Life Of Pi

Even if you haven’t read Yann Martel’s novel, you’ll probably be able to hazard a guess as to what it’s about based on its many different book jackets; that being something to do with a boy, a boat and a tiger. To flesh that out a bit more, and to give you the basis of this filmed version, the boy in question is Pi, who finds himself shipwrecked on a boat in the Pacific Ocean with only a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker for company (and, no, I haven’t got those names mixed up). As the story is told in flashback by the adult Pi (Irrfan Khan), you obviously know that he survives his ordeal at sea and therefore the crux of the film is discovering how. Ang Lee is the director here and he has a field day with the camera. This being his first gig since 2009’s lowly Taking Woodstock, he brushes off any cobwebs that may have appeared with plenty of standout sequences, aided by decent special effects. He even changes the aspect ratio at certain parts, though I suppose that’s allowable in a “fantasy” story such as this. Less impressive is the CGI Richard Parker (though that name gag somehow remains funny throughout the whole film). Obviously using a real tiger would have been impossible for what is required in the film, but Richard Thomas still has too much of a computerised sheen to him for you to really feel that Pi is ever in danger at any point or that a relationship could develop between man and beast. Beautiful imagery aside, for the films two hours plus running time it’s hard to argue the case that this isn’t style over substance. What substance there is mainly manifests itself in the guise of a final scene rug pull. I’ve never read the book so was unprepared for the twist in the tale (or “tail”, maybe in this case) and wry smiles all round when you consider that M Night Shyamalan was connected to the project at one point. You should also be aware that there is a huge religious context to this film (there’s plenty of visualisation of deity’s if you look hard enough), but Lee doesn’t quite get the balance right in this respect and the last act revelation feels a bit of a con, even if it will lead to plenty of discussion. So an enjoyable film, though a flawed one in many areas. Though it appears the producers didn’t want the audience having too much of a good time as Tobey Maguire was replaced by Rafe Spall for the part of the writer in the film, for the somewhat odd reason that Maguire’s fame would have been a “distraction” for the audience. Huh?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

If you only see one tiger on a boat film this year…..Rating: 7/10.

Rise Of The Guardians

Rise of the Guardians, despite sounding like a sword and sandals epic or a mythology based rumble, is actually the prototype standard animated Christmas release that appears around November time each year (he types, reviewing it in April). Some thrills for the kids, a few hours peace for the adults, a moral message and good triumphing over evil. In fact, the material is actually so basic it’s not much of a surprise to see that DreamWorks dropped it in the lap of first time director Peter Ramsey. Ramsey does have a solid background in films, particularly as a storyboard artist, so he muddles through this just fine. There isn’t much here though to warrant any further viewings. Quick summation: When Bogeyman Pitch (Jude Law) plans to engulf the world in darkness the Guardians (Jack Frost (Chris Pine), Santa Claus (Alec Baldwin), The Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman) and The Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher)) team up and come to the rescue. The rest you can already work out for yourself. As mentioned this is more than acceptable for kids, but it does little to pique the interest of the older members of the audience, with virtually no references or gags to tickle the more adult funny bone. You can argue that this was targeted at a young audience only, but executive producer Guillermo del Toro’s involvement suggests more was afoot, but I see little evidence of his assumption that the film had areas that were dark, moody and poetic. The involvement of another well know name though does provide some positives, as ubercinematographer Roger Deakins helped out on the lighting and overall the animation is very good, though cheapened by the pointless 3D. The biggest weakness the film has (not that the kids will care or notice) is that the Guardians themselves are actually quite weak. Jackman’s Easter Bunny is an unfunny lazy Aussie stereotype, Baldwin’s Claus sports an incomprehensible Russian accent, though must disconcerting of all is Pine as Jack Frost. Though it’s not clear how old Frost is meant to be (though clearly it’s on the youthful side), the illusion of childhood innocence is somewhat smashed due to Pine having the voice of a fifty year old. This has made some decent coin at the box office and it seems, despite its flimsy premise, DreamWorks were determined to support this as much as possible (this is the first film I’ve seen in years where five minute clips of the actual film were shown as previews before other films). That approach has clearly, and literally, paid off, but it can’t cover up the fact that this is strangely lacking in enchantment.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

If you missed this, fear not. They’ll be another one along come next Santa Claus time. Rating: 6/10.

The Master

This was the biggest disappointment of 2012 for me. Paul Thomas Anderson may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but his last film (five years ago now!) was the superlative There Will Be Blood and this follow up has been eagerly anticipated. However, when a film (much like this one) has had a history littered with rewrites, recasting, money problems and studio hand-wringing the end result is usually a bit of a cinematic car crash. Even with PTA’s capable hands calling the shots, this doesn’t disprove that rule. Following the end of the war, twitchy naval veteran Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) returns home to a life of drifting until he happens upon Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his clan of followers labeled “The Cause”. Then, not much happens for 2 hours. The films troubled background is up there for all to see as it doesn’t really have a clear narrative in terms of plot or story. Is it a story of friendship between Quell and Dodd? A story of manipulation of a person with mental issues? A study of cults? It never really settles on any one issue. Even the visuals can’t make up for the slow story as this is Anderson’s first film without regular cinematographer Robert Elswit. There’s little heart to this film (though that’s hardly unusual in an Anderson production), but it fails to raise the pulse either with only a few scenes moving at a pace quicker than plodding, though one is a spectacular scene of carnage when Quell smashes up a prison cell. On that front, the one saving grace of the film is a convincing performance from Phoenix. Quell comes across as genuinely damaged goods. Hoffman doesn’t have to do much apart from being bombastic and smug (hardly a stretch for him), but it’s his on screen wife played by Amy Adams that is arguably the most interesting character of all with PTA hinting at times that she’s the real string puller and that behind every strong man is an even stronger woman. Sadly this avenue is not fully investigated and would have been lot more interesting to watch than scene after scene of Dodd “experimenting” on Quell. Overall, despite the talent involved here, not many films emerge unscathed from Development Hell. Finally, you don’t need to be a genius to spot the analogy with scientology and although PTA has stated The Cause is not in any way connected with that particular branch of religion, the obvious similarities are there for all to see.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Apparently the idea for this film had been in Anderson’s head for twelve years. Watching it you’ll feel the same amount of time is passing. Rating: 5/10.

Rust and Bone

Think this one will split people. Ali (Matthias Schoenaerts) arrives in France looking for work in order to help support his young son. Taking a job as a doorman he meets Stephanie (Marion Cotillard) and helps her out when she gets caught up in a rumble at the nightclub Ali works in. That looks like that until Stephanie suffers a serious accident in her role as a trainer of killer whales (both her lower legs have to be amputated) and whilst adjusting to her disability she calls Ali out of the blue and they begin a friendship / relationship (as well as her taking a supporting role in Ali’s new found “career” of bare knuckle boxing). So, an impressive emotional character study of two people suffering from the setbacks life has thrown at them? Or is this just an exercise in patronising worthiness? It’s actually a bit of both. This is director Jacques Audiard’s first film since the blistering A Prophet of a few years ago, but this has little of that magic. Comparisons can be made between the films in that they both deal with characters being placed in exceptional circumstances, but whereas even though A Prophet was, in effect, about a criminal, we still had sympathy for the main character. In Rust and Bone there’s little love for the audience to give. Schoenaerts Ali is basically just a selfish arsehole, with virtually all the misery that befalls his character down to his own crass manner and actions. Cotillard’s Stephanie garners more emotion (for obvious reasons), but why she hooks up (and then remains) with Ali is a bit of a mystery. On the plus side the performance by Cotillard is great (the scene where she discovers she has lost her legs is as uncomfortable as it gets) and the special effects that portray her injuries are highly impressive and pretty much flawless. Based on Craig Davidson’s novel of the same name, Audiard has made one major change for his version (changing the trainer from a male to a female) citing the overflow of men in his last film as the reason. On the plus side this means we get a cracking performance from Cotillard, but the film is still unbalanced as to whether it wants to follow Ali or Stephanie and the overall story potters along rather than gripping your attention. On a side issue, this film made plenty of waves before it came out due to the trailer giving away the major plot point of Stephanie’s injury. Frankly it doesn’t make any difference to the end product (this is hardly Psycho) and I even felt it actually added to the tension in the build-up to the accident itself (which is subtly portrayed by Audiard when it does occur). So worthy or worthy? You decide.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A decent enough film, aided by some remarkable special effects. Just don’t expect A Prophet Mark II, mind. Rating: 7/10.

Seven Psychopaths

Martin McDonagh’s 2008 hit In Bruges has (unfairly or not) placed a level of expectancy on Seven Psychopaths. Though seemingly similar in DNA (and sharing one of Bruges main performers in the shape of Colin Farrell) this is more Tarantino-esque in its execution (and there’s quite a few of them as well in this film, Boom Boom) with a hint of Shane Black thrown in. The good news, despite this being somewhat disjointed, is that McDonagh’s script avoids the smugness that is always at the edge of Black’s output. In respect of the actual story that McDonagh has penned it’s too far out there to explain in too much detail, but the main focus is on Marty Faranan (Farrell), a scriptwriter who is struggling to finish his latest offering, Seven Psychopaths. Throw in Sam Rockwell as a highly strung kidnapper of dogs, Christopher Walken playing, well, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson as a violent gangster and Tom Waits as a serial killer and you can already probably guess some of the mayhem that ensues. It’s probably just a little bit too out there for its own good, but the positive that does bring is that you genuinely don’t know what is going to happen next. It should be remembered that McDonagh is primarily a playwright, so we probably can forgive him for branching out and writing something that is less structured than a board’s production, or indeed, Bruges. As mentioned earlier the comparison with Tarantino is particularly evident in the idiosyncratic characters that McDonagh has created and the acting is good across the board, but it appears Walken was the only one to really understand the tone that McDonagh was aiming for. If you like your claret there’s plenty of that here as well, including the craziest head explosion (albeit comic) since The Proposition. It’s throw away fun all in all and I doubt you’ll go back for further viewings, especially as the plot peters out long before the end. Even if this doesn’t float your boat you can’t deny it has a cracking tag line (“They won’t take any Shih Tzu”) and you can also try and see if you can spot Crispin Glover in a cameo.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not quite the cult hit of Bruges and some parts should have been jettisoned in the edit, but this has plenty of ideas, underpinned by some good performances from the cast. Rating: 7/10.

Sightseers

Ben Wheatley’s Kill List calling card from a couple of years ago had its faults, but it certainly raised many questions to be answered and demanded (if you had the stomach for it) repeated viewings to unravel all its (still argued about) mysteries. Wheatley’s follow up, Sightseers, needs no such detective work, though it still raises a few posers in respect of its tone and execution. Execution is probably a good word to continue on from as well as the film concerns a couple of tourists (Chris and Tina) who, finding themselves becoming hacked off with members of the public that they meet on their travels around the UK, er, murder them, before continuing on their merry way. Yes, it’s the type of black comedy that only Britain really produces (and has an audience that understands it). The couple in question (Steve Oram and Alice Lowe) also double up as two-thirds of the screen scripters (Amy Jump completes the trio) and it clearly works as the deadpan delivery of their own lines provide many laughs as the two of them work their way through a story that provides many moments of dry humour and (good natured) straight faced mockery of local tourist attractions. There are also some nice views of the UK countryside, but the script does mean that Wheatley can’t do much with the camera. In addition, despite a short running time the film runs out of ideas fairly quickly, capped off by an ending which doesn’t sit quite right. Also be warned that the comedy here really is as black as it comes, much of it deriving from acts of horrific violence (you’ll feel guilty laughing). It isn’t as graphic as what Wheatley gave us in Kill List, but it does make for a nice comparison. In that film, the people having the hurt put upon them were child predator’s et al, a decision purposely made in order that the audience could actually cope with what they were seeing on screen. Here, there is no such get out. The people meeting their maker at the hands of Chris and Tina are guilty of being no-more than anti-social at worst, but it’s a classic moral dilemma that Wheatley poses to the audience. Chris and Tina are villains in the eyes of morality and the law, but to the average Joe on the street, they could be (anti)heroes. It’s a queasy conundrum to contemplate as you try not to run over that annoying cyclist in your car on the way home from the cinema…..

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Much like Kill List, this will have a cult following years down the line. Time someone gave Wheatley a proper budget so we can see what he can really do. Rating: 7/10.