The Great Passage

You know that "I really need to see a film about writing a dictionary" shaped hole in your life? Fret no more, as director Yuya Ishii's The Great Passage will see you well. Purposely starting the action in 1995 (when the internet was just about to really kick into bloom) Ishii's film (based on the best selling novel by Shiwon Miura) follows Mitsuya Majime (Ryuhei Matsuda) a shy salesman who catches the attention of a couple of dictionary editors due to his love of reading and eye for detail. He soon finds himself part of an editing team who are determined to produce a new physical dictionary called "The Daitokai" (i.e. The Great Passage), despite their efforts taking place in a time of electronic and social upheaval meaning their work gets less relevant as the years pass. Of course, the film isn't really about just writing a dictionary as it touches of themes of relationships, love, death, society and social class. If you think this all sounds a bit heavy, don't worry it isn't, as Ishii's film has a light touch throughout and even its darker moments are touched with hope. Plus if you're wondering how the film covers such a wide range of topics, lets just say it doesn't take them a week to complete the dictionary. However, that does lead to one of the negative points of the film as it isn't entirely clear what year we're in or how much time has passed as the project progresses (the make up doesn't really work). In addition, for those not used to Japanese humour you'll find a lot lost in translation, especially on the social etiquette front. However, when this does tickle the funny bone, the chuckles are laugh out loud crackers. A charming film, plus this gets an extra point for outrageously cute ginger cat! Rating: 8/10.

Prisoners

If you managed to catch Denis Villeneuve's Incendies from a few years ago it'll give you a fair indication as to what to to expect from this, his major studio debut. The main thread running through Incendies was a search for the truth capped off by a stunning twist in the last few minutes. Prisoners follows a similar tact, though any twists come more through gradual reveals as opposed to anything that will make you fall off your cinema seat. Talking of the twists the less said about the plot the better, though the film concerns Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) a father who's daughter and her friend go missing following a Thanksgiving dinner. Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) takes up the case, but as soon as it appears the police are running into a dead end Dover, agitated with the police's lack of success, takes drastic action to attempt to move things along. This is one of the more thought provoking drama / thrillers of the year and addresses the classic human question of just how far would you go to protect someone you love. The moral question aside the film also doubles up as a cracking mystery with Villeneuve wisely using the M.O where plot revelations are made to the audience at the same time as the characters. Talking of the characters, despite this having a strong ensemble cast it is the two leads that demand the attention with arguably both Jackman and Gyllenhall giving the best performances of their careers. Jackman holds nothing back, laying down bare emotion and leaving little in the tank, so much so that in a scene where an enraged Dover is going nuts with a hammer you can clearly see Paul Dano break character as he attempts to avoid some real damage. Despite playing things lower key (and despite still looking around 20 years old), Gyllenhall is even better. Little is told of Loki's back story, but just from the look in Gyllenhaal's eyes you know that there are some serious demons in there and that solving cases is pretty much the only thing that keeps him going. On that note, this is certainly a dark film in terms of subject matter which Villeneuve augments with a sense of dread pretty much from the word go utilising murky filters and a menacing score. One of the few black marks to be held against Incendies was that it was held together by a number of somewhat credibility pushing coincidences. Prisoners is similar in the fact that the plot probably won't held up to forensic scrutiny. However, I suppose the old answer to that is what films screenplay would? Despite being in his late forties, Villeneuve is certainly one for the future. His films are not for everyone, but his talent cannot be denied, shown here by one of the gasp inducing moments of the year following the simple act of removing a sack from someone's head. Rating: 8/10.

Blue Jasmine

Though seemingly fixated with Europe for the past number of years, Woody Allen occasionally dips his feet back into the US, though this new production comes from the west coast as opposed to his beloved east coast. It stars Cate Blanchett as Jasmine Francis, previously a loaded New York socialite, who has fallen upon hard times and so arrives in San Francisco to live with her sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins) while she attempts to piece her life back together. Hello, A Streetcar Named Desire I hear you shout! Comparisons to that material are fair enough, but it's safe to say this won't become a long term classic. There's actually nothing that wrong with the film per se, the acting is great and the use of a flashback structure to explain Jasmine's circumstances works well. It's more a case of why would you want to watch this? Blanchett herself has described Jasmine as an "anti-heroine", but that's far off the mark. Her character is basically horrible and garners little sympathy from the audience, especially as her downfall is due to dodgy financial dealings (hardly the best way to elicit audience concern in this current climate). Much praise has been given to Blanchett, but to me her performance is a case of "I can see you acting", whereas the rest of the cast give a perfect example of playing it as natural as possible. Hawkins gives her usual solid performance, there's additional able support from Peter Sarsgaard (as a potential lover for Jasmine), Louis C K and Andrew Dice Clay, though it's Bobby Cannavale who steals the film giving a storming performance as Ginger's lovable lug fiance Chili. Overall, Allen's comments on social class are as subtle as a sledgehammer and there really isn't much point in seeing this unless you really are an Allen completest. Though having said that, it might be worth a watch just so you can see Sarsgaard looking like an early seasons Frasier Crane. Bizarre. Rating: 6/10.

The Internship

The cinema paying public has grown weary of the antics of Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson over the past few years, so much so that the satirical website The Onion came up with one of the quotes of the year when it described that the The Internship was “…poised to be the biggest comedy of 2005”. Throw in the fact this re-teams Vaughn with his The Watch director Shawn Levy and I’ll understand anyone’s reticence to give this a chance. However, this isn’t actually all that bad and it does have a surprising amount of heart. However, there’s little originality in the script which concerns recently laid off watch salesmen Vaughn and Wilson gaining an internship at Google and their struggle to complete the course due to their lack of knowledge of modern culture and social norms. It’s as standard as you’d expect, including the now de rigueur unsubtle mixture of diverse students that only ever appear in US movies and sit-coms. What saves this from being a complete disaster is that the grossness for the theatrical release has clearly been reigned in, which makes this a more appealing watch than you would originally have thought. Many brick-bats have been thrown at the film for its portrayal of Google as a utopian employees paradise. Well, duh. What did you expect? At least the film is honest in its approach to using the company as a means to an end. Though I understand how the combination of Vaughn, Owen, Levy and Google could have people thinking the apocalypse has come early. Rating: 5/10.

Runner Runner

With the rightful kudos that Ben Affleck is receiving these days for reinventing himself as one of the most promising young directors around its a shame to see him continue to sully his name in such medicore fare as Runner Runner. Up front though this looks like this could have been fun, telling the story of college student Richie Furst (Justin Timberlake) who discovers via some statistical analysis (hey, no sleeping at the back) that the poker website he lost money on is a scam and debunks to Costa Rica (as you do) to confront the improbably named Ivan Block (Affleck), the owner of said website. Block takes Furst under his wing and soon enough things turn into a game of bent bets and bent coppers. It sounds fun, but its mainly bland. Timberlake and Affleck both look bored throughout and when the script throws up moral dilemma's or tight situations you just don't care how things are going to turn out. What's most surprising about the whole production is that this is director Brad Furman's follow up film to his excellent The Lincoln Lawyer, a film which also had a twisty plot and made good work of making morally ambiguous characters likeable. Lightning doesn't strike twice here though, mainly due to a lack of depth and detail summed up by Gemma Arterton's painfully thin character who is no more than token totty for the lads. Oddly enough the conclusion is actually pretty clever, but this only again highlights how bare the previous ninety minutes have been. Runner Runner, so good they named it twice (guffaw guffaw). Rating: 4/10.

Elysium

When you first saw the original promotional shots for Neill Blomkamp's Elysium, that of a shaven headed Matt Damon with surgically attached exoskeleton, you wouldn't how thought that the final film would be a somewhat plodding action thriller that leans so heavily to the left it might as well have been sponsored by the Communist Party. The problem is Blomkamp has appeared to concentrate so much on making sure people understand his political views its been to the detriment of making an entertaining film. Though his blistering calling card District 9 was slightly spoiled by its trite apartheid allegory, it was so damn enjoyable on so many other different levels that you could ignore such obvious sign posting. Here it is not the case. Set in 2154, the wealthiest individuals now live on a man made space station (the Elysium of the title), whilst the rest of the population is stuck on an Earth that is on its last legs. When an accident at work leaves Max Da Costa (Damon) with only a few days to live he decides to attempt to smuggle himself into Elysium with the intention of receiving treatment, whilst also undertaking a mission that will end the struggle of the humans left on Earth. Blomkamp has employed many of the same hands that worked on his previous film and in respect of art design and special effects, this is visually superb. The storyline is the let down though. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with political films, but Blomkamps unsubtle comments on immigration, overpopulation, class etc. have little substance to back them up and come the films denouement the final statement appears contradictory in respect of what has been preached so far. Throw in a wasted effort from old pal Sharlto Copley (who's involvement it appears was to make sure he swore as much as possible) and this has the old problem of great on paper, not so great on film. The fact that Blomkamp wanted an unknown rapper as first choice to play the lead role suggests he's not quite the genius his debut film suggested he was. I think this film is best summed up by Diego Luna, who was so keen to work with Blomkamp he signed on before even reading the script. On hearing this Luna's agent responded "Never do that again". Wise man, that agent. Rating: 5/10.

Rush

If you saw Rush without knowing who the director was it's probably a a fair bet to say you wouldn't have piped up that you thought Ron Howard was calling the shots. That's no smear on Howard's solid (if unspectacular) career, but you wouldn't expect such nail-biting racing scenes from a man who is more used to giving us lightweight comedies and thought provoking dramas. However, in hindsight, Howard was probably the perfect choice after all, for himself and screenplay writer Peter Morgan employ the same M.O that proved such a success the last time they paired up for Frost / Nixon, i.e. taking a famous historical event and using dramatic license in terms of the accuracy of events and dialogue in order to produce something thrilling for the modern day cinema going audience. So though Howard's film (which mainly tells the story of the battle for the 1976 Formula One drivers championship between James Hunt and Niki Lauda) takes some wrong turns which may upset petrol heads in respect of its authentic correctness, the end result is pure entertainment and frankly, isn't that what movies are meant to be all about? Despite the blistering racing scenes, the film is actually more of a character study of each man and their relationship with each other and their own mortalities. Playing Hunt is Chris Hemsworth and, a couple of thriller roles aside, this is the first time he has portrayed a fully dramatic part. Great he is too, nailing Hunt's cut glass accent and charm with the ladies, whilst always hinting that there is a layer of insecurity behind the mask of bravado. Daniel Bruhl (as Lauda) is even better. Wearing a dental appliance to help capture Lauda's "ratty" look, it's a career best performance from Bruhl capturing Lauda's mannerisms and cold mechanical outlook on life. However, the two main stars lead the way to such an extent that other characters get lost by the track side, especially the leading female roles in the film. Plus, if you want some stereotypes (eccentric Englishmen, corrupt Italians et al) they're all dotted throughout. Just be thankful Howard wisely jettisoned a cameo from Russell Crowe as Richard Burton. In terms of it's actual physical look, though F1 has always been about the glitz and the glamour, Howard shoots with filtered lenses to give the impression of a time which wasn't so much the glory days, more a grim decade of stagflation in the western world in which one of the most popular sports meant death was a daily hazard for the drivers, all in the form of entertainment for the masses. However no one is forced at gun point to be a racing driver and Morgan's script keenly points out that these men are obsessed with being number one whatever the risks. Howard perfectly captures this moment in a scene in which Bruhl squeezes into his racing helmet only weeks after suffering the horrific burns that would scar him forever. Overall, though the racing / life metaphor is a bit too forced, this is a hugely enjoyable film that should appeal to a much wider audience than just people who can tell a driveshaft from a crankshaft (no, me neither). Rating: 8/10.

2 Guns

2 Guns is one of those films that you'll see at the cinema and ten years down the line will have difficulty differentiating it from many similar films of this period. To whit: Mark Wahlberg deadpans and fires a lot of guns; Denzel Washington wears some outlandish clothes; there's a drug deal; corrupt policemen; a hip hop soundtrack, the list goes on. So basically if you like that sort of thing this should see you fine, though the film loses most of its appeal in the fact that it thinks itself far better than it is. Also, if you've seen the trailer already, that has also already given away much of the movie. If you do want some plot what we have is undercover agents (Washington = DEA, Wahlberg = Navy) getting caught up in a botched drug deal, with the hook being that neither man knows of the others identity. The unease is played upon for a little while by director Baltasar Kormakur, but it doesn't hold much water (especially as there's little chemistry between the leads) and at least Kormakur has the sense to eventually just concentrate on the action. This leads into the films main problem in which it tries to be clever with a screenplay that is meant to keep you guessing. However, too many twists spoil the broth and by the end you'll be too tired to care who is who and who gets away. Wahlberg has stuck with his Contraband mucker Kormakur here, but it's the list of directors who were also considered (Liman, Fuqua, Morel, Campbell) that meant we could have had something a bit more coherent as the final presentation. OK, you can take Fuqua back. Rating: 5/10.

The Lone Ranger

Director Gore Verbinski, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and stars Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer got a bee in their bonnet about The Lone Ranger. Their beef was that the film was savaged by critics due to what happened behind the scenes as opposed to the actual quality of the film. Do they have a point though? The Lone Ranger is certainly no classic, but it’s a long way off from being a turkey. Where it was a disaster was on the commercial front, but as I’ve been saying for years, most of the time a films performance at the box office has little connection to it’s overall merit. The Lone Ranger is a bit of a muddle no doubt, but at least it tries to entertain as much as possible. The chemistry between Depp (Tonto) and Hammer (Guess) is decent, there are a number of laughs and it doesn’t take itself seriously at any point. Plus if you don’t like seeing William Fichtner (as the big bad here), then you plain just don’t like cinema. However, the cast and crew can have no argument against the negatives. The flashback structure is completely unnecessary and unfunny (the present day bits are Depp as an elderly man narrating the story) and add too many minutes onto an already lengthy run time. The tone is all over the place (it’s oddly brutal at times) and the never ending final scene is the overkill that has been hinted at all along. Perhaps the main question that needs to be answered is when did Johnny Depp decide to stop acting? It can’t be helped that he’s teaming up with Verbinski yet again, but this is just the same old routine he’s been putting out for almost a decade now in films of this ilk and its wearing very thin indeed. Going back to the original complaint, there is also the counter argument that many films suffer from teething difficulties in production and turn out to be fine in the long run. Personally, it seems to me that this just isn’t a film that has an audience out there (something I would have thought Disney would have researched beforehand). The last actual film to star these characters was over thirty years ago and whilst many of the production crew may be from that generation, the cinema going demographic is mainly between 25-35 year olds and they’re clearly non-plussed by a man in a mask on his horse with an eccentric sidekick. Overall, if you disengage brain you should have enough fun to get by (plus Tom Wilkinson accent spotters are well catered for), but Bruckheimer’s assertion that in years to come this will be rediscovered as a masterpiece is as fanciful as this getting a sequel. Rating: 6/10.

Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa / We're The Millers / The Heat

Time for some comedy and three films that tickle the required funny bone if, as they say, you like that sort of thing. Cinema is littered with the corpses of big screen versions of successful British sitcoms (see The Inbetweeners Movie for the most recent evidence) so hopes aren't high for Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa as Steve Coogan and Armando Iannucci finally bring their fictional radio presenter to the silver screen. However a genius such as Iannnucci rarely puts a foot wrong and there's plenty of laugh out loud moments here from the usual one-liners ("She's a drunk racist. I can accept one of those things, but not both") to surreal silliness (the best radio jingle you'll hear for quite a while) as Partridge finds himself caught up in a siege at his local radio station. However the script appears to have been caught between trying to appeal to a new audience by introducing some broader (i.e. cruder) laughs and indulging the hard core fans. Iannucci and company couldn't win either way on that front I guess, but the consensus from the long term believers (which include myself) is that this isn't as bad as was feared. Not sure if that is a recommendation or not, but the fact that it's been almost twenty years since AP was in his prime and this can still raise moments of ruddy hilarity shows that there may be life in the old Partridge yet. Talking of broader laughs, Rawson Marshall Thurber's We're The Millers has, amongst other things, a tarantula biting Will Poulter's privates. However, don't let that put you off as there's a surprising amount of heart here amongst the filth as, on finding himself in the hole to a kingpin, a local pot dealer (Jason Sudeikis) is forced into moving a huge amount of marijuana from Mexico into the US. In order to remain as inconspicuous as possible he creates a fake family involving a stripper (Jennifer Aniston), a teenage runaway (Emma Roberts) and his abandoned-by-his-parents neighbour (Poulter). In effect this is a road movie with the plot no more than a number of scenes in which the faux family interact with a range of characters (Hello, Luis Guzman!) whilst trying to avoid ending up in the slammer or the morgue. This isn't the type of film where a director can do much with the camera, but much like Thurber's last film (Dodgeball) he knows that the idea behind this kind of production is to just let it all hang out and hope the comedic hits outweigh the misses. The lack of subtlety is highlighted in the much promoted (hmm, can't think why) Aniston strip scene where Thurber has Sudeikis break the fourth wall with an expression that says "Well, what did you expect?".It's a bit odd, but at least it's honest. More hit and miss laughs come in the shape of The Heat, starring Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock. Paul Feig surprised all with his 2011 sleeper hit Bridesmaids (though Annie Mumolo and Kristen Wiig's cracking script had a big hand in that) and here he re-teams with that films break out star McCarthy. The last time we had a female buddy cop movie was Feds (back in 1988!) and if you can remember that you'll probably understand why there hasn't been one since. However, screenwriter Katie Dippold's debut script has plenty of positives going for it and McCarthy and Bullock play off each other nicely. Could have done a bit better on the editing front mind as McCarthy's improvised scenes drag on way too much at times and the jokes about albinism (though if you know this genre you'll get the reference) are a bit off pat. Worth catching though for the moment when Bullock's uptight copper finally loses her rag and unleashes a grammatically challenged string of expletives. Partridge Rating: 6/10. Millers Rating: 7/10. The Heat Rating: 7/10. 

Pacific Rim / Only God Forgives / About Time

Right, no more messing. I've really got to try and move these reviews along, so here's three vastly different films all grouped together for one reason: their mediocrity.  Guillermo del Toro has been involved in seventeen different films since 2008's Hellboy II. The problem is he hasn't directed a single one of them. Therefore you'll be unsurprised to hear that Pacific Rim has terrible dialogue and awful acting. Del Toro is revered for his intellect and for this film drew inspiration from (amongst other things) Goya's The Colossus and Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa. However, at the end of the day isn't this just a film about large robots beating the crap out of each other? Idris Elba just looks guilty for accepting the paycheck and Ron Perlman chews so much scenery he's probably still in hospital now having bits of wood removed from his stomach. Teenage boys need apply only. It's adults only though for Nicolas Winding Refn's follow up to his much acclaimed Drive. Personally, I didn't fully get all the praise that film received and in Only God Forgives Refn has taken the main facets of that film and pushed them to the limit. So here we have even less dialogue, Ryan Gosling looking even moodier and Refn disappearing even further up his own backside. Storyline wise its a revenge fable, but Refn's usual mix of glacial pacing interspersed with crunching violence mean thrills are in short supply. Speaking of the violence, this has had the left up in arms again (somewhat ironic considering this film has many of them lopped off) but this isn't any worse than Drive and there's certainly nothing here as stomach churning as the disemboweling in Refn's earlier Valhalla Rising. Still you can't deny Refn knows how to frame and shoot a picture as this looks gorgeous. It's just a shame the overall product is clouded by conceitedness. Smugness is also an accusation that Richard Curtis has been labelled with over the years due to his scripts and films portraying a comfortable middle class existence for the majority of his characters. This kind of reverse snobbery is utterly ludicrous. If you want to slam Curtis do it for the quality of whats on show. Unfortunately for him, About Time gives plenty of opportunity for pouring scorn. It's a British romantic comedy (natch) in which a young man (Domhnall Gleeson) uses time travel to fix the problems in his life. It has its funny moments, but Curtis completely misses the point as he tries to garner sympathy from the audience when Gleeson doesn't get the chance to use the time machine to undo the darker moments in his life. So, just like the layman, huh, Richard? There's some good chemistry between Gleeson and Rachel McAdams in the lead roles (which is ironic considering he's basically pretty deceitful to her throughout), but the rules behind the time travel which drive the plot get forgotten about as we move through Gleeson's life and we're left with so many unanswered questions that in the end the unique selling point of this film is the thing that kills it. Rating for all three films: 4/10.

The Wolverine

James Mangold blotted his copybook with 2010's mediocre Knight and Day, though at least he's safe in the knowledge here that even if he had mucked this up as well it would just about be covered up by almost guaranteed decent box office returns. Basically any director who picks up the megaphone for a superhero film these days can breath easy before the cameras have started rolling as we're truly living in a time where the relationship between quality and turnover has almost divorced for good. This latest instalment in the X-Men film series is a case in point. A film that is nothing more than average, but due to an already established built in audience, people will pile in anyway. OK, to be fair, The Wolverine is actually an above average film, but we're at the stage now where the non-Marvel fan needs something original to keep the interest going. Mangold and a bevy of established screenwriters (Bomback and McQuarrie amongst them) hang the hat of the story on the Wolverine character's major sticking point. It's must be pretty cool to be immortal, but it leaves the audience cold. How can you be excited about a film where you know the main protagonist can't actually be hurt? Therefore the scripters have moved things to Japan and introduced a plot in which old Logan isn't immortal after all. This actually works up to a point, but apart from a good line of humour running through the movie and the occasional thrill (a fun and frantic chase atop a speeding Shinkansen being the highlight) overall the feeling is still that of same old, same old. At least Hugh Jackman hasn't given up and arguably gives his best performance so far playing ol' mutton chops. Shame the rest of the cast is shocking, with Svetlana Khodchenkova so wooden as Viper that they might as well just have made her whole character CGI. As the film meanders into its standard final act you can't help but think what this could have been like had original director Darren Aronofsky stayed aboard. Aronofsky's fingerprints register throughout and it's frustrating to think that this could have been something quite different. Alas, we're left with a safe director, a safe script and a safe film. Rating: 6/10.  

World War Z

Even if you start to watch a film and you’re unaware that it has suffered from the old “difficulties” during production, it doesn’t take long for such problems to rear their head. Usually it means the film will come across as disjointed and World War Z is a prime example. Adapting the Max Brooks novel was always going to be difficult due to its style and Matthew Michael Carnahan’s screenplay has been re-written numerous times and the final result is basically just a number of scenes which on occasion can stand alone, but do not add up to a consistent narrative. What storyline there is has Brad Pitt starring as Gerry Lane, an ex-UN investigator who travels the world in an attempt to find an antidote to a zombie plague which is spreading across the globe. It seems to me this film was doomed from the start for a number of reasons. Pitt himself has stated that the whole thing came about as he just wanted to do a film that his children could watch. Hardly a reason to produce a film methinks. Next is the odd choice of Marc Forster as the director. Forster can handle the dramatic elements of a film, but, as proven with Quantum Of Solace, give him a huge budget with action scenes and he’s found wanting. Overall, it seems that no-one could decide what the tone or genre of the film was meant to be, highlighted by a quote from original scripter J Michael Straczynski who identified the film as a Bourne type thrill ride, whereas Forster was mentioning conspiracy thrillers such as All The Presidents Men after he had signed on. No wonder this is a bit of a mess. On the plus side Pitt’s performance is solid enough and there’s good work from the many character actors that pop up throughout the film, but the whole shebang is too soulless for you to actually care if the human race ends up as zombie snacks or not. A few of the scenes hint at what might have been, but even with numerous reshoots the big moments in the film (such as an attack in an airplane mid-flight) don’t deliver the required thrills. Plus, there is a major plot boo-boo in that he protagonists discover early on that the zombies are attracted by loud noises, but Lane appears to forget to pass on this somewhat crucial nugget of information on arrival in certain locations. At the end Pitt mutters “This isn’t the end. Not even close. Our war has just begun”. It’s doubtless you’ll care. Rating: 5/10.

The Counsellor

There’s some much wrong with this film I don’t where to begin. Perhaps a quick summation of the plot (of which there is little) would help. Ridley Scott’s new film has Michael Fassbender as a lawyer (though referred to as the eponymous title throughout the film) who is persuaded to take part in a drug deal by local kingpin (Javier Bardem). When things go awry, the Counsellor finds himself on the run as the bodies begin to pile up. Scott’s film boasts some serious pedigree what with him calling the shots, a screenplay by Cormac McCarthy, a cool trailer and a one sheet that screams the actor’s surnames. However all this does is underline what a monumental waste of talent the final production is. The main blame lies at the feet (well fingers I suppose) of McCarthy. This is the first actual script he has written directly for a film and it’s basically endless scenes of (unbelievable) dialogue which virtually none of the actors look comfortable delivering. On that front, there’s some serious mis-casting in this film. Bardem never convinces as the zany drug lord (not helped by his silly hair, get up and what appears to be a mild trace of lipstick in some scenes), Brad Pitt (who appears to have been at the pies) pops up with a distracted performance and Penelope Cruz is no more than window dressing. Worst of the lot though is Cameron Diaz. Whoever thought she would make a convincing callous queen bitch of the underworld must have been squirming in their seat at the preview screenings, though things are hardly helped by the stupidest scene of the year where her character has sex with a car windshield. Yes, you read that correctly. As for Fassbender, his performance is perfunctory enough but he also suffers script wise. His character is meant to be the central point of the film, but as he has no back story it’s hard to relate as to why he becomes such a quivering wreck with poor decision making as soon as the proverbial hits the wall. Surely he must have had some nous to get to the position he was in in the first place is such a dangerous industry? (though an amusing slip up on the continuity front involving a mobile phone suggests maybe he has unforeseen powers). Making a film work which is full of unlikable characters is always one of the most difficult aspects of film making and Scott can’t pull it off here. I don’t know either way, but surely the tragic death of brother Tony during the shooting of this couldn’t have helped matters. Overall this is a cold soulless film with little redeeming features. Apart from a few decent one liners, Toby Kebbell popping up with teeth so white you’ll need sunglasses to get through his short cameo and a spectacularly gory death of one of the main characters there is virtually no reason to see this film. Ever. Rating: 2/10.

The East

Zal Batmanglij’s last film was Sound of My Voice, a low budget thriller concerning a cult and starring Brit Marling. With a bit more budget he now follows up with The East, a thriller concerning a cult (of sorts) and starring, er, Brit Marling. Batmanglij and Marling wrote the script based on their experience of joining an underground activist group. Based on what they’ve come up with here the stereotypical views of rough sleeping and minimal washing don’t look far from the truth. However Batmanglij and Marling struggle to transpose their experiences onto the screen as their script has too many ideas going on. Anarchy, eco-terrorism, multi-nationals, corruption, fraud, love, friendship and sex all battle for position meaning the film struggles to get its message across. That isn’t to say this isn’t thrilling in parts, but once you get past the halfway point it loses its momentum before the somewhat cop-out ending. Marling takes the lead role, though after now seeing her in a few films I’m not sure she has much range beyond her bland facial expressions and she never convinces here that at one point she was former FBI Agent. Still this film does offer plenty of food for thought though, whatever your politics, seeing this is only going to reinforce whatever side of the line you already fall on. Pub Quiz Fact: Batmanglij’s younger brother is the pianist in Vampire Weekend! Rating: 6/10.

Despicable Me 2 / Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2

Some more double reviewing needing here, this time in the form of animated sequels to films that made a nice return at the box office a few years back. The difference being that whilst Despicable Me racked up a huge profit it was years behind Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs in terms of plot, jokes and overall enjoyment. However, the law of follow-ups is still accurately adhered to as both films are well below the quality level of the original production and for Despicable Me 2 that’s bad news indeed. Frankly I’m not sure I actually even need to do a review of this film and will basically do a bit of plagiarising (from my review of the original film) where I wrote “Kids will enjoy this more than adults, as the emphasis is on slapstick as opposed to anything more cutting edge or satirical”. That more than applies here, but things are even more puerile then before as fart gags begin to take centre stage. With the trailer already giving away the few funny jokes there are, adults will find this a serious chore to sit through. However, if you’ve got kids, thanks to Universal Pictures cynical / understandable marketing of those lovable minions, you’ll be dragged to this anyway. Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs was one of the sleeper hits of 2009 and one of those films you saw at the cinema and immediately felt like you were part of a special club that only had (in relative terms of cinema-goers) a few other members. It hardly warranted a sequel mind, but hey, here we are. This time round Flint Lockwood and the rest of the inhabitants of Swallow Falls have been relocated whilst a clean-up job occurs on their island. However the FLDSMDFR (unless you’ve seen the first film that will make little sense to you, but it’s still one of the best repeatable gags for many a year) bursts back into life, but this time starts producing food / animal hybrids (foodimals!) which appear to have a taste for humans. The problem the film has is that the brains behind the original (writer-directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller) have moved to executive producer positions this time, but from the final output on show it appears their input has been fairly minimal. Despite the silly premise of the original film it also had a slant towards the more mature side of the audience, but this mixture of pleasing both sections of the crowd has gone here as we’ve gone into mainly child pleasing territory (though ironically, I would think some of the more nasty looking foodimals on show would give some tiny tots a few nightmares). Clearly the production team have had great fun dreaming up the foodimals (tacodile, anyone?), but apart from that, there’s very little originality on show. There’s the basic plot line of not letting your family and friends down and the new villain of the piece looks like he was thought up during a lunch hour. Though any film that can get a laugh out of a “There’s a leek in the boat” gag can’t be all bad. On a side issue, prior to the film’s release Sony Pictures teamed up with a number of companies to help send a huge amount of food to families in need. Obviously the theme of the film was partly a driver for this, but it rightly puts other animated films marketing approaches (i.e. cuddly toys et al) into their shameful place. Despicable Rating: 3/10. Meatballs Rating: 5/10.

Taşkafa: Stories of the Street / 11.6

Though these films have nothing in common, I’m throwing them together as they’ve only appeared on the festival circuit so far and it’s unlikely either of them is going to see a mainstream release. That’s almost certainly the case for Andrea Luka Zimmerman’s Taşkafa: Stories of the Street, what with it being a documentary film about the street dogs of Istanbul and with a run time at just over an hour. That isn’t to say this isn’t a great watch though as Zimmerman’s charming story mainly focuses on the relationship between human and animal. It’s hardly subtle on the political side of things, but hope is addressed through Zimmerman showing various elements of society and their selfless actions towards the dogs. Some people do it because of their religion. Some because of an innate love for animals. Some have just given up on humans altogether. Zimmerman’s use of a voice over reading a poem to juxtapose the story being told doesn’t really work, but you can’t deny Zimmerman didn’t put her whole life into this for it took nine years from inception to hit the screen during which she lived in Istanbul and learnt Turkish. Long term preparation is also the key to Philippe Godeau’s 11.6, however in this case it’s in the shape of the main character Toni Musulin (François Cluzet), a driver in an armoured car delivery firm who plans to pilfer many a note during a low key non-violent bank robbery. Godeau’s film is only 40 minutes longer than Zimmerman’s, but feels double that. This is a slow-burner that burns very slowly indeed. The film has two problems that render it a frustrating watch. One is that the build-up to the robbery drags and drags and when it finally does occur it’s quite dull. Secondly, the film is actually a fairly accurate portrayal of a real life incident and a substation unresolved issue from the robbery is similarly portrayed in the film meaning unless Musulin (currently enjoying some cell time) spills the beans in real life (or the police sharpen their act up a bit) there is no closure. Apart from a nice reveal towards the end which explains the film’s title, there’s little here to suggest you should watch this as opposed to just reading the story in the press. Taşkafa Rating: 7/10, 11.6 Rating: 4/10.

Now You See Me

Films revolving around magic and illusions are usually hit and miss. For every The Prestige there’s a Magicians. With Now You See Me being helmed by Louis Leterrier you’d assume this will be the cinematic equivalent of actually accidently sawing the woman in half, but Leterrier’s film is entertaining enough, though suspension of belief is a 100% requirement before, during and after watching. Four street magicians (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco) are bought together by a mystery benefactor (in a scene reminiscent of something resembling a kiddies version of Saw) in order to become one of the top draws on the magic circuit. Things take a turn for the surreal however when a trick involving money being stolen from a Parisian bank turns out not to be a trick at all. FBI agent Mark Ruffalo is assigned the seemingly implausible case. Implausible being the operative word here as the script has many silly twists and turns and some scenes are outright ridiculous (a fight involving “magic”!). However, if you just go with it it’s a bit of fun that passes the time, aided by a script that moves things along and some throwaway laughs. This is arguably Leterrier’s best film (though the competition was hardly stiff), but he does little to suggest he’ll ever be an actor’s director as everyone just plays to type. With so many names in the cast (Morgan Freeman Michael Caine and Melanie Laurent are all also involved) it’s hardly a surprise that screen time for all is uneven and Fisher and Franco, despite being part of the main group, barely register. The big twist at the end is fair enough, but with a sequel already in the works, hopefully things will be a bit more coherently explained next time. Rating: 7/10.

After Earth

Ah, there hasn’t been an opportunity to bash M. Night Shyamalan for a few years so the old chap has been back to well of mediocrity and emerged with After Earth. Though star Will Smith is as much to blame for anyone for this mess, what with him having a hand in the script, production, direction and the casting. Ah yes, the casting. I’ll come on to that shortly. Set 1000 years hence, the storyline has a military father (Smith) and his son Cypher (Jaden Smith) crash land on the now abandoned Earth (so, being pedantic, not actually after Earth at all then), where Cypher has to battle through the hostile terrain in order to do something or other (I can’t remember anymore) in order to help save his injured and dying father. It sounds mildly entertaining, but the execution is dull and the script clichéd throughout. Many brickbats have come Smith’s way for casting his own son in what is basically the lead role, but the nepotism thing doesn’t bother me too much as it happens all the time (see Apatow / Mann, Burton / Bonham-Carter, Sheen / Estevez and so on). However, the difference between those examples and this, is that those people are talented. Jaden Smith can’t act to save his own life, let alone that of his father’s in a film. Stuck with a facial range of either “constipated” or “not constipated”, every time he appears on screen his performance is so wooden it’s like an impromptu carpentry lesson has broken out. Smith Snr and M. Night need to carry the can for this snooze fest, though you’d have to squint hard to discover that this is actually a Shyamalan production at all as Sony Pictures marketing campaign swept him under the carpet (for obvious reasons). So he’s not totally to blame here, but this does nothing to suggest Shyamalan will ever get back to the dizzy heights of his earlier work. Some impressive special effects in respect of the sharpness of the images aside, this is a vanity project that should never have made it beyond the pitching stage. Rating: 3/10.

The Purge

James DeMonaco has penned a few scripts over the last few years and he also picks up the screenplay credit here as well as picking up the megaphone for the first time. This isn’t a great debut, but I always give first timers the benefit of the doubt and DeMonaco delivers quite a lot from a small budget. The problem the film has is that from its nice central premise it doesn’t know where to go and ends up a mixture of genres with it eventually just tailing off into plain silliness. Set in 2022, the United States has become a nation with low crime rates due to the introduction of an annual purge during which all citizens have free reign to commit any crimes they want without reprisal. Ethan Hawke stars as a rich salesman who has made a living from selling home security systems who suddenly finds his own house under attack during the purge when (irony ahoy!) his own defence set up reveals itself to be not as solid as he thought. As a social allegory it’s as subtle as a knife in the ribs (plenty of that in this film by the way), but DeMonaco’s screenplay doesn’t even attempt to address this further and the film turns into a standard home invasion thriller. However there is a decent moral dilemma plot wise thrown into the mix at the halfway point, but the increasing levels of violence as the film goes on just highlights the well of ideas running dry. Rating: 5/10.     

The Great Gatsby

I’ve never quite got Baz Luhrmann and this awful adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s famous novel hardly helps matters. If there’s a worse directed opening of a film this year I’ll eat a pair of 3D glasses. In fact for the opening 20 minutes read the entire film. Where to begin? The overload of special effects making the film resemble an imaginary world? (if you claim Luhrmann did that on purpose pass me another pair of those 3D specs). Tobey Maguire’s goofy performance? Carey Mulligan’s blandness? (seriously, how does she keep winning all these parts?). Actually let’s stop listing things and get to the root of the problem, mainly that Luhrmann appears to have not understood Fitzgerald’s source material in the slightest. How else to explain his decision to modernise everything from the fashions to the dire soundtrack. Forget the Roaring Twenties setting when there’s merchandising coin to be made, huh? The only plus points are Leonardo DiCaprio as the mysterious Gatsby (though his catchphrase of “Old Sport” will leave you gritting your teeth by the time you hear it for the fiftieth time) and Joel Edgerton gives good edginess and is virtually the only decent example of a character who has some development in the film. Basically Luhrmann couldn’t have been a worse choice to develop a novel that is short in length and delicate in its prose. Lehmann delivers 2 hours 20 minutes of bright images and not much else. Finally, perhaps someone should have pointed out that for one of the quintessential novels about New York and its suburbs, it was probably a good idea not to shoot it in bloody Sydney. Rating: 3/10.

Fast & Furious 6

The most shocking thing about Fast & Furious 5 was that it was a half decent film. This meant a green light for another instalment and (arguably for the first time ever) some anticipation about the next F & F release. Actually, with the way things work now, even if it had been utter rubbish we would still have had Fast & Furious 6 regardless. How else to explain the arrival of F & F 5 in the first place, following the abysmal 2009 entry? Anyway, before this digression becomes too complicated, what isn’t difficult to work out is that director Justin Lin has mainly stuck with what made the last film such a success, i.e. a predictable plot that lets you not think too heavily with some absurd action sequences thrown in every now and then. Where this does differ slightly is that the producers have decided that the film series needs to move away from the underground car racing scene into a more character driven (sorry) action / thriller hybrid. It doesn’t fully work and some of the special effects in the few car chases that do occur stick out like a sore thumb with Lin’s over generous cutting of said scenes hardly helping matters. However, it’s hard to be too mean about the ludicrously silly final chase scene involving a large aircraft, which, according to some bod on the internet, would have needed a 26 mile runway in order to accommodate such a scene in real life. Yup, it’s that kind of film. Cast wise its pretty much as you were and the series continues its unbroken run of success in that not one of them can deliver a comic line. On the newbie front Luke Evans is pure mahogany as the villain of the piece, but things are saved on that front by a final scene cameo which is hilariously intriguing as to who is picking up the bad guy handle for the next film. All in all a disengage brain bit of fun. It’s just a shame this is a backwards step from last time out. Rating: 6/10.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Not to sound mean, but J.J. Abrams is probably best described as a steady-hand. He can be trusted with multi-million dollar movies of which he’ll give audiences a decent night out and the studios a nice return on their investment. However, he’s yet to give us something that is a standalone classic of a genre, though he’s still got a long way to go career wise. Therefore, it’s as you were with Star Trek Into Darkness. Solid stuff, but no more. The Apocalypse Now sounding plot has Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) sent to a planet to terminate with extreme prejudice (OK, capture) rouge star fleet Commander John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). You don’t need to be a genius to work out who Harrison really is. On that note the references to The Wrath Of Khan aren’t subtle, but they’re smartly handled and Cumberbatch’s icy performance is the continued making of this fine young actor. Of the other main leads Pine and Quinto are already impressively settled into their characters and the development of the bromance between Kirk and Spock brings some nice moments. What with so many crew members it’s inevitable that some of the rest of the cast fall by the wayside and Simon Pegg’s Scotty still isn’t really very funny. Alice Eve also pops up, though it appears only to be in order to give teenage boys a thrill in a cack-handed scene where she appears in her smalls (a moment for which the producers have since apologised for its lack of relevance). Despite the lengthy running time this doesn’t actually begin to flounder until the very end where a standard chase scene (marred by poor special effects) is the disappointing culmination of a film that has been tight up until that point. Still, things bode well for future instalments. Rating: 7/10.

Iron Man 3

It’s Iron Man 3 time. Or is it Iron Man 2? If you can spot the differences let me know as most of the action scenes here seem carbon copies of the last instalment. No point going over plot details here, though Marvel time wise this is the follow up to The Avengers. It’s a step back in quality from that film though and much like Tony Stark’s suit crashes and burns. The over-rated Shane Black is on mega-phone duties this time, though he seems more concerned with filling the script with his alleged zingers. At least some of them hit home, which at least makes up for his lack of effort when it comes to getting performances from the cast with Ben Kingsley’s turn best described as WTF? Shame Jon Favreau didn’t have more of a hand in the production of this as surely he wouldn’t have allowed the introduction of a child sidekick – the cinematic sign that all ideas have been exhausted. Still, considering this is now the fifth highest grossing film of all time (albeit not adjusted for inflation), we’ll be back scraping the bottom of the concept barrel for the inevitable next chapter. There’s yet another post-credits scene, apparently. Yawn. Rating: 4/10.

Filth

Not one to take your mother to this with its violence, swearing, sex, pornography and masturbation all enveloped within an overall package of depression and mental illness. Of course, it’s entertaining as hell. Jon S. Baird’s adaptation of Irvine Welsh’s novel stars James McAvoy as Detective Sergeant Bruce Robertson, a copper on the mean streets of Scotland who attempts to gain a promotion to Detective Inspector whilst committing more crimes than the average crim themselves. McAvoy is superb as the increasingly out of control Robertson and Baird’s direction moves things along at a nippy pace. The script has a number of laugh out loud moments (including the best one-liner on sexuality equality in the work place you’ll hear this year) and an intriguing twist towards the end. On the downside the use of some shock imagery to portray Robertson’s descent into near madness is a bit trite and Jim Broadbent as Robertson’s (admittedly funny) imaginary doctor is a cipher as you can get. Due to its content this might struggle to find a broad audience, but if you want an evening free of political correctness then seek this out. Hello, John Sessions! Rating: 8/10.

Mud

One of the biggest surprises in the land of film over the past few years was Matthew McConaughey’s superb performance in The Lincoln Lawyer. His subsequent roles have suggested he’s left behind the genre of lame rom-com’s for good, but is he now again just playing the same part over and over? For Killer Joe, Magic Mike and The Paperboy, you can now also add his character of Mud in Jeff Nichol’s eponymously named film, i.e. the Southern Boy, charming, lackadaisical, but with something mean hidden beneath the surface. Nichol’s film is a coming of age drama which uses the standard template of some kids discovering a person hiding away from society and becoming entangled in a moral maze of should they / shouldn’t they help whilst the locals look on disapprovingly. This isn’t a bad film at all and the youngsters of the cast are refreshingly not annoying. Ironically it’s the main thread of the film that is its weakest point as we don’t really care that much about Mud and McConaughey does little to peak our interest. Blame can be laid at Nichol’s door on that front and question marks remain as to why he stuck with such a clumsy script in which virtually all the reveals are sign posted a mile off. On the plus side the visuals are great and Nichol’s intention to capture the green intensity of young love in one of the sub-plots is painfully captured. For an impressive character study you’re better off with Nichol’s Take Shelter, mind. Rating: 7/10.

The Moo Man

Andy Heathcote’s doc-moo-mentary (© The OC Film Sting) follows farmer Steve Hook and his production of raw, unpasteurised organic milk from his dairy farm in Sussex. From the title though you can guess that this is more about the Friesian’s that produce said product and if you’re an animal lover you’ll find this predictably moving. Shot over four years we follow Hook’s relationship with his herd and the film captures a way of life and living that is fast disappearing in England. Despite the tough undercurrent there is plenty here to warm the heart, including stubborn cow Ira refusing to do what she’s told half the time and Stephen Daltry’s silly score is a nice touch. Overall though Heathcote seems uncertain as to what the tone should be and in some scenes it slips into unintentional black comedy territory (especially in a scene where Hook is talking about one of his favourites….whilst handing over chopped up pieces of said animal to a customer). All in all though it’s fantastic to see a film such as this get into the cinemas (the head honcho at Sundance picked it as his festival favourite). A wider analysis of the milk producing sector would have helped, but for a small budget film such as this it covers a range of emotions and ideas that films with one hundred times the resources don’t even get near. Rating: 7/10.

Olympus Has Fallen / White House Down

Despite me seeing these films many months apart I’m so behind with my reviews it made sense to wait until seeing the latter film (White House Down) before posting a few words as both productions are cut from virtually the same cloth. In this case that bit of garment being a blood stained Old Glory as each film depicts a terrorist attack on the White House. Frankly there isn’t much to call between the two and it probably comes down to whether you want to watch a film directed by Antoine Fuqua (starring Butler, Eckhart and Freeman) or one directed by Roland Emmerich (starring Tatum and Fox). Both films suffer from a huge (though understandable) reliance on GI imagery and the inevitable lashings of patriotic gruyère. Plot wise Olympus has a somewhat ludicrous guerrilla style assault whilst Down goes mainly for the classic insider job. Overall Down probably just shades it due to it occasionally hinting that all of this mayhem shouldn’t be taken too seriously (Olympus is a lot darker and more violent), though it appears respected performers Maggie Gyllenhall, Richard Jenkins and James Woods are taking it all at face value. Viewing pleasure of either demands takeaway and beers on a Friday night, otherwise steer well clear. Olympus Rating: 5/10, Down Rating: 6/10.

Evil Dead

Psycho, The Wicker Man, The Taking of Pelham 123 et al. The list of rubbish / pointless remakes is long and now continues to grow thanks to this reboot (yawn) of the Evil Dead franchise. Not much point comparing this to the original, suffice to say we have a cabin in the middle of nowhere, some teenagers who make dumb decisions and a whole lot of gore. It's a bit of a shame really as the film has a cracking start and is genuinely unnerving for a while. Before long however director Fede Alvarez throws subtlety into the misty woods and it becomes one long blood fest. Electric knife, crowbar, nail gun, chainsaw...you name it and no doubt at some point you'll find it used in this film. The main problem is though is that there's no real difference between something with such a historic flag bearing title as this and any standard torture-porn from the last ten years. Some humour amongst the carnage would have helped. This made a coin at the box office mind so maybe all you need these days is a decent marketing team and not much else? Rating: 5/10.

Oblivion

The Cruise is back, this time as (what else?) one of the last human beings on earth thanks to some alien naughtiness some sixty years previous. Cruise is Jack Harper, a repairman, who along with team mate Vika (Andrea Riseborough), maintain the huge power stations that have been developed on the nearly destroyed planet and which now help to support human life on a far away space station. It's all a bit more complex than that (the screenplay by director Joseph Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek and Michael Arndt is full of smart ideas), but the slow burning plot is best discovered as fresh as possible. Kosinski has stated that the film is an affectionate nod to the science fiction films that permeated 1970's cinema and you can't deny he hasn't failed to hit his target. However, as with a lot of those films, the sumptuous visuals can't distract from the fact that when it's all said and done what you're left with is nothing more than an existential muddle. On his day Cruise can really put in a performance, but he seems to have been stuck in the same style of acting for a while now and this is no different. On the plus side (despite the good natured skimping of ideas from other films) this still has a fresh feel to it in these days of franchise film after franchise film. Be warned though, the films signature phrase ("Are you an effective team?"), which was clearly meant to cross over into the cultural zeitgeist just gets more annoying the more times you hear it. Oh yeah, and Tom does some running. Rating: 7/10.

The Call

This film stars Halle Berry. Wait, come back! The lesser-spotted Brad Anderson returns to the directors chair with a surprisingly enjoyable kidnapping yarn involving Berry's 911 operator as she tries to locate the snatched from a car park Abigail Breslin before jittery psycho Michael Eklund can....well...best see for yourself. It's a straightforward premise which was originally planned as a TV series and whilst there are plenty of cracks on show (some of acting of the minor characters is woeful) this makes the most of it's small budget and has a number of genuine edge of the seat moments. A mis-step at the end aside this is solid most of the way through and the brief running time means things move along at a nimble pace. On the negative side a couple of moments of nasty violence aren't really called for and having the teenage Breslin unnecessarily spend the last third of the film in her bra is a bit queasy. Overall though Anderson's old school direction keeps the package together, though you may want to knock off a mark for Berry's shocking barnet. Rating: 8/10.

The Place Beyond The Pines

Derek Cianfrance reteams with his Blue Valentine star Ryan Gosling for this drama of father and son relationships told via the medium of bank robberies, police corruption and suspiciously convenient plotting. Gosling stars as a motorcycle stuntman who begins a side line in pilfering in order to help raise money to help his ex-lover raise their young son. Soon Gosling crosses paths with young cop Bradley Cooper and the film shoots (literally) off into an unexpected tangent. This has an old style feel to it and Cianfrance has learnt the lessons from Valentine with a much needed injection of pace on the editing front and some great one take shot scenes. Most credit should go to Sean Bobbitt though for his sumptuous cinematography which is nicely complimented by Mike Patton’s simple though haunting score. Though basically a film of two halves character concentration wise, the storyline is more of a triptych which needs belief to be suspended on a routine basis and the overall package is a bit too melodramatic. Overall a good film for the non-blockbuster crowd to enjoy. Ray Liotta does some snarling. Rating: 7/10.

You're Next

This has been on the shelf for a couple of years and, though it has its faults, it’s surprising it’s taken so long for a mainstream release as Adam Wingard’s film is perfect Friday night fodder. A wealthy couple invite their children and significant others to their secluded holiday home for a weekend and before long they find themselves under attack from a gang of masked assailants. The opening 20 minutes of the film are creepily effective but, as with most horror films, this loses its edge once the reveal has occurred. If you like your grue though you’re well served as there’s plenty of close ups of smashed skulls, cut throats and the search for this year’s winner of best use of a blender in a film award ends here. On the downside the comic moments fall very flat, most of the scares / deaths are telegraphed and the killers go from efficient practitioners of their art to bumbling buffoons. However, this still falls on the right side of the line as it doesn’t take itself too seriously and Sharni Vinson is good as the spunky Aussie heroine who (of course) just happens to be an expert in survival due to her upbringing in a camp in the outback. Rating: 7/10.

Trance

Despite being a disjointed rush job due to his involvement with the Olympics, Danny Boyle’s latest film has enough up its sleeve to warrant the attention, though personal enjoyment will probably rest on whether you think this disappears up its own fundament or not. This psychological thriller has James McAvoy as an art auctioneer who helps steal a painting but in doing do takes a blow to the head which renders him with amnesia and no idea where the stolen art has actually ended up. Miffed boss Vincent Cassell hires hypnotist Rosario Dawson to lever the info from him. The screenplay is twisty enough, though Boyle’s direction veers towards the garish at times. Also, if you want a film where a major plot revelation is revealed when a female shaves her, er, lady bits (no, really) then this is for you. For those looking for closure I can confirm that Dawson pouts around (again), Cassel does a lot of leering (again) and McAvoy gets beaten up (again and again). Rating: 6/10.

Dark Skies

Scott Stewart was the man behind Priest and Legion. Do I need to type any more than that? OK so the first half of Dark Skies isn’t too bad as a young family (Josh Hamilton and Keri Russell are the parents) start to experience strange phenomena in their house before more sinister and physical ailments manifest themselves. The structure of the film is disjointed throughout and this adds to a nice level of unease. However, it appears this was more luck than judgement from Stewart as, though the slow build up is well handled, the execution of the second half of the film is completely fumbled with the denouement too confusing to elicit any real scares. Things aren’t helped by the naming of the aliens as “The Greys” either. Could have been a decent little scarer, but overall it just comes across as a below par episode of The X-Files. Rating: 5/10.

Kick Ass 2

You’ll have read that Jim Carry put distance between himself and this due to his concerns over its violent content. More likely he disowned it for a more prosaic reason; it’s cack. The dangers of “sign for one, you’ve signed for two” contracts are laid bare as Aaron Johnston puts in a charisma free performance and director Jeff Wadlow’s painfully unfunny script is just made up of swear words and as many different references he can bung in to the female groin. This mainly concentrates on Hit Girl and her attempts to lead a normal life, but any dramatic leanings are quickly lost amongst silly violence, scatological humour and terrible special effects. Oh yeah and don’t forget a comedy (non)-rape scene. Oh my sides. Wait for this to come out on DVD / Blu-Ray. Then don’t watch it. Rating: 2/10.

Compliance

Much like The Imposter, Compliance is a film that will have you struggling to comprehend mankind’s lack of nous and brainpower. Based on a true story, Craig Zobel’s film tells of a situation where a manager of a fast food restaurant was duped into believing she was speaking to a police officer on the telephone and subsequently went on to treat one of her employees in a manner which you have you shouting in disbelief at the screen the more preposterous things get. However, unlike Bart Layton’s excellent quasi-documentary this is shown as a straight dramatisation. Therefore, despite the end of the film stating that the events depicted happened on over 70 other occasions, this is badly lacking context. The absence of analysis as to why people will respond to ludicrous orders to people in authority means the film plays a frustratingly straight bat throughout and feels uncomfortably exploitative in parts. However, there was no need for the audience at Sundance to catcall this and walk out. Though Zobel’s film isn’t great, is it his fault some people are so gullible they will act in such an injudicious way? Plus, if this film highlights the dangers of such prank calls, isn’t that a good thing? Rating: 6/10.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

Time for the latest film adaptation from a series of fantasy novels, in this case Cassandra Clare’s The Mortal Instruments (nope, me neither). All the standards are present and correct. There are strange symbols, angels, demons, assorted monsters, special effects, romance, death and a bland male lead (a robotic Jamie Campbell Bowyer). It’s silly in parts (Johann Sebastian Bach was a demon hunter. Who knew?), but it does have its charms and Lily Collins as the main female protagonist puts in the required effort. In fact the first 30 minutes suggest something a bit more than the usual genre entry, but things start to fall off very quickly following a love scene so cheesy that even teenage girls will be reaching for the sick bucket and the last third of the film tries to shoe-horn in so much plot that the whole thing becomes as incomprehensible as its confusing title. The special effects are decent throughout (a “frozen” collection of demons is highly impressive), but director Harald Zwart can’t keep a handle on everything that’s going on, which probably explains a confused looking Jonathan Rhys Meyers at the films denouement and some odd stuff in the script concerning incest. Still at least it doesn’t appear to be taking itself too seriously and it doesn’t whimper around like much of the Twilight series did. Alex Pettyfer turned down the male lead of the film so the producers solved that problem by casting his lookalike in Campbell Bowyer. What next? Red Hot Chilli Pepper’s drummer Chad Smith as Ron Burgundy? Rating: 6/10.

Jack The Giant Slayer

This lost Legendary Pictures a load of dosh and had more scripters than director Bryan Singer has had questions about Keyser Soze. However, it’s breezy fun and is head and shoulders above other recent contemporary films based on fairy tales (Snow White And The Huntsman I’m looking at you). The mixed up tone smacks of studio interference, but Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson are good enough leads and the special effects hit the required mark. Not many twists plot wise mind and the rest of the (largely) British cast only have to chew the required scenery. Actually features very few giants (which appear to have wandered in off Andre Ovredal’s The Troll Hunter) being slayed by a boy called Jack. No refunds I’m afraid, but this is arguably Singer’s most enjoyable picture since you know what in 1995. Rating: 7/10.

G.I.Joe: Retaliation

I saw an interview where G. I. Joe: Retaliation star Channing Tatum said that the studio had learnt from the mistakes of the previous film (humorously re-titled CGI Joe by the critics). That man, he lies. Jon Chu’s film is all effects and not much more. At least Dwayne Johnson looks to put in a performance in whatever film he’s in, but everyone else is lost amongst the wafer thin plot and unmemorable characters. Bruce Willis pops up in a tired cameo and London gets destroyed again. These films are starting to make G. I. Jane look good. Chu’s last few films have included a couple of the Step Up’s so I assume the studio didn’t have much of a budget left for a director once they’d started to total up the possible costs of the f/x. I would say teenage boys need only apply, but this is so vapid it might register with tweens only. This was actually banned in Pakistan due to the perceived negative light the government there felt its country was portrayed in. The citizens of Islamabad don’t know how lucky they are. Rating: 3/10.

Welcome To The Punch

Despite some impressive cinematography, particularly in the opening chase sequence, there’s little in Eran Creevy’s film to stop it feeling like a leftover production from the slew of 1990’s British gangster films. Creevy’s last film was the impressive Shifty, but this is join the dots stuff as a copper (James McAvoy) and crim (Mark Strong) play cat and mouse amongst the streets of London. It has a strong British cast (Morrissey, Mullan, Flemyng), but the acting only reaches The Bill standards throughout. That isn’t a massive negative per se, but it does give the impression that this would have worked better as a series on the BBC. On the plus side, a shootout in a front room provides a contender for the worst directed scene of the year. Remember the parody of NYPD Blue in Father Ted and you’ll be there. Rating: 5/10.

Arbitrage

Simply put (well, not really), the definition of the financial term arbitrage involves taking advantage of differences in different prices on different financial markets. As written it should be risk free. In reality, a bit of bad luck could mean a swift fall from grace. So that’s the title (not very well) explained and though the businessman in Nicholas Jarecki’s film is starting to feel the heat following some unwise financial decisions this aspect of the production is actually a metaphor for some unwise decisions in the man’s personal life. These include such things as having an affair, involuntary manslaughter and fleeing the scene of an accident. Hmm, who is this chap? He doesn’t seem like much of a good egg! His name is Robert Miller and thanks to a cracking performance from Richard Gere, it’s somewhat amazing that come the end of the film you almost feel sympathy for him. This is in effect a character study telling the story of the fall from grace of a man who has it all but still wants even more. In other hands you’d have little sympathy for Miller, but Jarecki’s smart script has enough moments of ambiguity on the morality front you begin to question just who the real villains of the piece are. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is a slow burning drama mind as the plot has plenty of thriller elements. This is the classic screenplay of just when the main character thinks he has got all bases covered along comes another problem to solve. On the acting front Susan Sarandon (as Millers’ wife) and Brit Marling (as their daughter) have minimal screen time to make an impact, though Tim Roth (digging out the American accent) has some fun as the world weary (though sly) cop on Millers tail. This is Jarecki’s first feature length non-documentary film and it’s an accomplished debut. Roll on his next production I say (mooted to be a detective story set in a future where fuel is running out).

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A film that virtually nobody will go to watch in the cinema (that title and a bland poster hardly helping its cause), but for those that do venture in this is a nice little thriller / drama hybrid.  Rating: 7/10.

The Paperboy

Despite being marketed as a good ‘ole Southern thriller, there’s little to raise the pulse in Lee Daniels’ follow up to Precious. This is more of a drama akin to William Friedkin’s Killer Joe, though this is less of a noir than that was and despite some similarly unpleasant moments, has a touch of the absurd which raises some titters. The problem is whether you think the guffaws contained in Daniels’ film are intentional or not. Plot wise the film concerns reporter Ward Jensen (Matthew McConaughey) and his return to his hometown where, with the aid of a few others (including Zac Efron as his younger brother), he investigates the case of Hillary Van Wetter (John Cusak) and whether he can be exonerated of his supposed crime and removed from death row. Local suspicion and bureaucracy abound, though Jensen sees a way though the blockades by using Charlotte Bless (Nicole Kidman), a sex bomb who has initiated a relationship with Van Wetter via some old fashioned letter writing. There’s two ways to review this film really. On the one hand its clear Daniels has attempted to make something as lurid as possible and you can only say he’s succeeded on that front. However, that aside, the film still has to be a successful mixture of its constituent elements for it to be an enjoyable package. Though it scores on the visual and atmospheric front (it’s one of those films which is so sweaty, dirty and grimy you actually feel like you want to take a shower after watching it) it’s so full of horrible characters it’s hard to engage in the actual story as you don’t really care what happens to them. The acting is mainly good though with McConaughey (has he given up rom-coms for good? Hurrah!) continuing his recent run of morally ambiguous characters and Efron is believable as the cocky kid who falls hard for Charlotte. On that front it’s understandable why virtually every man in the film is betwixt ed by Kidman as she gives a cracking performance as the sultry and slutty Charlotte, using sex to get pretty much whatever she wants. At least she cancels out Cusack’s shockingly bad spaced out performance. So, quite a hard film to like, but good acting and some smart plot revelations at the end move this into the watch once (but once only) territory.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Worth catching for Kidman and some decent cinematography, though the slow pace and general tone of unpleasantness will be too much for some. Rating: 6/10.

Oz the Great and Powerful

After the bloated excess of Spider-Man 3, Sam Raimi got his mojo back with the fun Drag Me To Hell. It’s a surprise then that it’s taken him four years to pick up the megaphone again, but now he’s back with Oz the Great and Powerful. Based on L. Frank Baum’s Oz novels and with more than a passing nod to The Wizard of Oz (this is basically a prequel of that film), Raimi’s film follows Oscar Diggs (James Franco), a ropey magician in a travelling circus who is sucked into a tornado and soon finds himself in the Land of Oz. He bumps into witch Theodora (Mila Kunis) who mistakes him for a wizard who has arrived to destroy the King of Oz killing Wicked Witch (Rachel Weisz). Oscar loves the attention until he realises he really will have to face down the evil witch, with his mediocre magic skills as his only weapons. There’s also some love interest with a third witch (Michelle Williams) thrown in for good measure. So let’s talk about this film first in respect of its elder sibling. Despite being constrained by legalities the references come thick and fast, with them ranging from cute and clever to unsubtle and cringe worthy. Though the most obvious homage to MGM’s much loved 1939 production comes at the very beginning with a black and white colour scheme, scratchy sound and hilarious aspect ratio. It’s a nice touch, though it’s a shame that many cinema chains had to give notice to patrons buying tickets that this was what would happen before the film became “normal”. Honestly, people today etc. etc. In addition if you’re a Raimi fan you can also spent time trying to spot the usual array of cameos from his family and friends (though I couldn’t spy the 1973 Oldsmobile this time out). Going back to the look of the film the Land of Oz is nicely realised with a mixture of physical sets and CGI, complemented by a vivid colour scheme (though that, of course, is partially ruined if you’re watching the 3D version of this). Does the film have any more to offer though apart from great visuals? Interestingly screenwriter Mitchel Kapner and a number of the producers have been quoted as saying that one of the main drivers was to release a Disney film that had a strong male protagonist (as opposed to the studios usual slant towards the female side of things). In that case the film would clearly need a strong lead in the top role. In that sense, the choice of Franco looks a bit odd as he’s hardly been Mr Personality in his film career so far. Though he has been seriously bland in the past, here, especially in the film’s opening half, he’s great fun. Sure it’s hamming, but it’s great to see him come alive in a role and clearly actually enjoying himself for once. Perhaps (as he wasn’t first choice for the part) he knew he had a break and determined to give it a real go. Regardless of what you think isn’t it better someone new in such a role as opposed to Johnny Depp churning out the same old performance? This is mainly fun, though there are flaws. The film loses its legs at the halfway point as the wonderment of Oz starts to wear off and all you’re left with is a standard plot that doesn’t have any twists up its sleeve. Plus the chemistry between Franco and Williams is non-existent, not helped by the latter’s dull turn. As a mild warning, though Raimi (predictably) was ordered to tone his final cut down, it still has enough scenes that could cause youngsters some nightmares. This won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but in a world that’s dominated by DC and Marvel re-hashing the same old thing, it’s nice to watch something a bit different.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Franco comes alive for once and this is a visual treat from start to finish. Peer closer between the garish colours though and you won’t find much else. Rating: 7/10.

Stoker

First of all, this isn’t an existentialist film by Quentin Dupieux following an implement used to tend fires. It’s actually the first English language film from Park-Chan wook. Wook’s films have a similar aesthetic and he doesn’t stray far from the template that has seen him to success with his Asian films, that of the psychological thriller mixed with an air of overall weirdness. Stoker is certainly no exception to the rule. Wentworth Miller’s (yep, that dude from Prison Break) script tells the tale of India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska), an 18 year old who has recently lost her father in a traffic accident, and her relationship with her recently arrived from travelling abroad Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode). Charlie offers support to India and her mother (Nicole Kidman), but before long it appears Charlie may not be the saint he’s portrayed as (especially when people start going missing). If you know your films I expect you’re already shouting “Shadow Of A Doubt” and you won’t be far wrong. The references are many (Miller himself stating that his screenplay is a jumping off point from that film), but to be fair to him his story is more centred on Charlie’s attempts to lure India into his disturbed lifestyle as opposed to her exposing him for what he is. The comparisons to Hitchcock have been numerous, but they don't stack up. This moves at a glacial pace that Hitch would never have been happy with and it completely lacks any sense of black humour that imbued even his darkest films. Personally (the rightly revered Old Boy aside) I don’t find wook too engaging a director. Miller’s dark narrative is a perfect match for what a Park-Chan wook production is, but it’s too hollow and cold to really engage the audience in the plight of the characters. However, wook is no slouch in the shock department and the scenes of sudden violence will jolt you from your seat and the inference of what Charlie did to his younger brother is a seriously warped idea from Miller, nicely and subtlety executed on screen by wook. Though rough around the edges as a debut screenplay this is a nice effort from Miller. It’ll be interesting to see if this will be his style (i.e. minimal dialogue) going forwards or if he’ll go behind the camera himself one day. As for wook, this won’t be a breakout hit for him in the West, but it’ll satisfy his followers. On the acting front Wasikowska and Kidman are quite bland (possibly as a result of wook only being able to use an interpreter), though Goode is great as the good looking charmer with an evil glint in his eye.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

I think if you’re a fan of wook already, then this is going to be up your (blood soaked) street. However, casuals will probably want to take a point off the score. Rating: 7/10.

Side Effects

It seems prior to the release of every Steven Soderbergh film of the last few years the press have reported that this will be the director’s last presentation as he’s retiring and hanging up his megaphone for good. After the cinematic abomination that was Haywire there would have been some celebrations if Soderbergh had quit there and then for good. However, he got some of his reputation back with Magic Mike and now he impresses with the sharp Side Effects. To say too much would be to give the twists in the story away but, to use the opening third of the film as a starting point, shortly following a failed suicide attempt Emily (Rooney Mara) is released from hospital into the care of psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) with the proviso that she attends sessions with him on a regular basis. With the sessions not having their desired effect Jonathan contacts Emily’s old psychiatrist Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who recommends that Jonathan prescribe a new anti-depressant drug called Ablixa. However, some serious side effects later means that Jonathan’s career is in the medical bin. I’ll stop there so as to not ruin what happens next, but this is a clever script, containing a Psycho-esque plot twist and a revelation towards the middle that suddenly turns the film on its head and shifts the film onto a completely different track. Though I hinted that this is a return to better form for Soderbergh, its Scott Burn’s script that does all the work here as Soderbergh does little with the camera. However, he sews the scenes of the storyline neatly together and gets good performances from all involved, though his recent style of making everything look as aesthetically natural as possible is starting to make things look like they’ve been done on the cheap. The aim is obviously to give the film a natural feel to complement a (relatively) everyday story, but the end result is looking like production values have been sacrificed and the film loses some of its visual gloss because of it. That aside though, this is a thinking person’s film and a great tonic for anyone with the blockbuster blues. It seems a review can’t go by without me making comparisons to Alfred Hitchcock, but this has many bearings of much of his output from the 1940’s and 1950’s, with a good dollop of Henri-Georges Clouzot thrown in.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not a storyline that will have people rushing for the cinema, but this is Soderbergh’s best in a while. Rating: 7/10.

Wreck-It Ralph

In hindsight Wreck-It Ralph is quite an odd film. It’s nostalgic set up concerns video game arcades and characters that will invoke wistful memories for many grown-ups, but will be lost on the majority of kiddies that watch this. However, the youngsters will enjoy the thrilling computer animation, chase sequences and moralistic story. For most adults though these highlights will be standard at best. This is obviously marketed as a family film though I’d say it’s not consistent for either demographic during its running time. In terms of what we do have all the way through is the story of Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly), a computer character in an arcade game who gets tired of playing the villain of the piece day in day out and (plenty of plot machinations later) eventually finds himself in a racing game called Sugar Rush in which he assists Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) in winning a race before everything is destroyed by a load of computer “bugs”. As you can see the plot is hardly all that taxing. Director Rich Moore has a background in The Simpsons and Futurama, but the satirical nature of those gems isn’t really relevant to this type of outing. This is basic stuff in today’s oversubscribed animated genre and it does little to try and make itself stand out amongst the crowd (not helped by its one dimensional main protagonists). The concept of the film was first mooted at Disney towards the end of the 1980’s so for something that’s been around for so long you would have hoped for a bit more script wise. Of course the main thing that has advanced since then is computer and film graphics themselves, so at least the film realises a vision that wouldn’t have been possible back then. On that front, according to Disney this film is the first of theirs to utilise “bidirectional reflectance distribution functions” (no, me neither). This appears to have got great reviews across the board, but to me, especially in the film’s final third, the overload of colours, noise and general mayhem masks the fact that not much is really going on. Overall, if you’re a fan of computer games and their characters from the past 30 or so years, then you’ll have a field day watching this and you’ll probably smugly be enjoying a lot of the visuals gags that most people won’t even spot and / or understand.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Some memories of coin operated games and joysticks aside, the storyline isn’t involving enough for adults. Kids will probably love it though. Rating: 6/10.

The World's End

So it’s reunion time for Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as they complete their “Cornetto Trilogy” with The World’s End. And the theme of reuniting is what drives the plot for the film as Gary King (Pegg) convinces a group of his old school friends (Frost, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan, Martin Freeman) to meet up and return to their childhood town of Newton Haven and complete a famous pub crawl that they failed to finish some twenty years previous. On its own that sounds like a two-part drama on ITV or possibly something from the stable of Loach or Leigh. However, this is from the pen of Wright and Pegg so they throw in an alien invasion for good measure. Though this is a film for both sexes to enjoy, all the men in the audience will recognise themselves as the now 30 and 40 something’s discussing old flames and scrapes from the past. The nostalgic ambiance is soon forgotten though when the boy’s night on the beers is turned on its head when they discover (in a clever genre changing scene) their old town has been taken over by aliens and they must fight for their own survival. Well, I say survive, but these aliens are from the John Wyndham invasion school, i.e. not overtly scary and somewhat lumbering. That’s actually slightly problematic for the horror aspect of the film as you never really feel the characters are in any real danger and the fights, though choreographed by Brad Allen, just come across as stagey, not helped by the invaders “bleeding” light blue paint. Wright and Pegg’s screenplay is good on the joke front though, with the gags coming so thick and fast that any that fail to land their mark are quickly forgotten about as a new chuckle comes along shortly thereafter. There’s even some social commentary thrown in (see the lovely gag concerning the look of the first and second pubs) and a soundtrack that will kill for anyone who was a teenager in the early 1990’s. It’s a shame then that it goes so drastically wrong in the last twenty minutes with any wit usurped by “comic” swearing, dodgy specials effects and an ending that is so off-kilter with what has gone before it leaves you leaving the cinema wondering whether this had any test screenings. Shaun Of The Dead and, to a lesser extent, Hot Fuzz also suffered from weak endings, but this really is terrible, including a character reveal that is so dark in tone it sits uneasily with the atmosphere of general mirth. On the acting front Pegg is fine as the eternal man-child, though it’s Frost who steals the film putting in arguably his best ever performance. He really comes into his own as an actor here in, ironically enough, a style of film that doesn’t really warrant it. Plus he raises one of the biggest cinematic laughs of the year with a mini speech and drunken exit from one of the pubs. As for Wright’s direction this is him in a more sober (sorry) mood. The usual quick edits and cuts are here, but this lacks his usual flashy signature. In terms of the triumvirate, this is the weakest of the three films, but that’s no surprise when you consider the stiff opposition that is represented by the first two films.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

This has its missteps (the ending the ending the ending), but it’s unlikely you’ll see a film this year that will make you laugh out loud as many times as this does. Rating: 7/10.

Man Of Steel

Stroll up for the latest re-booting of a superhero, in this case Zach Snyder’s take on Superman. Well, I say Snyder’s take, but with with Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan as producers, Hans Zimmer on scoring duties and David S Goyer scripting (with help from Nolan) it’s hardly a surprise that this film has the look and feel of the most recent Batman trilogy. Perhaps Snyder thought it made sense to follow a design that’s produced billions of dollars in revenue, but his film lacks the directorial flourishes that are a feature of his back catalogue, regardless of the overall quality of his films. What we have here is another origin story telling us how Supes (Henry Cavill) was born, how he ended up on earth and why General Zod (Michael Shannon) thinks he is a very naughty boy. The problem is it’s told in such a cold dry manner, as if already assuming that’s the style an audience wants these days. So whilst the film is well structured (if a little rushed), it really isn’t much fun. The first two thirds of the movie are pretty good though, with an impressive middle section including plenty of fisticuffs. Though theses endless fight scenes can’t escape the old problem of the audience knowing that nothing can hurt the protagonist, they are still fast and frantic enough to just about overcome this and the general feeling of repetition. There are also plenty of background references for fan boys to spot throughout the running time. The finale is a huge disappointment though, with yet another smack down in an American city that gets totalled. How many times have we seen that in superhero films recently? Just think how much better one of these films would be if the writers actually came up with something original for the denouement. On top of that, the conclusion to how Supes is received by the world doesn’t actually make much sense in respect of what has previously passed in the film and the way he disguises himself in order to blend in with the normal population is again at odds with what has occurred in previous scenes. On the acting front Cavill isn’t bad, but the film is told in such a way that it could be re-shot tomorrow with a different actor and the end result would be much the same. Amy Adams (looking bizarrely just like Zooey Deschanel at the start of the film) as Lois Lane is nothing more than scenery and though Michael Shannon gives good shouty as Zod he is miscast. These kind of roles aren’t his strength. Overall what this needed was a bit more humour and less conforming to the current superhero style of storytelling. I’m not saying re-booting a much loved character / franchise is an easy task, but Snyder proved with his excellent Dawn Of The Dead remake that such a mission is not above him. It seems there were too many cooks here spoiling the Snyder broth.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Miles better than Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, but there isn’t enough here to justify yet another superhero re-launch. Are there no original ideas left? Rating: 6/10.