The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
For better or worse, this is what it is. Rating: 6/10.
Saturday 29 December 2012
The Expendables 2
You’ll be unsurprised to hear that The Expendables 2 pretty much just follows the basic template of the first film, i.e. a wafer thin script, cheesy one-liners and action galore. So, if you liked the first film you’ll pretty much guaranteed to like this one. Of course, the selling point of the first film was the reunification of 1980’s action stars, so for the sequel the brains behind the whole shebang (S Stallone, esq) has roped in a few more names from the glory days. Step forward Messrs Norris and Van Damme. In addition, after the slight con of their minimal appearances last time out, this film also beefs up the parts of Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger (though in hindsight after watching their creaky performances here I guess you can’t win either way). Plot-wise this is the classic revenge quest as Stallone and crew seek to take down an enemy who murders one of their own. As Stallone himself memorably barks at one point, “Find ‘em, track ‘em, kill ‘em” is pretty much a good summing up of the last three quarters of the movie. Obviously this isn’t Citizen Kane, but it is an improvement on the first film as a bit more characterisation is introduced and the banter between the protagonists is believable. The film still has the same problem as the previous outing though in the fact that it can’t decide whether it should be taken at face value or as a bit of meaningless nonsense, though there are a few more tongue in cheek gags on offer here, including a nice nod of the head to the “Chuck Norris facts” internet phenomenon. There haven’t been quite so many laughs regarding certain aspects of the production though, during which a stuntman was unfortunately killed and the film crew also being found guilty of environmental damage during shooting. For film aficionados, the most interesting aspect is the choice of Simon West as director. His career has basically stalled since his unwise decision to helm Lara Croft : Tomb Raider over ten years ago and this is his most commercial film since then. The good news is that the skill he showed in handling the bombastic mayhem that was Con Air holds him in good stead here and it was a wise decision by Stallone to hand over the directorial reins to someone who knew how to approach such a production. It was also a wise decision to exorcise in the edit a cameo from tennis star Novak Djokovic in a scene where he attacks terrorists with his tennis racket(!). You need to suspend disbelief when watching this type of film, but surely that would have been game, set and match on any credibility attached to this, no doubt to be continued, franchise.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
For better or worse, this is what it is. Rating: 6/10.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
For better or worse, this is what it is. Rating: 6/10.
The Bourne Legacy
There’s the old gag about boffins being rebuffed by would be investor’s with the line “You’ve invented something that doesn’t need to be invented”. Tweak that analogy a bit and you’ve got a good description of The Bourne Legacy, i.e. a new Bourne film that explains and expands on the background of the previous three films when it isn’t necessary. The hook for this film is the tag-line: “There was never just one”. A mildly intriguing statement, but Tony Gilroy’s film starts off slow and just never gets going. This is a Matt Damon free production (apart from the odd image) with Jeremy Renner taking over as the lead. In the film Renner plays Aaron Cross, a member of the black ops programme, who goes on the run due to Bourne’s past actions (there’s a partial overlap time line wise with the previous films). Gilroy was the writer / co-writer of the previous three films, so it can’t be denied he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. However this film is so talk heavy in revealing further layers in the Bourne universe that the action segments of the film appear to have been added on as an afterthought, which might explain why they rarely raise the pulse. On the acting front this is the biggest attempt yet to shift Renner onto the A-list, but again he fails to show the star wattage that made people sit up and take notice of him in The Hurt Locker and the change of front man here (so to speak) just hasn’t worked. Hollywood loves to kill the goose that laid the golden egg so after three great films it’s no surprise they couldn’t just leave the story be. However, if this film was to be viewed as a necessity, then it should have had an ending that either had you looking back and nodding your head at the retrospective aspect of the films or on the edge of your seat baying for a further instalment. The final scene provokes neither of those emotions. I think I’ll leave the last word to Paul Greengrass who years ago cracked that if a fourth Bourne movie was ever to be green lit it would have to be called "The Bourne Redundancy". Touche, Paul.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Devoted fans may get some kicks from this, but in reality the first three films were the legacy. Rating: 5/10.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Devoted fans may get some kicks from this, but in reality the first three films were the legacy. Rating: 5/10.
Tuesday 25 December 2012
Brave
Monday 24 December 2012
Shadow Dancer
Director James March has a background in TV
and film documentaries, with the highpoint being 2008’s Oscar winning Man on
Wire. Here he’s into fictional feature film territory and the results are mixed.
Shadow Dancer stars Andrea Riseborough as Colette McVeigh, a member of the IRA
who becomes an informant for MI5, with her handler (Mac) being played by Clive
Owen. The film is a slow burner if ever there was one, but it never really fully
catches fire. That’s not to say there should be shoot out’s and action sequences
every ten minutes as March’s film is a more realistic portrayal of the “behind
the scenes” circumstances of The Troubles, but the narrative is too static at
times and there are numerous scenes were basically nothing is really happening.
I haven’t read Tom Bradby’s novel from which this is adapted (Bradby himself is
the scripter here), but March’s approach to telling the story is to tell the
audience as little as possible and for them to work out what is going on as the
minutes pass. It’s a hit and miss approach as it becomes too confusing at times
(especially the deathly slow opening 15 minutes) and if you know nothing of the
British / Irish situation then you might as well not bother watching in the
first place. On the flip side, it’s nice to have an approach where the
characters and plot aren’t spoon fed to the viewers and you get to use a bit of
your own grey matter. However, March’s direction is as bland as the (well
portrayed) 1990’s Belfast setting, though there are a few scenes of decent
tension as McVeigh’s family begin to suspect they have a rat in the house.
Riseborough is half decent in one of her biggest roles to date, though Owen
appears uncertain as to what is really motivating his character and Gillian
Anderson is pretty wooden in a small role as Mac’s boss. All in all this isn’t a
bad effort from March, but it’s unlikely this is even going to find an audience
on DVD due to its sluggish pace and subject matter. March does at least keep you
guessing until the final few minutes and there are a couple of nice twists
thrown in at the death. One is a cracker, but the other has already been ruined
if you’ve seen the trailer and have got eagle eyes.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
The most un-Hollywood film of the year keeps you guessing, but March’s direction and his inability to get decent performances for most of his cast suggest his real talent arguably lies back in non-fiction output. Rating: 6/10.
Ice Age: Continental Drift / Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted
Double review time again as here we have a
couple of films (Ice Age: Continental Drift and Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most
Wanted) that have plenty in common both historically and artistically. Well, I
say review, but there isn’t really much point for films such as this as the
template has been set in the previous films and, despite marketing that suggests
otherwise, for both films it’s mainly just a case of wash, rinse and repeat. A
brief summing up though can be made by looking at those sub-titles. For Ice Age
Manny et al get stuck on an iceberg and find themselves getting caught up in the
usual shenanigans. For Madagascar, Alex et al are on the run in Europe where
they, well, find themselves getting caught up in the usual shenanigans. Both of
these animated franchises have been big hitters at the box office over the last
decade so it’s hardly surprising to find more sequels being released. For some
these films will be old hat, but for others (though mainly fans I guess) that
won’t be a problem, especially parents who want their kids to watch something
colourful, quick, silly and fun. There is a serious case of déjà vu when
watching these latest productions, but I can’t deny each film doesn’t have some
moments of genius and Madagascar’s introduction of a new character in the form
of the Captain of Animal Control in Monaco (voiced by an unrecognisable Frances
McDormand) provides consistent laughs. On that front, I’d say that Madagascar
has the sharper script both in terms of humour and pathos, but Ice Age triumphs
in terms of its main characters having more personality (aided by having more substantial audience recognition
already built in. For example, how many Madagascar
characters (not actors) could you actually name?). Overall, it’s as you were for
both franchises with nothing really new here to report, though a glut of minor side
characters in each film will have the sharp eared on alert trying to recognise
what B-actor is providing the vocals. Talking of recycling if any more sequels
to these films come out, to make matters easier and to save time, just refer
back to this review and change words as appropriate. Finally I avoided watching
both of these in 3D, but from what I’ve read elsewhere it didn’t add anything.
What. A. Shock.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Money for old rope. But if people keep buying said rope......Rating: 6/10 (both films)
Magic Mike
The premise of Magic Mike (i.e. a story set in
the world of male stripping) probably won’t have many men rushing to the cinema,
but taken as a follow up to Steven Soderbergh’s last film (the abysmal Haywire),
anything will do. Loosely based on Channing Tatum’s experience as a stripper in
his younger days, Reid Carolin’s script follows Mike Lane (Tatum), roofer by
day, stripper at a club by night and his attempts to escape the getting starkers
lifestyle by setting up his own furniture business. In a second plot strand we
follow the relationship between Mike and Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a young man who
Mike takes under his wing and introduces to the world of stripping. The film is
pretty thin plot wise and the aforementioned storylines don’t exactly grab the
attention. However it does work well in two other areas. The first (which Tatum
has said he hoped the film would capture) is the camaraderie, atmosphere and
energy between the dancers both onstage and off. Secondly, the business aspect
of the job is well portrayed with club owner Matthew McConaughey at pains to
point out that the company should be as professionally run as possible, but with
the temptations of women, drink and drugs lurking around every corner it’s quite
a battle. I’m not that bothered with the arguments behind the sexual politics of
the film and to be fair to the studio they were upfront about their marketing
campaign targeting women and gay men (which clearly paid off as this has become
a box office success). However I think it’s fair to say that Soderbergh and
Carolin could have done a bit more both from the camera point of view and the
join the dots plotting. Acting wise, Pettyfer and McConaughey give the best
performances. Tatum is his usual self, but at least he’s better than Cody Horn
(as the love interest) who is beyond bland. Plus, Mike and Adam hardly seem to
connect as friends or colleagues, but that might have something to do with the
rumours that Tatum and Pettyfer didn’t get on during filming. One person who
Tatum does like though is Nicolas Winding Refn who he originally wanted to
direct this, but scheduling conflicts meant it never came to fruition. The mind
boggles at that one.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Cheap thrills for some, but only an average
film for the rest. Rating: 6/10.
The Five Year Engagement
The last time Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel
wrote together the end result was the enjoyable Muppets movie from the turn of
the year. However, any originality that made that a surprising bit of fun is
missing here as they churn out a by the numbers romance that will eventually
just find itself on the pile of forgettable rom-coms from the last few years.
That’s not to say the target audience probably won’t enjoy this, but I’d guess
even for them this is a one viewing situation only. Starting off in San
Francisco, Tom (Segel) proposes to his girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt), but when
she gets the chance to study a post-doctorate in psychology in Michigan, they
decide to postpone their wedding and both to make the move east. Tom has trouble
finding work though and before long the strains of a relationship are beginning
to take their toll. Segel plays Tom with his usual goofy charm and there is some
believable chemistry between himself and Blunt. Rhys Ifans provides good support
as well as Violet’s slimy professor and his scene where he escapes an enraged
Tom with some fleet of foot provides one of the best laughs of the film. On the
downside, people who think that psychology is a load of balls will probably be
gnawing their knuckles at the script (though it does poke a bit of fun at said
discipline), especially when one of the main plot points resolves around who
would eat a stale doughnut. Stoller did some decent work behind the camera on
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (and, less memorably, Get Him To The Greek) but here
it’s, well, as stale as one of those aforementioned doughnuts. It’s all pretty
predictable and it also includes the eye-rollingly annoying group of diverse
friends / work colleagues / students that only ever exists in US sitcoms or
films. What saves it from being a complete flop though is that this has a
slightly dark edge to it on the emotional side and it’s well acted by the three
main leads. Basically this is just like Going The Distance (but, er, without the
distance), with a different cast and crew. Therefore, if you liked that film,
you’ll probably like this and vice versa.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Not bad, but even if you never see this film,
you’ve already seen it. Rating: 6/10.
Amour
Firstly, some choice cuts from some of the
previous films of Michael Haneke, one of European cinema’s enfant terrible’s:
Teenage girl coldly murdered by captive bolt pistol (Benny’s Video); Man
unexpectedly slashes own throat in the middle of a conversation (Cache); Family
murdered whilst intruders torture the audience via breaking the fourth wall (Funny Games) and
as for The Piano Teacher, let’s say no more. Now let’s look at the description
of Haneke’s latest film, Amour: An honest and moving portrayal of an elderly
couple. What, no sudden knife attack, you say? Nope, this is as read, and
despite Haneke’s previous film (The White Ribbon) being a relatively leisurely
stroll in respect of pace (though certainly not in subject matter), who could
have predicted that this would have been the subject of Haneke’s next project?
This does start with a bang though, with a Parisian fire department breaking
into an apartment and discovering the partially mummified corpse of a woman.
We’re then into flashback as we pick up on the lives of octogenarian couple
Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva), retired music
teachers and seemingly at ease with the cards life has dealt them. However, Anne
soon suffers a stroke which leaves her paralysed down one side of her body. Her
hatred of hospitals means that Georges has to take care of her at home and, with
her condition deteriorating, it shines the spotlight on just how much “love”
couples must have in their relationship in order to get by. This picked up the
2012 Palme d’Or, but it’s the kind of film that always does, i.e. popular with
cineastes, but open to accusations of pretentiousness over substance. There are a few
irritations here, the main one being that the literature released with the film
states that Anne became paralysed due to the hospital botching her operation,
but this isn’t mentioned in the film. Also, at over two hours long, there are a
number of scenes that probably could have hit the cutting room floor. In
mitigation you can argue that Haneke is showing the reality of such a situation,
i.e. time moves slow, life is tough and there are no short cuts. It’s certainly
an honourable subject, but whether this will find a mainstream audience though
(let’s face it, this is a tough sell) is a different matter. It’s a great film
in terms of what it wants to do, but I doubt you’d ever give this further
viewings. It’s certainly thought provoking though and I imagine it will be
difficult to watch for anyone who has personal experience of what is happening
on screen (apparently it’s based on an identical situation in Haneke’s family).
This in itself is a detour for Haneke as the majority of his output has usually
concerned situations both fantastical and ambiguous for the audience in
question. Here though those barriers have been dropped and Haneke puts the
viewer right into the middle of the story. A brilliantly acted story it as well,
especially by Riva who puts herself through the wringer in numerous scenes where
she both physically and metaphorically bares all. This being Haneke though,
there has to be a shock at some point and whilst not as visually disturbing as
moments in his earlier films, it still resonates both in terms of its surprise
value and as a moral talking point after the film has ended. It’s a classic
dirty trick from Haneke (one of the modern day masters of audience manipulation)
as he challenges you to decide whether what you have just seen really is “love”,
after all.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Haneke tone’s down the shocks for an emotional study of age and love that provides plenty of food for thought for all. Rating: 7/10.
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2
I can’t say I’m a fan of these films and,
unless you’re of a certain gender and of a certain age, there’s actually very
little the average movie fan will get from them. That’s not to say they
shouldn’t have a place in film history, as they provide entertainment for the
target audience and, if that’s your business plan, these films can be classified
as a commercial (though not critical success). Starting immediately where the
last film left off Bella (Kristen Stewart) is now a vampire and having given
birth to her and Edward’s (Robert Pattinson – his entire dialogue in this film
must work out to about one word per page of the script) baby, the couple find
themselves under threat of punishment from the Volturi (headed up by Michael
Sheen, slicing the ham far too thick). In order to protect themselves the
Cullen’s start to round up a clan of other vampires. This is hardly done in the
style of The Blues Brothers or Seven Samurai, mind. Instead, every ten minutes
there’s an introduction of new characters who look like they’ve just walked off
a photo shoot for a fashion magazine. On the plus side it does raise some
unintentional guffaws. Speaking of that there is a wry sense of humour on show,
but the whole franchise has taken itself far too seriously and a touch of
humility would have actually helped aid a more positive critical reaction. This
was filmed back to back with the last part and so all the problems of that film
and frankly, the series as a whole, remain. The special effects remain terrible
for a collection that has raked in so much money (I assume the phrase continuous
improvement wasn’t banded around the offices of Summit Entertainment much in the
last few years), the acting is wooden (somewhat ironic for a series concerning
vampires) and the plot holes remain huge, especially when we “see” from Bella’s
point of view what it’s like to be one of the blood suckers as her amazing
smell, sight, strength, speed etc. pretty much makes a mockery of any struggles
the vamps have had so far. Despite all this, this is arguably the best film of
the lot. It doesn’t drag too much, storylines are resolved and there’s cracking
fight scene which more than makes up from most of the other badly edited ones
from the previous movies. Plus, it’s unlikely you’ll see a film with as many
decapitations (albeit bloodless ones) as this contains for quite a while. Best
of all though is an astonishing third act twist, which is one of the best pieces
of rug pulling of the year and is an audacious piece of storytelling by Condon
and screenplay scribe Melissa Rosenberg (especially as I’m told it differs from
the book, so most of the audience will be the marks). It’s frustrating as well
though when you wonder why such effort couldn’t have been put into other areas
of the film as opposed to the join the dots process that the final presentation
became.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Fans will probably enjoy this last act, but
for the rest of us it really has been a “saga”. Rating: 6/10.
Lawless
If you’ve seen The Proposition, you
may get a sense of déjà vu when watching Lawless. Same director? Check. Same
scripter? Check. Same bursts of horrific violence? Check. Storyline concerning
brothers from a family on the wrong side of the law? Check me up. So it’s a
reunion between John Hillcoat and Nick Cave (his script being an adaptation of
Matt Bondurant’s novel The Wettest County In The World), but as with most
reunifications, this falls short on the quality front when compared to earlier
successes. Set in 1931 the storyline concerns the Bondurant brothers Forrest
(Tom Hardy), Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) and their illegal
moonshine set up in Virginia. Their cosy-ish way of life though is interrupted
by newly appointed Special Deputy Charley Rakes (Guy Pearce) and his demands
that all racketeers in the area pay him a cut of their profits. The brothers
refuse and things start to get messy. The trick that Hillcoat and Cave pulled
off with The Proposition was that even though it was a slow burning drama, you
left the cinema feeling like you had just watched a blistering non-stop
thriller. Lightening doesn’t strike twice here I’m afraid though as Cave’s
screenplay is full of clichés (the tart with a heart, the patsy etc.) and
Hillcoat’s direction is no more than TV movie of the work. The film isn’t helped
by its overuse of CGI either with some dodgy visuals just confirming to us its
2012, not the 1930’s. The acting is hit and miss as well. LaBeouf continues to
prove he has zero charisma (how does he keep getting cast?) and Hardy doesn’t do
much apart from mumble. However, Gary Oldman (despite a disappointingly limited
screen time) is great as a rival gangster and Pearce is his usual impressive
self, though not quite appearing to really believe in the part he is playing.
Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska are pretty much anonymous as the scarcely
believable girls who like the bad boys. The film does have its moments though,
which includes a dark sense of humour and a neat running gag regarding Forrest’s
invincibility. Also, to be fair to Hillcoat and Cave, they don’t profess this to
be any more than what it is. There’s no character development, but this is just
a snapshot of a family during a specific short time period. Whether you’re going
to be interested in the story or not will be down to personal preference. It
didn’t do much for me, but at least it’s better than Hillcoat’s last film, the
vastly over-rated The Road.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Some may rate this higher, but for me this was more listless than lawless. Rating: 6/10.
The Hunter
I would have loved to
have been there when the pitch for The Hunter was made to various film studios:
“OK, so it’s about a mercenary killer from Europe who is hired by a biotech
company to go undercover in Australia and hunt for the legendary last Tasmanian
tiger in existence”. At first reading it sounds like something from one of those
modern B-movies you see advertised at Cannes each year. It’s also the plot
behind Julia Leigh’s respected (if bleak) novel of the same name from 1999.
Leigh herself is not involved in the film in any way, though the script doesn’t
veer too far away from her original writings. To expand on the plot outline
above, the hired hand in question is Martin David (Willem Dafoe), who on arrival
in Tasmania attempts to blend in with the locals by passing himself off as a
researcher from a university. He ends up lodging with Lucy Armstrong (Frances
O’Connor) and her young children. However, the community doesn’t take kindly to
his presence and with the clandestine biotech organisation wanting results at
all costs, David’s task suddenly begins to take on a more dangerous slant.
Filmed entirely on location in Tasmania, director Daniel Nettheim takes full
advantage of the local scenery with some fantastic shots combining both the
beautiful and bleakest views that the island state has to offer. Dafoe gives one
of his best performances for ages with his facial expressions telling us all we
need to know in the many scenes where Nettheim smartly forgoes a soundtrack. Sam
Neill (as a local guide) is also great, teasing the audience throughout as to
whether he’s David’s friend or foe. On the negative side, Nettheim’s direction
can’t escape his TV background and the narrative regarding a local community
taking issue with an outsider has been seen a million times before. I don’t know
if there’s a sub-genre of “Eco-thrillers” (The Constant Gardener, perhaps?) in
film, but this would fit nicely in there. Though that description might put some
off, what makes the film work is that you can watch it on various levels. On the
human front, there’s David’s relationship with Lucy and her young children, the
thriller edge comes in the form of David’s mission and the shadowy figures that
appear to be following his progress and, finally, we have a mystery element as
to whether the Tasmanian tiger is still out there and if David will find it or
not (in reality it’s been classified as extinct for a long time, though there
are, of course, still unsubstantiated sightings). I suppose the best thing I can
say about this is that I actually saw it over three months ago and, thinking
back to it now, I wouldn’t mind seeing it again as there’s more than meets the
eye here when it comes to the subplots and it has a climax that will put you
through the emotional wringer when David has to decide if taking one (innocent)
life can be justified if it means saving many others. It’s a conclusion which is
crushingly poignant and one of the most memorable scenes of the year.
The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Possibly too slow-burning for some, but this provides food for thought on a number of different levels. Rating: 7/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)