Ice Age: Continental Drift / Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted

Double review time again as here we have a couple of films (Ice Age: Continental Drift and Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted) that have plenty in common both historically and artistically. Well, I say review, but there isn’t really much point for films such as this as the template has been set in the previous films and, despite marketing that suggests otherwise, for both films it’s mainly just a case of wash, rinse and repeat. A brief summing up though can be made by looking at those sub-titles. For Ice Age Manny et al get stuck on an iceberg and find themselves getting caught up in the usual shenanigans. For Madagascar, Alex et al are on the run in Europe where they, well, find themselves getting caught up in the usual shenanigans. Both of these animated franchises have been big hitters at the box office over the last decade so it’s hardly surprising to find more sequels being released. For some these films will be old hat, but for others (though mainly fans I guess) that won’t be a problem, especially parents who want their kids to watch something colourful, quick, silly and fun. There is a serious case of déjà vu when watching these latest productions, but I can’t deny each film doesn’t have some moments of genius and Madagascar’s introduction of a new character in the form of the Captain of Animal Control in Monaco (voiced by an unrecognisable Frances McDormand) provides consistent laughs. On that front, I’d say that Madagascar has the sharper script both in terms of humour and pathos, but Ice Age triumphs in terms of its main characters having more personality (aided by having more substantial audience recognition already built in. For example, how many Madagascar characters (not actors) could you actually name?). Overall, it’s as you were for both franchises with nothing really new here to report, though a glut of minor side characters in each film will have the sharp eared on alert trying to recognise what B-actor is providing the vocals. Talking of recycling if any more sequels to these films come out, to make matters easier and to save time, just refer back to this review and change words as appropriate. Finally I avoided watching both of these in 3D, but from what I’ve read elsewhere it didn’t add anything. What. A. Shock.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Money for old rope. But if people keep buying said rope......Rating: 6/10 (both films)

Magic Mike

The premise of Magic Mike (i.e. a story set in the world of male stripping) probably won’t have many men rushing to the cinema, but taken as a follow up to Steven Soderbergh’s last film (the abysmal Haywire), anything will do. Loosely based on Channing Tatum’s experience as a stripper in his younger days, Reid Carolin’s script follows Mike Lane (Tatum), roofer by day, stripper at a club by night and his attempts to escape the getting starkers lifestyle by setting up his own furniture business. In a second plot strand we follow the relationship between Mike and Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a young man who Mike takes under his wing and introduces to the world of stripping. The film is pretty thin plot wise and the aforementioned storylines don’t exactly grab the attention. However it does work well in two other areas. The first (which Tatum has said he hoped the film would capture) is the camaraderie, atmosphere and energy between the dancers both onstage and off. Secondly, the business aspect of the job is well portrayed with club owner Matthew McConaughey at pains to point out that the company should be as professionally run as possible, but with the temptations of women, drink and drugs lurking around every corner it’s quite a battle. I’m not that bothered with the arguments behind the sexual politics of the film and to be fair to the studio they were upfront about their marketing campaign targeting women and gay men (which clearly paid off as this has become a box office success). However I think it’s fair to say that Soderbergh and Carolin could have done a bit more both from the camera point of view and the join the dots plotting. Acting wise, Pettyfer and McConaughey give the best performances. Tatum is his usual self, but at least he’s better than Cody Horn (as the love interest) who is beyond bland. Plus, Mike and Adam hardly seem to connect as friends or colleagues, but that might have something to do with the rumours that Tatum and Pettyfer didn’t get on during filming. One person who Tatum does like though is Nicolas Winding Refn who he originally wanted to direct this, but scheduling conflicts meant it never came to fruition. The mind boggles at that one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Cheap thrills for some, but only an average film for the rest. Rating: 6/10.

The Five Year Engagement

The last time Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel wrote together the end result was the enjoyable Muppets movie from the turn of the year. However, any originality that made that a surprising bit of fun is missing here as they churn out a by the numbers romance that will eventually just find itself on the pile of forgettable rom-coms from the last few years. That’s not to say the target audience probably won’t enjoy this, but I’d guess even for them this is a one viewing situation only. Starting off in San Francisco, Tom (Segel) proposes to his girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt), but when she gets the chance to study a post-doctorate in psychology in Michigan, they decide to postpone their wedding and both to make the move east. Tom has trouble finding work though and before long the strains of a relationship are beginning to take their toll. Segel plays Tom with his usual goofy charm and there is some believable chemistry between himself and Blunt. Rhys Ifans provides good support as well as Violet’s slimy professor and his scene where he escapes an enraged Tom with some fleet of foot provides one of the best laughs of the film. On the downside, people who think that psychology is a load of balls will probably be gnawing their knuckles at the script (though it does poke a bit of fun at said discipline), especially when one of the main plot points resolves around who would eat a stale doughnut. Stoller did some decent work behind the camera on Forgetting Sarah Marshall (and, less memorably, Get Him To The Greek) but here it’s, well, as stale as one of those aforementioned doughnuts. It’s all pretty predictable and it also includes the eye-rollingly annoying group of diverse friends / work colleagues / students that only ever exists in US sitcoms or films. What saves it from being a complete flop though is that this has a slightly dark edge to it on the emotional side and it’s well acted by the three main leads. Basically this is just like Going The Distance (but, er, without the distance), with a different cast and crew. Therefore, if you liked that film, you’ll probably like this and vice versa.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not bad, but even if you never see this film, you’ve already seen it. Rating: 6/10.

Amour

Firstly, some choice cuts from some of the previous films of Michael Haneke, one of European cinema’s enfant terrible’s: Teenage girl coldly murdered by captive bolt pistol (Benny’s Video); Man unexpectedly slashes own throat in the middle of a conversation (Cache); Family murdered whilst intruders torture the audience via breaking the fourth wall (Funny Games) and as for The Piano Teacher, let’s say no more. Now let’s look at the description of Haneke’s latest film, Amour: An honest and moving portrayal of an elderly couple. What, no sudden knife attack, you say? Nope, this is as read, and despite Haneke’s previous film (The White Ribbon) being a relatively leisurely stroll in respect of pace (though certainly not in subject matter), who could have predicted that this would have been the subject of Haneke’s next project? This does start with a bang though, with a Parisian fire department breaking into an apartment and discovering the partially mummified corpse of a woman. We’re then into flashback as we pick up on the lives of octogenarian couple Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva), retired music teachers and seemingly at ease with the cards life has dealt them. However, Anne soon suffers a stroke which leaves her paralysed down one side of her body. Her hatred of hospitals means that Georges has to take care of her at home and, with her condition deteriorating, it shines the spotlight on just how much “love” couples must have in their relationship in order to get by. This picked up the 2012 Palme d’Or, but it’s the kind of film that always does, i.e. popular with cineastes, but open to accusations of pretentiousness over substance. There are a few irritations here, the main one being that the literature released with the film states that Anne became paralysed due to the hospital botching her operation, but this isn’t mentioned in the film. Also, at over two hours long, there are a number of scenes that probably could have hit the cutting room floor. In mitigation you can argue that Haneke is showing the reality of such a situation, i.e. time moves slow, life is tough and there are no short cuts. It’s certainly an honourable subject, but whether this will find a mainstream audience though (let’s face it, this is a tough sell) is a different matter. It’s a great film in terms of what it wants to do, but I doubt you’d ever give this further viewings. It’s certainly thought provoking though and I imagine it will be difficult to watch for anyone who has personal experience of what is happening on screen (apparently it’s based on an identical situation in Haneke’s family). This in itself is a detour for Haneke as the majority of his output has usually concerned situations both fantastical and ambiguous for the audience in question. Here though those barriers have been dropped and Haneke puts the viewer right into the middle of the story. A brilliantly acted story it as well, especially by Riva who puts herself through the wringer in numerous scenes where she both physically and metaphorically bares all. This being Haneke though, there has to be a shock at some point and whilst not as visually disturbing as moments in his earlier films, it still resonates both in terms of its surprise value and as a moral talking point after the film has ended. It’s a classic dirty trick from Haneke (one of the modern day masters of audience manipulation) as he challenges you to decide whether what you have just seen really is “love”, after all.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Haneke tone’s down the shocks for an emotional study of age and love that provides plenty of food for thought for all. Rating: 7/10.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2

I can’t say I’m a fan of these films and, unless you’re of a certain gender and of a certain age, there’s actually very little the average movie fan will get from them. That’s not to say they shouldn’t have a place in film history, as they provide entertainment for the target audience and, if that’s your business plan, these films can be classified as a commercial (though not critical success). Starting immediately where the last film left off Bella (Kristen Stewart) is now a vampire and having given birth to her and Edward’s (Robert Pattinson – his entire dialogue in this film must work out to about one word per page of the script) baby, the couple find themselves under threat of punishment from the Volturi (headed up by Michael Sheen, slicing the ham far too thick). In order to protect themselves the Cullen’s start to round up a clan of other vampires. This is hardly done in the style of The Blues Brothers or Seven Samurai, mind. Instead, every ten minutes there’s an introduction of new characters who look like they’ve just walked off a photo shoot for a fashion magazine. On the plus side it does raise some unintentional guffaws. Speaking of that there is a wry sense of humour on show, but the whole franchise has taken itself far too seriously and a touch of humility would have actually helped aid a more positive critical reaction. This was filmed back to back with the last part and so all the problems of that film and frankly, the series as a whole, remain. The special effects remain terrible for a collection that has raked in so much money (I assume the phrase continuous improvement wasn’t banded around the offices of Summit Entertainment much in the last few years), the acting is wooden (somewhat ironic for a series concerning vampires) and the plot holes remain huge, especially when we “see” from Bella’s point of view what it’s like to be one of the blood suckers as her amazing smell, sight, strength, speed etc. pretty much makes a mockery of any struggles the vamps have had so far. Despite all this, this is arguably the best film of the lot. It doesn’t drag too much, storylines are resolved and there’s cracking fight scene which more than makes up from most of the other badly edited ones from the previous movies. Plus, it’s unlikely you’ll see a film with as many decapitations (albeit bloodless ones) as this contains for quite a while. Best of all though is an astonishing third act twist, which is one of the best pieces of rug pulling of the year and is an audacious piece of storytelling by Condon and screenplay scribe Melissa Rosenberg (especially as I’m told it differs from the book, so most of the audience will be the marks). It’s frustrating as well though when you wonder why such effort couldn’t have been put into other areas of the film as opposed to the join the dots process that the final presentation became.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Fans will probably enjoy this last act, but for the rest of us it really has been a “saga”. Rating: 6/10.

Lawless

If you’ve seen The Proposition, you may get a sense of déjà vu when watching Lawless. Same director? Check. Same scripter? Check. Same bursts of horrific violence? Check. Storyline concerning brothers from a family on the wrong side of the law? Check me up. So it’s a reunion between John Hillcoat and Nick Cave (his script being an adaptation of Matt Bondurant’s novel The Wettest County In The World), but as with most reunifications, this falls short on the quality front when compared to earlier successes. Set in 1931 the storyline concerns the Bondurant brothers Forrest (Tom Hardy), Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) and their illegal moonshine set up in Virginia. Their cosy-ish way of life though is interrupted by newly appointed Special Deputy Charley Rakes (Guy Pearce) and his demands that all racketeers in the area pay him a cut of their profits. The brothers refuse and things start to get messy. The trick that Hillcoat and Cave pulled off with The Proposition was that even though it was a slow burning drama, you left the cinema feeling like you had just watched a blistering non-stop thriller. Lightening doesn’t strike twice here I’m afraid though as Cave’s screenplay is full of clichés (the tart with a heart, the patsy etc.) and Hillcoat’s direction is no more than TV movie of the work. The film isn’t helped by its overuse of CGI either with some dodgy visuals just confirming to us its 2012, not the 1930’s. The acting is hit and miss as well. LaBeouf continues to prove he has zero charisma (how does he keep getting cast?) and Hardy doesn’t do much apart from mumble. However, Gary Oldman (despite a disappointingly limited screen time) is great as a rival gangster and Pearce is his usual impressive self, though not quite appearing to really believe in the part he is playing. Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska are pretty much anonymous as the scarcely believable girls who like the bad boys. The film does have its moments though, which includes a dark sense of humour and a neat running gag regarding Forrest’s invincibility. Also, to be fair to Hillcoat and Cave, they don’t profess this to be any more than what it is. There’s no character development, but this is just a snapshot of a family during a specific short time period. Whether you’re going to be interested in the story or not will be down to personal preference. It didn’t do much for me, but at least it’s better than Hillcoat’s last film, the vastly over-rated The Road.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Some may rate this higher, but for me this was more listless than lawless. Rating: 6/10.

The Hunter

I would have loved to have been there when the pitch for The Hunter was made to various film studios: “OK, so it’s about a mercenary killer from Europe who is hired by a biotech company to go undercover in Australia and hunt for the legendary last Tasmanian tiger in existence”. At first reading it sounds like something from one of those modern B-movies you see advertised at Cannes each year. It’s also the plot behind Julia Leigh’s respected (if bleak) novel of the same name from 1999. Leigh herself is not involved in the film in any way, though the script doesn’t veer too far away from her original writings. To expand on the plot outline above, the hired hand in question is Martin David (Willem Dafoe), who on arrival in Tasmania attempts to blend in with the locals by passing himself off as a researcher from a university. He ends up lodging with Lucy Armstrong (Frances O’Connor) and her young children. However, the community doesn’t take kindly to his presence and with the clandestine biotech organisation wanting results at all costs, David’s task suddenly begins to take on a more dangerous slant. Filmed entirely on location in Tasmania, director Daniel Nettheim takes full advantage of the local scenery with some fantastic shots combining both the beautiful and bleakest views that the island state has to offer. Dafoe gives one of his best performances for ages with his facial expressions telling us all we need to know in the many scenes where Nettheim smartly forgoes a soundtrack. Sam Neill (as a local guide) is also great, teasing the audience throughout as to whether he’s David’s friend or foe. On the negative side, Nettheim’s direction can’t escape his TV background and the narrative regarding a local community taking issue with an outsider has been seen a million times before. I don’t know if there’s a sub-genre of “Eco-thrillers” (The Constant Gardener, perhaps?) in film, but this would fit nicely in there. Though that description might put some off, what makes the film work is that you can watch it on various levels. On the human front, there’s David’s relationship with Lucy and her young children, the thriller edge comes in the form of David’s mission and the shadowy figures that appear to be following his progress and, finally, we have a mystery element as to whether the Tasmanian tiger is still out there and if David will find it or not (in reality it’s been classified as extinct for a long time, though there are, of course, still unsubstantiated sightings). I suppose the best thing I can say about this is that I actually saw it over three months ago and, thinking back to it now, I wouldn’t mind seeing it again as there’s more than meets the eye here when it comes to the subplots and it has a climax that will put you through the emotional wringer when David has to decide if taking one (innocent) life can be justified if it means saving many others. It’s a conclusion which is crushingly poignant and one of the most memorable scenes of the year.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
Possibly too slow-burning for some, but this provides food for thought on a number of different levels. Rating: 7/10.