2 Guns

2 Guns is one of those films that you'll see at the cinema and ten years down the line will have difficulty differentiating it from many similar films of this period. To whit: Mark Wahlberg deadpans and fires a lot of guns; Denzel Washington wears some outlandish clothes; there's a drug deal; corrupt policemen; a hip hop soundtrack, the list goes on. So basically if you like that sort of thing this should see you fine, though the film loses most of its appeal in the fact that it thinks itself far better than it is. Also, if you've seen the trailer already, that has also already given away much of the movie. If you do want some plot what we have is undercover agents (Washington = DEA, Wahlberg = Navy) getting caught up in a botched drug deal, with the hook being that neither man knows of the others identity. The unease is played upon for a little while by director Baltasar Kormakur, but it doesn't hold much water (especially as there's little chemistry between the leads) and at least Kormakur has the sense to eventually just concentrate on the action. This leads into the films main problem in which it tries to be clever with a screenplay that is meant to keep you guessing. However, too many twists spoil the broth and by the end you'll be too tired to care who is who and who gets away. Wahlberg has stuck with his Contraband mucker Kormakur here, but it's the list of directors who were also considered (Liman, Fuqua, Morel, Campbell) that meant we could have had something a bit more coherent as the final presentation. OK, you can take Fuqua back. Rating: 5/10.

The Lone Ranger

Director Gore Verbinski, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and stars Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer got a bee in their bonnet about The Lone Ranger. Their beef was that the film was savaged by critics due to what happened behind the scenes as opposed to the actual quality of the film. Do they have a point though? The Lone Ranger is certainly no classic, but it’s a long way off from being a turkey. Where it was a disaster was on the commercial front, but as I’ve been saying for years, most of the time a films performance at the box office has little connection to it’s overall merit. The Lone Ranger is a bit of a muddle no doubt, but at least it tries to entertain as much as possible. The chemistry between Depp (Tonto) and Hammer (Guess) is decent, there are a number of laughs and it doesn’t take itself seriously at any point. Plus if you don’t like seeing William Fichtner (as the big bad here), then you plain just don’t like cinema. However, the cast and crew can have no argument against the negatives. The flashback structure is completely unnecessary and unfunny (the present day bits are Depp as an elderly man narrating the story) and add too many minutes onto an already lengthy run time. The tone is all over the place (it’s oddly brutal at times) and the never ending final scene is the overkill that has been hinted at all along. Perhaps the main question that needs to be answered is when did Johnny Depp decide to stop acting? It can’t be helped that he’s teaming up with Verbinski yet again, but this is just the same old routine he’s been putting out for almost a decade now in films of this ilk and its wearing very thin indeed. Going back to the original complaint, there is also the counter argument that many films suffer from teething difficulties in production and turn out to be fine in the long run. Personally, it seems to me that this just isn’t a film that has an audience out there (something I would have thought Disney would have researched beforehand). The last actual film to star these characters was over thirty years ago and whilst many of the production crew may be from that generation, the cinema going demographic is mainly between 25-35 year olds and they’re clearly non-plussed by a man in a mask on his horse with an eccentric sidekick. Overall, if you disengage brain you should have enough fun to get by (plus Tom Wilkinson accent spotters are well catered for), but Bruckheimer’s assertion that in years to come this will be rediscovered as a masterpiece is as fanciful as this getting a sequel. Rating: 6/10.

Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa / We're The Millers / The Heat

Time for some comedy and three films that tickle the required funny bone if, as they say, you like that sort of thing. Cinema is littered with the corpses of big screen versions of successful British sitcoms (see The Inbetweeners Movie for the most recent evidence) so hopes aren't high for Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa as Steve Coogan and Armando Iannucci finally bring their fictional radio presenter to the silver screen. However a genius such as Iannnucci rarely puts a foot wrong and there's plenty of laugh out loud moments here from the usual one-liners ("She's a drunk racist. I can accept one of those things, but not both") to surreal silliness (the best radio jingle you'll hear for quite a while) as Partridge finds himself caught up in a siege at his local radio station. However the script appears to have been caught between trying to appeal to a new audience by introducing some broader (i.e. cruder) laughs and indulging the hard core fans. Iannucci and company couldn't win either way on that front I guess, but the consensus from the long term believers (which include myself) is that this isn't as bad as was feared. Not sure if that is a recommendation or not, but the fact that it's been almost twenty years since AP was in his prime and this can still raise moments of ruddy hilarity shows that there may be life in the old Partridge yet. Talking of broader laughs, Rawson Marshall Thurber's We're The Millers has, amongst other things, a tarantula biting Will Poulter's privates. However, don't let that put you off as there's a surprising amount of heart here amongst the filth as, on finding himself in the hole to a kingpin, a local pot dealer (Jason Sudeikis) is forced into moving a huge amount of marijuana from Mexico into the US. In order to remain as inconspicuous as possible he creates a fake family involving a stripper (Jennifer Aniston), a teenage runaway (Emma Roberts) and his abandoned-by-his-parents neighbour (Poulter). In effect this is a road movie with the plot no more than a number of scenes in which the faux family interact with a range of characters (Hello, Luis Guzman!) whilst trying to avoid ending up in the slammer or the morgue. This isn't the type of film where a director can do much with the camera, but much like Thurber's last film (Dodgeball) he knows that the idea behind this kind of production is to just let it all hang out and hope the comedic hits outweigh the misses. The lack of subtlety is highlighted in the much promoted (hmm, can't think why) Aniston strip scene where Thurber has Sudeikis break the fourth wall with an expression that says "Well, what did you expect?".It's a bit odd, but at least it's honest. More hit and miss laughs come in the shape of The Heat, starring Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock. Paul Feig surprised all with his 2011 sleeper hit Bridesmaids (though Annie Mumolo and Kristen Wiig's cracking script had a big hand in that) and here he re-teams with that films break out star McCarthy. The last time we had a female buddy cop movie was Feds (back in 1988!) and if you can remember that you'll probably understand why there hasn't been one since. However, screenwriter Katie Dippold's debut script has plenty of positives going for it and McCarthy and Bullock play off each other nicely. Could have done a bit better on the editing front mind as McCarthy's improvised scenes drag on way too much at times and the jokes about albinism (though if you know this genre you'll get the reference) are a bit off pat. Worth catching though for the moment when Bullock's uptight copper finally loses her rag and unleashes a grammatically challenged string of expletives. Partridge Rating: 6/10. Millers Rating: 7/10. The Heat Rating: 7/10. 

Pacific Rim / Only God Forgives / About Time

Right, no more messing. I've really got to try and move these reviews along, so here's three vastly different films all grouped together for one reason: their mediocrity.  Guillermo del Toro has been involved in seventeen different films since 2008's Hellboy II. The problem is he hasn't directed a single one of them. Therefore you'll be unsurprised to hear that Pacific Rim has terrible dialogue and awful acting. Del Toro is revered for his intellect and for this film drew inspiration from (amongst other things) Goya's The Colossus and Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa. However, at the end of the day isn't this just a film about large robots beating the crap out of each other? Idris Elba just looks guilty for accepting the paycheck and Ron Perlman chews so much scenery he's probably still in hospital now having bits of wood removed from his stomach. Teenage boys need apply only. It's adults only though for Nicolas Winding Refn's follow up to his much acclaimed Drive. Personally, I didn't fully get all the praise that film received and in Only God Forgives Refn has taken the main facets of that film and pushed them to the limit. So here we have even less dialogue, Ryan Gosling looking even moodier and Refn disappearing even further up his own backside. Storyline wise its a revenge fable, but Refn's usual mix of glacial pacing interspersed with crunching violence mean thrills are in short supply. Speaking of the violence, this has had the left up in arms again (somewhat ironic considering this film has many of them lopped off) but this isn't any worse than Drive and there's certainly nothing here as stomach churning as the disemboweling in Refn's earlier Valhalla Rising. Still you can't deny Refn knows how to frame and shoot a picture as this looks gorgeous. It's just a shame the overall product is clouded by conceitedness. Smugness is also an accusation that Richard Curtis has been labelled with over the years due to his scripts and films portraying a comfortable middle class existence for the majority of his characters. This kind of reverse snobbery is utterly ludicrous. If you want to slam Curtis do it for the quality of whats on show. Unfortunately for him, About Time gives plenty of opportunity for pouring scorn. It's a British romantic comedy (natch) in which a young man (Domhnall Gleeson) uses time travel to fix the problems in his life. It has its funny moments, but Curtis completely misses the point as he tries to garner sympathy from the audience when Gleeson doesn't get the chance to use the time machine to undo the darker moments in his life. So, just like the layman, huh, Richard? There's some good chemistry between Gleeson and Rachel McAdams in the lead roles (which is ironic considering he's basically pretty deceitful to her throughout), but the rules behind the time travel which drive the plot get forgotten about as we move through Gleeson's life and we're left with so many unanswered questions that in the end the unique selling point of this film is the thing that kills it. Rating for all three films: 4/10.

The Wolverine

James Mangold blotted his copybook with 2010's mediocre Knight and Day, though at least he's safe in the knowledge here that even if he had mucked this up as well it would just about be covered up by almost guaranteed decent box office returns. Basically any director who picks up the megaphone for a superhero film these days can breath easy before the cameras have started rolling as we're truly living in a time where the relationship between quality and turnover has almost divorced for good. This latest instalment in the X-Men film series is a case in point. A film that is nothing more than average, but due to an already established built in audience, people will pile in anyway. OK, to be fair, The Wolverine is actually an above average film, but we're at the stage now where the non-Marvel fan needs something original to keep the interest going. Mangold and a bevy of established screenwriters (Bomback and McQuarrie amongst them) hang the hat of the story on the Wolverine character's major sticking point. It's must be pretty cool to be immortal, but it leaves the audience cold. How can you be excited about a film where you know the main protagonist can't actually be hurt? Therefore the scripters have moved things to Japan and introduced a plot in which old Logan isn't immortal after all. This actually works up to a point, but apart from a good line of humour running through the movie and the occasional thrill (a fun and frantic chase atop a speeding Shinkansen being the highlight) overall the feeling is still that of same old, same old. At least Hugh Jackman hasn't given up and arguably gives his best performance so far playing ol' mutton chops. Shame the rest of the cast is shocking, with Svetlana Khodchenkova so wooden as Viper that they might as well just have made her whole character CGI. As the film meanders into its standard final act you can't help but think what this could have been like had original director Darren Aronofsky stayed aboard. Aronofsky's fingerprints register throughout and it's frustrating to think that this could have been something quite different. Alas, we're left with a safe director, a safe script and a safe film. Rating: 6/10.  

World War Z

Even if you start to watch a film and you’re unaware that it has suffered from the old “difficulties” during production, it doesn’t take long for such problems to rear their head. Usually it means the film will come across as disjointed and World War Z is a prime example. Adapting the Max Brooks novel was always going to be difficult due to its style and Matthew Michael Carnahan’s screenplay has been re-written numerous times and the final result is basically just a number of scenes which on occasion can stand alone, but do not add up to a consistent narrative. What storyline there is has Brad Pitt starring as Gerry Lane, an ex-UN investigator who travels the world in an attempt to find an antidote to a zombie plague which is spreading across the globe. It seems to me this film was doomed from the start for a number of reasons. Pitt himself has stated that the whole thing came about as he just wanted to do a film that his children could watch. Hardly a reason to produce a film methinks. Next is the odd choice of Marc Forster as the director. Forster can handle the dramatic elements of a film, but, as proven with Quantum Of Solace, give him a huge budget with action scenes and he’s found wanting. Overall, it seems that no-one could decide what the tone or genre of the film was meant to be, highlighted by a quote from original scripter J Michael Straczynski who identified the film as a Bourne type thrill ride, whereas Forster was mentioning conspiracy thrillers such as All The Presidents Men after he had signed on. No wonder this is a bit of a mess. On the plus side Pitt’s performance is solid enough and there’s good work from the many character actors that pop up throughout the film, but the whole shebang is too soulless for you to actually care if the human race ends up as zombie snacks or not. A few of the scenes hint at what might have been, but even with numerous reshoots the big moments in the film (such as an attack in an airplane mid-flight) don’t deliver the required thrills. Plus, there is a major plot boo-boo in that he protagonists discover early on that the zombies are attracted by loud noises, but Lane appears to forget to pass on this somewhat crucial nugget of information on arrival in certain locations. At the end Pitt mutters “This isn’t the end. Not even close. Our war has just begun”. It’s doubtless you’ll care. Rating: 5/10.

The Counsellor

There’s some much wrong with this film I don’t where to begin. Perhaps a quick summation of the plot (of which there is little) would help. Ridley Scott’s new film has Michael Fassbender as a lawyer (though referred to as the eponymous title throughout the film) who is persuaded to take part in a drug deal by local kingpin (Javier Bardem). When things go awry, the Counsellor finds himself on the run as the bodies begin to pile up. Scott’s film boasts some serious pedigree what with him calling the shots, a screenplay by Cormac McCarthy, a cool trailer and a one sheet that screams the actor’s surnames. However all this does is underline what a monumental waste of talent the final production is. The main blame lies at the feet (well fingers I suppose) of McCarthy. This is the first actual script he has written directly for a film and it’s basically endless scenes of (unbelievable) dialogue which virtually none of the actors look comfortable delivering. On that front, there’s some serious mis-casting in this film. Bardem never convinces as the zany drug lord (not helped by his silly hair, get up and what appears to be a mild trace of lipstick in some scenes), Brad Pitt (who appears to have been at the pies) pops up with a distracted performance and Penelope Cruz is no more than window dressing. Worst of the lot though is Cameron Diaz. Whoever thought she would make a convincing callous queen bitch of the underworld must have been squirming in their seat at the preview screenings, though things are hardly helped by the stupidest scene of the year where her character has sex with a car windshield. Yes, you read that correctly. As for Fassbender, his performance is perfunctory enough but he also suffers script wise. His character is meant to be the central point of the film, but as he has no back story it’s hard to relate as to why he becomes such a quivering wreck with poor decision making as soon as the proverbial hits the wall. Surely he must have had some nous to get to the position he was in in the first place is such a dangerous industry? (though an amusing slip up on the continuity front involving a mobile phone suggests maybe he has unforeseen powers). Making a film work which is full of unlikable characters is always one of the most difficult aspects of film making and Scott can’t pull it off here. I don’t know either way, but surely the tragic death of brother Tony during the shooting of this couldn’t have helped matters. Overall this is a cold soulless film with little redeeming features. Apart from a few decent one liners, Toby Kebbell popping up with teeth so white you’ll need sunglasses to get through his short cameo and a spectacularly gory death of one of the main characters there is virtually no reason to see this film. Ever. Rating: 2/10.