Source Code

A man wakes up in a different person’s body. His reflection looks different in the mirror. He has to right a wrong. Quantum Leap, no? In fact, this is a large section of the plot of Source Code, Duncan Jones’s new film. Jones’s calling card was the low budget but classy Moon. As a reward for such a promising debut he’s been handed a nice budget and Jake Gyllenhaal. In the film Gyllenhaal stars as Colter Stevens, a military helicopter pilot, who suddenly finds himself awake in the body of a commuter on a passenger train which soon enough blows up taking Stevens and everyone else with it. Without revealing too much of the plot, Stevens soon finds himself back in the same position time and time again, eventually attempting to stop the bombing. When he starts to unravel the mystery as to what is actually going on, its all pretty preposterous. This doesn’t make it a bad film, of course, but Jones’s makes the mistake of dropping Stevens investigation and concentrating more on trying to explain the unexplainable. Moon eventually revealed itself to be an analysis of the human condition and half-way through Source Code writer Ben Ripley takes the same approach. It doesn’t work though and the rhythm of the film is upset from that point onwards and the script begins to trip over itself until the disappointing and baffling ending. If there had been more of an emphasis on Stevens amateur sleuthing and who-dunnit side of things, this could have been a neat little thriller. As it is, it’s too disjointed and the loss of Clint Mansell from scoring duties is a real shame. The highlight of the film is Gyllenhall himself, effortlessly taking leading man duties in his stride these days. Decent, if limited, support comes from Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright, but not even this collection of decent actors and actresses can polish this up to be something better than it actually is. Finally, there is a nod to Quantum Leap, but you’ll need sharp ears to hear it.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A tricky second assignment for Jones. This isn’t the best, but it’s just about passable. Better surely awaits though. Rating: 5/10.

Chalet Girl

Chalet Girl is probably the most formulaic film you’ll see all year. Nineteen year old Kim (Felicity Jones) finds herself taking a job abroad, where she makes friends, finds love, loses love, finds love again (shock!) whilst overcoming a family tragedy and proving to herself that life must go on. Therefore, it’s testament to director Phil Traill that despite the sign posted plot the whole things a bit of a blast. If theres one thing the UK loves and that’s a class war. So here was have Jones as a Chalet girl in Austria waiting on Bill Nighy’s outrageously rich and posh family. There’s a few barbed quips swapped, but Traill is smart enough to keep these scenes to a minimum and concentrate more on Kim’s attempts to earn money for her father (Bill Bailey) back in the UK and her coy interest in Nighy’s son Jonny (a bland Ed Westwick). The screenplay is routine stuff and you can place safe bets on what particular plot device will happen next, but writer Tom Williams has infused the film with some decent one-liners and sardonic wit which Jones delivers with deadpan excellence, including the film’s best line “The irony’s free. It’s the sarcasm you’re paying for. Ironically…”. Most of the characters are stereotypes but they still provide the requisite laughs, especially Bailey and his hopelessness in the kitchen. This is clearly a case of characters over characterisation, but the cast appear to be having a great time, no doubt helped by the stunning Austrian location. Jones is fine in the lead role and Nighy is so much easier to watch in something like this, leaving his usual twitchiness behind. It’s safe to say that the name, poster (which, frankly, is abysmal) and trailer for this film will have most of the male population running for miles, but for the target audience this ticks all the boxes and is enduring enough for further viewings come DVD time.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
It’s standard stuff, but a perfect example of how to make a particular genre of film for it’s particular audience. Rating: 7/10

Black Swan

….and now Black Swan, Darren Aronofsky’s latest film and proof that, following on from The Wrestler, the folly of The Fountain is now a distant memory. First of all, the story. Nina (Natalie Portman) is a ballerina in a New York ballet company who director Leroy (Vincent Cassel) selects to take the lead role in their new production of Swan Lake. However, the pressure of stepping up to lead performer soon starts to affect Nina and coupled with the arrival of a potential rival for the role, Lily (Mila Kunis), she soon starts edging towards what appears to be a nervous breakdown. The first thing to say here is that Portman, Cassel and Kunis are all fine, but this is a director’s film if ever there was one. Aronofsky is a helmer with a serious eye for detail and he uses many tricks throughout the film. The mainly muted colour scheme gives a cold uneasy film from the very first frame and once Nina’s hallucinations begin (or do they?) we know we’re on a roller coaster ride that surely isn’t going to have a happy ending. The slow build up to Nina’s eventual mental breakdown (or is it?) is excellently handled by Aronofsky. Did those eyes on that picture move? Is that me on the train? It eventually goes quite bonkers, but not before Aronofsky “treats” us to the best scene ever regarding those painful bits of loose skin you get just below your fingernails. Ouch, indeed. There’s also a nice juxtaposition between the wide open spaces of the dance studio and Nina’s claustrophobic home life with her over-bearing mother, played by Barbara Hershey (excellently cast…hell, she just looks terrifying). I mentioned The Wrestler earlier and it’s interesting that whilst that film concerns someone well past their best, Swan is about someone in their prime. However, as with most of Aronofsky’s output, failure or success, life is tough. Interestingly the film was originally set in the world of theatre before Aronofsky got involved and changed it. The dangerous sexual tension prevalent throughout the film surely wouldn’t have been as applicable in the earlier version so it’s a smart switch. Portman has been getting wild praise for her performance, but I’m not sure it’s all that deserved. No doubt it’s a decent turn, but mainly looking confused for 2 hours is hardly worthy of an Oscar is it? Anyway, this is Aronofsky’s film all the way and it will leave you with many talking points at the end regarding what you just saw. There’s no right and wrong answer and it’s clearly designed to be open to your personal interpretation. The studio will no doubt be happy with that though as this does demand repeated viewings so you can align your perceptions with what’s on screen. On the down side though you may find the conclusion just too wild and illogical and become frustrated as to knowing whether what you’re watching is real or not. Finally, as I’ve reviewed them back to back, The King's Speech has the best acting whilst Black Swan is the best directed and, overall, is the better quality film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A great film and Aronofsky visual style is a perfect match for this story of mental meltdown. Rating: 8/10.

The King's Speech

I’m trying to get out of my habit of reviewing films weeks and weeks after I’ve seen them. So it’s with interest that I finally get round to giving my thoughts on two of the awards seasons heavy hitters. So now that the dust is settling are both films deserving of all the adulation they have received? Let’s start with The King’s Speech. Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few months you’ll know that the film is about King George VI and his attempts to overcome his stammer with the aide of a speech therapist. In terms of a pitch, that’s pretty much it. However, the film isn’t really about that at all. It’s rather a study of a friendship between two men in unique circumstances. Colin Firth takes the part of the King, whilst his therapist, Lionel, is played by Geoffrey Rush. Playing a toff is hardly a stretch for Firth, but he tones down the stiff upper lipness and imbues the King with a mixture of stubbornness and helplessness. Throw in the portrayal of the speech impediment and it’s a great turn from Firth and much deserving of all the plaudits he has received. Rush is even better though. Lionel is actually a more interesting character than the King and Rush plays him with a matter of fact approach to life, but with the sense that there’s a lot more to his background that will forever remain a mystery. The chemistry between Firth and Rush makes the film, though Tom Hooper’s direction is mostly assured, with the muted colours and never ending fog of 1930’s London giving a real feel of the austerity of the times mixed with the impending realisation of the horror that was to come. Hooper also gives us a nice comparison between the lavish lifestyle that the royals lead with the coldness and individuality that Firth suffers from such a way of living. It’s not all Royal gravy though. The storyline itself is well out of whack with history (in reality the Kings stutter was cured almost ten years before the eponymous speech) and a lot of the acting is a world away from Firth and Rush. Helena Bonham-Carter (as the King’s wife) seems over prissy, Guy Pearce as Edward VIII seems to convey that old Ted was an evil villain as opposed to a bit of a cad who fell in love with the wrong person and the usually reliable Timothy Spall appears as someone doing an exaggerated impression of Winston Churchill as opposed to a straight portrayal. It's as if Hooper put all his effort into Firth and Rush, taking took his eye off the overall picture.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This isn’t quite deserving of the no-stop fawning it has received, but the two leads are on fire and though Hooper’s direction is hit and miss he makes an entertaining film out of unusual source material. Rating: 7/10.

Fair Game

I obviously wasn’t paying attention during the opening credits of Fair Game as I was surprised to see Doug Liman’s name crop as director at the end. This must be the most un-Liman like film you’ll ever see. No whipping camera work, minimal effects, a quiet soundtrack and concentration on plot over action. I don’t know whether Liman fancied adding a further string to his bow in agreeing to direct this political thriller, but it appears an odd choice of director to material. The material in question is a film based on the memoir of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent who’s identity was allegedly revealed by the White House due to her husband writing an article that claimed White House officials had manipulated information regarding Iraq’s weapons programme. That’s pretty much the plot. There is a major problem here though. This is no doubt a fascinating story, but it certainly doesn’t make for fascinating cinema. I actually called this a political thriller, but there are no thrills here, unless you get excited about lots of clips of old news footage. Herein lies another problem of the film. The subject of Iraq has been box office death, with the argument mainly being we are still too close to it for retrospective films to be made. Ironically in this case, especially with recent current events in North Africa, it actually feels like being too long ago for it to have a topical edge. Naomi Watts and Sean Penn are the leads. Penn is the best of the two, as though Watts does a decent job, she doesn’t ever convince as a CIA agent. Liman’s direction is low key and matter of fact, but he does fudge a number of things including a cringe worthy scene where Penn meets an Africa cab driver who exclaims something along the lines of “Sierra Leone is corrupt….unlike America!”. At that point, Penn’s character gets out of the cab. You’ll do well not to leave the cinema.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A intriguing story to read up about in your own time, but certainly not worth your evening spent in a cinema seat. Rating: 3/10.

Just Go With It

Not that it would worry Adam Sandler whilst he’s counting his millions in his mansion, but his last mainstream film was the cinematic abomination Grown Ups which “gained” the award as my worst film of 2010. Though it’s highly silly and certainly no classic, it’s a pleasant surprise to discover that his next film off the slate is enjoyable enough to warrant a bit of forgiveness. In Just Go With It Sandler stars as Danny, a successful plastic surgeon who enjoys the occasional slap and tickle with women due to the ruse of his (unused) wedding ring and a good sob story regarding his abusive (non-existent) wife. Things take a different turn when he falls for Palmer (Brooklyn Decker), but her discovery of the wedding ring leads him to concoct a story that he is going through a divorce. One problem though, Palmer wants to meet the soon to be ex-Mrs Danny. So Danny ropes in his assistant Katherine (Jennifer Aniston) to play the role. This set up (impersonating family members) is one of the oldest TV Series / Film staples around and its credit to director Dennis Dugan that he doesn’t dwell on the premise and does the smart thing of throwing gags at you thick and fast. The film is helped here by its broad range of comedy, mixing in slapstick, impressions, one-liners and sight gags. Whilst all the jokes don’t work at least you know that another decent one will be along soon. Sandler is good in this, relying heavily on his deadpan delivery and dry asides. Aniston isn’t to be outdone though, and she gives a liberated turn, seemingly happy to branch out from the usual rom-com standards that usually restrict her performances. In fact all of the cast, including Nick Swardson (as the standard crazy male rom-com friend) appear to be enjoying themselves. There are a number of bad points, one of Katherine’s kids doing a faux English accent grates every time she opens her mouth, a plot twist involving Nicole Kidman is ludicrous to say the least and a bizarre Hawaiian dance off between Kidman and Aniston is bizarre as it is unsexy. So it’s unoriginal, the ending is obvious and you’ll probably never watch it again. Hats off then to director and cast that when you do watch it, you’ll still have a decent enough time.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Very silly in parts, but the gag rate is high and the cast likable. Rating: 7/10

Tron: Legacy

Though I don’t think Tron: Legacy is a good film I will give the producers a big thumbs up for a disclaimer at the start of the film which states that not all the film is in 3D, only the scenes set in the actual electronic world utilise the scourge of modern cinema releases. If only other 3D releases had the same honesty. Anyway, here we are 28 years (28!) down the line from the original Tron with this belated sequel. Ironically, this film is similar to the first film in that it will probably gain a cult following, but when after all the effects are taken into consideration, it really isn’t all that much to write home about. Garrett Hedlund is the lead this time, playing Sam Flynn, the son of the originals Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges). Some convenient plot machinations later we find Flynn Jr in the cyber universe and the life and death games begin. Yes, the effects are great and the light cycle race is excellent, though over far too quickly. The well documented de-aging effects used for Bridges are also pretty seamless, though somewhat worryingly the CGI Bridges manages to act the wooden Hedlund off the grid. You’ll now be unsurprised to hear that most of the effort has been put into the effects, meaning the screenplay is pretty clunky and seems to have been made up as they went along. Some of the characters very underwritten, especially Olivia Wilde (looking oddly like Jennifer Carpenter of Dexter fame for most of the film) as the films one token female, who pretty much has nothing to do. As for Michael Sheen’s bizarre cameo as a nightclub owner, the less said the better. Director Joseph Kosinski handles most of the action scenes well, but struggles to get decent performances from the cast during the films downtime. Basically, I think the film is best summed up as if you have to wait 28 years for a sequel, then there probably hasn’t been that much clamour for it in the first place.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The occasional thrilling scene can’t make up for the fact that this is clearly a film that was effects first, storyline as an afterthought. Rating: 5/10.

127 Hours

I’m a fan of Danny Boyle, but the one criticism that comes with most of his films is that they lose it in the last 20 minutes or so and the endings are never satisfactory. Ironically for 127 Hours, it’s the beginning of the film that is the worst part as we follow Aron Ralston (James Franco) begin his ill fated journey to meet his destiny with a rouge boulder. Swaying cameras, odd effects, splits screens and some truly dire music on the soundtrack make you think you’re watching a first time director out to make a name for himself as opposed to a recent best director Oscar winner. Ralston’s true life story of the day he fell whilst mountain climbing, getting his arm trapped and eventually escaping by cutting off said appendage is well documented, so when watching the film you’re basically waiting for the accident to happen and then, well, basically waiting for the sawing to begin. Actually, that’s not quite true of course, as you want to see what Ralston had to endure before he had to make such a desperate decision. However, apart from a bit of chipping away at the boulder there isn’t all that much going on. This is all down to the biggest problem with the film. Unlike Ralston’s novel, you mainly have no idea what his thoughts are whilst watching Franco on screen. Boyle tries a number of tricks around this, including dreams and a fake chat show. However, it all feels a bit too forced. Of course, you can’t just have a film of Franco mainly struggling in silence with a look of increasing worry on his face, but it does beg the question as to whether Ralston’s story was filmable in the first place? On that note at least the film is, according to Ralston himself, as accurately portrayed as possible (I’ve seen pictures that Ralston took of himself whilst trapped and the film is so exact I thought I was looking at stills from the film at first). Interestingly, the infamous moment of the arm severing feels fairly tame and I can only assume the various reports of people fainting has been more due to the psychological build up to the scene in question rather than its actual portrayal. I’ve read the moment in Ralston’s book of the arm cutting and believe me you do need a strong stomach for that. The sharpest moment in the film though comes seconds after Franco originally gets his arm trapped. Captured perfectly by Boyle and Franco, the split second look of utter terror that crosses Franco’s face as he realises even then that there’s no escape is a fleeting moment of pure human cinema. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t convey the same emotion.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Franco is great, but even the talent that is Boyle has a struggle to make a visual entertainment out of what was mainly an internal monologue. Rating: 5/10.

Love And Other Drugs

Anne Hathaway gets em out! Quick, lads, queue round the corner! What a cynic I am, but the amount of talk pre release of this film about The Hath’s naked scenes suggests that the producers were trying to appeal to a fairly obvious section of the market. Don’t get in a flap though ladies, as Jake Gyllenhaal also spends a large amount of the film with his shirt off. So, there’s two young good looking Hollywood stars getting their kit off and getting jiggy, but does director Edward Zwick happen to build a decent film around this? Though it’s not resounding, the answer is still “no”. Zwick has past form when it comes to directing dramas, but if you don’t include Defiance in that genre, he’s mainly been more of an action director in recent years. This shows as the film never really settles on what it wants to be, branching out in all sorts of directions before a complete mess of an ending. In the film Gyllenhaal is Jamie, a cocky and confident pharmaceutical salesman who ends up dating Maggie (Hathaway), a new-ageish waitress. However, Maggie is not all that hot on relationships, or falling in love, and coupled with the onset of Parkinson’s disease, would rather not have a man in tow. The chemistry between Gyllenhaal and Hathaway is fine, but as soon as things start to turn sour between them the film loses its way. I’ve called this a drama, as this is what it ultimately boils down to being. However, along the way we have a mix of black comedy, corporate satire, risqué sex scenes, relationship commentary, gross out gags (Josh Gad as Gyllenhaal’s brother pops up every now and then like a character from American Pie) before the finale, which comes across like a illness of the week TV movie. It’s quite a mess. On the plus side, this is a more adult approach to the boy meets girl pic (similar to the vastly superior 500 Days Of Summer) and Gyllenhaal is really starting to come into his own now as a bona fide film star. However, if it wasn’t for him and Hathaway (doing a good job despite the somewhat unconvincing character of Maggie) then this would have been a real turkey.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Hathaway and Gyllenhaal are fine, but the screenplay is flawed and varies in tone too often. Rating: 5/10.

The American

Ah, the life of a hitman. Shadowy, mysterious….and dull. Music video director Anton Corbijn comes unstuck here as despite his excellent feature length debut (Control) his first output away from the land of drum beats and strummed guitars is a character study of a hitman, but fails to liven things up by placing him in an interesting storyline. The hitman in question in this instance is Jack (George Clooney), who holes up in a tiny Italian village and informs his handler that his next job will be his last one. However, is Jack the target of a hit himself? First thing to say is that the storyline of the hunter becoming the hunted is hardly original. Nor is the portrayal of Jack’s life as a hitman as one of monotonous routine. This has been shown before in films of a similar bent, and though it may be realistic, it has been counter balanced by strong additional storylines. The obvious example here being The Day Of The Jackal, which flipped between hitman and hitman’s pursuers. However, Corbijn fails to give us much else apart from Jack’s stunted interactions with the locals of the village. This in itself is a failure, with two of them in particular, a stunning prostitute and a priest who turns a blind eye to Jack’s “job”, stretching credibility to breaking point. As virtually the whole film is from Jacks point of view, the story never takes us anywhere else. Clooney is mis-cast here as his brooding just makes him look constantly confused and Jack isn’t a part for which he can call on his usual charisma. Though the film isn’t great, Corbijn is no fool with a camera and most scenes are beautifully shot, especially the lighting of the night time tip-toeing through the street adjuncts. Overall this isn’t a terrible film, it’s just that it’s already been done many times and a lot better.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A few neat scenes aside, this is just far too slow not helped by some pretty unbelievable characters. Rating: 5/10.

Gulliver's Travels

I know I over use the phrase “It does what it says on the tin” when reviewing some films, but if there was ever a case of picking a film as an example to use for that expression then Gulliver’s Travels is it. It’s in 3D, it has Jack Black as Gulliver and it’s extremely silly. If that’s what you want, it’s what you get, albeit, unsurprisingly the 3D is naff. You’ll also be unsurprised to hear that this is only loosely based on Jonathan Swift’s novel. In terms of this version Gulliver (a mail room worker at a New York newspaper), by means of subterfuge, finds himself sent to Bermuda to report on the Triangle. It’s not long though before his ship is swept up in a huge wave and he finds himself in the land of Lilliput towering over the miniature locals. The storyline then pretty much switches between Gulliver being hailed a hero or being feared whilst playing alongside a three way romantic yarn between Emily Blunt, Jason Segel and Chris O’Dowd. Black does his usual performance of being, well, Jack Black, and that might be fine for some but it’s becoming tiresome of the rest of us. It’s actually O’Dowd who steals the movie from Black hilariously hamming it up with an exaggerated English accent and stiff upper lipness. The film misses his presence when he is off screen. Obviously this is a film heavy in special effects and they didn’t look too bad to me despite some derogatory comments in other reviews. Though English viewers may be somewhat put off by Blenheim Palace doubling up as “Lilliput Palace”. The film also loses marks for the pointless upgrade to 3D. Luckily the films short running time means it’s all over before you can start to make too many complaints. It would be interesting to see how much stuff director Rob Letterman left on the editing floor. It appears that the best audience age for this film is actually a lot lower than what it has been marketed for. I think most young kids will enjoy this, so if you’re not in that category (or in that mindset when seeing the film) you may want to knock a mark off the below rating.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Does what it says on the tin (sorry). Rating: 6/10

The Way Back

Veteran Aussie director Peter Weir isn’t the most prolific when it comes to output. This is his first film since 2003 and it follows the pattern of a high percentage of his recent films: watchable, but not as great as his earlier efforts. This isn’t a slight on Weir himself, most directors’ end up chasing their tail in the end trying to recapture that magic touch. As for the subject matter, the film is based on the book The Long Walk by Slawomir Rawicz, a Polish POW in a Siberian Gulag, which tells the supposedly true story of Rawicz and a number of other prisoners who escaped from the prison and their 4000 mile walk to freedom into India. I say supposed as there have been rumours cast on the veracity of Rawicz’s account. Regardless of that, let’s just look at the film on a standalone basis. The first thing to say is that yes, much like that gag about The Lord Of The Rings, this is basically a film about people walking. Interestingly Weir doesn’t try to liven things up a bit by throwing many scenes of peril into the mix, but there is, unsurprisingly, a lot of hardship. In effect this is more a character study than a story of derring-do. The good news being that Weir is well aware of this and, despite some very dodgy accents, gets decent performances from the cast. This is crucial in a film like this as unless you are emotionally involved with the protagonists and their plight for survival then the film will become a very long watch indeed. The main actors are an eclectic mix (Jim Sturgess, Colin Farrell, Ed Harris and Saoirse Ronan) each bringing something to the role of their very different characters. There are a few problems though. The tone of the film is uneven at times and in some scenes it’s unclear whether we should be guiltily laughing at black comedy or reacting with horror. Throw in a few historical inaccuracies as well and the fact that this film certainly doesn’t whizz by and you basically have a choice to make. If you’re interested in this story and know what to expect, then you shouldn’t get too fidgety in your seat. If this doesn’t look like your cup of tea, then just keep on walking.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
At times hard work, but the plus points outweigh the negative and a new Weir film is always an event no matter what. Rating: 6/10