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)

Django Unchained

For a film that’s almost three hours long and has already had more words written about it than Quentin Tarantino can speak in 5 minutes, I’ll try and keep this short and sweet (which, ironically, is pretty much the opposite description that can be applied to most QT productions). A quick summation of the plot finds us in 1850’s America where bounty hunter Dr King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) frees slave Django (Jamie Foxx) in order to help him with a mission, before the two team up in order to track down and rescue Django’s wife (Kerry Washington) from plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Back in 2007 Tarantino stated that he wanted to do a film that would deal with America’s slave past but portray it in the manner of a spaghetti western, as opposed to an “issue movie”. Well you can’t deny he hasn’t produced what he was aiming for back then as there’s nothing here that can be taken seriously, including plenty of historical inaccuracies. In respect of how the film actually plays though, the first thing to note is that, unusually for Tarantino, this has quite a linear narrative. However, as we go from scene to scene, there is nothing to get the pulse racing too much and little in the terms of plot twists. What the film comes across as is a collection of acts which have better executed in previous Tarantino productions. A key dinner table scene recalls the Tavern showdown in Inglourious Basterds, but lacks its tension and cat playing with mouse dialogue. An OTT shootout is akin to Uma Thurman’s rumble with the Crazy 88 squad in Kill Bill, but lacks its wit and whip smart direction. Waltz is good, but not a patch on his performance as Hans Landa and so on. It all feels Tarantino-ish, but just not at full throttle (though a scene where the KKK discuss the impracticality of their hoods is QT to the max). The one thing that Tarantino pretty much always delivers on is great performances from his cast. It’s no different here as the majority of the cast are a delight to watch, no doubt aided by QT’s sharply written characters. Plus, if you want further proof of what a farcical waste of time the Oscars are, Waltz swanned off here with an Oscar for his “usual”, albeit good routine, whilst Samuel L. Jackson (stealing the film with an outrageous performance as Candie’s senior house slave) didn’t even get a nomination. A lot has been written about the violence on show, but it’s actually fairly tame with a lot of it being left to the imagination. Sure you can point to the bloodbath at the end, but the ridiculous amount of claret on show easily pushes it into “comic” territory. The film is best summed up by Tarantino’s cameo towards the end. QT’s bad acting has been a running joke for a long time now, but it appears that he doesn’t seem in on it himself. How else to explain his atrocious performance? But this is a key point as to why this film fails to consistently hit high standards. This is self-indulgent Tarantino, which is a step down from his usual quality. You may even half-jokingly ask the question if Tarantino hasn’t just finally scratched his itch of giving us a film that overloads on the N word whilst winding up Spike Lee at the same time.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

It’s usually either hit or miss with Tarantino, which makes this film fairly unique as it lands firmly within the pile marked “average”. Rating: 6/10.

Gangster Squad

Ruben Fleischer’s last two films were 2009’s one viewing only Zombieland (seriously, watch it again and you’ll see what I mean) and the more recent fun but flawed 30 Minutes Or Less. His latest film, Gangster Squad, falls somewhere in the middle. It’s one of these films (kind of similar to Lawless) where the cast (Brolin, Gosling, Nolte, Stone, Penn) makes you sit up and pay attention, but the films execution is lacking. Ironically execution, well executions, is the operative word to describe the film as we follow a gang of police officers and detectives as they take on Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) and his cronies in 1950’s Los Angeles with violence and murder (from both sides) being their common language. This isn’t a bad film, but it’s too by the numbers. The central premise of a rag-tag group coming together to fight the bad guys is hardly an original story, but Fleischer doesn’t add anything new to his film in order for it to rise above the pile marked average. All the characters are underdeveloped and the storyline doesn’t appear to have much of a plot (apart from Cohen is a nasty piece of work. Natch). At least all the male actors have a chance to shoot guns and flex their muscles in the numerous scenes of carnage, as poor Emma Stone as the token female (despite being one of the central peeps in the piece) might as well have had “Wallpaper Dressing” next to her name on the credits. As for the aforementioned carnage the violence is all over the place with Fleischer seemingly unsure what should be comic and what should hit home. Even a grisly opening scene of a murder via car tug of war appears to have been darkened in the edit so as to lessen its impact (I doubt DOP Dion Beebe was happy with that). Basically this is just a classic example of wrong director for the genre in question. Fleischer’s background is in comedy and you can see that as the film progresses. It’s almost like he doesn’t know if this should be taken seriously or not. It turns into a long lost relative of Dick Tracy with its vivid hues and over the top characters, with Penn’s ridiculous makeup and gravelly voice being the prime example. This promised much, but within 113 minutes or less, you’ll be disappointed. See what I did there?.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

The appointment of a director whose main skills like elsewhere mean you have a film which is as messed up as Sean Penn’s makeup. Rating: 5/10.

Zero Dark Thirty

Films regarding the recent and on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been box office poison. The huge irony behind Zero Dark Thirty is that the film was originally going to be about the Battle of Tora Bora and the failed attempts to track down Osama Bin Laden. Regardless of quality, we can be pretty certain that effort would have also failed to rouse the punters, particularly in North America. However, when the US eventually got their man director Kathryn Bigelow and screenplay writer Mark Boal had to scrap their project. However they didn’t hang around and 5 months later the cameras were ready to roll on Zero Dark Thirty. A year later and, predictably, it’s scored well at the multiplexes. Is it any good though? The story spans a near ten year period from the September 2001 terrorists attacks through to the Navy Seal raid in Pakistan in 2011 and is mainly told through the eyes of CIA operative Maya (Jessica Chastain). The good stuff first. Bigelow has tried to remain as honest to the reality as possible with the actual hunt being portrayed as slow and bureaucratic until she gets the chance to flex her (considerable) biceps with a superbly directed final third of the film. Trying to be as accurate as possible, the Abbottabad raid in the film is similar in length to what actually did happen and the production design team should take a bow for their exact re-creation of Bin Laden’s compound. Throw in endless CIA jargon and realistic weapons, uniforms etc. and you have a production that has tried it’s best to give an honest portrayal of what went down. Plus, Mark Strong spotters will enjoy a brief and sweary cameo from the man who is in every film ever made. Peer a bit closer though and the cracks start to appear. The dodgy helicopter graphics don’t convince in the slightest (though at times Bigelow tries to cover this up by having a seriously dark filtered screen), the soundtrack appears to have been stolen from Seven and a scene where one of the head honcho’s is interrupted whilst using a prayer mat, though apparently true, just smacks of trying too hard to remain politically correct. The biggest stumbling block the film has though is with the character of Maya herself. Chastain is a great actress, but even she seems unclear about what part she is supposed to be playing. At some points it’s said that Maya has a solid background of work behind her, whilst at other times it’s mentioned she’s a still a bit of a rookie. Plus she actually doesn’t do much investigating at all during the film, with everyone else doing the legwork and her picking up the glory. I mentioned earlier that the film tries to portray events as close to the reality as possible, however this is a film and its clear artistic license has been used in some places and for reasons of pace (though this still clocks in at 2 hours 40 minutes). How true what’s being shown though is up for you to decide and there are already pages and pages of debate and counter claim out there that you can read for yourself. However there can be no excuse for the film makers for using (without permission from the family) at the start of the film a clip from one of the flight attendant’s calls from one of the hijacked planes from that fateful day in 2001. As if the audience really needing reminding what was the background to this whole business……  

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

A tough subject matter to film regardless of the talent involved. Bigelow’s action scenes are thrilling and tense, though this is countered by a confusing main character and accusations of insensitivity and inaccuracy. Rating: 7/10.

The Impossible

I think a few years ago when I reviewed Clint Eastwood’s atrocious Hereafter, I highlighted the fact he had unnecessarily used the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami as a pick up point for one of the (fictional) characters story arcs. Though basing films on real life disasters is always walking the moral tightrope, I much prefer an approach such as here in which Juan Antonio Bayona’s The Impossible tells the real life story of a holidaying family caught up in the destruction of that fateful day. The family in question are Maria Bennet (Naomi Watts), her husband (Ewan McGregor) and their three young sons. When the tsunami hits the family get split up with Maria and one of the sons being swept away. The rest of the film is taken up with following both family groups as they try to locate each other amongst the mayhem (though the main focus is on Maria). The effects are highly impressive and though there is plenty of death and destruction on show, it is sensibly portrayed in a non-graphic manner, though the brief shot of a leg injury that Maria suffers is one of the most gruesome wounds ever committed to celluloid. On the acting front, Watts is the stand out performer. There aren’t many better actresses around when it comes to portraying emotional loss and she is hugely convincing here. McGregor has less to do (his role is basically looking under large pieces of debris and checking lists), though he still does a solid job and the three child actors all fall on the right line of the annoying / cute divide. The keener eyed amongst you might recognise Bayona as the man who called the shots for 2007’s superb The Orphanage and, despite appearances, this is actually a Spanish production. The actual family this is based on were from said country, though Bayona doesn’t mention their nationality in the film in order to create a more “universal” feel to the story. Unfortunately this doesn’t quite work though as Bayona’s direction and Sergio Sánchez’s script concentrates so much on the Bennet family the bigger humanitarian picture is pretty much pushed to the sidelines.  I appreciate that this story is meant to specifically be about one family but, heartening story though it is, it’s hard to really feel its emotional impact when it’s not fully placed in the context of the overall disaster. Direction wise Bayona isn’t as tight here as he was during his previous outing with a few too many cultural stereotypes on display and well-meant scenes portraying aid and encouragement unfortunately tip over into mawkishness. All in all this was a tricky subject matter to tackle, but regardless of topic, a film still has to be reviewed on its cinematic quality, not it’s worthiness, and in this instance Bayona gives us a good film, just not a great one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

An impressive look and Watts on top form counter balance some of the more stagey aspects of the story. Rating: 6/10.