Skyfall

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

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

Killer Joe

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

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

Liberal Arts / The Perks Of Being A Wallflower

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

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

Chernobyl Diaries

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

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

Your Sister's Sister

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

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

Taken 2

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

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

Sinister

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

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

Killing Them Softly

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

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