The Tree Of Life

Mention Terrence Malick to any film fan over the age of 30 and there’s a good chance they’ll get all misty eyed over the auteur, despite the fact the first film they would have seen at the cinema of Malick’s would have been 1998’s The Thin Red Line. It appears his reclusive nature and slow output (now 6 films in 40+ years) have elevated him to a position where his films appear to be untouched by criticism. Mentioned Malik’s name to anyone else and you’ll more than likely get “Who?” as a response. Malick’s films reflect the pace he gets round to picking up the megaphone and The Tree Of Life is a sure test of the patience of both fan and average movie goer alike. Firstly, how on earth to describe not only what this film is about, but how to describe how it is presented. Your first clues that something isn’t normal here came within the first few weeks of its cinema release in the US with punters leaving the film in droves and asking for their money back. In the end certain cinema chains were having to put up signs warning people buying tickets not to expect a standard film starring Brad Pitt. OK, so let’s have a bash at explaining this. The film begins with a couple (Pitt and Jessica Chastain) finding out about the death of their teenage son. The film then becomes a study of the dawn of creation, the evolution of man and then settles into a middle section of reflecting back on the son’s upbringing with his brothers and parents. Well I say settled, but there is nothing settled about this at all in terms of it having any narrative structure. Dialogue is sparse and most of it spoken as a voiceover. Throw in constant editing and non-sequential cuts and already you begin to understand how people were dumbfounded by what they were watching. The dawn of creation segment (or whatever you want to label it as) is easily the moment when most people have decided whether they are staying for another 2 hours or not. Though there are some spectacular images here, you’re basically watching the Discovery channel for a good amount of screen time, including a bizarre dinosaur sequence. Yes, you’re not mis-reading any of this. On the plus side this is one of the most beautifully shot films you’ll ever see. Every image is crisp and pure. A flock of bats sweeping over a sun drenched sky is mesmerising. Skyscrapers become things of cold steel beauty. Close ups of the protagonists faces reveal more than dialogue ever could. Talking of the actors, it’s the middle section of the film where things really start to pick up as one of the son’s (played by Hunter McCracken) starts to discover sexual feelings for women for the first time and unhidden violent tendencies. Some of the scenes of potential violence are actually highly disturbing and reminiscent of Michael Haneke’s The White Ribbon. A lot of this is down to McCracken himself. The acting may be minimal, but he says all you need to know with his eyes and expressions. If you found out he went on to be a serial killer you wouldn’t be surprised. In addition, though the structure of the film makes it tricky for a proper analysis, Pitt gives a strong performance as the loving, but overly strict father. So, just as you’ve got used to the more standard (in comparative terms) middle section of the film, it all goes badly wrong at the end though with some of the most pretentious dross ever committed to celluloid. Come on Terrence, we’ve sat through 2 hours already and that’s how you repay us? So to the crux of the matter. Is this worth 2 hours and 20 minutes of your time? If you know what you’re letting yourself in for, and you appreciate what Malick is trying to do, then, on balance, I’d say yes. Having said that it could all just be a load of balls. It’s hard to recommend a film to people where you already know a high proportion of the population are going to hate it, so I’ll say see it for two reasons. The spectacular images can only really be truly appreciated on the big screen and that this really is as far away from standard movie making as you can get without totally falling over the cliff.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Art or Arse? Who knows. Doubtful you would ever watch it a second time though. Rating: 6/10 (though I understand anyone who would rate it much lower)

Drive Angry

Drive Angry was a box office bomb, despite it looking like perfect friday night entertainment. The story concerns John Milton (Nicolas Cage) and his pursuit of the bad guys who have killed his daughter and stolen her baby in order to be ritually sacrificed. However, why does Milton carry such an odd looking gun, have impossible driving skills and be impervious to bullets in the head? Well, it doesn't take a genius to work it out. Throw in a ear bleeding sound track, plenty of sex and violence and Amber Heard's attempt to wear the shortest shorts possible and you have the feel and look of an old 70's revenge flick. So why the failure to find an audience? There are many possible reasons. Director Patrick Lussier hardly has a distinguished back catalogue and he has trouble cutting this into something coherent as many scenes are way too OTT and plenty of dialogue falls flat. This is also a 3D film and it appears people are beginning to see the light regarding this now. A person may happily pay the extra dosh to see Harry Potter, but they are now saving their hard earned when it comes to "standard" movies such as this where the 3D is negligible and in this case also shows up some truly dire special effects at times. Or is the problem Cage himself? He's done some great work in front of the camera over the last couple of years but he seems drawn like a moth to light when it comes to films of such dubious quality as this. No doubt its a blast for him professionally, but he comes across as such a limited actor in films of this type that it appears the audience don't have the time to invest in yet another monotone performance. Plus points? Two words. William Fichtner (excellent as always). So, Drive Angry? You probably will on the way home after seeing this.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Should have been a fun B-Movie, but its too much of a mess to even gain a cult following. Rating 3/10.

Horrible Bosses

So, who hasn’t wanted to murder a boss of theirs at some point then? That’s the selling point behind Horrible Bosses as three friends (Jason Bateman, Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis) plan to knock off their superiors (Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell and Jennifer Aniston) in order to make their lives easier. This isn’t Strangers On A Train though, but the new comedy from Seth Gordon. Yep, the Seth Gordon who made Four Christmases. That’ll probably be enough to put most people off going in the first place and, frankly, you will have made the right choice. This is another one of those films where, if you've seen the trailer, you’ve seen the film, or, at least, the best bits of the film. Actually, if there were Oscars awarded for the best trailer for a film then this would be right up there. The old problem emerges though that if you’ve seen the trailer and laughed at the jokes already you’re not going to be laughing too much during the actual film, especially in this case where all the other gags are either massively telegraphed or just plain unfunny. So, what went wrong here? This seems like another one of those films where the premise was agreed upon as a great idea and then a screenplay has been fitted as best it can around it. In fact, “seems” is probably too less a word as its fairly clear as the film lurches from one scene to the next that there isn’t much of a structure here. Of the three employees in the film Sudeikis gives the best performance, though he looks in danger of just becoming (in Europe anyway) “that guy from that other film”. Bateman plays it straight and dry which is only mildly successful, whilst Day hypers it up to such an extreme level his voice goes beyond Bobcat Goldthwait at times. I was amazed not to find 200 cats outside the cinema when I left such is the pitch of Day’s voice at times. To be fair to the three, it’s clear that most scenes are improvised and they all do a decent job riffing off each other and get the best out of their roles when compared to the bosses. Spacey phones it in playing a slime ball, Farrell is great as Sudeikis’ weaselly boss, but is criminally underwritten, whilst its Aniston’s part that has garnered the most headlines. In brunette wig, wearing skimpy clothes and armed with the foulest mouth this side of a docker dropping a crate on his foot, she’s clearly having a blast playing against type. However, her sexual bullying of Day is meant to be funny, but it will actually have you squirming awkwardly in your seat. If the roles had been rehearsed (i.e. man harassing woman) such a character would have never made it off the page. All in all, if you haven’t seen the trailer, you may get a few laughs, but there’s just the nagging doubt that this could have been so much better.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A few good performances, but nothing can compensate for the terrible screenplay. Rating: 4/10

Bridesmaids

Hurrah to Bridesmaids, not a complete cracker of a film, but decent enough and certainly the cure to The Hangover Part II. The set up is simple: Annie (Kristen Wiig) is asked to be maid of honour for her friend Lillian, but a combination of little money and interfering bridesmaids leads to frayed tempers and some very bad behaviour indeed. In effect this is basically a tale of friendships made, lost and made up again. Nothing new there, but director Paul Feig has a solid background in US TV comedy and copes with ease getting the best from the numerous set ups, though he is somewhat hamstrung by the screenplay at times. Wiig takes lead duties here and is the star of the show, stepping up into the spotlight with ease and showing just how much she was wasted by Pegg, Frost and Mottola in Paul. Not only is her comic timing great, but her gift for physical comedy is well utilised in a number of hilarious scenes. In fact, these four scenes (Airplane, Car, Bridal Shower and an hilarious argument with a precocious teenager) are so great that if you remove them the rest of the film is only average at best. Other acting nods go to Melissa McCarthy as a bonkers future sister in law and Chris O'Dowd follows up his good work in Gulliver's Travels, doing a nice job as a cop who is clearly the man for Annie, though, at times, his accent appears to be a confusing mix of English, Irish and American. It isn't all gravy though and being a ensemble production means that numerous characters just seem to disappear without a trace at times (Jon Hamm appears as a sleaze ball, but seems completely lost as to what film he's in). As for the now infamous bridesmaids dress fitting scene, this appears to have wandered in from a Farrelly Brothers film and sticks out like a sore thumb, seemingly included just as an entry in the gross out comedy hall of fame / shame. So overall, not quite a bridesmaid, nor a bride, but a comedy with more laugh out loud moments than most of late and perfect friday night viewing.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not many original ideas, but there’s enough decent gags and Wiig’s performance holds it all together. Rating: 7/10.

Bad Teacher

Bad Teacher is all about Cameron Diaz. Her pouting lips and long legs on the poster and a trailer so Diaz-centric it has sold itself on the premise of Diaz alone being the draw to get audiences into the cinema. Is it a risk though? It’s a while now since Diaz has had a hit and, as is Hollywood’s way, despite being only in her late 30's, roles that she may have been considered for in the past are now being snapped up by younger actresses. So, it’s clear that this is Diaz’s vehicle, but does she and director Jake Kasdan make the best of it? In the film Cameron plays Elizabeth Halsey, an, ahem, bad teacher, who’s teaching ethic revolves around making the kids watch videos whilst having a snooze at her desk. Halsey only begins to show an interest in helping American education when she discovers that winning a cash prize due to her students test scores can help her with a breast enlargement, namely in order to snare new teacher Scott Delacorte (a game, but miscast Justin Timberlake). Goodbye Mr Chips, this ain’t. In effect, with its odd storyline and short running time, this comes across as an extended episode of an American sitcom, especially with the quirky characters that inhabit the school (the Headmaster ignoring Halsey's sackable antics such as writing swear words on children's homework due to her faux love of dolphins). This is sporadically very funny, but the line of humour is never clear as it swings wildly between straight, black and outright crudeness meaning a number of gags fall flat as it’s unclear whether they should be taken at face value or not. Cameron is good in the lead, but the show is stolen by Lucy Punch as a rival teacher. With convincing American accent, Punch steals most of the scenes she is in and gives an amusing portrait of a person desperately trying to suppress their highly strung tendencies through a combination of insincere gestures and strained smiles. Overall, a straight C. Is that enough to save Cameron's flailing career though?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not many ideas, but enough laughs to see you through the short running time. Rating: 6/10.

Kung Fu Panda 2

Despite it being a half-decent film there hasn’t been too much clamour for a sequel to Dreamworks 2008 film Kung Fu Panda. However, it was an animated film that made money, right? Sequel Ahoy! To be fair to the studio they avoid the usual sequelitis problem of over-loading with new characters and concentrate mainly on Po (Jack Black) and the back story of his unconventional upbringing, leading to this films main storyline, his battle with Shen (Gary Oldman, appearing to be doing an impression of John Hurt). However, as the film focuses exclusively on Po, all the other main characters are side-tracked and it appears the film doesn’t have many new ideas up its sleeve, particularly in the middle section which appears to be one long fight scene and not much else. In addition the character of Po himself, even taking into account this is an animated film, makes little sense when it comes to these fight scenes where he’s either a fool or a genius or both. Not only is it not very well explained (especially if you haven’t seen the first film), it also means most of his visual gags are telegraphed well in advance. This isn’t too say this is a titter free zone though, as there are some decent guffaws throughout including a few genuine laugh out loud moments. The main plus point though is the animation. It is pretty great throughout, but reaches genius levels when the back story of Po's life is shown. Overall, this is a film that looks good on the big screen (despite the unnecessary 3D), but it just can’t shake the feeling that it should have been a direct to DVD release.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Some nice touches, but too much filler. For fans only. Rating: 6/10.

True Grit

Despite all their success, and the majority of their films being great, the Coen brothers are still an acquired taste for some people. Leaving aside any comparisons with the 1969 film, will this convert any unbelievers? The storyline concerns a young girl Mattie (Hailee Steinfeld) and her hiring of US Marshall Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) in order to track down the murderer of her father. They are soon joined by a Texas Ranger LaBeouf (Matt Damon) who himself is after the murderer, but for different reasons. Despite the storyline and the usual Coen scenes of sudden violence, this is in effect a buddy movie as the three main protagonists bicker and banter their way across the plains, providing some decent laughs as they go along. As you would expect Bridges is great, but his drawling accent at the start of the film will probably have you reaching for the subtitles option when you come to watching this on DVD. Damon himself is also good, but seems a bit confused as to what kind of character he’s meant to be playing. That aside his banter with Bridges is great, though Steinfeld, understandably, gets sidetracked quite a bit because of it. As you’d imagine the film is fantastically lit and shot, and is so authentic you can almost taste the grit and dirt in your mouth. So with so many plus points, this must be another Coen classic right? Sadly, not. The problem is that despite a few action scenes very little actually happens and the storyline just doesn’t grip as it should. Interestingly enough this is probably the most “straight” film the Coen’s have done for some time, i.e. the quirkiness factor barely registers and the film does seem to be missing their usual eccentricities. So, in answer to the original question, no, this won’t convert any Coen fence sitters, but it’s still a decent film for the rest of us, if well below their usually high bar of quality.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

An average Coen brothers film, still means an above average film. Rating: 7/10.

The Hangover Part II

I started my review of The Hangover by saying “With a Todd Phillips film you pretty much know what you’re going to get”, so for The Hangover Part II you really know what you’re going to get. So it’s as you were, but this time, and following the usual rule of sequels, the action is transported abroad, this time to Bangkok. So being a sequel this also has to be bigger in terms of storyline and scope and, yep, it’s pretty out there. It’s also not very good. It is as ludicrous as the first film, but lacks the knowing nod of the head that that film had. This is a shame as it’s mildly intriguing in a detective sort of way following Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis as they again attempt to discover what happened to them the night before. What’s most frustrating of all is that, especially after the half-decent Due Date, this could have been quite good fun. There’s some good ideas here, especially one flash back showing the main protagonists as children going through their night of debauchery, but anything fresh is quickly side-tracked in order to get to the next swear word or knob gag and a further cameo by Mike Tyson is even unfunnier than his one in the first film (and that’s saying something). Let’s not forget that Phillips is the man who doesn’t find Monty Python funny. The Hangover Part II has a sexual mix-up involving a ladyboy (A ladyboy? In Bangkok? How original!) and a monkey licking a man’s penis. Each to their own, huh Todd?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Fans of the original should get the required laughs. Not too sure anyone else will though. Rating: 4/10.