Monsters

It’s fair to say that Monsters doesn’t do what it says on the tin. A Cloverfield style trailer and a poster of the two main characters in peril suggest a rollercoaster ride of danger, thrills and shaky hand-held camera work. How wrong you’d be. Debut director Gareth Edwards’ film is actually a low key drama with a romantic sub-plot. It just happens to be set on earth during the aftermath of a NASA space probe crash which causes aliens to breed in Mexico. The film follows Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and Samantha (Whitney Able) as they travel through an infected zone of beasties in Mexico in order to reach the relative safety of the southern USA. The film hints at greatness. A nice opening scene is followed by the slow build up of dread as the protagonists go further and further into the infected zone, but then…nothing. Very few monsters, virtually no scares and both Andrew and Samantha traipse through the infected zone with so little problems you wonder why it’s meant to be such a hardship in the first place. The lack of monsters is down to two things. Budget and that the film itself is about Andrew and Samantha’s relation between themselves and the seldom seen aliens. However, it doesn’t work, as this largely improvised film just stutters along. It’s hard to care much for the protagonists when they don’t appear that fussed whether they make it through or not. A more polished script would have helped here and got the message across of what this film is actually meant to be about. The abrupt ending doesn’t help, especially coming after a seriously trite moment which suggest the monster are just like humans. In terms of the monster angle, has Edwards used one of the most outrageous MacGuffin’s in history to tell the story of a romance between two people? So, not fantastic overall, but there’s enough here though to suggest Edwards is one for the future, including a fantastic scene involving a downed jet fighter and a moment that makes cinematic history for the biggest jump scare ever using the word “Quack”.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
As an effort from a first time director it’s hard to be too harsh, but this isn’t really a great film. Be interesting to see what Edwards conjures up next though. Rating: 5/10.

Chico and Rita

It’s fair to say that Chico and Rita will have a bit of a particular audience, that of one that has a liking for animation, Cuban Jazz and dance, and love (won and lost). The film follows Chico, a piano player, and Rita (a singer) in late 1940’s Havana and their next sixty years together as on and off partners in the music world, as well as the bedroom (this isn’t a film for kids). The script is fairly smart, but does rely on one too many convenient coincidences. Another problem is that the characters of Chico and Rita themselves aren’t particularly lovable. In addition to this, the film is far too slow in places, but this will at least allow you to wallow in the gorgeous feel and look of the film. The hand drawn animation in this film is stunning and much congratulation must go to directors Javier Mariscal and Fernando Trueba, as this was truly a labour of love for them, shifting through many pictures of Havana at the time the film is set and then applying that actual look to the film. The Jazz soundtrack is also terrific, complementing the visuals, and the overall result is a film that truly evokes a certain time and place. Logistically, there’s no way a non-animated film could capture such things so perfectly. Is there an audience for this kind of film though? From the box office returns it appears not, but there must always be room for innovators like Mariscal and Trueba in the cinematic fraternity.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The somewhat plodding story is superseded by the superb animation and foot tapping Jazz score, so weigh up carefully what you want from the film before you make the choice of seeing it or not. Rating: 6/10

The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest

Much like The Girl Who Played With Fire, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest suffers from being an edited version of the Swedish television series from which all three films have been harvested. However, this is a much better film than the last part, though it still falls far short of the first film and only gives a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy. This film is talkier and less action heavy than its predecessors and it makes the film a bit of a double edged sword. The storyline centres on a court case where Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace) is accused of three murders. She attempts to prove her innocence with the outside help of Mikael (Michael Nyqvist). The court room setting and continual references to past events mean that this film is easier to follow than the last outing, but there is very little suspense throughout the running time. The film has been so heavily edited though (see the internet for the alternate version) that it’s impossible to comment on Daniel Alfredson’s direction, but its say to safe he’s more at home with slow burning scenes as opposed to anything more fancy. Again, because of the slashing, many plot holes remain unanswered, but the main core of the storyline is at least resolved. Rapace is great again as Lisbeth, giving a performance of such ungratefulness it’s a testament to how good she is that we’re always on her side. Overall, the first film was very good and can at least be watched on a standalone basis. It’ll be interesting to see what the US remakes are like. As original productions they should trump these watered down versions, but I guess the proverbial feast has already been enjoyed by those that saw the original TV series.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
An OK finish to the trilogy, but heavy editing has meant a full analysis is impossible to give. Rating: 6/10

The Season Of The Witch

When I tell you that this is arguably Dominic Sena’s best film, you’ll no doubt point out that could hardly be difficult from the man that lensed Gone In 60 Seconds (amongst over quickly forgotten films). Ironically, it’s the fact that his back catalogue is so mediocre that The Season of the Witch, despite being only an average film, your expectations would have been so low anyway it ends up being surprisingly enjoyable in places. Sena’s old mucker from 60 Seconds Nicolas Cage takes the lead here, as a deserter from the 14th century Christian Crusades who finds himself, along with a group of other men charged with transporting a suspected witch (Claire Foy) across the land to a city where a group of monks will pass judgement on her. In effect, this is a classic “transport the goods” storyline used in everything from The Wages Of Fear to Smokey and The Bandit II. The catch with this is whether Foy’s character is actually a witch at all. Direction wise, Sena does a good job with a quick and smart opening scene leading onto more substation efforts later on in the film as Cage and Co encounter (supernatural?) difficulties during their journey, including a whispering wind and creaky door chase in a plague ridden town and the standard rickety bridge crossing. Cage phones it in, but does an OK job and there’s good support from Ron Perlman as a fellow crusader and Stephen Campbell Moore as a priest. Foy is also good, leaving us unsure whether she is a witch or not, until the smart twist towards the end. However, it all falls apart spectacularly quickly at that point. The films effects are quite ropey throughout, but the main creature which appears at the end of the film looks like that winged thing from The Golden Child with a voice that sounds like the trailer voice over man doing an impression of a Mexican pirate. It’s a shame the film ends in such a way, but it’s still entertaining….just not in the way Sena would have wanted. The film has been panned across the board, but I don’t think it’s that bad and is silly Friday night entertainment.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Some cheesy dialogue, but a few decent scenes will see you through until the disappointing, yet unintentionally comic, ending. Rating: 6/10.

Machete

The opening scene of Machete is full of stupendous splatter, a naked woman (who hides a mobile in a very secret place, a la that episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm), loud guitars on the soundtrack and garish titles. Sounds a bit Grindhouse, right? Well, as most people will know, Robert Rodriguez film follows on from the faux trailer that split Death Proof and Planet Terror in the original Grindhouse release. As we also know, those films died a box office death, with most people hailing the fake trailers as being better than both films. This is much better than the Rodriguez helmed Planet Terror, but, unlike that film, this does have a problem in the fact it’s outrageous storyline does at times try to make a few serious comments, particularly regarding immigration. This is still bonkers though. Danny Trejo stars as Machete, an ex-police officer who is forced into assassinating a senator (Robert DeNiro) by a ruthless businessman (Jeff Fahey). Machete is double crossed and yep, it’s revenge time! Machete hacking his way through the film with his weapon of choice and anything else particularly nasty he can find. It’s all tongue on cheek, but its still not for the queasy. One escape scene through a hospital window its particularly hilarious / gross. Acting wise Trejo isn’t great, but still, he looks the part. Much better is the support, with De Niro, and particularly Fahey, in on the joke and chewing up the scenery with relish. Don Johnson (humorously billed as “….and introducing…”) is also great as a border vigilante. It isn’t all great performance wise though, with Jessica Alba being bland as an immigration officer and Steven Seagal dire as a drug overlord. It all falls apart very quickly at the end with an disappointing final battle (it just gets too silly), but when the end credits roll you’ll be chuckling all the way to the exit doors when voice over man informs us that Machete will return in “Machete Kills” and “Machete Kills…..Again!”.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Rodriguez gets the Grindhouse ingredients right this time. Not a classic, but should gain a cult following. Rating 6/10.

Unstoppable

During my review of The Town, I said that heist films are a genre that usually get a thumbs up from the audience. If done right, of course. However, Tony Scott’s last film, his unadvised remake of quasi-heist 70’s classic The Taking of Pelham 123, was a disaster, with as much direction as a broken set of railway points. The train bug obviously got into Scott though as he now points his camera in the direction of another popular set of films, that of the runaway train species. Well, I say popular, but there haven’t been too many of them over the last 25 years or so, with most of them being TV movies. The main problem is the daddy of the genre, Andrey Konchalovskiy's Runaway Train, is not only the best of the lot, but was also one of the best films of the 1980’s. Any subsequent release is always going to struggle when held up for comparison. However, whereas that film was cold, brutal with a score that was terrifying on its own, Scott goes the opposite direction with Unstoppable, giving us a film that is full of bright colours, the usual crazy Scott editing and a pumping sound track. All of this blasting past in the blink of an eye during the customer friendly short running time. The unstoppable train in this instance is an unmanned half mile long freight train which two railway employees (Denzel Washington and Chris Pine) attempt to stop before a major disaster occurs. Rosario Dawson is the yardmaster trying to keep on top of the situation, whilst her boss (Kevin Dunn) concentrates more on the bottom line and the reputation of the train company, rather than the attempts of the two men to stop the train. The first thing to note is that this film has many faults. The characters are all base stereotypes (with the exception of Dawson, which helps her take the acting honours), the script has some dodgy coincidences and, frankly, despite the title, you already know how it’s going to end. However, it all still works somehow. Scott tones down his direction so you can actually see what is happening for once, there are a couple of great action sequences, the CGI is kept to a minimum and a nice line of humour is kept tight throughout the film. Overall? Disengage brain and sit back and enjoy.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This isn’t Scott at full throttle, but it’s a quick and cheerful Friday night entertainer. Rating: 7/10.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

When reviewing the last Harry Potter film I mentioned that it didn’t feel too different from the previous couple of films. Deathly Hallows doesn’t have that problem due to the majority of the action taking place away from Hogwarts, but this is now the seventh film and things are starting to feel a bit stale when they should be building towards the nerve wracking climax of the final film to come in the summer. I think the problem is that if you know the storyline already you’re not going to be surprised by what happens. If you’re not familiar with the outcome, you don’t really care. David Yates directs his third Potter film here and I think that’s part of the problem. Yates is a competent director but have things got too matey here? He certainly hasn’t pushed the main triumvirate acting wise, with Emma Watson being particularly wooden in this. Ironically, it's actually a short animated section in the middle of the film that is the stand out moment. Frankly, its fantastic. But when we get back to the film itself its back to the blandness. Story wise it’s too late at this juncture to re-cap the back catalogue of films, but in this one Potter (Daniel Radcliffe, looking like he can’t wait to start acting in something else) basically goes into hiding for most of the film, which includes an extremely flat middle section where the main characters stumble around in a forest bizarrely dressed like Pearl Jam circa 1991. There’s also the usual gumph about this being dark and scary. Not a chance. This actually has quite a few decent gags in it and we can also be thankful that the decision to release in 3D was reversed. So, one to go then. Let’s hope for a decent finale, otherwise you could arguably say out of eight Potter films there’s only one (Prisoner of Azkaban) that you could put on a pedestal as a classic of the genre.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not sure how fans feel about this latest part, but below average direction from Yates and an overall tired feel to proceedings mean the franchise is stumbling over the line when it should be sprinting. Rating: 5/10.

Jackass 3D

Here’s another easy review to do. If you’re a Jackass fan you’ll see this. If you’re not, you won’t, despite the added attraction(?) of seeing the usual carnage in 3D. The first thing you notice is how much the Jackass crew has aged over the years. Gone are the fresh faces of 2000. However the madness remains, with the usual array of low brow to lower brow stunts and skits coming thick and fast. Whether you think the boys (well, grown men now) should have grown out of this by now is beside the point. They are still obviously having a laugh and the audience, perhaps nostalgically, want to watch them getting up to no good (as the box office return shows). As with the previous films, not all stunts work that well and definitely feel like filler. However, there are a number of gems, including a “jailbreak” through a corridor of tasers and Johnny Knoxville in old man’s make up getting too friendly with his “grand-daughter” much to the horror of innocent bystanders. Does the 3D make much difference? As with most films, not really, but the opening slow-mo scene looks pretty decent. So fans will have some fun, but even then you’ll need a strong stomach for a number of scenes, especially Steve-O’s toilet trip……

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Seems cruder than before (am I getting on?!), but still enough laughs for the fans to go home happy. Rating: 6/10.

Best and Worst Films of 2010

Right, here we go again. Overall I don’t think it’s been a killer year for films and this is reflected in the top ten films of the year. All great films, but inferior to last year’s selection. There is an interesting mix of genres in the top ten and I’ve tried to be original with my top film as well. You can easily interchange the top two and you’ll get no argument from me, but I gave the nod to Bad Lieutenant as in it you have both Cage and Herzog at the top of their game. As for the turkeys, there were far too many to pick from with the rom-com field scraping the barrel on a number of occasions. Here’s the lists then (best first), plus this year if you click on the title it will take you directly to my review.

1) Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans
2) Inception
3) Four Lions
4) A Prophet
5) Heartbreaker
6) The Social Network
7) Scott Pilgrim vs The World
8) The Disappearance Of Alice Creed
9) Hachi: A Dog’s Tale
10) Shutter Island

…don’t get out of bed for these though…

1) Grown Ups
2) All About Steve
3) Shank
4) The Killer Inside Me
5) I'm Still Here
6) The Bounty Hunter
7) Leap Year
8) Valentines Day
9) Killers
10) Somewhere

Somewhere

Sofia Coppola’s latest film begins with a static shot of a car driving around in a circle, though we only see the car every now and then. The scene itself probably only lasts a few minutes. It feels like hours. If you’re struggling at that point already then I suggest you may want to cuddle up in your seat and take a snooze as things only get slower from that point onwards. Somewhere follows Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) a successful Hollywood actor and his daily routine, that of, basically, being bored. Long scenes of him sitting in bed, sitting on chairs, sitting in make-up litter the film. Ok Sofia we get it. Being a glamorous film star isn’t all it’s made out to be. Some reviews have been critical in the sense of saying why should we sympathise with Marco? He’s rich, famous, good looking etc. Boo Hoo him. I don’t actually think it’s that clear cut. To be fair to Coppola, she does address this towards the end of the film when a crying and distressed Marco is given short shrift by his agent. However, if the point of the film is to show that being a film star / celebrity / rich / famous isn’t all it’s made out to be, well, that’s hardly news is it? In addition, Coppola fails to answer a fairly important issue in the film. If Marco hates it so much, when doesn’t he just find something else to do? The introduction of Marco’s daughter into the film doesn’t add much, apart from to show that, despite a weakness for the ladies, he seems an alright kind of chap. Dorff is actually pretty good in this, despite not having much to do. However, the fact this won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, reminds me of when things like lights going on and off win the Turner Prize. Is it art or arse? Somewhere is pure bottom for me.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This isn’t a case of “getting” it or not. I think all people get the point, but it’s not worth spending your money on. Dorff is good, though. Rating: 3/10.

Little Fockers

Little Fockers was one of the odder cinema experiences I’ve had in recent times. Odd in the fact that for a comedy film I didn’t laugh a single time (though I think a smirk was raised on a couple of occasions). Not a great situation for a comedy film that, but at no point did I think the film itself terrible. I’ve seen a lot of worse comedy films recently in which though the film was dire, I did still actually laugh a few times. So, where does that leave LF in that particular equation? I’m not sure, but I think some people will get some enjoyment out of it and it’s definitely a step up from the barrel scraping Meet The Fockers. The reason being that the filmmakers have gone back to concentrating on what made Meet The Parents such a gem, that of the relationship between Greg (Ben Stiller) and Jack (Robert DeNiro), and sidelining other characters, particularly the spectacularly unfunny Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman as Stiller’s parents. This is a shrewd move by director Paul Weitz, but he may have had some help from Hoffman himself here who allegdy took less screen time due to him being upset with the script. Owen Wilson also makes a welcome return as the Stiller wife bothering, Kevin. As I said, this isn’t comedy genius, but if you like your laughs broad you should be OK. The film at least ends on a high note, with a decent credits sequence, but it’s hard to believe that Meet The Parents spawned such inferior sequels.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A step up from the previous film, but that’s not saying much. This should be the last of the sequels though and I think everyone will join me in thinking thank Fock for that! Rating: 5/10.

Let Me In

It was with a heavy heart I went to see Let Me In, the US re-make of the Swedish film Let The Right One In, which I thought was the best film of 2009. How could it improve on the original? What’s the point in even re-making it? One of the reasons put forward by one of the producers was the laughable excuse that (talking about the Swedish film) “…no one in Glasgow or Edinburgh or Bristol or Idaho or Pittsburgh has seen this film”. Hmm, I believe most of those places would have an art-house cinema or crazier than that…DVD players! Matt Reeves picks up the directorial reigns here with Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen, a introverted bullied school boy, who befriends new girl in town Abby, played by Chloe Moretz. Abby has a secret to hide…not that Reeves can be bothered to keep us in suspense. The main problem with the film, especially if you’ve seen the original, is the dumbing down of the original story. What were subtle touches in the original, some left to the viewers discretion, are now clumsily signposted. When Abby attacks (the attacks themselves are speeded up and look pretty stupid) she has white eyes! The school bully’s a bully because he was bullied by his brother! It’s just impossible to review this without comparison to the original and in virtually every sense, Reeves fails to match what has gone before. Even the famous “drawing back of the curtains” scene in the hospital is ruined by a telegraphed set up and some dodgy CGI. The one improvement is the scene in which Abby’s guardian is caught attempting to secure Abby’s next meal. It’s a classic lesson in building tension and is excellently marshaled by Reeves. Of course, this begs the question as to why Reeves couldn’t reach such heights elsewhere instead of just blatant copying the original or undermining it. I know I’m being quite critical with this review and to be fair, if you haven’t seen the original or read the book, then you should enjoy the film. However, Tomas Alfredson, director of Let The Right One In, sums it up perfectly; "If one should remake a film, it's because the original is bad. And I don't think mine is".

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
An average film at best. An awful one compared to the original. Some nice touches from Reeves, but this was always going to struggle against such an illustrious parent. Rating: 5/10.

Skyline

The fact that Skyline wasn’t previewed for critics is always a bad sign. However, despite that ominous warning, it isn’t actually that bad. The problem is, is that it isn’t actually all that great either with an over-whelming lack of originality being the main concern. Though the storyline isn’t much different from many similar movies, it’s Spielberg’s War Of The Worlds of which this feels like an alternate version. Directors the Strause brothers film concerns a group of mainly unrecognisable actors awaking one morning in an LA Skyscraper to discover Aliens have arrived and are abducting all of the general population at large. There isn’t much more to say really than that. It’s more interesting to concentrate on the fact that the film cost over $10M dollars to make and that the Strause siblings raised all the cash themselves. At least they can’t complain about studio interference. More pertinent is the rumour that over 95% of the films costs were spent on the special effects alone. It’s somewhat ironic that this formula is a good description of the film itself. 95% effects, 5% everything else. As any film goer knows, that’s not a great equation. Still, there are a few decent moments when the protagonists are fighting the beasties, but it’s a shame it never really leads to anything, apart from an ending that bears more than a passing resemblance to that of District 9. Apparently a sequel is on the cards. If so, and if the directors can even out the percentages above for it, it may be worth catching this just to see what happens next.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The effects are great. Not much else is though. Rating: 5/10.

Saw 3D

There’s not really much point in doing a proper review of Saw 3D. If you haven’t seen the previous films you won’t be seeing this, so it’s down to the mugs (yep, me included) that have stuck with the trap infested franchise until this, the (supposed) final chapter, to fill up the cinema seats. If you’ve made it this far, then you’ll probably feel glad it’s all over. I’d be lying though if I said Saw veterans won’t get a modicum of enjoyment out of this. Some old faces appears, some plot ends are tied up at last and the film includes one of its nastiest traps ever, leading to the gruesome demise of a number of people in a car garage. However, it’s just all too confusing still. Though I mentioned that a number of plot ends are concluded, many don’t make sense and are hamstrung by the overall ambitious storyline that the producers threw into the films from about the third one onwards. The re-appearance of Cary Elwes is a waste and the final twist at the end is just plain stupid. I hardly need to tell you the 3D is rubbish as well. So, is that it for Saw then? I somehow doubt it, but hopefully in the future you can invest in a mind erasing device that will rub out the fact you watched the sequels to what was an excellent stand alone original film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
There are a few guilty pleasures in this final act, but you don’t need me to tell you the franchise jumped the severed leg a long time ago. Rating: 5/10.

Due Date

Imagine Planes, Trains and Automobiles had never been made back in 1988, but was filmed in 2010 instead. Due Date is the result. Brasher, louder, cruder. Better? No. However, Due Date does deliver in one sense, that of having plenty of laughs, and this is definitely a step up from Todd Phillips’ last film, the overrated and only sporadically funny The Hangover. Following a mix up on a plane Peter Higham (Robert Downey-Jr) finds himself hitching a ride with the eccentric Ethan Tremblay (Zack Galifianakis) in order to make it home on time to witness the birth of his first child. You’ll be unsurprised to hear that things don’t go smoothly, as the pair find themselves in a series of increasingly bizarre situations, usually caused by Tremblay, with the threat that Higham won’t make it to his destination in time. This isn’t a very original storyline, but Phillip’s lucks out in the fact that there is great chemistry between Downey-Jr and Galifianakis. Downey Jr’s continual looks of shock and disbelief at Galifianakis’ latest bit of odd behaviour can be recognised by all who have come across similar characters in their lifetimes. Like their journey though, the film isn’t all plain sailing. Higham is actually a bit of an arse and all your sympathy will lie with Tremblay. If Higham misses the birth, he deserves all he gets. A sub-plot involving Jamie Foxx seems crow-barred in only for the purpose of an obvious gag at the end and some may still find the overall comedy a little cruel. However, if you like this sort of thing, I don’t think you’ll be complaining too much.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Lacking the heart that would mean a higher rating, but good turns from the lead roles and more gags that hit than miss mean you should hit the road and search this out. Rating: 7/10

We Are What We Are

Mexican film We Are What We Are is probably the darkest film you’ll see all year. I’m not talking tone either, rather the lack of lighting throughout the internal scenes of the film. Of course, some people may prefer that rather than see a prostitute get her head caved in by a shovel or a man graphically stabbed in the face. If that sounds pretty nasty, don’t do a runner just yet though. As We Are What We Are is actually a low budget family drama. It just happens to be about a family of cannibals in Mexico. Again, don’t be fooled into thinking this is some sort of Texas Chainsaw Massacre rip off in terms of intensity, as writer / director Jorge Michel Grau concentrates mainly on the relationship within the family as they come to terms with the loss of their father and their new fumbling attempts to grab their next “meal”. However, when the violence does happen, it is awkward and brutal. There is a major problem with the film though that holds it back, that being that the family itself are a pretty horrible bunch. As you don’t have any connection with them emotionally it’s hard to care whether they starve or not, and towards the end it’s more likely you’ll be rooting for them to get their comeuppance. Whether Grau meant this or not isn’t clear. What is clear are his unsubtle commentaries on Mexican life, particularly the corruption in society angle. I think this will split people down the middle (much like a scene in the film!) but a secondary DVD viewing with the opportunity to increase the brightness on your telly may shed further secrets.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This lacks the killer bite, but if you were going to make a “realistic” drama about cannibals living in Mexico, you’d be hard pressed to top this. Rating: 6/10.

Despicable Me

Despicable Me has had positive reviews in most quarters and that has no doubt helped propel it to some huge box office returns (a sequel is apparently already in the pipeline). I’m not so sure it’s all that great though. I may have fallen into the trailer trap with this one though, as it seemed every funny scene I had already seen in the trailer and there wasn’t much new in the film to raise additional giggles (though I still laughed at the “It’s so fluffy!” line, despite seeing it about 5 times already). In the film, Steve Carell provides the voice of Gru, a criminal mastermind who finds himself knocked off the top spot of the league table of super villains when a competitor of his steals the Egyptian Pyramids. In order to regain his “title”, Gru, with the help of his minions (little creatures that resemble the toy casings you find in a Kinder Surprise egg), hatch a plan to steal the moon. However, the introduction of three orphaned girls into Gru’s life mean….well, you don’t need to be a criminal mastermind yourself to guess what may happen next. There are some neat touches here, from the amusing tag lines to a couple of funny gags (Gru visits the Bank of Evil in order to take a loan out to help finance his latest plan), but they are off-set by a complete lack of originality, especially in the shape of Gru’s arch enemy, a young villain named Vector. Where Steve Carell got Gru’s stupid quasi-Russian accent is anyone’s guess, but it’s certainly not funny. Kids will enjoy this more than adults, as the emphasis is on slapstick as opposed to anything more cutting edge or satirical. Maybe I was just having an off day and have missed what lots of other people appear to have seen. Despicable Me, you could say.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
There isn’t much new here to make you sit up and take notice, but any tots watching will go away happy. Rating: 5/10.

The Social Network

I’m a David Fincher fan, but felt somewhat letdown by the distinctly average Benjamin Button. I felt this was because that film was a straight drama, perhaps not Fincher’s forte. In hindsight it appears to be just an excuse for CGI experimentation. I’m going off track a bit here, but the point is I wasn’t too sure what Fincher would come up with for The Social Network, a film about the inventors of Facebook. Well, it is a drama, but Fincher has infused it with some highly effective comic moments as well. Throw in a script by Aaron Sorkin, and some great acting amongst the ensemble cast, and you have a timely return to form for Fincher (especially with the US remake of Dragon Tattoo on the cards). Taking the role of Mark Zuckerberg is Jesse Eisenberg, usually the purveyor of dry wisecracks in most of the films he’s in, but here he comes across as a focused and determined individual, though easily led by outsiders. It’s a decent turn from Eisenberg but he is upstaged by Andrew Garfield as best friend Eduardo Saverin. Garfield gives the film its emotion heart (something Fincher’s films have been accused of lacking in the past) as Saverin goes through a number of emotional turns as things begin to turn sour between himself and Zuckerberg. How the actual story is told is smart. Instead of a linear approach to the invention of Facebook, Fincher employs a past / present framing device, as we cut between Zuckerberg’s early years at Harvard and two different law suits in the present day. It’s extremely effective, though it does take a few minutes to get a handle on what is happening at first. On the downside, Fincher’s love of trying to CGI anything and everything is pretty unnecessary in the film like this. In a crucial scene in the film, you’ll be wondering why the actors have to have CGI breath coming out of their mouths instead of concentrating on the exchange at hand. Though Fincher does have fun utilising a number of effects and camera tricks when it comes to showing the Winklevoss twins in the film. So to the crux of the matter. How much of the portrayal of Zuckerberg is accurate? Unsurprisingly, he claims nothing, apart from wryly noting that they got his clothes right in the film. Others beg to differ. What can’t be argued is that a number of the instances in the film are already a matter of public record. Most of them don’t show Zuckerberg in a great light. This does raise an interesting talking point about whether you can enjoy a film if you have a nagging feeling that what’s being portrayed about a real life figure isn’t accurate or fair. That’s an argument for another time though. If you want, you can go online and read hundreds of pages about Zuckerberg, the law-suits and the invention of Facebook. Either way, it shouldn’t spoil your enjoyment of a standalone great film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This is a clever film, well acted, with a surprising streak of humour. It’s a return to the darkness next for Fincher though. Rating: 8/10.

Mr Nice

Mr Nice tells the story of Howard Marks, one of the top British drug smugglers….or does it? Bernard Rose’s adaptation of Mark’s autobiography is pretty loose, missing out on whole chunks of Marks’ back story and getting various dates muddled up in the film. Marks’ life is a fascinating story, but the film never seems to get going and its cheap look gives the impression that Marks was a standard street supplier instead of a person that allegedly at one point controlled a tenth of the worlds hash supply. Obviously, this is a low budget British film so it can’t be expected to have a budget of millions and look lavish, but that can’t excuse the slow pace of the film. The film is hamstrung from the start though as Rose spends a good amount of time showing us how Marks came across drugs in the first place. Plenty of fancy camera tricks and scenes of stoned people can only be endured for so long before the audience starts to wane. There is the occasional neat little snippet that pops up as the film progresses (I was unaware it’s meant to be pronounced Mr Nice (as in the French city) and Rhys Ifans is pretty good as Marks, plying his trade without recourse to violence and a cheeky grin on his face. Things pick up even more with the arrival of David Thewlis as a bonkers member of the IRA. It can’t save the film though, which just isn’t exciting enough for a person with such stories to tell as Marks. To be fair to Rose, he does show the downside to the lifestyle that Marks’ led, but it would have been better if he had managed to balance the story with a few more thrills.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Read the book, read the book, read the book, read the book….Rating: 4/10.

The Hole

What an unexpected treat The Hole is. Though it has that Saturday afternoon matinee feel to it, for adults it will bring back teenage memories of watching such films as Gremlins, Ghostbusters and the nasty bits from Indiana Jones. The memories being the nightmares such films induced on innocent minds, despite the low certification of the films in question. The Hole should produce similar sleepless nights for anyone 10 years old and younger I’d guess. But hey, it’s a cinema education we all went through and, dare I say it, require? As for adults watching The Hole, it’s unlikely you’ll get scared at all (unless you have a phobia of puppets or clowns) but you’ll still have a great time. The mention of Gremlins above is intentional as it is the director of that 80’s classic, Joe Dante, who has the reigns here as well. In The Hole, a family move into a new home and the two young brothers in the family discover a pad locked trapped door in the basement. After eventually opening the door, and finding what appears to be a bottomless pit, strange and unsettling things begin to occur. Saying anymore will spoil the explanation of the actual hole itself, but what does happen will be fingers over the eyes time for some people. In fact, one scene where one character discovers a Ringu type girl (bleeding from her eyes!) in a toilet will have everyone thinking that someone in the BBFC was having a particularly mischievous day in giving the film such a kiddie friendly certificate. I mentioned Ringu there and there are numerous other nods of the head here to various horror films (I counted at least 7 or 8), but Dante uses them as homage’s as opposed to outright plagiarism. The young actors don’t blow you away (they’re mainly eye candy for the younger members of the audience) but, crucially, they’re not annoying. Unfortunately, the ending is a big let down, spoiled by the obvious decision to get as much out of the 3D as they can, and a final scene that sees the characters make such a stupid decision they appear to have forgotten the whole previous 90 minutes of the film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
One of the scariest “children’s” films ever? Very possibly, but even if you’re immune to the scares you’ll still have a good time. Rating: 7/10.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Whisper it, but Oliver Stone’s original Wall Street film isn’t actually all that great. However, it was the performance of Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko that has pushed it up to a higher plain than it really deserves, and as Gekko, Douglas returns here for the sequel Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. It’s not a great start as, I know it’s a quote from the original film, but that really is a bloody awful sub-title. The actual film doesn’t get off to a great start either as Gekko is released from prison (he’s been inside for dodgy dealing), but the two great sight gags have already been shown ad nauseam on the trailers. From here, Gekko meets Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf) an employee of a major investment bank, who happens to be engaged to Gekko’s estranged daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan). Some unconvincing plot machinations mean that Gekko agrees to trade with Moore and help him gain revenge on the man who Moore believes pushed his mentor to suicide. In return, Moore will help Gekko get back into his daughters good books. This doesn’t actually sound all that bad, but, dear me, this is such a mess. Countless plot holes don’t help, but a lot of what happens and decisions made by the characters don’t actually make much sense. Stone’s attempts to explain the financial world as well basically revolve around filling the screen with various numbers, stats and rolling tickers every 10 minutes or so. Is this a film or CNN Business news? The one redeeming feature is Douglas, but he is sidelined in favour of LaBeouf. A big mistake from Stone that as the audience will have little interest in LaBeouf’s charisma free performance. Mulligan fares even worse as her character is so annoying you wonder why on earth Gekko would want to reconcile with her in the first place. As for the length of the film, Stone is hardly known for his tight running times, but this is ridiculous. I reckon a good portion (up to 45 minutes) of the running time could have been trimmed here. There must be around 5 minutes of aerial shots of New York alone. That’s all well and good, but it hardly moves the story along. It smacks to me that the idea of a sequel was mooted long before the financial meltdown and then the screenplay was rushed to fit around the current fiscal situation (this is no lie, but I’ve just done a bit of research and that is pretty much what happened). Is that anyway to make a film though? I can recommend one thing in this film, however. The main reason for seeing this has to be the most outrageous piece of product placement seen in a film for quite some time, as the ordering of some drinks at dinner leads to a can of lager slammed down on the table like some sort of alcoholic monolith. It’s a moment of rare unintentional humour, but much like the odd looking Charlie Sheen cameo, it’s ultimately pointless.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Your investment in a ticket for this film will guarantee little returns. Rating: 4/10