I Give It A Year

At first glance I Give It A Year looks like the kind of standard cookie cutter British rom-com that people avoid like the plague unless it has a Hollywood A-lister above the title. However, though the main storyline (two couples realise they are with the wrong person) is hardly original, the film works as it plays on a number of feelings and scenarios that anyone who has been in a bad relationship can relate to, it’s very funny in places and the cast seem up for it. A quick summary of the story has Nat (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Rafe Spall) attempting to survive the first few rocky months of their new marriage (hence a friends side comment at their wedding of the film’s title), with things not helped by the reappearance of Josh’s ex (played by Anna Faris) or the arrival of a good looking business man (Simon Baker) at Nat’s work. Being a rom-com many of the laughs are gained from situations of possible social embarrassment (purchasing ladies underwear, charades with the in-laws), topped by a toe-curlingly scene of awkwardness when Josh and Nat are talking to Nat’s parents and photos of their sexual endeavours from their honeymoon are flashing up on a digital photo frame in the background. Yes, there’s plenty of crudity, but isn’t that the norm for the more adult rom-com these days? First time director (and scripter here) Dan Mazer is best known for writing Borat (good) and Bruno (hmm..not so good), but don’t be fooled into thinking this is a filth fest. Mazer’s script plays more on the verbal laughs than anything, especially with Stephen Merchant doing his usual shtick (this time as a best man, including the killer line of the film said to a bride on her wedding day “You’re a real 8 out of 10, love”). There are plenty of flaws though, including the nagging thought that it’s almost impossible to believe that (despite some flashbacks) Nat and Josh would ever have got together in the first place (they’re just too different) and some snipping should have been done in the editing room of some scenes that run with the same joke for too long. Plus, Olivia Colman as a sweary husband hating guidance councillor shouldn’t have even made it from the page to the screen. All in all, you probably wouldn’t ever watch this a second time, but for a directorial debut this isn’t a bad first attempt at all.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

File under “Funnier than you’d though it would be”. Rating: 7/10.

Hitchcock

What more can be said about Alfred Hitchcock that hasn’t been said already? There’s enough previously produced books, articles, documentaries etc to last anyone a lifetime if they needed to start again from scratch, but can there really be any new revelations now? However, what with a recent retrospective of all his films, Sight & Sound shifting Vertigo up to the summit of its list of the greatest films of all time and a terrible hatchet job by the BBC, it seems Hitch is in the cultural zeitgeist at the moment, so perhaps it’s the perfect time for Sacha Gervasi’s film. Based on a book by Stephen Rebello, Gervasi’s production isn’t a biopic of the Hitch’s life. Instead we focus on the making of Psycho and, even then, the film mainly concentrates on Hitchcock’s (Anthony Hopkins) relationship with his beloved Alma Reville (Helen Mirren) and, of course, his roving eye. In that respect, if you’re coming to the film expecting to see a warts and all behind the scenes take on the process of making Hitchcock’s famous shocker you’re going to be disappointed. There are a few tidbits in there, but if you’re already a fan of the man there’s nothing here that you won’t already know. The focus is actually on the strain put on Hitchcock and Reville’s marriage by the pressure of making the film (despite his wealth they were put under serious financial strain) and Reville’s flirtatious encounters with smarmy screenplay writer Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston). In spite of all this, it’s a surprise then to discover that the film is quite a light concoction. The script is witty (Hitch’s battles with the board of censors are great fun), no-one does slime like Huston and Gervasi moves the whole thing along at pace. Hopkins is fine in the main role, but much as someone playing Winston Churchill, it still feels like someone playing an impression of someone as opposed to a full portrayal of the character. You could argue that Gervasi’s film goes quite easy on the big man and I wouldn’t argue with you there. The problem is the back story of Hitchcock and his personal life has been a case of speculation and accusation for so many years now it’s almost impossible to get to the truth. For example, the one real scene that Gervasi throws in that shows Hitch at his most leering is so out of place it completely jars with the rest of the movie. In addition, some of the scenes showing Reville making crucial decisions in respect of Psycho are similarly hard to swallow. Though leaving the audience suspicious of what they’re seeing is something the great man himself would have loved. Gervasi hasn’t directed anything since the impressive Anvil from a few years ago, but he proves that was no fluke here as this is solid (if unspectacular) fare. Though I’m not a fan of re-making already impressive foreign films, his next project is updating Morten Tyldum’s Headhunters so it’ll be interesting to see how Gervasi gets on with that one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not Hitchcock 101 (well, how could any film be?), but, even with its overriding air of ambiguity, this is entertaining enough and hopefully an invitation for the Hitch uninitiated to dig deeper on their own. Rating: 7/10.

A Good Day To Die Hard

This (the fifth film in the Die Hard franchise) should have been an attempt to either go out with a bang or at least attempt to arrest the creakiness that was abundant in Len Wiseman’s 2007 effort. How lessons haven’t been learnt. Basically everything that was wrong with Wiseman’s film (humorously dubbed “Die Soft” by the reviewers) is present and correct here, with the main problem being the complete overuse of CGI which renders the second half of the film an un-thrilling mess. As any TV or film fan worth their salt knows, as soon as you move the central character abroad it’s basically an admittance that the producers have run out of ideas. So now we have John McClane (Bruce Willis) travelling to Russia to help his son Jack (played by Sam Worthington lookalike Jai Courtney) avoid a prison sentence for something or other, though he soon finds himself mixed up in some terrorists’ shenanigans (natch). The film actually has a fairly decent start with a slow build up to an attack in a court room, but shortly after, once a bewildered Jack has almost run over his papa and exclaimed in complete surprise “Dad!”, you’ll sink back into your cinema seat as you know things are mainly going downhill from that point onwards. John Moore as the director is an odd choice, though I can only assume that the studio were going for the cheap option. Why else would you choose someone to direct an action film who hasn’t picked up the megaphone in five years and when they did it produced the critically panned Max Payne. The action scenes are silly (though there’s so much CGI I’m not sure you can even call them as being “directed” in the traditional sense), the chemistry between Willis and the bland Courtney is flatter than a week old glass of coke and the villains are so unmemorable I can’t even remember (or be bothered to look up) who the actors were portraying them. You may enjoy this if you like films that are all about computer generated mayhem and explosions, but if you’re asking for even the remotest bit of character development then you’re a Hans Gruber lifetime away. The good news for Wiseman is that this film now makes his effort look positively cutting edge, though I am reminded of the fall-out from Die Hard 4.0 when Willis said how disappointed he was when he heard the studio were hijacking the picture to give it a more gentle touch, but then, on seeing the finished film, said (completely unbelievably) he thought it was the best film of the series so far. Surely even he couldn’t say the same thing this time and keep a straight face.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A Good Day Would Be Spent Not Watching This. Rating: 4/10.

Flight

Since 2001’s Training Day Denzel Washington has introduced to his repertoire the character of the anti-hero and airline Captain Whip Whitaker is the latest off the production line. Robert Zemeckis’ new film doesn’t play the subtle card to begin with as we’re carted straight off to a hotel room where we see a sleep deficient Whitaker drinking alcohol, taking drugs and canoodling with a flight attendant. Though hardly fit for flying, Whitaker boards his flight for the day and after a nasty bit of turbulence (and some more discreet drinking) settles down for a snooze. Soon enough though he is awoken with a jolt and forced to try and save a plane full of passengers that is behaving in a very naughty manner indeed. Though a worthy effort, there is one main problem Zemeckis has with his film and that is the main money shot (hello upside down plane!) has been used to sell the product (particularly in the trailer) and so this (in effect) is what the audience has paid to see. Said scene is thrilling as you’d expect, but it means wherever old Bob decided to put it in the movie, he had to make sure whatever transpires before or after has to be just as attention grabbing. Sadly, he can’t make it happen. The crash occurs right at the start of the film and the rest of the film concerns Whitaker’s attempts to cover up his drinking prior to the crash and his relationship with a drug addict (Kelly Reilly) who he met in hospital when recovering from the accident. Of course there’s nothing wrong with a drama, but Zemeckis’ direction and John Gatin’s screenplay just isn’t dramatic enough. Hard to believe but this is Zemeckis’ first live action film in over 12 years so you can forgive him a little rustiness, but oh for a few twists or revelations in order to raise this from plodding along at a snail’s pace. By concentrating almost exclusively on Whitaker’s battle with the bottle the movie stalls as badly as the plane Whitaker crash lands. Films regarding alcoholism (or any type of drug) and its effect on people and the others around them are ten-a-penny (even if the subject matter here is one of the most extreme examples in terms of responsibility). The film almost side lines the investigation into the crash, which was an area that could have bought some great tension to the fore (especially in the case of a screenplay like here where the audience is already in on the secret). At least there is the usual decent performance from Washington to enjoy and Reilly (though basically playing the most unsubtle human cipher you’ll ever see) continues getting closer to the mainstream with an assured turn. Though John Goodman’s character (Whip’s close friend / drug dealer) seems to have wondered in off another film. He’s mean to be the film’s comic relief, but just seems hugely out of place. Still, it’s good to have Zemeckis “back” (as it were) and here’s to not having to wait over a decade for his next live-action effort.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Storming crash sequence aside, this examination of addiction is nothing you won’t have already seen elsewhere before. Rating: 6/10.

The Bling Ring

Sofia Coppola’s latest film is based on a Vanity Fair article (The Suspects Wore Louboutins) which documented the real life story of a group of Los Angeles teenagers who in 2008 / 2009 stole designer gear from celebrities’ homes and then would hide in plain sight by wearing said clothing around the clubs of LA and posting pictures of themselves on social network websites with their ill- gotten gains (oh yeah, they stole a load of dosh as well). I haven’t read the article myself, but I hope it answers many of the questions you’ll have after watching Coppola’s film. To wit: Why did all the celebrities leave their homes unlocked? Why didn’t they have alarm systems? Why did the kids (who it appears are already well off themselves) do what they did? As these queries aren’t addressed in the film it’s quite an odd watch. It’s literally just scene after scene of robberies taking place (with the odd party thrown in) before the police close the net. Coppola’s last film was the pretentious naval gazing rubbish Somewhere, but this somewhat restores her reputation. Despite its minimal screenplay she manages to pull off a few camera tricks (the almost static long shot of one of the thefts is a subtly lit triumph) and the odd chuckle (a wry flash of a pair of garish pink high heels provides one of the driest laughs of the year). Most surprising of all is that Coppola tells the story in such a way you don’t actually hate the main protagonists despite their thieving vain ways. It isn’t all fun and games though as when (particularly towards the end of the film) Coppola tries her hand at a more satirical approach (think of a Christopher Guest style mockumentary) she completely fluffs it, though Leslie Mann gets some giggles as a new-age Mum. Also, the less said about Gavin Rossdale’s wooden cameo the better. This isn’t a cerebral film in any sense of the word, especially as the key question the movie should be asking (Does the average person on the street feel sorry for millionaire celebrities who get robbed?) is glossed over with, well, gloss.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Storyline aside this is clothing porn for the target audience, though anyway one hates the phrases “Wow”, “Oh My God” and “Hu-yeah” be afraid. Be very afraid………Rating: 6/10.

The Iceman

If you’re a follower of film worth his salt, then Michael Shannon will already be one of your favourite modern actors. Known for pretty much stealing everything he is in in the last few years (arguably the most notable instance being Revolutionary Road), he’s been moving closer up the credits list and the recent Take Shelter aside, this is pretty much his graduation to leading man status. Ariel Vromen’s film is based on the true life story of Richard Kuklinski (Shannon), a notorious enforcer and hitman for the Mafia. Being such a tricky subject matter Vromen wisely just lets the story play out and leaves it up to the audience to decide whether they like the film or not, as opposed to the man. In fact, the film does tone down Kuklinski’s actions (in reality he was a vicious piece of work), though it’s frustrating that Vromen (one lame flashback aside) doesn’t even look to address why Kuklinski turned out like he did in order to give the ticket payer at least some way in to his character and actions. This is Vromen’s first film in six years and though his direction is unspectacular, it’s solid enough to tell the story in a coherent manner. Though, despite the dates appearing on screen every now and then, the film doesn’t accurately portray the passing of time very well. Having Shannon change his facial hair every few scenes just doesn’t cut it. Going back to Shannon he’s great here, though, as mentioned above, it’s a shame there isn’t more to the character for him to get into. However, if there’s one thing that the hulking Shannon does better than anyone, it’s barely controlled rage. At any moment it looks like he’ll explode with a fit of violence that’ll mean bad times for whoever happens to be nearby. It’s a bit hit and miss on the supporting act front. Winona Ryder (looking about 20 years old) can’t do much as Kuklinski’s closed out wife, Ray Liotta hardly breaks sweat as a mafia boss, but an unrecognisable Chris Evans is superb as a fellow hitman. In the minor roles it’s a bit more eclectic (is that Stephen Dorff? Robert Davi? James Franco! WTF?), though the most bizarre of all is David Schwimmer sporting a ‘tache and pony tail which make him the spitting image of David Seaman circa 1996. Not that Vromen would have been thinking about that at the time, I guess………

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not the breakout for Shannon it could have been, but you still can’t go wrong watching him murmur for an hour and forty minutes. Rating: 7/10.

Les Miserables / Lincoln

Gotta try and move these reviews along, so time for another double helping. At first glance, though these films may not look like bedtime companions, they’re both cut from similar cloth. They both cleave their main storylines from historic incidents, are, in effect, both tragedies, and, oh yeah, they’re both bloody long. Starting with Tom Hooper’s film (his first since the excellent The Kings Speech), I’m not going to go over the Les Mis back story and I’m not really too sure how you can review a film like this as basically isn’t the main question just going to be if the actors can sing or not? (and as an aside to that, you should be aware that virtually all the lines in the film are sung, though I didn’t find it that much of a problem like some people have). I’ll come back to the warbling in a moment as a film obviously has a much wider field of play than a stage when it comes to capturing the audience’s attention. However, great though Danny Cohen’s cinematography is, Hooper’s film has far too much obvious CGI to make it really feel like a spectacle. In addition Hooper’s over editing and wild camera sweeps distract the audience from immersing themselves in the audio entertainment. That isn’t a sarcastic remark either as the majority of the main cast (Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway) can hold a note and although Crowe gets some flak for his one-tone singing voice, at least he can produce that single tone pretty well. Though it’s the relatively unknown Samantha Barks who gives a performance of real emotion and, though hers is a small role, she pretty much sneaks the film in regards to its best player. All in all, if you like the play you’ll like this, but I don’t think non-theatre goers will be convinced. It terms of the source material Hooper had a fictional play to use, whereas Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln has apparently used actual dialogue from the time, copied from historical documents. There’s a problem here though. It’s all a little bit dull. Sacrilege you say! But is this the film for which people aren’t actually allowed to say anything negative? Of course it’s mainly about one of the worthiest subjects and men in history, but that doesn’t mean it should automatically be lauded as a great film. Firstly, the film assumes you come prepared as it covers the final four months of Lincoln’s life and little else. This quickly becomes the film’s main sticking point as it’s not clear if this is a portrait of the man himself or what he achieved in those final few months. Either way, it doesn’t really work. In terms of the latter all we really get is row after row of actors hamming it up in awful fashion in the House of Representatives, with the message behind why they’re actually there lost amongst the terrible wigs and lapel grabbing. As for Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role, it’s a great performance but was the man himself really as he is portrayed here? All his lackeys appear to do all the hard work and he himself comes across as plain dull, with his telling of anecdotes the equivalent of being stuck in the pub with a boring barfly. At times he is even (whisper it) a bit creepy. In terms of look there isn’t much here to flag this up as a Spielberg production aside from a scene where Joseph Gordon Levitt (lost in a role as Lincoln’s son) follows a trail of blood which leads to a visceral gut punch not seen from The Beard for quite some time. What this film needed was more of such scenes and more historic evaluation. Spielberg himself has stated that his film only just avoided being a TV movie. Though at the time he was talking about film funding and audience preferences in general, the small screen is actually probably the best place for this. If you want to really learn about Lincoln and the history of US slavery, I suggest burying yourself in many a book rather than watching this.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Les Mis gets more right than it does wrong and the target audience won’t be disappointed (Rating: 7/10), but Lincoln is a confused effort which glosses over the history of the time and doesn’t appeal as either a portrait of Lincoln or a decent analysis of the abolishment of slavery (Rating: 5/10)