Senna

The genre of documentary films has enjoyed a cannon of high quality for a good number of years now and Asif Kapadia and Manish Pandey's film, Senna, is a welcome addition to the pack. Most documentary films have a tough time at the box office (though this is counter-balanced by the relatively low production costs) but I’d expect Senna to make back some decent coin as not only is it about one of the most famous racing drivers of all time, it’s also a cracking film. Where documentaries usually fall down is when they have a slow build up. This is fine if you’ve already got a built in audience (which Senna already has anyway), but this will usually turn off the floating viewer. The film makers realise this and are smart enough to gloss over Senna’s upbringing and within minutes we are into Senna’s Formula One career and his feud with Alain Prost. I’m an F1 fan so giving a balanced review is a bit tricky, but this is still a film all can enjoy, as it’s a story of triumph and despair played out against the back drop of burnt tyres and oil changes, and in this film the disasters are real. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is a documentary about Senna as a driver though. This is about Senna the man. There’s a few clips of the relevant racing action, but this is a quest to understand Senna’s determined and, at times, conflicted personality. What will have petrol heads drooling the most though is the incredible behind the scenes footage taken at the time, particularly the pre-race drivers meetings. There is also some hilarious moments in the film including Senna’s appearance on a bizarre Brazilian Christmas show and some mirth inducing off the cuff quotes from the various racing team personnel (“He missed the chicane....Fucking Hell…..Do you want a cup of tea?”). Quibbles? The feud with Prost clearly casts the Frenchman has the villain of the piece and isn’t balanced enough to appreciate that he was also a masterful driver and that Senna himself could also be a mean bastard if needed. Also the investigation into the aftermath of Senna’s crash is barely touched on, which is a shame as you want at least a small explanation as to why such a tragedy occurred. Speaking of that, you’ll have to have a heart of stone not to have watery eyes at the films denouement and the moment when F1 Doctor Professor Sid Watkins asks him why doesn’t he quit racing (reply “I can’t quit”) a mere 24 hours before he was gone forever is the type of tragic moment only real life can produce. I saw the 2 hour version of the film, but there is also a 2 hour 40 minute cut out there which I believe has more racing action and great footage of Senna’s friendly feud with Gerhard Berger. It’s hard to believe most people won’t seek this longer version out after seeing this masterpiece.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not only a great film, but the perfect example of making a documentary that will appeal to a wider audience than what the subject matter pertains too. Rating: 8/10.

Paul

The first thing to say about Paul is that this isn’t the third film in the “Cornetto Trilogy” as Edgar Wright has nothing to do with this particular movie and, boy, does it show. Writers Simon Pegg and Nick Frost star as a couple of English comic book nerds who after visiting a convention on said material, embark on a road trip visiting extra terrestrial sights of interest. Before long they find themselves with a third partner in their RV, that of Paul, a CGI alien, voiced by Seth Rogan. Before long there’s shadowy government figures and wild chases ensuing. It all feels old hat though with “probing” jokes the norm and stereotypes abound. This should have been a lot better than it is. The problem is that aliens living amongst us is hardly the newest story in film and Pegg and Frost don’t really have much new to say on the matter. I’m no prude, but this is also a bit too crude with the lack of writing shown up by the fact someone, usually Paul, needs to swear every 10 minutes in order to garner a laugh. It doesn’t work. This is actually somewhat surprising as director Greg Mottola has form for handling edgy humour with emotion (Superbad), though the additional problem here is that unlike that film, despite all the gross out moments you still cared for the characters. Having said that Mottola can hardly be to blame as he’s handcuffed by the substandard script. The most interesting aspect of the film is that Pegg and Frost have reversed their usual film personalities, so in this one Pegg is the zany slob, whilst Frost is the uptight whinger. It’s probably a nice break for them to be playing against type, but it doesn’t improve the film in anyway. There will be an audience for this (mainly groups of lads on Friday nights with beer and pizza in tow) and general Sci-Fi fans will get a kick out of the many references on screen, but again, isn’t this just cover for what little new ideas there are here? Perhaps less focus on the self indulgent (Steven Spielberg’s cameo) and more polishing of the script would have made for a more enjoyable trip all round.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

There’s more drama, horror and wit in most episodes of The X-Files. Calling Edgar Wright. Rating: 4/10.

Brighton Rock

Screenwriter (The American, 28 Weeks Later) Rowan Joffe (yep, son of Roland) adds the director’s string to his bow with Brighton Rock, a new version of Graeme Greens novel. An interesting first choice of feature for Joffe. On the one hand you have the already well respected source novel to go on, but on the other hand you’ll be up against the much loved Richard Attenborough version from 1948. It won’t come as a surprise to you to hear that Joffe’s version is inferior to Dickie’s, but it’s still a decent stab (for those who know their Brighton Rock, I pardon the pun there). In this version, the action is set in the 1960’s as we follow Pinkie (Sam Riley), a teenager in a small gang and his interactions, sometimes violent, with his own gang and other gangs in the Sussex Town. Hardly the best lifestyle is soon confused further when Pinkie has to woo Rose (Andrea Riseborough) in order to help the gang avoid detection from the police. One problem the film has had is the comparisons with the 1930’s version. For me, they are both so far apart (87 years) and so different in style and tone that Joffe’s version deserves be rated on its own two legs. Riley is the main focal point of the film and despite some woodenness at times, he does come across as pretty unlikable, especially in his treatment of Rose. Rose herself is as colourless as they come and it’s hard to tell if Riseborough is purposely underplaying her or giving a bland performance herself. Either way, she is the only character in the film which will earn sympathy from the audience. Carey Mulligan was the original choice for Rose, but dropped out to do Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps instead. I can only assume she felt Rose was too one dimensional, but this is still the better film. Moving on from that, there’s plenty of British acting talent on show (Helen Mirren and John Hurt amongst them) but Joffe, also on screen writing duties, would probably been best to cut a number of characters with too many coming and going, whilst the hierarchy of the criminal underworld is unclear throughout the film. The best aspect of the film though is the fantastic portrayal of 1960’s Brighton. Superb eye for detail on the production front and less quality camera lenses than would normally be used really give the film an historic feel. It also loans the film an edge which suggest you really wouldn’t want to meet Pinkie and co under the Pier.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Like a stick of Brighton Rock itself, this looks good, but is also a struggle to get through. Rating: 6/10

Barney's Version

Barney’s Version is one of those films that tells the life story of a fairly unlikeable chap that, when his chickens come home to roost, then leaves it up to the viewer at the end whether you have any sympathy for him or not. The film follows Barney Panofsky (Paul Giamatti), producer of low grade television shows, and the tangled life he has led. Mainly it’s about his relationship with the women in his life, but too say too much here would be to give the full game away, though the nice tag-line (“First he got married. Then he got married again. Then he met the love of his life.”) gives you some idea as to what Barney is like. Told partly in flashback we see Panofsky, hard drinking and cigar chewing, bounce between numerous females, whilst occasionally interacting with a motley collection of friends and trying to convince a policeman that he is innocent of murdering a friend of his many years previous. As can be read from that, this is a slightly odd film. It doesn’t really have any indie aspirations, but it’s certainly not mainstream either. There are many problems with it, but it still comes out as a decent film. Director Richard J Lewis (adapting Mordecai Richler’s novel) struggles to keep a grip on everything at once and at times the pace almost crawls to a halt. However, he is smart enough to concentrate on Giamatti at all times and this saves the film. Giamatti isn’t really known as under-rated anymore, but he’s brilliant in stuff like this, as opposed to hamming it up a la Shoot Em Up. He embodies Panofsky so well that at times you’ll be so exasperated with his actions you’ll be physically wanting to reach into the cinema screen and shake him out of his stupor or ask him why he makes such foolish decisions all the time. Acting wise there is decent support from others, if limited in terms of screen time, including Rosamund Pike and Scott Speedman, but it’s Dustin Hoffman who shines brightest from the sidelines playing Panofsky’s father and the few scenes they share together, whether they are formed by comedy or tragedy, you’ll be hard pressed to find better elsewhere. Then comes the film’s final gambit, as Panofsky begins to succumb to illness. Can you garner any sympathy for him or is this karma giving him all he deserves? However you feel, the scene where the audience first realises something is up comes as a shock and the film’s final scene, basically where a close up of Giamatti’s face ties up a plot strand is film making of the highest quality.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not quite the sum of its parts, but Giamatti is the vital cog that keeps it turning throughout. Rating: 7/10

Blue Valentine

Despite sounding like a softcore porno Blue Valentine does possess some hardcore action, though only in dramatic acting sense you pervo! Apologies for the lame attempt at humour, but if you’re going to see this film you’ll need some sort of laughs before you go in. There’s few smiles in this film which is ostensibly about watching a couple fall in love, have a kid and then have a horrible break up. That’s not a plot spoiler as the marketing has sold the film on that point. So, why would you watch such a film if you already know what’s going to happen? The slight twist is that the film is told in two different time frames, when the protagonists Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) first meet and when things start going awry a number of years later. Even using this tactic is this still a film you can get much enjoyment out of though? If you want to watch a doomed romance, then fair enough, in fact, that is the trump card that the film does hold in the notion that, if not to the extremes you see here, everyone has been in a failed relationship at one point and can relate to the tell tale signs on screen. Director Derek Cianfrance gets good performances from both Gosling and Williams, but for actors of their calibre, something like this should be a walk in the park anyway. Gosling, is the best of the two (particularly as he’s more at ease in the many improvised scenes), but you feel there is some serious star wattage there yet to be released and let’s hope for a more mainstream move from him soon. Trivia wise Cianfrance based the older version of Dean on himself and if you see a picture there is an uncanny resemblance. Other than that there isn’t much else to “enjoy” here, though that, of course, isn’t the point. Put it like this, if you’ve had enough of films like Valentine’s Day then this is the rehabilitation you need.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Well acted and the split time frame works. Cianfrance gives us what’s advertised, but would you want to watch it in the first place? Rating: 7/10.

Tangled

Disney’s previous film was the highly enjoyable The Princess and The Frog, but that sadly died a box office death, with one of the main reasons cited that it failed to attract the male audience (seriously though, what did they expect with a title like that?). That film was also “old style” 2D animation and no matter how wrong it may be to say it, that must surely have caused the modern audience to shuffle their feet past the multiplex as well. Therefore, Disney have gone all out here, switching to 3D computer animation. The good news is, all the standards of an animated film (hell, any film) are present and correct and the whole thing is a blast. Based on the Grimm brothers Rapunzel fairy-tale (also the title of the film until a switch near the release date) Tangled see’s Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) released from her tower by dashing thief Flynn (Zachary Levi) and so begins a roller coaster journey of buddy movie, romance, scares and many, many laughs. Its clear Disney put some serious effort into this both script wise and animation wise, though the songs are hit and miss. There are luscious visuals throughout from Rapunzel’s superbly rendered hair (six years in the making according to reports) to the deeply green forests and trees. It’s a shame therefore that the colours are muted by the 3D (take your glasses off during the film and you’ll see what I mean). All successful animated films seem to have an animal as the best character and it’s no different here as Flynn’s horse steals the show, made even more impressive by the fact it’s all based on his mannerisms and facial gestures alone. There’s also the added attraction of not being distracted by any A-List stars providing the voices (though if the rumoured budget of $260 million is to be believed, there couldn’t have been much left in the kitty anyway to entice any big names). If there is a quibble, that would be most of the characters are a cliché and won’t become firm Disney favourites (which is probably why the horse sticks out so memorably) but after some lean (in comparative terms) years, that’s now back to back crackers from The Mouse House. More to come, please.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

It’s not a classic, but it is hugely entertaining and hopefully it’s the start of a new period of quality from Disney. Rating: 8/10

Cedar Rapids

Despite its modern setting Cedar Rapids tries so hard to show the world of insurance selling as dull and bland its ending up looking like it was shot circa 1975. The protagonists all seem to wear polyester suits of varying degrees of brown whilst the décor is of a similar shade. In fact, if it wasn’t for the US setting, you’d almost expect to see Watney’s Red Barrel behind the bar. In the film Ed Helms plays Tim Lippe, an introverted man-child, who, whilst decent at selling insurance is inexperienced and naive when it comes to a number of the other aspects of the world around him. Plot machinations means he finds himself at a sales conference attempting to win an award for his company. He falls in with a few of the other salesmen, and being a fish out of water, soon finds himself being led astray. A few amusing scrapes ensue, but the characters aren’t engaging enough and Miguel Arteta's direction is as stale as the setting he has placed the protagonists in. Things aren’t helped by occasional The Wire star Isiah Whitlock Jr making reference to the actual show a couple of times. It’s meant to be funny, but just feels lame. Helms tries his best to play a square, but he is mis-cast here playing against type, and you can’t help but yearn for a bit of the “Nard-dog” as he fumbles around. Better comes from John C Reilly as an old school type salesman with a drink in one hand and a string of offensive one-liners whenever the occasion calls. In effect this is a morality film with the good guy winning out and smiles all round. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but in this instance, it doesn’t make for edge of the seat viewing.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A few decent moments (mostly from Reilly) can’t save a film that is similarly as dull as the lifestyle it seeks to portray. Rating: 5/10

Insidious

Modern films like, actually love, to advertise as “from the Director of X” and the “Producers of Y”, so for the new fright fest that is Insidious we have the poster informing us that said film is “From the director of Saw” and the “writer / director of Paranormal Activity”, this being James Wann and Orin Peli respectively. This probably isn’t a good thing for a number of people. In addition, it’s also a bit mis-leading as Peli is only one of a number of producers of the film, whereas Wann is the director with his old sparring partner Leigh Whannel on writing duties. So, what delights have they come up with for us? Parents Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne move into a new house and shortly one of their kids falls into a coma-type of unconsciousness that the doctors can’t explain. Then things really start to get weird. Despite their involvement with the increasingly bloody (and bloody rubbish) Saw franchise, Wan and Whannel have been smart enough to realise it is the threat, rather than the showing, that makes these films and they utilise all the tricks in the haunted house text book. Having said that we know it’s not the house that is haunted. That’s not a spoiler as the advertising has used the twist as its main selling point. However, what is quite a coup is that despite one of the main twists in the film being all over the trailers and posters it’s still a great watch. Whannel’s screenplay is mostly lean and concise and Wan’s direction, helped by some great lighting and cinematography, is assured creating a spine tingling atmosphere of impending dread. Some of the jumps are telegraphed and most are aided by the obligatory loud music, but there are some real crackers here, helped by some great mis-direction and one scare in particular involving a shadowy figure pacing outside a bedroom window was one of the most ingenious moments I’d seen in a film for quite some time. The film does falter slightly when the reveal occurs (which some may find too Mumbo Jumbo), but this is usual for most films of this type (Peli’s PA suffered badly from this) and though the final third can’t match up to the thrilling opening two acts, what it is is pretty bonkers as the film resembles a non stop Ghost Ride at a fun fair as ghouls and jumps come thick and fast without much let up. Yep, its pure hokum, but even that can’t spoil a final twist that will have the hairs on the back of your neck standing up. There are a few minor points where some attempts at comedy don’t really work and one of the nasties bearing a bizarre reference to Darth Maul, but this is an good old fashioned frightener and vastly superior to the recent bluntness of Scream 4.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

You may feel this is too high a rating, but a chilling first half and an enjoyable, if silly, second half make for one of the best horror films for quite a while. Rating: 8/10.