Safe House

If you happened to catch the trailer for Safe House then you probably realised that it pretty much gives the whole film away. On now seeing the film I can confirm that this is the case and even a few of the twists that weren’t shown in the previews are badly telegraphed in the film as well. Does this kill the film? Not as badly as you may suppose. When you think about it certain film genres (OK, rom-coms) lend themselves to standards and it’s fair to say when you go and see an action film starring Denzel Washington then a similar parallel can be applied. Also, this is director Daniel Espinosa’s first mainstream film so perhaps he can be forgiven for not picking anything too strenuous plot wise. Shot on location in Cape Town this has Washington as Tobin Frost, an ex-CIA agent turned criminal, who enters a safe house for protection, but soon finds himself and the ‘housekeeper’ Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) under attack. Frost and Weston go on the lam together and the rest is a bit of Bourne, a bit of Midnight Run and a lazy MacGuffin in the shape of some computer files containing shadowy information (how original!). Washington and Reynolds are both fine, but Espinosa gives with one hand and then takes with the other. Most of the action scenes are badly shot and edited and the shaky cam effect doesn’t add anything to the mix. It’s clear Espinosa’s strengths lie when the pace has been turned down as there’s a great scene of dialogue between Frost and Weston where they discuss the realities of having to kill someone and a foot chase in and through a football stadium is the smartest moment in the film (though why half the crowd is outside the stadium when the match is going on is perhaps harder to explain). Overall, this is as average a thriller you’ll see these days and if you know what you’re letting yourself in for then you’ll probably get the most enjoyment out of it. It’s just a shame that there isn’t a bit more imagination in the screenplay as this could have meant a tenser and more enthralling film.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Way too long and the thrills are at a minimum, but Reynolds and Washington as the anti-buddies keep this in check. Rating: 6/10.

The Muppets

This is the first theatrical Muppet film for 12 years and I think it’s fair to say the reason for that is that there’s been little demand for a new one. This film doesn’t attempt to break new plot ground either as the storyline is an old school Muppet standard, i.e. the Muppets must put on a show to save their old theatre from being destroyed. It’s surprising then that this turns out to be a great piece of entertainment. Mainly this is down to the fact it has plenty of decent laughs and a self-reflecting wry sense of humour, akin to an episode of Flight Of The Conchords (Director James Bobin was a co-creater of said show). In the film, new puppet Walter and his brother Gary (Jason Segel, also on co-scripting duties) along with love interest (for Gary, not Walter!) Mary (Amy Adams), round up the now gone their separate ways Muppets (in a number of skits a la the Blues Brothers “getting the band back together”) in order to put on a telethon to stop evil oil baron Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) from buying and destroying their old theatre. Acting wise Segel and Adams are both fine playing naively innocent, but its Cooper who steals the show with an impromptu rap and the best “maniacal laugh” ever committed to film (you’ll have to see the film to see what I mean). Even if you do find it all a bit run of the mill, there’s still numerous cameos to spot ranging from Dave Grohl to Mickey Rooney. On the negative front Walter is a pretty unmemorable creation (even if that is meant to be partly the point) and a number of the visual gags appear to have been “borrowed” from other films and TV shows. You may also cringe at the cheesiness of some of the song and dance routines, but most of them are decent enough and Bobin smartly used his working relationship with Bret McKenzie to deliver the films highlight tune in the form of “Man or Muppet”. However, the best decision that was made was to sideline any ideas of using computer animation and stick with old fashioned puppetry. Quaint it now may be, but it still brings the Muppets "to life", giving touches of empathy and charm that CGI sometimes struggles to find. This also comes coupled with a new short film from Pixar which nicely sets the comic tone for the main event.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not quite a phenomenon (sorry, couldn’t resist), but a nice blend of nostalgic effects work and modern ironic humour which makes for a fun treat for adults and kids alike. Rating: 7/10.

Lockout

Lockout begins with Guy Pearce being repeatedly punched in the face, which is pretty much the feeling you get when watching this loud, mad piece of hokum. Set in 2079, the film has framed CIA agent Snow (Guy Pearce) sent to a maximum security prison in space in order to break out the (visiting inspector) presidents daughter Emilie (Maggie Grace) as the natives have revolted. Yep, this Luc Besson scripted production is as mad as it sounds. They say computer games have begun to resemble films more and more over the last few years, but the opposite is true here when it comes to a ridiculously stupid opening scene (a motorcycle riding Snow being chased through the streets) which is so special effects heavy it basically has no resemblance to any sort of reality and you feel like you should be sitting in the cinema with a X-Box controller in your hand. Frankly it’s a terrible start, but the film does recover to deliver the type of Friday night action it aims to be. It’s always suspicious when a film has joint directors, but first timers James Mather and Stephen St. Leger get by with an unbelievable amount of green screen, a MacGuffin regarding a briefcase and the hamming up of the majority of the cast. Pearce is one of the more “serious” actors around so it’s quite a surprise to see him in something like this. Whether he just fancied the pay cheque or wanted to do something a bit different I’m not too sure but his performance is so laid back it’s almost horizontal. To be fair to Pearce you can’t take stuff like this at face value anyway. This is a film that has people falling off skyscrapers on to conveniently placed mattresses, the effects of bullet wounds being treated by putting on a lab coat and bad guys looking at voice activated bombs, recognising what they are and then saying “shit” (though I guess that’s a homage to the famous end scene of Besson’s Leon). The film is surprisingly brutal in places (well, with the subject matter how could it not be) and is all the better for it. There’s been far too much pussy footing around with film certificates in the last few years and this one at least goes for the jugular (though as this is a French production we shouldn’t be too surprised). As for the acting only Joseph Gilgun (complete with thick Glaswegian accent that will surely have to be dubbed for the North American market) deserves to be mentioned in dispatches as the looniest of the loons in the prison. There’s a couple of smart ideas and some good one-liners, but the script goes over the top on the gag front meaning Pearce has to blurt out quips on an almost minute by minute basis and there’s a lot more misses than hits. In some countries this is know by the title MS One: Maximum Security, which gives you a clue as to this film’s almost straight to DVD quality, but at least it’s honest about what it is.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Stupid, dumb and just about staying on the right side of fun. Rating: 6/10.

The Descendants

Plenty of plaudits for Alexander Payne’s The Descendants, but this isn’t a particularly memorable film nor, by a long shot (despite the notices), is this George Clooney’s best performance. If you’re used to Payne’s style of filmmaking then this doesn’t stray from his usual template. Fine if you’re a fan, but this is highly indulgent stuff, not helped by the consumer unfriendly lengthy running time. I picked at least four 5 minute scenes that could have bit the dirt in the editing room. Not that The Academy agreed though as Payne won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar for this. Yet more evidence of the Oscars now almost being beyond parody. Anyway, what this screenplay does have is Matt King (Clooney), a Hawaiian land baron who has a major decision to make regarding a sizeable area of land that has been in his family for a number of years. King has a more major concern on his mind though, that being his wife, laid up in hospital following a boating accident. This means King also has to build bridges with his two young daughters. Things get a bit more complex though when King also discovers that his wife has been having an affair. Yep, all present and correct…it’s the Alexander Payne dysfunctional family! OK, mocking aside, this does have some decent comic moments as King goes on the prowl for the man that his wife was seeing. It’s fair to say as well that Clooney has to pretty much carry this film on his shoulders in terms of audience sympathy as virtually all of the other characters are somewhat unlikeable (though Beau Bridges surprisingly pops up with a decent cameo). It doesn’t need me to tell you that Clooney is good here as he’s been solid for years now, though he appears hamstrung by Payne’s screenplay which doesn’t seem to be able to decide just what emotions King is meant to be going through. I’d say this is definitely for Payne fans only, but he does help out the US Tourist Board as, not only did he film on location, he makes the Hawaiian way of living look as chilled out as a weekend spent wine tasting in Santa Barbara. Yes, that is purposely a nod to Sideways, as that film was seven years ago now and, though The Descendants isn’t without its merits, Payne’s hallmark of quality seems very distant indeed.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Standard Payne and standard Clooney equals standard film. Rating: 6/10.

Wrath Of The Titans

2010’s Clash Of The Titans was a bit of fun but was undone by Sam Worthington’s somewhat wooden performance, shoddy 3D and far too much exposition. For this follow up director Jonathan Liebesman has pretty much decided to trim all the fat that slowed the first outing up and we have a film that is pretty much all action from start to finish. It just about works. The plot is pretty thin (some double crossing and Titans v Gods stuff) but you just have to go with it. Liebesman has form in directing films that are high on the effects front and low on plot details and acting, so he’s pretty much at home here. The biggest plus point this has over its predecessor is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously and things move too quick anyway for you to even begin to ponder what is going on. Sure this has it’s negative points including some clunking lines (“You’ll soon discover that being half-human is more powerful than being a God”…err, really?) and Rosamund Pike appears as worlds least convincing military Queen. Plus Bill Nighy’s hamming up it as a God (complete with unexplained Mancunian accent) is just plain odd. As for Worthington, he phones it in again, but in a film this effect heavy he doesn’t really need to do much else. Overall as sequels go this is pretty standard, but it is actually an improvement on the original film and if you do see it I recommend eliminating the 3D issue yourself by seeing a “normal” showing of this (as I did). I’ve read that the 3D is still a problem for this film (as in its rubbish again), but that’s hardly a surprise these days is it?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Wrath Of The Titans….Titans Will Wrath! Rating: 6/10.

Battleship

Basically, this is a film that only Hollywood could make, both in respect of the money spent on all the special effects, and in its scope as a two hour advert for the US Navy. The first aspect is fairly impressive throughout and whilst the latter may have audiences from Alaska to Hawaii punching the air with their fists, it’ll have the rest of the world either cringing at its cheesiness or laughing with incredulity. Make no mistake, this isn’t a great film, but it does save itself by not professing to be anything more than what it is and the two hour plus running time doesn’t begin to drag until the very end. The set-up is simple: US Navy v Aliens. The execution a bit more tricky, as despite the special effects, the….wait for it……yep, you’ve guessed it…..script is pretty dire and the acting mainly all at sea (boom boom!). The cast is an eclectic mix if ever there was one, reflecting more on the fact that the budget was spent mainly on the F/X. Sorting out the thesps with what money was left over means we have an odd ensemble including Taylor Kitsch (sadly displaying none of the charm he bought to John Carter), Alexander Skarsgard (Melancholia II this ain’t), Rihanna (!) and Liam Neeson (who’s total time spent on screen must be less than two minutes). It’s relatively unknown Japanese actor Tadanobu Asano that actually takes the acting honours as he’s the only one that convinces that he could be the CO of a ship. The less said about Charlize Theron lookalike Brooklyn Decker’s role the better, which basically consists of her walking around in short shorts and low cut tops. I’m not sure of the connection between Decker’s rear end and Hasbro’s board game, but there is a smart scene towards the end of the film that pays homage to the source “material”. However, the feel and look of the film is more akin to one of Michael Bay’s Transformers disasters and whilst director Peter Berg does the necessary, this is still like all of his other films, i.e. see it once and once only. This isn’t without its moments though as some thought has gone into the aesthetics of both the Alien spaceships and the look of the Alien’s themselves and there are also some (intentional) laugh out loud moments including a nod to the more discerning members of the audience when one character questions the awful tub-thumping dialogue with the phrase “Seriously, who even speaks like that?”.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
If you’re from the US, aged 12 and male then this is the greatest movie ever made. Rating: 6/10.

Young Adult

Jason Reitman’s last couple of films were Juno and Up In The Air, both worthy, but also open to accusations of smugness. Young Adult has no such problems as Reitman returns to the black comedy that served him so well in Thank You For Smoking. Interestingly though it is his Juno screenplay queen Diablo Cody who reunites with him here and though the script tones down the smartarseness (oddly enough spell check doesn’t recognise that one), it is also pretty thin. The Young Adult in question here is Mavis (Charlize Theron), a 37 year old mildly successful author, who returns to her hometown with the premise of getting back together with old high school sweetheart Buddy (Patrick Wilson). One problem though, Buddy is now happily married with a young kid thrown in as well. The concept of this film isn’t exactly breaking new material, i.e. an examination of prolonged adolescence and middle aged adults taking retrospectives’ of their lives. Also this smacked to me of Grosse Pointe Blank (minus the hitman angle, of course) right down to the soundtrack featuring some of the same tunes. Theron is decent in the lead role, but it’s Patton Oswalt as an old high school colleague who steals the show, complete with convincing disability. Though they are of a very sour variety Oswalt’s character provides many of the laughs and garnishes the story with a real pathos that would be missing if this was solely a study of Mavis. This is actually the films main sticking point as Mavis is a tough character to muster much sympathy for. Also Buddy’s surprise at Mavis’ advances towards him is scarcely credible the way she carries on around him. Wilson though does have one of the prime moments of cringe worthy comedy in the picture when he surprises his wife with a shiny new drum kit seconds after a bombshell has been dropped. Overall, this isn’t anything you haven’t seen elsewhere before, but it has enough moments for the target audience to know what Cody is going on about.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Worth catching for Oswalt’s great performance and a few moments of sharpness from Cody’s script. Rating: 6/10.

Carnage

Despite its short running time it won’t take you long to work out that Carnage is based on a play (that being God of Carnage by Yasmina Reza), as its one set, four character set up betrays its stage roots. Waiting in the wings here are Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly with Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz as upper middle class parents who have come together to discuss a fight between their respective children. What starts off as a polite (if false) conversation soon turns more scathing as the couples turn on each other. Though I haven’t seen the play, couples arguing is hardly an original concept and there’s little a director can do to spice up what is basically a one act production. The director here is one Roman Polanski (getting the gig I suspect due to it being shot in France), but even a third AD could have done the job such is the minimal camera work required. This is hardly a stretch for the cast either as they all play to their strengths; Foster (steely), Reilly (chilled), Winslet (charming), Waltz (smarmy). It sounds like it shouldn’t really work, but Reza’s screenplay (adopting her own work) does have an ace up its sleeve: It’s pretty damn funny. The original play is billed as a black comedy, but this film version leans more towards the satire side of things and though there are no real zingers in the script there is an undercurrent of knowing winks to the audience all the way through. Of the couples Winslet and Waltz have the juicier characters to play with, including some high moments of farce involving Winslet’s hilarious destruction of some flowers and Waltz’s cracking reaction to his precious mobile phone being dunked into a vase of water.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Can’t escape its theatrical roots, but the screenplay has enough laughs and it’s short enough anyway (only 1 hour 15mins!) even if you’re not overly enamoured. Rating: 6/10.

John Carter

Mention the word “John” followed by the word “Carter” at the Disney studio’s at the moment and you’ll be taking your own life into your hands. As I type this the Mouse House is currently staring down the barrel of an estimated $200 million dollar loss on this film. That, my friends, is some hit to take. So how did this come to pass and, perhaps more crucially, how did this happen to a film which isn’t actually all that bad? A quick outline of the story first. Following the death of former Confederate soldier John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) the film is then told in flashback as his nephew reads from Carter’s journal. What we discover is a pretty bonkers story (based on some of the Carter novels written by Edgar Rice Burroughs) involving planets, Martians and warfare. Despite having quite a few flaws (some awful special effects, mediocre 3D, a killer running time and an ending that makes no sense) this is actually more entertaining than not. It’s also sporadically very funny, though what with director Andrew Stanton’s (making his live-action debut here) Pixar background this is hardly surprising. The biggest problem the film has is its confusing screenplay. Nothing much makes much sense or is all that well explained when it comes to the background behind the inhabitants of Mars. So, is that the main reason why has this been such a massive flop then? Personally I can see two reasons. The first is the film’s title. John Carter says about as much to me as David Smith. I understand that Disney were reluctant to put Mars in the title (see the internet for details regarding the previous times they’ve been burned with that issue) but John Carter on its own just doesn’t work, especially when the main character is being played by a virtual no-one. For example, John Carter starring Christian Bale would pull them in regardless. John Carter starring Taylor Kitsch, has not. Secondly the marketing for this film has been all over the place and has basically made it look like a poor man’s Tarzan. Again, which modern audiences are going to want to watch that? Not many it seems. Having said that (as I’m only finally now posting this some weeks after I wrote it), I’ve just seen that the film has started to return strong figures from the European box-office, so at least it appears this won’t be appearing in the worst flops list after all, which, to be fair, it didn’t really deserve to in the first place anyway.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
At the end of the day this is enjoyable trash, which is surely better than being just trash?  Rating: 7/10.

Chronicle

OK, so the story of Chronicle, that of everyday peeps suddenly gaining superpowers, is hardly original and in recent times is most well known as the basics of the TV series Heroes. However, whereas that TV show quickly disappeared from the conscious due to a combination of its cheesiness, strung out plot and bad acting, Chronicle trumps it on all three counts. Obviously you can’t really compare a film to a 4-year TV series, but Chronicle’s story is precise, compact and with characters that draw you in. In a twist, it’s actually the ordinariness of the protagonists that makes the thing work. These are the people on the street (or in the corridors of school in this case). They’re you and I. No glamorous cheerleaders or politicians here. By doing this, writer Max Landis is basically asking the audience “What would you do?” if you suddenly developed superpowers. For high school students Andrew (Dane DeHann), Matt (Alex Russell) and Steve (Michael B. Jordan) it’s initially pranks and entertaining themselves in relatively harmless ways. Before long though things take a turn for the serious when Andrew (who has used his powers to help boost his low profile at school) starts to develop a complex around his new found popularity. Coupled with problems at home (a dying mother, an abusive father) he begins to use his talents in more serious and destructive ways (though there’s a simple scene where he callously kills a spider that is the most disturbing thing of all). I haven’t even mentioned yet that the film is mainly shown from the perspective of handheld recording devices. Nothing new in this in recent years, but it works well here and debut director Josh Trank’s film also has the added advantage of the camera flying through the air thanks to the levitation tricks on show from Andrew and company. The special effects are also great, with the majority of scenes using the extra pixels in an almost casual way before the occasional big moment. If there are downsides, Andrew’s sudden turn from quiet nerd into manic nerd hell bent on revenge to all who have wronged him is just lazy scripting and the final smack down sniffs of studio interference. Overall though this is a smart film and throw in a very cinema friendly running time and you have the type of low budget hit that gives you hope that the future of cinema isn’t Michael Bay and McG after all.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Less is more in a clever and highly enjoyable sleeper hit. Rating: 8/10.

The Woman In Black

The Woman In Black director James Watkins’ last film was the audience dividing horror Eden Lake. Though, in that case, the differing opinions were less about the actual quality of the film and more to due with the fact that it was just too damn nasty. Therefore, Watkins seems a perfect choice as the latest person to provide an edge to Susan Hill’s best-selling novel. Nevertheless, he does have some stiff competition in the form of the long running (and terrifying) West End play of the same name. Other good ideas for this version have been to enlist a screenplay writer of proven quality in the shape of Jane Goldman and to ditch the original idea to have this as a 3D release. The only question mark (pre production) is if Daniel Radcliffe can cut the mustard in the lead role. First, the storyline: Edwardian solicitor Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is assigned to handle the estate of a northern family who owned a manor called Eel March House. However, most locals are weary of Kipps and show concern when he announces his intention to visit said house. When Kipps does get there he catches sight of a mysterious woman in black get-up and before long bad things are occurring to the children in the local village. The first to say here is that if you’ve read the book or seen the play, you’ll know what’s coming. The good news is that this is still a highly enjoyable picture anyway. Script wise, if you take out the reasons behind the woman’s acts of carnage, you’re basically just left with the classic haunted house set up. But what a house of fun Watkins makes it. All the tricks in the book are utilised to keep the audience on edge; Shadowy movements in the background, footsteps on creaking floorboards, squeaking hinges on doors, thunder, lightning, rain etc. It’s all here. You can argue that’s nothing new, but in a darkened cinema it’s still highly effective and Watkins also throws in a couple of original heart in mouth moments as well. Does the rest of the film stack up though? In terms of its look it does, as authentic looking trains and cars peer out from the mist and fog riddled cobbled streets and fields. Acting wise Radcliffe is fine, though he doesn’t have much to do besides looking perturbed a lot of the time. Apart from Ciarán Hinds there’s no real other recognisable names amongst the rest of the cast and it’s no surprise really as this is a director’s film as opposed to an actor’s. It’s also a rival to Joe Dante’s The Hole in the "how on earth did such a film get such a low certificate?" stakes. The film did have some cuts to get past the BBFC, but this is still one that will give nightmares to any youngsters out there.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict                                      
Some top direction from Watkins, but make sure you catch this in the cinema to get the full experience of this old fashioned spook-fest. Rating: 8/10.