Moonrise Kingdom

Is there a more idiosyncratic film director in the world today than Wes Anderson? I can’t think of any other director at the moment where you could show someone a one minute clip of their latest film and, aside from Anderson, confidently say who was sat in the head honcho’s chair. Anderson is out on his own in this particular area. The thing about Anderson’s style though is that it is an acquired taste. Personally, I’m not over enamoured with it myself, but there must always be room for artists such as himself.  It’s come to the stage with Anderson now though that reviewing one of his films is almost a waste of time. If you like him you’ll like this, if you don’t this won’t convert you. What I will say though is that, whilst this has the usual ensemble cast (with a number of Wes regulars turning up) and framing and colour palette that we’ve come to expect, this is actually one of the more straight forward Anderson story lines. Though the dysfunctional family element is there as usual, it’s kept to the background as the film concentrates on telling the story of two 12 year olds Sam and Suzy (played by unknowns Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward, respectively) who run away from their New England island town prompting a search from the local scout group (headed up by Edward Norton with a performance full of surprising emotion), parents and police. Child performances can be hit and miss, but Anderson gets a good return from both Gilman and Hayward along with a number of other younger stars in the film. The 1960’s setting is superbly realised with a look of cool detachment that Anderson loves to have in his films and, technically, this is as impressive an Anderson film as he’s ever done though, but like a gallery that has a framed picture of a blank sheet of A4, you’ll do well to convince sceptics that this is art over arse.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The usual Anderson production. Add a mark if you’re a fan, take one off if you’re not. Rating: 6/10.

The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists!

In a recent review I mentioned how great it is when you see a film from which you were expecting little, but it delivered a lot. The latest feature from Aardman Animations is the latest example, though you may ask why I'd be apprehensive about approaching a film from a studio with a decent back catalogue such as Aardman. Well, its based on their film output (as opposed to their solid gold TV productions) which began with the fun Chicken Run, but evened out with the somewhat groan worthy Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (though that was a box office success) before stalling with the below average Flushed Away and Arthur Christmas. Those last two films were Aardman's first foray into computer animation which may partly explain their lack of recognition, but it's back to stop motion for Pirates! and it's a welcome return indeed. However, this film does also have elements of computer graphics, but they are mainly used for backgrounds and they complement rather than distract throughout the film. Of course, you might also be a bit apprehensive due to that awful title (itself taken from Gideon Defoe's first book in his Pirates! series), but you can't judge the book by its cover in this instance. Set in 1837, the film follows a pirate captain called, er, The Pirate Captain (voiced by Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the coveted Pirate of the Year award for the first time. Things go awry though when he and his oddball crew cross paths with Charles Darwin (David Tennant) and end up making their way to London despite grave warnings about Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) and her hatred of pirates. As always the animation is great and Aardman's usual mix of visual jokes and verbal humour is to the fore. What makes this stand out though is that it doesn't take itself seriously in anyway (one scientist to another on seeing a dodo: "Makes gravity look like a load of crap!"), but it is still extremely smart in terms of it's script and direction. No doubt that part of this is down to Aardman stalwart Peter Lord taking directorial duties and giving us a film that children and adults alike can enjoy (albeit on different levels). Voice duty wise Grant is great, playing down his usual bumbling Englishman shtick and giving The Pirate Captain a proper personality. Even better though is Staunton as the villainous Queen, though it's hats off to the animators for making her such an enjoyably monstrous creation (though it must be said she bears more than a passing resemblance to Futurama's "Mom"). Throw in a great foot stomping soundtrack as well and you have one of the best films of the year and the hope that the current discussions regarding a possible sequel come to fruition.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A welcome return to form for Aardman and this packs more thrills and laughs than the last few Jack Sparrow outings put together. Rating: 8/10.

The Cold Light Of Day

There's more than a feeling of Hitchcock and recent European thrillers to Mabrouk El Mechri's The Cold Light Of Day as Wall Street trader Will Shaw (Henry Cavill) finds himself as the de-facto innocent man on the run when a family holiday in Spain goes the way of the Euro when Shaw's family's yacht disappears, along with his relations who were on board at the time. Before you can blink we're into a story line of useless cops, suspicious looking US Government Agents (Sigourney Weaver amongst them) and stereotypical locals as Shaw attempts to discover what has happened whilst also avoiding a bullet with his name on it. As you can probably already guess there's no surprises here, but El Mechri (who's last film was the well received, if bizarre, JCVD) doesn't totally drop the ball on what is in effect his debut feature in respect of having a few decent stars and a healthy budget to play with. He just that his safe direction means this is basically a thriller with very few thrills. However, on an intrigue level this does work quite well, as Shaw attempts to work out what has happened you are taken into the mystery as Scott Wiper and John Petro's script mostly only gives the audience the same amount of info as Shaw. That aside though the rest is pretty routine with bad characters and dodgy dialogue to the fore. Plus a Psycho-esque twist at the start is oddly telegraphed as well. It's sad to report that the worst thing of all though is Weaver, who appears to have given up reading scripts and has instructed her agent to say yes to anything which will only have her appear on screen for around 5 minutes (In 2011/2012 she's in nine films!). El Mechri is to blame really for the mis-casting, but watching Weaver swear whist manically driving an SUV through the streets of Madrid and firing off an automatic weapon at the same time is one of the odder things you'll see on the big screen this year. As for Cavill, he's a lot better here than he was in Immortals, but he's definitely going to up his game when he dons Superman's cape in 2013's Man Of Steel.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Stupid, dumb, but in the cold light of day (boom boom), just not that much fun. Rating: 5/10.

Headhunters

In recent years there's been a plethora of films and TV Series based on "Scandi crime", a genre that covers Scandinavian crime fiction. Norwegian author Jo Nesbo is the latest writer to see one of his works hit the big screen and it continues the trend of enjoyable output from our friends on the Arctic Circle, though it stretches credibility to breaking point on a few occasions. The film stars Aksel Hennie (best known to audiences for Max Manus) as Roger Brown an employment headhunter who also happens to have a sideline in art theft in order to pay for his lavish lifestyle. Things are looking rosy until he meets ex-soldier Clas Greve (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), who Brown discovers has a valuable painting in his house. Brown decides to steal this as well, but things suddenly turn very twisty indeed. What makes this film stand out from the average thriller is that, whilst the main story appears to be a tale of crime and passion, it also doubles up as a decent character study of Brown as his Napoleon complex gives way to reveal a man realising that wealth and prized possessions don't amount to much when the chips are down. Hennie himself is also interesting to watch as his lack of height and somewhat fey mannerisms and looks means sometimes it's tough to believe he's a killer businessman and womaniser. In addition, the character of Brown isn't actually all that likeable, but Hennie plays him with a touch of vulnerability meaning he will crucially capture the sympathy of some of the audience. Director Morten Tyldum was marked out as one to watch over ten years ago, but has never really broken into the mainstream. I'm not too sure whether this will finally get him more exposure as his direction is solid rather than spectacular and the film never really has an overall cinematic feel to it. However, Tyldum does deliver when it matters, particularly in the film's stand out sequence when Brown finds himself in a (literally) tight squeeze between two police officers as a HGV careers towards them. So more fun and games from the Nords and if you can avoid worrying about the somewhat coincidence laden plot, this will give you a few thrills.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The latest fun thriller from Scandinavia delivers the usual goods. Also, best see it now before the inevitable lesser Hollywood remake. Final Rating: 7/10.

Contraband

Fret ye not people, the annual run of the mill thriller starring Mark Wahlberg is with us. Though on initial inspection it looks like there could be more here than the usual join the dots plot as this is a remake of one of Iceland's most successful films in recent years, Reykjavik-Rotterdam. Also this version has the same star of that film, the popular Nordic Baltasar Kormakur, though this time he's in the directors seat. Things have got a bit lost in translation though. In the film Wahlberg stars as Chris Farraday, a former smuggler who has to take on one more job in order to protect his brother-in-law who has fallen foul of the wrong crowd. A number of the Reykjavik-Rotterdam crowd involved in this also had a hand in Jar City. If you've seen that film it'll give you some idea of the pace of this one. For a thriller there's actually very little action, which is a disappointment as when mayhem does occur Kormakur handles it well. The main problem the film has though is that as the story is pretty unoriginal the script becomes overly convoluted to mask this. However, instead of making a simple story smarter it actually makes it far too talky and confusing to follow, especially in the code of smuggling via ships. There's plenty of paperwork, shouting and swearing thrown around, but little explanation to the audience as to the machinations behind such scheming. Also, casting Ben Foster as Wahlberg's best mate is an instant plot give away if you recall the type's of characters Foster usually plays. Acting wise Wahlberg just sleeps through this, but Giovanni Ribisi continues to do a good line in nut jobs as the mobster to which Farraday must pay the debt and J K Simmons as a cantankerous ships captain gets a few laughs, particularly in one of the film's smartest scenes when a load of gangsters inadvertently break into his house. Overall, harking back to my opening line, this is just a standard thriller, though Kormakur does show some promise and there are also some impressive aerial shots of Panama to enjoy. However, this is 30 minutes longer than the Icelandic version and that's the only clue you need to know when you start to look at where certain things have gone wrong here.

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

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games falls neatly into the bracket of films that have been based on bestselling novels of enjoyable (though not great) quality (The Da Vinci Code, Twilight, some of the Harry Potter catalogue et al), but have still made a gazillion dollars at the box office. However, also like a lot of those films, The Hunger Games also fits into that equation by being a film that delivers a basic level of entertainment, but no more. This is double disappointing in this sense as the film has a great first act, but goes quickly off the rails thereafter. To paraphrase an old football staple, this is a film of two halves. Taking place at an unspecified time in the future in the new nation of Panem (though obviously a fantastical version of North America), a boy and girl are selected at random from each of the nations twelve districts to fight to the death on live television. The film focuses on the "tributes" of District 12, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) from their selection, preparation and then participation in the "Hunger Games". As the main premise of the film is not an original concept in any way (a novella, The Lottery, with a similar subject matter was published in the 1940's) it needs something to help poke it's head above the waterline. This it does in great fashion in the opening segment. The nation of Panem is superbly rendered, not only in its buildings and infrastructure, but also in its garish fashions and appearance of the characters (Wes Bentley's facial hair has to be be seen to be believed). You do get the sense of being in another time and place. As soon as the actual "games" begin though the film starts to unravel. It's basically just too Hollywood and when compared to its obvious predecessor Kinji Fukasaku's outrageous Battle Royale, it looks very slim indeed. Though it is naughty to make direct comparison of films in reviews its justified here as it proves the point about where The Hunger Games takes its eye off the ball. In Battle Royale, a class of unknowing school children are gassed and within ten minutes of regaining consciousness are out on an island with instructions to kill or be killed. They're terrified, the audience is aghast, it's shocking to watch. In The Hunger Games we are shown scene after scene of the tributes preparing for battle and by the time of the competition most of them appear to be blood thirsty killers relishing the battle ahead. As that is the case, you actually don't really care who survives and who doesn't and any sympathy you may have had has been lost amongst the snazzy uniforms and make-up. It also doesn't help that even without reading the books you don't doubt for a single second if Everdeen and Mellark will survive or not, so, basically, where are the thrills? Also, any political statements it has are muddled because of this approach (Chronicle had more social commentary than this and that film had a mere cats whisker of a budget in comparison). What is meant to be horrific you'll just meet with a shrug of your shoulders....you felt sorrier for the participants in The Running Man..and they were criminals! This feeling of reduced threat may be partly explained by the somewhat odd choice of Gary Ross as director. Ross hasn't directed a live action picture for eight years and his back catalogue hardly smacks of cutting edge film making. Indeed he appears to make up for that lack of experience by employing the old shaky camera technique, but it doesn't work and at times the editing is awful. That could partly be explained though in respect of the kerfuffle around the films certificate, though you're living in a dream world if you think the studio didn't cut the film on purpose to get a lower certificate (i.e. more bums on seats). If you want further evidence along those lines perhaps the producers could explain to us all how, in a nation where everyone is supposedly starving, why does virtually everyone look in the rudest of health? (OK, it's obviously because pretty people sell movies and realistic depictions of famine do not, but the point is still valid). Acting wise, it's two of the lesser names that take the plaudits. Elizabeth Banks (buried under wig and a ton of make up) is great as the purposely OTT presenter / tributes guide to the games and it's Hutcherson (blowing Lawrence out of the water) who gives a great performance as a youngster in love and the rest of the madness be damned. As for Lawrence herself, this is basically just a performance for the MTV crowd. She's more than acceptable, but compared to her performance in Winter's Bone this is a backwards step acting wise (though it's obviously not publicity wise, he types cynically). Woody Harrelson (as a character called, wait for it, Haymitch Abernathy....yep, there's so many odd names in this film you'll think you've stumbled into the Coen universe) as a drunken mentor and past champion of the games is a cliche too far as well. The film is best summed up by the appearance of some very dodgy looking CGI monsters at the end (don't ask). It's just confirmation of the disappointment you'll feel, as what could have been a brutally brilliant film descends into childish farce.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
What's good is good and what's bad is bad. This is clearly a film for a younger audience (no problem with that), but it's blunt where it could have been sharp. If the studio and producers had given the viewers a bit more credit on the brain front this could have been a cracker. Rating: 6/10.

21 Jump Street

In terms of watching a film at the cinema, I guess the only thing better than seeing a great film is seeing a surprisingly great film. Joint directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller pulled that trick off a few years ago with the highly enjoyable Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs and they've repeated that success here. We start off with some US high school staples with Jenko (Channing Tatum, complete with classic wig) the jock and Schmidt (Jonah Hill) the Eminem obsessed nerd ("Yo, not so Slim Shady!"), before shooting forward a couple of years where they meet up again at a police training academy and form a mutual alliance to help each other graduate. A mix up with an arrest soon means the pair find themselves sent back to high school as undercover agents in order to discover the supplier of a new fangled drug doing the rounds. Then the fun and games really begin. Though it may not sound like much on paper, don't worry. This is hilarious stuff. Lord and Miller's expertise with visual gags (as showcased in Cloudy) is to the fore again and Michael Bacall's and Hill's script is consistently witty and, of course, very rude. What helps no end though is the chemistry between Hill and Tatum, which effortlessly goes from gentle teasing to full on bromance as the film progresses. Hill apparently badgered Tatum to accept the part so he clearly saw something there which not many others would have. Also its a clear sign that Tatum should stop messing around in dramatic roles (which he struggles in) and stick to comedy for a while. As this is only a very loose spin off from the TV series of the same name there aren't that many nods towards the source material. Hardly surprising really when you consider the title will mean little to anyone born after 1980 and when fans of the series are given their fix with a couple of cameos towards the end of the film they just seem out of place and, frankly, not very funny. In terms of the gags that do work though, this pretty much caters to all with its range of comedy going from (the now seemingly obligatory) crudity to some great dry gags for the sharper members of the audience. The only real downers are a somewhat dodgy joke concerning a "Korean Jesus" and that the film is a bit of a mess at the end where it smacks of a rush job, but this can hopefully be forgotten about as a sequel is already in the pipeline. Obviously you'd approach a follow-up with caution, but with Bacall, Hill and Tatum all on board (though no word on Lord and Miller's involvement) you'd hope for another fun ride. Though if Rob Zombie, the director Hill originally wanted for this, comes on board I'd shudder to think where it would end up. Finally, a big thumbs up to everyone involved for the brilliant idea in having the films best verbal gag set up by some mis-direction in the trailer. Smart stuff, indeed.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
I don't think anyone expected much from this, but Lord and Miller continue to look like ones to watch and once again the theory of great screenplay = great film continues to be gospel. Rating: 8/10.

Bel Ami

If I can finish this review by not calling Bel Ami “the poor mans Dangerous Liaisons” it’ll be a miracle as this is exactly what first time directors Declan Donnellan and Nick Omerod give us. Based on Guy de Maupassant’s 19th century French novel of the same name we follow Georges Duroy (Robert Pattinson), a soldier returning from war, who decides to improve his social status and empty pockets by seducing a number of wealthy women (which include Uma Thurman, Kristin Scott Thomas and Christina Ricci) from the higher echelons of Parisian society. In terms of storyline, that’s about it. Twihards may flock to this regardless of it’s lack of story line because of Pattinson’s involvement and I was intrigued myself to see what else the boy can do after his surprisingly impressive performance in Remember Me. Sadly, it’s back to Wooden Robert here, as Pattinson spends the entire film with an odd pout / leer / smirk combination on his face and instead of coming across as a charming seductive force he's more like an ugly small time gangster with embarrassing chat up lines. The main problem the film has is it’s complete lack of sympathetic characters, with Pattinson himself describing Duroy as “completely amoral”. Everyone just sleeps and cheats with everyone else and then they look for comfort afterwards. No dice I’m afraid, though Scott Thomas does give a performance that garners some heart from the audience. This doesn’t fail though just because its premise is morally suspect, its more to do with the fact that it’s just plain dull with Donnellan and Omerod’s inexperience as first time helmers showing as they don’t bother to add anything to the story as they pretty much just point and shoot. Some marks to the production and costume designers though as 1880’s Paris comes alive. It’s just a shame that Pattinson doesn’t.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Complete the sentence: The poor man’s….Rating: 3/10.

American Reunion

Even before going to see American Reunion you could pretty much guess the entire screenplay. Yep, they’re all now some sort of combination of older, married, kids in tow etc….but what’s this? They’re suddenly tempted by old flames, younger women and the chance for old school hijinks? Do they indulge or does maturity pull them back from the brink? As this is basically a message movie I don’t blame the producers for churning out such sign posted fare, but surely a few proper road bumps for the characters would have added a bit more intrigue? Not that fans will care as they’ll just want to see who Sean William Scott insults first. So welcome back Jim, Stifler...and, err, you know, the rest of them. In fact, this is what struck me most when watching the film, i.e. just what non-descript careers they’ve all had on the big screen (Thomas Ian Nicholas, anyone?). Despite the lazy scripting and laboured plotting this does have its moments, including a extended sequence where a terrified Jim has to smuggle a drunk teenage female back into her parents house and some smart put downs of TV dance shows and the cheesiness of US sports presenters. Also, if you want your fill of gross out humour there’s plenty in here for you to “enjoy” (unsurprisingly, mainly involving Stifler), but too many times the humour is just plain mean and tonally out of synch with the rest of the film (and arguably the series). The charm and youthful folly of the characters in American Pie meant we could sympathise with them. Now it’s just a case of stop moaning and grow up. There could have been more to this, but overall the film just feels like a rush job and any ideas that stray from the template just don’t convince. To see how far the series has fallen can be seen by a simple comparison of the directors of the first film and this. American Pie had the Weitz brothers (who went on to make simple, but enjoyable fare like In Good Company and About A Boy) behind the camera, whereas this one has the duo of Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg. What do you mean you’ve never heard of them? They’re the “brains” behind the Harold and Kumar film series! ‘nuff said.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Worth watching for fans I suppose, but apart from a near unrecognisable Rebecca De Morney cameo, nothing worth noting for the rest of us. Rating: 4/10.

Wanderlust

Wanderlust is one of those films that feel like the pilot episode of a TV Series. Director David Wain has a heavy history of small screen productions so perhaps you can understand why this has little cinematic feel to it. The storyline is an old staple where city folk end up in a rural environment (or vice versa) and have to adapt to a different way of living with, we hope, plenty of laughs along the way. In this case we have George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston), a married couple from New York, who find themselves out of work and end up moving to Georgia. A chance accident leads them to staying in a hippie commune and the fun and games begin. None of the actors have to get out of first gear here, which is a bit of a shame as Aniston showed us some decent acting chops in the recent Just Go With It and Horrible Bosses. In terms of the people in the commune Justin Theroux is the stand out as the laid back (but slimy) Seth and the scene where he serenades Linda in front of a group of people is one of the better moments of the scenes set in the commune. On that note it’s actually the opening third of the film, before George and Linda get to Georgia, that provide the sharpest laughs, including some amusing dialogue with an estate agent (and a visual gag concerning the size of their new “home”) and the appearance of George’s brash brother (played by Ken Marino, who also co-scripts). The film stutters in the middle section though as Wain appears lost as to what he’s trying to say. He avoids pushing the points about lifestyle too hard so to avoid appearing preachy, but he doesn’t seem to make the actual situation of people becoming homeless / jobless all that important. Basically whatever happens in the film, whether good or bad, no one seems all that stressed out. I guess the relaxing atmosphere is partly down to the familiarity between cast and crew. Rudd and Aniston were in Friends together, Aniston is also currently stepping out with Theroux and Wain directed Rudd in Role Models. So nothing too taxing here, but there are some decent comic scenes, though a few moments of crudity appear to have been snuck in to appeal to the Apatow crowd.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Fairly innocent stuff, though the gag count could be higher and it’s paper thin plot wise at times. Rating: 6/10.

The Raven

Sometime this year Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter will be coming out. In the meantime, if you’ve got an itch for a gory fictionalised tale regarding one of the US’s most famous men, then The Raven is here to scratch it. Firstly, if you’re already sceptical of yet another film regarding Poe’s most famous poem the title is mis-leading, as what we have is a story that takes a number of elements of Poe’s various works and weaves them into a somewhat grisly screenplay. Starting with the murder of a mother and daughter in Baltimore, Detective Emmett Fields (Luke Evans) discovers that the crime resembles a story by local writer Edgar Allan Poe (John Cusack). Poe is under suspicion for a while, but even though more horrors occur based on Poe’s writings, himself and Fields soon team up in order to catch the serial killer. What this is, in effect, is a sort of 19th century Saw movie as a number of people are done in via various nasty methods. Though it sounds intriguing (in a ridiculous way) the actual storyline isn’t as quite as smart as it thinks it is and this is no more than standard thriller fare (with an additional sharp edge) at the end of the day. James McTeigue grabs the bullhorn here and does a fair job moving the average material along, though there are a number of duff scenes and there’s a worry that the skills he displayed with V For Vendetta were maybe just a one off. Cusack and Evans aren’t bad and give the story a bit of emotion and gravitas by playing it straight. Though a bit more care could have been taken regarding the exteriors as 19th century “Baltimore” looks suspiciously like 21st century Belgrade and Budapest, i.e. where this was filmed.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Worth catching for its oddity status, but it’s a one watch production only. Rating: 6/10.

Rampart

Director Oren Moverman lives up to his surname in his telling of the Rampart police scandal of the late 1990’s. The camera doesn’t hold still for long as all sorts of (s)wanky shots litter the screen, including a bizarre over the top piece of direction where a three way conversation is told via a camera spinning through 360 degrees for a number of minutes. Clever it may be, but it’s distracting enough even before you start to feel the motion sickness. This is a good summation of the film in itself though, as Moverman distracts the audience in plenty of other ways in order to cover up the somewhat thin plot. That isn’t to say fans of Kubrick, Hitch et al won’t appreciate all the trickery. Moverman’s film follows LA cop Dave Brown (Woody Harrelson) as he attempts to sneak under the radar whilst abusing his authoritative power when opportunities arrive. The obvious comparison here is Werner Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant, but Rampart falls miles behind that film both in terms of it’s leading protagonist and its screenplay. It’s been a while since Harrelson has had a dramatic a lead role such as this, the last being in 2009’s The Messenger where he was again directed by Moverman. Moverman got a cracking performance from Harrelson back then, but although Harrelson is will above average again here, the character doesn’t capture the imagination that that film’s eponymous individual did (even though I’m pretty certain Harrelson is in every single scene of this film). The look and ambiance of the film is where Moverman does score points though. Many films set in LA attempt to capture the atmosphere of a city on the verge of collapse and Moverman does hit the spot here. This is the LA of sun and fun, but scratch the surface and your fingernails will become very grimy, very quickly. In effect this isn’t really a study on corruption at all, but more of a character study of one man’s slow descent due to the vices in his life. The problem being when he’s as unlikable Brown, do we really care?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
I expect that Moverman and Harrelson got a lot out of this personally, but it fails to grasp the attention for the average punter. Rating: 6/10.

Piranha 3DD

If I were rating Piranha 3DD on the title alone, then it would be getting my first ever 10/10. Of course, there’s plenty here to ensure that doesn’t happen, but the film doesn’t waver from that tongue in cheek heading and delivers a short slice of fun with a knowing wink to the audience at every step. It’s actually an improvement on Alexandra Aja’s gore drenched first film from a couple of years ago as that film suffered from its indecision as to whether it was playing it’s cards with a straight face or not. This one’s in on the joke from the start. The set up is as simple as Aja’s film, but this time it’s slimy David Koechner’s adult themed water park that serves up the human flesh for the chordatian critters. Oddly enough, though this does have its moments, including a sex scene which delivers possibly the best movie line of the year (“Josh cut off his penis because something came out of my vagina”), this isn’t actually (relatively) over-loaded with gore with nothing coming close to the infamous “face off” from the first film. Having said that Koechner, fresh from being covered in boiling tarmac and having his face destroyed in Final Destination 5, checks out here in utterly ridiculous fashion. The 3D is mainly abysmal, but on a couple of occasions it does suddenly work effectively with piranha flying out of the screen and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t flinch on one of those occasions. Director John Gulager appears to know what’s going on and gets it right in the areas that matter, even managing to pull off a witty three take parody of the Jaws counter dolly zoom shot. Of course, there’s lots wrong here including dire acting, some dodgy deaths (decapitation by bunting?) and the unanswered question as to why so many children are running around an adult’s only theme park. However, from the silly opening scene featuring Gary Busey (Gary Busey spotters rejoice) it’s clear you just need to disengage brain and go with the flow. Best of all though is the hilarious performance from David Hasselhoff. The Hoff takes great delight in sending himself up and, just about making up for the somewhat limp ending, scores a great one-liner to send the Friday night audience home with a smile on their faces.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Less gore, but more fun than the last outing. Rating: 7/10.