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.