Precious

So is Precious one of the most depressing films of all time? It depends on your point of view, of course. For me, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a depressing film. Whereas something like Precious, which has a depressing subject matter, can still be enjoyed on a filmic level. There’s been some mixed reviews for this release and whilst it’s definitely been over praised in some quarters, it has more than enough going for it to fall on the positive side. Based on the novel called Push, Precious tells the story of an overweight teen, who whilst pregnant with her second child, enrols in an alternative school. The first thing to say is that Precious is superbly acted. Gabourey Sidibe is fine in the title role, but she excels when playing off all the other actors in the alternative school, themselves all excellent (though seriously caricatured). Acting honours go to Mo’Nique though, as Precious’s hideous mother. It’s a startling performance, so much so that you are just aching for her to get some sort of comeuppance. There certainly aren’t many laughs to be had when she’s on screen. Ironically enough, despite the dark subject matter, director Lee Daniels does sneak in a few dry laughs. Unfortunately he can’t save the film from it’s main criticism of it being manipulative of the audiences emotions. This does feel a bit movie of the week at time and Daniels fluffs a number of scenes, especially the ill-advised fantasy sequences. It all becomes a bit of a mess at the end as the film starts to become disconnected as various story strands appear and disappear at will. Overall, it’s not quite the sum of it’s parts, but it still “entertaining” enough to deserve the praise it has received.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
This feels contrived up to its eyeballs, but its superbly acted and certainly thought provoking. Rating: 7/10.

Invictus

Now here’s an oddity. An American film about rugby? Of course, Invictus is a lot more than that, telling the story of how a single rugby game changed the course of South Africa for ever and put an end to the memories of apartheid regime once and for all. Or at least, that’s what Hollywood and director Clint Eastwood would have you believe. For though this is a worthy subject for Eastwood to tackle, it’s far too romanticised to be any sort of cinematic reference point. The film starts in 1990 with Nelson Mandela’s (Morgan Freeman) release from prison and his subsequent effort’s to close the racial divide in the country over the subsequent years leading up to the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Eastwood’s film is mainly about the Rugby though, in which Mandela believes a triumph for his country will send a message of unity to it’s 43 million residents. Any real analysis of Mandela is left to one side and the film’s study of apartheid is left to some token character sound bites and some scenes of cheese that will leave you squirming in your seat. As for the casting, Freeman is excellent as Mandela, nailing mannerism and voice to perfection (so much so that Mandela’s personal assistant couldn’t tell the difference when hearing both men vocally). Matt Damon, playing South African rugby captain Francois Pienaar, is badly mis-cast though. Sounding or looking nothing like Pienaar, Damon just cannot convey the gravitas that Pienaar bough. This is nothing against Damon, but this is clearly a bit of studio casting. So, forgetting all the above, can the film just be viewed as entertainment? It probably can and at least a few moments, especially viewing Mandela’s prison cell, will urge you to study Mandela’s / South Africa ’s history further. In addition, you could also play a game of seeing how many of the numerous inaccuracies in the film you can spot. I’ll start with the English fans in the crowd waving the Union Jack(!) when England are playing. Really….

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
It’s heart is obviously in the right place, but even viewing this as an interpretation of events, as opposed to a serious analysis, it still drops the ball yards from the try line. Rating: 4/10.

From Paris With Love

The first thing to say about From Paris With Love is that it’s amazing. Amazing in the sense that it’s actually not as bad as it looks. Cheap praise I know, but don’t be fooled too much. This is mostly pretty dire stuff redeemed only by the fact that it knows what its target audience is and goes at them with a frenzy. Pierre Morel was the man behind the ridiculous (but entertaining) Wanted, the film somewhat notoriously known as the one with some seriously dodgy racial stereotypes and where Liam Neeson kills everyone in the world. Unfortunately, this film contains the same teeth grating racial gags, however the two main protagonists (John Travolta and Jonathan Rhys Meyers) don’t kill everyone in the whole world in this one, but certainly give it a good go. If you’re epileptic you might struggle a bit during some scenes as it’s just an orgy of gun flashes as the two Johnny’s go about their business. The business in this sense is standard buddy buddy stuff regarding mis-matched CIA partners trying to bust a drug ring and foil a terrorist attack. Meyers is unsurprisingly blown off the screen by Travolta’s (now standard?) OTT performance, but at least it’s better than his awful turn in Pelham. To be fair to the film the last 30 minutes go at a fair lick and a car chase on the motorway is nicely handled. So…rubbish? Yes. Entertaining rubbish? Just.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
You should already know what you’re going to get with a film like this and if you like this kinda thing then you should go home happy. Rating: 5/10

Crazy Heart

Crazy Heart is Scott Cooper’s directorial debut, in which Jeff Bridges stars as Otis “Bad” Blake, a former country music star who now, in the twilight years of his career, plays gigs in one-horse towns to a small but loyal following. Cooper’s direction isn’t up to much apart from a few nice vista’s, but he has enough nous to know that this is the Bridges show and pretty much has him in every single scene. Bridges has always been a great actor, but he seems to be getting better with age. No doubt he gave his agent a bonus when this script found its way to him. Bridges is totally believable as Bad, even performing a number of songs himself. He gets the emotional balance right as well, as though he is down on his luck at the twilight of his career (including having a drink problem) he doesn’t play for pity and fully accepts his situation is of his own (stubborn) making. A short scene towards the end of the film where he butts heads with a sound mixer is a particular delight, and tells you all you need to know about Bad. Things take a turn for the better when he meets a local journalist Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and begins a relationship with her and her young son. A redemption of sorts then begins, but without all the plot strands having a happy ending. However, this only adds to the feeling of realism throughout the story, though the scenes between Bridges and Gyllenhall become melodramatic at times and one duff scene (an alcoholic loses a child he’s meant to be looking after!) is almost a television / film cliché now. On the brighter side, the relationship between Bad and his now more successful protégé (played by Colin Farrell) is much more believable and an uncredited Farrell is excellent, proving once again that he is always at his best in lower budget films. As the sun (literally) sets on Bad and the film, thanks to Bridges and his performance (that raises this to a higher level then would have been the case with a lesser actor), you should be left with a smile on your face.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
There isn’t much originality here, but some great performances and some toe tapping tunes lead to a film of high quality. Rating: 8/10

A Single Man

Tom Ford’s directorial debut is getting great buzz for Colin Firth’s portrayal of an English college professor getting over the death of his male partner in 1960’s Los Angeles. Firth rarely gives a bad performance and though this isn’t one of his best, it’s quality enough to carry the whole film which would struggle a bit for purchase it was wasn’t for him. Ford’s film looks amazing, with particular use of colours from the coolest of blue hues to the most gorgeous brilliant yellows. However, is this a case of style over substance? As a film this is a study in grief, and it does a pretty good job. Firth plays the grieving single man with a perfect combination of the English stiff upper lipness and childlike vulnerability. Firth keeps his cards close to his chest most of the time, and during his many facial close up’s you just long to know what is going on behind the mask. That is until a possible suicide scene which is pretty badly handled by Ford. There is decent support provided by Nicholas Hoult and Julianne Moore, but their characters come across as slightly forced. Not as badly forced though as Firth’s car park liaison with a male Spanish prostitute which really does look like a fashion advert. So it appears to be awards galore for Firth and an honest if limited first attempt from Ford. Oh yeah, the suits are pretty good too.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Some first time directing slip-ups are just forgotten about thanks to Firth. Rating: 6/10.

The Lovely Bones

Ryan Gosling dropped out of this film just three days prior to shooting due to the old favourite of “creative differences”. All I can say is if you’re standing near Gosling when he’s playing roulette, follow his lead, as he had the right sense to jump ship from this seriously disappointing film. Peter Jackson takes the gold dust of Alice Sebold’s novel, throws it into a computer and churns out a film heavy on special effects and light on tragedy and drama. If you’re not aware of the source material, it’s not a plot spoiler to tell you that the story concerns Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), who after being brutally murdered, narrates the rest of the story from “the in-between” (half way between earth and heaven). Jackson uses this half world as a ridiculous excuse to show some completely over the top and unnecessary special effects totally unrelated to the main aspect of the tale. In fact, it’s fair to say that Jackson has gone CGI mad on a film that needs very little or none at all. Jackson ’s pre-occupation with the effects means the rest of the film suffers badly. Mark Whalberg plays the father slowly being driven to distraction by his own investigation into his daughter’s death, but it never convinces for a moment. Even less convincing is the supposed breakdown of his marriage to Rachel Weisz, meaning that a key scene at the end when they reconcile is meant to play on the emotional heartstrings but ends up damper than a fish and over-played almost to the point of confusion. All this and we haven’t even mentioned Susan Sarandon’s bizarre turn as Susie’s grandmother, which includes a comedy montage scene in the middle of the film that it so out of place I’m amazed it survived the test screenings. Thankfully, two performances save the film from total disaster. Ronan doesn’t set the place alight, but is more than acceptable in most scenes. However, it’s Stanley Tucci as the suspected murderer who steals the show. He gives his character real menace and the abduction scene between himself and Ronan is the highlight of the film cinematically. Said scene is unbearably tense and Jackson actually tops it later in the firm with a further scene that will have you gnawing at whatever fingernails you have left. On seeing these two scenes, and Jackson ’s excellent direction of them, you despair at what might have been.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Decent turns from Ronan and Tucci are lost underneath a ton of CGI and awful direction. Rating: 3/10.

Edge Of Darkness

Martin Campbell is an assured hand when it comes to this directing lark, twice being entrusted to re-boot the Bond franchise and coming out smelling of roses each time. Therefore, it would seem that adapting his own mid-1980’s TV thriller Edge of Darkness into a feature film would be a shoo-in for another successful outing for Campbell . Unfortunately, much like State Of Play, Edge of Darkness proves that cutting down a successful and well respected TV series to two hours of coherence is a nigh-on impossible task. The first problem stems from the fact that the original was broadcast at a time when the cold war and nuclear weapons were seen as a daily threat. Though the threat is still there, and though this film version runs along slightly different lines, it just isn’t as pertinent as it once was. The second problem is the plot. Though it starts well and is intriguing enough, it soon becomes completely weighed down by all the plot twists and secrets it tries to convey and ends up being just a great lump of Swiss cheese full of many many holes, some quite ludicrous. This film is notable for Mel Gibson’s return from behind the camera for quite some years. He plays Thomas Craven, a Boston cop, who begins an investigation to discover why an attempt (which still has disastrous consequences for himself) is made on his life at the start of the film. Gibson is fine as Craven, though his Boston accent is somewhat suspect. Decent support is provided from Ray Winston and Danny Huston slimes it up as only he can. Nothing can save them though from the evermore confusing screenplay, which is briefly interrupted at times by some shocking and pretty unnecessary violence. The best part of the film though is totally unintentional. Gibson’s fight with a character early in the film utilises the worst stunt double in recent film history. Frankly it’s hilarious and brought to my mind the stunt double parody scene from I’m Gonna Git You Sucka. However, any enjoyment you may have got from this scene will have long dissipated by the ending in which Campbell, perhaps to tie everything up in a neat bundle and possible receiving advice from Metallica, can do nothing more than “Kill ‘em all”.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Despite threatening to break out into something more, the film never really gets the pulse racing and ends up a car crash of plot machinations. Rating: 4/10.