The Expendables 2

You’ll be unsurprised to hear that The Expendables 2 pretty much just follows the basic template of the first film, i.e. a wafer thin script, cheesy one-liners and action galore. So, if you liked the first film you’ll pretty much guaranteed to like this one. Of course, the selling point of the first film was the reunification of 1980’s action stars, so for the sequel the brains behind the whole shebang (S Stallone, esq) has roped in a few more names from the glory days. Step forward Messrs Norris and Van Damme. In addition, after the slight con of their minimal appearances last time out, this film also beefs up the parts of Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger (though in hindsight after watching their creaky performances here I guess you can’t win either way). Plot-wise this is the classic revenge quest as Stallone and crew seek to take down an enemy who murders one of their own. As Stallone himself memorably barks at one point, “Find ‘em, track ‘em, kill ‘em” is pretty much a good summing up of the last three quarters of the movie. Obviously this isn’t Citizen Kane, but it is an improvement on the first film as a bit more characterisation is introduced and the banter between the protagonists is believable. The film still has the same problem as the previous outing though in the fact that it can’t decide whether it should be taken at face value or as a bit of meaningless nonsense, though there are a few more tongue in cheek gags on offer here, including a nice nod of the head to the “Chuck Norris facts” internet phenomenon. There haven’t been quite so many laughs regarding certain aspects of the production though, during which a stuntman was unfortunately killed and the film crew also being found guilty of environmental damage during shooting. For film aficionados, the most interesting aspect is the choice of Simon West as director. His career has basically stalled since his unwise decision to helm Lara Croft : Tomb Raider over ten years ago and this is his most commercial film since then. The good news is that the skill he showed in handling the bombastic mayhem that was Con Air holds him in good stead here and it was a wise decision by Stallone to hand over the directorial reins to someone who knew how to approach such a production. It was also a wise decision to exorcise in the edit a cameo from tennis star Novak Djokovic in a scene where he attacks terrorists with his tennis racket(!). You need to suspend disbelief when watching this type of film, but surely that would have been game, set and match on any credibility attached to this, no doubt to be continued, franchise.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
For better or worse, this is what it is. Rating: 6/10.

The Bourne Legacy

There’s the old gag about boffins being rebuffed by would be investor’s with the line “You’ve invented something that doesn’t need to be invented”. Tweak that analogy a bit and you’ve got a good description of The Bourne Legacy, i.e. a new Bourne film that explains and expands on the background of the previous three films when it isn’t necessary. The hook for this film is the tag-line: “There was never just one”. A mildly intriguing statement, but Tony Gilroy’s film starts off slow and just never gets going. This is a Matt Damon free production (apart from the odd image) with Jeremy Renner taking over as the lead. In the film Renner plays Aaron Cross, a member of the black ops programme, who goes on the run due to Bourne’s past actions (there’s a partial overlap time line wise with the previous films). Gilroy was the writer / co-writer of the previous three films, so it can’t be denied he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. However this film is so talk heavy in revealing further layers in the Bourne universe that the action segments of the film appear to have been added on as an afterthought, which might explain why they rarely raise the pulse. On the acting front this is the biggest attempt yet to shift Renner onto the A-list, but again he fails to show the star wattage that made people sit up and take notice of him in The Hurt Locker and the change of front man here (so to speak) just hasn’t worked. Hollywood loves to kill the goose that laid the golden egg so after three great films it’s no surprise they couldn’t just leave the story be. However, if this film was to be viewed as a necessity, then it should have had an ending that either had you looking back and nodding your head at the retrospective aspect of the films or on the edge of your seat baying for a further instalment. The final scene provokes neither of those emotions. I think I’ll leave the last word to Paul Greengrass who years ago cracked that if a fourth Bourne movie was ever to be green lit it would have to be called "The Bourne Redundancy". Touche, Paul.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Devoted fans may get some kicks from this, but in reality the first three films were the legacy. Rating: 5/10.

Brave

Despite a bit of marketing, there just hasn’t been the buzz about this latest Pixar offering that usually occurs when the team with the Hawaiian shirts puts pen to paper and finger to mouse button. Having now seen it I can confirm that there isn’t actually all that much to write home about. It’s still a decent enough film, but it just feels a bit run of the mill. Of course, usually even an average offering from Pixar is still better than most other animated offerings out there, but this film lacks the edge that usually comes from said studio and is arguably one of their weakest ever offerings. We’ll have a look at the possible reasons why that is in a moment. First, a quick summation of the storyline. Set in the Scottish Highlands, Princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald) defies an age-old custom marriage custom, much to chagrin of her parents (Billy Connolly and Emma Thompson), and inadvertently sets off a chain reaction of events that lead her on a mission to overcome a curse that is placed on her family. Though the film has many good points, it’s all a bit unclear as to what it’s actually meant to be, ranging as it does from family drama to slapstick action fest. The answer to how this problem came about can be found in the history of the production of the film there was a bit of a hoo-ha concerning directors and producers and it appears that this what has to lead to the final cut of the film being a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none. The characters are all one-dimensional and I’m sure native Scots will probably be rolling their eyes at the (albeit good-natured) portrayal of their ancestors as violent drunkards. Merida is the first female lead protagonist in a Pixar film, but apart from her visually capturing your eye there isn’t really all that much memorable about her. Where the film does triumph though is in its portrayal of a relationship between a mother and daughter, as opposed to the usual son / father didactic framework. The actual visuals look great as always, but if it’s true that Pixar rewrote their animation software for the first time in 25 years in order to cope with the complex look of this film, I couldn’t see much improvement (though I appreciate I’m no expert here). Despite the mystical nature of the happenings in the film, this is lacking a magic spark. Is this possibly as a result of other animation studios upping their game in recent years? No one can usually accuse Pixar of being behind the times, but it appears here that complacency may have crept in. To wit, Disney’s Tangled is probably a good comparison in respect of a similar storyline in regard of the family side of things, but Brave lags a long way behind that film when it comes to animation, ideas and memorable characters. Overall, this is definitely one that kids will enjoy, but adults may find the cinema seat chafing a bit sooner than they would have expected when watching a Pixar production, especially as the “curse” that befalls the family, even for an animated fantasy adventure, is pretty silly.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Kids should enjoy the fun goings on, but this is a long long way from classic Pixar: Rating: 6/10.

Shadow Dancer

Director James March has a background in TV and film documentaries, with the highpoint being 2008’s Oscar winning Man on Wire. Here he’s into fictional feature film territory and the results are mixed. Shadow Dancer stars Andrea Riseborough as Colette McVeigh, a member of the IRA who becomes an informant for MI5, with her handler (Mac) being played by Clive Owen. The film is a slow burner if ever there was one, but it never really fully catches fire. That’s not to say there should be shoot out’s and action sequences every ten minutes as March’s film is a more realistic portrayal of the “behind the scenes” circumstances of The Troubles, but the narrative is too static at times and there are numerous scenes were basically nothing is really happening. I haven’t read Tom Bradby’s novel from which this is adapted (Bradby himself is the scripter here), but March’s approach to telling the story is to tell the audience as little as possible and for them to work out what is going on as the minutes pass. It’s a hit and miss approach as it becomes too confusing at times (especially the deathly slow opening 15 minutes) and if you know nothing of the British / Irish situation then you might as well not bother watching in the first place. On the flip side, it’s nice to have an approach where the characters and plot aren’t spoon fed to the viewers and you get to use a bit of your own grey matter. However, March’s direction is as bland as the (well portrayed) 1990’s Belfast setting, though there are a few scenes of decent tension as McVeigh’s family begin to suspect they have a rat in the house. Riseborough is half decent in one of her biggest roles to date, though Owen appears uncertain as to what is really motivating his character and Gillian Anderson is pretty wooden in a small role as Mac’s boss. All in all this isn’t a bad effort from March, but it’s unlikely this is even going to find an audience on DVD due to its sluggish pace and subject matter. March does at least keep you guessing until the final few minutes and there are a couple of nice twists thrown in at the death. One is a cracker, but the other has already been ruined if you’ve seen the trailer and have got eagle eyes.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The most un-Hollywood film of the year keeps you guessing, but March’s direction and his inability to get decent performances for most of his cast suggest his real talent arguably lies back in non-fiction output. Rating: 6/10.

Ice Age: Continental Drift / Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted

Double review time again as here we have a couple of films (Ice Age: Continental Drift and Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted) that have plenty in common both historically and artistically. Well, I say review, but there isn’t really much point for films such as this as the template has been set in the previous films and, despite marketing that suggests otherwise, for both films it’s mainly just a case of wash, rinse and repeat. A brief summing up though can be made by looking at those sub-titles. For Ice Age Manny et al get stuck on an iceberg and find themselves getting caught up in the usual shenanigans. For Madagascar, Alex et al are on the run in Europe where they, well, find themselves getting caught up in the usual shenanigans. Both of these animated franchises have been big hitters at the box office over the last decade so it’s hardly surprising to find more sequels being released. For some these films will be old hat, but for others (though mainly fans I guess) that won’t be a problem, especially parents who want their kids to watch something colourful, quick, silly and fun. There is a serious case of déjà vu when watching these latest productions, but I can’t deny each film doesn’t have some moments of genius and Madagascar’s introduction of a new character in the form of the Captain of Animal Control in Monaco (voiced by an unrecognisable Frances McDormand) provides consistent laughs. On that front, I’d say that Madagascar has the sharper script both in terms of humour and pathos, but Ice Age triumphs in terms of its main characters having more personality (aided by having more substantial audience recognition already built in. For example, how many Madagascar characters (not actors) could you actually name?). Overall, it’s as you were for both franchises with nothing really new here to report, though a glut of minor side characters in each film will have the sharp eared on alert trying to recognise what B-actor is providing the vocals. Talking of recycling if any more sequels to these films come out, to make matters easier and to save time, just refer back to this review and change words as appropriate. Finally I avoided watching both of these in 3D, but from what I’ve read elsewhere it didn’t add anything. What. A. Shock.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Money for old rope. But if people keep buying said rope......Rating: 6/10 (both films)

Magic Mike

The premise of Magic Mike (i.e. a story set in the world of male stripping) probably won’t have many men rushing to the cinema, but taken as a follow up to Steven Soderbergh’s last film (the abysmal Haywire), anything will do. Loosely based on Channing Tatum’s experience as a stripper in his younger days, Reid Carolin’s script follows Mike Lane (Tatum), roofer by day, stripper at a club by night and his attempts to escape the getting starkers lifestyle by setting up his own furniture business. In a second plot strand we follow the relationship between Mike and Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a young man who Mike takes under his wing and introduces to the world of stripping. The film is pretty thin plot wise and the aforementioned storylines don’t exactly grab the attention. However it does work well in two other areas. The first (which Tatum has said he hoped the film would capture) is the camaraderie, atmosphere and energy between the dancers both onstage and off. Secondly, the business aspect of the job is well portrayed with club owner Matthew McConaughey at pains to point out that the company should be as professionally run as possible, but with the temptations of women, drink and drugs lurking around every corner it’s quite a battle. I’m not that bothered with the arguments behind the sexual politics of the film and to be fair to the studio they were upfront about their marketing campaign targeting women and gay men (which clearly paid off as this has become a box office success). However I think it’s fair to say that Soderbergh and Carolin could have done a bit more both from the camera point of view and the join the dots plotting. Acting wise, Pettyfer and McConaughey give the best performances. Tatum is his usual self, but at least he’s better than Cody Horn (as the love interest) who is beyond bland. Plus, Mike and Adam hardly seem to connect as friends or colleagues, but that might have something to do with the rumours that Tatum and Pettyfer didn’t get on during filming. One person who Tatum does like though is Nicolas Winding Refn who he originally wanted to direct this, but scheduling conflicts meant it never came to fruition. The mind boggles at that one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Cheap thrills for some, but only an average film for the rest. Rating: 6/10.

The Five Year Engagement

The last time Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel wrote together the end result was the enjoyable Muppets movie from the turn of the year. However, any originality that made that a surprising bit of fun is missing here as they churn out a by the numbers romance that will eventually just find itself on the pile of forgettable rom-coms from the last few years. That’s not to say the target audience probably won’t enjoy this, but I’d guess even for them this is a one viewing situation only. Starting off in San Francisco, Tom (Segel) proposes to his girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt), but when she gets the chance to study a post-doctorate in psychology in Michigan, they decide to postpone their wedding and both to make the move east. Tom has trouble finding work though and before long the strains of a relationship are beginning to take their toll. Segel plays Tom with his usual goofy charm and there is some believable chemistry between himself and Blunt. Rhys Ifans provides good support as well as Violet’s slimy professor and his scene where he escapes an enraged Tom with some fleet of foot provides one of the best laughs of the film. On the downside, people who think that psychology is a load of balls will probably be gnawing their knuckles at the script (though it does poke a bit of fun at said discipline), especially when one of the main plot points resolves around who would eat a stale doughnut. Stoller did some decent work behind the camera on Forgetting Sarah Marshall (and, less memorably, Get Him To The Greek) but here it’s, well, as stale as one of those aforementioned doughnuts. It’s all pretty predictable and it also includes the eye-rollingly annoying group of diverse friends / work colleagues / students that only ever exists in US sitcoms or films. What saves it from being a complete flop though is that this has a slightly dark edge to it on the emotional side and it’s well acted by the three main leads. Basically this is just like Going The Distance (but, er, without the distance), with a different cast and crew. Therefore, if you liked that film, you’ll probably like this and vice versa.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not bad, but even if you never see this film, you’ve already seen it. Rating: 6/10.

Amour

Firstly, some choice cuts from some of the previous films of Michael Haneke, one of European cinema’s enfant terrible’s: Teenage girl coldly murdered by captive bolt pistol (Benny’s Video); Man unexpectedly slashes own throat in the middle of a conversation (Cache); Family murdered whilst intruders torture the audience via breaking the fourth wall (Funny Games) and as for The Piano Teacher, let’s say no more. Now let’s look at the description of Haneke’s latest film, Amour: An honest and moving portrayal of an elderly couple. What, no sudden knife attack, you say? Nope, this is as read, and despite Haneke’s previous film (The White Ribbon) being a relatively leisurely stroll in respect of pace (though certainly not in subject matter), who could have predicted that this would have been the subject of Haneke’s next project? This does start with a bang though, with a Parisian fire department breaking into an apartment and discovering the partially mummified corpse of a woman. We’re then into flashback as we pick up on the lives of octogenarian couple Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva), retired music teachers and seemingly at ease with the cards life has dealt them. However, Anne soon suffers a stroke which leaves her paralysed down one side of her body. Her hatred of hospitals means that Georges has to take care of her at home and, with her condition deteriorating, it shines the spotlight on just how much “love” couples must have in their relationship in order to get by. This picked up the 2012 Palme d’Or, but it’s the kind of film that always does, i.e. popular with cineastes, but open to accusations of pretentiousness over substance. There are a few irritations here, the main one being that the literature released with the film states that Anne became paralysed due to the hospital botching her operation, but this isn’t mentioned in the film. Also, at over two hours long, there are a number of scenes that probably could have hit the cutting room floor. In mitigation you can argue that Haneke is showing the reality of such a situation, i.e. time moves slow, life is tough and there are no short cuts. It’s certainly an honourable subject, but whether this will find a mainstream audience though (let’s face it, this is a tough sell) is a different matter. It’s a great film in terms of what it wants to do, but I doubt you’d ever give this further viewings. It’s certainly thought provoking though and I imagine it will be difficult to watch for anyone who has personal experience of what is happening on screen (apparently it’s based on an identical situation in Haneke’s family). This in itself is a detour for Haneke as the majority of his output has usually concerned situations both fantastical and ambiguous for the audience in question. Here though those barriers have been dropped and Haneke puts the viewer right into the middle of the story. A brilliantly acted story it as well, especially by Riva who puts herself through the wringer in numerous scenes where she both physically and metaphorically bares all. This being Haneke though, there has to be a shock at some point and whilst not as visually disturbing as moments in his earlier films, it still resonates both in terms of its surprise value and as a moral talking point after the film has ended. It’s a classic dirty trick from Haneke (one of the modern day masters of audience manipulation) as he challenges you to decide whether what you have just seen really is “love”, after all.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Haneke tone’s down the shocks for an emotional study of age and love that provides plenty of food for thought for all. Rating: 7/10.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2

I can’t say I’m a fan of these films and, unless you’re of a certain gender and of a certain age, there’s actually very little the average movie fan will get from them. That’s not to say they shouldn’t have a place in film history, as they provide entertainment for the target audience and, if that’s your business plan, these films can be classified as a commercial (though not critical success). Starting immediately where the last film left off Bella (Kristen Stewart) is now a vampire and having given birth to her and Edward’s (Robert Pattinson – his entire dialogue in this film must work out to about one word per page of the script) baby, the couple find themselves under threat of punishment from the Volturi (headed up by Michael Sheen, slicing the ham far too thick). In order to protect themselves the Cullen’s start to round up a clan of other vampires. This is hardly done in the style of The Blues Brothers or Seven Samurai, mind. Instead, every ten minutes there’s an introduction of new characters who look like they’ve just walked off a photo shoot for a fashion magazine. On the plus side it does raise some unintentional guffaws. Speaking of that there is a wry sense of humour on show, but the whole franchise has taken itself far too seriously and a touch of humility would have actually helped aid a more positive critical reaction. This was filmed back to back with the last part and so all the problems of that film and frankly, the series as a whole, remain. The special effects remain terrible for a collection that has raked in so much money (I assume the phrase continuous improvement wasn’t banded around the offices of Summit Entertainment much in the last few years), the acting is wooden (somewhat ironic for a series concerning vampires) and the plot holes remain huge, especially when we “see” from Bella’s point of view what it’s like to be one of the blood suckers as her amazing smell, sight, strength, speed etc. pretty much makes a mockery of any struggles the vamps have had so far. Despite all this, this is arguably the best film of the lot. It doesn’t drag too much, storylines are resolved and there’s cracking fight scene which more than makes up from most of the other badly edited ones from the previous movies. Plus, it’s unlikely you’ll see a film with as many decapitations (albeit bloodless ones) as this contains for quite a while. Best of all though is an astonishing third act twist, which is one of the best pieces of rug pulling of the year and is an audacious piece of storytelling by Condon and screenplay scribe Melissa Rosenberg (especially as I’m told it differs from the book, so most of the audience will be the marks). It’s frustrating as well though when you wonder why such effort couldn’t have been put into other areas of the film as opposed to the join the dots process that the final presentation became.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Fans will probably enjoy this last act, but for the rest of us it really has been a “saga”. Rating: 6/10.

Lawless

If you’ve seen The Proposition, you may get a sense of déjà vu when watching Lawless. Same director? Check. Same scripter? Check. Same bursts of horrific violence? Check. Storyline concerning brothers from a family on the wrong side of the law? Check me up. So it’s a reunion between John Hillcoat and Nick Cave (his script being an adaptation of Matt Bondurant’s novel The Wettest County In The World), but as with most reunifications, this falls short on the quality front when compared to earlier successes. Set in 1931 the storyline concerns the Bondurant brothers Forrest (Tom Hardy), Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) and their illegal moonshine set up in Virginia. Their cosy-ish way of life though is interrupted by newly appointed Special Deputy Charley Rakes (Guy Pearce) and his demands that all racketeers in the area pay him a cut of their profits. The brothers refuse and things start to get messy. The trick that Hillcoat and Cave pulled off with The Proposition was that even though it was a slow burning drama, you left the cinema feeling like you had just watched a blistering non-stop thriller. Lightening doesn’t strike twice here I’m afraid though as Cave’s screenplay is full of clichés (the tart with a heart, the patsy etc.) and Hillcoat’s direction is no more than TV movie of the work. The film isn’t helped by its overuse of CGI either with some dodgy visuals just confirming to us its 2012, not the 1930’s. The acting is hit and miss as well. LaBeouf continues to prove he has zero charisma (how does he keep getting cast?) and Hardy doesn’t do much apart from mumble. However, Gary Oldman (despite a disappointingly limited screen time) is great as a rival gangster and Pearce is his usual impressive self, though not quite appearing to really believe in the part he is playing. Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska are pretty much anonymous as the scarcely believable girls who like the bad boys. The film does have its moments though, which includes a dark sense of humour and a neat running gag regarding Forrest’s invincibility. Also, to be fair to Hillcoat and Cave, they don’t profess this to be any more than what it is. There’s no character development, but this is just a snapshot of a family during a specific short time period. Whether you’re going to be interested in the story or not will be down to personal preference. It didn’t do much for me, but at least it’s better than Hillcoat’s last film, the vastly over-rated The Road.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Some may rate this higher, but for me this was more listless than lawless. Rating: 6/10.

The Hunter

I would have loved to have been there when the pitch for The Hunter was made to various film studios: “OK, so it’s about a mercenary killer from Europe who is hired by a biotech company to go undercover in Australia and hunt for the legendary last Tasmanian tiger in existence”. At first reading it sounds like something from one of those modern B-movies you see advertised at Cannes each year. It’s also the plot behind Julia Leigh’s respected (if bleak) novel of the same name from 1999. Leigh herself is not involved in the film in any way, though the script doesn’t veer too far away from her original writings. To expand on the plot outline above, the hired hand in question is Martin David (Willem Dafoe), who on arrival in Tasmania attempts to blend in with the locals by passing himself off as a researcher from a university. He ends up lodging with Lucy Armstrong (Frances O’Connor) and her young children. However, the community doesn’t take kindly to his presence and with the clandestine biotech organisation wanting results at all costs, David’s task suddenly begins to take on a more dangerous slant. Filmed entirely on location in Tasmania, director Daniel Nettheim takes full advantage of the local scenery with some fantastic shots combining both the beautiful and bleakest views that the island state has to offer. Dafoe gives one of his best performances for ages with his facial expressions telling us all we need to know in the many scenes where Nettheim smartly forgoes a soundtrack. Sam Neill (as a local guide) is also great, teasing the audience throughout as to whether he’s David’s friend or foe. On the negative side, Nettheim’s direction can’t escape his TV background and the narrative regarding a local community taking issue with an outsider has been seen a million times before. I don’t know if there’s a sub-genre of “Eco-thrillers” (The Constant Gardener, perhaps?) in film, but this would fit nicely in there. Though that description might put some off, what makes the film work is that you can watch it on various levels. On the human front, there’s David’s relationship with Lucy and her young children, the thriller edge comes in the form of David’s mission and the shadowy figures that appear to be following his progress and, finally, we have a mystery element as to whether the Tasmanian tiger is still out there and if David will find it or not (in reality it’s been classified as extinct for a long time, though there are, of course, still unsubstantiated sightings). I suppose the best thing I can say about this is that I actually saw it over three months ago and, thinking back to it now, I wouldn’t mind seeing it again as there’s more than meets the eye here when it comes to the subplots and it has a climax that will put you through the emotional wringer when David has to decide if taking one (innocent) life can be justified if it means saving many others. It’s a conclusion which is crushingly poignant and one of the most memorable scenes of the year.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Possibly too slow-burning for some, but this provides food for thought on a number of different levels. Rating: 7/10.

Skyfall

It’s been a long four years for us Bond fans since 2008’s Quantum Of Solace. That film had mixed reviews and even now it’s difficult to give it a fair appraisal, especially since the information came out that the films script had been severely compromised by the 2007 Writers Guild strike. That aside, the main problem with that film was obvious from the second it was announced that Marc Forster was going to direct it. A talent he may be when it comes to dramas (Monster’s Ball, The Kite Runner), but the Swiss-German had never directed a high octane action scene in his life. So it was hardly surprising that the most negative comments regarding Solace were about said scenes, with them being so badly edited I’m still at a loss as to what long time Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson saw on his CV to hand him such an important assignment. Still, it wasn’t a complete disaster and anyway, you can’t expect every Bond film to be a bona fide classic. Then things got a bit odder. Then downright depressing. Firstly, Sam Mendes was announced as the director of the next film. A huge talent no doubt, but an even higher eyebrow raising choice than Forster when it came to the marriage of subject matter with director. Then in April 2010, due to the financial difficulties at MGM, a press release came out saying that filming of the 23rd Bond film had been suspended indefinitely. Uh oh. However, the months and months have now passed and (a cameo appearance with The Queen aside) James Bond has finally re-emerged in Skyfall. First things first then: This is a great film. It still has its faults, but Mendes is an accomplished film maker so it’s no surprise it’s an above average addition to the Bond pantheon. It starts on a high note with the obligatory pre credits sequence. Mendes has said that 50% of the time and effort spent on the whole film was concentrated on the first 10 minutes alone. It has paid off handsomely though, as Bond (Daniel Craig) stars in a pulsating chase by car, by motorbike and, quite literally, on a train. Next up is Daniel Kleinman’s rapturous credits sequence, complimented by Adele’s theme song (making up for the somewhat limp Thomas Newman score that barely registers throughout the rest of the film). As to what actually happens plot wise I don’t want to give too much away, but this is a standalone tale and its main storyline actually revolves around M’s (Judi Dench) relationships with Bond and the villain of the piece Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem). To Mendes then. For the first hour everything about this film is beautiful. Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins are in their element with the framing, lighting and colours all coming together to give an assault on the eyes that is as subtle as it is stunning. A short fight scene involving Craig silhouetted against the bright lights of a skyscrapers advert is probably as highbrow as the franchise has ever been. In addition Stuart Baird returns as editor, doing just as great a job as he did for Casino Royale. One of the problems is that despite its beautiful visuals, Mendes scrimps on the action scenes and nothing comes remotely close to the white knuckle ride of that opening few minutes. Any further kinetic moments of magic are reduced to short bursts, as opposed to further edge of the seat set pieces. You can understand why Mendes has concentrated mainly on the characterisations (where his main strength is) during the film, but after proving he could handle the rough stuff at the beginning of the film it’s a surprise to see that there are no efforts to try and top it later on (see Martin Campbell’s Free Running versus Airport scenes in Royale to see how it’s done). On the acting front it’s all pretty good and I had forgotten that Mendes previously directed Craig in Road To Perdition and, in fact, there’s a reunion of a lot of the cast with Mendes and with each other (hats off to anyone who could remember it was Ben Whishaw (the new Q here) that blew Craig away at the end of Layer Cake). It’s Bardem that takes the acting plaudits and his appearance comes at just the right moment (as the film becomes dangerously close to becoming style over substance prior to his arrival). It’s an interesting take on a Bond villain as well as Silva is more of a hurt and confused individual as opposed to a megalomaniac or a psychopath. He’s still pretty mean though and Bardem gives him enough of a dangerous and uncaring edge that makes it believable that many are so afraid of him. As for Bond himself, Craig’s portrayal here is one of introspection as 007 is becoming somewhat world weary with the job with it taking its toll both physically and mentally. Granted, Craig’s Bond is the closest to the source material we’ve come yet, but with all the brooding looks going on it feels like Bond has lost some of his personality. This isn’t really a negative comment, more of an observation of where we are with Bond at the moment. In terms of actual duff moments, most of film’s one liners fall flat, a moment involving Q trying to break Silva’s computer encryption is all visuals and no substance and the scenes between Craig and Naomie Harris (as a field agent) lack chemistry and slow the whole thing down. Though there’s no point dissing the convenient coincidences that occur in the screenplay as this is a Bond film after all. There’s been talk of comparisons with Christopher Nolan in respect of the tone of this film and I think that’s a valid comparison (Mendes himself has mentioned it), though similarity’s with the Batman storylines are wide of the mark as frankly, which hero / superhero isn’t a tortured soul with a tragic family background? Bond films have always had a chameleonic element to them, usually segueing into what was / is the cinematic flavour at the time. Have we now lost track though of what a Bond film should actually constitute? Certain boxes will always need to be ticked to satisfy the fan base, but there’s nothing wrong with a director stamping his own signature on the film. However, for three films now we’ve had darkness and angst and whilst it has worked (and brings the films more in line with Ian Fleming’s vision of Bond), I think it’s time for Broccoli and Wilson to lighten the mood next time out. Perhaps another call to Campbell is in order? He seems to know what Bond is all about and can portray the harder tone of the times, whilst also injecting the fun and action which some may feel Skyfall lacks. In terms of Bonds next appearance, this has been pencilled in for 2014, but at least in the meantime you can go back and watch Mendes have Dench drop the f-bomb again and again……

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
As expected Mendes opts for themes over action, but with some great performances from Dench and Bardem and the most impressively artistic look to a Bond film ever, this easily makes it into the list of best Bond films and a late entrant for consideration as the best movie of 2012. Rating: 8/10.

Killer Joe

The French Connection is one of my favourite films of all time so I’ll always have a soft spot for William Friedkin. However, much like Sven-Goran Erikssons’s managerial career, he appears to have been dining out on a couple of decent results for life, whereas a closer inspection of the back catalogue reveals mostly disappointing results. Hopes have been raised with Killer Joe, though. Friedkin’s got himself some killer source material and, following his rave reviews for The Lincoln Lawyer, a re-born star in the shape of Matthew McConaughey. A return to past glories then? Unfortunately, not. However, this is still pretty good, but it’s just that you feel it could have been so much better. When Texan drug dealer Chris (Emile Hirsch) finds himself in the hole to his violent supplier he comes up with a scheme to murder his mother in order to collect the insurance money. Teaming up with his Dad (played by a comically laid back Thomas Haden Church) they hire Joe Cooper (McConaughey), a police detective who also happens to have a side line in contract killing. I won’t spoil it by saying what happens next, but as this is an example of Southern Gothic fiction I’ll let the National Endowment for the Arts commission explain what that means: “Common themes in Southern Gothic literature include deeply flawed, disturbing or disorienting characters, decayed or derelict settings, grotesque situations, and other sinister events relating to or coming from poverty, alienation, racism, crime, and violence”. So throw the above plot into this mix and you have a pretty good description of the film, which is adapted from Tracy Letts’ play of the same name and he himself writes the screenplay here. There’s no doubt the Pulitzer Prize winning author knows his stuff and the tale he weaves is twisty enough to keep you guessing about how it’ll all go down in the end. Obviously, it’ll go wrong (modern day it may be, but this is still a noir), but just how wrong and how it happens is unravelled scene by scene. Acting wise its all pretty good with Gina Gershon as Smith’s whitest of white trash step mum giving an outstanding performance. Sadly, McConaughey comes across as the weak link, though it’s more to do with his character having so many different personalities it’s hard to take him seriously as he randomly shifts from slime ball to cold hearted killer to nut job. You’ll probably be aware by now of the infamous scene involving a chicken drumstick. Some people have taken this as a moment of purest black comedy, but even though I found it pretty distasteful, the problem for me is more that it makes the signature scene in the film lose all credibility. In respect of that this earns its 18 certificate in spectacular fashion as it’s chock full of brutal and graphic violence, drugs, alcohol, sex and bad language. However, Friedkin would have been better to cut back on these excesses and concentrate more on the storyline as opposed to the shock tactics. To sum up, this comes across as a Coen Brothers film on a bucketful of steroids. To its detriment it’s just too out there.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Pretty grim stuff, but Gershon’s great performance and a twisty script just about make up for the fact that you may never be able to eat friend chicken ever again. Rating: 6/10.

Liberal Arts / The Perks Of Being A Wallflower

I’m getting a bit behind with my reviews so thought I’d try a double review again in order to catch up. I was actually thinking of doing it anyway as I watched Liberal Arts and The Perks Of Being A Wallflower back to back and both have that problem of mainly being about characters that the audience might have difficulty caring about. To Arts first, which I walked in knowing zero about and soon started to realise that Josh Radnor’s film bares a canny resemblance to a Woody Allen film in respect that Radnor appears to be basically playing a version of himself on screen. Unfortunately, this isn’t “early, funny” Woody. A quick summary is that Radnor plays Jesse Fisher, a 30-something university admissions officer who returns to his alma mater for his favourite professor’s retirement party. Whilst there he meets student Zibby (Elizabeth Olsen) and a (mainly) plutonic relationship sparks up between them. Radnor’s films suffers from a feeling of pretentiousness throughout, but to be fair to him his screenplay is an examination of relationships, ageing and reminiscing and it touches on most of these area’s enough times to give you food for thought. Arguably the men will relate to the film more than women as it is pretty much written from the male perspective, but even when I was nodding my head in acknowledge of the certain dilemmas men sometimes find themselves in when to comes to relationships my overriding feeling was that Fisher just need to grow a pair and get on with things. This is also incredibly slow moving and plenty of beautiful shots of sunsets, green grass and fancy college buildings can’t hide the fact that this is running time filler. Radnor would have been better advised to have spent more time beefing up the Richard Jenkins (as the professor) part, which, though it was obviously a plot device to aid the main plot, whenever we revisit it, it just comes across as, well, pointless. The film also suffers from these odd situations that only seem to occur in US films and TV, where pupils at University become good friends with their professors / tutors, a scenario that is virtually unknown in Europe. I suppose you could say that at least Radnor has done well to spin the plates of actor, writer and director all at once, but he really should have jettisoned in the edit a shocking performance by Zac Efron as a slacker on campus who dispels advice to Fisher whenever they bump into each other. There is one great scene though where Fisher uses a pen and paper to look at the mathematical age difference between himself and Zibby. It’s short and hilarious and makes you wonder why Radnor couldn’t have come up with more moments like this. When your main character’s a drip though, your film is always going to struggle. Wallflower has a similar problem in terms of its protagonists grating (this time it’s lots of young, rich, good looking teenagers, who you wouldn’t mind slapping) but it pulls away from Arts and becomes a better film thanks to a few decent performances and some twists in the script which although some may find change the tone too much, at least try to take us out of our comfort zone. Continuing the comparisons with Arts, based on his novel of the same name, director and scripter Stephen Chbosky’s film is based in an educational establishment and also concerns the problems of age differences in relationships. This time though it’s more of a study in adolescence as introverted freshman Charlie (Logan Lerman) joins a social circle of seniors who introduce him to the ways of the (young) world, where he falls for the (slightly) older Sam (Emma Watson). This actually reminded me of another film concerning a high school character called Charlie (Jon Poll’s Bartlett from 2007), though Chbosky’s take is less satirical and aims more for the heart. It just about works thanks to Lerman’s decent turn where he combines naivety with a hidden darkness. Even better is Ezra Miller (as flamboyant friend Patrick) getting the chance to show a lot more acting chops (though he could be accused for hamming it up too much at times) than he did as the miserable teen killer in We Need To Talk About Kevin. The film has raised interest as this is Watson’s first mainstream role since some sort of film series starring a young boy wizard or something. However, the marketing is a bit mis-leading as she doesn’t appear for long periods of the film and when she does there isn’t much on show to say she’ll be securing leading parts anytime soon. There’s an eclectic soundtrack that gives music buffs a treat, but that does lead to a serious duff note in one of the films key scenes where the characters, despite being purveyors of all things musical, appear to have never heard of David Bowie’s hit Heroes. Allegedly there were copyright issues which meant the scene was shot before it was certain what piece of music was going to be used, but even that could have been sorted in the edit or alternate takes shot at the time, surely? Overall though Wallflower is a far better film than Arts, but it still boils down to how much teenage angst you can take on the big screen.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Probably a bit unfair to compare with each other, but Flowers beat Arts due to its better script and performances. Liberal Arts, Rating: 4/10. Wallflower, Rating: 6/10.

Chernobyl Diaries

It’s never a good sign when a film isn’t screened in advance and perhaps this has skewed opinion when it’s come to reviewing Bradley Parker’s Chernobyl Diaries. Not many positive notices out there, but I’m always inclined to give first time director’s the benefit of the doubt and, whilst this may cover all the standard trope’s of a basic horror film, at least Parker gets them right, i.e. take a group of good looking unheard of (usually) American actors, dump them in a remote location and the let the carnage begin. In this instance the template revolves around a group of tourists who take an “extreme” tour to the abandoned city of Pripyat, the former home of the workers of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. Suffice to say it doesn’t turn out to be one for the photo album. There’s a few decent jump scares here (the screenplay was partly written by Oren Peli) and Parker has fun utilising the darkness of the night whenever he can. Plus, a few scenes have the tension impressively stretched out to an almost unbearable level. There’s scant characterisation, but that’s no surprise. Perhaps what is, is that the special effects are somewhat disappointing, especially when you consider that Parker has a healthy CV in that area. Having said that, and if you can believe what you read, the budget for this film was just over $1 million and Parker and the producers have got a lot out of such a relatively small amount. Acting wise there’s nothing to write home about apart from the performance of Dimitri Diatchenko as the tour guide. Who, he? Despite that name Diatchenko is a born and bred Californian who for many years has been the go to man in the US when a flawless Russian accent is needed. Catch him here to hear it in its full glory (and to check out his overall impressive acting performance) and to then win £5 off your mates when you tell them he’s actually a Yankee. Some charities have expressed their reservations saying the plot is insensitive to those who died and were injured in the Chernobyl disaster, but I’ve no truck with that argument as you could apply it to any film that’s made money from a grim subject matter (every war film ever made for starters). Overall there’s nothing new here and the ending is a bit of a mis-step, but it’s a decent effort from minimal resources and, at only 86 minutes in length, can you really go wrong?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Ticks all the boxes marked “Routine”, but the premise should pique the interest of horror / non-horror fans alike. Rating: 6/10.

Your Sister's Sister

Your Sister’s Sister is one of those films that doesn’t scream out for an audience to come running to watch it, but if you’re suffering from the blockbuster blues this should provide a mild antidote, though it’s unlikely you’d ever watch it again, let alone encourage anyone else to have a gander. This has been bracketing by some people into the mumble core genre, but I think that’s slightly unfair in this instance. Though the set up does suggest some serious navel gazing, as Iris (Emily Blunt) suggests to her friend Jack (Mark Duplass) that he should take some time off at her family’s island getaway in order to help get over the death of his brother. However, on his arrival he discovers that Iris’s cagey sister Hannah (Rosemarie DeWitt) is already staying there. A few drunken antics later lead to something more serious when Iris arrives out of the blue. What follows next is one of the odder films you’ll see regarding the old love triangle scenario and your enjoyment will probably rest on your tolerance for young good looking people hanging around and whining about their (self-inflicted) problems. Written and directed by Lynn Shelton, this was shot in under two weeks and large parts of it were improvised. Though the acting from Blunt and DeWitt (filling in after Rachel Weisz dropped out due to scheduling conflicts) is fine, you can’t help feel that Shelton has done little to push their performances further. This is also shown with Duplass (who Shelton also directed in her previous film Humpday). Each to their own of course, but Jack’s character needs an injection of personality, as to suggest that Blunt and DeWitt would be interested in the personality free hangdog expressive Duplass is pushing it a bit. Shelton’s minimal direction doesn’t do much to suggest this is no more than a stage play being given the big screen treatment, but there are enough twists in the plot to keep you intrigued until the end, though some will find the ambiguous ending highly frustrating.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
As they say, if you like this kind of thing…….Rating: 6/10.

Taken 2

It’s kind of hard to recall now, but back in 2008 when Taken was released it raised some serious eyebrows with its shock choice of Liam Neeson in the lead role. Frankly he hadn’t been cast as an action star since, well, ever. It was a nice surprise then to see that he could kick the required arse as Neeson killed everyone in the entire world and director Pierre Morel whipped the camera around as quick as possible in the hope that no-one would spend too much time concentrating on the somewhat dodgy portrayal of eastern Europeans. It was stupendously silly, but become a cult hit when it appeared on the DVD shelves. Now we have a sequel and, if you already thought that there was no need for one, watching it will only confirm what you already suspected. This is a real mess. So much so I can’t be bothered to go into much detail except to say that the relatives of the bad guys Bryan Mills (Neeson) bumped off in the first film are out for revenge here against Mills and his family. It takes forever to get going and the action is as tame as a newborn kitten when it eventually all kicks off. The reason for this will be unsurprising to the regular cinema goer. I’ve been saying for years that the 12/12A certificates are the biggest reason for some terribly below average films, especially in the action genre. Here director Olivier Megaton has cut the film in such a way that it’s virtually bloodless and the carnage incoherently edited. The lowest point being where Neeson offs someone by gently pushing their head back against a wall. It actually looks like the reel has skipped in the projector. Perhaps its harsh to completely blame Megaton (I expect he’s been ordered by the studio), but I think someone with more clout than him would have stood his ground a bit more. Even if you can get past all that, the plot itself is so incomprehensibly silly you’ll be slapping your forehead in disbelief as the “story” progresses. I can’t stop myself (spoiler my arse) from revealing the worst bit where Neeson spends the final moments of the film tracing back his steps in an elaborate memory recall procedure (“Man playing instrument? Turn left!”) in order to discover where his wife is being held. One problem here. About 30 minutes earlier Neeson himself had escaped from exactly the same location. You would have thought he might remember where it was…..

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Taken….for a ride! Rating: 3/10.

Sinister

Sinister. No, not a film about Michael Bay’s impact on the history of cinema, rather the latest spook fest from the producers behind Insidious. In fact, if you’ve seen the trailer for Sinister it certainly bares more than a passing resemblance to James Wan’s creepy film from last year and, whilst trying not to give too much away, the main plot strand isn’t too dissimilar either. However, feelings of déjà vu aside, Sinister has enough to it to stand on its own two legs and, though it’s not as much fun as Insidious, it’s still a decent enough companion piece. It certainly grabs the attention from the start with a 30 second scene of grainy Super 8 footage (Spielberg et al rejoice!) showing a family being slowly hanged from a tree. You’ll unlikely to see an uneasier opening to a film for the rest of the year. We then move into the crux of the story where one hit wonder non-fiction crime writer Ellison Osborne (Ethan Hawke) and family move into a new house, during which Osborne discovers a box of Super 8 films in the attic. Dipping into one of the films, Ellison finds himself watching the aforementioned footage from the opening of the film. Though he was surprised to find the box (and subsequent murders on the other film reels), he isn’t surprised by the content as he has purposely moved into the house where the murders occurred in order to help him write his new novel about said crimes. Of course, nothing can go wrong with that idea, can it? To say much more will give the game away, but if you’re of a nervous disposition the film will give you the required scares and a general feeling of discomfort. More seasoned horror veteran’s enjoyment will hinge on how you feel the negatives weigh up against the positives. Some of the bad stuff is fairly annoying. To wit: Within the first two minutes of the film Osborne’s young daughter draws a sinister looking girl on her bedroom wall, but her parents seem nonplussed by it; Osborne spends huge chunks of the film meandering around the house at night chasing loud noises and falling through floors, but this never seems to disturb the other members of the family; the films best scare has already been ruined by the trailer and the “villain” bears an uncanny resemblance to the Predator. There’s plenty of good stuff though. Going back to Osborne’s nightly wanderings, most of the scares / jumps are utilised via resorting to the old standard of using the soundtrack. Old hat it may be, but I saw this in a colossal cinema with a spanking new THX audio system and it was still highly effective. Talking of the sound it’s also hats off to director Scott Derrickson (more of him in a moment) and composer Christopher Young for a highly effective soundtrack. The clever choice of songs employed during the Super 8 footage adds a further level of unease and Young’s main score is as catchy as it is bizarre. Talking of the murder clips they are grim stuff and some will find them highly disturbing, with the “Lawn Work” one a superb example from Derrickson of how to build up unbearable tension before the gruesome pay off. As for Derrickson himself he does a good job here and banishes the memories of his last outing, the abysmal The Day The Earth Stood Still remake from 2008 (John Cleese, anyone?), by moving things along at pace and not worrying too much about the rum parts of the plot. He also employs (intentionally, I hope) an outrageous homage to the most famous scene from Strangers on a Train. All in all there’s something for most people here who like their horror, but it’s a bit too dark overall and could have done with a light touch in certain areas that make films like, well, Insidious, such an enjoyable ride.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Derrickson’s experience on The Exorcism of Emily Rose helps him steer this through some of its sillier moments and he gives us a film that is unsettling for the majority of its running time. Rating: 7/10.

Killing Them Softly

I approached this with some caution as the last time director Andrew Dominik teamed up with Brad Pitt they gave us the snooze-athon that was The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. The problem with that film was that it was all style and no substance, plus it also must have made some sort of cinematic record by having virtually nothing happen during it’s three hour running time. Well, for Killing Them Softly the running time problem has been resolved (this is a mere 90 minutes) but, somewhat unbelievably, you’ll leave the cinema thinking did actually anything happen in this film, either? The set up is thus: Adapted from the 1974 novel Cogan's Trade by George V. Higgins, Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) is a professional enforcer / hitman who is asked to step in and investigate a heist that occurs during a mob-protected card game. That spells bad news for the protagonists of said stick up, played by Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn  (both great with very different style of performances as their characters dictate). So with support from Richard Jenkins, Ray Liotta and James Gandolfini, this sounds a bit of a cracker right? Wrong. Rather than a neat little drama / thriller, this is more a number of character vignettes just bungled together to make up a screenplay. Though if you do feel yourself drifting off at any point, Dominik throws in some meaty violence to jolt you awake (a beating that Liotta takes is brutal), though some of it is desensitised by computer effects. A recent film this could be a distant cousin of is Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive, a film that also went for art over matter. The biggest difference is that Refn has a serious eye for detail (though that eye fails to work when it comes to the edit and coaxing great performances from his cast), whereas Dominik is more of a performance man. At least that means the acting in this film is superb from virtually all involved, with Jenkins (as the bad suited down to earth go-between for Cogan and the big cheese’s) and Gandolfini the standouts. Gandolfini in particular captures the attention in his short appearances (particularly stealing the film) as a frenemy enforcer of Cogan. His character is repulsive and it’s hats off to Gandolfini for making the audience so uneasy with the few minutes he has on screen. As I mentioned earlier, this film is basically just a lot of people sitting around talking. Nothing wrong with that of course, but when they actually have very little to discuss it starts to drag very quickly. Even Dominik realises this as in some scenes the camera trickery and effects come into play, but, much like the drug taking scene where this is utilised most effectively, is it all just a smoke screen? The worst thing about the film though is Dominik’s constant references to the US financial meltdown with virtually every scene turning into a discussion of the mighty dollar (or perhaps unmighty as Dominik would have it here). I was thinking it’s pretty lame to have a gangster story dressed up as a metaphor for monetary breakdown and was giving Dominik the benefit of the doubt until the very final scene where Pitt angrily intones “America isn’t a country. America is a business!”. Talk about having a point forced down your throat. The fact that the original cut for this was 150 minutes long pretty much sums it up really. The studio’s taken out a whole hour and this still struggles to keep the attention. By that reckoning it sounds like Dominik's career is running out of minutes to play with.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Others will no doubt rate this higher, but with very little happening and not much direction from Dominik I don’t think it warrants it. Rating: 5/10.

Red Lights

Rodrigo Cortes' last film was the technically impressive, if overly praised, Buried. For Red Lights Cortes has a much wider palette in which to mix his ideas and he gives us a film that will be written off as corny and far fetched by some, but still gives enough thrills and food for thought to make the price of the cinema ticket worthwhile. Paranormal investigator Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver) and her assistant Tom Buckley (Cillian Murphy) spend the majority of their time researching, and then exposing, bizarre occurances. Seemingly finding this too easy the re-appearance out of the blue of world famous psychic Simon Silver (Robert De Niro) gives them a harder target to expose. However, is Silver really a fake? The list is as long of my arm of recent films that deal with a similar subject matter (i.e. sceptics who debunk unexplained phenomena discovers phenomena that they really can't explain), so what makes this one stand out? Well, nothing really, but it makes sure the things it does well out shine the lesser moments. Similar to Chris Sparling's screenplay for Buried, Cortes (doubling as writer here) makes the smart decision to keep his characters in the dark as much as the audience as to whether Silver is a fraud or not, helped in no part by Murphy's smart performance as the increasingly befuddled and unnerved Buckley. Weaver and De Niro fare less well, but that's more to do with their parts, which are more ciphers for Buckley to feed off as opposed to well rounded characters. This isn't really scary (most of the jumps are of the loud music variety, though some are still effective), but what it lacks in thrills in makes up for in mental stimulation. This genre of film always draws an audience due to it's subject matter. Whether it's ghostly goings on, demonic possessions or paranormal activity our interest is drawn to the topic as, whether you're a sceptic or not, no-one can prove 100% that one party is wrong and the other is correct. Cortes' himself has said that the film is for entertainment purposes only and doesn't reflect his actual feelings on the subject matter, but the conclusion (with its nice twist) suggests which way his viewpoint may lean. In addition, you can't knock Cortes' commitment here as he spent 18 months researching this topic. Regardless of that, this film is similar to his previous effect in that fact that (arguably) it's only an average production, but its certainly intriguing enough for you to dip your toe in to check out its temperature.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Entertains more often than not, aided by Murphy's nice turn and a subject matter that always intrigues. Rating: 7/10.

Salmon Fishing In The Yemen

Salmon Fishing In The Yemen is one of those books where you may have heard of the title, but only a few people will actually be able to name the author (Paul Torday, to give him his due). After watching this film it’s possible you may have a similar experience if a few months down the line someone asked you about it. You’ll probably be able to tell people what it was about (the clue’s in the title or something), but in terms of what actually happens I expect you’ll be floundering like a fish in a desert. What does happen is that Fred Jones (Ewan McGregor), a government expert on the salmon industry, is pressured by the PM into helping a wealthy Yemeni sheikh (Amr Waked) introduce the sport of salmon fishing to his desert country. He’s aided by consultant Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Emily Blunt), who Fred falls for, but Fred is already married and Harriet is traumatised due to her soldier boyfriend being declared missing in action. Reading all that back, it sounds a bit over the top. The film succeeds though if you don’t take it too seriously. There’s plenty of social and class differences hinted at, but the film doesn’t ram it down the viewer’s throats and is all the better for it. Whether the filmmakers did this by choice or if it’s occurred by chance is harder to work out though. Veteran Swedish director Lasse Hallstrom calls the shots here and he’s a safe pair of hands for such material, though he doesn’t quite put the audience through the emotional wringer like he’s done in the past, but I put that down to the fact that the actual characters aren’t overly sympathetic. McGregor and Blunt are both fine on the acting front (though hardly believable as a couple), but its Kristin Scott Thomas as the foul-mouthed ball busting press secretary to the Prime Minister who steals the film. She’s basically a female version of Malcolm Tucker and the movie goes up a gear whenever she appears. Overall, despite the big issues which propel the story along, this is light stuff and is more suited to a Sunday afternoon viewing at home (or, dare I say it…a book?) as opposed to the big screen treatment.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Some dry laughs to be had in a film which, at times, is as odd as its title. Rating: 7/10.

The Raid

Hear the one about the Indonesian action film from a year ago that was directed by a Welshman? Don’t worry, you’re not alone. However, following its appearance at a number of film festivals towards the end of 2011, the positive reaction generated has now meant a worldwide release for Gareth Evans’ The Raid. This is one of those films that gets snapped up by studios based on viewing the first 20 minutes only. The reason for that in this case? Well it’s stylishly directed, bone crunchingly violent and completely bonkers. Telling the story of rookie policeman Rama (Iko Uwais) and a SWAT team who raid a criminal ridden derelict high rise in Jakarta in order to take down a crime lord, the first half of the film flies by in a blur of guns, knives, fists and feet. Once the dust settles though things become a bit more mundane with a plot device involving Rama’s bad guy bro (has there even been an Asian martial arts released where this isn’t the case?) and the fighting focusing on the traditional Indonesian martial art of Pencak silat. This is a shame as the first 45 minutes threatens to be one of the films of the year, especially when the fridge’s and axes start flying about as well. This was originally planned to be a prison gang movie (a trailer was even shot) before fiscal problem meant the script was completely re-written which formed the basis for this film. This could partially explain why the mayhem subsides in the latter half of the film, but for fans of broken bones and claret on the walls, don’t worry as that is pretty consistent throughout the running time. Uwais isn’t a great actor, but he can certainly kick the required arse. Ironically it’s the films blistering start and Evans’ no nonsense direction that also proves to be one of the films handicaps. There’s so much mayhem going on that you can’t really invest much emotion in too many of the protagonists (especially the SWAT team with their similar get up from person to person) and things fly by so quickly that even when you have learnt one of the characters names there’s a good chance they’ll be knife or bullet fodder seconds later. The film also suffers from the old choreographed look that many martial arts suffer from, highlighted towards the end of the film where a dust up between three of the main characters just goes on forever and actually elicits boredom rather than sweaty palms. However, with a US remake in the works you better check this out before there’s a version out there staring Statham, Li, Tatum et al…..

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Enjoyably outrageous mayhem. Shame it runs out of steam towards the end. Rating: 7/10.

The Possession

I’ve managed to miss most of the run of the mill horror films that have appeared over the last few months so I thought I’d make an effort to see The Possession. The film is based on the allegedly haunted real life Dybbuk box, which is an interesting enough tale in its own right. Luckily, whether you believe that story or not is irrelevant when it comes to enjoying the film as, hokum or not, this is a quick (though very silly) enjoyable little thriller. Thriller? OK, this is clearly marketed as a horror, but with very few jumps or scares this will only chill the bones of peeps with the most nervous of dispositions. To that box, then. After it’s picked up at a yard sale by teenager Em (Natasha Calis), she begins to display increasingly erratic behaviour. When the blood-letting begins father Clyde (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) suspects the box must have something to do with what is going on and starts to delve a little deeper. The actual story line is pretty basic, but this isn’t without its moments though, including a nice scene where Em’s face is distorted through numerous glass jars and an MRI scan that shows up a lot more than just a side strain. Newcomer Calis is pretty good as the young girl who the spirit from the box takes a fancy too, with her blank eyed expression a lot more terrifying than the scenes where the makeup makes her resemble a moody teenage goth. Dean Morgan is also good value as the flawed every day Dad of teenage girls. Unknown Danish director Ole Bornedal also moves things along at pace so you don’t really have time to be distracted by the numerous plot holes, but even he can’t hide the most obvious one of all. In a number of scenes the Dybbuk attacks people despite being locked up inside the box. So the whole premise behind the crux of the film (i.e. trying to lock the demon away inside the box) is pretty much redundant anyway! Still, in a film where it’s made clear that a person is possessed by the amount of food they eat, it’s probably best not to worry about these things….

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Few scares, but enough thrills to pass the time until the next scare of the month rolls off the conveyor belt. Rating: 6/10.

The Sweeney

So, this is a Nick Love film, mainly about East End cops and robbers, starring Ray Winstone and Ben Drew (aka Plan B). The answer to the first obvious question? Not that I was timing it, but I think it was about the 12 minute mark when I first heard someone call someone else a "cant". As you've already probably guessed, apart from a few characters, this film version of The Sweeney bares little resemblance to the much loved TV series from the 1970's. In effect this should be reviewed as a standalone effort, but it's difficult to forget about its roots. In this version with have Jack Regan (Winstone) and George Carter (Drew), members of a Flying Squad in London, who go about their business of nicking criminals by any means necessary and worrying about the consequences later. Unsurprisingly this film is cliches galore. Regan has a shadowy informant that gives him tips (Alan Ford in a small role that somewhat confusingly is never really explained), the bad guys have maps and pictures on the walls of their hideouts and when one character gives another one a piece of jewellery before they attempt to stop a theft occurring you just know that the bookies will have at that instance closed the account on whether that person survives the next 15 minutes or not. As for nods to the TV series there are a few to listen out for, but this bears little resemblance to the glory days of John Thaw and Dennis Waterman. This is particularly obvious when it comes to Winstone's portrayal of Regan. Whereas in the TV series Regan was a lovable rouge, here he's a bit of a, well, "cant". Plus, the side storyline that Winstone is bedding hot married copper Hayley Atwell is pretty unbelievable. Obviously Winstone is the senior partner here in terms of the acting side of things, so it's not a surprise that the film concentrates mainly on him. It's a shame though as there is zero chemistry between him and a sidelined Drew throughout the picture. In effect this could have just as easily have been called Regan as opposed to The Sweeney. Where the film does score highly though is during an extended bank robbery / chase sequence in the middle of the film that has the loudest guns since Heat and an impressive (in terms of the difficulty they must have had in filming in such an iconic location) shoot out / foot race through Trafalgar Square. It's decent stuff and proof that Love can pull out the stops when required. It's a shame then that the film doesn't kick on from there and eventually meekly pitters out, culminating in a short run of the mill car chase. In fact, the whole plot is pretty thin and you'd expect more from co-scripter (and Danny Boyle cohort) John Hodge. Overall it's all quite hokey, but it somehow does just enough to stop it from landing in clunker territory. Love's style of film making (or, perhaps more to the point, the content of his films) isn't to everyone's liking, but The Sweeney is more than passable, doesn't pretend to be more than what it is and perhaps further kudos should go to Love for sticking to his guns and making his version rather than one with an Americanised style (what the studio allegedly pestered him for). Londoners will also enjoy location spotting and there's some breathtaking helicopter shots of the smoke to enjoy. It's just a shame that Lorne Balfe's loud and obtrusive score spoils a lot of them (and a lot of other scenes as well). 

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Exactly what you would have expected in terms of director, actors and material. Certainly no more though. Rating: 6/10.

Men In Black 3

Right, hands up anyone who can remember anything about Men In Black 2, or even what year it was released in. Well it was ten years ago that Agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) were getting up to, err, stuff, and as Hollywood's original ideas well has been running dry for a while now it's time for more alien based shenanigans involving men in dark glasses and smartly pressed suits. The way audiences are these days director Barry Sonnenfeld and executive producer Steven Spielberg could just have recycled the same plot and gags from the previous two movies and this would still have made gazillions at the box office, so it's hats off to them that they've actually put a bit of thought into the screenplay in respect of the history of the characters and the MIB universe. We start off with a bang as Boris The Animal (Jemaine Clement) escapes from a maximum security prison on the moon (the actual breakout is surprisingly brutal) with the intention of travelling back in time to 1969 in order to kill K, his arresting Agent. When J suddenly finds himself in a world where no-one has heard of K, he suspects that Boris has somehow achieved his mission and therefore decides to travel back in time himself in order to save K's life. Basically from there you have the usual scenes you'd expect from a MIB story, but the ten year break between films has actually been a blessing as though nothing here (the aliens, the wisecracks) really feels all that original, it doesn't feel particularly stale either. The time traveller out of his element is an old film and TV staple, but the script doesn't try to make too many gags on this front and the film is all the better for it. What's most impressive about the film was that shooting began before the script was even half-finished. However main writer Etan Cohen (not a typo, this is a different, unrelated Cohen) with aid from David Koepp and Jeff Nathanson (helping to put the memory of Crystal Skull to bed) have taken their time to unknot the twists of the time travelling skeleton and leave meat on the bone that is as far away from anachronisms and continuity errors as best they can. I suppose it's also fairly impressive that Sonnenfeld himself got the gig after alleged conflicts on the set of MIB 2, lawsuits regarding payments and the fact his last film was the risible RV in 2006. Acting wise Smith does his usual goofy / confused / smarmy combo, but it's Josh Brolin who takes the plaudits with his performance as the young K, complete with spot on tonal impression of Lee Jones. Clement is also good value, though he's lost under a ton of make up (On that front see if you can spot a brief cameo from special effects guru Rick Baker as well). On the negative side this isn't as funny as it thinks it is (a number of one-liners fall flat) and the brief commentary on racial attitudes in the 1960's is shoe horned in and sticks out like a sore thumb. Overall though this is a lot better than what you might expect, especially in it's final scene which is not only thrilling, but which also ends on a surprisingly moving note.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Unexpected fun, but I'm not sure we need a fourth part. Hang on a sec, this made $624M at the box office. Fourth film green lit and coming your way.....Rating: 7/10.

The Angels' Share

Back in 1966 Ken Loach's calling card, Cathy Come Home, was a portrayal of the working-class and the hardships they live under. Over the ensuing 45 years since that landmark production he's rarely ventured from that template and his new film, The Angels' Share, is no exception. This won the Jury Prize at Cannes 2012 (Loach has always been a darling of that festival), but is it really that great? The story line concerns Robbie (Paul Brannigan), a young father who narrowly avoids a prison sentence, and a number of other peeps who end up doing community service instead of stir. Kind hearted community leader Harry (John Henshaw) decides to take the gang on a trip to a distillery where Robbie and cohorts show some hitherto skill in whisky tasting. Is this the chance for the gang to put past misdemeanours behind them and start afresh in life? Yes and no. As with all Loach films the biggest problem for the audience is how much sympathy you have with the protagonists. Loach doesn't apologise or give an excuse for a shocking act of violence by Robbie at the start of the film and the overall screenplay basically condones any further crime that Robbie and his friends commit. Loach's politics are well documented and here, once again, he's saying "There, but for the grace of God, goes you". Whether you agree or not could make or break this film for you. Though Loach always strives for social realism whenever he can, Robbie and his clan are all a bit too caricatured here (there's the smart one, the dumb one etc). This does lead to many laughs though, virtually all of the black variety, with the opening scene of a train station announcer trying to get a drunk off the tracks pretty much summing it up. The young unknown Scottish cast are all decent enough (though you'll need subtitles at some points to get past the accents), but it's the veteran actors who shine out, especially the excellent Henshaw. This is quite a dark film, but it does have moments of sunlight that shine through and only the stoniest of hearts won't have cracked by the end when Harry receives an unexpected gift from Robbie. This won't convert anyone who finds Loach too preachy or his direction too minimalist, but there aren't many directors around who, as in this film, can make the entire audience gasp in shock at something as simple as the act of saying "Cheers" to someone.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This is standard Loach, but if he's not making films like this anymore who else will? Rating: 7/10.

 

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

Mel Gibson’s colourful (ahem) personal life means that he’s box office poison to most studios these days so from now on expect him to be popping up in fare such as this, i.e. relatively smallish budget films that only secure a minimal release, before disappearing from sight probably never to be heard of again. However, if you do manage to catch How I Spent My Summer Vacation (or Get the Gringo in North America – more on that later) you’ll be in for a pleasant surprise as, though this isn’t anything world beating, it is a short sharp film with some punchy dialogue and even punchier violence. Written by Gibson and director Adrian Grunberg the film stars Gibson as “The Gringo”, a US citizen who finds himself in a Mexican prison, who befriends a young boy who is being kept in the prison in order to have his kidney “stolen” by a crime boss. Gibson thrives in roles such as this (i.e. a good man with rough edges or vice versa) and turns in the required performance here. Most crucial of all though is that, even though this is full of silly stereotypes it’s still told in such a way that you do actually feel something for the characters so hats off to Gibson and Grunberg for that. Talking of Grunberg, he’s been an AD and the like on many films now going back over the last 15 years or so, including on a couple of previous Gibson pictures, which probably explains how this has come to be his debut feature. He does inject the film though with a touch of visual flare and handles the action scenes well including the opening of the film which is as thrilling as it is funny. The screenplay does go a bit all over the place at times though, including a bizarre scene involving a fake meeting with Clint Eastwood and the overall set up of the prison and why it exists is taken too long to address. As mentioned above Gibson’s reputation now goes so far ahead of him that this didn’t even get a cinema release in the US (though it did appear via the Video On Demand service as Gibson claimed this will be the way future films will eventually be released. You’re not fooling anyone there I’m afraid Gibbo). Oddly enough though the film was first released in Israel, which is the type of real life irony that even the movies can’t match.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
If you can put your personal feelings about the man aside, this is one of Gibson’s best performances for a while and Grunberg could be one to watch in the future. Rating: 7/10.

The Dictator

It seems that Sacha Baron Cohen has been the victim of his own success. As Ali G he was able to trick the great and the good into making fools of themselves on a weekly basis, but when he made the move to doing the same trick on film (with Borat) his options suddenly started to dry up as people starting to recognise him on a much wider scale. The result was Bruno, which cut down on the interactions with the general public and replaced them with plenty of gross out humour, much to the detriment of the finished film. In addition any scenes which involved hanging Americans by their own rope had already started to fell old hat (or maybe felt hat in that instance). So now Baron Cohen has had to leave his mockumentaries behind and shoot a “straight” production instead, that being The Dictator. Admiral General Shabazz Aladeen (Baron Cohen) rules over the (fictional) country of Wadiya with an iron fist, but when he is double crossed by his uncle Tamir (Ben Kingsley) in New York he finds himself lost on the streets of the Big Apple whilst a double takes his place. Soon enough he meets Zoey (Anna Faris), the owner of an alternative lifestyle shop, and attempts to gain his crown back. As you can imagine it’s all outrageously silly and Baron Cohen blends nicely into the main role. There’s two main problems with the film though. The first is that, despite a few decent scenes (Aladeen using signs in a restaurant as fake names being one of the better ones), it isn’t all that funny and many times the same joke is repeated. Numerous scenes appear to be badly improvised as well and drag on for too long looking for one last laugh and the cut should have been made in the editing room a lot sooner. The director here is US TV comedy veteran Larry Charles, but it’s not clear what he can really bring to the show in a production such as this. The other problem is that the storyline is nothing new and anyone who’s seen Duck Soup or The Great Dictator will know the same political points were being made 80 years ago, arguably at a much more dangerous time for the protagonists. Baron Cohen has lost his edge here and mocking modern dictators is hardly cutting edge comedy (TV shows have been doing it for a long long time now). What sums it up best for me is that the UN refused Baron Cohen permission to shoot within the UN building. When the same thing happened to Alfred Hitchcock when he was filming North By Northwest in the 1950’s he just ignored them and used a hidden camera. Would the Baron Cohen of 10 years have given up so easily?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The law of diminishing returns appears to have set in for Baron Cohen. Let’s hope for an improvement next time round. Rating: 4/10.

The Lucky One

The Lucky One is a romantic drama starring Zac Efron. Now, for those people still reading…..Based on Nicholas Sparks’ novel of the same name (I may have lost more people here as well) Efron stars as Logan Thibault, (where does Sparks get these monikers from?) a US Marine (suspend disbelief people, this is a film, remember) who narrowly escapes death in Iraq when he is distracted by a picture of a pretty girly (Taylor Schilling) lying on the ground. Returning from his tour Thibault suffers from survivor’s guilt and decides to track down said woman in the picture who “saved” him. Though I’ve never read any of his novels I’ve seen plenty of films based on Sparks’ output and they’re all pretty formulaic. This is certainly no different, though it does have a bit more of an edge to it than previous productions. This is probably helped by having Scott Hicks behind the camera, but he appears to be a bit rusty (this is his first film in three years and only first fifth in the last sixteen) as to what works and what doesn’t and it feels a long time since his Shine calling card. As for Efron, his acting is bizarre here. Though he’s obviously trying to rid himself of his High School Musical background his performance as Thibault is so downplayed that he comes across as a wooden marionette suffering from monologism. Any skills he showed in the (albeit less serious) Me and Orson Welles are no-where to be seen. Blythe Danner is good though as the (kindly) interfering mother and gives a performance that the film doesn’t really deserve. So, plenty of schmaltz, plenty of cliché’s, plenty for Sparks’ lovers to enjoy. Though it’s more likely to be endurance rather than enjoyment for most.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
If you’re a Sparks (wo)man then this is everything you’d expect. Knock a mark off though if you like your screenplays a little broader. Rating: 6/10.

Ted

This is Family Guy guru Seth MacFarlane’s feature length directorial debut and much like that TV show it’s odd, offensive and childish. Crucially, much like MacFarlane’s calling card, it’s also very funny. Beginning in 1985 we come upon John Bennett, a lonely young boy who wishes his large teddy bear will come to life and be his friend. Bennett’s wish comes true and “Ted” becomes a celebrity (of sorts) before hitting a downward spiral. We then move onto the modern day setting of the film where Ted (voiced by MacFarlane himself) and Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) are living together, trying to avoid work where ever possible and only really concerned about where the next beer or bong is coming from. However, John’s girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis), thinks it could be time for the two “boys” to go their separate ways. So to the obvious first question, yes, there’s plenty of offensive humour here, though not quite as much as you’d expect. Also, though this isn’t really a gross out comedy it’s still been marketed at that young-ish type of crowd. It’s ironic then that most of the pop culture reference jokes (mainly for people in their 30’s) will go over their heads. In effect though this is pretty clever from MacFarlane as it means that, whilst not everyone will get all the gags, there is still humour for all thrown in. For every every smart gag there’s a poo or fart joke just round the corner. The comedy helps to gloss over a very thin script, as it’s basically a quasi-bromance flushed out with the girl coming between two best friends standard. On the acting front Wahlberg gives his usual no more than average performance and I’m not sure why Kunis accepted such a window dressing role. Also the character of Ted himself (which is achieved through some impressive special effects, including a great mash up with the Johnny Carson show) changes too much from scene to scene. For example, he shows himself to be a superb fighter in an hilarious dust up with John but later is as meek as kitten when the plot takes a darker twist. Much better on the acting front are the smaller roles of Giovanni Ribisi (as a Ted stalker) and Joel McHale (as Lori’s slimey boss), plus there are a few amusing cameos to spot. But it’s MacFarlane himself who gives the best comic performance of all. Already a gifted voice actor he’s in his element here and when he gets Ted doing impressions of other people it brings the house down. Recently MacFarlane has hinted that he would be open to a sequel, but I’d say that this is a one-stop shop idea only.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Certainly not to everyone’s tastes, but very funny if you like this kind of thing. Rating: 7/10.

Prometheus

There’s that old saying that whilst some people enjoy movies others like films. There’s also a third option though and one that most people would say hasn’t been seen since the 1970’s, that of cinema. Personally I’d put Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood as recent evidence of that latter category, but Ridley Scott’s new film Prometheus is also a throwback to the days of grand sweeping camera shots, wide angle framing and minimal dialogue. Or at least it is for the first hour of its running time. We begin with one of the most breathtaking openings in film (sorry cinema) this year, as Scott’s camera zooms over the beautiful scenery of Iceland (doubling as…well you’ll find out) before a humanoid Alien pops up from a spaceship and appears to commit suicide by drinking a dark liquid. Next we come across a group of scientists who discover a star map which they believe if followed correctly will give an answer to the origins of mankind (Oh yeah, it’s the late 21st century by the way). What follows next is too complex to go into, but we have the classic spaceship on a mission scenario with the crew starting off in stasis whilst being looked over by the obligatory android (Michael Fassbender). Let’s talk the good stuff first. Fassbender is superb. Seemingly based on David Bowie’s alien in The Man Who Fell To Earth (heck, Fassbender’s robot is even called David in this), Fassbender gives a brilliantly disconnected performance as a non-humanoid, seemingly innocent as to the ways of his flesh and bone companions, but always giving the impression that there’s a lot more going on underneath. Of the two female leads Noomi Rapace is also good, but Charlize Theron as the ball breaking corporate bitch is unconvincing (which is odd considering her great turn in Snow White and The Huntsman). As for Guy Pearce (unrecognisable under a ton of make-up), well, you’ll have to ask him why he signed on. In terms of the visuals Scott has always had a remarkable eye and, aided by cinematographer Dariusz Wolski, lays on a feast for your peepers. In terms of the sets Scott convinced the big wigs at Fox to invest millions of dollars in getting a load of scientists and artists to develop a vision of the late 21st century. To me it actually looked quite retro, but it certainly looks cool. Thumbs up to Scott as well for sticking to his guns and not compromising his vision in order to get a lower certificate. This is shown in the scene involving Rapace and a surgical procedure which is not only toe curlingly gruesome, but a nice nod to poor old John Hurt and his dodgy tummy. Where the vision does falter is the fact that though this was shot entirely using 3D cameras, I watched the 2D version and it actually highlighted quite a few moments of the film that were thrown in for 3D effect only and it don’t look good bro. The biggest problems in the film though boil down to its script and the odd decisions made by the characters (which niggle at you throughout the film). A few example being Idris Elba's captain finding things a bit of a laugh when a couple of his crew members get stranded with unforeseen nasties possibly on their tail, said crew members turning from nervous cowardly wrecks into amazingly brave and interested explorer’s (literally within 5 minutes screen time) and, in one of the oddest scenes in film this year, a person’s reaction to discovering a missing crew member’s grotesquely broken body is not one of horror but a non-plussed kick like one would administer to a car tyre. All very odd and it sort of sums the whole screenplay up. Too much remains unresolved and unexplained. Finally, if you’re wondering where this fits into the Alien film timeline you’ll know all by the end. However Scott has said that the film only shares the strands of Alien’s DNA, but if you’ve seen the posters, trailers and advertising you might be sceptical on that front. The best way to sum it up is that the studio have said that the film itself isn’t an exact prequel to Alien, but it is connected to it. Confusing, no?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Enjoyably grandiose, but hamstrung by a script that veers from odd to confusing scene by scene. Rating: 7/10.