Valentines Day

Question. Is this the most cynical piece of film-making ever? I’m hard pressed to think of a more (less?) worthy one at the moment. Valentine’s Day has no artistic merit or worth in terms of it actually being produced as a cinematic experience. It’s an idea for a cash cow, not a film. Which is ironic as, after I’d seen it, I think I would have preferred to spend my cash watching cows in a field instead. You can almost see the pitch now. Love Actually but with North Americans? Call it Valentine’s Day? Release it on Valentine’s weekend? Show me the money! So what you get is a ridiculous screen play with numerous characters and story arcs. Who cares if the characters are pretty much unlovable and some storyline’s barely register? Show me the money! Who cares if most of the actors and actresses phone it in? Look at them all on the poster! Show me the money! It’s a little rom, with virtually no com. In fact, some of the “jokes” are suspiciously xenophobic and a gay subplot concerning one of the characters is so badly handled it unfortunately comes across as a cheap joke at its moment of reveal. So what did the actors and actresses “see” in the script when it landed on their doormat? “$”, is what they saw. Now get out.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Pretty dire stuff. The target audience may enjoy a few laughs and swoons, but the only thing to make you smile about this is that there can’t be a Valentine’s Day 2. Can there? Rating: 2/10.

The Princess and the Frog

Onwards and upwards with the animation then, as following on from Ponyo here’s Disney’s latest release. Though not a return to the glory days, it ticks all the right boxes and again it just goes to show that with a good script, funny gags and catchy songs, 2D animation will keep going along fine underneath the juggernaut of 3D CGI ‘toons. However, it’s safe to say there was quite a lot riding on this effort, the first hand drawn animation from Disney since the disastrous Home on the Range back in 2004. Luckily, now that Pixar is on board with Disney, it appears the better days may be about to return. You get the impression watching The Princess and the Frog that real care and attention is behind this sparky little number. It’s a mixture of old Disney values, modern influences and excellent animation (though some scenes, despite the U rating, may frighten little ‘uns). Regarding this, it’s the villain of the piece, “The Shadow Man” who provides the scares and is the highlight of the film. Though not an original character, he is slippery as an eel, has the best song in the film and is a delight to watch every time he is on screen. The 1920’s New Orleans setting is also excellently realised and provides a welcome backdrop from the city to the bayou. The only real downside to the film is that at times the moral storyline becomes a bit by the numbers and adults will feel a bit spoon fed. However, kiddies should lap this up. There’s also a Princess and a frog involved at points, but you’ve probably guessed that already…

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A much needed return to form for Disney 2D animation. If you’re a fan of this genre then this will be right up your street. Rating: 8/10.

Ponyo

The latest offering from Studio Ghibli is bizarre even for the fertile brain of Ghibli godfather Hayao Miyazaki. A fish is washed up on shore and then…and then….well, the usual magical and bonkers Miyazaki storyline occurs which is nigh on impossible to explain coherently in a review. Suffice to say if you’ve enjoyed Miyazaki ’s back catalogue before it’ll feel like slipping on a pair of comfy old slippers. If you’re a new comer you may be scratching your head slightly about Studio Ghibli’s style. Regardless, you will be blown away by some of the animation, and a scene in the centre of the film involving a car racing against a storm and giant crashing waves is a draw dropping few minutes. The fact that within said scene the waves are represented by giant fish (with a girl running on top of them) gives some idea of how far out there this is at times. On the downside the film really meanders at times and is a lot more kiddie orientated than previous Miyazaki efforts. However, in these days of CGI and 3D, it’s great to see old style 2D animation can still work (an already world wide box office of multi millions proving the point). Nothing can prepare you though for the Ponyo song on the end credits. It’s either the greatest / worst thing you’ll ever hear.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Miyazaki-lite but, whilst new comers may wonder what all the fuss is about, anime veterans will lap it up still. Rating: 6/10.

The Book Of Eli

The trusty (rusty?) post-apocalyptic (itself a duff term) film conveyor belt churns out another entry with The Book Of Eli. In this one we get Denzel Washington as the book carrying Eli, carrying said tome from East to West American following an unspecified incident (referred to only as “the flash”) which has left a barren planet scorched by an endless sun. On the way Eli encounters the now usual staples of motorcycle gangs, rapists, cannibals etc. There’s not too much originality. We also get Gary Oldman hamming it up as the lord of a small town, who controls everything due to his control of the minimal water supply, and Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour pop up in bizarre scene which only seems to serve the plot in terms of the Hughes brothers being able to show off some fancy camera tricks. In terms of that the film itself is nicely framed and coolly shot by the brothers, but is let down by far too many plot holes and a twist that is so outrageous if has to be seen to be believed. Though, once you’ve seen it you’ll think that was pretty unbelievable. Washington is fine and the actual point of his journey through the film feels surprisingly fresh and a nice touch by the Hughes’s. However, they don’t totally follow through with their belief as the final shot of the film feels like a concession to making sure no noses are put out of joint.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Stylishly shot, but that can’t make up for a general feeling of déjà vu and a limp ending. Rating: 5/10.

The Wolfman

This latest version of the Wolfman has taken a bit a mauling (boom boom) from some critics, but I feel the good and the bad pretty much even themselves out and, if you’re in the mood, you should be able to enjoy this old fashioned romp. Of course, alarm bells have been ringing for a number of years about this production as it’s taken quite a while from its initial announcement (March 2006) to finally making it’s debut on the big screen. However, there is some heavy duty talent involved here. Joe Johnston directs, Andrew Kevin Walker co-writes and Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins head up the cast. Del Toro takes the titular role, starring as Lawrence Talbot, son of Sir John Talbot ( Hopkins ), who returns to his London home following the death of his brother. Before long, killings begin and the local population believe either a lunatic or a beast of some sort is on the loose. Though slow in parts, Johnston directs the action scenes with a flourish and the section of the film set in a London lunatic asylum is a particular stand out, including a hilarious knowingly hammy escape scene. The film doesn’t short change you on the gore either which is actually a pleasant (?) surprise in these days of trying to lower a films rating for financial purposes. Throw in some decent jump scares and the actual Wolfman becomes something to fear, which certainly helps the film as it goes along. It does fall down on a couple of fronts though. Del Toro doesn’t really convince as the troubled Talbot and the chemistry between himself and Emily Blunt (struggling in a completely under-written role) is non-existent. Without pulling up many trees Hopkins fares slightly better, and he delivers the films signature line (“You’ve done terrible things, Lawrence . You’ve done terrible things…”) with a relish not seen since H Lecter Esq. The standout actor though is Hugo Weaving as the inspector on the case. With his English accent spot on and his attitude laid back, he is the perfect antidote to the carnage going on around him. The film does fall apart drastically on the run in though. A lame CGI rumble, followed by a rip off of An American Werewolf In London (wow…I got this far before I mentioned it) means you’ll be twiddling your thumbs as opposed to being on the edge of your seat. There is an open ended finish of sorts which leaves the possibility of a future sequel. However, though this isn’t a failure, I’d suggest no more full moons would be best for all concerned.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This isn’t a classic by any means, but it’s heart (when it isn’t being ripped out) is in the right place and its perfectly acceptable Friday night fodder. Rating: 7/10

Youth In Revolt

Though I haven’t read C D Payne’s novel Youth in Revolt, it already appears to be a cult favourite and so, unsurprisingly, here’s the filmic version. Something must have happened between page and screen though, as this indie exercise in teenage angst is pretty charmless and struggles for consistent laughs. Michael Cera stars as the bizarrely named Nick Twisp, who after failing to totally win the heart of his dream girl invents a doppelganger, Francois Dillinger (also played by Cera), whose bad boy attitude he hopes will get him closer to women of said dreams. The film turns the quirk factor up to 11 at points with scenes ranging in quality from amusingly original to old hat and unfunny (Parents high on mushrooms! Oh my aching ribs…). There is also decent support from the usual left field indie casting. However, a film like this has to have a strong central performance and Cera fails drastically. His high pitch whining and general woodenness just grates. Typecast or not, he fails to stretch those acting wings with his secondary role as Dillinger. If you’re looking for a film with a decent doppelganger try and dig up The Man Who Haunted Himself from somewhere instead.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A few laughs to be had, but Cera is awful and it’s far too “indie” for its own good. Rating: 4/10.

The Boys Are Back

The Boys Are Back could be a historical footnote in film history. Not for anything revolutionary, but for the fact it could be the last ever release from Miramax, in its current guise. And whilst this won’t be featuring on any Best of Miramax box sets, it’s still an above average effort to finish with. Clive Owen stars as Joe, an Englishman now living in Australia , who having recently lost his wife has to cope with his own grief whilst also caring for his son. Things soon get a bit more complicated with the arrival of his son from his previous marriage in England . Throw in some (at times) disapproving in-laws and a possible new love interest and you have all the ingredients for a standard drama. It’s fair to say this isn’t too much originality in terms of the screenplay, but though the characters may be stereotypical, director Scott Hicks moves the film along at a decent lick and deftly handles the dramatic scenes. On the downside you may find yourself becoming too removed from the film as at times the characters hardly deserve your sympathy. If you do find that’s the case at least you can enjoy Hicks’ and Grieg Fraser’s (the cinematographer) view of South Australia . Being from South Australia himself, Hicks gives the tourist board down there a free advert with rolling wheat fields, open roads, lolling waves, green vineyards and cute kangaroos all vying for your attention.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Melodramatic definitely, but decent acting and a few dabs of humour see it through. Rating: 7/10.

All About Steve

Oh my word. What an utter mess this is. So much so that I can’t even be bothered to spend my time berating it and all its faults. Sandra Bullock stars as Mary Horowitz, a cruciverbalist (crossword complier, quiz fans) who after going on a blind date with Steve (Bradley Cooper) ends up infatuated with him and ends up (un)intentionally stalking him as he goes about his day job of being a cameraman for a local news station. What happens as the film goes on is too ludicrous to even type in this review, so how the screenplay got the green light is a mystery of epic propo….wait, not it’s not. The producer of said turkey? One Sandra Bullock. Ah. Now it all makes sense. However, though Bullock can usually do the business in these kind of films, this really is a bad mis-judgment from her. Her character is so annoying you actually enjoy the moments when she is absent from the screen. Not that that’s saying much either. Cooper spends the whole film looking totally bewildered how he’s ended up in such a disaster and Thomas Haden Church phones in a performance from so far away I dread to think what his phone bill will be. Basically, if you do go and see this, take a small torch, a book of crosswords and stimulate your brain for 90 minutes. You certainly won’t use many brain cells if you actually watch this rubbish.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
1 Across: One of the world films you’ll ever watch (3,5,5). Rating: 1/10

Up In The Air

Based on the novel of the same name, in Up In The Air George Clooney stars as Ryan Bingham, a smooth talking rep of a firm that other companies hire in order to fire their own employees. Bingham loves his job, though that’s more due to the executive lifestyle he leads jetting around the country, rather than any pleasure taken in giving people the boot. Bingham’s seemingly happy life is thrown askew when his company employs Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a recent college grad, who puts forward an idea that will cut costs for the company they both work for, but means that Bingham and co will be grounded. There’s been a bit of a kerfuffle regarding ownership of the screenplay for this, but director / writer Jason Reitman hand is prevalent throughout the film as he deftly moves the storyline along, including some spectacular aerial footage of the various cities bookmarking the scenes, whilst making sure we emotionally engage with the characters. This is helped in part by the knowing fear that we all have of losing our jobs, and the decision to include interviews in the film with people who had in reality recently been fired. Ironically, Reitman originally wrote the film when the US economy was in a boom period, but the fact it’s been released during a recession makes the storyline all the more pertinent. Despite it’s (at times) difficult subject matter, Reitman gives us a few decent laughs as we go along, but his attempts at satire fall a long way short of Thank You For Smoking and a scene lampooning business cards is a poor cousin of similar scenes from Mary Harron’s American Psycho. In addition, the punch line to a side story concerning Vera Farmiga is telegraphed from a mile off. Luckily these minus points are counter balanced by Clooney’s great performance. Though Kendrick and Farmiga more than hold their own, this is Clooney’s film all the way. From his shaky start in films Clooney really has matured into one of the more bankable male stars of recent times. It’s been suggested in some quarters that Bingham’s supposed about turn in values at the end of the film is duff, but I feel Clooney plays it perfectly from the start. We know how much he loves his jet set way of living, but you always get the impression even he knows there’s more to life than priority check in at an airport.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Despite the subject matter this does feel a trifle thin at times, but Gorgeous George holds it all together. Rating: 7/10.

Brothers

I haven’t seen Brødre, the Danish film on which Brothers is based, but as always seems to be the case, the reviews suggest that the original is a better film than this re-make. However, this isn’t to say that you shouldn’t give Jim Sheridan’s film a chance. Jake Gyllenhaal and Tobey Maguire are the eponymous stars, one (Gyllenhaal) just being released from prison, while Maguire is a soldier about to be posted to Afghanistan . On his return from duty, Maguire’s character struggles to cope with the horrors of his service and begins to suspect that his wife (Natalie Portman) and his brother have been getting too friendly during his time away. To say anymore would be to give too much away. Overall this film contains some great acting, even as the screenplay becomes a bit stagey. In fact, the acting is really the main reason for watching and enjoying this. All characters from major to minor put in a good shift. The children playing Portman and Maguire’s kids are outstanding. Out of the brothers, Gyllenhaal takes the honours, though his part is less demanding than Maguire’s. Ironically, despite looking fairly similar in the film, they fail to convince as siblings and share very few scenes together. The film does have one other major drawback though. There isn’t really anything original here. Soldiers suffering from post traumatic stress, though a serious issue, has been analysed on film for nigh on 100 years now and the stereotypical family of one son’s a hero, one’s a drop out, is a movie of the week staple.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Some great performances just about paper over the cracks of a screenplay short on new ideas. Rating: 7/10.

A Prophet

If you saw the solid (though short) prison scenes in last years Mesrine then you are in for a treat with A Prophet. Imagine those scenes stretched to 150 minutes, then throw in a smart and brutal screenplay and some excellent acting, and you’ll be someway to the experience you’ll get from watching Jacques Audiard’s gripping film. Set almost entirely in prison, the film begins with the imprisonment of Malik (Tahar Rahim) for an unnamed offence (though it’s hinted its for a rumble with the French Old Bill). Trying to keep his head down doesn’t last long as before you can blink he’s been forced by Cesar Luciani (Niels Arestrup), a Corsican who is the unofficial kingpin of the prison, to undertake an horrific attack on another prisoner. The crime Malik carries out is not glossed over. We have the build up, the assault and then the aftermath, all directed with the keenest of precision. This isn’t pretentiousness by Audiard, but an understanding of the harsh, brutal and dog-eat-dog world of incarceration. It’s unlikely you’ll see a more realistic and horrific attack in the movies for quite some time. Following the assault, Malik finds himself under Luciani’s protection, but also, natch, in his pocket. I won’t say where the film goes after that as it’ll only spoil things, and frankly, it would be a different task to undertake. This is a film with quite a few twists as more and more characters are introduced and Malik starts playing one prison gang against the other. Or does he? Trying to work out what’s going on can actually be a bit of a struggle as we’re overloading with names and situations. This doesn’t distract from the film per se but by the time Malik is getting up to all sorts on his “free” days from prison it starts to become a bit ludicrous and too “Hollywood” compared to what has gone on previously. Overall though, Audiard provides us with another addition to the recent surge of excellence in European cinema with a film that is not only superbly directed, but also an emotional experience for the audience.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A slight mis-step at the end, but before that it's smart, emotional, gripping and brutal. Rating: 8/10.

44 Inch Chest

44 Inch Chest has been intriguingly marketed as “From the writers of Sexy Beast”. Now without being a great film, Sexy Beast was enjoyable enough, made memorable due to Ben Kingsley’s volcanic performance. It seems Kingsley’s character’s foul mouthed ranting has to gone to the writers’ heads though, as 44 Inch Chest contains the international A-Z of swear words. If you were playing a drinking game and taking a sip of beer every time you heard a character say the F-word or C-Word you would be paralytic after 10 minutes. I won’t spoil the storyline, but 44 Inch Chest pretty much consists of a number of men in a room swearing, as they decide on what course of action to take to revenge a perceived wrong. Not much else happens. Ironically, the performances of all concerned are top draw (Ian McShane being the stand out), but the film grinds to a halt whenever Ray Winston’s character begins to reflect and ruminate on the situation he finds himself in. Nothing against Winston, but his characters torment doesn’t garner any sympathy with the audience. This really is a strange film. It basically is a play, Pinter in style, shot for the cinema. Oh yeah, did I mention they swear a lot?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Despite the saying, swearing can be big and can be clever (see In The Loop, for example). However, if that’s all your films got it will grate very quickly indeed. Rating: 3/10.