Immortals

To borrow a quote from the slacker generation, the first thought I had after seeing the trailer for Immortals was "meh". That simple feeling was based on the question "What's new here?". Swords and sandals, Gods, Titans, Women wearing very little etc. There's been enough of these films already over the past couple of years to satisfy one's needs in this area. However, as those films have all mainly been of average quality at best has director Tarsem Singh come up with something different for us to enjoy? Singh is no doubt a visionary director and he crafts some great scenes here from birds eye views of battles to in your face carnage utilising slow motion and, all coated with his usual palate of striking colours, his stylish hand can be seen in most places on the print. Ah, but I've forgotten something here haven't I? The plot. And, as with all Singh's output, this is where Immortals falls face first flat into the sand. The style cannot be faulted, but it can't gloss over a by the numbers storyline and some C list acting. The easiest synopsis I can give is that young Greek adult Theseus (Henry Cavill) has to fight against King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) who is turning Greece inside out in his attempts to find a weapon that can kill all. To to be fair to Singh this is clearly shot as a fantasy film as opposed to anything remotely serious historically, but a bit more thought could have been given to some scenes that provoke unintentional laughter such as the camp get up that most of the Gods sport and a toe curlingly awful (non)sex scene between Cavill and token totty Freida Pinto (who looks pretty lost throughout). One plus point this film does have over its recent similar brethren is it does deliver on the violence front, meaning there is some menace throughout the picture. It's a shame though that this sharp edge is counterbalanced by the feyness of the overall finished article. On the acting front Cavill does what is required but struggles to convince as any sort of leader. I guess whether you like this film or not depends on whether you think it's ludicrous or entertaining that a group of scantily clad women, armed only with knives the size of little fingers, can slaughter a group of heavily armed male beefcakes without barely breaking a sweat.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A treat visually, some decent gore, but the rest of it's entertainment is unintentionally comic. Rating: 5/10.

Tower Heist

Brett Ratner is well known for throwing some of the brashest parties in Hollywood and has a reputation as a bit of a golden child despite his film portfolio not containing anything that memorable. He's lost a bit of sheen over the last few months though, firstly with his use of the word "fag" and now a mixed reaction to his latest film Tower Heist. The film follows Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller), the building manager of a plush New York luxury apartment complex who's employees lose their pensions in a Ponzi scheme of businessman (and apartment resident) Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). Kovacs and a number of the employees of the hotel decide to rob Shaw's apartment in order to get some of their money back, additionally enlisting the help of ex-con Slide (Eddie Murphy). The first thing to say here is that this is a seriously dumb film, but it just about gives enough fun for you to go with the flow. If you think it sounds a bit like Ocean's Eleven you'll be right as a few years ago it was scripted as being an African American style take on that film. Though it hasn't gone through development hell since then you can see that the film has had various different scripters as the tone of the film is never really settled and struggles to find consistent laughs. One person who was involved in the original draft was Murphy and he is the star of the film here, stealing every scene he is in and hitting levels not seen since his 1980's heyday. It's bizarre then when he is shoved to the sidelines at the halfway point of the film. The same fate befalls the lesser spotted Tea Leoni, looking sexy as a cop on the protagonists tail her conflicted character could have been the most interesting on show, but she also disappears for lengthy sections of the film. Not the best decisions by Ratner that, but I suppose when someone is paid $15M to star (Stiller, in this case) they're going to be in front of the camera more often than not. At least when the heist does occur you can say its original and for Friday night entertainment this should breeze in and out of your brain before you can question the somewhat dodgy premise of a load of white blokes not being able to break into a building until they are helped by a black ex-con.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A mess of parts, but enough here to see you right after a busy week of work. Rating: 6/10.

The Adventures of Tintin

Special effects can be the curse of the modern movie, with everything being ploughed into the CGI aspect as a cover for the rest of the films shortcomings. It rarely works. It’s ironic then that The Adventures of Tintin (an all animated feature no less) suffers from the same problem. There are some great action sequences, but the script is bumpy and most of the characters drab. It’s even more ironic then that Tintin creater Herge was able to express more life in his characters with a few strokes of his pen then millions of dollars of computer trickery can. Much hullabaloo was made about this being a joint venture between director Steven Spielberg and producer Peter Jackson, though the recent output of the two men combined is hardly worth writing home about. I’m not one to knock The Beard (one word: Jaws) but it’s been a long time now since his last truly great film and the wounds suffered by those who endured Crystal Skull a few years back are still fresh for many. He hasn’t helped himself recently either by attaching his name as a producer to a number of very average flicks over the last few years as well. Has Spielberg started to lose that sharp mind that could sort the wheat out from the chaff? This is his first full length animated feature and it gets off to a promising start with a highly impressive opening credits sequence reminiscent of the cool style of Catch Me If You Can. The storyline then kicks in, that being of an amalgamation of three of the original comic books, in which Tintin (Jamie Bell), aided by Snowy and Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) basically go on a treasure hunt. I mentioned earlier the impressive action sequences and there are some joyous moments here including a couple of scenes towards the end of the film (one a chase through a Moroccan port town and one a set-to in a port itself) that are some of the best animated moments of the year. The big problem with the film though is that none of the characters feel anything more than a load of pixels. Though cartoonish in their characterisations, these are meant to be “real” people, but they are a world away from the feelings we generate from watching a Wall-E or Buzz Lightyear. It’s a huge black mark against the idea of motion capture. Bell is fine as Tintin, but the script (in its pursuit of not hanging around) leaves a lot of things unanswered about its main character. Spielberg is (probably correctly) assuming that everyone knows Tintin already, but if you don't you may be wondering just who Tintin is? Is he really a reporter? A detective on the sly? Plus, is he just a smart young kid or a grown man who just looks like a teenager? Moot points perhaps, but they wouldn't have taken long to address. The other actors in the film don't fare well at all, though Daniel Craig tries his best but appears hamstrung by the script which doesn’t give him the chance to be menacing enough as the films token bad guy. Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock just sprouts a loud of gumph (and 'Bergs decision to make him a Scottish alcoholic is toe-curlingly awful the longer you think about it) and Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as twin detectives Thompson and Thompson fall very flat indeed. In fact the humour in the film is very smart in the first half with a number of cute jokes, so its quite a disappointment that it disappears as the film goes on. To sum up, this is one for all the family to enjoy (though a few more in-jokes for adults would help) but don't waste your money on the 3D version as the 30% reduction in picture quality and loss of sheen is the last thing this needs.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Put it like this, it’s not brilliant, but it’s miles better than bloody Crystal Skull. Rating: 6/10.

Anonymous

Roland Emmerich has spent a whole career killing off as much of the human race as possible, usually through the use of computer effects. His latest film, Anonymous, moves away from the bloodshed though the special effects count is still high. This time though Emmerich is concerned with killing reputations as opposed to humans as he digs up the old theory about it being someone else who penned Shakespeare’s plays. However, despite this being the main selling point the film actually revolves around….well, I’m feeling lazy so in Roland’s own words: "It’s a mix of a lot of things: it’s an historical thriller because it’s about who will succeed Queen Elizabeth and the struggle of the people who want to have a hand in it. It’s the Tudors on one side and the Cecils on the other, and in between [the two] is the Queen. Through that story we tell how the plays written by the Earl of Oxford ended up labelled 'William Shakespeare'." What Emmerich doesn’t tell you there is that the film takes some serious historical liberties with time, people and places. So much so it looked for a moment that many miffed historians would be burning down the local flea pits such was their outrage. However, aren’t they missing the point though? I don’t think anyone’s even taken an Emmerich film at face value, so best just to enjoy (or endure) what’s on show and forget about it quickly afterwards. The good bits first then. The feel and look of the film is superb and its depiction of Elizabethan London in the overhead shots is excellently rendered. Acting wise there’s a great turn from Rhys Ifans (as Oxford) showing depth not usually associated with him (Ifans, not Oxford) and David Thewlis entertains as the weasely adviser to Queen Elizabeth. The rest of the film is a bit of a strain though. It’s far too long and Emmerich’s use of the time jumping format throughout the film just muddles things up. Too many characters come and go and it’s unclear at times who is who, especially when comparing the young and old versions of certain characters. All in all, this isn’t a bad film (theatre buffs can even look for a nod and wink cameo in the form of Mark Rylance) but if Emmerich had been a bit sharper on the editing and screenplay front this would have been quite a romp as opposed to the mildly intriguing final version it is.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Overlong and overdrawn, but it doesn’t take itself too seriously and the effects are great. Rating: 6/10.

In Time

In Time is one of those films that has so many plot holes you could start driving though them now and not be finished until Saw XX gets released. Though this doesn’t always mean a bad film if you can suspend your disbelief and disengage brain for long enough, but the Swiss cheese on show here makes that a tricky proposition. Storyline wise we’re in 2161, where humans now stop ageing at 25 years and extra “life time” has replaced money. Basically, if you want to keep living after 25 you have to “earn” it. Someone who doesn’t earn it, but gets donated a huge chunk of time due to plot shenanigans, is Will (Justin Timberlake). Soon enough, with totty in tow (Amanda Seyfried – lost under a crazy wig), he’s on the run from goons who want the “time” for themselves. It’s actually an intriguing premise, but it appears the film makers didn’t quite know what to do with it and the screenplay smacks of making it up as you go along. Timberlake and Seyfried both appear lost as to how serious they’re meant to be taking it all and cop Cillian Murphy (who surely was only in this for the pay cheque) phones in a blank faced performance. Any film that has “time” as its central subject is always going to struggle on the continuity front and this is no exception with the addition of plenty of unintentionally hilarious moments plot wise to enjoy / endure as well. Most memorable of all though is the terrible special effects utilised during the now already infamous car crash scene. If you were unsure about which way the film was going up until that point, this will make your mind up for you. Its abysmal stuff and I can’t believe director Andrew Niccol isn’t squirming in his chair in embarrassment every time he sees it. Was it really worth saving money on such awful effects to the detriment that your film becomes a laughing stock? Surely it’s about time that film-makers and producers woke up and smelt the coffee in this area now? Seriously, how much money did they save by using a computer as opposed to rolling a real car down a hill? I doubt the difference is worth the scorn they are know getting, especially as word of mouth impacts on the box office. Any plus points? Visually this is pretty good, with the future having the classic dystopian feel and the cast all looking like models. (It’s never clear in the storyline though why everyone on the planet now looks like they’ve just walked off a Vogue shoot). Plus, there are some fantastic duds on show. If anyone can tell me where Alex Pettyfer (pretty decent in this as a quietly spoken villain) gets his shirts from I’d like to know. Niccol has decent form on the writing (The Truman Show) and directing (Lord Of War) front but he fails to sprinkle much magic dust here. What could have been a bit of dumb fun falls flat, especially in its attempts to make comments regarding social standing. If you do see it at least you’ll have some enjoyment at the end as you nominate your best “worst” moment of the film. For me it’s the classic moment when Timberlake has to open a safe belonging to Seyfried’s father and without a clue what the combination could be Seyfried suggests “Try Darwin’s birthday. He (her father) was a big fan”. Click Click Click. Safe opens. Unbelievable.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

For Timberlake fans only. Rating: 4/10.

Real Steel

After some shockers at the start of his career, director Shawn Levy appears to have been learning as he’s gone along as Real Steel is his best film yet. Set in 2020, robots have taken over from humans in the boxing ring. Ex-boxer Charlie (Hugh Jackman) owns robots who fight and, with a debt hanging over him (and the threat of worse if he doesn’t pay up), needs to find a champion quick. A spanner appears in the works when he finds himself with custody of his son Max (Dakota Goyo) from an ex-girlfriend. Their strained relationship takes a turn for the better when Max finds an old robot which eventually becomes a player in the boxing market…and, yes, you can work out the rest from here without much trouble. Basically, this is Rocky with robots (in fact, the main thread of the story is identical in some places). However, Rocky was a great film and so this can’t go too far wrong following that template. Yes, the plot is by the numbers, but the film triumphs where most other heavy on the special effects output fails in the fact it has taken time to draw up characters you care about. The relationship between Charlie and Max is highly believable, with the script smartly commenting that they are both drawn together by a common cause as opposed to any unrequited love for each other they didn’t know they had. There’s great chemistry between Jackman and Goyo, however it does also highlight how the same thing is missing in the “relationships” between the humans and the (non-verbal) robots. So the acting from the leads is good (plus Evangeline Lilly also pops up in a small but nicely formed role as one of Charlie’s friends), but what of the much mooted effects? The robots are fantastic, with a high proportion of the scenes actually utilising live action-models as opposed to CGI. The difference compared to something like Transformers is huge. Though the film still can’t make you feel for these non-humanoids, they certainly feel more “real” as opposed to Michael Bay’s charisma free CGI bits of metal. Overall this is just good film-making. It doesn’t push the envelope in any areas (though the effects are highly impressive), but what it does do, it does well. Due to its box office success a sequel is now in the pipeline. Not too sure what they are planning (a re-hash of Rocky II?) but I think this should just be left to stand alone and to retire with a winning record.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Fluff in some places, but like the robots themselves, this is more than the sum of its parts. Rating: 7/10

We Need To Talk About Kevin

We Need To Talk About Kevin has been a failure at the box office. Despite being based on Lionel Shriver’s best-selling novel of the same name, it appears fans of the book haven’t seen any reason to watch the screen version. Trumpeter of the book or not, there’s three main reasons I suspect why this is; i) The subject matter ii) Tilda Swinton (no matter what you think of her, she’s just not a box office draw) and iii) The title (it’s just not going to persuade the person passing by to rush in). So, people haven’t gone. Have they missed out though? The story concerns Eva (Swinton) and her relationship with her son, Kevin (duh), which was rocky enough anyway even before he went and massacred a load of students at his high school. Told using the flashback device, we follow Eva as she is now (post bloodshed), still trying to understand what happened and attempting to get her life back on track. Interspersed with this we cut away every now and then to follow the birth of Kevin and Eva’s strained relationship with him as he grows up. Let’s talk about the acting first. Swinton is fine as always but plays Eva as such a wet blanket it’s tough to engage with her or indeed give her much sympathy (a major problem I’ll come to in a bit). John C Reilly is only a bit part player in the background as the husband, so it’s a relief that two of the actors playing Kevin (Jasper Newell as the 6-8 year old version and Ezra Miller as the teen killer) raise the bar substantially. Miller is good, playing Kevin as dark and moody with the occasional menacing glint in his eye telling us that bad things will happen soon and what fools we’ve all been. Even better is Newell, who’s performance takes us far away from that of “Kid who is a brat” to levels of uneasiness not seen since The Omen. The big problem with the film compared to the book is that, despite Swinton’s best efforts, we never get to hear what Eva actually thinks about what is going on with Kevin. This makes it hard for the audience to understand why her (and Franklin) make the decisions they do when it appears obvious to the paying customer that their son is on a one way trip to psycho-ville. For example, Kevin’s shown daily signs of being a sociopath. I know, let’s get him a high velocity bow and arrow! Kevin probably likes to torture animals. I know, let’s get his sister a cute little pet! What’s this? Kevin’s actions have caused his sister to lose an eye? Well, we better administer a mild ticking off! Frankly, even taking into account a parents love for their child, it doesn’t ring true and pretty much undermines the whole story. Director Lynne Ramsay hasn’t had a mainstream release since 2002’s Movern Callar, but she does will enough here, shooting the film with a detached feel which nicely compliments the coldness between Eva and Kevin. She doesn’t do much more than that though, as, basically, the script doesn’t allow it. This isn’t a turkey in any way, but much more thought should have gone into if this was worth adapting for the screen in the first place.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not a bad film, but it’s tough subject matter is lost amongst the eyebrow raising antics of the protagonists. Rating: 5/10.

The Debt

The Debt is a re-make of the little seen (outside of its home country anyhow) Israeli film Ha-Hov, telling the story of three Mossad agents and their attempt to track down a Nazi War criminal in East Berlin in 1966. The film flicks between then and 1997, in which the older agents are basking in the (relative) glory of their successful mission. Or was it? John Madden is the director here and he’s usually a pretty safe pair of hands. That’s actually a pretty good description of this film which, despite the opportunity for some serious political comment, decides to skirt over the issues and play it as a straight drama / thriller. In fact, most times the screenplay attempts some sort of statement on the moralistic issues they appear forced and clunky. The three agents are Rachel (1966 version = Jessica Chastain, 1997 = Helen Mirren), Stefan (1966 = Marton Csokas, 1997 = Tom Wilkinson) and David (1966 = Sam Worthington, 1997 = Ciarán Hinds). Of the split it’s the 1966 actors that fare the better, though mainly that’s down to them having the meat of the script. The opening of the film is intriguing enough with the time switching technique providing some thought and a couple of short, but smartly directed tense set pieces as the agents kidnap the ex-Nazi (Jesper Christensen, playing the villain, as always). However, when things go wrong and they all find themselves holed up in a grotty apartment the film stalls. Just when all appears lost though, the film pulls a trick on the audience showing us that a crucial scene at the start of the story is not all it appears. It does work, but it’s also quite a risk to con the audience in such a way and some may find it, well, a con. There are some other problems as well, among them the nagging feeling about whether steely Mossad agents would really fall apart so quickly (or indeed use such green ones in the first place) and who on earth thought Hinds looks like an older Worthington? (Seriously, come on). This is more than just a minor quibble, as it adds confusion, especially as Hinds looks a lot more like an older Csokas would. The ending as well is a bit off-kilter, resembling a bizarre OAP stalk and slash as opposed to something really thrilling. On the whole this is a smart film, but some trimming of its bloated edges would have made it a fine one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A great start and sneaky twist is soon lost amongst the hurried and implausible last 30 minutes. Rating: 6/10.

Contagion

It’s been a while now since Stephen Soderbergh has given us a film that delivers the holy double of both critical acclaim and box office numbers (though it’s safe to say studios are only really worried about the latter these days, I suppose). His latest, Contagion, doesn’t triumph in either category, but it’s a drama (though advertised as a thriller) that requires a bit more thought than the usual outlay from such a (relatively) hefty budget. Starting with the caption “Day Two”, the film begins with a number of people dying in various different countries. Before long it’s clear that a worldwide pandemic is the cause and the film takes the viewpoint of numerous different characters as the death toll rises with no remedy in sight. Though there’s no clear lead in the film, with the main focal points being Kate Winslett (Disease expert), Laurence Fishburne (Big Cheese disease expert), Matt Damon (Man on the street) and Jude Law (Blogger on the, err, street), the main interest is garnered from the scientist’s point of view as they struggle to contain the illness, whilst trying to discover the crucial cure at the same time. The viewpoint from the general public is less involving as we’re not really given any time to emphasise with the characters and the scenes involving rioting and looting as the social breakdown occurs are ten a penny. Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Burns have been getting praise from the scientific community for the films precise portrayal of the procedures and processes that disease control centres undergo during such times and aligned with some of the selfish decisions some of the characters make under pressure it gives the film a realistic and almost documentary edge. Apropos to this is that Soderbergh doesn’t tell the story with any sense of preaching or overly political statements. There are some moments that don’t add up though. Winslett’s character spots early on how dangerous this illness could be, but spends little time protecting herself against it, some minor characters are base stereotypes with wooden dialogue and a kidnapping subplot involving Marion Cotillard as an epidemiologist appears to be a ruse just to get one less character off screen for ages. There are some nice touches though, especially the final scene flash back to “Day One” showing us just how the disease began and how easily it spread uncontrollably. Worrying stuff indeed, but there is something in this film even more horrific than the millions of dead bodies: Jude Law’s “Australian accent”. If I did urge you to see this film it would be to check it out just for that reason alone. Quite frankly it’s mangling of vowels not heard on celluloid since, well, possibly ever. Anyway, going back to the film as a whole, as a study in science, media and politics this is well handled and ripe for further discussion. However, as a film it doesn’t grip as it should and despite the good notices for its accuracy, this still can’t stop it slipping back into the general muddle of infection of the week films.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

This is an interesting film, but it can’t really be classified as anything more than that. Rating: 6/10.

Midnight In Paris

It’s late in the year and reviewing film after film can sometimes be a bit of a chore, so I sing the praises of Woody Allen for his latest film Midnight In Paris. Praise him in the sense that he’s awoken me from a stupor and got my reviewing blood up with a film which is so outrageously pretentious that it caused me physical pain when watching it due to the amount if times I was wincing and exhaling breath during its running time. Firstly, the premise, in which Allen’s tour of Europe continues with his entourage now alighting in Paris to tell the story of engaged couple Gil (Owen Wilson) and Inez (Rachel McAdams) who are holidaying in said city with her parents whilst Hollywood screenplay writer Gil attempts to finish his first novel. However, one midnight stroll on his own finds Gil transported to 1920’s Paris where he meets plenty of famous artists, musicians and writers from that time. Going backwards and forwards between past and present Gil eventually learns that his missus is horrible and that he needs to split up with her in order to fulfil his literary dreams and meet someone who really appreciates him. Major problem here though as within the first 5 minutes of the film you see that Gil is a spineless wonder and Inez is hugely unlikable and they shouldn’t be together. So why then the time-travel charade in order to spell it out to the audience? The obvious answer is that the characters need to find out for themselves, but as they’re so unlikable in the first place why on earth would the casual viewer even care? Having a key historical figure turn up every five minutes when Gil is in the 1920’s is neither smart nor funny and the moment Adrian Brody appears as Salvador Dali (complete with cringe-worthy accent and mannerisms) has to be one of the lowest points of Allen’s career. Having Paris as the backdrop can sometimes gloss over some cracks in a film, but not a chance here. You can enjoy some great shots of Parisian streets and landmarks during the film but which director of only average ability (actually, which person) can’t come up with the same thing themselves? Throw in Allen’s continued use of the same cheap looking titles for each film (yes, Woody, we get the point now) and one of the most annoying soundtracks I’ve ever heard, this continually finds itself in the merde. Don’t even get me started on the risible ending which was so obvious and trite that I actually booed out loud for the first ever time watching a film in the cinema. Hmm, perhaps I should get an invite to Cannes next year? However, I must be in the wrong as it appears the film has got widespread critical acclaim from everyone else. Maybe I’ve walked into an alternate universe myself?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

The most unlovable film about The City Of Love ever filmed. Rating: 2/10.

The Help

When reviewing a film like The Help with its worthy subject matter, you have to be careful to review the actual film as opposed to giving your opinion based on the topic alone. First of all, said topic, that of African American Maids in the 1960’s and the way they were treated by the white families they worked for. Based on Kathryn Stockett’s novel of the same name the film follows Skeeter (Emma Stone) an aspiring author in Jackson, Mississippi who decides to write about the maids having been quasi-raised by one herself. Director Tate Taylor has virtually no directorial pedigree to speak of, so it was quite a risk by Touchstone and Dreamworks to place this in his lap. Someone must have known something though as it’s turned out to be an inspired choice. Granted he’s got the source material to go on, but Taylor’s film is superbly acted, beautifully shot and, most surprisingly, hilarious in parts. Skeeter has to write her book on the sly whilst hanging around the social circle of snooty Hilly (Bryce Dallas Howard) and friends and their subtle, but abysmal treatment of their maids. You don’t have to have read the novel to see things play out as you would expect, but there are a number of surprises in the film, including one of the main plot points revolving around an incident that wouldn’t be out of place in one of the American Pie movies (ironically, said scene does actually involve a pie as well). I mentioned the acting earlier and you’ll be hard pressed to find better performances in a film all year. Stone continues to impress in each performance, coming across particularly naturally here with a manner that appears effortless, but is really a sign of just how good she is. The two central performances from Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer as the main maids of the storyline are nicely contrasted. Davis’ character is full of bile, but she hides it in a presentation of dignified restraint, whilst Spencer is hilarious as the outspoken Minny, cooker of fantastic tasting food. Stealing the show though is Jessica Chastain as the ostracised Celia, a figure of fun for the rest of social circle. Chastain is superb, playing wide eyed and innocent to the race storm going on around her, whilst providing many a chuckle with her antics and also breaking hearts when her own personal demons are revealed. A scene where she is mocked by Hilly and friends is unpleasant to watch as anything in the film and her relationship with Minny eventually provides the film’s most touching moments. Celia’s treatment at the hands of Hilly raises an interesting question though, as we have actually moved away from the racial aspect of the storyline and are basically saying some people (Hilly et al) are just heartless to others regardless of their race, colour or creed. Which leads us onto the main point of discussion where Taylor’s approach has been accused of toning down the hardships that the maids faced at the time. This is a film though where the director’s hands are tied. He’s decided to tone it down and gets grief for it, but if he had gone too far the other way, accusations of heavy handed lecturing and stereotypes would have abounded. As far as I’m concerned it’s a discussion for another time and another place. Returning to the quality of the film it dips slightly in a few scenes that dangerously border the mawkish and the ending doesn’t quite hit home like it should. Overall though this is both a worthy subject and a worthy film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Is there too much comic relief in place of hard hitting drama? What can’t be argued though is that this is well directed and superbly acted. Rating: 8/10.

The Ides Of March

I think it was Traffic that had the tag line “No one gets away clean” and that one-liner could also be put to good use to describe George Clooney’s The Ides Of March. Politics has always been a dirty business and you’ll probably need a shower after watching this such is the muck on show. Based on Beau Willimon’s novel Farragut North, this political drama thriller follows Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) the brains behind Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) and his campaign for the Democratic presidential candidacy. Aided by Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Morris’ manager, things are looking good for a winning campaign and yet more praise for golden boy Meyers. However, one phone call from rival Republican campaign manager Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti, superb) and a chain of affairs begin that swiftly spin out of control and end up with Meyers unsure who to trust and worrying how much of his (until then innocent) soul he may have to sell to the devil. Lets start with the bad things first. If you hate politics and politicians then the story line doesn’t supersede the subject matter and this won’t be for you. Plus, they’re aren’t many likeable persona’s in this film to side with. Put it like this, the death of a fairly innocent character is met without much more than a shrug of the shoulders and a quick cover up. If you do dip your toes in Ides’ murky waters though you’ll have a decent time. Clooney has joint acting / directing duties here. Playing the part of a politician switching between charm and sleazeball Clooney can do in his sleep, so it’s what he does with the camera is more intriguing. He’s handled a political story (of a different genus) before with Good Night, and Good Luck and his success with that film holds him in good stead here, explaining only enough of what’s going on to keep the audience hooked and not ruining any illusions by spoon feeding the machinations behind the political wheels. It’s a classic case of the audience finding out what’s happening at the same time as the main protagonist. Clooney doesn’t hang around either when it comes to moving the story along as Stephen hardly ever sits still, moving from set to set as we get to feel what it really must be like on a campaign train, i.e. no rest until your man’s in The Seat. There’s no fancy camera tricks here but excellent use of lighting and close ups portray many an emotion, though at times Clooney flirts dangerously with a feel of a poor imitation of an X-Files episode. On the acting front Gosling gets to show a lot more of the charm that he undoubtedly has, but he’s still a long way off from hitting such standards as the now regular excellent performances of Giamatti and Seymour Hoffman (both the highlights in this despite much smaller roles). Though how Marisa Tomei got cast as the worlds least convincing hack is as much a mystery as the political funding of a major party. In the end this is a study of two things: The loss of innocence and dirty dealings in the corridors of power. How realistic you find all this will probably depend on how deep your knowledge of politics is, but the basic premise of the story (shown in the excellent final shot of the film) can be applied to anything: Just how many of your morals would you sacrifice to get what you want?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Clooney’s direction and the twisty plot shine out from the shadows. Time for George to move behind the camera once and for all? Rating: 8/10.