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.