Margin Call

J.C Chandor’s Margin Call has a more than passing resemblance to John Wells’ The Company Men, i.e. lay-offs in the financial sector as the recession begins to bite. However, whereas Wells’ film was more of a sombre effort, particularly focusing on how people who have been let go cope in their personal lives outside of the office, Margin Call takes a more entertaining (if less realistic) view of down-sizing. When investment banker Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci) is sacked he gives a USB drive to Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) asking him to finish what he has began to investigate. At a loose end Sullivan takes up the challenge and soon discovers that the firm is on it’s knees financially. From there the storyline progresses higher and higher up the management structure until a decision is made that forces everyone, especially floor head Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey), to question if what they’re doing is morally right. Despite appearances (one character talks in disbelief about how he can get paid so much just for pushing numbers around) Chandor’s film isn’t overly political and pretty much reconfirms what we know already: Money talks and Bullshit walks. Any attempts by the protagonist’s at soul searching aren’t convincingly delivered, but whilst Chandor fails to make any social comment stick, he does nail what it is like to work in the financial sector; Minions get lunch for their masters, trainees are in awe of what everyone gets paid, managers don’t know the names of their staff and, in the films best running gag, the higher up the corporate ladder we go the more the crisis needs to be explained (i.e. dumbed down) in greater detail to Le Grand Fromage’s. In this sense, the film is a bit of a riot, but the comedy isn’t complimented by the dramatic sections that fail to hit home. This is mainly due to the screenplay, which on a few occasions has the characters deliver such unnatural sounding lumpen statements they might as well have had the script in their hands when they said them. This is still well acted though with Spacey, Quinto and Jeremy Irons (as the head honcho) all great fun in their own various ways. Overall this is good stuff, but the ending is a dramatic step too far, and even the top whiz kids on Wall Street will not be able to produce a chart to explain what Paul Bettany’s accent is meant to be.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Fails in its attempts to make serious points, but great acting throughout more than compensates. Rating: 7/10.

The Darkest Hour

The Darkest Hour is one of those films that probably looked good on paper but by the time the reality of the actual filming was taking place, it was a case of make do as best you can. This isn’t a situation where they ran out of dosh halfway through though, more that the vision and look of the film was too much for the modest budget before the camera’s even rolled (if camera’s do still “roll” these days). The premise isn’t bad; A couple of young businessmen (Emile Hirsch & Max Minghella) are on a trip to Moscow to seal a deal when mysterious lights begin dropping out of the sky. Beautiful they may be, but if you get too near them you get frazzled (portrayed in a non-violent type way). What the lights are actually doing here isn’t all that important (some gumph about mining the Earth’s core) more who out of the young and mainly unknown cast will survive. There’s a few smart moments in the film involving mirrors and flashbulbs, but as the “killer” is a mainly unseen presence throughout it’s all a bit unthreatening. Add in a storyline full of plot holes and some pretty abysmal acting throughout (what has happened to Hirsch’s career?) and you could be forgiven for thinking that this is a complete turkey. It’s not quite that as there is some impressive cinematography to enjoy and it’s good to see a film these days where the protagonists actually struggle to work out what is going on and don’t all suddenly turn into action heroes. Oddly enough though this also has a detrimental effect on the film as it takes the group so long to work out how to finally kill one of the pesky electric critters that there isn’t much running time left and the ending comes somewhat abruptly. With a darker edge and a bit more thought storyline wise this could have been an enjoyable B-movie. As it is, it’s a bit of a mess, and the appearance of the electric Gremlins at the end will lead to mirth more than fear.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A decent idea, but let down by poor effects and a charisma free cast. Rating: 4/10

New Year's Eve

When I reviewed Valentine’s Day back in 2010 I commented that “the only thing to make you smile about this is that there can’t be a Valentine’s Day 2. Can there?”. Well, guess what? It’s here. Or at least the template of it has returned in the form of New Year’s Eve. It’s the same MO i.e. throw in a load of B list to Z list stars (Bon Jovi), sprinkle with a screenplay of innocent (and mainly unfunny) gags and walla!...you have Valentine’s Day 2. Sorry, I mean New Year’s Eve. I almost missed this at the cinema, but saw it at the last minute as I assumed it would have a good chance of making my worst films of 2011 list (what a cynic I am). I would have lost my money at the bookies though as this isn’t actually as bad as it looks. It’s still complete rubbish though. However, if the target audience enjoys themselves (women, you fools!) then who am I to mock it so? Actually, as a (self-appointed!) film reviewer it’s my job to mock as much as possible. In terms of storyline we have a criss-cross of tales going on with them interchanging at various points. None of them are particularly memorable (or original) so it’s more a case of which ones are least worst, as it were. No-one really comes out of this with much credibility, but it’s fairly inoffensive stuff and unlikely to harm too many careers. To be fair to director Garry Marshall he moves the film along at speed, which at least helps you forget any rubbish that was occurring a few minutes before. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t chuckle a few times as well and there’s a decent montage of out-takes during the end credits. Doubtless you’ll see this unless this kind of thing floats your boat, but at least it’s an improvement on Valentine’s Day.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
What next? Independence Day? Oh no, wait….Rating: 4/10.

Haywire

Stephen Soderbergh’s career hasn’t really recovered from the outrageous smugness that was Oceans Twelve back in 2004. He’s had a few half decent films since (The Good German, Che and the recent Contagion) but it appears he’ll never again reach the highpoint of Traffic from over ten years ago. They’ve said for years now that film reviewers are out of touch with the viewpoint of the general public when it comes to seeing films. That’s an argument for a different time, but this film has got great reviews and frankly, I’ve no idea why. This is utter pretentious gubbins. A quick summing up of the story is that Mallory (ex mixed martial arts fighter Gina Carano) is a member of private company that undertake covert operations on behalf of the US Government. She gets double crossed though and then plots her revenge against her paymasters. So far, as unoriginal as you can get. Not that this should hold the film back if it’s well directed. Unfortunately, Soderbergh drops a bomb here. Where to begin? Firstly it appears he’s tried to direct this using as much natural light as possible. The result is a film that looks like it’s been mis-filtered as everything is so dark. If that was what he was aiming for anyway, well, see the P word mentioned above. Speaking of that a long scene where Mallory is talking to someone in a car is shot from the outside and 75% of the time all you can see is the reflections of the trees on the cars windows. This isn’t smart or clever, just bloody annoying. There are also some glaring errors in the plot and if there’s a worse soundtrack this year on a film I’d like to hear it (well, I wouldn’t, but you know what I mean). Soderbergh may have been looking for authenticity in the fight scenes and there’s no doubt Carano can kick arse to the required level. One problem though; she can’t act. Therefore, you don’t believe the character and the credibility of the film has been kicked out the window quicker than one of Carano’s Muay Thai kicks. A few of the fight scenes are quite impressive, but they can’t shake of that staged look that always comes off in martial arts fight scenes and why the muffled sound for every kick and hit? Best moment? The unintentional laughter caused by a tumble weed (though you have to be eagle eyed to see it) tumbling past in the background during a key moment of dialogue towards the end of the film. A perfect summation, almost. Though this had its Premier in 2011, it wasn’t officially released until this year so we have our first possible entrant for the worst 10 films for 2012 already. The film ends with Antonio Banderas (who for some reason appears to be using his Puss voice from Shrek, providing yet more unintentional laughs) looking at the camera and uttering a four letter word expletive. In terms of the plot it’s about the only mildly clever moment in the film, but it does also handily double up as a one word review for the film overall.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
See Antonio Banderas above. Rating: 3/10.

War Horse

Steven Spielberg’s glory days are a long way behind him now. Actually, they’re a very long way behind him (Crystal Skull, shudder). However, though his magic touch has long since fizzled out, it’s still a bit of a do when his latest film hits the screen. War Horse is one of those films that comes with a cracking novel already to use as the base, though this has itself been super-ceded by the hugely successful stage play. Therefore, what can be done on stage using wooden horses should be easy for Spielberg to portray on film with a war chest of millions at his disposal? The War Horse in question is called Joey, raised by a young man named Albert (Jeremy Irvine) on a farm in Devon. The farm in question is in financial trouble though and soon (against Albert’s wishes and without him knowing) Joey is sold to a Captain in the British army and finds himself on the battlefields of WW1. The film basically then follows Joey and the various people he comes in contact with including other Allied troops, German soldiers and a French family. The film suffers from a slow start and it struggles to get going. When it hits the middle section things improve though, aided by some nice Spielberg touches including a horse charge through a field of long grass and an execution by firing squad partially masked by the sails of a windmill. It’s also very funny in parts but, as always, Spielberg will be hard pressed to refute the usual accusations of cheese as some jokes are pretty corny and a scene where a horse leaps over a tank (ahem) comes dangerously close to jumping the shark. That’s my proudest line in film reviewing so far, by the way. The biggest problem the film has is that we never fully engage with Joey. Yes, I know he’s a horse, but he never really develops a “personality” like he does on the pages of the book, or indeed, as the wooden marionette on stage. As for other “personalities” on show, well Spielberg can hang his head in shame at all the dodgy European stereotypes on show (Stiff upper lipped English, Robotic Germans etc). In terms of the bigger picture, though the film does occasionally touch on the futility of war and despite some well directed battle scenes, the horror of the Great War never really hits home. It’s just a bit too clean. A conscious choice you could say in, what is in effect, a family film, but a bit more grit would have meant a lot more heart pounding drama. As it is you’ll left with a film that right from its opening moments of horses playing in sunlit fields tells you that you’re off on a non-threatening ride, whereas if The Beard has loosened the saddle a bit it would have made for a more reign gripping experience.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Even if you don’t know the storyline already, this is pretty much exactly what you’d expect from Spielberg film these days. I just wonder what this would have been like when the ‘Berg was in his prime. Rating: 7/10.

We Bought A Zoo

It’s been a while since there’s been a family film such as this. Funny, silly, threat free (with a bit of drama thrown in) and as far from reality as you can get (even though, ironically, this is (loosely) based on a true story). After the death of his wife, Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon, arguably looking an adult for the first time in his career) begins to look for a new home for his young family and himself to move into. Finding a huge house out in the countryside things are looking good. There’s a catch though; it comes with a zoo attached. Unperturbed Mee moves his family in and they begin to renovate the struggling zoo in order to save it and re-open it for the public. If you’re not sure if they succeed or not then you’re a madder than a barrel full of monkeys. This is a comedy drama and there’s a clear line how it’s shown. The drama comes from Mee’s troubled relationship with his son, which is nicely portrayed on the screen, whilst the majority of laughs actually come from the minor characters including Thomas Haden Church as Mee’s brother, J.B. Smoove as an inexperienced estate agent and John Michael Higgins as a strict zoo inspector, complete with comedy measuring tape. All in all this is very well acted and perhaps it’s a bit more than the formulaic plot line deserves. Though it’s not any of the established stars that still the show, that honour belonging to newcomer Maggie Elizabeth Jones, outrageously cute as Mee’s young daughter. You may raise an eyebrow when you discover that the director of this is Cameron Crowe. It’s been six years since his last film and he was in danger of being forgotten about. I doubt this will get him back on the A-list, but at least you can say this is better than Elizabethtown. This is a film based in a perfect world where things will always eventually turn out for the best, so if you’re in a cynical mood I’d give it a miss. However, if you want something to warm the heart during these cold winter months you could do a lot worse than this.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Turns a blind eye to reality, but surely we’d all be pretty depressed if they’re weren’t films like this around. Rating: 7/10.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

I think I ended my review of Niels Arden Oplev’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo saying something like you should see this before the inevitable US remake….well, here it is. The good news is that it’s David Fincher's first film since The Social Network. The bad news is that, predictably, it’s only on a par with the original. Speaking of that, it’s actually a bit tricky to review this as its possible if you watch this without seeing the Swedish version you may get a bit more out of it. However, as this is basically the Hollywood version of a recently well received European film, comparisons are hard to avoid. Things start well with a disturbing opening credits sequence (complimented by another Trent Reznor score) hinting at the dark storyline ahead. There’s no point in me describing the crux of what happens next as I’ve already mentioned it in my previous review and I don’t want to give anything away in case this is your first time tackling Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander’s shenanigans. As mentioned at the start, this film isn’t any better or worse than the Swedish version. Some bits are improvements, some aren't. Though it’s not a carbon copy, Steven Zaillian’s screenplay isn’t far removed from the earlier Swedish screenplay, so if you are seeing this for the first time you will probably enjoy it. Though be warned that a number of the harshest scenes are still intact, including the very icky rape scene. The area where the Swedish version takes this one apart though is the comparison between Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. Mara puts herself through the ringer here, but it’s impossible for her (for anyone?) to follow Rapace’s barnstorming performance. Rapace had the advantage of being an unknown so when we were watching her she was Salander. Mara just looks like a glamorous film actress with a lot of makeup on (natch). She’s missing that dangerous edge that Rapace bought to the show. In part this is Fincher’s fault. Usually he’s tough on his actors, but here he doesn’t seem to get enough from Mara, especially in scenes where she’s meant to be expressing internal emotional turmoil she just looks like a moody teenager. There are some improvements on the previous film though. Some characters have been dropped that just added confusion before, there’s a line in dark humour that pops up every now and then (Salander’s F-word riddled t-shirt providing the highlight) and there’s a superb touch involving sliding doors and girls’ screams. Speaking of that, I wouldn’t mind seeing Fincher try an out and out horror sometime soon. His unsettling lingering shots and cameras going round corners suggest he could give us something special in that genre if he ever ventures there one day. As for Fincher’s overall direction here it has his usual cold and calculated approach, but there just appears to be something missing. What with the book and previous film already out there it’s like he’s just going through the motions with this one. As for the ending and, much like the Swedish version, the epilogue here feels tacked on and doesn’t really work. Though why Fincher disregards an important shot that Oplev had in his film that reveals the true extent of the killers crime(s) isn’t clear. I guess he wanted his own take on the matter, but by not having it the impact of the severity of what has gone on is lessened considerably. Though nothing can explain the odd as hell decision to have Enya playing out during one of the films critical scenes. Some serious credibility of the film goes missing at that point. All this and I’ve yet to mention Daniel Craig as Blomkvist. As you’d expect he’s fine and he’ll be back anyway (along with Mara) as, despite the lukewarm box office return of this film, the next two follow ups have been green lit. I doubt we’ll see Fincher attached to them though.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Same rating as the Swedish version. If you had a choice I’d recommend that one for Rapace alone. Rating: 7/10.

Hugo

Hugo can be added to the roll of shame for 3D films that claim that their “look” is better and more immersive than what has gone before. Sorry chaps, no dice. It is what it is. A half decent film which isn’t improved by 3D. However, what with it being Martin Scorsese’s first film since Shutter Island it’s worth further inspection. The film has been marketed as one that captures the magic of film making, both in its look and its subject matter. I’d say it fulfils the latter, but falls short on the former. Either way, it’s been a box office bomb. The storyline has the eponymous Hugo, an orphan who hides in Montparnasse station in Paris, who spends time keeping the station’s clocks ticking, stealing food and drink and avoiding the stations resident policeman (Sacha Baron Cohen). Soon enough he becomes embroiled in a confrontation with a store owner (Ben Kingsley) and the plot kicks off from there. The film is a mixture of the two storylines, but they don’t even each other out as the Georges Méliès concerned side of the film (aided by a great turn from Kingsley) far outweighs the somewhat plain Hugo side of things. In addition, the tone moves around too much as well with the darker aspects of Hugo’s situation sitting awkwardly alongside the (mainly unfunny) slapstick antics of Baron Cohen. That’s nothing against Baron Cohen, he’s just saddled with a thankless character. In fact, his protagonist gives a good example of the films misplaced humour; One minute we’re laughing at his dodgy leg brace, the next we’re meant to be sympathetic that he got injured in the war. I did enjoy this film though, but the problem it has is its target audience. Who is it for? Being a film buff I appreciated the Méliès homage, but how many kids aren’t going to be fidgeting in their seats during those scenes? On the flip side the magical world of the train station should mesmerise little ones, but adults need a bit more besides visuals. Speaking of that, Scorsese tried for a distinct look with this film, almost as if the whole thing is just a dream. He pretty much achieves it as well, as the picture has an almost unearthly golden aesthetic applied throughout. So much so that when I started this review I momentarily thought that the film I watched a few months ago (yep it takes me that long to get through my backlog of reviews) was actually an animated feature. Live action it is though, but with a large dose of special effects on the side. Overall, as this is set in a station I’ll finish with a train analogy. It’s a pleasant enough journey, but one too many times it falls between the crack between the carriage and the platform.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
All over the place in parts and the middle section is dull, but worth a view for Kingsley and it’s heart is in the right place. Rating: 6/10.

The Thing

My first reaction on hearing that there was going to be a prequel to John Carpenter’s perennial 1982 classic The Thing was the same as that of all devotees of that film; “You gotta be fucking kidding” (boom boom). Matters weren’t helped on first viewing of the trailer which made it appear to be a straightforward remake of Carpenter’s film, including a similar sounding score. By this point The Thing community (now that’s an image) is up in arms at such a sacrilege. Then Matthijs van Heijningen Jr’s film is released and, wait for it, it’s half decent. Let’s clear up a few things first though. If you say it’s hypocritical to complain about Heijningen even going near Carpenters film as Carpenters film itself is a remake of Howard Hawks’ The Thing From Another World then you’d be wrong. Both Hawks’ and Carpenter’s films are sourced from John W Campbell Jr’s 1930’s novella Who Goes There?, but they are separate films. Next issue to clear up is that Heijningen’s film is a prequel, despite the somewhat suspicious looking marketing. OK, all that out the way, just why is this half decent? Well, it pretty much does use the template from Carpenters film, but whilst this film is vastly inferior it does at least match the 1982 effort on a number of occasions. Storyline wise we follow what happened to the Norwegian camp which is discovered in Carpenters earlier film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton are the recognisable faces amongst a plethora of non-descript names. Ah, easy “Thing” fodder you see. Heijningen is an unknown quantity behind the camera, but his direction is sharp and doesn’t hang around. For this film though, it’s all got to be about the screenplay and how it ties into Carpenter’s effort. I can’t be bothered to list everything here, but most things appear to match up. A smart new touch is introduced in the form of a teeth fillings test (in a clear homage to the famous blood test from the “first” film) and Eric Heisserer’s script keeps things to an coherent level, without upsetting any of “The Thing's” mythology (apart from one moment, mentioned in a bit). Hats off to both Heisserer and Heijningen though for the film’s best moment, an outrageous bit of mis-direction that rivals the chest caving scene from 29 years ago. Now the bad stuff. Winstead does well in the lead role and it’s a smart touch from Heisserer to have a female as the main protagonist after Carpenter’s famous all male outing, but her character doesn’t have enough development for us to engage with her. The same thing applies to the rest of the cast. Quite frankly, you don’t care who survives or not. The special effects are decent and are kept to the minimum unless the storyline requires, but they lack the bone-crunching look and feel of the animatronics of Carpenters film. Plus, they don’t make you want to retch like that film did (though you can argue if that’s a good thing or not!). As for “The Thing” mythology mentioned earlier, aficionados will be pretty miffed to see the creature “stalking” the protagonists at one point. Not quite the “creature that likes to hide” that we grew up with. The ending is a nice nod to the original in terms of its bleakness and ambiguity, but the scenes before then in the spaceship feel like they come from a lame episode of Star Trek or something. In the end though, this is a bit of fun and shouldn’t have fan boys spitting too much blood. The title of the film still makes no sense though. If this is a prequel to JC’s The Thing, then why the bloody hell is it called The Thing as well?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not as bad as first feared, but I doubt you’d ever watch it a second time. Rating: 7/10.

Another Earth

Now here’s an odd film. Starting off being told partially in flashback, we follow Rhoda (Brit Marling), a young woman recently released from prison following her incarceration for causing the death of a mother and her young son in a car accident. On her release she seeks out a job where she can use her hands and keep a low profile. Janitor it is then. Mike Cahill’s film appears to be going nowhere until Rhoda chances upon the husband and father of her victims who survived said car crash (which is shown in bone crunching detail by the way). To explain what happens next would be to give too much away, but Rhoda decides to contact him (in the guise of a cleaning company) and, as he doesn’t recognise her from the accident, nothing appears too amiss to him. There’s more though. Running parallel is a secondary story concerning, quite literally, “another earth” as, err, another earth, appearing to be an exact replica of our own, appears in the sky. The two storylines eventually merge at the end, giving us a jaw dropping final shot. What to make of this bizarre tale then? First thing to say is that this is a very slow film. Apart from the aforementioned smash, this is told as at a leisurely pace as I saw all last year in the cinema and it will definitely be a struggle for some. There’s very little dialogue and the film is mainly told via a combination of moods, sounds and visuals. To be fair to Cahill it pretty much works, though in a few instances (especially the compunction for Rhoda to contact the husband in the first place) further explanation would have helped back up somewhat confusing actions by the characters. As for the lame metaphor concerning Rhoda’s colleague at the school Cahill is trying too hard. Marling is great in the lead role (she’s pretty much on screen the entire time) playing Rhoda as someone who had their whole life ahead of them, but now will be forever burdened by her previous actions. There’s a redemption in part for her at the end, but it’s a bit too conventiant script wise. All in all, if you want to see something different then give this a chance. Just don’t expect too much though.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Slow, but intriguing enough if you’re open minded. Loses a mark though for the toe curlingly embarrassing musical saw serenade scene. Yep, you read that right. Rating: 6/10.

Best and Worst Films of 2011

This time last year I said that the top ten films of 2010 were all great films, but inferior to 2009's selection. The same thing applies this year as well, I'm afraid. However, I love films so lets celebrate the fact that there were some crackers this year to enjoy. In terms of my film of the year I think if you had told me on 1 January 2011 that my film of the year was going to be a Hollywood blockbuster I would have raised an eyebrow. If you had then told me it was going to be a Planet Of The Apes film I would have pointed you towards the nearest sanatorium. However, Apes it is for me, but I must say I had a difficult task picking a top film, let alone arranging them in a list of ten, so if you jumbled my list up and came up with a new number one I wouldn't argue. Following on from that, I'd say my top four films were dead set, but the next six squeezed in ahead of a number of films that are pretty much their equal. So honorary mentions to Take Shelter, Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, The Fighter, Animal Kingdom and Submarine. As it is, I hope you'll find my top ten an eclectic mix. As for the shockers the gross out comedy genre was pretty dire this year, but somehow none of them made my worst ten. That's a pretty bad indictment for my worst ten. Anyway, here’s the lists then (best first).

1) Rise of the Planet of the Apes
2) The Lincoln Lawyer
3) The Artist
4) Moneyball
5) The Help
6) Black Swan
7) Senna
8) The Guard
9) Insidious
10) Tangled

…don’t hit Amazon for these though…

1) I Don't Know How She Does It
2) Midnight In Paris
3) Gnomeo and Juliet
4) Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark
5) Hereafter
6) Transformers: Dark of the Moon
7) The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1
8) Fair Game
9) Drive Angry
10) Beautiful Lies

The Artist

Oddly enough, after watching Michel Hazanavicius’ superlative The Artist, a modern silent black and white picture no less, the over-riding feeling I had was one of normality. Just think about that for a moment though. If someone told you a new film was being released in said format, even if you did believe it, you’d never had believed it would turn a profit at the cinema. The Artist has made good at the box office though and there’s a simple reason why; Forget the novelty value (which will be a draw to some), this is just a damn fine film. In it we have George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), a huge star of silent movies in the 1920’s who finds his career under threat when the introduction of talking pictures soon begin to grab the public imagination. Valentin’s pride is too much for him to swallow though and, refusing to conform to the changing methods of the day, soon finds himself forgotten and destitute. Redemption comes in the shape of Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) the bright new star of talking pictures who, ironically, Valentin himself set on the way to fame and fortune. There’s also the flickering buds of romance between the two, but what with Valentin already being hitched and the two moving in different social circles, can it ever blossom into anything more? In effect it’s actually a pretty simple and unoriginal plot (i.e. man loses everything), but the USP is watching it like an audience itself would have back in the day. The reason it works is quite simple. I’m sure you’ve all seen those studies which show that most communication is non-verbal and this film proves it to the hilt. In fact, along with the silence, there are actually very few title cards containing the actors speech. The majority of the film is told via expressions and the soundtrack. For this Hazanavicius needed to get the two main stars to convincingly portray what is going on. Dujardin (arguably best known for the OSS 117 films) is superb, acting like a bounder for a lot of the film he gains many laughs thanks to his range of facial expressions and mannerisms. Bejo has the lesser role, but also does what is required and, along with Dujardin, shows some fancy fleet of foot during a few impressive dancing scenes. It’s not surprising that Hazanavicius gets a good return from either of them though as he’s worked with both before and Bejo is also his wife. Hazanavicius’ direction is sharp and the film is excellently edited. The black and white also looks fantastic on digital. The only real drawback is that at times it does come across as too staged and Valentin’s sudden loss of everything happens a bit too conveniently. Let’s keep looking at the positives though which also include the hilarious, and beyond cute, cameo by Uggie (a Jack Russell Terrier) and a high level of comedy throughout, culminating in a rug pulling moment at the films most crucial scene. So, clever, charming, funny, thoughtful, romantic and tragic. To say that for any film would be great, but to be achieved in a genre that died out almost 100 years ago is something else indeed.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Who’d have seen this coming at the start of the year? Compelling from start to finish. Rating: 8/10.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows

The biggest surprise about Guy Ritchie’s 2009 Sherlock Holmes was the fact that it was any good at all. It was nothing against Ritchie himself, just that it didn’t seem an obvious fit between man and material. Now for an even bigger shock, this follow up, subtitled A Game of Shadows, is a bit of a blast as well. Even more surprising when you consider it begins stuck in neutral gear and it’s a while before the traditional Ritchie touches come to the fore. Once it gets going though it’s fun fun fun all the way. What of that bad start then? Basically we get Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) in one of the many (mainly unfunny it has to be said) disguises he dons throughout the film, there’s a standard punch up and then some below par banter with Watson (Jude Law) and Mrs Hudson. Stay with it though as soon Michele and Kieran Mulroney’s screenplay develops into something much more satisfying in the form of a smart plot by Moriarty (Jared Harris) to ignite war in Europe and the continuing bromance between Holmes and Watson. Most sequels introduce a few new characters to stir things up and a few more are added here including Noomi Rapace as a gypsy inadvertently caught up in Moriarty’s plotting and Stephen Fry as Holmes’ brother Mycroft. However, Ritchie also recognises that most new characters in follow ups muddy the waters somewhat and neither sticks around for long, though Fry does provide some decent comic moments. This is a bit of a shame though for Rapace as this is her biggest English language outing to date, but Ritchie’s films have never been ones for memorable female characters so it’s perhaps not much of a surprise that she’s off screen so much. A big plus point though is the casting of the relatively unknown Harris as Moriarty. There were some heavy hitters linked with role over the last couple of years and I think their casting would have super-ceded the role. As it is Harris is great as the quiet Professor, going about his dirty deeds with the air of a respectful businessman as opposed to overplaying the role, and his discussions with Downey Jr are some of the highlights of the film as they talk about crime and murder in a cold matter of fact manner. The relationship between Holmes and Watson is also explored in more depth and the on screen chemistry between Downey Jr and Law is a vast improvement from the first outing. As for Ritchie’s direction it comes to the front during a few set pieces, including a barn-storming sequence where the protagonists are chased through a forest whilst also trying to avoid shelling from German artillery. It’s a breathtaking few minutes and proof that when Ritchie is on his game very few people can better him in those kinds of scenes. Of course not all films are void of criticism and the negatives here are some of the fight scenes are directed in such a manner it’s quite hard to tell what’s going on (though I’m certain this was in order to get a lower certificate for the film) and the ending doesn’t quite catch the imagination as it should. The film has caught the imagination of the worldwide public though as there has been a hefty box office return meaning a third outing is now being penned. Here’s hoping that one turns out to be as much fun as this.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
About 20 minutes of gumph needed to hit the editing floor, but the rest is pure entertainment. Rating: 8/10.

The Rum Diary

Bruce Robinson’s The Rum Diary had an odd effect on me. Nothing to do with watching many minutes of numerous people doing drink and drugs (though I was thirsty for a whisky afterwards), more to do with that fact that, even without such substances in my body, I couldn’t actually recall what the film was about just a few minutes after watching it. Things happen sure, but I don’t think there’s even really a plot. Has Robinson set a cinematic record by giving us a film where the whole shebang is actually a MacGuffin? The film stars Johnny Depp as Paul Kemp, a US journalist who joins a local newspaper in Puerto Rico during the 1950’s and eventually finds himself mixed up in a possibly fraudulent construction scheme. Sounds like a bit going on, doesn’t it? Not really though, as the plot is mainly a ruse to getting Kemp into various scrapes with the locals and the law, usually under the influence of alcohol. Robinson’s film does have a lot of plus points though. It’s very funny in parts, Depp’s banter with fellow journalists Bob Sala (the gravely voiced Michael Rispoli stealing the film) and Moberg (a bonkers Giovanni Ribisi) keeps things moving along and Amber Heard (as the love interest) is outrageously sexy. The film also looks fantastic. Shot on location the sweat drips from every pore and cigar smoke clouds the screen, all shot through with a hazy, but smooth, yellow filter. However, can all these things be used as an excuse for not having a coherent storyline? I don’t believe so, especially as, with a bit more care, this could have turned out to be a decent dramedy or even a black comedy. As it is, you’re left with too many questions about what is going on. For example, Robinson doesn’t exactly explain the political situation in Puerto Rico, he just assumes the audience will know the background (or maybe just not care). A fair approach if you’re politically minded, but I don’t believe the average Johnny Depp fan goes to be reading about Pedro Albizu Campos. It’s been 19 years since Robinson directed a film and the source material (a novel by Hunter S. Thompson) is hardly a classic so perhaps it’s not much of a surprise that this is a bit all over the place. In the end it’s a shame as a tighter script could have meant a much more enjoyable 2 hours. As it is you’re left with a bit of a mess and a shocking performance at the box office.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Rum Diary. Rum Film. Rating: 5/10.

Moneyball

Sports films, be they documentary or not, can have a tough time at the box office due to their subject matter. The trick is, much like the recent Senna, to make the film in such a manner that it appeals to a wider audience than would normally be the case. For Moneyball (a semi fictionalised account of the bestselling baseball novel by Michael Lewis) Columbia Pictures have done it by casting Brad Pitt in the lead. The trick being that if you’re not a baseball fan you’ll go and see it anyway due to Mr Jolie’s presence. A no-brainer decision perhaps, but I still think that this film will be enjoyed more by people who are fans of the diamond game regardless of Pitt’s presence. In the film Pitt portrays Billy Beane, the real life General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, who has the tricky task of making the team competitive on a meagre budget. With the help of assistant Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) they decide on a route of analysing a players statistics (rather than their perceived worth), making smart purchases and waiting for the results to come. Though it didn’t work in the long run, it did lead to the A’s setting a 20 game American league winning record in the 2002 season. Bennett Miller is the director here and though it’s been 6 years since his lauded (though somewhat too much IMHO) Capote there’s little sign of rustiness. Miller eases through the story, utilising the less is more approach to convey Beane’s mood. Why send waste five minutes of screen time with chatter when you can tell all with a lingering shot of a corridor or a chair flying through the air? When the talk does happen though it’s highly entertaining, with Miller being assisted by the excellent screenplay from überscripters Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin. With solid source material to work from they both already had a head start, but this is a sharp script which tries to cater to both fans and non-fans alike. On a side note it does make you wonder what original director Steven Soderbergh found wrong with it (he was given the boot over his approach to the material and changes to the script). Though this is mainly a drama, it’s also very funny, especially in the scenes where Beane is wheeling and dealing players on the telephone. Completely unrealistic it may be, but it’s highly entertaining. Pitt, playing it laid back, is good to watch and Hill again shows there’s more to his repertoire than just knob jokes. On the downside the talk of RBI’s and ERA may go over the heads of non-baseball followers and a cameo by Spike Jonze looks a bit out of place. Overall though this is a film that proves that if the screenplay is there to begin with everything else should just fall in place with ease.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not the World Series, but plenty of MVP numbers here. Rating: 8/10.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

The old gag about Tom Cruise running in all his recent films doesn’t let up in Brad Bird’s Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. See Tom run through a prison. See Tom run through Red Square. See Tom (try to) run from a sandstorm. Heck, you can even see Tom run along outside the world’s tallest building! Should you run to your nearest multiplex though to check out Ethan Hunt’s latest celluloid adventure? The first thing to say is that this is the best MI film since Brian De Palma’s in 1996. OK, so it’s not difficult to top John Woo’s shallow second film and, though I appreciate there’s some fans of JJ Abrams 2006 effort (more on that in a bit), this also tops that, providing enough decent moments to see you through a Friday night viewing. Don’t be fooled though: This is a pretty absurd film. In terms of plot, when the Kremlin is attacked Hunt & Co are in the wrong place at the right time as far as the Russians are concerned. Therefore, the IM team is disavowed by the US Government and Hunt and friends must go rouge in order to discover the truth about said bombing. The last film tried a harder angle but was undone by a screenplay trying to outdo itself. It appears Bird (and Cruise) didn’t think much of that that approach either as the story line here is pretty simple (a somewhat dull nuclear missile threat) and there is a nice streak of humour running all the way through. What with Bird’s Simpsons and Pixar background I guess it’s not much of a surprise that this is a lighter concoction. This is Bird’s live action debut and he does a standard job without ever hitting any moments of real class. Well, I say “action”, but this film is affected with the curse of modern day films, i.e. special effects. Obviously, you can’t destroy the real Kremlin, but the visuals are poor throughout the whole picture and it annoys just as much as it proves un-thrilling. More effort is also needed in terms of the films villain (played by Michael Nyqvist) who is so bland and off screen so much he’s pretty much a MacGuffin. Bird doesn’t help himself either with the film's quality varying wildly at times. To wit: The films signature scene with Cruise on the Burj Khalifa tower (hats off to him again by the way for doing most of his own stunts up there) is soon followed by a lame chase in the aforementioned sandstorm, for every decent gag by Simon Pegg there’s a stinker just round the corner and most of the films smart gadgets and devices are quickly forgotten about when it jumps the shark in spectacular fashion towards the end with a scene involving Jeremy Renner (looking as unimpressed as I expect most of the audience will be) and a floating magnetic suit. If that kind of thing is for you, then maybe I recommend you do run to the cinema. For the rest, I suggest a leisurely stroll and perhaps a viewing if you’re in a non-plussed kind of mood.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Despite appearances, this is more of one for all the family (the Pixar influence again) as opposed to anything really thrilling or fresh. Rating: 6/10.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1

What an odd film this is. Firstly, if you’re planning this as your debut viewing of a Twilight film then really don’t bother, as there’s no quick re-cap to get you up to speed about what is going on and it’s bizarre storyline means it can’t stand be watched as a standalone film. So for fans (and film reviewers) what does go on? Err, actually very little. Starting with the wedding of Bella (Kirsten Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson) the first 30 minutes of the film is basically a lead up to them having sex for the first time....just without them mentioning it by word to each other or the audience. That’s kind of it. Yes, I know it’s meant to be serious stuff with Bella realising this could be her last moments as a human, but having her act uncertain about what get up to put on and concerned about how clean her teeth are does not portray someone about to sacrifice everything. Anyway, Bella gets preggers (not a spoiler, all over the trailer) and a few arguments occur over what should happen next. By this point the audience will have already made their minds up about something; not bothering to see Part 2 of this. This really is lazy film making by director Bill Condon and as Part 1 and Part 2 have been filmed together things don’t bode will for the finale when it appears in November. I can’t say that I think any of the films in this saga (natch) are any good, but I can see the appeal to the target audience, and as that demographic of people has paid in their millions to see the first three films already, don’t they deserve better than this? It’s actually quite hard to come up with any redeeming features at all. The acting is bland as always (Pattinson is plain awful. What’s happened to the chops he showed in Remember Me?), the special effects are from the 1980’s (seriously guys, all that profit from the last few films and that’s all you can come up with?), it’s not clear which wolves are who when their in canis lupis form (don’t get me started on the scene where they all have a chat using doggy voices) and any fight scenes are hideously edited and just too dark to make out what is going on. The film even loses it’s sly sense of humour that has helped non-believers along in the previous films (though Taylor Lautner does get his shirt de-camping over with in the first 30 seconds of this one). There’s a tiny chance the final scene might intrigue you enough to come back for the final part, but if that’s anything like this film then death by werewolf maiming or vampire blood letting would be more preferable options.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Film = Rubbish. Box Office = Ker-ching. Hmm, where have we heard that before? Rating: 3/10.

Take Shelter

There's a storm a-coming folks, but in Jeff Nichols' Take Shelter is what we're witnessing real or only in the disturbed mind of Curtis (Michael Shannon)? Writer / director Nichols doesn't drop huge hints either way, but his film is a mature portrayal of mental illness and contains a superb central performance from Shannon. In the film Curtis, a seemingly happily married construction worker, begins to have nightmare visions concerning a cyclone approaching his house, along with other dreams where his wife and child are threatened by unseen forces. Before long Curtis is obsessed with building an underground shelter for them, even "borrowing" a huge digger from his work to help with the task. Think Richard Dreyfuss in Close Encounters and you'll get the idea. What causes Curtis to become ill Nichols doesn't tell us (though the old financial troubles are hinted at), but it's not actually relevant as the point Nichols is making is that this sickness can strike any person at any time. Oddly enough, whilst watching this film I was reminded of Black Swan, another film which also addresses mental illness. Don't be fooled into thinking that this has the same "entertaining" approach as that film though. This is quiet, slow and unspectacular in it's approach. However, it's all the more real for it. What also makes it different from other similarly themed movies is that in this one the main protagonist is aware that something is going wrong as Curtis attempts to seek help as opposed to hiding his symptoms. This culminates in a heart breaking scene when Curtis melts down in front of family and friends and it's the tour de force moment from Shannon in a film that he dominates. If the film has some negative points they come in the form of the somewhat sidelined wife (played by Jessica Chastain) and the film's final scene is perhaps a rug pull too far. However, this is an accomplished debut from the young Nichols and thoroughly recommended for the more discerning viewer.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Thought provoking stuff aided by a cracking turn from Shannon. Nichols could be one to watch. Rating: 8/10.

Happy Feet Two

Happy Feet Two is one of those films that you dread to review. The main reasons being that as the first film was well received, was fun for all the family and (most importantly you fools!) made a mint at the box office, the sequel already has a built in audience that will go and see it regardless of the quality. However, for sake of fairness, I'll give my opinion just in case there are some first timers out there or more discerning patrons that are wondering if it's worth paying their money for a film that will be exactly like the first one. Actually, that's the crux of the matter here, is there anything different on show from last time out? Sure, the main storyline is different (this time it's about the penguins getting trapped in ice or summat like that), but the main elements are just as you were; i.e. penguins singing and dancing. The voice cast are quite a let down with the majority sounding like they're going through the motions, with the bland Pink (replacing the late Brittany Murphy) completely mis-cast. Only Robin Williams (returning as Ramon) puts his usual effort in and garners a few laughs. What is different in this film (and what made me sit up from my slouched position in my cinema seat) is the introduction of two new characters in shape of Krill called Will and Bill (Brad Pitt & Matt Damon, respectively). It's not their storyline of discovering that their life is little more than sea food that's interesting (which is lost on the little kiddies anyway) but the fact that, unlike the rest of the film, the 3D looks amazing when the film is focused on them. Their bright orange colours help, but both of them have been carefully drawn with real attention to detail. Frankly the rest of the film is miles behind in terms of it's visuals. Will the audience care though? Interestingly enough, as I type this I read that the film is currently struggling to turn a profit. Perhaps the built in audience wasn't there after all? It's more likely that most people have thought, as I do, if you've seen Happy Feet you've seen Happy Feet Two.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
One for huge fans of the first film only. Rating: 5/10.

50/50

Though 50/50 isn't a full on bromance, there's enough in the story of the friendship between cancer sufferer Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Kyle (Seth Rogen) for men in the audience to be nodding in appreciation of the machinations of male buddyness and mentally preparing for the next night out with the lads. It's not surprising it's so authentic though when you consider that the story is based on (screenplay writer's) Will Reiser's own battle with cancer and his real life mate at the time, a certain S Rogen, esq. However, though their relationship is the main crux of the film, Reiser's screenplay is more wide ranging than just that as it also touches on Adam's relationship with his girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), his psychologist (Anna Kendrick), his parents (Anjelica Huston and Serge Houde) and other cancer sufferers (Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer). That sounds like a lot of ingredients thrown into the mix, but Reiser gets the balance just right, though it is to the detriment of director Jonathan Levine. Levine showed some nice touches a few years ago in The Wackness, but has little to do here besides say "Action" and "Cut" (though in fairness to him, it's the right approach to take). In front of the camera it's Gordon-Levitt (in as a last minute replacement for James McAvoy, who departed for family reasons) who takes on the main emotional baggage throughout and he does it using that usual hangdog expression of his. Though when it comes to the crunch he turns it up a gear, including a moment of screaming frustration that must have meant the sucking of some throat pastels afterwards and in a scene towards the end of the film when Adam is quickly whisked off for surgery (with a chance he may not return) his fear and bewilderment is heart breaking to witness. It's Rogen though who steals the picture. Usually his crude antics can get grate quite quickly but here, whether he's drawing from his experience with Reiser or not, he's a laugh from start to finish and the care Kyle shows for Adam, particularly through some more serious moments, shows depths Rogen has tried but failed to find in previous films. Dallas Howard also scores points as the manipulative girlfriend and Huston is great as Adam's overbearing but, crucially, still likeable mother. Less successful is Kendrick saddled with a barely believable part as Adam's inexperienced psychologist and Baker Hall and Frewer are little more than ciphers. The main message that comes across from Reiser's script is just how matter of fact having such a disease can be when it comes to dealing with medical establishments. There's no sugar coating, just cold hard facts about what lies ahead. It's hats off then to Reiser, Levine, Gordon-Levitt and Rogen then that such a delicate and emotive subject matter can be portrayed in such a warm and heartening manner.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
A darkly funny but mature look at life and friendships during tough times. Top marks going to both Rogen and Reiser. Rating: 8/10.

The Awakening

It's spectacularly lazy when reviewing films to say Enter Film Name Here is Enter Film Name Here meets Enter Film Name Here crossed with Enter Film Name Here. So here goes: The Awakening is The Devil's Backbone meets The Orphanage crossed with Shutter Island. Basically, if you love the sound of that you'll like this film. Rebecca Hall stars as Florence Cathcart, an exposer of ghost and spirit scams during the grim days of post WWI England. Despite initial reluctance she soon finds herself on a case investigating some bump in the night type shenanigans at a remote boy's boarding school. Pretty soon incidents occur that not even Cathcart's sceptical views can explain away, all leading up to the second viewing required style ending. This is writer / director Nick Murphy's debut feature and though you don't need to wear a winter jacket, he does deliver a film that contains enough chills to have horror veterans take notice. Setting the film in 1921 is a stroke of genius from Murphy as, when it comes to Cathcart's investigations, less means more as video cameras, mobile phones, infra-red scopes etc are replaced by the simple unnerving sound of a lone bell ringing to indicate possible spooks on the prowl. On the acting front Hall appears to relish the chance in a lead role, but the supporting players (including Dominic West and Imelda Staunton) are too underwritten to make much of an impact. In other negatives, loud scare music rears its head one too many times and the twisty ending may be one step too far for some. Let's not be too harsh here though as Murphy has delivered an accomplished first feature, including the greatest edge of the seat scene ever to involve a doll's house.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Stretches it's premise to breaking point, but this has sufficient smarts to ponder and scares to "enjoy". Rating: 7/10.