Water For Elephants

Francis Lawrence appears an odd choice of director for Water For Elephants, a family friendly old fashioned weepy. With a back record of decidedly average films on the CV so far I can guess that the producers felt that the director wasn’t all that important an aspect (another nod to the Golden Age, I guess) as their hopes were pinned on the already built in audience of one of the leads of the film, a certain Mr Robert Pattinson. Pattinson plays Jacob Jankoski, a student studying to be a vet, who finds himself homeless following the death of his parents and ends up joining a travelling circus who’s boss, August (Christoph Waltz), rules both man and animal with an iron fist. Despite trying to keep a low profile Jankoski appears on August’s radar, who employs him as the circus vet. However, Jankoski soon starts to make eyes at August’s wife, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). As you can guess, trouble ensues. This has the look and feel of a film Hollywood would have made many years ago what with the outlandish sets, animals and hundreds of extras. The catch being these days that, as in this film, lots of the above is now just CGI and it loses that breath taking spectacle. Lawrence’s direction is by the numbers and to be fair to him it doesn’t really need to be anything more to tell this fairly simple story of love and lust. Waltz is half-decent as the villain of the piece (though he now appears to be typecast forever) and is the only one to put much effort in on the acting front. Neither Pattinson or Witherspoon are convincing and there is zero chemistry between them. Now the controversial part. Since the film’s release a video has emerged of the Elephant in the film (Tai) being tortured in order to perform tricks, like we see her perform in the film. I should add that this footage is believed to have come from 2005 and the studio obviously wouldn’t have had any knowledge of such actions back then. However, animal charities allege that some of the trainers of Tai who mis-treated her were actually employed on set during the shoot (though there is no allegation of mis-treatment during the filming). The studio, Twentieth Century Fox, have released a press statement stressing the fact that the mis-treatment occurred many years before they become involved with the elephant. However, it seems to me that, even though they are not culpable in any sense for what happened, aren’t the studio still making money on a film for which they now know that their star elephant in it was only able to perform the tricks shown due to it being tortured?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Hard to ignore the elephant issue, but even then this is probably one for R-Pattz completists only. Rating: 5/10.

Your Highness

I’m not too sure about Danny McBride. Still quite a way from the comedy gold A-list, certain sections of the media seem to think he is some sort of unrecognised comedy genius. After watching Your Highness, it’s unlikely any such recognition is going to be coming his way soon. This is a mess of a film, which is more like a connection of set pieces ill-fitted together with the hope that no-one will notice. A quick summation of the storyline is that, in the Middle Ages, when Prince Fabious’s (James Franco) bride is kidnapped, he goes off in hot pursuit of her, accompanied by his jealous and dim-witted brother Thadeous (McBride). Hilarity does not ensue. This has a high streak of vulgar humour, but it fails to have a sweet side to counter balance the filth. How respected actors such as Damian Lewis and Toby Jones ended up in this is a mystery and surely in years to come Natalie Portman will be claiming that it’s her alter ego from Black Swan in this as opposed to her. Director David Gordon Green and McBride go years back and it’s clear to tell that (much like Pineapple Express) this is just full of things that they find funny, missing the point that there’s a whole audience out there to be entertained. Inspired moments are few and far between (a plate full of Fish Fingers at a feast being one of the better gags) but McBride instead appears to try and get his laughs by just saying four letter words. Hardly, the stuff of genius that. Gordon Green has said that the whole film is heavily improvised and that there was never a script used on set. You don’t say, David.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

This’ll have some fans out there, but this rarely rises above the level of mediocrity. Rating: 4/10.

The Lincoln Lawyer

So, you’ve just watched a Matthew McConaughey film. What’s your over-riding emotion? Disappointment, of course, you’ve just watched a Matthew McConaughey film. So, you’ll be unsurprised to hear that you’ll also feel disillusioned after watching his latest film, The Lincoln Lawyer. Here’s the catch though. This film is great and so is McConaughey. So why the negative thoughts still? Well, they’ll actually be thoughts of frustration this time as McConaughey digs up that star wattage he threatened to use on a regular basis at the start of his career before he sank into the mire with a collection of lame action adventures and rom-coms. The film is based on Michael Connelly’s novel of the same name and Connelly himself has given this version the thumbs up. You can see why, as this is an intricately plotted courtroom thriller. McConaughey takes the lead as morally dubious lawyer Mickey Haller, who on taking on the case of a wealthy young man (played by Ryan Philippe) starts to have a crisis of confidence as to whether he should really be trying to get his defendant off the charges or not. Saying more will give the game away, but though there aren’t any major twists in the film it keeps your attention all the way through due to the ambiguity of what’s happening, all the way up until the entertaining finish. McConaughey is great, clearing relishing in a role that means he can utilise his phone it in sleaziness, but also add more depth when needed. Philippe is also good and plays his part so well he will get under your skin just as much as he does Haller’s. On the minus side, there’s no denying that the rest of the characters are fairly one dimensional, but there’s decent acting across the board and each role, however small, adds something to the story. Much credit must go to young director Brad Furman in what is pretty much his mainstream debut. The excellent screenplay is there for him already, but he adeptly moves the film along and respects the audience in the fact he doesn’t signpost everything that’s happening. There’s some nice use of flashbacks as well and the film has a real polished look to it. This can hold its head up high due to the combination of successful screenplay, acting and direction. Where next for Furman and McConaughey, though?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

An engaging film, aptly marshalled by Furman with the McConaughey of old to the fore. Rating: 8/10.

Larry Crowne

There was a story in the press a few months back about a couple who accosted Tom Hanks at a petrol station to complain about his latest film, Larry Crowne. Being the top chap that Tom is he reimbursed the couple the price of their cinema tickets there and then with the promise to do better next time. Apart from this being a great idea (Michael Bay, expect my invoice anytime soon), were the disgruntled couple correct with their condemnation of said film? First of all, let’s say this. This is a film starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts and it’s advertised as being a bit of harmless fluff. You really shouldn’t go in expecting anymore than that in the first place. The fluff in question has Hanks as the eponymous Crowne, an employee of a store who gets the boot and ends up back at college where he enrols in a class under the tutelage of the oddly named Mercedes Tainot (Julia Roberts). Tainot won’t give Crowne the time of day at first, but before long, well, you can guess the rest. This is harmless stuff really and does have a few nice moments of drama and comedy. It can’t escape though from the totally unbelievable screenplay and that both Hanks and Roberts’ characters are pretty far-fetched. Hanks also doubles up on director duties, but can’t do anything to cover over the cracks. It’s a good job then that the supporting cast is good value with Hanks classroom colleagues all enjoying their brief moments in front of the camera, Cedric The Entertainer providing a few chuckles as Crowne’s full of bluster neighbour and, best of all, George Takei as a strict professor with an hilarious robotic laugh. To sum up then? Though I advocate all films to be seen in the cinema, I’ll meet that unhappy petrol station couple half way on this one. The big screen adds nothing to this but, if this is your bag, do catch up with it later on down the line on telly. Even if you still don’t like it, at least you won’t have to drive around California on the off chance of hoping to bump into Hanks and getting a refund.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Innocent enough, a few laughs and totally forgettable once watched. You weren’t exactly expecting Citizen Kane though were you?. Rating: 6/10

Hanna

Over the years there have been a number of incidences in cinemas where films have been shown with the reels in the wrong order. The joke being that most times the audience has left the theatre unaware of the mix-up thinking what they had just watched was the director’s intended vision. A similar thing happened when I went to see Joe Wright’s new film Hanna. About 40 minutes into the film the screen went blank for a minute and all we had was the audio. When the picture returned it was with a garish yellow hue. The fact that this didn’t seem unusual is a reflection of Wright’s direction of the first part of the film. (In reality the projector had over heated and eventually broke down). So a few days later I returned to the cinema to watch the film again in which 16 year old Hanna (Saoirse Ronan), after being raised in the wilderness by her father (Eric Bana) to be the ultimate assassin, is sent off to the mainland on a mission. To say too much more would give the game away, but not everything is as clear as it seems, especially when CIA officer Wiegler (Cate Blanchett) becomes involved. So returning back to my story at the start, is this really Joe Wright behind this? It appears he wants to prove a point that he is more than just a steady hand behind the camera as he employs all sorts of tricks this time round including twirling camera shots, jump cuts and odd angles. However, these things don’t appear to come naturally to Wright, and it’s the cinematic equivalent of watching the awkward fumblings of a teenage boy. The whole film is a case of style over substance and even another great tracking shot (following on from Wright’s memorable one in Atonement) that follows Bana from a station down into a subway into a fight with a number of goons starts off as breathtaking, but quickly dissolves into a ballet of awkward and stiff choreography. This is also meant to be a thriller, but it’s too slow and disjointed and not helped by a number of dodgy performances (Blanchet: Pantomime, Ronan: Just not believable) including Tom Hollander hamming it up in outrageous fashion as a flamboyant heavy. Throw in an intrusive and mis-placed Chemical Brother’s soundtrack and you have a film that looks great on paper, but has gone wrong in the execution.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Any real intrigue is lost amongst some over the top direction. You’ll have stopped caring long before the down beat conclusion. Rating: 5/10.

How I Ended This Summer

I had a bit of trouble digging this one out in the cinema, what with it being a slow moving Russian subtitled film starring only two people. However, reviews suggested something good and I eventually managed to track it down. Where those reviews justified though? Hmm. How I Ended This Summer is the story of old hand Sergei (Sergei Puskepalis) and fresh faced Pavel (Grigory Dobrygin), two meteorologists working on checking weather and radioactivity levels on a remote Arctic island. We watch them go about their dull daily business for a while, before Pavel receives a radio message for Sergei telling of a personal tragedy in his family. Pavel neglects to tell him immediately and when he finally does the two have a sort of falling out and then spend the rest of the film half chasing / half stalking each other. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is some sort of survival of the fittest, highly intense thriller though. If there’s a slower film released this year I’ll eat my hat. It makes The Tree Of Life look like it’s directed by Tony Scott. This picked up plenty of awards on the European festival circuit and it will no doubt appeal to the art-house crowd. I can’t see an audience beyond that though. The premise of the film isn’t actually all that bad as writer / director Aleksei Popogrebsky skips the cheap option of drumming into the audience that the players have fallen out due to going stir crazy, with a more thoughtful, if somewhat bizarre, approach to the subject of the men’s deteriorating relationship. It’s a shame he didn’t put more thought into the editing process though. This is film is over 2 hours long and it definitely felt like it. There’s easily 20 minutes that could be cut from this which wouldn’t have made any negative impact on the story line. Having said that, it’s clear that Popogrebsky’s has a vision of how these men live and he does deliver it. His point being that a minute spent in such a remote place is longer than a standard minute. When your cinema seat begins to chafe after half an hour at least you will be able to agree that Popogrebsky has proved his point.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Beautifully shot, Dobrygin is great, but this triumphs or fails dependent on whether or not you can survive Popogrebsky stretching his point out over 130 minutes. Rating: 5/10

I Don't Know How She Does It

I can’t comment on the TV series of Sex and the City, but the fact that Sarah Jessica Parker has a film career has been a mystery amongst film reviewers for many years now. I Don’t Know How She Does It doesn’t solve the mystery. The film’s concept is disastrous as it’s basically just a sob story for a couple that have two kids. Who live in a massive house. Who both have highly paid jobs. Who can afford nannies whenever they want. Who have a supporting network of loving friends and family. Don’t you just feel the sympathy? Of course you don’t. The whole concept is flawed. Having kids is tough? Whoa, hold the front page. Juggling family and work commitments is difficult? What a revelation! OK let’s take a backwards step here and address the obvious argument. This film is clearly aimed at working mothers who will sympathise with Jessica Parker’s situation. Nothing wrong with that, but even here how many working mothers are going to have sympathy for a rich middle class couple with “only” two children anyway? Matters are made even worse with the inference that one characters life now only has meaning due to her having a child. Christian Hendricks stars in this as well but is totally wasted and saddled with giving the occasional vox populi style aside where she sprouts some utterly sexist drivel that, if a man had delivered it with the contrary view, would have the producers of this film black listed from Hollywood forever. Jessica Parker’s not totally to blame for this film, but she has chosen to star in it in the first place. I only guess it appealed to her own feelings regarding childhood and work. On the plus side there are a few laughs to be had with Olivia Munn (clearly channelling Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada) giving a nice performance as a cold assistant and some witty asides come from other characters commenting on Jessica Parker's characters life. Apart from that, that’s your lot. Surely this is the most mis-guided mainstream Hollywood release for years? A film where even the majority of the target audience are going to hate it……

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

The few laughs rescue this from the bottom of the barrel. Rating: 2/10.

Friends With Benefits

Friends With Benefits tells the tale of whether a boy and a girl can have a “relationship” based on sex only with no emotions attached. Hang on a sec….isn’t this No Strings Attached? What we have here is one of those odd Hollywood coincidences that occur every few years where two films covering the same subject are released around the same time as each other. Firstly, let’s confirm that this is the better film of the two. OK, not saying much I know, but this is decent enough for the target audience whilst haters of this kind of thing I assume won’t be going in the first place. In the film Dylan (Justin Timberlake) moves to New York and begins a new job thanks to the help of headhunter Jamie (Mila Kunis). Before long their “agreement” begins and we’re into the very predictable plot. There’s the old football cliché about a game of two halves and Friends With Benefits is definitely a film of two halves. The first part is good fun and breezes along with Timberlake being particularly good and Patricia Clarkson (as Jamie’s Mum) stealing all scenes she pops up in. It’s odd then that things fall apart so quickly in the second half of the film, with the introduction of Dylan’s family being the moment the film flatlines and then quickly sinks to the bottom. The scene where Dylan’s Alzheimer’s suffering Dad tells his son to seize the moment will have you mentally, if not physically, heading for exit door. Kunis is good value, but Timberlake is a bit of a mystery. He’s on form at the start of the film, but as soon as the film requires some more serious emotion he completely loses it and just appears awkward in front of the camera. Despite the standard script, this does have some very funny moments and has a wide range of comedy from the crude to the cerebral, meaning there’s a couple of laughs out there for each member of the audience. Woody Harrelson also pops up in a decent cameo with some nice one-liners and he could possibly have been utilised more. All in all, though it hints at something more, this is just a regular example of the genre in the end.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Fun for the targeted demographic, but the two halves don’t make a whole for the rest. Rating: 6/10.

Apollo 18 / Troll Hunter

OK, here’s a first for me. This is the cheap option I know, but it makes sense to do a combined review for both Apollo 18 and The Troll Hunter as they are both from the “lost footage” genre of film that has become a staple over the last 15 years or so. On paper it appears both films should be approached with caution as Apollo 18 concerns a hardly original premise, whilst The Troll Hunter suggests an idea too far. The good news is that though neither will be remembered as classics they are both entertaining in their own sense with Norwegian effort The Troll Hunter destined for cult favedom. Let’s start with Apollo 18 though which, following on from its nice tagline (“There’s a reason we’ve never gone back to the Moon”), tells the story of a fictitious and ill-fated trip to said lump of cheese, put across through the astronauts recovered cameras. The films short running time means director Gonzalo López-Gallego skips over the character intros as quickly as possible and before long the astronauts are on the moon and strange things begin to happen. Strange things also quickly begin to happen in The Troll Hunter when a documentary crew following a story regarding illegal shooting of bears stumble across a man who they believe is a poacher, but it turns out he’s hunting something a lot bigger. As you’d expect from that title, The Troll Hunter is outrageously tongue in cheek but director André Øvredal takes such a matter of fact approach to what is going on that you quickly forget about the ludicrous concept and go with the flow. Apollo 18 is also straight faced, but is darker in tone and subject matter. One problem López-Gallego has though with his film is that we aren’t given enough time to engage with the characters and we’re just left wondering about what is happening to them as opposed to worrying about if they’ll make it home in one piece or not. The Troll Hunter also suffers from a similar problem regarding its documentary film crew, but in the eponymous character (played with great world-weariness by well-known (in Norway!) comedian Otto Jespersen) we do have a main focus for our emotions. López-Gallego’s film does a great job with its (relatively) limited budget and frankly to get the full effect you have to see this in the cinema. Strange noises, heavy breathing, creaking spaceships all add up to a potent mixture that put you on edge. Though it is taken too far at times with some of the “interference” the astronauts hear becoming so loud just before various edits that it appears the film has a soundtrack. If you discount the few moonwalks the astronauts undertake, Apollo 18 is mainly a film confined to tiny spaces. The Troll Hunter is the complete opposite as we’re taken on a journey around Norway’s wide ranging landscape including some stunning shots of the fjords at the beginning of the film. Apollo 18 has the old US Government style cover up at heart (as I said there’s not much original to write home about) but surprisingly The Troll Hunter also has some political statements to make, including a nice gag regarding cheap Eastern European labour. Any scares? Apollo 18 is the winner here as it does have a sense of impending doom and a few (telegraphed) jumps whilst, apart from a few Blair Witch style moments at the start, The Troll Hunter goes more for the fun aspect. As with most films of this kind you know it’s not going to end well for all involved, but its The Troll Hunter that steals a march here. Whereas Apollo 18 gives us most of the answers, The Troll Hunter has a denouement that is frustratingly ambiguous, but one that demands further discussion as the final credits roll. It also has a killer sign off line as well that’ll have you chuckling all the way up the aisle.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

The atmosphere of Apollo 18 would be drastically reduced on the small screen. However, both films are more than passable with The Troll Hunter getting the nod as the better picture for its overall entertainment value. Apollo 18 Rating: 6/10. The Troll Hunter Rating: 7/10.

Kill List

Ben Wheatley’s film Kill List has been getting some rave reviews suggesting it’s one of the best British films of recent years. I wouldn’t go that far, but it’s definitely one to get you talking. Telling the story of contract killers Jay (Neil Maskell) and Gal (Michael Smiley), who after embarking on a number of jobs for a shady employer, start to find things aren’t all they seem. The re-emergence of ex-soldier Jay’s explosive violent temper gives them a further problem to cope with. The good stuff first. Wheatley does well in showing the slow grind that such an undertaking involves and the anonymous nature of the “job” in hand. To the next person Jay and Gal look just like two ordinary businessmen in bad suits having meetings in bland non-descript hotels. Of course, scratch under the surface though and things begin to smell. Though it can be dull to watch, it is the reality of such employment. Compare this to Anton Corbijn’s The American which had George Clooney laying low by walking around a foreign village wearing shades, bedding a prostitute and sticking out like a sore thumb. 1-0 to Wheatley on this front. The film takes an age to get going though. Wheatley is setting the mood, but it’s still a tough slog to get through. Eventually the story and characters begin to reveal themselves before the much-whispered rug pulling final third. There are a number of British horror influences prevalent throughout the picture ranging from The Wicker Man to Straw Dogs (Kill List even includes an unfortunate cat demise in a nod to that picture). Wheatley does well to capture a mood of uneasiness at all times and when things go bad, they go bad indeed. Be warned that this film contains some stomach churning violence which led to a number of walkouts in the screening I attended. It’s safe to say if you don’t like hammer on person action then this isn’t the place for you, though it has to be said the special effects used during the most gruesome scenes are highly impressive. Though it’s been my mantra for decades, when it comes to watching this, the less you know about the film beforehand the better. There is no doubt if you are aware of what happens at the end it’ll have less impact as the film really does go off on a wild tangent in the last 15 minutes. However, it’s not as much a shock as it should be though as it’s heavily hinted that something along such lines is coming due to one of the characters actions at the start of the film. Even then it’s still a talking point and that is actually the films main overall strength. What have you just seen?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

You’ll need a strong stomach, but worth catching just for the numerous questions you’ll be asking yourself as the credits roll. Rating: 6/10.

The Art Of Getting By

Though it’s a while since I watched it, The Art of Getting By reminded me somewhat of Jon Poll’s 2006 film Charlie Bartlett, that of a precocious but lazy student who kicks against school authorities and who’s low profile attracts one of the prettiest girls in the class. The leads here are taken by Freddie Highmore and Emma Roberts. Roberts is meant to be one of the up and coming stars of the screen but she is burdened here by a bland character and it’s Highmore (the kid from Love, Actually!) who upstages her. This is his first lead role and complete with American accent isn’t all that bad. However, he doesn’t actually have that much to do. This is more to do with the style of the film though which elects to tell the story less through dialogue and more through facial expressions and music (if you’re an Indie music fan you should love the soundtrack). The problem is the film doesn’t really have much of a story line and, even with a short running time, any ideas are stretched out into the thinnest sinews. If you are getting bored you can try and spot the offspring of two famous Hollywood cornerstones (Robards and Spielberg, respectively) but this small film lacks the quirk-factor that makes many of these entries into cult favourites and it’s very short on laughs. Plus you may be distracted by the fact that in the film the characters are meant to be the same age (and in reality there’s only a years difference between them) but Highmore looks about 14 and Roberts sometime in her late 20’s. That’s about it really. Short film, short review.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Slow direction and hard to care about characters means that even at 80 minutes this is a struggle to get through. Rating: 5/10.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

So is Rise of The Planet of The Apes a great film because it exceeds expectations? Or is it just a great film anyway? I guess one leads into the other, though I think it’s safe to say no-one was expecting anything memorable from a film with (with respect) James Franco as the lead and a trailer that suggested this was a family drama more than anything. However, that’s the key issue that makes this film what it is. Despite some mayhem at the end this is a drama, and a highly gripping one at that. In an odd way it’s actually a family drama of sorts, in the fact that after an experiment goes wrong at the start of the film, in order to save a baby chimpanzee from being put down lab scientist Will Rodman (Franco) smuggles him home, names him Caesar and eventually he becomes a member of the family. However, due to some animal testing, Caesar is born with advanced cognitive abilities. Sensing he has nothing to lose with his ailing Alzheimer suffering father (John Lithgow), Rodman gives him the same treatment and, lo and behold, his father begins to recover. Before long however, things start to take a dark turn for all involved. In terms of the decision to go all CGI for the Apes in the film, the effects range from middling to very good. At no stage though will you think you’re watching anything other than a load of pixels. However, this doesn’t distract from the viewing experience in any way as you just accept this is the way the film looks and you go with it. The screenplay is smart and slowly builds the story block by block with director Rupert Wyatt happy to let the story pan out whilst injecting the occasional short and thrilling sequence. It’s an approach which pays off handsomely as not only do we get a highly enjoyable film, but one that asks many posing questions regarding the relationship between man and animal. It’s one for pub arguments, but this could (after the original film) be the best Apes film of them all. Though I suppose there isn’t too much quality competition there. Speaking of the original, this film has a great reference to that film (though only picked up by myself and about three other people in the screening I saw. Modern film audiences!) and even before you’ve got your head round that Rise follows it up with a draw dropping moment of its own. It’s a great few seconds of cinema and deserves to be remembered for a long time. A few negative points must be mentioned in Freida Pinto’s somewhat pointless appearance as Rodman’s girlfriend and though the battle scene at the end is thrilling it may be too over the top for some based on the calmness of what’s gone on before. This is Wyatt’s first film since the excellent The Escapist and on this form let’s hope we don’t have to wait so long again until he next gets behind the lens because as “re-boots” of series go, this is arguably one of the freshest in recent years. It’ll be a tough task, but let’s hope the mooted sequels to this continue the good work.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Oo-Oo-Ah-Ah-Ah! Rating: 8/10.

Final Destination 5

Excuse the pun, but the last Final Destination film seemed to sound the death knell for the series. With nothing original to say, it was bland, predictable and let’s be honest, only made as the producers got over-excited thinking how gruesome deaths would look in 3D. However the series hasn’t croaked it as now we have Final Destination 5, though this one does hint that there won’t be any more to follow. You’ll greet that prediction with a cheer or a groan depending on how you feel about these films, but in terms of quality we finish on a high note as this is a highly enjoyable romp which ends with a quite stupendous twist. Firstly, this is also in 3D, and though it only works effectively on occasions throughout the running time, it is excellently utilised during the opening titles sequence which is one of the most impressive uses of the technology since the re-birth of 3D in the last few years. Even before that though you’ll be briefly taken aback in your seat as the title of the film is hung on the screen in white letters on a black background in an unsettling manner reminiscent of a 1970’s Giallo film. We’re then onto the opening accident (this time a bridge collapse) which is the most impressive bit of carnage in terms of look and direction since the car pileup in the second film and then, well, you know the rest. As with the last few films, the acting is pretty awful, but P.J.Byrne, as a lecherous employee provides a few laughs and watch out for Miles Fisher. He’s just as rotten as everyone else but his resemblance (including mannerisms and voice) to a Tom Cruise / Christian Bale love child is one of the most uncanny things you’ll see in the cinema this year. The good thing is the death scenes are still fairly tense (Three words: Laser Eye Surgery) and the story introduces a new piece of death methodology which, whilst being utterly implausible at this stage of the series, still adds something new to the standard storyline of death by numbers. The film ends with a flash back to plenty of the deaths from the previous films, again utilising the 3D to good affect with a nice touch of animation added as well. Played out over AC / DC’s pumping If You Want Blood, You’ve Got IT, it achieves the oddest reaction you’ll ever get to watching person after person getting slaughtered: Nostalgia!

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Slightly undone by the terrible acting, but decent use of 3D, some great scenes and a clever twist means the series finishes with a flourish. (actually, who am I kidding?…there’s bound to be another one….). Rating: 7/10.

Fast Five

Now here’s a pleasant surprise. A sequel (of sorts) that learns from the mistakes of its previous outing, addresses them and come up smelling of roses. Or in this instance, comes up smelling of car oil and burnt rubber as, yes, we’re back in the seat with the Fast & Furious boys and girls. The biggest surprise of all is that there isn’t too much change in cast and we even have the same director in Justin Lin as there was for 2009’s Fast and Furious. So what was the problem with that film? Simply put it was the awful CGI and it’s spectacular over use. From the opening scene with the fake oil trailer to the ridiculous drive through the desert which resembled a computer game more than a film, it was as un-thrilling as it was lame. So the good news here is that the Hollywood stunt drivers have dusted down their driving gloves and are back in action. Having said that though, this film has also addresses a problem with the franchise so far, in the fact it actually cuts down on the automobile action and gives us a more rounded storyline. You can only watch cars racing each other for so long and this film will appeal to more than just petrol heads. Don’t worry though, as there are still some nice scenes of tyre spinning and it all culminates in a bonkers final chase scene and some outrageous carmageddon on a bridge. In between we have a more fleshed out screen play than normal which involves usual suspect Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew this time hatching heists whilst avoiding a drug lord and a federal agent (a welcome addition in the form of Dwayne Johnson). Of course, the acting has never been the strong suit in this series and its nothing to write home about here. In addition, though this can just about stand alone as a film in its own right, there is little explanation for newcomers as to the characters back stories so some scenes will be hard to follow as unexplained events from previous films are regularly hinted out. Apparently, there’s a further instalment in the pipeline and let’s hope this one addresses one other major flaw of the series, that of having some stronger female characters as opposed to the current ones who are just arm candy for the dudes.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Pure trash, but entertaining enough. Shame we had to sit through the dross of the last few films to get here. Rating: 7/10.

The Roommate

Oddly monikered Danish director Christian E. Christiansen comes a cropper in his Hollywood debut as The Roommate covers all the bases that you would want in the “(insert noun here) from Hell" genre of film, but fails to add little more. In the film College student Sara (Minka Kelly) shares a dorm with Rebecca (Leighton Meester), but before long Rebecca develops an obsession with her and soon begins to take things to the extreme level. All the stalker on the loose favourites are covered here; Other roommates get attacked, boyfriends are scared away and a kitty gets it (Boo!). The problem is Christiansen’s direction is so bland that, with the exception of a neat shadows in the shower sequence, there’s virtually no thrills to be had at all. Hmm, kind of a problem for a thriller that. This is actually quite frustrating as it’s been a while since we’ve had this kind of film and this could have been so much better. However, it just never gets going and, with the exception of Meester, the acting is pretty poor with Kelly being the worst of the bunch. Apart from the nice tagline (“8 million roommates. Which one will you get?”) there just isn’t anything new here to improve this into a half decent film at best. I doubt Christiansen had anything to do with it, but he can at least thank Meester for saving this from becoming a total turkey as she gives the best performance in the film by a long way despite being hamstrung by a dodgy script. You actually feel sympathy for her character when you find out why she acts like she does and it’s a huge oversight that this element of the film isn’t fully explored. If so, at least we would have had a bit more to talk about. As it is, you are just left with the game of guessing whether that’s Kelly acting or someone’s just thrown a chair into room.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Worth watching for Meester, but even then it’s still a struggle. Rating: 5/10.

Rio

Director Carlos Saldanha is a nap hand when it comes to directing animated features, so it’ll come as little surprise to find out that Rio hits virtually all of the marks it aims for. Telling the story of domesticated macaw Blu (voiced by Jesse Eisenberg) who is whisked away to Rio de Janeiro to mate with Jewel (Anne Hathaway) in order to save their species, before long they're caught up in an exotic bird smuggling ring and mayhem ensues. Though not a Disney film, this could easily masquerade as coming from that particular studio. Animals for hero’s? Check. Songs? Check? Memorable Villains? Check. It’s all here. You’ll also probably spot that the story line has a strong whiff of 101 Dalmatians about it. As they say though, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and despite the similarities Saldanha’s film has enough of it’s own ideas to stand on it’s own two legs, or in this case, flap it’s own two wings. The geographical depiction of Rio de Janeiro is great (no doubt helped by the fact it’s Saldanha’s home city) and the actual overall look of the film is a visual delight, with the sun, beaches and carnivals of Rio shown in glorious colour, whilst the favela’s are dark, dank and claustrophobic. Plenty of research has also gone into the look of the many birds on show, all given their own, usually amusing, personalities. In fact, it’s actually the side characters that are more engaging than Blu and Jewel, as Eisenberg’s manic voice grates more than anything and Hathaway is stuck with the blandest character in the whole thing. There’s also the issue of the portrayal of Rio / Brazilians that some may find a bit stereotypical and the screenplay is pretty much by the numbers from the first few scenes onwards. Overall though, there is plenty to enjoy here and further proof that Pixar doesn’t have it all it’s own way anymore.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Lots of fun, but unlikely to become a beloved favourite. Rating: 7/10.

The Eagle

It’s not headline news to say that Channing Tatum is a charisma vacuum, but it’s still disappointing to report that he isn’t getting any better in his film roles. This should have been the perfect vehicle for him as well, playing Aquila, a Roman centurion, who travels to Britain in order to find the emblem of his father’s legion that disappeared in the mountains of Scotland many years previous. The disappearance of said legion was the whole basis of Neil Marshall’s recent (and superior) Centurion, but this somewhat skirts around that issue (in fact, it’s almost a MacGuffin) in order to concentrate more on Auila’s relationship with his British slave (played by Jamie Bell). There’s little to write home about here though. Tatum is far too emotionless to convince he has any sort of issues going on and though Bell fares better it’s still one of his lesser performances. On the positive side, CGI is kept to the minimum and there are some great sweeping shots of the Scottish landscape to gawp at. The film also has a nice opening scene, but things level out far too quickly and there’s virtually nothing left to quicken the pulse in the remainder of the running time. Director Kevin Macdonald is an assured hand and guides us through the story with the minimum of fuss, but this longs for some standout scenes to break us away from the plodding narrative. I think for Centurion I said that if you like this kind of thing, you should get by OK. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can say the same about The Eagle.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A few nice moments, but Tatum is pure wood and there are some highly unconvincing plot developments to swallow as well. Rating: 5/10

The Guard

If you think of two male actors as physically opposed as possible then The Guard’s central pairing of Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle would be near the top of the list. However, despite the marketing campaign hinting at it, John Michael McDonagh’s film isn’t really a buddy movie at all, though the scenes where Gleeson and Cheadle interact are great fun to watch. This is basically a star vehicle for Gleeson, playing Gerry Boyle, an Irish policeman who takes drugs from dead bodies, spends his afternoons with prostitutes and sells guns to the IRA (keep your eyes peeled here for an appearance from an actor who played a well remembered character in Father Ted). Sounds a bit like a certain Harvey Keitel / Nicolas Cage character, huh? Don’t be fooled though. Firstly, Boyle is a Sergeant (boom boom), and secondly, McDonagh’s screenplay keeps Boyle just on the right side of the line. Though his life of “routine” is soon interrupted by the arrival of FBI Agent Wendell Everett (Cheadle) and his attempts to stop an international drug smuggling ring. First of all this is a film with an outrageously dry sense of humour. It’s been billed as a black comedy, but it doesn’t really play as one, especially as the more harsh comic moments don’t work all that well. What it does have is Gleeson delivering his lines in such a deadpan manner that for the first 30 minutes of the film it’s just as difficult for the audience as well as Cheadle’s character to work out if Gleeson is being serious or not. The script itself isn’t actually all that original, but its credit to McDonagh that he still gets the laugh out of obvious scenes, such as Everett’s interactions with the local population. Mark Strong pops up to continue his run of appearing in every film ever made, but his role as a philosophical heavy falls flat and, in fact, the villains of the film are actually its weakest link. This also highlights why this shouldn’t be compared with the superior In Bruges, as that film had two strong leads (you can’t really call Cheadle a lead here) and a strong villain in Ralph Fiennes. What this film does have though is a fine performance from Gleeson. Actually, it’s fantastic, and gets better as the film goes on until by the end you can read Boyle’s emotions just from his eyes and an end scene that hints at The Wild Bunch’s march to their fate is emotionally charged. Throw in some great cinematography and a pay off that is as smart as it is frustratingly ambiguous and you have one of the surprise hit films of the year.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Worth a million Transformers, this low budget gem tickles the ribs whilst being surprisingly moving at the same time. Rating: 8/10.

Beautiful Lies

Audrey Tautou’s latest film has her starring as the joint owner of a hairdressers who, after receiving an anonymous love letter from one of her male employees and originally throwing it in the bin, decides to retype it and send it to her down on herself mother in order to cheer her up. It does the trick and before long we have a comedy of errors re who is chasing who. Unfortunately you won’t care, as all three of the main characters are all pretty unlovable in their own ways. Even Tautou (now looking more like a Pixie than ever) can’t save the day. What’s most disappointing of all is that this actually has quite a decent start, but any ideas of this becoming a knock-about farce are quickly forgotten about as the characters begin to make a serious of implausible decisions and the ending is as unlikely as it is distasteful. Director Pierre Salvadori was also the man behind the somewhat morally dubious Priceless as well, so perhaps it’s not a surprise to have your eyebrows raised in this sense. What also doesn’t help are the subtitles which numerous times don’t translate what is actually being said on screen and in one case there is an hilarious mis-spelling. All in all, unless you’re a fan of Tautou and never miss any of her films, I’d avoid this and spend the money you were going to put towards the cinema ticket on a trip to the barbers / hairdressers instead. There’s a good chance you’ll have more fun there.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A decent premise is ruined by a screenplay that has virtually no likeable characters and countless jokes that fall flat. Rating: 3/10

Limitless

Ah, our blue eyed ensemble boy Bradley Cooper. Always sharing the billing with at least 3 other actors, he rarely has the chance to lead from the front. Here he takes centre stage as Eddie Morra, a struggling writer who ends up taking an experimental drug that means he can utilise 100% of his brain. Within days Morra is writing bestselling novels, learning languages in a day and soon finds himself at the peak of the financial world. The downside? The pills are running short, the side-effects are horrendous and shady businessmen (one played by Robert De Niro) and shady criminals (some Russians that appear to have wondered in off a Guy Ritchie film set). This is a real mixture of a film, as smart as it is silly. There’s no doubting though it has a nice USP and this has been reflected in the decent return at the box office. Cooper plays the role well, though this probably has something to do with his usual choice of film roles which mean he only has to act smug or shocked most of the time. Here is no exception. Nothing against the man but it looks like it’s going to be a while yet before he is bona fide leading man material. Director Neil Burger has had a short career behind the camera so far, but already has a few underrated films under his belt. Limitless will probably fall into the same category. You’ll recommend it to people, but won’t encourage them to go out of their way to see it. There are some nice touches here though, including a superb credits sequence and a few tantalisingly left open plot strands that make you think more than your average film. On the downside to this, what also appears to be limitless is the amount of plot-holes littered throughout the screenplay. It actually makes a bit of a mess of the film the more you think about them so best just try to go along with the whole concept. Though I recently read that the DVD will have an extended cut of the film which will apparently address some of these issues. So that just begs the obvious question. Why not release that vision of the film in the cinema in the first place?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Worth watching for the visual flair on show from Burger, but this isn’t quite the sum of its parts. Rating: 6/10

The Adjustment Bureau

You know that old gag about Tom Cruise and the amount of running he does in his films? Well, he now has a new rival as Matt Damon attempts to wrest the crown from him in The Adjustment Bureau. Of course, old Bourne himself has done plenty of high-kneeing in that particular franchise already, but here Damon is legging it for love and, if the object of your affection was Emily Blunt, I guess most men would. First time director George Nolfi’s film has Damon as politician David Norris, who after a few chance encounters with dancer Elise (Blunt), suddenly finds her difficult to track down. The reason? The Adjustment Bureau, a group of mysterious characters who explain to Norris that all people’s lives are already pre-planned and he will never get to be with Elise. However, Norris has other ideas, but dare he chase her down with the new knowledge that if he does it will mean a disaster for both of their careers? Written like that it seems a simple choice really and this is one of the problems of the film. Love usually conquers all in the movies and this is no exception. Other problems involve the Adjustment Bureau’s special powers which seem to come and go at will depending on where we are in the plot and a lack of real excitement despite all the running around. On the plus side the look of the film is pretty stylish, with Damon et al all decked out in a sharp array of suits and hats (though the headgear turns out to be integral to the plot) and some nice effects when the characters open doors and appear in completely different places. Ironically, despite the modern setting and look, this has the feel of a good old fashioned 1970’s conspiracy thriller, especially with its pacing which crawls to a halt at some points. Adapting from a (what else?) Philip K Dick short story, Nolfi does an OK job on his debut, but It all gets a bit too twisty turny though and eventually falls in on itself towards the end when any further explanations are jettisoned in favour of a lame foot chase through a building. In the end, the film is really asking questions about how much our lives are / can be manipulated by other people without us knowing it. Of course, this is hardly a new concept in film history (The Truman Show being the most obvious reference) but it is still an intriguing one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

This is entertaining enough, but at no point will you be anywhere near the edge of that cinema seat. Rating: 6/10.

Battle: Los Angeles

Battle: Los Angeles is the story of LA (and the rest of the world) under attack from aliens. Hmm…doesn’t sound that original. Now hear the words from star Aaron Eckhart: "The goal was: this is a war movie, a documentary style war movie—with aliens in it” Now sounds good now, huh? (Ok, sounds better). Sadly, this film was doomed from the start thanks to its appalling script. Corny sentimentality and just plain old cheese is plastered all over this film from start to finish. Also, from the soon to be retired staff sergeant (Eckhart) being called back into action to fight the Aliens to the family that is rescued half-way through the film, no cliché is left untouched. The awful dire-logue spoken by the military would have even James Cameron shaking his head. To be fair to director Jonathan Liebesman he does conjure a few effective battles scenes. These are of a small scale, more intrusive nature though and are indicative of what the film was trying to achieve. Unfortunately it all goes too big too soon and before long its no-stop battles scenes, not helped by some dubious effects at times. In effect, this is a computer game masked as a film. If this was a computer game its lack of originality wouldn’t be a problem, but on the big screen its deficit of fresh ideas are plain to all. More eagle eyed viewers may also notice this films resemblance to the similarly filmed Skyline (check out the Net for a further details re threats of lawsuits). Though that wasn’t a cracker either, it’s still slightly better than this corn fest.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

USA! USA! USA! Meh. Rating:4/10.

The Inbetweeners Movie

Even if The Inbetweeners Movie had been released after the end of the second season of the TV Series (i.e. when its quality and popularity were at its height) you would have still had reservations. That being for the reason that virtually all films based on British comedy TV series turn out to be mediocre. This has been more than true over the last 20 years, though most of those films came from TV series that weren’t all that killer in the first place. So the one advantage The Inbetweeners Movie does have is that it comes from decent stock. However, fans will understand the caveat of mentioning the end of Series 2, as the film has been released after the end of Series 3, a series that had a considerable drop in ideas and laughs. You’ll be unsurprised to hear then that the film continues the downward slide. For a start, the four lads going abroad for the first time on a holiday is as unoriginal as it comes. Then we have all the usual standards (dodgy hotel, dodgy foreigners, dodgy Brits abroad etc) as the boys attempt to finally get lucky with the girls they meet. To be fair there are a number of funny moments, including a cringingly chuckle some dance scene, but this also highlights one of the problems with the film. A lot of the gags in the TV series were based on social embarrassment, but this is more like humiliation and lots of it falls very flat indeed, including the verbal abuse of one (supposed) over weight girl, which more than anything is just unpleasant. Whereas the TV series was crude in mouth, this is crude in deed, and it is much the worse off for it. In terms of the characters it’s pretty much as you were, with the writers keeping all their usual traits intact. However, it all feels a bit after the Lord Mayors show now and anyone watching this without having seen the series will wonder what all the fuss has been about. At the end of the day, at least this isn’t an entry into the British TV comedy series film Hall of Shame, but its only average at best and only the most blinkered of fans would think this is anything more.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Set your expectations low and you’ll have a few laughs. Not a great send off for a great series though. Rating: 5/10.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

To some Michael Bay is the anti-Christ of modern film and the high doyen of making blockbusters that are all brawn and zero brain. Despite this, his films make millions and millions at the box office. Whilst critics steam with rage, the paying public stream in, in their millions. So who’s wrong? Nobody is. His films are dire, but if the audience is there for zero thought special effects films, and clearly it is, then who’s to mock them for having a good time? Anyway, that argument will run and run. What’s his latest, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, like? Basically, it’s the last Transformers film in slightly different wrapping and the only reason I recommend seeing it is to judge for yourself if this is just as abysmal as that film or, gulp, worse. I’m not sure myself, but what I do know is that as I’ve already wasted 150 minutes more of my life watching this rubbish I can’t be bothered to waste much more reviewing it. Suffice to say if you just read my review of the last film it pretty much covers this one. I’ll say one main point again though. When you’ve seen one robot battling another, you’ve seen them all. Also, and I forget to mention this from the last film, but one of the transformers in that film looked and sounded exactly look a human being. Therefore, why on earth do they all still disguise themselves as trucks et al? Baffling. In addition, it appears (apart from the cannon fodder) that all the main (human) protagonists are never really in any danger of losing their lives, despite the peril they find themselves in. This hardly makes for edge of the seat excitement, not helped by a final battle scene that never ends. In fact it’s so long it basically starts in the middle of the film and just goes on and on and on and on and even when you’ve managed to get through it you’re left with an ending as incomprehensible as it is stupid. Worst of all though is Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Megan Fox’s replacement as the films token totty. Clearly cast for her looks (at least Bay provides one knowing laugh in regards to this with an opening tracking shot of her arse), it appears the huge budget didn’t even stretch to acting lessons as she is abysmal from start to finish. A chair from Ikea has more emotion. Couldn’t they have at least have got an actress to play the part? Then again, this is a perfect summation of what Bay is all about. As long as the effects are fine, screw the rest, and as the audiences keep coming in, why should he change?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Utter Bay-locks. Rating: 2/10.