot more quality control needed for next time. Rating: 4/10.

The Final Destination

Now here’s a film that doesn’t need much introduction. The premise this time being that the survivors of an accident at a race track are picked off one by one by death in a serious of implausible events. The film suffers badly from the off. David R Ellis returns to the directors chair after helming the not too bad second part of the series, which included the industry respected automobile pile up at the start of that movie. So, filming a second car crash opening should be a shoo-in huh? Sadly not. The dreaded CGI take over is in full force and the deaths are all telegraphed. The film never recovers. The teenage cast are interchangeable (apart from one who’s acting is so wooden it would have been a great in joke to have him die via wood chipper) and the deaths are completely lacking in shock. Even one of the celebrated red herring scenes has already had the tension taken out of it by the trailer. By the time of the clumsy and oh so obvious ending it’s clear that this series has easily run out of puff. Oh yeah, and don't even get me started on the supposed 3-D.....

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The first three movies all stood up fairly well and at worst were guilty pleasures. This film kills the franchise in one foul swoop, and you don’t need to be decapitated by a race car tyre to see the irony in that. Rating: 3/10.

The Time Traveler's Wife

A film based on a best selling novel can sometimes be a tricky sell. You already have a built in audience, but if the screenplay wavers from the book just for a moment you immediately start to hear the shifting in the seats and the grinding of teeth. Having not read the book I cannot judge how a fan of it will react to the film. However, it does clearly seem to fall within the boundaries of “the unfilmable novel” as the film itself is somewhat confusing and cack-handed in it’s execution. However, this isn’t too say this is a bad film per say. Eric Bana stars as Henry, a man born with a gene that causes him to travel through time involuntarily. The film concerns Henry’s time shifting around his relationship with Clare (played by Rachel McAdams). In terms of genre this is more drama than romance (which the cheesy poster implies) as Henry and Clare struggle to cope with Henry’s ill timed disappearances. Trying to grasp the plot and timescale can be bewildering at times so it’s best to just to try and follow the flow and not worry too much about it (for example, at one point Henry says he cannot change the past/future, but later on he buys a lottery ticket for which he already knows the winning numbers). In addition the scenes where an adult Henry meets the child Clare cannot help but feel a little “funny”. In the main though, helped by Bana and McAdams doing decent work, this is honest and mildly diverting attempt at tricky source material.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Slightly mis-marketed and not as cheesy as it sounds, but even the most concrete heart will be cracking at it’s dénouement. Certainly not a classic, but a decent stab at yet another “unfilmable novel”. Rating: 6/10.

Mesrine: Public Enemy No.1

Following on from the punchy Mesrine: Killer Instinct, Jean-Francois Richet presents part two of the Jacques Mesrine story, Mesrine: Public Enemy No.1. We start a few years after the conclusion of part one, with Mesrine under arrest and now beginning to sport quite a hefty belly (Cassel piled on the pounds in reality to show the effects of Mesrine’s aging and lifestyle). From here the film takes us on a circular route of arrest and escape a number of times. On the minus side this feels somewhat repetitive, but, as with the first film, the prison escape scenes are mini nail-biters. Another problem with the film is the impossible job of trying to crowbar in as much detail as possible about Mesrine's later life and though we are told of the dates of certain events, things fly by and Mesrine's occasional partners in crime are lost in a blur (Mathieu Amalric is particularly wasted). On the plus side Cassel is mesmerising again and this film has a wry sense of humour running through it that was missing from the first. Overall, whether this is an accurate representation of Mesrine is open to argument, but Richet comes down on the side of showing him as an uncompromising and brutal man and even having his fellow criminals point out the contradictory manner of some of his beliefs. The film ends on an extended version of the first films opening scene and though we know what is about to occur this is another scene filled with high tension and a welcome epitaph to 4 hours of tough, but welcome entertainment.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Though this isn’t as strong as part one, it’s still worthy of attention and provides a fitting conclusion to an overall above average package. Rating: 6/10.

Coco Before Chanel

Coco Before Chanel tells the story of Gabrielle Chanel’s life up until the beginning of her success as a fashion designer. Audrey Tatou must have been a shoo-in for the lead roll and at the start of the film does carry quite a resemblance to the young Chanel. Tatou gives a perfectly acceptable performance, though she is upstaged by Benoit Poelvoorde (the serial killer from Man Bites Dog!), a member of the French high society, who Chanel sides herself with in order to be integrated into the world of wine, wo(men) and song. Chanel’s story from orphanage onwards is aptly told and the attention to period detail catches the eye along with some luscious cinematography. Oddly, despite all this, there is one problem. Frankly, the film is boring. Not helped by some direction that points out Chanel’s future influences as subtly as a Teletubbie on a Parisian catwalk. Fashion aficionados may get more enjoyment from this than others, but I’m guessing there would be nothing here that they wouldn’t know already.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Much like the lame title, this does what it says on the tin, but it’s hardly awe-inspiring. Rating: 4/10.

Adam

In Max Mayer’s off-beat dramedy Hugh Dancy starts as the eponymous Adam, a loner who suffers from Aspergers, who makes friends with Beth (played by Rose Byrne), his new upstairs neighbour. The film then follows their friendship as it blossoms into romance and the couple struggle to maintain a stable relationship as they both try to live with Adam’s syndrome. Both Dancy and Byrne put in good work and the relationship between the two is certainly believable. Mayer’s approach to Adam’s Aspergers is underplayed and there is no patronising the audience when it comes to showing how it affects Adam and Beth. This also leads to some poignant comic moments. In respect of this, a quick search of the internet shows that Asperger’s sufferers have enjoyed the movie and found it a mature depiction of the disease. It’s a good job that Dancy and Byrne hold the picture though, as it is let down by some seriously stereotypical family and friends, Beth’s Dad and his “he’s not good enough for you” stance being a particular sore-point. In addition, some people may still find the approach and portrayal of someone with the syndrome somewhat fluffy. However, by the films realistic (i.e. not Hollywood) ending you’ll be thinking more about Adam and how a person and their loved ones in reality copes with such a syndrome, and whether that is Mayer’s intention or not, this can only be a good thing.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
No doubt in reality this would be a darker subject, but Mayer’s film still has enough of a mature approach for it to pass inspection, helped by two good leading performances. Rating: 6/10.

Inglourious Basterds

A new film from Quentin Tarantino is always a movie event, but after the pretentiousness of Kill Bill Vol.2 and the self-indulgent Death Proof (not too mention it’s disastrous box office showing) there’s a lot riding on Inglourious Basterds in terms of QT’s reputation and audience reaction. Well, in terms of the second issue, Basterds has conquered the box office on both sides of the Atlantic, despite (predictable) mixed reviews in Europe. As for Tarantino, though this isn’t a patch on the earlier glory days, this is a serious return to form. Interestingly enough, though the film is basically a two-hander it’s only been marketed as Brad Pitt and the eponymous Basterds on a Nazi killing spree. This strand of the story has its moments, but it’s clearly the weaker of the two tales that finally merge together at the end. It’s a shame that the film had to be marketed as the Pitt / Basterds show (in comparative terms Pitt doesn’t really have much screen time at all) just to get bums on seats as word of mouth would have easily have carried this to the top anyhow. The second and main strand of the story concerns Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) as a cinema owner in German occupied Paris who seeks revenge on the Nazi’s who killed her family. So while both storylines concern revenge of sorts, the Shosanna section provides the cinematic quality to the Basterds more popcorn affair. Not that this doesn’t work, but you feel there could have been a great movie here as opposed to a very good one. That’s not too say that this very good film doesn’t contain a number of great scenes. One in particular, a stand off (well sit off) in a bar, is superbly written and tense, and though it has clear nods to numerous other war films, it really does hold its own. In terms of the acting honours Laurent gives a solid, if understated performance, but the main plaudits go to Christoph Waltz for his stunning portrayal of Colonel Hans Landa, the man responsible for the killing of Shosanna’s family. Tarantino has stated that Landa is probably the best character he has ever written and that the film wouldn’t even get made unless he could find someone suitable for the part. How he must be thank his lucky starts that Waltz landed in his lap. Full of charm one moment and brutal violence the next (whilst switching effortlessly between English, French, German and Italian) Waltz eats up the screen whenever he is on there. It’s no wonder he walked away with the Best Actor award at Cannes for his performance. Some people may be put off by the alternate view of history on show and there are a few other unintentional historical clunkers (no Quentin, rats didn’t cause the bubonic plague!), but the good points, including some stereotypical out there casting (Rod Taylor as Winston Churchill!) far outweigh the bad. Overall, this is pure entertainment and welcome proof that old QT’s still got it.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Despite the actual Basterds storyline being somewhat underwhelming, and a change in tone that slightly spoils the ending, this is a rollicking ride, with a performance from Waltz that is one of best seen on screen in recent years. Rating: 8/10.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Oh dear. Where to begin with this? Let’s start with the more general issue of remakes. You’re pretty much safe it you’re going to remake a film that was awful to begin with in the first place, Oceans Eleven being an example. You’re in seriously shaky territory though if you’re going to re-make a total classic, and while The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 isn’t the worst remake idea ever (that’s still Gus Van Sant's Psycho by a long distance) it’s pretty near to the top. The original is not only a cult classic, but one of the best films to come out of the 70’s. So, the question is, how could this turn out to be such a turkey? Obviously this wasn’t going to be a shot for shot retread, but with the solid skeleton of the first film already there as a template, surely any additional meat added to the bones should only have been a bonus for the viewer? What we do have is an almost totally new film, with the entire star qualities of the first jettisoned. It’s obviously difficult to review a film like this without comparison to the original, but even without looking through nostalgic tinted spectacles this is a poor effort. It’s been a long time now since Tony Scott’s last true classic (Crimson Tide) and here’s a few reasons why we’re still waiting; Terrible dialogue, contrived plot co-incidences, total audience apathy towards supposedly terrified hostages, a complete lack of tension, Luis Guzman totally wasted (he must speak less than 20 words!), a shockingly OTT turn from John Travolta, a limp finish, the list goes on…..At the end of the day, here’s a question that Scott and the studio need to address. How can you make a film about the high-jacking of a subway train not exciting?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
As a comparison to the original this would warrant a zero rating. As a stand alone effort, well, it needs to stand alone in the corner and think about what it’s done. Rating: 3/10.

Sin Nombre

Sin Nombre is a two stories merging into one tale concerning a Honduran teenagers (Sayra) journey into the US, coupled with an account of a Central American gang and how one of it’s members (Willy) attempts to break free from a life of crime and subservience to it’s leaders. Sayra’s journey, along with hundreds of other potential immigrants, is undertaken mainly on the top of a goods train as it dangerously weaves its way through the Central American countryside on the way to the US border. The two main characters come together when a botched robbery by Willy and another gang member means that Willy finds himself on train, and on the run from the gang. The scenes on the train are beautifully shot and the cinematography at times is breathtaking. Even better though is the portrayal of gang life. Hardly surprising though as director Cary Fukunagra apparently spent two years researching gangs and spending time with them. The authenticity is there to see on screen, ranging from the tattoos to the street slang, and as Willy's story shows, once you in a gang of this nature, there really is no way out. So does all this attention to detail make a good film? Overall, it’s a resounding yes. Though, the sudden relationship between Sayra and Willy isn’t really all that credible, you become attached to these characters, and the desperation of their lives, and genuinely hope for a favourable conclusion.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Though it may feel a little too documentary at times, this is solid film making with grand framing and an authentic touch. Rating: 7/10.

The Ugly Truth

The rom-coms keep a-coming with The Ugly Truth, the latest off the production line in the boy meets girl, girl hates boy, boy can you guess what’s gonna happen next genre of entertainment. Katherine Heigl stars as Abby, a successful television producer who, mainly through her own exacting standards, finds herself as a singleton on a succession of not going anywhere dates. In order to boost ratings, cue the arrival of Mike (Gerard Butler) on her television show, a trash talking relationship advice guru who Abby takes a dislike too. However, intrigued by his apparent knowledge of the way the male / female mind works when it comes to relationships, Abby agrees for Mike to help her as she begins to pursue her new good looking neighbour. If you can’t guess how this ends up, you deserve to sit through a Nora Ephron box-set as punishment. In order to spice things up a bit the screenplay is a bit more adult than the usual fluff, but this only half works. On the plus side we have some laugh out loud scenes, but too many one-liners included for shock value stick out like a sore thumb and just aren’t funny. Despite it being a two-hander it’s Heigl who carries the film and that’s good news. She really hasn’t had too many mis-steps in her career so far and she gives a great turn here easily hitting the target ranges of mild drama, romance and comedy. Gerard fares less well and stuck with a part that falls between TV image Mike and caring Mike, doesn’t really convince as either. Overall, this is hilarious in parts, but only mildly engaging during the rest, meaning that the ugly truth in this case is proof that cutting out cheese for crudity is a tricky skill to master.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Worth watching for some funny scenes, mainly involving the excellent Heigl. After that though, there isn’t really too much to get excited about. Rating: 5/10.

G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Stephen Sommers' G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra has already had a kicking from the critics, with the same accusations laid at this as per the rest of Sommers’ back catalogue, i.e. terrible acting, poor effects and huge plot holes. While there can be no argument that these faults also appear in G. I. Joe, this isn’t to say that, also like Sommers’ previous films, if you disengage brain and approach the film as pure entertainment as opposed to anything serious, you will get some enjoyment from this throwaway piece of cinema. The plot is too absurd to go into here, but it does serve as a flimsy connection between some good action scenes, with one (albeit heavily CGI’d) chase through the streets of Paris a particular highlight. On the down side, such a reliance on special effects comes a serious cropper in the last 20 minutes where virtually everything is an effect leading to a complete lack of tension. In addition, some outrageous hamming up from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Christopher Eccleston in the final scenes bring to mind Dr Colossus from The Simpson’s. That’s before we even mention Eccleston’s dodgy Scottish accent which is so thick it sounds like he’s from Moscow as opposed to Glasgow. However, with the door open for subsequent sequels, there is plenty of room for improvement and, after such dross as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, let’s hope for a better overall effort next time round.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This is a Stephens Sommers film remember? Please leave brain outside before entering cinema. Rating: 5/10.

The Proposal

Sandra Bullock returns to rom-com territory in The Proposal, starring as Margaret, a hard nosed executive at a book publishing company, who, due to a mix up in her Visa application, strong arms her put upon assistant Andrew (played by Ryan Reynolds) into a quickie marriage in order that she avoid deportation. Subsequently they travel to Andrews’s parents in Alaska to convince his parents and family of their relationship. What ensues is fairly standard rom-com happenings with nods to numerous fish out of water films thrown together with a mix of Meet The Parents. Though Bullock never convinces as a ball-breaking executive, she puts in a decent performance (well, it’s not like she hasn’t done this thing before is it?) with some well timed slapstick and a game nude scene. She also has half decent chemistry with Reynolds, and the script does contain some zippy one liners. On the downside, there are a few terribly misjudged scenes, with Bullocks dancing with Betty White in the woods particularly painful to watch. Overall, while there isn’t much originality, by sticking to the rom-com template, this is a fairly enjoyable Friday night date movie.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Instantly forgettable, but it does what it says on the tin. Rating: 6/10.

Mesrine: Killer Instinct

Jacques Mesrine may not be a household name to many people outside France, but in his homeland he was a notorious gangster with a reputed 40 killings to his name. Mesrine: Killer Instinct is the first of a two part biopic of the gangster from director Jean-Francois Richet, and though it may play hard and fast with the truth, what it creates is a hard and fast punchy thriller. As with all film biopics, there is not enough time to cover the back story. Therefore the film begins with brief allusions (orders to kill as a soldier, his Dad being a collaborator) as to why Mesrine would become such an angry violent man. After that we are on a roller coaster ride as Mesrine’s life of crime starts big and just gets bigger. Mesrine exudes the classic paradoxical criminal code and Richet does not hide from showing us Mesrine’s penchant for violence against people he perceives have done him wrong. Vincent Cassel is on great form as Mesrine and there are fine supporting performances all round as well, especially from Roy Dupuis. Supporting performances being the operative words as well, as this film firmly focuses on Mesrine. We move from one crime to another, one city to another, and one lover to another lover in the blink of an eye with Mesrine dragging us along for the journey. Towards the end of the film things settle down with Mesrine’s incarceration in a Canadian jail, with Richet’s direction to the fore with his excellently framed scenes of Mereine’s solitary confidment. However, this leads to a nail-biting prison escape, later followed by an outrageous attack on the same edifice as Mesrine attempts to break out his fellow inmates. Any morally ambiguous respect you may have for such a brazen act is quickly dissipated due to one final act of brutal violence in the final scene of the film. That the film ends here, just as it’s got its firm grip on you, come as a disappointment. For a film that’s almost two hours long, that’s high praise indeed.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Cassel provides a strong turn in this well directed film, with a superb final third. Here’s to Mesrine: Public Enemy No 1 continuing with the same entertainment. Rating: 7/10.

G-Force

G-Force is the latest in the current over-load of 3D animations to hit the big screen, and after this one, I think it’s about time for a re-think on the whole 3D issue animation wise. In all circumstances the 3D experience should not be compensation for a poor film. Sadly not only is G-Force a below par film, the 3D effects are almost non-existent, which makes the extra money you have to pay for such a film an outright con. The storyline revolves around a team of secretly trained animals (mainly guinea pigs) who try to foil a plan by a sinister etc etc. The plot really is a side issue, as this film is aimed at very young children who should get some enjoyment from the talking animals and action sequences. There isn’t much to entice older children / adults apart from a running joke regarding incorrectly identifying what type of species the guinea pigs actually are, and the old favourite of guessing what star is providing what voice. However, throw in a totally underused Bill Nighy (with a cockney accent so strong he sounds like an Aussie…or was he meant to be an Aussie anyway?), a limp finish and the aforementioned rubbish 3D, and you’re left with a film that might amuse the rugrats, but not many others. The fact it had a drastic fall at the box office after a strong opening suggests word got around quick.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not funny and not really even that cute. Clearly all ideas regarding a plot and script were forgotten just as long as they could slap 3D at the end of the title. Rating: 4/10.

Antichrist

If you had to guess which directors latest film contained shocking scenes, had mixed reviews and caused people to faint (not too mention walk out) at Cannes, it wouldn’t take too long until you got to Lars von Trier’s name. As with the majority of his films, von Trier’s latest, Antichrist, has people up in arms and the usual moral judgements and accusations being made. That aside (for once) lets look at the main issue. The man is a film maker. This is his new film. Is it any good? The story concerns He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) who, after the death of their young son, retreat to their cabin in the woods to finish their grieving and to try and repair their strained relationship. Once there though, things go from bad to worse. The first half of the film moves along very slowly as She suffers badly from the loss of her son, while He, as a psychiatrist, and too proud and stubborn to let anyone else look after her, attempts to comfort her. Slow it may be, but here Gainsbourg gives a startling depiction of someone suffering indescribable grief. By the time the couple arrive at the cabin She seems to be slowly improving until a fantastic plot twist totally pulls the rug from under the viewer and we go from cold drama to cold horror. Make no mistake that some of the later scenes of the film are horrific, but as most people will have already read what they were due to all the controversy, they do seem slightly sanitised once seen. Do not be fooled into thinking this is something like Saw, Hostel etc. The violence here is realistic, brutal and, dare I say it, necessary? Without giving too much away, the plot reveal means we go from seeing one character as a grieving parent to a psychopath already well on the way to the Dante’s Inferno. We see disturbed acts from a disturbed character. There’s no doubt that von Trier sets out to shock, but I feel the scenes show that the film has moved into serious horror territory and anyone feeling bored from the opening acts will suddenly have nowhere to hide. The film also has a number of fantasy scenes. Some work, some don’t, some look like we’re disappearing up Von Trier’s backside. Where Von Trier really triumphs though is the uneasy tone of the film. As the couple venture into the woods, the use of unsettling images and sounds really starts to tighten the atmospheric noose. We know bad things are on the way, we just don’t know what they are yet. Gainsbourg easily takes the acting honours. Though the Cannes audience may have found it a tough watch, the jury knew enough to award her the award for Best Actress. On the minus side, the pacing at times is a drag and there’s no doubt that this film will split viewers. However, for all those people that hate it, it means they’ve seen it and / or they’re talking about it. And with that, I’m sure von Trier will not mind at all.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
To say this isn’t for everyone would be somewhat of an under statement. In addition, if you’re after your standard horror film then this isn’t for you either. Make no mistake; this is an adult film, with adult themes, for a mature adult film audience. Rating: 7/10.

Moon

Duncan Jones, son of David Bowie, has assumed a few monikers over the years and so for his directorial debut, Moon, it’s hardly surprising that we have a tale revolving around confused identities. In the film Sam Rockwell stars as Sam Bell, an employee of Lunar Industries who is nearing the end of a three year mining shift on the moon. However, as he prepares to return to earth to be with his wife and daughter, Bell begins to suffer hallucinations. Then, following an industrial accident, Bell makes a startling discovery which hints that his life and job are not all they are made out to be. To say anything further would spoil the remainder of the film. As Bell, Rockwell gives an understated but assured performance as things slowly start to unravel (on seeing the twist you’ll understand why Jones needed it to be understated as well). The film does move sluggishly at times, but not Tarkovsky tempo, and anyway, who’s in a rush on the moon? The specials effects are decent, with miniatures and models being preferred to dodgy F/X and though Kevin Spacey as the voice of the moonbase’s computer is a bit surreal, it’s refreshing to have a computer / robot in a Sci-fi film that isn’t on the rampage for once. Overall, this is a tidy package. It may be confusing at points, but the explanations do eventually come, and anyway, where’s the harm in a film that actually makes you think for once?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A slow pace may put some people off, but this is a thoughtful and at times moving film which will demand a repeat viewing in order to spot the subtle nuances of Sams situation, possibly missed first time round. Rating: 7/10.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

This is now the sixth Harry Potter film, and as someone who watches the films having not read the books, it doesn’t feel too much different than watching the previous two instalments. That’s not too say this isn’t a bad film, but this particular arc of the Potter storyline is somewhat underwhelming and is stretched desperately thin over the outrageous running time. You could easily lop an hour off this film and have a tighter more enjoyable movie. Indeed, due to it’s length, the revelations / shocks at the end come as a relief that the films over as opposed to anything more emotional. On the plus side this does have some smart light comic touches and the specials effects are up to their usual high standard. The three main (non!)child actors (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint) give their usual perfunctory performances, but that’s hardly surprising considering they have been up against the cream of British actors over the last number of years (the acting honours this time going to the excellent Jim Broadbent). Obviously Potter is a world-wide phenomenon, with the box office to match. However, with the films so far being fairly average at best, I doubt we’ll look back to this series of films in 30 years time as any part of cinematic milestone.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Far far far too long, but this does what it says on the tin Potter-wise. If you’ve enjoyed the previous films you’ll be fine with this. Anyone not already enamoured won’t be spellbound though. Rating: 6/10.

Brüno

Following on from Borat Sacha Baron Cohen returns to the big screen, this time in the form of Brüno, a gay Austrian fashionista. The film has the familiar faux-documentary style of Borat, though in this case the storyline centres on Bruno’s attempts to make it big in the old US of A, as opposed to learning the culture. Oddly enough though, despite the drastic difference in characters, the two films are extremely similar in terms of set up and execution. Though offensive at times, there was no doubt that the previous film was very funny, but even that struggled to stretch the joke to feature film length and here Brüno suffers even worse. The first problem is, is that the character of Brüno isn’t really that funny. Therefore, it’s the situations he finds himself in that must provide the laughs and move the film forwards. There are a number of laugh out loud moments, but these are severely tempered by scenes of outrageous (and unfunny) crudeness. In addition, picking on individuals and giving them the rope to hang themselves with on screen with their opinions and actions may be funny and shocking at times, but it is hardly original and is the same shtick that was used in Borat. Having said that though, it’s hard to be too harsh on Baron Cohen. With Chris Morris currently off the (small) screen, he is virtually the only comedian around with the balls to put himself in the potentially dangerous situations that he does. It’s just a shame that, this time, it’s for a weak character and a weak film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Any subtlety that was in Borat is forgotten about here, as Baron Cohen ups the crudeness level to the detriment of the film. Rating: 5/10.

Rudo y Cursi

When you're watching a film by a Mexican director with the surname of Cuarón you’ll generally be entertained, but at the same time you might want to watch something a little more cheery afterwards to lighten your mood. No such problems with Rudo y Cursi, as though this is a film by a Cuarón, it’s actually Alfonso’s younger brother Carlos, who writes and directs this little gem. Gael García Bernal and Diego Luna star as brothers from a small Mexican village who are discovered by a morally ambiguous football agent (played by Guillermo Francella) and leave to pursue their dreams of top flight footy in Mexico’s top division. This is a classic rags to riches fairytale, but as it’s knowingly played out as such, any outrageous co-incidences in the screenplay are easily forgotten. The screenplay itself is the perfect balance of drama and humour, as we see the juxtaposition between the brothers increasing fame and wealth, and the personal relationships between themselves and their families. Luna and Bernal are perfectly cast as the brothers, and it's the latter’s portrayal as a fey footballer in the macho world of Mexican football that provides many of the laughs. Though the three main protagonists all have character defects, the strength of the bond (though at times flimsy) between them means we can't help but root for them all the way through to the mildly shocking non-Hollywood conclusion. This is Cuarón first feature length film and it's a very promising start.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
At times contrived, and the message from Cuarón isn't subtle, but the way it's told is a delight. Rating: 8/10.

Public Enemies

On paper this looks like one of the treats of the year. A film about John Dillinger and the 1930's crime wave, starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, with Michael Mann directing. And yet though this isn't a bad film, it's a disappointment when you consider all the serious talent involved. The last time Mann lenses a quasi-biography was Ali, which benefited from being about one of the most recognisable people in modern times and a fantastic performance from Will Smith. Public Enemies fails on both fronts here. Dillinger is a fairly well known name but, despite the lengthy running time, at no stage does Mann’s film really get underneath the skin of the man and show us why he is a hero to some and a criminal to others. Depp’s portrayal of Dillinger is stale, which considering his past chameleonistic volume of work is most surprising. Bale fares slightly better as the one of the cops on Dillinger’s tale, but again the character feels superficial, and a coda in the end-credits comes out of the blue and you’re left frustrated as there is no hint during the film as to why such a situation would eventually occur. On the plus side there is a strong supporting cast, and, as you would expect with a Mann film, luscious visuals and cinematography to enjoy (though it does make the America of the Great Depression appear to be more like a gold-plated nirvana).

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
There are the usual excellent Mann set pieces, but an overlong running time and below average lead performances mean this is more Popgun than Tommy Gun. Rating: 5/10.

Sunshine Cleaning

In Sunshine Cleaning, Amy Adams and Emily Blunt star as Rose and Norah Lorkowski, sisters who start a crime scene clean up service. With that I don’t mean a bit of spring cleaning. This involves blood, brain matter and bodily fluids. Not your everyday job, but the perfect situation around which to build this American indie. Despite the “feel good” marketing campaign there are actually very few laughs to be had. What we have instead is a well acted drama. The characters are believable, and the screenplay plays heavily on the pathos of their lives and the people they encounter in the aftermath of their job. Though with a relatively short running time, it does mean that many of the scenes and situations feel somewhat contrived. In addition, some of the decisions made by the sisters are somewhat out of kilter and unrealistic in respect of the portrayed circumstances of their lives. However, the direction is unobtrusive as we focus on Rose and Norah and the crossroads they both find themselves in their own respective lives. Adams and Blunt are certainly believable as sisters and, in a role playing their father, Alan Arkin provides his usual solid support. Acting honours though go to Clifton Collins Jr (as a possible love interest for Rose) whose performance is low under the radar and ends up stealing the film. Overall, this is an enjoyable, and at times, thought provoking film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Though not a real push for anyone, this is a well acted and classically quirky American indie. A good tonic for anyone with the Blockbuster blues. Rating: 6/10.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

After the enjoyable buddy action of the first Ice Age film, the sequel took a step backwards with the introduction of Ellie as the love interest for Manny. Out went the quick pace and wit of the first film, to be replaced with corny gags and a large helping of cheese. Now we have the third Ice Age film, in which the main story arc concerns Sid and his attempts at “motherhood”. After Sid goes missing Manny, Ellie and Diego go looking for him aided by another new character, Buck (voiced by Simon Pegg). As the new member of the gang, unsurprisingly, Buck is given plenty of screen time with most of his gags hitting the mark, including a number of innuendoes for the adults to enjoy. Another new character, Scratte, is a rival / love interest for the franchises most lovable character, Scrat. Though her introduction falls somewhat flat, is does provide one inspired sequence where Scrat and Scratte battle for the beloved acorn whilst entrapped in bubbles. The fact that this scene (less than a minute long) is the highlight of the movie shows up how the rest of the film is sorely lacking in new ideas, even with the introduction of the new characters. In fact, their presence on screen means there’s now too many cooks spoiling the broth, with some characters falling by the wayside (a small subplot concerning Diego seems almost an after-thought). Overall, this is an improvement on the second film, but it falls way short of the first instalment, and you can’t help getting the impression that the film-makers are concerned more with how much profit they can get from merchandise tie-ins from a safe film, as opposed to really pushing the envelope to show us something new. On a side-issue to that, I watched the 3-D version, which doesn’t add too much, so if you’re watching the 2-D version you’re not really missing out.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Innocent and enjoyable stuff for the kids, but it’ll be nothing new for the older members of the audience. Any future adventures might best be saved for a direct to DVD release. Rating: 5/10.

Blood: The Last Vampire

Now here’s a movie genre we haven’t seen for a while…the vampire picture! I jest of course, as over the last decade if you threw a piece of garlic at the nearest cinema screen the odds are pretty good you would hit one of the blood-thirsty types. Though an original film, Blood: The Last Vampire already has a history as an anime film, anime series, novel and video game. The film itself has a decent start with a bit of intrigue, gore and stereotypical Men In Black thrown into the mix. Very quickly though we go downhill into a below par Buffy episode with nothing new to say. The fight scenes involve copious amounts of CG blood (hardly shocking), and the fit inducing editing makes you feel like you’re watching a Tony Scott film after he’s drunk 50 Red Bulls. Worse of all though is the unfortunately hilarious CGI’d winged demon. Looking like the creature from the black lagoon (with rubber wings) it’ll certainly provoke a reaction. That of laughter. Plus, this is supposedly set in the 1970’s, but not much effort has been made to convey that either. Topped off with some bad acting and an incomprehensible ending, this is one of the weakest entries into the recent vampiric cannon. Don’t worry though, they’ll probably be another one along shortly!

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The occasional fight scene raises the pulse, and although it doesn’t set out to be anything more than it is, what it is, is a huge disappointment. Rating: 3/10.

Red Cliff

Amazingly it’s 20 years now since John Woo was wowing Eastern audiences (and, when we eventually got them over here, Western audiences as well) with his hyper-kinetic and stylised shoot em ups. After a few half decent US films, the quality and quantity of his output declined pretty quickly. For his new film Woo has returned to Asia, and though it’s nothing like a return to peak form, it’s definitely a step in right direction. First of all, when I say “film”, I mean that this review is of the Europe/US release. Within Asia Red Cliff was released in two parts, with a total four hours plus running time. Over here we get a condensed version of the two films, with a 2 hour 30 minute running time. The film itself its set during the end of the Han Dynasty and is based on the Battle of the Red Cliffs (see internet for further details!). As this is an epic (of sorts) I’d be here for hours if I was to explain the storyline further. Also, whether what’s being portrayed is historically accurate or not is an argument for another time. What we do have, at least in this version, is a war film. Generals, arrow-fodder, spies, battles, boats, horses, blood, swords, even the weather. It’s all thrown into the mix. The overall result is enjoyable with Woo’s approach giving a fresh feeling to a number of battle scenes. In addition, at times, Woo stretches into the realms of fantasy fighting and just about pulls it off. The downside of these battle scenes though is the overuse of CGI to once again show off scale. Scale is impressive when you’re watching real actors / extras (Ghandi, Lawrence etc). Not so impressive when you know you’re watching an image rustled up on a computer somewhere. On a side issue here there has been some controversy regarding the welfare of the horses used in the film (It’s already been well documented that a stuntman was sadly killed during filming). There are a lot of scenes of horses being “tripped” in the film, with some reports stating that a number of horses were injured. I had a look on the BBFC website for their opinion and they state “During the battle scenes, some horses are shown falling awkwardly. With one exception, which has been cut from the film, the BBFC is satisfied with the company's reassurances that no horses were injured and that various provisions were made to ensure their safety during the making of the film”. Make of that what you will.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Hard to give a definitive review, particularly in terms of the acting and screenplay, due to the two films being filed down. However, Woo directs with a flourish and some original battle sequences mean that cinema seat shouldn’t chafe too much during the lengthy running time. Rating: 6/10