Johnny English Reborn

What’s the optimum time to watch a film? Depends on the film I guess, but for something of Johnny English Reborn’s ilk, surely it’s 4.30pm on a Friday afternoon? What better time, after a hard week of work, to disengage brain, forget about the quality of the film and just go with the flow with the weekend looming large. Sadly, even the endorphins released after surviving another week in the office can’t compensate for the fact that JEB just isn’t all that good. The problem is that (though a genius in his heyday) Rowan Atkinson’s rubber faced shtick and smarmy manner are old hat these days. This film’s predecessor suffered from the same problem, though that still had a few decent laughs and a fairly smart car chase. The laughs are pretty minimal here and I can’t recall a recent film that has as many obvious set-ups to its punch lines as this one. The only real highlight (on the humour front) is that the chair gag heavily plugged in the trailer is a lot longer (and still hilarious) in the movie. Director Oliver Parker doesn’t actually do too bad a job, but the screenplay (English attempts to track down a mole in “MI7” whilst simultaneously keeping tabs on an international assassin ring) doesn’t have anything original to say and most gags are just tired spoofing seen before. It isn’t clear either as to English’s characterisation as he’s gone from being a mildly lovable buffoon to a confusing mix of moron one minute and genius the next. Therefore any plot machinations seem too convenient in respect of what “mode” English is in at the time. Dominic West, Gillian Anderson and Rosamund Pike add some glamour to the cause, but you can’t polish a you know what. I did see West quoted at the premier in Leicester Square saying something like “This film has some of the funniest scenes I’ve ever seen”, before quickly adding, “Well, they were on set”. Indeed, dear boy.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Plenty of slapstick for little ones, but apart from the occasional laugh, it’ll just be shrugging of shoulders from everyone else. Rating: 4/10.

Red State

Kevin Smith’s last film was the cinematic abomination that was Cop Out. If, after that film, he had announced that he would be making only two more films you would have been thinking that was two too many, though perhaps with a touch of regret when reflecting on how Smith’s bright start burnt out so quickly. Smith didn’t make that statement then, but he has made it now, meaning his new film Red State is his penultimate one. The good news is that, if this is the long goodbye, Red State will leave a few decent memories. Smith has always been a hands on kind of guy and here he writes, directs and edits a film that is short, smart and funny without ever threatening to become a classic, though its one-liners and subject matter could have it heading towards cult status. I’ve no doubt Smith had a hand in the marketing campaign, where this film is described as “An unlikely film from that Kevin Smith”. Ego alert there, but Smith is making a fair point as this is well off his usual directing path, no doubt recognising (or at least being made aware after reading reviews) that the usual buddy-ing banter of his last few films has worn very thin by now. Not hanging around, the film goes straight into the main story as three horny teenagers find themselves with a lot more to cope with than they anticipated when they arrange a sexual liaison with lonely caravan dweller Sarah (Melissa Leo). Instead of sordid antics, they find themselves prisoners of enthusiastic preacher Abin Cooper (Michael Parks ) and his baying flock. Cooper’s stock trade is delivering sermons on fire and brimstone, though he also has a nice sideline in murdering perceived sinners. The boys find themselves next on the block. Pretty soon ATF Agent Keenan (John Goodman) is on the case on things go a bit manic. Subtle this ain’t, as Smith attempts to give us, if not the biggest, certainly the loudest gun fight since Heat. This is ear bustlingly entertaining stuff, though it could easily be argued it’s basically just a filler for the killer dialogue that seems to have deserted Smith in recent years. What this film does have is two great performances at its core from Parks and Goodman. Parks is superb, completely convincing as the pastor and Smith gives him plenty of camera time, including the luxury of a five minute lecture not totally relevant to moving the film along. That’s a risk from Smith but Parks holds the attention enough that he gets away with it. Goodman is also highly watchable as the cynical agent morally at odds with the orders he has been given, but knows he has to play the bills somehow. Smith’s direction cuts to the chase from scene to scene, even utilising a few Greengrass-esque handheld running shots. On the downside a few supposed shock moments are massively telegraphed and a few decisions made the religious congregation don’t ring true. The ending is of interest as Smith, probably realising that gunfire can only take you so far, has a post incident Keenan telling the story of how the battle concluded to his superiors. It’s a different take from the norm, though some may find to leads to a somewhat abrupt finish. So, one film to come from Smith then and as that’s rumoured to be an ice-hockey based comedy, it’s more than likely this will be his last film that sticks in the memory and, much like the killer last line in this film, at least it’s a decent one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A welcome return to form for Smith. This is a shotgun blast of fun and thrills. Rating: 7/10.

The Skin I Live In

Pedro Almodóvar is a talented director no doubt, but so much so that he’s now allowed to refer to himself in the first person? (as he does in the opening credits of his latest film The Skin I Live In). That’s some stones, Pedro. Still, he no doubt feels he deserves it for giving us some royal entertainment over the past 25 or so years with a number of cracking features. However, I’ve always felt with Almodóvar that the decent performances he gets from his actors and the memorable story lines he comes up with gloss over his rather standard direction behind the camera. The Skin I Live In doesn’t disprove this fact. Teaming up with his old mucker Antonio Banderas for the first time in over 20 years, Almodóvar’s latest tells the story of Ledgard (Banderas), a brilliant but controversial plastic surgeon. Told partly in flashback Ledgard’s had a troubled life, but I won’t go into any further detail as the film is designed in such a way that little bits of info are dropped into the screenplay scene by scene and to know anything beforehand would dilute the mystery. What I can say though is that, even for Almodóvar, this film is completely bonkers. Things are odd enough for the first thirty minutes, but then it really start to go nuts leading up to the films astonishing mid-point twist. The slow realisation of what you’re seeing is one of the film high points of the year. Understandably, the film tails off during its second half, but it’s a sign that the abrupt finish that it has frustrates not only due to its suddenness, but also due to the fact you want to see more. You’ll have great fun explaining the story line to your work colleagues the next day though. I don’t want to say much more as this really is one to see for yourself. However, if you’re a fan of Almodóvar and are wondering if this is a change of direction from him, don’t worry as, yes, this is heavily centred around family relationships and all of his usual calling cards are present and correct. Those being (thanks to the MPAA) “ disturbing violent content including sexual assault, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, drug use and strong language”. Enjoy!

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Unless you’ve read the source novel (Mygale), prepare yourself for a major shock as you enjoy, in the words of the man himself, “a horror story without screams or frights”. Rating: 7/10.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t expecting big, nay huge, things from Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. A killer British cast and Swedish director Tomas Alfredson, the man behind the superlative Let The Right One In. It seems the critics haven’t been disappointed either as they’ve been falling over themselves to lavish this with praise. However, much like the screw shaped story line, is what these reviewers saying the whole truth? Even before firing up the cameras there was always going to be one major hurdle for Alfredson and scripter Peter Straughan. How to condense John le Carré complex novel into a coherent film. Unfortunately, they haven’t quite managed it. For those not in the know the story concerns semi-retired intelligence officer George Smiley’s (Gary Oldman) attempts to track down a Soviet spy within MI6. Despite the great cast the film suffers from three main problems. Firstly, it’s far too slow. Realistic you may say, and no-one was expecting any James Bond style antics here, but scene after scene of watching Smiley plodding along does not get the pulse racing. Secondly, too many characters appear with little explanation as to who they are and what’s going on, meaning things may become confusing at times for some and it’s possible that only people with full knowledge of the novel will be able to watch all the way through without a quizzical look on their faces at some point. Finally, the ending is spectacularly limp with the reveal as to who the spy is not intriguing or surprising (even for people who don’t know the story already). One thing Alfredson does nail though is the atmosphere. Paranoia abounds throughout with the real feeling that no-one can be trusted and the characters acting as if every word they utter is being recorded. This reaches a high in the films only real moment of tension when Benedict Cumberbatch has to steal some documents from deep within the organisations archive. It’s a nerve rattling scene, but it’s over too quickly and you wish Alfredson had found the time to insert a few more edge of the cinema seat moments like it instead of yet more aerial shots of various European cities. Aesthetically this looks great as well, with the bland early 1970’s setting realised through sharp attention to detail, including a selection of brown and grey polyester clothing not seen since the heyday of door to door insurance salesmen and a constant fog of cigarette smoke bordering the films edges. On the acting front this is Oldman’s film by a long way, completely inhabiting the role of Smiley to the extent that you forget its Oldman under the make-up and glasses. He gives Smiley the cold and calm manner that le Carré has in the novel and the one time in the film where he actually raises his voice above his usual monotone is a great moment of Smiley revealing some inner emotions for a few seconds. Everyone else does their best but too many performances get lost in the mix, but nods should go out to Toby Jones as a snide rival agent, but even better is Kathy Burke in a short but memorable role as a retired employee of the service who has seen better days. To sum up, this is a feast on the eyes, but the film just goes to show that even with outrageous talent both behind and in front of the camera, some stories just cannot be told in 120 minutes.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Oldman is great, visually it’s a triumph, but this a thriller without any thrills. Rating: 6/10.

Jane Eyre

Reviewing a film adaptation of a literary classic is always a bit odd, especially if the story, as in the case of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, is a tale low on derring-do and description heavy. Director Cary Joji Fukunaga’s film is more than passable, but can’t escape the look and feel of a made for TV production and the big screen, despite a few wide shots of the countryside of the Peak District, doesn’t bring anything more to the party. The film is partly financed by the BBC and there’s auntie’s production values stamped all over this. To wit: 1) The costumes 2) Candlelight 3) Shots of fields, castles etc 4) It stars Judi Dench. It’s all present and correct, I’ll tell thee Sir! For those not in the know, this isn’t the place to get into the whole back story, but this is basically a love story (though mainly told in fleeting glances) between Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) and her employer Mr Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Wasikowska is the better of the two, virtually lifting Eyre from the page and imbuing her with a sense of purpose and feistiness that has us rooting for her all the way through. Fassbender is usually pretty good in most things, but he doesn’t quite cut the mustard here and he never convinces as a cold cad, not helped by prancing around in some (unintentionally) hilarious get-ups. This a problem for Fukunaga as there is zero chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender and as the plot pretty much revolves around their feelings for each other it’s a major stumbling block. The film does survive though thanks to Wasikowska’s performance and Fukunaga’s economic direction. It’s amusing to note that Fukunaga would follow up the blistering Sin Nombre with this, but he proves he can cope with this genre as well and his smooth direction doesn’t signpost anything. In fact, if you don’t know the story line at all, you’ll be taken aback by a few revelations at the end. Overall this is one for the target audience only really and enjoyment will be based on what you feel about adaptations of novels in the first place.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

No trees are pulled up, but this is worth catching for Wasikowska’s performance. Rating: 6/10.

A Lonely Place To Die

Climbing thriller A Lonely Place To Die shot in and out of the cinemas in the time it takes to attach a crampon to your trekking boots. This is a shame as, even though it doesn’t grip as hard as it might, it at least secures its footing and provides decent entertainment from its largely unknown cast and low budget. Director Julian Gilbey starts his film with a scene that virtually all films of this ilk have, that of the lone climber(s) scaling an impossibly steep cliff face. It’s breathtaking stuff and one slipped foot later hints at the thrills to come. Next though we’re introduced to the players, a group of climbing enthusiasts (including Melissa George) who, whilst enjoying a scramble over the Scottish Highlands stumble across a young Serbian girl buried alive in an underground chamber. Before long it isn’t just the elements the group needs to be concerned with. The casting of the film is actually its main point of interest. George is the lead and as she’s the only mildly famous person in the film, it’s fairly obvious she’s going to make it to the final frame. That’s not a spoiler by the way as the trailer already spells this out and let’s face facts, this was hardly going to be a Psycho situation, was it? On the plus side it also means the film benefits from the thriller / horror facet where an unknown cast leads to a higher rate of tension as you never know who’s going to get it next. It’s the shame though that the minor characters aren’t fleshed out enough and the only things we learn about them come via some dodgy lines in the script. In respect of the overall screenplay it’s pretty smart throughout, but Gilbey doesn’t explain it in a coherent way meaning it’s unclear as to what is actually going on at times as more and more characters (including Sean Harris in his usual unsettling role as a nut job) and plot twists are introduced. It also peters out a bit at the end, but the first two thirds are enjoyable enough and this deserves the benefit of the doubt.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not quite the white knuckle ride it could have been, but it still has enough edge and smarts to garner further viewings down the line. Rating: 7/10.

Fright Night

When it comes to failed re-makes of films there is always one underlying reason why they never catch on with a new audience. That being that the audience has already seen the original, loved it, so why make a new version at all? Director Craig Gillespie’s remake of Fright Night just about avoids this trap as though the original was well received at the time, it’s more of a cult film than anything of real quality. Plus, Gillespie’s new version is a bit of a blast. Plot wise we have teenager Charley (Anton Yelchin) who, after suspicions that his new neighbour Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire, ropes in alleged vampire killer and Las Vegas entertainer Peter Vincent (David Tennant). What follows is lots of fun silliness involving all three and a story line that nods to vampire folklore whilst taking the mickey out of it at the same time. Gillespie’s last film was 2007’s intriguing, but somewhat overrated Lars and The Real Girl. That film suffered from its plodding pace, but there’s no worry of that here as Gillespie moves the film along at a brisk rate and there’s little filler. No wonder he’s been snapped up for the upcoming Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. There’s plenty of blood here, but it’s mainly computer generated and horror veterans won’t find anything remotely scary during the running time. However, that’s because Gillespie has opted for more of a Sam Raimi approach to proceedings i.e. make them jump and laugh at the same time. It works well throughout highlighted best in the films signature moment, a car chase scene shot in one continuous take that thrills as much as it provides chuckles. Plus fans of the original can look out for Chris Sarandon’s brief appearance during this scene. What also makes the film a success is that all the actors are all in on the joke. Yelchin delivers his lines with a welcome dryness, Farrell has fun in a performance full of jitters and menace, and Tennant, (near unrecognisable at the start) hams it up to an enjoyable degree. On the negative side of things the decisions of some of the characters takes some serious suspension of disbelief and any plot twists are easy to spot well in advance. Plus, I watched this in 2D and the scenes that have been purposely shot for 3D stick out like a sore thumb, in terms of their visuals and also how superfluous they are to the story line itself. Overall though, if the Twilight films have sucked your enjoyment of cinema dry, then this is the perfect antidote to get your blood pumping again.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

On paper this didn’t look like much so it’s a welcome surprise what entertainment it is. Rating: 7/10.

Conan The Barbarian

Right, hands up who wanted a Conan re-make? What, none of you? The original, despite is varied quality, is hardly in need of a re-make and what with a few swords and sandals films of average quality filling the cinemas in recent years it’s hardly surprising that this has been a box office disaster. However, just because no one saw it doesn’t mean it should be written off, does it? OK, this is complete gumph, but to give it its due it doesn’t profess to be anything more. To go over the revenge based plot would be pointless, but you’ll be unsurprised to hear it involves bulging muscles, heaving bosoms and bloody mayhem. Oh yeah, and swords and sandals (natch). Talking the lead role is TV beefcake Jason Momoa and, despite an alarming personality bypass in some scenes, actually does a pretty decent job. He is aided by the screenplay which attempts to portray Conan as he was originally written, i.e. a loner who distrusts virtually everyone and who sees women as either an object for his lust or someone that will carry his belongings for him. In fact it’s surprising to see a mainstream individual in a Hollywood movie these days act in such a chauvinistic manner to women. Fair play to the film makers though for sticking to their guns in respect of giving the hero such an unpleasant character trait, as opposed to worrying how the audience would react. Marcus Nispel is the director here and he’s never really come on from his impressive remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre back in 2003. However there are glimpses of his talent on show here, especially during some neat action sequences. In terms of other performances Stephen Lang has some fun chewing the scenery as the bad guy and Rose McGowan, despite over-acting to the nth degree, provides a degree of menace as a half-witch with Freddy Krueger alike claws. All in all this is one of those films where if you can overlook the bad (and yes, there’s quite a bit of it), you won’t be too disappointed come credits time. Plus, if you’re a gore hound this is up a level from the usual "slay but don’t show" mentality of recent films of this genre, with claret going everywhere and a torture scene involving a hacked off nose that would even have Tarantino wincing in his seat.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Looks terrible (and parts of it are) but this is a surprisingly brutal and fresh-ish re-telling of the Conan story. Rating: 6/10

Super 8

If there was a competition for the most Steven Spielberg looking film not directed by the beard himself then Super 8 would win hands down. It’s all here in spades. Young love, childhood friendships, dysfunctional families, tragic death, redemption and, of course, aliens. OK, Spielberg is the producer here, but its JJ Abrams in the director’s chair. It’s a good combination though as they have both put together an unashamedly old fashioned bit of fun that will remind anyone over the age of 30 of afternoons spent in their local flea pit watching matinees. In the film (set in 1972) we follow a group of friends who are making a cheap horror film on a Super 8 camera, when they happen to be shooting a scene near a railway track when a spectacular train crash occurs littering the outskirts of their small town with mangled wreckage. However, things take a further twist when the army begin to clean up the wreckage (strong-arming the locals aside) and odd things begin to occur within the town. What was on that train? Abrams film has many positives, not least the performances he gets from his (unknown) young charges. They may all be stereotypes (fat kid, geeky kid etc) but the acting is great and the group are highly believable as a collective, with the banter flying between them causing many a laugh. The whole film itself also has a nice line of comedy running through it, though Abrams also gives us a few tense scenes aided by the decision to not show whatever was on that train to the audience until late on. The main negative that can levelled against the film is that is this just a load of nothing really? Despite a bit of menace, there’s never any doubt that the protagonists are in any real danger and things aren’t helped by the films incomprehensible conclusion (plot-wise). Overall though, whilst it’s unlikely this will be a Goonies for a new generation, it’s still a memorable bit of fun, aided by the showing of the kids amusing kitsch horror film during the end credits.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Lacking the hard edge that would have made this a classic, it’s still entertaining fun for all. Rating: 7/10.

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark

A few months ago the smart marketing campaign for Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark hinted at a film that was smart, terrifying and possibly brilliant. Now it’s here, the reality is a lumpen mess that is dumb, unscary and possibly one of the worst films of the year. Things don’t bode well from the very opening scene in which a clearly CGI’d horse and carriage goes galloping past a spooky looking mansion. This reminded me somewhat of the now infamous gophers from the last Indian Jones film. If the film makers can’t be bothered to do something so simple without resorting to special effects, then it hardly augers well for how much effort they going to put into the rest of the picture does it? Lo and behold (much like that Crystal Skull) this is a shambles. One of the biggest mistakes of the films is made during the opening prologue in which a man in the aforementioned mansion is seen talking to something mysterious in his boiler, but (inexperienced) director Troy Nixey (helming from a Guillermo del Toro screen play) makes the error of then showing us that what he’s talking to, that being some tiny odd looking goblin type creatures. Haven’t these guys heard of the cardinal rule of horror films? (i.e. that suggestion is 9/10ths of the law). We’re then into the main crux of the story in which Alex (Guy Pearce) and Kim (Katie Holmes), having just moved into the house, are joined by Alex’s daughter Sally (Bailee Madison) Before long the creatures are after Sally. However, as the reveal has happened so soon already there isn’t much to be interested or intrigued about. A further problem is that the creatures want to lure Sally down into the basement, so when they “attack” her in the bedroom or bathroom you’re totally non-plussed as you know that nothing’s going to happen to her. The fact that each time the creatures disappear just seconds before any adults appear are coincidences too far. Even more ludicrous is the fact that Sally takes about 50 photos of the creatures to prove their existence, but it’s never explained why they can’t be seen on the photos. Is she that bad a photographer from point blank range? This is just another sigh worthy plot hole in a screen play littered with them. So, just why has this turned out so bad? This’ll be the first (and last!) time I ever quite Oscar Wilde in a film review but in del Toro’s case I think this is a situation where “…each man kills the thing he loves”. I haven’t seen the original TV movie from 1973 on which this is based, but it was well received at the time and gave children nightmares for weeks. Del Toro was one of those children, but this just begs that old question that if something was so great in the first place, why re-make it? Del Toro claimed that when he passed the finished version of the film to the MPAA he was thinking about cutting it to get a lower rating until the MPAA questioned why he would want to do that as he had just made one of the scariest films of all time. Either Del Toro’s telling (publicity aimed) porkies or the person who told him that at the MPAA needs a need job. Instead of being a white knuckle horror the film this most resembles is Gremlins, albeit without the humour or menace. Apart from one jump scare (already shown in the trailer!) this has nothing to get anyone’s pulse racing at all and only the youngest of children would cover their eyes at certain points. On the acting front Pearce doesn’t even bother finding the gear box, let alone only shifting into 1st, but Holmes isn’t that bad, putting more effort into her part than perhaps the films deserves. Fair play to her for that, but even this can’t save Nixey’s confused direction. The only other plus points come from some of the special effects involving the pesky creatures and the eagle eyed among you can have fun trying to spot Del Toro in a background cameo. In the end though this is a just a whole lot of nothing.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Unbelievably disappointing. From being promised ice cold chills all you get is a couple of lukewarm thrills. Rating: 2/10.

Crazy Stupid Love

Despite the trailer and the awful title, Crazy Stupid Love, isn’t really a rom-com at all. Sure, there are romantic gestures and a few nice guffaw out loud moments, but this veers more into dramatic territory and is actually a refreshing look at the trials and tribulations of love, both young and old, compared to the recent Hollywood output addressing the same issues. Joint directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa’s film is pretty much a three hander following soon to be divorced couple Cal (Steve Carell) and Emily (Julianne Moore), their son’s pining for his older babysitter and lounge lizard Jacob’s (Ryan Gosling) lusting after anything female (though eventually hooking up with Hannah (Emma Stone). The three story lines are all neatly weaved together, but it is the relationship between Cal and Jacob that gets the most coverage after Jacob takes Cal under his wing and teaches him how to be a lady killer. These are the best comic scenes in the film as the banter between Gosling and (unsurprisingly) Carell comes naturally, though they struggle a bit later on during the more dramatic scenes. Ficarra and Requa’s last film (I Love You Philip Morris) was their directorial debut together and though that film was passable this is a nice step up in terms of visual look and a tighter screenplay. They also get good value from Marisa Tomei in a worthy cameo as one of Cal’s conquests and Kevin Bacon, who despite toning down the slime in a role as Emily’s “other man”, still has one of the best scenes during a one to one with Emily and Cal’s son. Best of all is the ending which, despite clocking in around the two hour mark, provides us with a smart plot twist, followed by a humorous set to at a family get together. On the downside you’ll need some serious suspension of disbelief to believe Gosling’s lothario would even spend 5 minutes of his life with Cal and some cod philosophy in respect of some the characters backgrounds is teeth grindingly annoying. Overall though this is a drama disguised as a comedy and all the better for it.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A more mature outlook than the gross out antics of recent films of a similar subject marks this one out from the crowd. Rating: 7/10.

Captain America: The First Avenger

What to make of Chris Evans? He’s been in more ensemble films that you can list, but any charisma he shows in such outings appears to disappear in the few lead roles he has had. Usually these above the title outings have been in fairly low key films, so Evans and his agent must have been toasting success long into the night when he landed the plumb role of Captain America. Though (unsurprisingly) big in the States, the rest of the world hardly raises an eyebrow when to comes to old CA, which means the film already had a problem in that it doesn’t have the built in audience that other super hero franchises already have. The main question then is does the film do enough for non-followers? Probably not, but if it’s no-brainer Friday night entertainment that you want then this could be the (superhero) film for you. Steve Rogers (Evans) is a young man keen to enter military service to aid America during World War II, but he is rejected due to his ill health. Frustrated, he finds himself agreeing to undertake a secret experiment in which he will eventually become the eponymous hero. From there on in the films somewhat flimsy premise has Captain America taking on Nazi super villain the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). I say flimsy, as the film can’t escape the feeling that it has been clearly rushed into production prior to the release of the Avengers movie next year. The choice of the Nazi’s as the bad guys just feels lazy and the screenplay is just a case of joining the unoriginal dots. The film is very heavy on the special effects (1600+ of them) and they help and hinder the film in their own various ways. The “shrinking” technique used at the start of the film to show Rogers’ puny body is very impressive, but the CGI doesn’t help in other areas, especially in terms of judging Weavings performance (though Weaving seems to spend most of his films spent behind a mask these days). The over use of effects also mean that any scenes of peril are completely devoid of tension. What of Evan’s though? Sadly, it’s hard to tell. He’s fine as usual, but his performance gets lost amongst all the mayhem. On the plus side you can say that this is a film for all the family to enjoy (it clearly has its roots in Indiana Jones – CA's director, Joe Johnston, was art director on a couple of those films, fact fans) and it does have a number of very funny moments (including Tommy Lee Jones providing some comic relief as a gruff Army instructor). The film is almost the perfect reflection of director Johnston’s career. His films always have that “safe pair of hands” feel, are usually enjoyable without ever hitting any real quality highs and will be on very few people’s DVD shelves. Add Captain America: The First Avenger to that list.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Some nice moments, but this is as standard a superhero film that you’ll ever see. Rating: 6/10.

X-Men: First Class

20th Century Fox have taken a risk when it comes to the title of X-Men: First Class as that’s a set up for fall (and a number of terrible puns) if ever I saw one. What they haven’t taken a risk with though is with the director as giving the helming duties to Matthew Vaughan is a bit of a no-brainer after his triumph with Kick-Ass and his previous works (Layer Cake and Stardust) proving he can handle a mix of action and drama. Vaughan doesn’t disappoint here either and he’s now four for four when it comes to his feature presentations. As with many super hero franchises of recent years that have run out of ideas, this is a prequel to the previous films. Of course there has been the Wolverine film, but this is vastly superior to that mess (though Hugh Jackman does make a small cameo in this). Set mainly in the early 1960’s, the film focuses on the relationship between Professor Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) as young men and the origins of the X-Men. There’s fun and interest to be had watching the young mutants discover their powers for the first time and their confusion as to where they stand in the modern world. McAvoy and Fassbender play off each other well, but its Fassbender that has the juiciest role giving the young Magneto a real hint of menace, whether he’s mentally bullying his fellow mutants or giving off a hint of sexual danger to any females that cross his path. The biggest compliment that can be paid to the film is that it transcends the superhero mythology and can be enjoyed as an emotional drama. Fan boys may be in uproar as to various plots and characters that don’t form an unbroken line into the other films, but Vaughan himself has said that it made more sense to have a film stand on it’s own two feet than spend time worrying about being referential to previous outings. He’s right of course, and when he does nod his head to the X-Men history it’s usually quick and smart, particularly in the case of how Xavier ends up in a wheelchair. Regarding the overall story Vaughan tells it in an efficient manner and you don’t need to be versed in X-Men facts and figures to understand what’s going on. There’s plenty of talk, but it’s never dull as the characters walk around cool looking sets (The look of the film is retro enough, but this is the classy look of the 1960’s that only exists in the movies). It’s actually in the films big action sequences where things falter slightly as Vaughn goes over the top with the special effects and a lot of them aren’t of the required standard of a film with such a huge budget. So there are some negatives, but this is a surprisingly clever and funny film (the aforementioned Jackson cameo is a killer) which raises the bar for the next entry in the franchise.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Vaughan triumphs again, and this time he’s come up with something you don’t see very often: The thinking person’s blockbuster. Rating: 7/10.

Melancholia

The average film goer has always taken the Cannes Film Festival with a touch of salt, especially in the last few years. Gone are the days of booing and slow hand clapping, to be replaced by almost universal revere for anything that gets shown there. How else can you explain a standing ovation for Nicolas Winding Refn’s classy looking, but flawed, Drive and now the acclaim that the festival has bestowed on Lars von Trier’s latest film, Melancholia. The film itself has already gained much attention due to von Trier’s antics at a Cannes press conference after its showing, resulting in him being declared persona non grata by the festival’s directors. Knowing the nature of the Cannes audience though I’d bet my last croissant that if von Trier’s ill-fated remarks had been uttered before the presentation the screen would have been pelted with rotten fruit. I said during my review of von Trier’s last film Antichrist that, regardless of what you thought about it, its subject matter meant people were talking about it (for which von Trier no doubt was happy). With his press conference melt-down he’s pulled the same trick here, but is Melancholia any good though? It’s well documented that von Trier wrote Antichrist while he was suffering from depression and he’s now confirmed that Melancholia’s idea originated during some research he was undertaking which said that people suffering from depression actually keep very calm under stressful situations. From that has come a film which is focused on a wedding between Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) and Justine’s subsequent personality change during the evening of said wedding. Oh yeah, there’s also a huge undiscovered new planet called Melancholia about to possibly collide with, and destroy, Earth. Well, I say possibly, but we know it eventually will as von Trier shows us this in the films prologue. Therefore the main crux of the film is told, as it were, in flashback. So what do you get for the 135 minute running time? Err, not much actually. There’s some good family tensions played out at the wedding and some mild intrigue as to what will be the characters final decisions and actions before the ending of the planet. On the acting front, Dunst won the Best Actress award at Cannes (making it two in a row for von Trier films after Charlotte Gainsbourg for Antichrist) but this only makes a mockery of the festival even more. Dunst is fine, but hardly has anything to do. She spends half the film either walking around, staring off into the distance or, forchristssake, just lying in bed. Gainsbourg herself also appears in this film (playing Justine’s sister) and actually has the more interesting character as she tries to keep the family at least talking to each other whilst also trying to cope with her own personal terrifying fear of Melancholia’s impending appearance. This is a good performance from Gainsbourg and after what she went through in Antichrist must have seemed like a stroll in the park for her. Maybe surprisingly it’s actually Kiefer Sutherland who takes the acting plaudits from under his co-stars noses. Playing low-key as Gainsbourg’s husband he is actually the character in the film you latch on to the most as he tries to keep face in putting up with the bonkers family he has found himself married into, whilst trying to convince his wife (and himself) that Melancholia will pass safely by Earth. He’s no saint, but he becomes the most likeable player by default and when he makes a shocking decision towards the end of the film it almost feels like he has betrayed the audience. So what do you get out of this film? If it was von Trier’s attempt to get people to address mental illness, unlike the named planet, he’s missed the mark by miles. Having Dunst not wear make up for the second half of the film is hardly the stuff of cinematic genius. However, as with all von Trier films there is some stunning cinematography to enjoy and, get this, even some laughs. However, the only thing you’re going to get out of this film is a ten minute chat in the pub about what you would do in your last minutes before Earth is gone forever. I can guarantee you one thing you won’t do: Watch this again.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

If you're a fan the usual aspects of a von Trier film are here for you, but this lacks the smart plot twists of Antichrist and is something that his films usually aren’t: Far too dull. Rating: 6/10.

Drive

Finally, after a few false starts, Nicolas Winding Refn makes (what arguably can be perceived) as his Hollywood debut and with Ryan Gosling in the lead role and a twisty story line involving mobsters and fast cars, it’s been eagerly anticipated. Drive is certainly a stylish film, but is hollow inside and severely lacks the punch of NWF’s Danish Pusher films (though do look out for a nice one-liner describing European films). So even though this isn’t a bad film, it is a letdown compared to what was expected. Let’s talk about the style then. Refn is no doubt a talent behind the camera and this film has some of the most delicate shots you’ll see this year. I’d love to see the story boarding for this film as each scene is shot and crafted in such a way that you could pause the film at any moment, frame what’s there and then hang it at The National Gallery. Add in some elegant lighting (hats off to Newton Thomas Sigel) and some of the best camera angles since Hitch and Kubrick, and you can see that this has clearly been a labour of love for Refn. What of the substance, then? This is where the film falters. Despite it looking great the first half of the film is painfully slow as we follow the un-named driver (Gosling), as a get-away wheel man for hire, going about his daily business with an eye on his neighbour Elaine (Carey Mulligan). When Elaine’s husband is released from prison Gosling finds himself caught up in a tangle of a protection racket and a robbery which he didn’t have on his schedule. I was hoping this would be Gosling’s chance to really push himself and show what he can do, but we’re left with the standard Gosling performance of minimal dialogue with an assortment of (mainly moody) facial expressions (though it can’t be denied he is a master at the latter). Mulligan doesn’t fare much better and I’m pretty certain her whole dialogue in the film could be written on the back of a postage stamp. If you survive the opening and middle sections of the film which mainly consist of Gosling and Mulligan looking earnestly at each other and not saying anything, then you are at least rewarded with a final third that ups the action quota as things begin to unravel for both. Be warned though (and a lot of people are already saying Refn has gone too far here) that some of these scenes have some sickening violence, the “highlight” being Gosling’s assault on someone in a lift that concludes with a quite literal face caving in. You’ll do well to hold onto your popcorn after that one. Is the violence too much? IMHO no, but it’s safe to say it’s unlikely that NWF could have pushed it much further. Overall, this is the kind of film that gets a standing ovation at Cannes (which it did), but leaves a lot of the audience unmoved. At least Refn has made something coherent from a script where all the verbal dialogue would only just fit on a side of A4 paper. Nothing can prepare you though for the terrible soundtrack or the 1980’s style credits shown in a lurid shade of pink in an awful font. Forget the bone-crunching violence as these two aspects are the most offensive thing of all.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

The most cool looking film of the year? Without question. One of the best films of the year? Sadly, no. Rating: 6/10

30 Minutes Or Less

Like his calling card Zombieland, director Ruben Fleischer’s latest film is short on running time, high on quotable dialogue, well acted, but still unlikely to demand repeat viewings. You’ll still get plenty of enjoyment out of your one watch though. Fleischer has the knack for getting right into the meat of the story as soon as possible and though this means his characters have little back story, the films move along at an enjoyably breezy pace. 30 Minutes or Less stars Jesse Eisenberg as a pizza delivery boy who, after being kidnapped by drop outs Danny McBride and Nick Swardson, has a bomb strapped to him which will only be defused once Eisenberg has stolen $100,000 for them. Enlisting the help of his best friend (Aziz Ansari), they plan to rob a bank and we’re off on 80 minutes of nonthreatening mayhem. Though we mainly concentrate on Eisenberg and Ansari, giving the impression that this is a buddy movie, it’s actually a buddies movie as we flick between Eisenberg and Ansari and McBride and Swardson. The banter between both couples provides some decent laughs and some surprisingly tender moments. McBride is the best he’s been for a long time here. He still has the curse of saying a four letter word whenever he wants a laugh, but in this, whilst still playing a bit of a slob, he’s actually the brains of the outfit and a much more believable character than the usual dumb persona’s he portrays. Eisenberg is fine as you’d expect (he can already do this slacker with smarts shtick in his sleep) and though Ansari may be a bit of an acquired taste for some with his high pitch moaning voice, he delivers the necessary here as Eisenberg’s increasingly exasperated mate (and speaking of exasperated Michael Pena also does well in a cameo as a confused hit man). In terms of content, the film is basically just a series of set pieces added together with most of them nicely handled by Fleischer. The problems come in between where the screenplay is too light and, despite a high number of zingers, ideas are jettisoned in favour of unimaginative verbal filth. However, despite the swear words (believe me there are a lot), the charm still shines through thanks to decent performances from all and Fleischer’s let’s not hang around direction.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Crude, silly and fun, but the title is a perfect description for how long you’ll remember this for. Rating: 7/10.

Killer Elite

Killer Elite doesn’t appear to have much going for it. A dodgy poster, a (with respect) first time director and stars Jason Statham (we all love him, but hardly the sign of a quality film) and Robert De Niro (honestly now, when was the last time he was in anything decent?). Therefore you won’t be too surprised when I tell you the film has a lot of faults. On the flip side though it also has a lot of positive aspects and if you can overlook its problems there’s an enjoyable thriller here. Based on Sir Ranulph Fiennes bestselling book The Feather Men, the film sees retired hit man Danny (Statham) forced back into action when an Arab Sheik kidnaps his ex-partner (De Niro) and will only release him if Danny kills three former SAS agents who the Sheik claims murdered three of his sons during the Oman war. Recruiting a small team (including Dominic Purcell) Danny begins his mission, but before long he has attracted the attention of a secret society of former agents (Clive Owen amongst them) and a game of cat and mouse develops with the line between who’s good and bad blurred beyond recognition. This is quite a bit smarter than the average Statham vehicle, so it’s a shame it hasn’t been advertised better. The moody poster of men wearing shades and holding guns will probably alienate a good portion of potential audience, which is a shame as there’s more to this than just senseless gunplay and punch downs (though if that is your thing there are still plenty of those to enjoy). With this being his debut feature, director Gary McKendry handles the balance between action and dialogue well, though there are plenty of goofs to spot, including Owen’s disappearing and reappearing “blind” eye from scene to scene and the notion that the film is set in the early 1980’s, though most of the time it looks like it was shot last week. McKendry has been aided by a decent screenplay, but that also varies wildly in quality at times, from the ridiculous (“We don’t want blood on our pinstripes” utters an old boys network suit at one point) to some laugh out loud quips. On the acting front Statham is, well, Statham, De Niro hardly appears, but Owen is good, putting more effort into his part than the rest. Purcell is the most memorable though, sporting an outrageous horseshoe moustache and a few one-liners, the film misses him whenever he is not on screen. Though the film claims to be based on a true story there’s plenty of controversy as to how much of Fiennes book is true. It’s probably best just to reserve judgement and watch the film for what it is. Oh yeah and the film itself is an American Anglophiles dream view of the UK with enough red buses, red telephone boxes and “Bloody’s”, “Blimey’s” and “Cheers’” to shake a Dick Van Dyke at.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not “Killer” or “Elite” (sorry, couldn’t help that) and though the quality rating varies from scene to scene, this is still a smart (if silly) debut for McKendry. Rating: 7/10

Beginners

Watching Beginners is a bit odd. Despite appearances, about halfway through the film you’ll realise that this isn’t an indie film at all (though I realise we could argue the definition of that until the cows come home) but more of a very low key comedy drama. Granted there are some quirky (shudder) moments but Mike Mill’s film is more of a character study of “real” individuals than any zany film characters, mainly due to the fact that the film is based on Mills’ own life experiences. Told partly in flashback we follow Oliver (Ewan McGregor) and the two main relationships in his life. One with his ailing father (Christopher Plummer) and the other with Anna (Melanie Laurent), a girl he meets at a party. Both are equally heart warming and frustrating for Oliver in their own different ways. In terms of plot that’s pretty much it, but the whole idea of the film is for the viewer to reflect on their own personal relationships as well as Oliver’s. The story lines themselves, despite a few shock revelations, are all presented as fairly low-key resulting in decent, but limited performances from the main actors. Mills has a background in documentary films and this could almost resemble one of those at times. His direction is pretty staid throughout most of the film and this leads to a number of occasions where plot lines and scenes end up going no-where. Though you could argue that the story hardly needs it, a bit more spark is needed at times and with Mills also having a music video background it’s surprising there isn’t a bit more energy on show. Overall this is life-affirming stuff, but will anyone bother to see it in the first place?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Acceptable for what it is, but hard to recommend as worth taking your time out to see. Rating: 6/10.

The Big Picture

Ah, the French social scene. Low lit dinners with good friends, wine and tasty food to the fore. Throw in intellectual conversation and what’s not to like? Well in Eric Lartigau’s The Big Picture, it’s possibly two of your guests demonstrating their marital problems via drinking too much and snide remarks. Don’t expect the French version of Kramer vs. Kramer mind as Stephane Cabel’s script suddenly goes off on a wild tangent after photographer Paul Exben (Romain Duris) accidentally kills someone and does a runner to a remote village on the Adriatic coast, leaving all behind him. He can’t keep under the radar for long though and as soon as his talent for photography is discovered (attracting a wide audience) Exben is forced to flee again. Here the film goes even more off-piste, into such dark territory you’d think the projectionist has accidentally slipped in a reel from a different film. There is then a conclusion of sorts, but it’s unclear what Lartigau’s message is with his film. If it’s one of redemption, due to a heroic act by Exben at the conclusion, then it’s pretty trite. The film is more interesting in its study about just how difficult it is for a person to disappear in this day and age of internet, CCTV and persons with cameras on their mobiles standing on every street corner. In addition, fans of cult 90’s shocker Man Bites Dog will be up in arms at Exben’s method of disposing a body in the sea. Duris does a decent job in the lead role, but he’s missing his charisma (albeit this is a totally different genre) from Heartbreaker and doesn’t appear to himself believe in some of the decisions Exben makes. If you’re a fan of French cinema, when I tell you this is very “French” you’ll know what I mean and will go with the (slow) flow. Though, however much Lartigau wants you to think about the human condition, The Big Picture can’t disguise the fact he’s made his point in a very dull manner.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Pretentious? Moi? Rating: 5/10.

Point Blank

Fred Cavayé’s follow up to Anything For Her is another short sharp thriller that stretches credibility to breaking point, but is still entertaining enough to get the benefit of the doubt. However, if you’ve seen Anything For Her then you will suffer from a serious case of déjà vu as that film’s DNA is all over Point Blank. Gilles Lellouche takes the lead role here as a nurse who finds his pregnant wife kidnapped and then threatened unless Lellouche breaks out an under guard criminal from the hospital in which he works. Before long Lellouche is trying to rescue his wife from the bad guys, which consist of cops and robbers. In fact there’s so many bent policemen here that the film could be a sequel to Olivier Marchal’s 36 Quai des Orfèvres. The real similarity’s are with Anything For Her though, from the opening scene of an injured character, to the theme of a man doing anything to rescue his wife. Though the meat on the bones of the Point Blank skeleton are much more of the action variety. Cavayé’s direction is swift and though the screenplay is by the numbers in a lot of areas there are a number of scenes, particularly involving Lellouche’s heavily pregnant wife, that drip with real menace. On the down side any twists are telegraphed pretty much in advance. However, enjoy the good stuff, and throw in a clever scene at the climax set in a police station and you have another entry into the respectable harsh French thrillers of the last ten years

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Enjoyable, if implausible, thrills. Rating: 7/10.

Thor

Eyebrows were raised upwards on the announcement that Kenneth Branagh was to direct Thor, Marvels latest instalment of its Avengers series. Everyone’s favourite luvvie is currently as far from the Hollywood majority as he has been in his career for quite some time, not having acted in a film for three years or directed one for four. Has Marvel’s gamble paid off? Of course it hasn’t. It looked like an odd choice on paper and the reality plays out that concern. In fact, it’s hard to see any justification behind the decision at all. Nothing against Ken himself, but this was hardly going to be the perfection fusion of director and material was it? So that’s the director issue mentioned, what about the second most important person attached to the production, that of Thor himself? The role is taken by (relative) new comer Chris Hemsworth. He’s got the muscles, but can he act? He has plenty of chance to show us what he can do as Branagh’s camera hardly ever leaves him as we follow Thor’s journey from being banished from the heavily CGI’d realm of Asgard to his re-emergence as a protector of, err, a heavily CGI’d Earth. Hemsworth isn’t all that bad but he does look pretty lost on occasions, thanks in no part to a story line that is total gumph. Natalie Portman appears as the world’s least convincing astrophysicist in her continued attempts to appear in just as many bad movies and she does great ones and the less said about Kat Dennings awful performance (acting like she’s in a High School indie film or something) as Portman’s assistant the better. Sorry Ken, you’ve got to take the blame for this one, especially when you’ve seen some of the awful continuity mistakes that litter the film, including an utter classic “One moment he’s here-edit-the next moment he’s there” mess up at the end. I’m sure this isn’t what Ron Burgundy was talking about....

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Was this doomed from the start? Probably, but even still this could have been better if less effects and more thought had been applied. Rating: 5/10

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

You may have noticed it’s taking me some time to get round to posting reviews of certain films I saw months ago. Sometimes I can’t remember anything about them and other times things just stay in your head and you can write the review like you saw it yesterday. Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides just about falls into the latter category as there are a number of enjoyable scenes and fans of the films will no doubt enjoy themselves. However, no matter how hard they try, the films can’t shake off the feeling of similarity between them. Well, why change a winning formula you say? I don’t disagree with that statement, but this set of films will now be remembered as a whole, as opposed to each one having any individual signature of brilliance. The big difference in this one is that Rob Marshall has taken over the directorial reigns from Gore Verbinski. Marshall knows his way around a film set and does a good job of directing the action scenes, but there’s little here that suggests he’s no more than Jerry Bruckheimer’s man for hire. On the plus side, even if you’ve forgotten most of the previous three films this can still be followed fairly easily and it’s a vast improvement on the bloated third film. We also get the welcome additions of Penelope Cruz sexing it up as a past lover and Ian McShane brings a bit of menace in his role as Blackbeard. Wither Jack Sparrow though? Depp’s routine for these films grew tiresome a long time ago and it’s up to you to decide whether you can put up with another 2 hours and 15 minutes of his hamming it up. Time for Jack to walk the plank? Unlikely, what with this film churning up the box office, but now that most of the back story has been explained, is there really anything else left to tell?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Nothing too bad here, but nothing too memorable either. One for the fans mainly. Rating: 6/10.

The Way

Emilio Estevez’s debut behind the camera was 2006’s Bobby. Though well received for a first time effort, its major flaw was its abundance of characters meaning there were too many story lines going on at once and performances got lost amongst the edit. There’s no problem of that happening in The Way though, as Estevez strips the story down to its basics. Taking the lead is his old man Martin Sheen as Tom Avery a grumpy and stubborn American doctor who, after learning of his son’s (played by EE himself in a few flashback scenes) death on the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage, decides to walk the route himself and scatter his son’s ashes at the end. On his trip he finds a number of individuals tagging along, usually to his annoyance. First of all this is as a skeleton script as you’ll see. However, as mentioned above, Estevez loves his characters and this is all about their individual journeys and if they attain redemption at the end. Sheen is on great form, playing Avery’s emotional repression to perfection whilst he trudges along the lengthy route. He also mixes Avery’s personality with bright eyed innocence and seen it all before world-weariness as anyone would of that age taking on something so simple looking, yet unfamiliar. The other actors are fine as well, but they are saddled with some serious stereotypes. For example: Joost - He’s Dutch - He’s all friendly and relaxed! Jack - He’s Irish - He’s crazily loveable and up for the craic! Sarah - She’s Canadian – She’s all moody and aloof! (Hang on, that one’s not right). Throw in a desperately trying too hard scene involving a gypsy man scolding his son for stealing and you have some character studies not seen since the hey-day of The Fast Show. Let’s not be too churlish here though. Unashamedly, Estevez has made a feel good move and frankly, why not? If a film can lift your spirits then all the more of them please. In terms of his actual direction there’s nothing fancy here, but he does give us some amazing shots of the Iberian countryside and the walkers amongst you will be checking out when you’re going to be making the pilgrimage yourself.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

If you fancy a break from the mainstream then this is for you. It has its faults, but it’s still enjoyable and should give you a spring in your step for a few days. Rating: 7/10.