Martha Marcy May Marlene

If you’re a fan of Michael Bay (hey, there have to be some out there) it’s fair to say that Sean Durkin’s oddly titled Martha Marcy May Marlene won’t be the film for you. It has a tiny budget, it’s slow, there’s very little dialogue, but crucially, it does have a storyline that makes you care about the main characters. That’s not to say this film doesn’t have its faults though. This is Durkin’s feature length debut as a director and he doubles up with the screenplay as well. The story concerns Martha (Elizabeth Olsen), a young woman who is taken in by her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) after being missing for a few years. Unbeknown to Lucy, during that time Martha has been living in a cult in the Catskill Mountains. As Martha tries to re-connect with modern living she is still confused and paranoid about the time she has spent in the commune. This film also uses the MO of cutting between past and present (are there any films that aren’t using this at the moment?) as we watch Lucy’s attempts to help Martha interjected with scenes of Martha’s time on the commune. Though billed as a psychological thriller, this is more of a character study of a brainwashed young woman and her confused attempts to return to a “normal” way of living. Olsen is good in the lead role, but its Durkin’s script that holds all the interesting talking points particularly in his question of just what is a “normal” life. A great scene has an increasingly exasperated Hugh Dancy (as Lucy’s husband) getting flummoxed in his attempts to justify why a person needs a job and money. What isn’t normal though is the way of life in the cult, headed by the charismatic (though chillingly scary) Patrick (John Hawkes). Scenes of blissful guitar playing and vegetable growing look great on the surface, but underneath it’s a very grubby arena indeed including daily rape (shown in unpleasant detail at one point) and even murder (another quite shocking scene). Hawkes is terrifying as Patrick and follows on from his equally sharp turn in Winter’s Bone. So you can see why Martha did a runner, but has she escaped him for good, both in her head and as a physical presence? It’s left open, especially with a highly ambiguous ending. So, it’s one to make you think, but even at such a short running time it feels deathly slow up on the big screen and you’ll get more and more infuriated as the film goes on that Lucy never actually fully confronts Martha as to where she’s exactly been. Overall, not a bad little drama, but a bit more exposition would have made it a lot better.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Too slow to get going and when it does it ends somewhat abruptly. Still, some good ideas here and some decent performances. Rating: 6/10.

Intruders

Watching Intruders I was reminded of Troy Nixey’s disastrous Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark; i.e. a trailer that suggested chills galore, but an end result that delivered little and was mainly incomprehensible. Spanish director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo hasn’t helmed anything since 28 Weeks Later some 4 years ago, so maybe he was just in the mood for shaking off the cobwebs when he agreed to take this on. How else to explain why he’d sign up for a film with a bizarre a screenplay as this? In the film we follow two different children, one living in Madrid, the other London, who come night time are both terrorised by a faceless intruder. In Spain the mother turns to the church to gleam answers, whereas in the smoke the father (Clive Owen) takes a more standard approach: Calling the police, setting up CCTV and kicking the arse of the mysterious “monster” whenever he gets the chance. Fresnadillo isn’t a fool with the camera and there’s a few nice touches here, playing on people’s fears of the dark and a scene where Owen burns a scarecrow is easily the freakiest thing seen on celluloid involving a basketball and an old jacket. Sadly, it all falls apart though in quick and spectacular fashion once the twist is revealed. I won’t spoil it here, but I watched this without even knowing there was a rug pulling moment in it, but I realised pretty quickly there had to be one (and what it was) in order to explain what is going on. The problem is that once the reveal has happened you soon realise how preposterous the whole thing is. Owen’s always done a nice line in looking confused and I suspect he didn’t have to do much prep before each scene here in order to portray such an emotion; One look at the script should have been enough.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Promised a lot, but, thanks to the implausible screenplay, delivers very little. Rating: 3/10.

The Iron Lady

Telling a balanced story of a politician is always going to be a tricky business, especially if said person is still alive and in the public memory. If that wasn’t difficult enough already, Phyllia Lloyd’s film about the life of Margaret Thatcher was always going to be a tough sell concerning, as it does, one of the most divisive political figures in recent times. Because of this The Iron Lady misses a step as it concentrates more on Thatcher’s dementia, rather than her life in the Commons. Well, what else could Lloyd have done you might say? I agree that her hands were tied politically in telling this tale, but the upshot is a very tame film with a (whisper it) Hollywood aesthetic. Lloyd’s last film was the highly popular, but simple and cinematically dire Mamma Mia! so perhaps it’s not surprising this is hardly a warts and all film. This film does reunite Lloyd with the main star of that film though, a certain M Streep. Left or Right leanings aside, Streep is excellent as Thatcher, getting the voice and mannerisms spot on. So Streep’s great (as is Olivia Colman as Carol Thatcher), but the rest of the film fails to measure up. Despite Thatcher’s unbelievable life story this production is sorely lacking in substance and definition. You need to have not only a firm grasp of politics, but also a memory for dates as virtually nothing is explained. It’s clear that this is deliberate as, well, why would you see this film unless you had some prior knowledge, but most of it will be lost on the uninitiated. For example, Thatcher’s rise to power is never really explained apart from a few scenes of pressing the flesh. How did she become Prime Minister of such a (at the time) male dominated bastion as Westminster? It’s infuriating that such crucial events such as this are hardly even addressed. On the politics front I would say the film is fairly balanced (with, unsurprisingly, a slight leaning to the right), mainly playing with a straight bat throughout. The film's structure is fairly curious though. We mainly follow Thatcher around as her condition deteriorates (itself a matter of subjection), occasionally flashing back to examine crucial periods in her life. It doesn’t really work and it’s only Streep gaining some laughs from her stubborn approach with the old brass that keep things afloat at times. So, a film made just so Streep could do an impersonation and possibly win an Oscar? You may argue otherwise, but what was the reason behind this film? Is this a study in dementia? A look at one woman’s struggle in a male dominated world? An appraisal of a Prime Minister’s tenure? As far as I see it’s just an excuse to get Streep in a wig.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Worth it for Streep, but as a history lesson this is McHistory. Rating: 5/10.

Shame

Shame is one of those films that actors just love to be in. It’s edgy, they get their kit off, they plumb the emotional depths…..goddamit, can’t you see they are exposing their souls to us? OK, I’m being cynical here, but there’s a truth in what I say. This is a film for the director (Steve McQueen) and his actors (Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan), but is it one for an audience? The storyline concerns New York thirty-something Brandon (Fassbender) and his sex addiction. He keeps himself to himself, but his private life is soon disrupted when his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) drops in to stay and never looks like leaving. Annoyed by her presence, and with his addiction stopping him from having meaningful contact with other people, Brandon begins to go off the rails. Being a McQueen film this is a mixture of smarts and pretentiousness. It’ll annoy some as much as it will capture the minds of others. For example, is the scene where Mulligan sings for minutes and we’re treated to close ups of her and Fassbender’s faces a pivotal point in the plot explaining a number of unspoken things or just an excuse for actress and director to show off? You’ll have to make your own mind up. There are plenty of explicit sex scenes and to be fair to McQueen he does make having such an addiction look like a depressing, soulless and dirty business. Other areas don’t work though and it’s not addressed as to why there is such a strained relationship between brother and sister. This has been done on purpose, but if we don’t know what the problem is, well, do we really care? Overall this actually reminded me a lot of American Psycho (just without the Psycho part). However, whereas that film really did make you think the protagonist was basically a human being with a hollowed out inside, this one just makes the main man look like a bit of a perve with a moody side. On the plus side, at least this McQueen film doesn’t have a five minute shot of something cleaning up a load of piss. Having said that, it does have a scene of Fassbender actually having one. Classy.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not a bad film per-se, but another one for the art or arse discussion methinks. Rating: 5/10.

The Grey

If you’ve ever seen an interview or watched one of the extras on a DVD involving Joe Carnahan you’ll know he’s a man’s man. He doesn’t suffer fools easily and it’s pretty much his way or no way. It’s not much of a surprise then that his career, whilst not going off the rails, has been somewhat of a letdown since 2002’s blistering Narc. First up was the OK, but severely OTT Smokin’ Aces, then leaving MI:3 over the old “creative differences” (the most unsurprising incident in Hollywood in the last few years IMHO) before giving us the severely average A Team a couple of years ago. He hasn’t sat around though as quickly following Hannibal & Co is his new film, The Grey. Perhaps realising he needs to reign his usual high velocity tendencies in this film is low on smartass dialogue, only has about half his usual cuts and is, at times, fairly slow. However, it is cold, brutal, thought provoking and at various points, highly thrilling. Liam Neeson stars as Ottway, an employee of an oil drilling team in Alaska, who survives (along with a few others) a plane crash in the frozen wilds of said State. As if making it out alive of that wasn’t difficult enough, the (all male) group seen realise that they are miles from no-where with bitter conditions to survive along with the added dilemma of trying to avoid becoming dinner of the local wolves. Neeson is great here and it’s interesting to note that he stepped in to replace Bradley Cooper. It’s easy with hindsight of course, but it’s hard to see how Ottawa’s character could have worked as a younger man. Carnahan’s film isn’t just about survival, but it’s also a study of certain men who have been there and done that. They’re not grizzled veterans, but they’re all given the time to assess what they’re life is / was and could they do / have done more? Ottway himself sees visions of his wife as the film goes on, encouraging him to keep going. Will she be there for him at the end? A nice side-step in the story later on explains all. I always insist that a film should only be seen (or at least seen first) at the cinema and this is no exception. The reason how this specifically relates to The Grey is in the sound. Find yourself the best surround sound screen you can and take it all in. The crunching of the plane crash, the screeching winds, the howling and pining of the wolves all juxtaposed with the sudden moments of serene silence and blissful peace. It’s an assault on the senses and highly effective. If you’re looking for negatives then the ambiguous ending is somewhat spoiled by a post credits scene (for christsake people stop doing that) and the CGI wolves look pretty poor every now and then. Carnahan’s direction though is sharp virtually all the way through and this is certainly a case (somewhat unbelievably after the out-there A-Team) of less is more. The wolves are kept off the screen for a lot of the time, the plane crash sudden and excellently shot from Neeson’s perspective only (as it would be in reality) and the deaths are left more to the imagination than giving us blood-thirsty gore. Carnahan and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers screenplay is fairly by the numbers, but it scores in the sense of the emotions felt by the group, helped no end by the fleshed out characters. Being forced into a group dynamic in such trying conditions means different reactions from different people. Some freak out, others keep a cool head. Some want to look after themselves, others believe in the group dynamic. It’s all pretty sensationalist in terms of the film, but it’s rooted in basic truth. The question Carnahan asks you is which one would you be? It’s thought provoking stuff.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
More drama than thriller, but who would have thought Carnahan had a philosophical edge? Enjoyable all round. Rating: 8/10.

My Week With Marilyn

My Week With Marilyn is one of those films that gets good reviews from the critics (and perhaps an award or two), a decent return at the box office and appreciative smiles from all those that watch it. If you’d watch it a second time though, I’ll eat one of Marilyn’s hats. The film is based on two books by Colin Clark, in which he recalls a week spent in the company of Marilyn Monroe on set in England in the mid-1950’s whilst she filmed The Prince and the Showgirl with Laurence Olivier. In the film the main roles are taken by Michelle Williams (Monroe), Kenneth Branagh (Olivier) and Eddie Redmayne (Clark) and they all act up a storm. Redmayne is fun as the chinless wonder who blags a position as Third Director (i.e. dogsbody) to Olivier and ends up falling for the hourglass shaped star (Monore, not Olivier!). Branagh appears to be having a blast as Olivier (well, you know why) though at times he hams it up a bit too much. He does give the film it’s main focus of comedy though as he becomes ever more exasperated at Monroe’s tardiness and forgetfulness. Best of all though is Williams. Despite the fact she bares little resemblance to MM facially, she has the voice and mannerisms down pat. So all well and good so far, but what’s Simon Curtis’ film actually in aid of? The shooting of the film part of the storyline is just the framework on which to hang the main focus of the film, that being Monroe herself and why everyone falls for her in same way. In fact, I don’t think there is a male character in the film doesn’t fall in love with her at some point. This is the main problem the film has though. Why do they all crumble at her feet? There’s no doubt she was a complex charter and Curtis doesn’t shy away from showing the darker side of her personality (frankly, she’s a bloody nightmare). Why all the adulation though? In reality I don’t think anyone really could understand her so Curtis is fighting a losing battle from the start. The story hints at the “two” Marilyn’s (i.e. Norma Jeane Baker and Monroe) but it’s not explored to any great detail. The film could have actually sunk if it was completely based on the study of Monroe, but Curtis is backed up by convincing sets and costumes, some comedy English swearing and Toby Jones excelling in a small role as a Monroe’s grumpy American publicist. Though a bizarre scene involving a chair and a Union Rep is so out of place you think it's been inserted guerilla style a-la Chris Morris.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Like MM herself, looks great, but how much substance is there? Rating: 7/10.