Labor Day

So, Labor Day. A film following the exploits of Ed Milliband as he goes about his daily grind? Or a snapshot of a day in the life of a hospitals maternity ward? Ah, no. This is the US kind of labor, though there is little hard graft on show in Jason Reitman’s drama unless you find cooking peach pies particularly taxing. Based on Joyce Maynard’s novel of the same name, we follow single mum Adele (Kate Winslet), who when out on a shopping trip with her son is accosted by a injured stranger (Josh Brolin) and forced to take him back to her house. Alice and rugrat soon discover that their new guest, Frank, is in fact an escaped convict. From the poster you can guess the rest. Yep, Frank becomes a father figure to the boy and Adele and Frank fall for each other. It’s all fairly straight forward, though there are a couple of mysteries that the script keeps well hidden in the form of what crime Frank was actually convicted of (shown in flashback with Tom Lipinski bearing an incredible resemblance to a young Brolin) and as the neighbours and townsfolk grow ever more suspicious of Adele and Franks actions you genuinely don’t know what the final outcome for them will be. Reitman is one of the more reliable directors around, but his wont of mixing up his genres from film to film fails him here as there isn’t enough going on to overlook the implausibility of the script. It’s hinted that Alice suffers from depression, but its never addressed to the point that intimates she’s so lonely that she would allow a threat like Frank into her life. Plus despite being set in 1987 the look and feel is a lot more contemporary than that. The film shares its DNA with Clint Eastwood's vastly superior A Perfect World, so if you’ve seen that you don’t need to bother with this. Probably best filed under: “If you like this sort of thing….”. Rating: 6/10.

Muppets Most Wanted / 22 Jump Street

Though Muppets Most Wanted isn't a sequel per se (it's actually the eighth Muppet film all in all) it has a similar approach to 22 Jump Street when addressing how follow up films can better what came previously. That is, they just blatantly say they can't and what you're about to watch is basically the same as what you paid for last time out. Hell, the Muppets film even starts with a song and dance number addressing this exact point. It's a risky approach and, the intentional irony aside, the self-prophecy soon comes true. Starting with the puppets first, the last film was a right barrel of laughs, helped in no end by the decision to have many of the chuckles based on a self-referential basis. This film follows the same approach, with the gags dotted around the plot which involves the Muppets getting unintentionally mixed up in a number of jewel heists thanks to a Kermit the Frog lookalike. Director James Bobin returns and does a steady job, but the film misses the affection that Jason Siegel's input into the last script bought to the previous outing and this feels more like we're just going through the motions, not helped by a ridiculous number of pointless and unfunny cameos (Lady Gaga is literally in it for about three seconds). On the plus side Ty Burrell is great as a French Interpol agent, Tina Fey looks pleased to be doing something other than 30 Rock and it's hard to be totally against a film starring Kermit and Co, especially one that throws in a reference to Park Chan-wook's Oldboy! Moving on to 22 Jump Street, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are Hollywood's current golden boys, but even they falter somewhat here with the "wink-wink-it's the same plot" approach (this time Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill are trying to infiltrate a drugs ring in college as opposed to high school). Using irony as the excuse of repeating the same storyline over again can't cover the laziness of the approach of Hill and Michael Bacall's treatment. On the plus side, though it lacks the smarts of Lord and Miller's previous work, it just about falls on the right side of the line due to still being very funny in parts, particularly during the end credits which are utterly hilarious and have had more thought put into them than the whole script of most Hollywood comedies. There's also a great gag revolving round the mis-pronunciation of Cate Blanchett and nobody does a better unimpressed face than Ice Cube. Basically, it's a case of if you like 21 you'll like 22, but this is vastly inferior to the original film with great moments counter-balanced by too many segments that fall flat. An extra mark mind for those cracking end credits. Muppets Rating: 6/10. Jump Rating: 7/10.

Under The Skin

A film where Scarlett Johansson plays an alien who picks up hitchhiker's and then harvests their skins? Hmmm..sounds kinda intriguing. What's that? You get to see Scarjo in the nuddy? Sold! Cynicism aside re that second point, this is a tough watch for anyone unless, like Monty Python once said, you're the type of person "...who talks loudly in restaurants". From it's bizarre 2001-style opening, Jonathan Glazer's latest film moves along in slow motion and just never gets going. Glazer's background is mainly in music videos and commercials and he struggles with this longer format of entertainment. Much has been made of the guerrilla style of filming Glazer used in making this (Johansson basically interacting with unsuspecting members of the public via hidden cameras), but that can't compensate for a lack of substance. What saves it from being a total disaster though is Johansson's superb performance and the actual portrayal of the difficulty of an alien trying to fit in to contemporary society is nicely realised. Plus, the way the unsuspecting humans are killed is different than the usual "killed by zappers" and somewhat queasy to watch (think implosion and innards). You'll also elicit a wry smile as well when you think of foreign audiences trying to decipher some of the molten thick Glaswegian accents. Things aren't helped along the way though by the obtrusive score that is so over the top it elicited a few unintentional laughs in the screening I was in. Glazer's approach has obviously been less is more, which works up to a point, though the script is far too clunky, shown up by a key moment in the film where the alien appears to want to understand humanity, but the first person she stumbles across happens to be an opportunist rapist! So, will this be remembered as an intriguing study of an outsiders perspective on the human condition? Or will it be known as that dull arse film where Scarlett Johanssen drives around Scotland in a van and not much happens? I suspect it will be the latter. Rating: 6/10.

300: Rise Of An Empire / Pompeii

It's double review time again, this time the tenuous link being swords, sandals, computer generated imagery and, er, history. Starting off with 300: Rise Of An Empire, director Noam Murro's (no me neither) film is the the follow up to Zack Snyder’s seriously over-rated 300, though it actually takes place around the same time of the battle depicted in that film. To go into plot, characters etc. would take forever, but it's basically 300 again, though this time mainly set at sea. There's clunky dialogue, male characters who all look alike (apart from one who looks like Zlatan Ibrahimović) and 99% special effects. So, as you were then basically. Though this time there's also a sex scene so bizarre it genuinely looks like it's been cut in from a soft porno. If you like hacking and slashing there’s plenty of red stuff on show (at one point someone's head meets a horses hoof with very squelchy results), but it does little to challenge the preconception that once you've seen one CGI slicing with a sword you've seen them all. On the plus side Eva Green is good fun as the main baddie and some of the battles at sea are genuinely ingenious with one including the most surprising appearance of a horse since Caesar climbed aboard one in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. In the end though there's nothing here to suggest that this was more than just a sequel for sequel's sake and the whole thing just lacks soul. Murro was slated to direct A Good Day To Die Hard, but dropped out to direct this. Looks like he would have lost either way. Anyway, moving on it’s Paul W. S. Anderson time! Settle down there at the back. Anderson easily makes the short list for worst director of the last twenty years but, much like a broken clock still showing the correct time twice a day, occasionally he gives us something that isn't actually all that bad. The anomaly this time is Pompeii which, despite appearances, just about sneaks into the guilty pleasure bracket. The basic storyline is as old as Pompeii itself, as a boy from the wrong side of the tracks (in this case a slave played by Kit Harington) catches the eye of a girl (Emily Browning as the daughter of a city ruler) from a social standing miles above him. Will true love prevail, not only over the social divide, but also over a volcano in a very bad mood indeed? The thing about disaster films is that you can’t just show a load of death and destruction without a human element to engage the audience and, though they're written pretty thinly, Anderson makes us care about the characters. Browning and Harington will probably only appeal to certain demographics of the audience, but for the rest of use we can enjoy Kiefer Sutherland (who at times sports an accent that is so bizarre it looks as if he’s attempting an impression of Anthony Hopkins whilst wearing a gum shield), clearly having great fun as a Roman Senator and his dry comment when watching a re-enactment of a slaughter during a gladiatorial smack down provides the film with a high moment of subtle laughter amongst all the mayhem. Though Anderson has received lots of praise for the historical accuracy of the Pompeii he's put on screen and the depiction of the eruption of Vesuvius itself (when the old girl finally erupts its an impressive moment and nicely pitched dramatically) you get the feeling that (though morally not really all that on), for once he isn't taking things too seriously himself either. 300 Rating: 5/10. Pompeii Rating: 7/10.

The Lego Movie

Phil Lord and Chris Miller have only been around for a few years, but they already have some serious pedigree. First up was 2009's under seen but widely praised Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs. Next they gave us one of the best comedies of recent years with 21 Jump Street and, lets be honest, who saw that coming. Recently they've given us the worthy Brooklyn Nine-Nine television series, but now they return to their computer animated cinematic roots with The Lego Movie which, despite not hitting the heights of their earlier output, still has enough original thoughts and laugh out loud moments to make it one of the films of the year so far. The storyline is as standard (basically good vs evil) as it is gets, so lets concentrate on other aspects. First up are the visuals which, despite being computer animated, have been done in such a way that it comes across as stop motion, deftly reflecting the way you would use Lego piece by piece in reality. It's a smart touch. In respect of the humour it's Lord and Millers usual mix of jokes for the adults (there's plenty of satire in here, mainly based on the characters happiness about everything - see (or hear) the films signature tune - "Everything Is Awesome") and colourful mayhem for kids. Lord and Miller also utilise the physical traits of the Lego characters in a number of imaginative ways (Liam Neeson is a police officer who has a two-sided head which means he literally changes between Good Cop / Bad Cop) and nostalgia abounds in many places, not least with the appearance of the astronaut figure with worn-out logo and broken helmet. The film does have couple of problems though. The first is that it's just too manic for it's own good and things start to get exhausting rather than staying constantly thrilling (and on that note some of the action scenes are so briskly edited it's hard to tell what's going on - listen out for a Wilhelm Scream though!). Secondly. and somewhat spoiling the whole party, the ending is truly terrible as we partially enter the "real" world in order to tie up a number of plot points. No doubt it happens due to what must have been agreed with the Lego company itself (and its marketing concerns) in the pre-filming negotiations, but it means the production limps over the finish line. Rating: 7/10.

Need For Speed

Though he's appeared in a few films over the years, now that Breaking Bad has ended it's time for Aaron Paul to properly kick start his big screen career. One of his new vehicles (sorry) is Need For Speed, which has Paul (who appears to have been spending his Bad wages at McDonalds) starring as a street racer who, stop me if you've heard this one before, is framed for a crime he did not commit and on release drives cross-country on a mission of revenge. Or something like that. The plot is basically a side issue here as it's all about the cars and I'm sure petrol heads will get their fix from what's on show. In addition, there's good news for anyone who is moaning about the quieter F1 engines as this film is loud, loud, loud. Comparisons with Fast and Furious can't be ignored, but whereas that series spectacularly floundered as soon as it went computer effects heavy, the film makers here have gone with practical effects and it adds some metal bending realism and genuine danger to the proceedings. Paul (though not really having much to do) is solid enough, with his laid back style of acting evoking (intentionally or not) the road movies of the 1960's and 1970's, but the supporting cast is hit and miss. Imogen Poots provides some sass as Paul's front seat passenger and Rami Malek gets the best job quitting scene in years. Less enjoyable is Scott Mescudi who is irritating beyond belief, playing the sort of wise cracking smart ass that can only best be described as a Berkshire Hunt. If there's a more annoying character put on celluloid this year we'll all be very unlucky indeed. Director Scott Waugh previously only had the critically panned Act of Valor under his belt. He does a better job here but, at the end of the day, isn't this just an amalgamation of all of the Smokey and the Bandit films? Rating: 6/10.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

I've said this before about Wes Anderson, but there can't be a film maker alive today who's idiosyncratic style is so paramount you can tell who the director is within thirty seconds of the film beginning. For The Grand Budapest Hotel it takes about five seconds. The rest you know. Kitsch sets. The lock-pan-lock camera movements. The mix of live action and (knowingly) obvious special effects. The ensemble cast. This is quintessential Anderson all the way. Arguably, it's also the most audience accessible film he's ever given us, with word of mouth helping to contribute to its impressive box office return. Overall though, it's just more fun than what you'd expect from Anderson. Set in a fictional European state in the the early 1930's we follow Ralph Fiennes as concierge Gustave in the aforementioned hotel, who finds himself framed for murder following his inheritance of one of his guests valuable paintings. As this is Anderson you'll be unsurprised to hear there's a lot more going on as well, but Gustave's storyline is the focal point and rightfully so. Fiennes is hilarious and gives one of his best turns for years, portraying Gustave as a proud man with an eye to detail and a loyalty to all those around him, but it's the moments of touching insecurity and cheerfully comic swearing that really add to the performance. On the aesthetic front Anderson's use of models and hand painted back drops is a nice compliment to the old fashioned setting. Throw in some surprising moments of gore and some laugh out loud one-liners and you start to wonder where this side of Anderson has been hiding. It's not all gravy though. The marketing has made use of its wide cast, but many actors (virtually all Anderson regulars) only pop up for 30 second (or less) cameos and, Gustave aside, there's virtually no characterisation anywhere else. Anderson also continues his unfortunate wont of including scenes where animals are harmed and the one here is drastically unfunny. In the end though the good outweighs the bad and you even get to see Willem Dafoe (as an enforcer) looking more like someone from the undead than he did in Shadow Of The Vampire. Rating: 7/10.