Immortals

To borrow a quote from the slacker generation, the first thought I had after seeing the trailer for Immortals was "meh". That simple feeling was based on the question "What's new here?". Swords and sandals, Gods, Titans, Women wearing very little etc. There's been enough of these films already over the past couple of years to satisfy one's needs in this area. However, as those films have all mainly been of average quality at best has director Tarsem Singh come up with something different for us to enjoy? Singh is no doubt a visionary director and he crafts some great scenes here from birds eye views of battles to in your face carnage utilising slow motion and, all coated with his usual palate of striking colours, his stylish hand can be seen in most places on the print. Ah, but I've forgotten something here haven't I? The plot. And, as with all Singh's output, this is where Immortals falls face first flat into the sand. The style cannot be faulted, but it can't gloss over a by the numbers storyline and some C list acting. The easiest synopsis I can give is that young Greek adult Theseus (Henry Cavill) has to fight against King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) who is turning Greece inside out in his attempts to find a weapon that can kill all. To to be fair to Singh this is clearly shot as a fantasy film as opposed to anything remotely serious historically, but a bit more thought could have been given to some scenes that provoke unintentional laughter such as the camp get up that most of the Gods sport and a toe curlingly awful (non)sex scene between Cavill and token totty Freida Pinto (who looks pretty lost throughout). One plus point this film does have over its recent similar brethren is it does deliver on the violence front, meaning there is some menace throughout the picture. It's a shame though that this sharp edge is counterbalanced by the feyness of the overall finished article. On the acting front Cavill does what is required but struggles to convince as any sort of leader. I guess whether you like this film or not depends on whether you think it's ludicrous or entertaining that a group of scantily clad women, armed only with knives the size of little fingers, can slaughter a group of heavily armed male beefcakes without barely breaking a sweat.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A treat visually, some decent gore, but the rest of it's entertainment is unintentionally comic. Rating: 5/10.

Tower Heist

Brett Ratner is well known for throwing some of the brashest parties in Hollywood and has a reputation as a bit of a golden child despite his film portfolio not containing anything that memorable. He's lost a bit of sheen over the last few months though, firstly with his use of the word "fag" and now a mixed reaction to his latest film Tower Heist. The film follows Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller), the building manager of a plush New York luxury apartment complex who's employees lose their pensions in a Ponzi scheme of businessman (and apartment resident) Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). Kovacs and a number of the employees of the hotel decide to rob Shaw's apartment in order to get some of their money back, additionally enlisting the help of ex-con Slide (Eddie Murphy). The first thing to say here is that this is a seriously dumb film, but it just about gives enough fun for you to go with the flow. If you think it sounds a bit like Ocean's Eleven you'll be right as a few years ago it was scripted as being an African American style take on that film. Though it hasn't gone through development hell since then you can see that the film has had various different scripters as the tone of the film is never really settled and struggles to find consistent laughs. One person who was involved in the original draft was Murphy and he is the star of the film here, stealing every scene he is in and hitting levels not seen since his 1980's heyday. It's bizarre then when he is shoved to the sidelines at the halfway point of the film. The same fate befalls the lesser spotted Tea Leoni, looking sexy as a cop on the protagonists tail her conflicted character could have been the most interesting on show, but she also disappears for lengthy sections of the film. Not the best decisions by Ratner that, but I suppose when someone is paid $15M to star (Stiller, in this case) they're going to be in front of the camera more often than not. At least when the heist does occur you can say its original and for Friday night entertainment this should breeze in and out of your brain before you can question the somewhat dodgy premise of a load of white blokes not being able to break into a building until they are helped by a black ex-con.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A mess of parts, but enough here to see you right after a busy week of work. Rating: 6/10.

The Adventures of Tintin

Special effects can be the curse of the modern movie, with everything being ploughed into the CGI aspect as a cover for the rest of the films shortcomings. It rarely works. It’s ironic then that The Adventures of Tintin (an all animated feature no less) suffers from the same problem. There are some great action sequences, but the script is bumpy and most of the characters drab. It’s even more ironic then that Tintin creater Herge was able to express more life in his characters with a few strokes of his pen then millions of dollars of computer trickery can. Much hullabaloo was made about this being a joint venture between director Steven Spielberg and producer Peter Jackson, though the recent output of the two men combined is hardly worth writing home about. I’m not one to knock The Beard (one word: Jaws) but it’s been a long time now since his last truly great film and the wounds suffered by those who endured Crystal Skull a few years back are still fresh for many. He hasn’t helped himself recently either by attaching his name as a producer to a number of very average flicks over the last few years as well. Has Spielberg started to lose that sharp mind that could sort the wheat out from the chaff? This is his first full length animated feature and it gets off to a promising start with a highly impressive opening credits sequence reminiscent of the cool style of Catch Me If You Can. The storyline then kicks in, that being of an amalgamation of three of the original comic books, in which Tintin (Jamie Bell), aided by Snowy and Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) basically go on a treasure hunt. I mentioned earlier the impressive action sequences and there are some joyous moments here including a couple of scenes towards the end of the film (one a chase through a Moroccan port town and one a set-to in a port itself) that are some of the best animated moments of the year. The big problem with the film though is that none of the characters feel anything more than a load of pixels. Though cartoonish in their characterisations, these are meant to be “real” people, but they are a world away from the feelings we generate from watching a Wall-E or Buzz Lightyear. It’s a huge black mark against the idea of motion capture. Bell is fine as Tintin, but the script (in its pursuit of not hanging around) leaves a lot of things unanswered about its main character. Spielberg is (probably correctly) assuming that everyone knows Tintin already, but if you don't you may be wondering just who Tintin is? Is he really a reporter? A detective on the sly? Plus, is he just a smart young kid or a grown man who just looks like a teenager? Moot points perhaps, but they wouldn't have taken long to address. The other actors in the film don't fare well at all, though Daniel Craig tries his best but appears hamstrung by the script which doesn’t give him the chance to be menacing enough as the films token bad guy. Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock just sprouts a loud of gumph (and 'Bergs decision to make him a Scottish alcoholic is toe-curlingly awful the longer you think about it) and Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as twin detectives Thompson and Thompson fall very flat indeed. In fact the humour in the film is very smart in the first half with a number of cute jokes, so its quite a disappointment that it disappears as the film goes on. To sum up, this is one for all the family to enjoy (though a few more in-jokes for adults would help) but don't waste your money on the 3D version as the 30% reduction in picture quality and loss of sheen is the last thing this needs.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Put it like this, it’s not brilliant, but it’s miles better than bloody Crystal Skull. Rating: 6/10.

Anonymous

Roland Emmerich has spent a whole career killing off as much of the human race as possible, usually through the use of computer effects. His latest film, Anonymous, moves away from the bloodshed though the special effects count is still high. This time though Emmerich is concerned with killing reputations as opposed to humans as he digs up the old theory about it being someone else who penned Shakespeare’s plays. However, despite this being the main selling point the film actually revolves around….well, I’m feeling lazy so in Roland’s own words: "It’s a mix of a lot of things: it’s an historical thriller because it’s about who will succeed Queen Elizabeth and the struggle of the people who want to have a hand in it. It’s the Tudors on one side and the Cecils on the other, and in between [the two] is the Queen. Through that story we tell how the plays written by the Earl of Oxford ended up labelled 'William Shakespeare'." What Emmerich doesn’t tell you there is that the film takes some serious historical liberties with time, people and places. So much so it looked for a moment that many miffed historians would be burning down the local flea pits such was their outrage. However, aren’t they missing the point though? I don’t think anyone’s even taken an Emmerich film at face value, so best just to enjoy (or endure) what’s on show and forget about it quickly afterwards. The good bits first then. The feel and look of the film is superb and its depiction of Elizabethan London in the overhead shots is excellently rendered. Acting wise there’s a great turn from Rhys Ifans (as Oxford) showing depth not usually associated with him (Ifans, not Oxford) and David Thewlis entertains as the weasely adviser to Queen Elizabeth. The rest of the film is a bit of a strain though. It’s far too long and Emmerich’s use of the time jumping format throughout the film just muddles things up. Too many characters come and go and it’s unclear at times who is who, especially when comparing the young and old versions of certain characters. All in all, this isn’t a bad film (theatre buffs can even look for a nod and wink cameo in the form of Mark Rylance) but if Emmerich had been a bit sharper on the editing and screenplay front this would have been quite a romp as opposed to the mildly intriguing final version it is.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Overlong and overdrawn, but it doesn’t take itself too seriously and the effects are great. Rating: 6/10.

In Time

In Time is one of those films that has so many plot holes you could start driving though them now and not be finished until Saw XX gets released. Though this doesn’t always mean a bad film if you can suspend your disbelief and disengage brain for long enough, but the Swiss cheese on show here makes that a tricky proposition. Storyline wise we’re in 2161, where humans now stop ageing at 25 years and extra “life time” has replaced money. Basically, if you want to keep living after 25 you have to “earn” it. Someone who doesn’t earn it, but gets donated a huge chunk of time due to plot shenanigans, is Will (Justin Timberlake). Soon enough, with totty in tow (Amanda Seyfried – lost under a crazy wig), he’s on the run from goons who want the “time” for themselves. It’s actually an intriguing premise, but it appears the film makers didn’t quite know what to do with it and the screenplay smacks of making it up as you go along. Timberlake and Seyfried both appear lost as to how serious they’re meant to be taking it all and cop Cillian Murphy (who surely was only in this for the pay cheque) phones in a blank faced performance. Any film that has “time” as its central subject is always going to struggle on the continuity front and this is no exception with the addition of plenty of unintentionally hilarious moments plot wise to enjoy / endure as well. Most memorable of all though is the terrible special effects utilised during the now already infamous car crash scene. If you were unsure about which way the film was going up until that point, this will make your mind up for you. Its abysmal stuff and I can’t believe director Andrew Niccol isn’t squirming in his chair in embarrassment every time he sees it. Was it really worth saving money on such awful effects to the detriment that your film becomes a laughing stock? Surely it’s about time that film-makers and producers woke up and smelt the coffee in this area now? Seriously, how much money did they save by using a computer as opposed to rolling a real car down a hill? I doubt the difference is worth the scorn they are know getting, especially as word of mouth impacts on the box office. Any plus points? Visually this is pretty good, with the future having the classic dystopian feel and the cast all looking like models. (It’s never clear in the storyline though why everyone on the planet now looks like they’ve just walked off a Vogue shoot). Plus, there are some fantastic duds on show. If anyone can tell me where Alex Pettyfer (pretty decent in this as a quietly spoken villain) gets his shirts from I’d like to know. Niccol has decent form on the writing (The Truman Show) and directing (Lord Of War) front but he fails to sprinkle much magic dust here. What could have been a bit of dumb fun falls flat, especially in its attempts to make comments regarding social standing. If you do see it at least you’ll have some enjoyment at the end as you nominate your best “worst” moment of the film. For me it’s the classic moment when Timberlake has to open a safe belonging to Seyfried’s father and without a clue what the combination could be Seyfried suggests “Try Darwin’s birthday. He (her father) was a big fan”. Click Click Click. Safe opens. Unbelievable.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

For Timberlake fans only. Rating: 4/10.

Real Steel

After some shockers at the start of his career, director Shawn Levy appears to have been learning as he’s gone along as Real Steel is his best film yet. Set in 2020, robots have taken over from humans in the boxing ring. Ex-boxer Charlie (Hugh Jackman) owns robots who fight and, with a debt hanging over him (and the threat of worse if he doesn’t pay up), needs to find a champion quick. A spanner appears in the works when he finds himself with custody of his son Max (Dakota Goyo) from an ex-girlfriend. Their strained relationship takes a turn for the better when Max finds an old robot which eventually becomes a player in the boxing market…and, yes, you can work out the rest from here without much trouble. Basically, this is Rocky with robots (in fact, the main thread of the story is identical in some places). However, Rocky was a great film and so this can’t go too far wrong following that template. Yes, the plot is by the numbers, but the film triumphs where most other heavy on the special effects output fails in the fact it has taken time to draw up characters you care about. The relationship between Charlie and Max is highly believable, with the script smartly commenting that they are both drawn together by a common cause as opposed to any unrequited love for each other they didn’t know they had. There’s great chemistry between Jackman and Goyo, however it does also highlight how the same thing is missing in the “relationships” between the humans and the (non-verbal) robots. So the acting from the leads is good (plus Evangeline Lilly also pops up in a small but nicely formed role as one of Charlie’s friends), but what of the much mooted effects? The robots are fantastic, with a high proportion of the scenes actually utilising live action-models as opposed to CGI. The difference compared to something like Transformers is huge. Though the film still can’t make you feel for these non-humanoids, they certainly feel more “real” as opposed to Michael Bay’s charisma free CGI bits of metal. Overall this is just good film-making. It doesn’t push the envelope in any areas (though the effects are highly impressive), but what it does do, it does well. Due to its box office success a sequel is now in the pipeline. Not too sure what they are planning (a re-hash of Rocky II?) but I think this should just be left to stand alone and to retire with a winning record.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Fluff in some places, but like the robots themselves, this is more than the sum of its parts. Rating: 7/10

We Need To Talk About Kevin

We Need To Talk About Kevin has been a failure at the box office. Despite being based on Lionel Shriver’s best-selling novel of the same name, it appears fans of the book haven’t seen any reason to watch the screen version. Trumpeter of the book or not, there’s three main reasons I suspect why this is; i) The subject matter ii) Tilda Swinton (no matter what you think of her, she’s just not a box office draw) and iii) The title (it’s just not going to persuade the person passing by to rush in). So, people haven’t gone. Have they missed out though? The story concerns Eva (Swinton) and her relationship with her son, Kevin (duh), which was rocky enough anyway even before he went and massacred a load of students at his high school. Told using the flashback device, we follow Eva as she is now (post bloodshed), still trying to understand what happened and attempting to get her life back on track. Interspersed with this we cut away every now and then to follow the birth of Kevin and Eva’s strained relationship with him as he grows up. Let’s talk about the acting first. Swinton is fine as always but plays Eva as such a wet blanket it’s tough to engage with her or indeed give her much sympathy (a major problem I’ll come to in a bit). John C Reilly is only a bit part player in the background as the husband, so it’s a relief that two of the actors playing Kevin (Jasper Newell as the 6-8 year old version and Ezra Miller as the teen killer) raise the bar substantially. Miller is good, playing Kevin as dark and moody with the occasional menacing glint in his eye telling us that bad things will happen soon and what fools we’ve all been. Even better is Newell, who’s performance takes us far away from that of “Kid who is a brat” to levels of uneasiness not seen since The Omen. The big problem with the film compared to the book is that, despite Swinton’s best efforts, we never get to hear what Eva actually thinks about what is going on with Kevin. This makes it hard for the audience to understand why her (and Franklin) make the decisions they do when it appears obvious to the paying customer that their son is on a one way trip to psycho-ville. For example, Kevin’s shown daily signs of being a sociopath. I know, let’s get him a high velocity bow and arrow! Kevin probably likes to torture animals. I know, let’s get his sister a cute little pet! What’s this? Kevin’s actions have caused his sister to lose an eye? Well, we better administer a mild ticking off! Frankly, even taking into account a parents love for their child, it doesn’t ring true and pretty much undermines the whole story. Director Lynne Ramsay hasn’t had a mainstream release since 2002’s Movern Callar, but she does will enough here, shooting the film with a detached feel which nicely compliments the coldness between Eva and Kevin. She doesn’t do much more than that though, as, basically, the script doesn’t allow it. This isn’t a turkey in any way, but much more thought should have gone into if this was worth adapting for the screen in the first place.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not a bad film, but it’s tough subject matter is lost amongst the eyebrow raising antics of the protagonists. Rating: 5/10.

The Debt

The Debt is a re-make of the little seen (outside of its home country anyhow) Israeli film Ha-Hov, telling the story of three Mossad agents and their attempt to track down a Nazi War criminal in East Berlin in 1966. The film flicks between then and 1997, in which the older agents are basking in the (relative) glory of their successful mission. Or was it? John Madden is the director here and he’s usually a pretty safe pair of hands. That’s actually a pretty good description of this film which, despite the opportunity for some serious political comment, decides to skirt over the issues and play it as a straight drama / thriller. In fact, most times the screenplay attempts some sort of statement on the moralistic issues they appear forced and clunky. The three agents are Rachel (1966 version = Jessica Chastain, 1997 = Helen Mirren), Stefan (1966 = Marton Csokas, 1997 = Tom Wilkinson) and David (1966 = Sam Worthington, 1997 = Ciarán Hinds). Of the split it’s the 1966 actors that fare the better, though mainly that’s down to them having the meat of the script. The opening of the film is intriguing enough with the time switching technique providing some thought and a couple of short, but smartly directed tense set pieces as the agents kidnap the ex-Nazi (Jesper Christensen, playing the villain, as always). However, when things go wrong and they all find themselves holed up in a grotty apartment the film stalls. Just when all appears lost though, the film pulls a trick on the audience showing us that a crucial scene at the start of the story is not all it appears. It does work, but it’s also quite a risk to con the audience in such a way and some may find it, well, a con. There are some other problems as well, among them the nagging feeling about whether steely Mossad agents would really fall apart so quickly (or indeed use such green ones in the first place) and who on earth thought Hinds looks like an older Worthington? (Seriously, come on). This is more than just a minor quibble, as it adds confusion, especially as Hinds looks a lot more like an older Csokas would. The ending as well is a bit off-kilter, resembling a bizarre OAP stalk and slash as opposed to something really thrilling. On the whole this is a smart film, but some trimming of its bloated edges would have made it a fine one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A great start and sneaky twist is soon lost amongst the hurried and implausible last 30 minutes. Rating: 6/10.

Contagion

It’s been a while now since Stephen Soderbergh has given us a film that delivers the holy double of both critical acclaim and box office numbers (though it’s safe to say studios are only really worried about the latter these days, I suppose). His latest, Contagion, doesn’t triumph in either category, but it’s a drama (though advertised as a thriller) that requires a bit more thought than the usual outlay from such a (relatively) hefty budget. Starting with the caption “Day Two”, the film begins with a number of people dying in various different countries. Before long it’s clear that a worldwide pandemic is the cause and the film takes the viewpoint of numerous different characters as the death toll rises with no remedy in sight. Though there’s no clear lead in the film, with the main focal points being Kate Winslett (Disease expert), Laurence Fishburne (Big Cheese disease expert), Matt Damon (Man on the street) and Jude Law (Blogger on the, err, street), the main interest is garnered from the scientist’s point of view as they struggle to contain the illness, whilst trying to discover the crucial cure at the same time. The viewpoint from the general public is less involving as we’re not really given any time to emphasise with the characters and the scenes involving rioting and looting as the social breakdown occurs are ten a penny. Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Burns have been getting praise from the scientific community for the films precise portrayal of the procedures and processes that disease control centres undergo during such times and aligned with some of the selfish decisions some of the characters make under pressure it gives the film a realistic and almost documentary edge. Apropos to this is that Soderbergh doesn’t tell the story with any sense of preaching or overly political statements. There are some moments that don’t add up though. Winslett’s character spots early on how dangerous this illness could be, but spends little time protecting herself against it, some minor characters are base stereotypes with wooden dialogue and a kidnapping subplot involving Marion Cotillard as an epidemiologist appears to be a ruse just to get one less character off screen for ages. There are some nice touches though, especially the final scene flash back to “Day One” showing us just how the disease began and how easily it spread uncontrollably. Worrying stuff indeed, but there is something in this film even more horrific than the millions of dead bodies: Jude Law’s “Australian accent”. If I did urge you to see this film it would be to check it out just for that reason alone. Quite frankly it’s mangling of vowels not heard on celluloid since, well, possibly ever. Anyway, going back to the film as a whole, as a study in science, media and politics this is well handled and ripe for further discussion. However, as a film it doesn’t grip as it should and despite the good notices for its accuracy, this still can’t stop it slipping back into the general muddle of infection of the week films.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

This is an interesting film, but it can’t really be classified as anything more than that. Rating: 6/10.

Midnight In Paris

It’s late in the year and reviewing film after film can sometimes be a bit of a chore, so I sing the praises of Woody Allen for his latest film Midnight In Paris. Praise him in the sense that he’s awoken me from a stupor and got my reviewing blood up with a film which is so outrageously pretentious that it caused me physical pain when watching it due to the amount if times I was wincing and exhaling breath during its running time. Firstly, the premise, in which Allen’s tour of Europe continues with his entourage now alighting in Paris to tell the story of engaged couple Gil (Owen Wilson) and Inez (Rachel McAdams) who are holidaying in said city with her parents whilst Hollywood screenplay writer Gil attempts to finish his first novel. However, one midnight stroll on his own finds Gil transported to 1920’s Paris where he meets plenty of famous artists, musicians and writers from that time. Going backwards and forwards between past and present Gil eventually learns that his missus is horrible and that he needs to split up with her in order to fulfil his literary dreams and meet someone who really appreciates him. Major problem here though as within the first 5 minutes of the film you see that Gil is a spineless wonder and Inez is hugely unlikable and they shouldn’t be together. So why then the time-travel charade in order to spell it out to the audience? The obvious answer is that the characters need to find out for themselves, but as they’re so unlikable in the first place why on earth would the casual viewer even care? Having a key historical figure turn up every five minutes when Gil is in the 1920’s is neither smart nor funny and the moment Adrian Brody appears as Salvador Dali (complete with cringe-worthy accent and mannerisms) has to be one of the lowest points of Allen’s career. Having Paris as the backdrop can sometimes gloss over some cracks in a film, but not a chance here. You can enjoy some great shots of Parisian streets and landmarks during the film but which director of only average ability (actually, which person) can’t come up with the same thing themselves? Throw in Allen’s continued use of the same cheap looking titles for each film (yes, Woody, we get the point now) and one of the most annoying soundtracks I’ve ever heard, this continually finds itself in the merde. Don’t even get me started on the risible ending which was so obvious and trite that I actually booed out loud for the first ever time watching a film in the cinema. Hmm, perhaps I should get an invite to Cannes next year? However, I must be in the wrong as it appears the film has got widespread critical acclaim from everyone else. Maybe I’ve walked into an alternate universe myself?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

The most unlovable film about The City Of Love ever filmed. Rating: 2/10.

The Help

When reviewing a film like The Help with its worthy subject matter, you have to be careful to review the actual film as opposed to giving your opinion based on the topic alone. First of all, said topic, that of African American Maids in the 1960’s and the way they were treated by the white families they worked for. Based on Kathryn Stockett’s novel of the same name the film follows Skeeter (Emma Stone) an aspiring author in Jackson, Mississippi who decides to write about the maids having been quasi-raised by one herself. Director Tate Taylor has virtually no directorial pedigree to speak of, so it was quite a risk by Touchstone and Dreamworks to place this in his lap. Someone must have known something though as it’s turned out to be an inspired choice. Granted he’s got the source material to go on, but Taylor’s film is superbly acted, beautifully shot and, most surprisingly, hilarious in parts. Skeeter has to write her book on the sly whilst hanging around the social circle of snooty Hilly (Bryce Dallas Howard) and friends and their subtle, but abysmal treatment of their maids. You don’t have to have read the novel to see things play out as you would expect, but there are a number of surprises in the film, including one of the main plot points revolving around an incident that wouldn’t be out of place in one of the American Pie movies (ironically, said scene does actually involve a pie as well). I mentioned the acting earlier and you’ll be hard pressed to find better performances in a film all year. Stone continues to impress in each performance, coming across particularly naturally here with a manner that appears effortless, but is really a sign of just how good she is. The two central performances from Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer as the main maids of the storyline are nicely contrasted. Davis’ character is full of bile, but she hides it in a presentation of dignified restraint, whilst Spencer is hilarious as the outspoken Minny, cooker of fantastic tasting food. Stealing the show though is Jessica Chastain as the ostracised Celia, a figure of fun for the rest of social circle. Chastain is superb, playing wide eyed and innocent to the race storm going on around her, whilst providing many a chuckle with her antics and also breaking hearts when her own personal demons are revealed. A scene where she is mocked by Hilly and friends is unpleasant to watch as anything in the film and her relationship with Minny eventually provides the film’s most touching moments. Celia’s treatment at the hands of Hilly raises an interesting question though, as we have actually moved away from the racial aspect of the storyline and are basically saying some people (Hilly et al) are just heartless to others regardless of their race, colour or creed. Which leads us onto the main point of discussion where Taylor’s approach has been accused of toning down the hardships that the maids faced at the time. This is a film though where the director’s hands are tied. He’s decided to tone it down and gets grief for it, but if he had gone too far the other way, accusations of heavy handed lecturing and stereotypes would have abounded. As far as I’m concerned it’s a discussion for another time and another place. Returning to the quality of the film it dips slightly in a few scenes that dangerously border the mawkish and the ending doesn’t quite hit home like it should. Overall though this is both a worthy subject and a worthy film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Is there too much comic relief in place of hard hitting drama? What can’t be argued though is that this is well directed and superbly acted. Rating: 8/10.

The Ides Of March

I think it was Traffic that had the tag line “No one gets away clean” and that one-liner could also be put to good use to describe George Clooney’s The Ides Of March. Politics has always been a dirty business and you’ll probably need a shower after watching this such is the muck on show. Based on Beau Willimon’s novel Farragut North, this political drama thriller follows Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) the brains behind Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) and his campaign for the Democratic presidential candidacy. Aided by Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Morris’ manager, things are looking good for a winning campaign and yet more praise for golden boy Meyers. However, one phone call from rival Republican campaign manager Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti, superb) and a chain of affairs begin that swiftly spin out of control and end up with Meyers unsure who to trust and worrying how much of his (until then innocent) soul he may have to sell to the devil. Lets start with the bad things first. If you hate politics and politicians then the story line doesn’t supersede the subject matter and this won’t be for you. Plus, they’re aren’t many likeable persona’s in this film to side with. Put it like this, the death of a fairly innocent character is met without much more than a shrug of the shoulders and a quick cover up. If you do dip your toes in Ides’ murky waters though you’ll have a decent time. Clooney has joint acting / directing duties here. Playing the part of a politician switching between charm and sleazeball Clooney can do in his sleep, so it’s what he does with the camera is more intriguing. He’s handled a political story (of a different genus) before with Good Night, and Good Luck and his success with that film holds him in good stead here, explaining only enough of what’s going on to keep the audience hooked and not ruining any illusions by spoon feeding the machinations behind the political wheels. It’s a classic case of the audience finding out what’s happening at the same time as the main protagonist. Clooney doesn’t hang around either when it comes to moving the story along as Stephen hardly ever sits still, moving from set to set as we get to feel what it really must be like on a campaign train, i.e. no rest until your man’s in The Seat. There’s no fancy camera tricks here but excellent use of lighting and close ups portray many an emotion, though at times Clooney flirts dangerously with a feel of a poor imitation of an X-Files episode. On the acting front Gosling gets to show a lot more of the charm that he undoubtedly has, but he’s still a long way off from hitting such standards as the now regular excellent performances of Giamatti and Seymour Hoffman (both the highlights in this despite much smaller roles). Though how Marisa Tomei got cast as the worlds least convincing hack is as much a mystery as the political funding of a major party. In the end this is a study of two things: The loss of innocence and dirty dealings in the corridors of power. How realistic you find all this will probably depend on how deep your knowledge of politics is, but the basic premise of the story (shown in the excellent final shot of the film) can be applied to anything: Just how many of your morals would you sacrifice to get what you want?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Clooney’s direction and the twisty plot shine out from the shadows. Time for George to move behind the camera once and for all? Rating: 8/10.

Warrior

From the outside this looks like a film with a hard edge. Family drama, alcoholism and mixed martial arts. Now throw in director Gavin O’Connor (Pride & Glory) and you might be expecting a tough 140 minutes (yep, 140 minutes) in the cinema. Its credit to O’Connor then that his film does not beat you mercilessly into submission, but tells its story in a much softer manner than you would expect. Warriors would actually be a more apt name for the production as we follow brothers Tommy (Tom Hardy) and Brendan (Joel Edgerton) who both find themselves competing in the same fight tournament. How they got there though forms the backbone of the film and each has a very different story to tell. There is some high drama here as the back story of the two brothers and their own estranged relationship is explained between bouts and the performance of Nick Nolte as their father is heart breaking. Films such as these are two handers, where the action in the ring has to be matched by the drama outside it. Hardy and Edgerton both look the part when it comes to the fight scenes and after reading about the numerous injuries they both suffered during filming its clear the testosterone must have been flying. On the dramatic front though Edgerton wins hands down, however that’s mainly due to him having the broader written character compared to Hardy’s mumbler. One problem the film can’t escape though is its convoluted plotting, with too many plot machinations to be believable. Plus Brendan, despite taking a pummelling in virtually every fight he's in, somehow manages to storm back every time and triumph mainly due to the advice from his corner to “breath”. Hmm, I’ll have to remember that the next time I’m having a dust up with Mark Coleman. Overall though, this is a good film and it’s a shame then that this has been such a box office disaster. It’s unclear as to why, but despite good notices so far neither Hardy or Edgerton are top box office draws yet. However, come the climatic showdown though (can you guess between who?) you’ll be rooting for neither man to lose and be marvelling at the fact that the 2 hour plus running has felt only half of what it is.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Clichéd scripting, but three winning performances from the leads make for some entertaining tough love. Rating: 7/10.

What's Your Number?

What’s Your Number? is one of those films where you already know exactly what’s going to happen throughout the film, and its conclusion is already known to its audience by the phrase “romcom”. It’s also one of those films that’ll have the male population running a mile. However, any blokes that do get dragged along will still be entertained as, despite there being nothing original here, there are still enough gags to go round and a winning performance from Anna Faris to enjoy. In the film Faris plays Ally, a woman who after reading an article about sexual partners decides not to sleep with anyone else unless they are the “one”. In addition, she attempts to track down her ex-notches on the bedposts in order to see how they are now and if any of them could have been said love of her life. Helping her out is Colin (Chris Evans) who, get this, is a musician in a struggling band but just also conveniently happens to be an expert in tracking people down. Only in the movies, folks. As is the wont of the modern romcom this has a few crude moments to have you squirming, but it isn’t overloaded with them and the film aims more for laughs based on verbals rather than actions. Faris is a weird actress to watch and how you feel about this film may actually depend on whether you find her cute as a button or annoying as hell. There isn’t much middle ground, really. Personally, I doff my hat to her in this as she always appears game for anything and provides plenty of charm that is missing from similar by the numbers productions. There are negatives of course, with the worse being Ally’s discussions with her girlfriends and their toe-curlingly unnatural dialogue bringing to mind the worse of Sex and The City. Evans doesn’t do much and is a bit of a personality vacuum throughout, though the target audience won’t be disappointed to see him wandering about the film in various states of undress. This is director Mark Mylod’s first feature and with a heavy background in TV he knows enough to move the story along as quick as possible, though this is probably a by-product of not having much to work with script wise. All in all, not as bad as you’d think, but certainly nothing new.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Faris is the best thing here and to be fair to all involved this doesn’t claim to be anymore then it sets out to be. Rating: 6/10.

Johnny English Reborn

What’s the optimum time to watch a film? Depends on the film I guess, but for something of Johnny English Reborn’s ilk, surely it’s 4.30pm on a Friday afternoon? What better time, after a hard week of work, to disengage brain, forget about the quality of the film and just go with the flow with the weekend looming large. Sadly, even the endorphins released after surviving another week in the office can’t compensate for the fact that JEB just isn’t all that good. The problem is that (though a genius in his heyday) Rowan Atkinson’s rubber faced shtick and smarmy manner are old hat these days. This film’s predecessor suffered from the same problem, though that still had a few decent laughs and a fairly smart car chase. The laughs are pretty minimal here and I can’t recall a recent film that has as many obvious set-ups to its punch lines as this one. The only real highlight (on the humour front) is that the chair gag heavily plugged in the trailer is a lot longer (and still hilarious) in the movie. Director Oliver Parker doesn’t actually do too bad a job, but the screenplay (English attempts to track down a mole in “MI7” whilst simultaneously keeping tabs on an international assassin ring) doesn’t have anything original to say and most gags are just tired spoofing seen before. It isn’t clear either as to English’s characterisation as he’s gone from being a mildly lovable buffoon to a confusing mix of moron one minute and genius the next. Therefore any plot machinations seem too convenient in respect of what “mode” English is in at the time. Dominic West, Gillian Anderson and Rosamund Pike add some glamour to the cause, but you can’t polish a you know what. I did see West quoted at the premier in Leicester Square saying something like “This film has some of the funniest scenes I’ve ever seen”, before quickly adding, “Well, they were on set”. Indeed, dear boy.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Plenty of slapstick for little ones, but apart from the occasional laugh, it’ll just be shrugging of shoulders from everyone else. Rating: 4/10.

Red State

Kevin Smith’s last film was the cinematic abomination that was Cop Out. If, after that film, he had announced that he would be making only two more films you would have been thinking that was two too many, though perhaps with a touch of regret when reflecting on how Smith’s bright start burnt out so quickly. Smith didn’t make that statement then, but he has made it now, meaning his new film Red State is his penultimate one. The good news is that, if this is the long goodbye, Red State will leave a few decent memories. Smith has always been a hands on kind of guy and here he writes, directs and edits a film that is short, smart and funny without ever threatening to become a classic, though its one-liners and subject matter could have it heading towards cult status. I’ve no doubt Smith had a hand in the marketing campaign, where this film is described as “An unlikely film from that Kevin Smith”. Ego alert there, but Smith is making a fair point as this is well off his usual directing path, no doubt recognising (or at least being made aware after reading reviews) that the usual buddy-ing banter of his last few films has worn very thin by now. Not hanging around, the film goes straight into the main story as three horny teenagers find themselves with a lot more to cope with than they anticipated when they arrange a sexual liaison with lonely caravan dweller Sarah (Melissa Leo). Instead of sordid antics, they find themselves prisoners of enthusiastic preacher Abin Cooper (Michael Parks ) and his baying flock. Cooper’s stock trade is delivering sermons on fire and brimstone, though he also has a nice sideline in murdering perceived sinners. The boys find themselves next on the block. Pretty soon ATF Agent Keenan (John Goodman) is on the case on things go a bit manic. Subtle this ain’t, as Smith attempts to give us, if not the biggest, certainly the loudest gun fight since Heat. This is ear bustlingly entertaining stuff, though it could easily be argued it’s basically just a filler for the killer dialogue that seems to have deserted Smith in recent years. What this film does have is two great performances at its core from Parks and Goodman. Parks is superb, completely convincing as the pastor and Smith gives him plenty of camera time, including the luxury of a five minute lecture not totally relevant to moving the film along. That’s a risk from Smith but Parks holds the attention enough that he gets away with it. Goodman is also highly watchable as the cynical agent morally at odds with the orders he has been given, but knows he has to play the bills somehow. Smith’s direction cuts to the chase from scene to scene, even utilising a few Greengrass-esque handheld running shots. On the downside a few supposed shock moments are massively telegraphed and a few decisions made the religious congregation don’t ring true. The ending is of interest as Smith, probably realising that gunfire can only take you so far, has a post incident Keenan telling the story of how the battle concluded to his superiors. It’s a different take from the norm, though some may find to leads to a somewhat abrupt finish. So, one film to come from Smith then and as that’s rumoured to be an ice-hockey based comedy, it’s more than likely this will be his last film that sticks in the memory and, much like the killer last line in this film, at least it’s a decent one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A welcome return to form for Smith. This is a shotgun blast of fun and thrills. Rating: 7/10.

The Skin I Live In

Pedro Almodóvar is a talented director no doubt, but so much so that he’s now allowed to refer to himself in the first person? (as he does in the opening credits of his latest film The Skin I Live In). That’s some stones, Pedro. Still, he no doubt feels he deserves it for giving us some royal entertainment over the past 25 or so years with a number of cracking features. However, I’ve always felt with Almodóvar that the decent performances he gets from his actors and the memorable story lines he comes up with gloss over his rather standard direction behind the camera. The Skin I Live In doesn’t disprove this fact. Teaming up with his old mucker Antonio Banderas for the first time in over 20 years, Almodóvar’s latest tells the story of Ledgard (Banderas), a brilliant but controversial plastic surgeon. Told partly in flashback Ledgard’s had a troubled life, but I won’t go into any further detail as the film is designed in such a way that little bits of info are dropped into the screenplay scene by scene and to know anything beforehand would dilute the mystery. What I can say though is that, even for Almodóvar, this film is completely bonkers. Things are odd enough for the first thirty minutes, but then it really start to go nuts leading up to the films astonishing mid-point twist. The slow realisation of what you’re seeing is one of the film high points of the year. Understandably, the film tails off during its second half, but it’s a sign that the abrupt finish that it has frustrates not only due to its suddenness, but also due to the fact you want to see more. You’ll have great fun explaining the story line to your work colleagues the next day though. I don’t want to say much more as this really is one to see for yourself. However, if you’re a fan of Almodóvar and are wondering if this is a change of direction from him, don’t worry as, yes, this is heavily centred around family relationships and all of his usual calling cards are present and correct. Those being (thanks to the MPAA) “ disturbing violent content including sexual assault, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, drug use and strong language”. Enjoy!

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Unless you’ve read the source novel (Mygale), prepare yourself for a major shock as you enjoy, in the words of the man himself, “a horror story without screams or frights”. Rating: 7/10.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t expecting big, nay huge, things from Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. A killer British cast and Swedish director Tomas Alfredson, the man behind the superlative Let The Right One In. It seems the critics haven’t been disappointed either as they’ve been falling over themselves to lavish this with praise. However, much like the screw shaped story line, is what these reviewers saying the whole truth? Even before firing up the cameras there was always going to be one major hurdle for Alfredson and scripter Peter Straughan. How to condense John le Carré complex novel into a coherent film. Unfortunately, they haven’t quite managed it. For those not in the know the story concerns semi-retired intelligence officer George Smiley’s (Gary Oldman) attempts to track down a Soviet spy within MI6. Despite the great cast the film suffers from three main problems. Firstly, it’s far too slow. Realistic you may say, and no-one was expecting any James Bond style antics here, but scene after scene of watching Smiley plodding along does not get the pulse racing. Secondly, too many characters appear with little explanation as to who they are and what’s going on, meaning things may become confusing at times for some and it’s possible that only people with full knowledge of the novel will be able to watch all the way through without a quizzical look on their faces at some point. Finally, the ending is spectacularly limp with the reveal as to who the spy is not intriguing or surprising (even for people who don’t know the story already). One thing Alfredson does nail though is the atmosphere. Paranoia abounds throughout with the real feeling that no-one can be trusted and the characters acting as if every word they utter is being recorded. This reaches a high in the films only real moment of tension when Benedict Cumberbatch has to steal some documents from deep within the organisations archive. It’s a nerve rattling scene, but it’s over too quickly and you wish Alfredson had found the time to insert a few more edge of the cinema seat moments like it instead of yet more aerial shots of various European cities. Aesthetically this looks great as well, with the bland early 1970’s setting realised through sharp attention to detail, including a selection of brown and grey polyester clothing not seen since the heyday of door to door insurance salesmen and a constant fog of cigarette smoke bordering the films edges. On the acting front this is Oldman’s film by a long way, completely inhabiting the role of Smiley to the extent that you forget its Oldman under the make-up and glasses. He gives Smiley the cold and calm manner that le Carré has in the novel and the one time in the film where he actually raises his voice above his usual monotone is a great moment of Smiley revealing some inner emotions for a few seconds. Everyone else does their best but too many performances get lost in the mix, but nods should go out to Toby Jones as a snide rival agent, but even better is Kathy Burke in a short but memorable role as a retired employee of the service who has seen better days. To sum up, this is a feast on the eyes, but the film just goes to show that even with outrageous talent both behind and in front of the camera, some stories just cannot be told in 120 minutes.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Oldman is great, visually it’s a triumph, but this a thriller without any thrills. Rating: 6/10.

Jane Eyre

Reviewing a film adaptation of a literary classic is always a bit odd, especially if the story, as in the case of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, is a tale low on derring-do and description heavy. Director Cary Joji Fukunaga’s film is more than passable, but can’t escape the look and feel of a made for TV production and the big screen, despite a few wide shots of the countryside of the Peak District, doesn’t bring anything more to the party. The film is partly financed by the BBC and there’s auntie’s production values stamped all over this. To wit: 1) The costumes 2) Candlelight 3) Shots of fields, castles etc 4) It stars Judi Dench. It’s all present and correct, I’ll tell thee Sir! For those not in the know, this isn’t the place to get into the whole back story, but this is basically a love story (though mainly told in fleeting glances) between Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) and her employer Mr Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Wasikowska is the better of the two, virtually lifting Eyre from the page and imbuing her with a sense of purpose and feistiness that has us rooting for her all the way through. Fassbender is usually pretty good in most things, but he doesn’t quite cut the mustard here and he never convinces as a cold cad, not helped by prancing around in some (unintentionally) hilarious get-ups. This a problem for Fukunaga as there is zero chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender and as the plot pretty much revolves around their feelings for each other it’s a major stumbling block. The film does survive though thanks to Wasikowska’s performance and Fukunaga’s economic direction. It’s amusing to note that Fukunaga would follow up the blistering Sin Nombre with this, but he proves he can cope with this genre as well and his smooth direction doesn’t signpost anything. In fact, if you don’t know the story line at all, you’ll be taken aback by a few revelations at the end. Overall this is one for the target audience only really and enjoyment will be based on what you feel about adaptations of novels in the first place.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

No trees are pulled up, but this is worth catching for Wasikowska’s performance. Rating: 6/10.

A Lonely Place To Die

Climbing thriller A Lonely Place To Die shot in and out of the cinemas in the time it takes to attach a crampon to your trekking boots. This is a shame as, even though it doesn’t grip as hard as it might, it at least secures its footing and provides decent entertainment from its largely unknown cast and low budget. Director Julian Gilbey starts his film with a scene that virtually all films of this ilk have, that of the lone climber(s) scaling an impossibly steep cliff face. It’s breathtaking stuff and one slipped foot later hints at the thrills to come. Next though we’re introduced to the players, a group of climbing enthusiasts (including Melissa George) who, whilst enjoying a scramble over the Scottish Highlands stumble across a young Serbian girl buried alive in an underground chamber. Before long it isn’t just the elements the group needs to be concerned with. The casting of the film is actually its main point of interest. George is the lead and as she’s the only mildly famous person in the film, it’s fairly obvious she’s going to make it to the final frame. That’s not a spoiler by the way as the trailer already spells this out and let’s face facts, this was hardly going to be a Psycho situation, was it? On the plus side it also means the film benefits from the thriller / horror facet where an unknown cast leads to a higher rate of tension as you never know who’s going to get it next. It’s the shame though that the minor characters aren’t fleshed out enough and the only things we learn about them come via some dodgy lines in the script. In respect of the overall screenplay it’s pretty smart throughout, but Gilbey doesn’t explain it in a coherent way meaning it’s unclear as to what is actually going on at times as more and more characters (including Sean Harris in his usual unsettling role as a nut job) and plot twists are introduced. It also peters out a bit at the end, but the first two thirds are enjoyable enough and this deserves the benefit of the doubt.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not quite the white knuckle ride it could have been, but it still has enough edge and smarts to garner further viewings down the line. Rating: 7/10.

Fright Night

When it comes to failed re-makes of films there is always one underlying reason why they never catch on with a new audience. That being that the audience has already seen the original, loved it, so why make a new version at all? Director Craig Gillespie’s remake of Fright Night just about avoids this trap as though the original was well received at the time, it’s more of a cult film than anything of real quality. Plus, Gillespie’s new version is a bit of a blast. Plot wise we have teenager Charley (Anton Yelchin) who, after suspicions that his new neighbour Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire, ropes in alleged vampire killer and Las Vegas entertainer Peter Vincent (David Tennant). What follows is lots of fun silliness involving all three and a story line that nods to vampire folklore whilst taking the mickey out of it at the same time. Gillespie’s last film was 2007’s intriguing, but somewhat overrated Lars and The Real Girl. That film suffered from its plodding pace, but there’s no worry of that here as Gillespie moves the film along at a brisk rate and there’s little filler. No wonder he’s been snapped up for the upcoming Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. There’s plenty of blood here, but it’s mainly computer generated and horror veterans won’t find anything remotely scary during the running time. However, that’s because Gillespie has opted for more of a Sam Raimi approach to proceedings i.e. make them jump and laugh at the same time. It works well throughout highlighted best in the films signature moment, a car chase scene shot in one continuous take that thrills as much as it provides chuckles. Plus fans of the original can look out for Chris Sarandon’s brief appearance during this scene. What also makes the film a success is that all the actors are all in on the joke. Yelchin delivers his lines with a welcome dryness, Farrell has fun in a performance full of jitters and menace, and Tennant, (near unrecognisable at the start) hams it up to an enjoyable degree. On the negative side of things the decisions of some of the characters takes some serious suspension of disbelief and any plot twists are easy to spot well in advance. Plus, I watched this in 2D and the scenes that have been purposely shot for 3D stick out like a sore thumb, in terms of their visuals and also how superfluous they are to the story line itself. Overall though, if the Twilight films have sucked your enjoyment of cinema dry, then this is the perfect antidote to get your blood pumping again.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

On paper this didn’t look like much so it’s a welcome surprise what entertainment it is. Rating: 7/10.

Conan The Barbarian

Right, hands up who wanted a Conan re-make? What, none of you? The original, despite is varied quality, is hardly in need of a re-make and what with a few swords and sandals films of average quality filling the cinemas in recent years it’s hardly surprising that this has been a box office disaster. However, just because no one saw it doesn’t mean it should be written off, does it? OK, this is complete gumph, but to give it its due it doesn’t profess to be anything more. To go over the revenge based plot would be pointless, but you’ll be unsurprised to hear it involves bulging muscles, heaving bosoms and bloody mayhem. Oh yeah, and swords and sandals (natch). Talking the lead role is TV beefcake Jason Momoa and, despite an alarming personality bypass in some scenes, actually does a pretty decent job. He is aided by the screenplay which attempts to portray Conan as he was originally written, i.e. a loner who distrusts virtually everyone and who sees women as either an object for his lust or someone that will carry his belongings for him. In fact it’s surprising to see a mainstream individual in a Hollywood movie these days act in such a chauvinistic manner to women. Fair play to the film makers though for sticking to their guns in respect of giving the hero such an unpleasant character trait, as opposed to worrying how the audience would react. Marcus Nispel is the director here and he’s never really come on from his impressive remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre back in 2003. However there are glimpses of his talent on show here, especially during some neat action sequences. In terms of other performances Stephen Lang has some fun chewing the scenery as the bad guy and Rose McGowan, despite over-acting to the nth degree, provides a degree of menace as a half-witch with Freddy Krueger alike claws. All in all this is one of those films where if you can overlook the bad (and yes, there’s quite a bit of it), you won’t be too disappointed come credits time. Plus, if you’re a gore hound this is up a level from the usual "slay but don’t show" mentality of recent films of this genre, with claret going everywhere and a torture scene involving a hacked off nose that would even have Tarantino wincing in his seat.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Looks terrible (and parts of it are) but this is a surprisingly brutal and fresh-ish re-telling of the Conan story. Rating: 6/10

Super 8

If there was a competition for the most Steven Spielberg looking film not directed by the beard himself then Super 8 would win hands down. It’s all here in spades. Young love, childhood friendships, dysfunctional families, tragic death, redemption and, of course, aliens. OK, Spielberg is the producer here, but its JJ Abrams in the director’s chair. It’s a good combination though as they have both put together an unashamedly old fashioned bit of fun that will remind anyone over the age of 30 of afternoons spent in their local flea pit watching matinees. In the film (set in 1972) we follow a group of friends who are making a cheap horror film on a Super 8 camera, when they happen to be shooting a scene near a railway track when a spectacular train crash occurs littering the outskirts of their small town with mangled wreckage. However, things take a further twist when the army begin to clean up the wreckage (strong-arming the locals aside) and odd things begin to occur within the town. What was on that train? Abrams film has many positives, not least the performances he gets from his (unknown) young charges. They may all be stereotypes (fat kid, geeky kid etc) but the acting is great and the group are highly believable as a collective, with the banter flying between them causing many a laugh. The whole film itself also has a nice line of comedy running through it, though Abrams also gives us a few tense scenes aided by the decision to not show whatever was on that train to the audience until late on. The main negative that can levelled against the film is that is this just a load of nothing really? Despite a bit of menace, there’s never any doubt that the protagonists are in any real danger and things aren’t helped by the films incomprehensible conclusion (plot-wise). Overall though, whilst it’s unlikely this will be a Goonies for a new generation, it’s still a memorable bit of fun, aided by the showing of the kids amusing kitsch horror film during the end credits.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Lacking the hard edge that would have made this a classic, it’s still entertaining fun for all. Rating: 7/10.

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark

A few months ago the smart marketing campaign for Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark hinted at a film that was smart, terrifying and possibly brilliant. Now it’s here, the reality is a lumpen mess that is dumb, unscary and possibly one of the worst films of the year. Things don’t bode well from the very opening scene in which a clearly CGI’d horse and carriage goes galloping past a spooky looking mansion. This reminded me somewhat of the now infamous gophers from the last Indian Jones film. If the film makers can’t be bothered to do something so simple without resorting to special effects, then it hardly augers well for how much effort they going to put into the rest of the picture does it? Lo and behold (much like that Crystal Skull) this is a shambles. One of the biggest mistakes of the films is made during the opening prologue in which a man in the aforementioned mansion is seen talking to something mysterious in his boiler, but (inexperienced) director Troy Nixey (helming from a Guillermo del Toro screen play) makes the error of then showing us that what he’s talking to, that being some tiny odd looking goblin type creatures. Haven’t these guys heard of the cardinal rule of horror films? (i.e. that suggestion is 9/10ths of the law). We’re then into the main crux of the story in which Alex (Guy Pearce) and Kim (Katie Holmes), having just moved into the house, are joined by Alex’s daughter Sally (Bailee Madison) Before long the creatures are after Sally. However, as the reveal has happened so soon already there isn’t much to be interested or intrigued about. A further problem is that the creatures want to lure Sally down into the basement, so when they “attack” her in the bedroom or bathroom you’re totally non-plussed as you know that nothing’s going to happen to her. The fact that each time the creatures disappear just seconds before any adults appear are coincidences too far. Even more ludicrous is the fact that Sally takes about 50 photos of the creatures to prove their existence, but it’s never explained why they can’t be seen on the photos. Is she that bad a photographer from point blank range? This is just another sigh worthy plot hole in a screen play littered with them. So, just why has this turned out so bad? This’ll be the first (and last!) time I ever quite Oscar Wilde in a film review but in del Toro’s case I think this is a situation where “…each man kills the thing he loves”. I haven’t seen the original TV movie from 1973 on which this is based, but it was well received at the time and gave children nightmares for weeks. Del Toro was one of those children, but this just begs that old question that if something was so great in the first place, why re-make it? Del Toro claimed that when he passed the finished version of the film to the MPAA he was thinking about cutting it to get a lower rating until the MPAA questioned why he would want to do that as he had just made one of the scariest films of all time. Either Del Toro’s telling (publicity aimed) porkies or the person who told him that at the MPAA needs a need job. Instead of being a white knuckle horror the film this most resembles is Gremlins, albeit without the humour or menace. Apart from one jump scare (already shown in the trailer!) this has nothing to get anyone’s pulse racing at all and only the youngest of children would cover their eyes at certain points. On the acting front Pearce doesn’t even bother finding the gear box, let alone only shifting into 1st, but Holmes isn’t that bad, putting more effort into her part than perhaps the films deserves. Fair play to her for that, but even this can’t save Nixey’s confused direction. The only other plus points come from some of the special effects involving the pesky creatures and the eagle eyed among you can have fun trying to spot Del Toro in a background cameo. In the end though this is a just a whole lot of nothing.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Unbelievably disappointing. From being promised ice cold chills all you get is a couple of lukewarm thrills. Rating: 2/10.

Crazy Stupid Love

Despite the trailer and the awful title, Crazy Stupid Love, isn’t really a rom-com at all. Sure, there are romantic gestures and a few nice guffaw out loud moments, but this veers more into dramatic territory and is actually a refreshing look at the trials and tribulations of love, both young and old, compared to the recent Hollywood output addressing the same issues. Joint directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa’s film is pretty much a three hander following soon to be divorced couple Cal (Steve Carell) and Emily (Julianne Moore), their son’s pining for his older babysitter and lounge lizard Jacob’s (Ryan Gosling) lusting after anything female (though eventually hooking up with Hannah (Emma Stone). The three story lines are all neatly weaved together, but it is the relationship between Cal and Jacob that gets the most coverage after Jacob takes Cal under his wing and teaches him how to be a lady killer. These are the best comic scenes in the film as the banter between Gosling and (unsurprisingly) Carell comes naturally, though they struggle a bit later on during the more dramatic scenes. Ficarra and Requa’s last film (I Love You Philip Morris) was their directorial debut together and though that film was passable this is a nice step up in terms of visual look and a tighter screenplay. They also get good value from Marisa Tomei in a worthy cameo as one of Cal’s conquests and Kevin Bacon, who despite toning down the slime in a role as Emily’s “other man”, still has one of the best scenes during a one to one with Emily and Cal’s son. Best of all is the ending which, despite clocking in around the two hour mark, provides us with a smart plot twist, followed by a humorous set to at a family get together. On the downside you’ll need some serious suspension of disbelief to believe Gosling’s lothario would even spend 5 minutes of his life with Cal and some cod philosophy in respect of some the characters backgrounds is teeth grindingly annoying. Overall though this is a drama disguised as a comedy and all the better for it.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A more mature outlook than the gross out antics of recent films of a similar subject marks this one out from the crowd. Rating: 7/10.

Captain America: The First Avenger

What to make of Chris Evans? He’s been in more ensemble films that you can list, but any charisma he shows in such outings appears to disappear in the few lead roles he has had. Usually these above the title outings have been in fairly low key films, so Evans and his agent must have been toasting success long into the night when he landed the plumb role of Captain America. Though (unsurprisingly) big in the States, the rest of the world hardly raises an eyebrow when to comes to old CA, which means the film already had a problem in that it doesn’t have the built in audience that other super hero franchises already have. The main question then is does the film do enough for non-followers? Probably not, but if it’s no-brainer Friday night entertainment that you want then this could be the (superhero) film for you. Steve Rogers (Evans) is a young man keen to enter military service to aid America during World War II, but he is rejected due to his ill health. Frustrated, he finds himself agreeing to undertake a secret experiment in which he will eventually become the eponymous hero. From there on in the films somewhat flimsy premise has Captain America taking on Nazi super villain the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). I say flimsy, as the film can’t escape the feeling that it has been clearly rushed into production prior to the release of the Avengers movie next year. The choice of the Nazi’s as the bad guys just feels lazy and the screenplay is just a case of joining the unoriginal dots. The film is very heavy on the special effects (1600+ of them) and they help and hinder the film in their own various ways. The “shrinking” technique used at the start of the film to show Rogers’ puny body is very impressive, but the CGI doesn’t help in other areas, especially in terms of judging Weavings performance (though Weaving seems to spend most of his films spent behind a mask these days). The over use of effects also mean that any scenes of peril are completely devoid of tension. What of Evan’s though? Sadly, it’s hard to tell. He’s fine as usual, but his performance gets lost amongst all the mayhem. On the plus side you can say that this is a film for all the family to enjoy (it clearly has its roots in Indiana Jones – CA's director, Joe Johnston, was art director on a couple of those films, fact fans) and it does have a number of very funny moments (including Tommy Lee Jones providing some comic relief as a gruff Army instructor). The film is almost the perfect reflection of director Johnston’s career. His films always have that “safe pair of hands” feel, are usually enjoyable without ever hitting any real quality highs and will be on very few people’s DVD shelves. Add Captain America: The First Avenger to that list.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Some nice moments, but this is as standard a superhero film that you’ll ever see. Rating: 6/10.

X-Men: First Class

20th Century Fox have taken a risk when it comes to the title of X-Men: First Class as that’s a set up for fall (and a number of terrible puns) if ever I saw one. What they haven’t taken a risk with though is with the director as giving the helming duties to Matthew Vaughan is a bit of a no-brainer after his triumph with Kick-Ass and his previous works (Layer Cake and Stardust) proving he can handle a mix of action and drama. Vaughan doesn’t disappoint here either and he’s now four for four when it comes to his feature presentations. As with many super hero franchises of recent years that have run out of ideas, this is a prequel to the previous films. Of course there has been the Wolverine film, but this is vastly superior to that mess (though Hugh Jackman does make a small cameo in this). Set mainly in the early 1960’s, the film focuses on the relationship between Professor Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) as young men and the origins of the X-Men. There’s fun and interest to be had watching the young mutants discover their powers for the first time and their confusion as to where they stand in the modern world. McAvoy and Fassbender play off each other well, but its Fassbender that has the juiciest role giving the young Magneto a real hint of menace, whether he’s mentally bullying his fellow mutants or giving off a hint of sexual danger to any females that cross his path. The biggest compliment that can be paid to the film is that it transcends the superhero mythology and can be enjoyed as an emotional drama. Fan boys may be in uproar as to various plots and characters that don’t form an unbroken line into the other films, but Vaughan himself has said that it made more sense to have a film stand on it’s own two feet than spend time worrying about being referential to previous outings. He’s right of course, and when he does nod his head to the X-Men history it’s usually quick and smart, particularly in the case of how Xavier ends up in a wheelchair. Regarding the overall story Vaughan tells it in an efficient manner and you don’t need to be versed in X-Men facts and figures to understand what’s going on. There’s plenty of talk, but it’s never dull as the characters walk around cool looking sets (The look of the film is retro enough, but this is the classy look of the 1960’s that only exists in the movies). It’s actually in the films big action sequences where things falter slightly as Vaughn goes over the top with the special effects and a lot of them aren’t of the required standard of a film with such a huge budget. So there are some negatives, but this is a surprisingly clever and funny film (the aforementioned Jackson cameo is a killer) which raises the bar for the next entry in the franchise.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Vaughan triumphs again, and this time he’s come up with something you don’t see very often: The thinking person’s blockbuster. Rating: 7/10.

Melancholia

The average film goer has always taken the Cannes Film Festival with a touch of salt, especially in the last few years. Gone are the days of booing and slow hand clapping, to be replaced by almost universal revere for anything that gets shown there. How else can you explain a standing ovation for Nicolas Winding Refn’s classy looking, but flawed, Drive and now the acclaim that the festival has bestowed on Lars von Trier’s latest film, Melancholia. The film itself has already gained much attention due to von Trier’s antics at a Cannes press conference after its showing, resulting in him being declared persona non grata by the festival’s directors. Knowing the nature of the Cannes audience though I’d bet my last croissant that if von Trier’s ill-fated remarks had been uttered before the presentation the screen would have been pelted with rotten fruit. I said during my review of von Trier’s last film Antichrist that, regardless of what you thought about it, its subject matter meant people were talking about it (for which von Trier no doubt was happy). With his press conference melt-down he’s pulled the same trick here, but is Melancholia any good though? It’s well documented that von Trier wrote Antichrist while he was suffering from depression and he’s now confirmed that Melancholia’s idea originated during some research he was undertaking which said that people suffering from depression actually keep very calm under stressful situations. From that has come a film which is focused on a wedding between Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) and Justine’s subsequent personality change during the evening of said wedding. Oh yeah, there’s also a huge undiscovered new planet called Melancholia about to possibly collide with, and destroy, Earth. Well, I say possibly, but we know it eventually will as von Trier shows us this in the films prologue. Therefore the main crux of the film is told, as it were, in flashback. So what do you get for the 135 minute running time? Err, not much actually. There’s some good family tensions played out at the wedding and some mild intrigue as to what will be the characters final decisions and actions before the ending of the planet. On the acting front, Dunst won the Best Actress award at Cannes (making it two in a row for von Trier films after Charlotte Gainsbourg for Antichrist) but this only makes a mockery of the festival even more. Dunst is fine, but hardly has anything to do. She spends half the film either walking around, staring off into the distance or, forchristssake, just lying in bed. Gainsbourg herself also appears in this film (playing Justine’s sister) and actually has the more interesting character as she tries to keep the family at least talking to each other whilst also trying to cope with her own personal terrifying fear of Melancholia’s impending appearance. This is a good performance from Gainsbourg and after what she went through in Antichrist must have seemed like a stroll in the park for her. Maybe surprisingly it’s actually Kiefer Sutherland who takes the acting plaudits from under his co-stars noses. Playing low-key as Gainsbourg’s husband he is actually the character in the film you latch on to the most as he tries to keep face in putting up with the bonkers family he has found himself married into, whilst trying to convince his wife (and himself) that Melancholia will pass safely by Earth. He’s no saint, but he becomes the most likeable player by default and when he makes a shocking decision towards the end of the film it almost feels like he has betrayed the audience. So what do you get out of this film? If it was von Trier’s attempt to get people to address mental illness, unlike the named planet, he’s missed the mark by miles. Having Dunst not wear make up for the second half of the film is hardly the stuff of cinematic genius. However, as with all von Trier films there is some stunning cinematography to enjoy and, get this, even some laughs. However, the only thing you’re going to get out of this film is a ten minute chat in the pub about what you would do in your last minutes before Earth is gone forever. I can guarantee you one thing you won’t do: Watch this again.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

If you're a fan the usual aspects of a von Trier film are here for you, but this lacks the smart plot twists of Antichrist and is something that his films usually aren’t: Far too dull. Rating: 6/10.

Drive

Finally, after a few false starts, Nicolas Winding Refn makes (what arguably can be perceived) as his Hollywood debut and with Ryan Gosling in the lead role and a twisty story line involving mobsters and fast cars, it’s been eagerly anticipated. Drive is certainly a stylish film, but is hollow inside and severely lacks the punch of NWF’s Danish Pusher films (though do look out for a nice one-liner describing European films). So even though this isn’t a bad film, it is a letdown compared to what was expected. Let’s talk about the style then. Refn is no doubt a talent behind the camera and this film has some of the most delicate shots you’ll see this year. I’d love to see the story boarding for this film as each scene is shot and crafted in such a way that you could pause the film at any moment, frame what’s there and then hang it at The National Gallery. Add in some elegant lighting (hats off to Newton Thomas Sigel) and some of the best camera angles since Hitch and Kubrick, and you can see that this has clearly been a labour of love for Refn. What of the substance, then? This is where the film falters. Despite it looking great the first half of the film is painfully slow as we follow the un-named driver (Gosling), as a get-away wheel man for hire, going about his daily business with an eye on his neighbour Elaine (Carey Mulligan). When Elaine’s husband is released from prison Gosling finds himself caught up in a tangle of a protection racket and a robbery which he didn’t have on his schedule. I was hoping this would be Gosling’s chance to really push himself and show what he can do, but we’re left with the standard Gosling performance of minimal dialogue with an assortment of (mainly moody) facial expressions (though it can’t be denied he is a master at the latter). Mulligan doesn’t fare much better and I’m pretty certain her whole dialogue in the film could be written on the back of a postage stamp. If you survive the opening and middle sections of the film which mainly consist of Gosling and Mulligan looking earnestly at each other and not saying anything, then you are at least rewarded with a final third that ups the action quota as things begin to unravel for both. Be warned though (and a lot of people are already saying Refn has gone too far here) that some of these scenes have some sickening violence, the “highlight” being Gosling’s assault on someone in a lift that concludes with a quite literal face caving in. You’ll do well to hold onto your popcorn after that one. Is the violence too much? IMHO no, but it’s safe to say it’s unlikely that NWF could have pushed it much further. Overall, this is the kind of film that gets a standing ovation at Cannes (which it did), but leaves a lot of the audience unmoved. At least Refn has made something coherent from a script where all the verbal dialogue would only just fit on a side of A4 paper. Nothing can prepare you though for the terrible soundtrack or the 1980’s style credits shown in a lurid shade of pink in an awful font. Forget the bone-crunching violence as these two aspects are the most offensive thing of all.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

The most cool looking film of the year? Without question. One of the best films of the year? Sadly, no. Rating: 6/10