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.

Life Of Pi

Even if you haven’t read Yann Martel’s novel, you’ll probably be able to hazard a guess as to what it’s about based on its many different book jackets; that being something to do with a boy, a boat and a tiger. To flesh that out a bit more, and to give you the basis of this filmed version, the boy in question is Pi, who finds himself shipwrecked on a boat in the Pacific Ocean with only a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker for company (and, no, I haven’t got those names mixed up). As the story is told in flashback by the adult Pi (Irrfan Khan), you obviously know that he survives his ordeal at sea and therefore the crux of the film is discovering how. Ang Lee is the director here and he has a field day with the camera. This being his first gig since 2009’s lowly Taking Woodstock, he brushes off any cobwebs that may have appeared with plenty of standout sequences, aided by decent special effects. He even changes the aspect ratio at certain parts, though I suppose that’s allowable in a “fantasy” story such as this. Less impressive is the CGI Richard Parker (though that name gag somehow remains funny throughout the whole film). Obviously using a real tiger would have been impossible for what is required in the film, but Richard Thomas still has too much of a computerised sheen to him for you to really feel that Pi is ever in danger at any point or that a relationship could develop between man and beast. Beautiful imagery aside, for the films two hours plus running time it’s hard to argue the case that this isn’t style over substance. What substance there is mainly manifests itself in the guise of a final scene rug pull. I’ve never read the book so was unprepared for the twist in the tale (or “tail”, maybe in this case) and wry smiles all round when you consider that M Night Shyamalan was connected to the project at one point. You should also be aware that there is a huge religious context to this film (there’s plenty of visualisation of deity’s if you look hard enough), but Lee doesn’t quite get the balance right in this respect and the last act revelation feels a bit of a con, even if it will lead to plenty of discussion. So an enjoyable film, though a flawed one in many areas. Though it appears the producers didn’t want the audience having too much of a good time as Tobey Maguire was replaced by Rafe Spall for the part of the writer in the film, for the somewhat odd reason that Maguire’s fame would have been a “distraction” for the audience. Huh?

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

If you only see one tiger on a boat film this year…..Rating: 7/10.

Rise Of The Guardians

Rise of the Guardians, despite sounding like a sword and sandals epic or a mythology based rumble, is actually the prototype standard animated Christmas release that appears around November time each year (he types, reviewing it in April). Some thrills for the kids, a few hours peace for the adults, a moral message and good triumphing over evil. In fact, the material is actually so basic it’s not much of a surprise to see that DreamWorks dropped it in the lap of first time director Peter Ramsey. Ramsey does have a solid background in films, particularly as a storyboard artist, so he muddles through this just fine. There isn’t much here though to warrant any further viewings. Quick summation: When Bogeyman Pitch (Jude Law) plans to engulf the world in darkness the Guardians (Jack Frost (Chris Pine), Santa Claus (Alec Baldwin), The Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman) and The Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher)) team up and come to the rescue. The rest you can already work out for yourself. As mentioned this is more than acceptable for kids, but it does little to pique the interest of the older members of the audience, with virtually no references or gags to tickle the more adult funny bone. You can argue that this was targeted at a young audience only, but executive producer Guillermo del Toro’s involvement suggests more was afoot, but I see little evidence of his assumption that the film had areas that were dark, moody and poetic. The involvement of another well know name though does provide some positives, as ubercinematographer Roger Deakins helped out on the lighting and overall the animation is very good, though cheapened by the pointless 3D. The biggest weakness the film has (not that the kids will care or notice) is that the Guardians themselves are actually quite weak. Jackman’s Easter Bunny is an unfunny lazy Aussie stereotype, Baldwin’s Claus sports an incomprehensible Russian accent, though must disconcerting of all is Pine as Jack Frost. Though it’s not clear how old Frost is meant to be (though clearly it’s on the youthful side), the illusion of childhood innocence is somewhat smashed due to Pine having the voice of a fifty year old. This has made some decent coin at the box office and it seems, despite its flimsy premise, DreamWorks were determined to support this as much as possible (this is the first film I’ve seen in years where five minute clips of the actual film were shown as previews before other films). That approach has clearly, and literally, paid off, but it can’t cover up the fact that this is strangely lacking in enchantment.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

If you missed this, fear not. They’ll be another one along come next Santa Claus time. Rating: 6/10.

The Master

This was the biggest disappointment of 2012 for me. Paul Thomas Anderson may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but his last film (five years ago now!) was the superlative There Will Be Blood and this follow up has been eagerly anticipated. However, when a film (much like this one) has had a history littered with rewrites, recasting, money problems and studio hand-wringing the end result is usually a bit of a cinematic car crash. Even with PTA’s capable hands calling the shots, this doesn’t disprove that rule. Following the end of the war, twitchy naval veteran Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) returns home to a life of drifting until he happens upon Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his clan of followers labeled “The Cause”. Then, not much happens for 2 hours. The films troubled background is up there for all to see as it doesn’t really have a clear narrative in terms of plot or story. Is it a story of friendship between Quell and Dodd? A story of manipulation of a person with mental issues? A study of cults? It never really settles on any one issue. Even the visuals can’t make up for the slow story as this is Anderson’s first film without regular cinematographer Robert Elswit. There’s little heart to this film (though that’s hardly unusual in an Anderson production), but it fails to raise the pulse either with only a few scenes moving at a pace quicker than plodding, though one is a spectacular scene of carnage when Quell smashes up a prison cell. On that front, the one saving grace of the film is a convincing performance from Phoenix. Quell comes across as genuinely damaged goods. Hoffman doesn’t have to do much apart from being bombastic and smug (hardly a stretch for him), but it’s his on screen wife played by Amy Adams that is arguably the most interesting character of all with PTA hinting at times that she’s the real string puller and that behind every strong man is an even stronger woman. Sadly this avenue is not fully investigated and would have been lot more interesting to watch than scene after scene of Dodd “experimenting” on Quell. Overall, despite the talent involved here, not many films emerge unscathed from Development Hell. Finally, you don’t need to be a genius to spot the analogy with scientology and although PTA has stated The Cause is not in any way connected with that particular branch of religion, the obvious similarities are there for all to see.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Apparently the idea for this film had been in Anderson’s head for twelve years. Watching it you’ll feel the same amount of time is passing. Rating: 5/10.