I Give it a Year  (2013)    53/100

Rating :   53/100                                                                       97 Min        15

A romcom that is as obvious and two dimensional as it is largely humourless. As usual with such fare, things like adultery are made light of in order for the story to resolve itself perfectly, as if by magic, which might be OK if it were pure comedy and, well, really funny, but not if you’re trying to semi-ground the characters in reality. A few scenes do work reasonably well, but another major flaw is that the central character, played by Rafe Spall, is too unrealistically lame for surely anyone to be attracted to, never mind his classically beautiful wife (Rose Byrne) as the film details the implosion of the newly weds expected marital bliss. Anna Faris and Simon Baker round out the main cast, with support from Minnie Driver, Olivia Colman, Jane Asher, Jason Flemyng, who cheekily references his former gig as Dr Jekyll in ‘The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen’ (03), and Stephen Merchant featuring his now overexposed sense of lewd comedy shtick. Look out for the somewhat uncomfortably amusing scene with live doves and Rose Byrne, and what looks very much like real fear on her face as they flap around her, almost as if someone were just out of shot tossing them in her direction….

Wreck-It Ralph  (2012)    70/100

Rating :   70/100                                                                     108 Min        PG

Disney’s latest attempts to do for video games what Pixar did for discarded childhood playthings, à la ‘Toy Story’, their debut film, back in 95. The story follows the adventures of the titular Wreck-it Ralph (John C. Reilly) as he determines to prove himself worthier than the bad guy role he’s been programmed to play out every day in an old, classic arcade game, which has managed to survive the test of time as others around it have perished and been replaced by more modern rivals, including a ‘Gears of War’/’Halo’ esque first person shooter. It’s aimed more at kids than adults of course, who ironically won’t get a lot of the in-jokes and references, though most of the action takes place inside the fictional game of ‘Sugar Rush’, which operates much like a candy fuelled version of ‘Mario Cart’.

Though it has succeeded in making The Red Dragon think about dusting down some old games, from around one third of the way into the film it starts to feel a little sluggish and in many ways as clumsy and obvious as its main character; with the wealth of parody material at its disposal it doesn’t quite seem as involving or humorous as it ought to. Ultimately, the film is still pretty good, though this is perhaps more thanks to traditional Disney gushiness rather than fond thumb battering nostalgia, and there is enough here to merit a sequel that will hopefully have a bit more in it for adult audiences, and more in the way of familiar faces from the world of arcade games.

Perfect for families (unless you’re dead against your kids playing video games) and full of nice little touches, from poor path detection and a beholder holding multiple cups of juice at the ‘bad guys support group’, to the thanks given to the caffeinator at the end of the credits, and a little ‘Star Wars’ nod now that Disney have acquired the rights to the franchise from George Lucas (though, interestingly, parts of ‘Sugar Rush’ do look strikingly similar to a certain other eagerly awaited J.J.Abrams project … ).

Flight  (2012)    73/100

Rating :   73/100                                                                     138 Min        15

‘Flight’ is the latest film from Robert Zemeckis (‘Back to the Future’ 85, ‘Forrest Gump’ 94, ‘Beowulf’) and it’s a very good piece to come back with after a few years break from filmmaking, seeing both writer John Gatins and leading man Denzel Washington up for Academy Awards. The story was inspired by the real life tragedy of Alaska Airlines Flight 261, and revolves around pilot Whip Whitaker, played by Washington, having to come to terms with his alcohol and drug dependency. His performance and the story are both compelling, but one of the supporting characters we are introduced to seems to get over their own struggle with addiction remarkably easily, though it could be argued the contrast with Whitaker is what allows this to happen.

Zemeckis is also guilty of the curious misuse of The Rolling Stones in the film (or more correctly, their music) as they are at one point seemingly put at odds with the general tone of the rest of the film. Overall though, this deserves the praise it has received, and puts Denzel right up there in the Oscars race, which shouldn’t detract from the good acting support from Don Cheadle, Bruce Greenwood, Kelly Reilly, and John Goodman. Don’t watch before you go on holiday – though if you really want to scare yourself see  2011’s ‘The Grey’.

Bullet to the head  (2012)    65/100

Rating :   65/100                                                                       92 Min        15

It is impossible not to think of Rage Against the Machine when reading the title of this film, but unfortunately it misses a trick by not having their song of the same name play at any point. Nonetheless, based on the French graphic novel by Alexis Nolent, this is a fun, no nonsense action flick from director Walter Hill (of ‘The Warriors’, 1979, fame) with the sound effects heavily augmented for extra brutality. Sylvester Stallone is the wronged hitman (with a conscience of course) forced to buddy up with Korean cop Sung Kang to take on the bad guys, primarily in the guise of ‘Conan the Barbarian’ (11) and ‘Game of Thrones’ star Jason Momoa, who stalks around like a solid, skulking chunk of evil (he really is much better suited to play the baddie). Expect stylised violence and one-liners. Good stuff.

Hyde Park on Hudson  (2012)    0/100

Rating :   0/100             COMPLETE INCINERATION             94 Min         12A

Vacuous, in love with itself, and dull as hell. This film tells the story of how American president Franklin D. Roosevelt misused his powers to have his way with various women, essentially abusing them in the process. The music, sounding like what would be expected at the end of a ‘Star Trek : The Next Generation’ episode mixed with repetitive T-Mobile esq. plinkety plonk, and the general tone suggest that this is all fine and dandy, and that if you’re the American president, and especially if you are being played by Bill Murray, then you can do whatever you like. The girls in the row behind me at the cinema were so bored they started making out with each other in a not so subtle fashion, it would be interesting to know if they were gay before they went in or not. The constant reference, with a singular exception, to the United Kingdom as England is also not only completely unacceptable, but utterly disrespectful to the men and women from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who would go on to give their lives defending their country and the liberties of others during the Second World War. Unforgivable.

Zero Dark Thirty  (2012)    79/100

Rating :   79/100                                                                     157 Min        15

‘Zero Dark Thirty’ tells the story of how American intelligence operatives tracked down Osama Bin Laden hiding in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2011. Or does it? As it deals with the shadowy world of intelligence, we will never quite know unless the official documents are made public (which in Britain happens thirty years after the fact, as per the ‘Thirty Years Rule’). The film is from director Kathryn Bigelow (the first female winner of the best director Oscar for 2008’s ‘The Hurt Locker’) and writer Mark Boal. Originally, the pair had been working on a project surrounding the Battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in 2001, which had been a previous military attempt to capture Bin Laden, but when they heard the news of the Abbottabad raid they decided to shelve that project but still use their intelligence contacts and information to form the basis of ‘Zero Dark Thirty’, perhaps sensing they had a foot in the door advantage over anyone else thinking to do the inevitable and dramatise the event on film.

The exact nature of the real intelligence they had access to, and its accuracy, is still a very hot topic of debate in America, with the filmmakers to undergo yet more investigations by the government as confirmed this month and with the Republicans during the last presidential campaign claiming that they breached security protocols and put the intelligence services at risk. Even more contentious is the film’s depiction of the use of torture on suspected terrorist prisoners and the fact that it could be argued that real necessary intel was garnered this way, and indeed whether or not the movie actually promotes torture.

However, this misses the real question. Is it accurate? If the torture and what came from it is entirely true to actual events, then the filmmakers have done their job. If those events are knowingly fictionalised and yet are presented to us as fact, then they have some very serious questions to answer. This is the only point that really matters, but to touch on the debate very slightly, despite the fact some information does get obtained from torture which eventually leads to closing in on the target, it takes the better part of a decade to do so, it’s not exactly displayed as the most effective or efficient method of gathering information by the film, all moral questions aside.

The film walks, successfully, a curious line – keeping us both emotionally distant but involved in the beginning, and slowly reeling us in until cold barrenness finally gives way with the emotion of the main character in the final scene, and quite emotively so after almost three hours of harsh reality. It doesn’t take much more than a simple nod in the right direction for us to invest throughout, as the subject matter is so familiar to everyone. We largely see events through the perspective of female CIA agent Maya, played by Jessica Chastain, a fictional agent but one reportedly based on a real person. Up for an Oscar for the role, she convinces throughout, as do all the supports, though the one scene when the film very consciously tries to ramp up the tension was way too obvious and could have been done much more effectively.

For some real pathos, the cinema I watched this in made a special effort, which was good to see, for a severely disabled man, requiring a machine to breathe, to watch the screening. It was impossible not to consider that he himself may have been involved in the conflict. Provided this is an accurate depiction of real events, it becomes an extremely important film to see as it is an effective and debate provoking reminder of both the capacity for bloodshed in the world, and the difficulties of modern civilisations trying to keep that bloodshed at bay without unduly causing more. Timely with Britain’s announcement over the last couple of days that she is to send troops into Mali: is it part of a larger sensible strategy, or an ego and hopeful ratings boost for one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers the country has ever had (perhaps just as Margaret Thatcher’s public appeal soared with the tides of war {who’s son ran an arms company incidentally})?

Zero dark thirty refers to the military term for half past midnight, and, although I don’t think it’s mentioned in the film, the Abbottabad operation was code-named Operation Neptune Spear, for those of you who like to know mission names. For another film, one which largely flew under the radar, that deals with similar themes of torture and national security see ‘Unthinkable’ (2010) with Samuel L. Jackson and Michael Sheen.

Lincoln  (2012)    80/100

Rating :   80/100                      Treasure Chest                      150 Min        12A

A film about one of the most iconic of Americans, directed by Steven Spielberg, and starring Daniel Day-Lewis, kind of had Academy Award nominations written all over it from its very inception (although, originally, Liam Neeson was due to take on the lead role). Happily, it deserves all twelve of the ones it has received for next month’s ceremony. Day-Lewis plays the man himself of course, sixteenth president of the United States Mr Abraham Lincoln, and the entirety of the film is focused on the last few months of the American Civil War and the politics surrounding Lincoln’s attempt to have the thirteenth amendment (concerned with anti-slavery) officially written into the constitution. As such, there is almost no fighting in the film, instead we are treated to an intricate courtroom drama and character portrayal of the president, and if you are unfamiliar with the exact history of the moment this will certainly put it into an enlightening context.

And who better to play Lincoln than Daniel Day-Lewis. The Red Dragon considers him to be unquestionably the finest actor of his generation, who’s fanatical devotion to method acting each role is legendary, famously living off the land in the forest before shooting ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ (92) and flitting between Italian and English with cast and crew on ‘Nine’ (09 – he actually worked as a shoemaker for a while in Italy, for 2002’s ‘Gangs of New York’ Scorsese and DiCaprio reputedly had to track him down and go visit him personally there to persuade him to take part in the film). In an interview Gary Oldman once remarked, upon someone suggesting that everyone has a couple of bad movies, ‘hmm, I’m not aware of Daniel Day-Lewis ever having done any!’.

Here, he completely embodies the character once again with an entirely convincing accent and set of mannerisms to boot, aided by some wonderful cosmetics. He really is something special to watch, and my only, slight, criticism would be that the last ten minutes or so could have perhaps been a little more enigmatic, and it does seem unlikely that Lincoln’s advisers would be quite as surprised as they are by his machinations, but rather they are so in the film in order to make him seem all the more grand. It could be this is consistent with the source material – Doris Kearns Goodwin’s ‘Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln’ published in 2005. In any case, this is Day-Lewis’s fifth best actor nomination at the Academy Awards and if he wins, and he certainly deserves to, then he will make history as the only male actor to ever have won more than two Oscars for lead roles.

Despite the dialogue heavy nature of the movie I enjoyed it just as much, perhaps even more so, the second time around. The cast is enormous, perhaps a little distractingly so as it’s easy to spend time thinking ‘hmm, what is that actor’s name again…’ but they unanimously do a great job. In particular Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens, a combative, long time proponent of slavery abolition, and Sally Fields as Mary Todd Lincoln, both of whom are up for awards themselves, and also Lee Pace and Peter McRobbie playing the Democratic opposition. The set design looks rich and authentic, and is aided by Spielberg’s decision to film a lot of scenes with bright light streaming in from the exterior, much like Ridley Scott did with ‘Blade Runner’ (82), which helps to give everything the sense of a sort of schoolboy nostalgia, something that feels well suited for one of the most iconic and oft mentioned personages, not to mention lasting legacies, of the nineteenth century.

Fascinating and well made, this is one of Spielberg’s finest.

For some insightful primary source material, take a look at The Writings of Abraham Lincoln.

The Last Stand  (2013)    50/100

Rating :   50/100                                                                     107 Min        15

This has been touted as Arnold Schwarzenegger’s return to the big-screen after his two term, eight year stint as governor of the state of California. Of course, it’s not entirely accurate, as he also appeared in ‘The Expendables’ (2010) and its more action stars per bullet sequel ‘The Expendables 2’. Nevertheless, here he is the main character, the sheriff of a small American town near the Mexican border; a semi-retirement from the horrors of solving crime in Los Angeles. Cue entry of one on-the-run criminal looking to escape south of the border (from the clutches of FBI agent Forest Whitaker), and no second guesses over where he decides to cross.

The film opens with a shot of a police officer in his car eating donuts, from which we can infer it’s either going to be full of stereotypes, or something that perhaps turns those stereotypes into satire. Sadly it’s mostly the former. This really is a step in the wrong direction for Arnie, harking back to films in his early career such as ‘Commando’ (85) rather than classics like ‘Predator’ (87) and the Terminator series (though it has been confirmed he will return to that franchise as per his catchphrase {which, incidentally, was actually a botched line – he was meant to say ‘I’ll come back’}, whether they’ll be able to pull it from the depths of ‘Terminator Salvation’ 09 is another matter).

The film features some unbelievably bad tactics by both the criminal gang orchestrating the escape attempt and also the cops led by the big man himself. Though it is good to see him on the big-screen again, as his acting creaks into gear like a huge, rusty, ahem, machine before he eventually gets into a rhythm and delivers some of the one-liners we would expect, but never with full conviction. I’m pretty sure he shoots one of the bad guys in the head at point-blank range at one point, and then launches himself of a roof with the, presumably, deceased for company. Most amusing.

The film also stars Johnny Knoxville of Jackass fame, who seems to be relaunching his movie career too with a spate of films made in 2012. Perhaps his main selling point is being able to save on stunt man costs, as in at least three of those films, including this one, he performs some ridiculous stunt for no reason other than he wants to remind everyone he is as far removed from a character actor as you can get. This is the first American film for South Korean director Jee-woon Kim, who has a critically and commercially successful backlog of films, but unusually he didn’t write the screenplay for this project (no less than three people are credited with that glory), a story which could have worked, but ultimately, really doesn’t.

Ends with a painfully unbelievable final fight sequence too.


Quotes

“I’m the sheriff.”   Arnold Schwarzenegger/Ray Owens

Movie 43  (2013)    57/100

Rating :   57/100                                                                       90 Min        15

A highly unusual film, featuring a stellar cast in a series of gross-out comedy sketches. To my knowledge there isn’t anything else quite like this, especially not with the sheer number of stars in it – something that has possibly lent the film its title. Four years in the making, and with different directors (including Elizabeth Banks, James Gunn and Brett Ratner) for each skit, the movie is given structure by a group of kids searching the internet for the fabled ‘Movie 43’, whereupon they encounter each of the different episodes. The American version of the film has this framework removed entirely, and in its place is a sketch with Dennis Quaid trying to pitch his ideas for a movie to exec Greg Kinnear, and each idea becomes one of the sketches in the film.

If gross-out comedy is something you religiously try to avoid, then there is nothing here that would merit a change of heart. If you’re not completely put off by the theme, then you will probably find at least something to have a decent laugh at. It’s the sort of film where you are unlikely to be tickled by most of it, but every segment will have a few different people in the audience in hysterics, possibly enhanced somewhat by the knowledge no one else around them is actually laughing. Perhaps most deserving of a chuckle if it’s a full house and you’re with your friends, including the ones that will endure the whole film and yet stoically refuse to laugh at any point as a matter of principal.

It’s the brain child of Peter Farrelly, one half of the Farrelly brothers (Bobby being the other), the duo behind ‘Me, Myself and Irene’ (2000), ‘There’s something about Mary’ (98) and ‘Dumb and Dumber’ (94), which should give you some indication as to the level of humour. The sketches have been assembled in the right order, with the weakest ones in the middle, though be sure to stay through the credits for the last one ‘Beezel’, a titular character who proves to be one of the best and most memorable in the whole film (it’s the part directed by Gunn) … Also, look out for the son who has to try and act not turned on by his mother, Naomie Watts, coming on to him. Difficult.

If nothing else the film does lend itself to a pretty awesome quiz question, albeit one difficult to truncate…

P.S. The pic above is of Gerard Butler as a leprechaun. Obviously.

Django Unchained  (2012)    62/100

Rating :   62/100                                                                     165 Min        18

Tarantino’s latest gets a lot right but, unusually for the director, it also gets a lot wrong. Here he tackles the western genre and has said he wanted it to fit into the spaghetti western style but in an American way. Whilst imagining a western done in the style of Quentin Tarantino delivers exactly what we see here, there is also an element of style being prioritised over story; particularly in the length of the film, which starts off very strongly, but soon begins to drag. The Red Dragon is a fan of westerns, but if you ask anyone who doesn’t like them one of the commonest complaints is that they find them boring and tedious, and asides from some over the top gory violence ‘Django Unchained’ isn’t going to do much to change that view for many.

The story follows that of freed slave Django (Jamie Foxx) as he and bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) travel the pre-Civil War American Deep South, ultimately in search of Django’s still enslaved wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). There are a lot of nice touches, including a lot of jokes at the expense of racist plantation owners, but at one point Django makes an extremely dubious out of character decision, and it’s purely to set up events in the rest of the film. Indeed, anyone familiar with ‘Inglorious Basterds’ (09), which was a fantastic movie, will recognise several nods in its direction, but also very strong similarities with the way tension was created in that film and then released.

With that knowledge everything plays out with an inevitable unoriginality, and it does indeed become quite tedious, to an almost childish degree, with even some of the music jarring badly with the narrative – something for which Tarantino is famous for normally getting completely spot on. Even things like having one of the slave owners suggest that all black people are genetically programmed to be submissive and that Django, being different, is one in ten thousand, and then much later on having the ‘hero’ Django saying something along the lines of ‘you were right about one thing, I am one in ten thousand’, well it kind of has a lot of negative connotations with it, though this is possibly more down to carelessness than anything else. Christoph Watlz and Samuel L. Jackson (in a masterfully Machiavellian role) give the strongest performances.

Upon the release of the film, Tarantino has had to face a bit of a grilling from journalists over its content, and over the very hot debate at the moment surrounding whether or not movie violence has a direct link to several gun related massacres in the States and elsewhere. In the following interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy, the strain of that is perhaps beginning to tell….