Mark Wahlberg teams up again with his Icelandic ‘Contraband’ (10) director Baltasar Kormákur, starring opposite Denzel Washington in a film adaptation of Steven Grant’s comic book series, that also hails back to Hollywood’s perhaps excessive history of crime/cop ‘buddy’ films. Here, Wahlberg’s Stig is the undercover Naval intelligence officer foil to Washington’s Bobby, an undercover DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) agent, and only after they rob a bank together at the beginning does each begin to realise who the other really is, but by this point one particularly interested and rather pissed off bank customer (Bill Paxton) would really like his money back.
Some of the editing is a little ropey, and likewise some of the action explodes perfunctorily, but it is reasonably good fun, largely thanks to the charisma of the two leading men and their obvious ease with, and enjoyment of, each others company. James Marsden, Edward James Olmos and Paula Patton (‘Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol’ 2011) appear in support, and the whole is a decent if perhaps unmemorable addition to the back catalogue of like examples, except for one scene that stands out featuring a bunch of Mexicans shooting at some chickens they’ve buried in the sand so that only their heads are sticking up. Stig’s dialogue briefly becomes the voice of the audience in outrage, and it’s not especially pleasant to watch. Poor things. Not sure if psychologically damaged chickens would, ahem, fall foul of the standard “No Animals Were Harmed” in the making of this motion picture, a phrase that American films using animals have run at the end of the credits (courtesy of American Humane Association legislation).
The team (producers Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer, director Gore Verbinksi, and lead actor Johhny Depp) that brought ‘The Pirates of the Caribbean’ to astounding commercial success, reunite for the first big screen outing in a generation of one of televisions most loved and iconic characters, but this time around they are without the charms of Keira Knightley. The result? A disaster, portended to cost producers Disney a monetary cascade of millions. Well, I think we can safely say where the real talent lay on Pirates ….
It’s an odd undertaking to say the least. I’ve never seen a single episode of ‘The Lone Ranger’, nor am I even familiar with basic character motivations, other than the eponymous central character being the masked vigilante of the western genre (it is perhaps the continuing rise of the superhero film that originally inspired interest in this endeavour) and his accompaniment by his equally renowned Indian sidekick Tonto. In fact, I’m probably more familiar with The Milky Bar kid, who was doubtless based on him, so I had no real preconceptions going in, and yet it is abundantly clear where they got this one wrong.
In the first instance the filmmakers have made the cardinal sin of forgetting who their target audience were – in this case families, whilst trying to appeal to a much wider adult audience at the same time, much like Pirates did. But young children should absolutely not be taken to see this film. The first two thirds are a fairly gritty, dark western, with especially brutal murder and executions and the central characters visiting a brothel à la the continuation of adult themes (they do not themselves partake, at least). A family friendly western like ‘Maverick’ (94), also a TV adaptation, is a good example of how to get the balance right, but that is not to say this part of the film is bad, far from it, there are a lot of nice touches – especially with regards to the cinematography and the atmosphere (it was shot on location in New Mexico, Utah and Colorado, although I suspect a grainy colour scheme may have been applied to a lot of it in post production, which, if accurate, was entirely unnecessary).
Additionally, Johnny Depp as Tonto is fantastic – going into the screening my biggest concerns were about his portrayal, as it looked in the trailers just like the basic replication of the previous formula and his Jack Sparrow character, but I was impressed throughout by the originality he brought to Tonto, whilst still remaining the playful Depp we are familiar with. Then, however, the final third of the film is delivered as what we expected the whole thing to be, farcical and light hearted, over the top action sequences and Disney gooeyness whilst the William Tell overture plays, which ironically completely destroys the decent western that had been built up so far. Deepening the film’s woes, they annihilate the characters at the same time – up until this point The Lone Ranger has steadfastly refused to kill anyone, instead demanding on principal that he will bring them to justice. In the final third he pretty much gives up on that idea by trying to shoot someone, but he can’t as he is out of ammo, and the silly chase sequences continue. What on Earth? Your central character either stands for something, or he doesn’t, you can’t just casually throw away the core concept of his very being, but at the same time fudge it so he doesn’t actually kill anybody. It’s outrageously pathetic (see the {very well researched, if I do say so myself} Tintin review for more very similar casual character destruction).
Armie Hammer plays the ranger himself, and he is ok in the role, but is a far cry from being inspiring, and it is very clear that Tonto is the more central character, was it the same in the series? I very much doubt it. Indeed, Tonto is billed first in the credits, though he does appear onscreen first too as the film opens with the Indian as an old man, looking like a sun wizened version of Alice Cooper, approached by a young child who will get his life story in exchange for some peanuts – and why in the name of heaven is the blooming child crunching away at the peanuts?! It’s incredibly annoying! Bad enough with every second row featuring some fat bastard with half a truck full of popcorn, grrrrrr!
The camaraderie between ranger and Indian works to some degree, and the supporting acting is fine from the likes of Ruth Wilson, Helena Bonham Carter, Tom Wilkinson, William Fichtner and Barry Pepper. If you stay through the end credits, they last a really long time and whilst they are playing we can see in the background Tonto as an old man again, walking torturously slowly, and yet as fast as he’s able, into the western landscape. It’s incredibly sad, and unlike anything you’re likely to have seen before. It sums up the entire film, a legitimate artistic touch, and yet one completely wrong for this film (the whole movie is also bloody long for families to sit through).
I couldn’t resist this – ‘Hi Ho Silver’ from Scottish singer/songwriter Jim Diamond and written in memory of his father (also used as the theme tune for ‘Boon’)
The sequel to 2010’s ‘Percy Jackson & The lightning Thief’ sees most of the cast return for the next adventure, although Anthony Head has replaced Pierce Brosnan as Chiron the centaur. It’s based on the novel by Rick Riordan, part of a five book series focusing on main character Percy Jackson, the half human son of Poseidon, and his adventures with best buds Grover, a satyr, and Annabeth, the half human daughter of Athena (each played by Logan Lerman, Brandon T. Jackson and Alexandra Daddario {Texas Chainsaw 3D} respectively). This time around, the intrepid trio must make their way to ‘The Sea of Monsters’, which in human terms is just the Bermuda Triangle, to find the Golden Fleece of myth, apparently significantly relocated since Jason quested for it in the Black Sea millennia ago, as only the Fleece’s regenerative powers can save the tree that protects Camp Half-Blood from the poison it is infected with. But the dastardly devil who infected said tree (just like in the Harry Potter series, it is in fact the same bad guy from the previous instalment) also intends on using the Fleece – to ‘revive’ Kronos, father of the gods and ruler of all before his children usurped and murdered him.
Yes, the story really is that shit. Not only that, but reviving Kronos was also the central plot for 2012’s ‘Wrath of the Titans’. Indeed, the villain here had only to not poison the protective tree, and thus not also send the heroes off after the Fleece, to be able to track down the object of his desire in a pleasant and unhurried manner. However, the story could be forgiven its various sillinesses, were it not for most of the rest of the film misfiring too. Percy has hero doubts/daddy issues as Poseidon won’t talk to him (perhaps so they wouldn’t have to pay an actor to play him again) and realises he has a brother, courtesy of the god of the oceans having his way with a nymph (if it’s anything like the real Greek myths, this means he raped her), the result of which, bizarrely, is a half human, half cyclops called Tyson, that everyone picks on. For families and youngsters the adventure and very crude and obvious character development is probably fine, and may indeed even prove suitably entertaining, but for anyone older this is not going to hold their attention for very long.
The special effects are also a let down in several key areas, perhaps nowhere more so than in the animation of Tyson’s solitary eye, which at no point really looks convincing. The concept of Greek mythology in a modern day setting isn’t really so bad, but it’s just delivered in a sort of lame ‘Scooby Doo’ manner, and much like the other modern day bastardisations of one of the most fundamental literary resources of western civilisation (of which, 2011’s ‘Immortals’ is by far and away the worst example) it scrambles to fit in all of the most extreme characters from the source material. It’s crazy, and completely unnecessary – the myths have so much scope within them that you would never in a million years run out of stories to tell and epic films to create. Much better to focus on the small scale, build some characters up and then throw them into historical context, modern day or ancient, combined with one or two detailed elements from mythology. Indeed, here, for the son of Poseidon, Jackson certainly forgets to use his powers an awful lot, not to mention his staring into space digesting the scene while he really should be, Olympus forbid, doing something heroic.
A couple of nice touches exist – Nathan Fillion appears as Hermes and bemoans the death of an unfairly cancelled TV show (he was the captain, Mal, of the ship Serenity on Joss Whedon’s cancelled masterpiece ‘Firefly’ of course) and when they end up on an abandoned but still operating fairground ride, two of them start humming ‘It’s a small world’, which is the song that plays incessantly on the rides of the same name at Disneyland (The Red Dragon was once on the Paris version of this when it broke down, but THE SINGING CONTINUED. For quite some time. I suspect foul play by sick minded teen operators). This is an adaptation of the second book in the series, so the assumption has to be they were hoping to milk the franchise and get all five of them out there, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they decided to curtail it at three, and just mash the best bits of the final three books together.
Steve Coogan’s most iconic comedy persona gets his first big screen outing, twenty two years and multiple TV/radio shows after he was first aired to British audiences in 1991, with BBC Radio 4’s parody show ‘On The Hour’. After the heyday of his graduation from radio to television, Alan’s life has returned to a more leisurely pace working once more for the local radio station in Norwich. The peace is about to be ruined, however, when corporate downsizers arrive and it looks like either Alan, or his closest friend at the station Pat (at least, in the eyes of Pat he is his closest friend), are the two most likely candidates for the chop. Chaotic skullduggery ensues, resulting in a hostage situation at North Norfolk Digital, and a chance for Alan Partridge to once again appear in front of the cameras …
The Red Dragon has never been a big fan of the main character, in fact I’ve often wondered if he wouldn’t operate much better as a supporting one with the right surrounding enterprise, much like earlier in his career, and it’s a style of comedy that I find a little drab, a little obvious, and a little flat. That said, I would definitely call this is a solid adaptation of the TV series, but, despite laughing a few times, the thought of someone sitting me down to watch ‘Knowing me, knowing you … with Alan Partridge’ still makes me want to gag. One lady in the audience was practically wetting herself with laughter on more than one occasion (though she may have been laughing at the simple fact she was laughing) so this is most probably worth seeing if you are a fan of Coogan and his alter ego, but at the same time I think it’s unlikely to galvanise many people into new followers.
Adam Sandler’s sequel to his commercially successful 2010 film ‘Grown Ups’ sees the return of the entire cast, not to make their audience laugh, unless their audience is comprised entirely of emotionally underdeveloped twelve year old boys, but to make a lot of money whilst expending no creative effort, nor indeed any effort of any kind whatsoever. I can’t remember a single thing about the original, that’s how good it was, unfortunately I wish I could say the same for this cringe worthy attempt at comedy which has genuine moments of ‘this was actually allowed to be made and deemed suitable for human consumption?’. Sandler’s own production company, Happy Madison Productions, (which has long since been blind to the quality of the products it ships out), being the film’s driving force, answers this question.
There are a few reasonably amusing gags, but they are steamrollered by the abundance of flatulence driven garbage that assaults the audience throughout, as if they couldn’t be bothered actually writing a real script but instead turned up onset and decided to begin throwing themselves into objects, farting at the same time. Hilarious. Between these high brow entertainments feature a Stifler pleasing amount of well endowed women showing off their assets, as if Sandler is determined to not only appeal to the lowest common denominator, but also wishes to mount a one man crusade against feminism at the same time.
The returning roster of shame includes Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade, Salma Hayek, Maria Bello and Maya Rudolph as the principal cast, with a few familiar faces in support, including Taylor Lautner, which, you may be surprised to learn, does not improve matters.
Is The Conjuring scary? Hmm so-so. Is it any good? Ultimately, yes. You can tell by the picture above, and the look on Vera Farmiga’s face, that it features some very traditional scares, in this case a creepy little music box that probably has an equally creepy little clown inside, just waiting to pop out and enter your nightmares whilst a determinedly repetitive melody plays (it is in the affirmative for all of the above things, but you can see ghosts in its mirror as well ooooo). The problem with the first half of the movie is that it relies far too much on these very predictable tricks of the trade, wood will creak, doors will slam, matches will mysteriously blow out and then reveal something on the third striking etc. etc. It falls a little below humdrum, as we get to know the Perron family who are moving into their new home, which stands alone far away from civilisation and has a weird boarded up cellar. Obviously, they are not familiar with horror movies.
What makes this a little more interesting than your standard horror flick is that it’s loosely based on a true story, and we eventually get properly introduced to Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga respectively), paranormal investigators for whom the Perron case was to be one of their most famous. Interestingly, several previous films have been based on the investigations of the infamous academics (one can’t help but wonder if they influenced the creation of Scully and Mulder for ‘The X-Files’, although neither of the Warrens were sceptics) including ‘The Haunting in Connecticut’ (09) and ‘The Amityville Horror’ (79 & 05), and here, when they finally enter the family’s home, it is the look on Lorraine’s face telling us she’s seen something that she doesn’t want to admit to the family, that starts to draw the audience in.
Both principal leads have previous experience in the genre, and both in fantastic showcases of it – ‘Orphan’ (09) for Farmiga, and ‘Insidious’ (10) (which was genuinely quite scary) for Wilson, indeed The Conjuring’s director, James Wan, helmed ‘Insidious’ as well as the original ‘Saw’ (04). Lili Taylor, who plays the mother of the family, is also arguably best known for her role in ‘The Haunting’ in 1999. All this experience and a reasonable story combine for, not an amazing horror film, but certainly a pretty decent one.
The sequel to 2010’s RED (which stands for retired and extremely dangerous) features the return of the stellar cast, most of whom you can probably identify from their silhouettes in the above picture (if you can’t, the answers from left to right are: Byung-hun Lee, John Malkovich, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, Anthony Hopkins, and Helen Mirren), and the revival of an old cold war project, together with the resultant attempts of various parties to assassinate principal characters, and ex CIA agents, Frank Moses (Willis) and Marvin Boggs (Malkovich).
An action comedy with the emphasis on the comedy – it’s good fun, I’d say more so than the first one even, and just like its predecessor it’s obvious the cast are enjoying themselves. Indeed, the scene I remember the most about the previous film (asides from Helen Mirren lasciviously firing some sort of Gatling gun – she gets a sniper rifle in this one and enjoys it just as much, in fact altogether she looks pretty damn hot for a women in her late sixties {see ‘Age of Consent‘ (69) if you are a fan of Dame Mirren}) was when Morgan Freeman and Bruce Willis’ characters meet for the first time, each sporting beaming smiles, like two giants of their industry respectfully acknowledging the other (I assume they have appeared onscreen before this, although I can’t off the top of my head think when, hmm …. seems there were two films, see if you can get them both {answers at the end}). The story serves its purpose just fine, but it’s already worth going to see just for the cast alone. Willis has expressed interest in a third installment (meanwhile he has not been rehired for The Expendables 3, after supposedly asking for $1m a day for his services {but Harrison Ford is on board, along with Jackie Chan, Wesley Snipes and Nicolas Cage}), on the back of this The Red Dragon hopes that’s one sequel that will get the go ahead.
Films starring Morgan Freeman and Bruce Willis – RED 2010, Lucky Number Slevin 2006, Bonfire of the Vanities 1990
P.S. The next Die Hard film has been given a title – Die Hardest. Oh yes.
Danish writer/director Nicolas Winding Refn’s latest film comes exactly two years after his phenomenally successful ‘Drive’, and once again features Ryan Gosling in a central role, together with sharp ultra high resolution digital camera work (specifically, using the Arri Alexa), and more stylised and brutal violence. This is a lot more surrealist than Drive was, with the story set in Thailand and focusing on a pair of American brothers who run a boxing gym as their legitimate business enterprise, with all manner of things going on behind the scenes. When one of them commits a particularly heinous crime, it sets in motion a whirlwind of bloody acts, which also draws their mother, played by Kristin Scott Thomas, reluctantly from the States and into the fray.
It is the backstory of Gosling’s character Julian, one of the brothers, that really anchors the piece, and indeed the entire film could be viewed as the inevitable cosmic consequence of what he has done. Or, perhaps, what his psyche does to itself, as feeding into this, it is not always apparent whether what we are viewing is really happening, or is simply the visualisation of Julian’s thoughts, fears, and desires. With ‘Drive’, I really didn’t see what all the fuss was about, it was essentially a cinematic version of the video game ‘Grand Theft Auto : San Andreas’, and anyone familiar with the game would likely not find anything terribly original in the film. This time around, however, I am a fan of what I think the director was trying to achieve. He has certainly been successful with the stylisation of the local Thai police investigator Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm) who operates throughout like a nihilistic ninja, a personification of consequence enforcing the balance of nature via murder.
Unfortunately, the film does suffer from several over indulgences, and a heavy dose of gratuity when it comes to the violence – some of which is arguably necessary, but, as with several instances in Tarantino’s career (or, worse yet, Eli Roth), there will come moments that have you wonder whether their inclusion has more to do with childish bloodlust rather than story. The beginning suffers the most from that dreaded criticism of art house fare – laughability, as parts, in between the segments of gritty horror that this film depicts, just seem a bit silly. It reminds The Red Dragon of a version of Chekhov’s Three Sisters that he once seen onstage where the actors constantly stopped and stood still for ages in complete silence (this was supposed to be for reflection, but made the piece over three hours long, and when one is a dragon trapped in the centre of the Grand Circle for what seems like an eternity whilst absolutely nothing happens onstage at all, one very quickly gets HUNGRY, a state of being which my insatiable insides decided to announce to THE ENTIRE AUDITORIUM for the duration of the play. My stomach, in fact, became the narrator for Chekhov’s Three Sisters), something similar happens here – this is most definitely not a film to take lots of popcorn, or food in general, into.
These points aside, I am absolutely in love with the cameras they used, which show everything in pristine detail and manage to make what is probably otherwise an average grubby looking street, appear quite beautiful onscreen, a combined success of equipment and the strong and memorable choice of lighting used throughout. The acting is equally sharp, with Kristin Scott Thomas in particular giving a truly powerful and domineering performance, wielding her character with a crackling vehemence, one given extra gravitas and authority by a commanding American accent.
Worthy of note for what it attempts to do, though do be prepared for sanguine and despotic darkness from start to finish and it remains to be seen whether its misgivings will be bumps in the road for Nicolas Winding Refn, or will entrench themselves into stylistic trademarks. It also seems likely that the director may have delved into Thai cinema for research, certainly the feel of the editing and some of the shots used evoke memories of the work of Apichatpong Weerasethakul, and his Palme d’Or winner ‘Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives’ (10). Just like ‘Drive’ before it, the film is dedicated to the (still living) Chilean-French surrealist director Alejandro Jodorowsky, of whose work ‘El Topo’ (70) is absolutely recommended viewing.
From Paul Feig, director of 2011’s ‘Bridesmaids’, and starring Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock, ‘The Heat’ is a comedy arising from a very traditional good cop/bad cop buddy routine, with Bullock’s FBI agent Ashburn and McCarthy’s local hard ass Boston cop Mullins forced to combine their various talents to close in on an especially violent drugland boss. The focus is on the comedy throughout, and it constantly delivers the goods – usually by way of the foul mouthed and fierily on form McCarthy. The character of the too straight laced and socially awkward/professionally unliked Ashburn grates on more than one occasion, with very obvious gags such as Mullins trying to loosen her up and make her appear ‘sexy’ to seduce one of the bad guys, and with the general feel of the character evoking memories of several in Bullock’s back catalogue (her Razzie winning role in ‘All About Steve’ 09 for example {although it really wasn’t bad enough to merit a Razzie}).
McCarthy continues to go from comedic strength to strength, using her strong screen presence and her mischievous wit to memorably amusing effect. Should prove both enjoyable, and slightly irritating, in equal measure for both sexes.
Another flawed and humdrum X-Men film. It’s the latest one to focus entirely on central character Logan, a.k.a. Wolverine, from the franchise, following in the footsteps of the previous films and his own personal outing ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ (09). The action takes place in a modern day time frame, after the events of ‘X-Men : The Last Stand’ (06), with Logan trying to come to terms with losing Jean Grey and, well, killing her. This essentially forms the very loose character justification for the film, but in reality it seems to simply serve as an excuse to feature the return of Famke Janssen in dream sequences sporting various nighties and proffering us a number of different views of her cleavage. The overall character arc from the beginning of the film through to the end is sufficiently insufficient to wonder if there was really any point to making it at all.
Not to mention one of the few things of any actual consequence that does happen is pretty annoying in terms of what it leaves the character with, especially if you really like Wolverine, as is the case for The Red Dragon. All of the secondary characters are two dimensional at best, as Logan gets caught up in an entirely dismal and predictable family feud in Japan, that sees him inevitably step up to save the damsel in distress – but will she help him forget Famke Janssen’s cleavage, and rediscover his joie de vivre? Well, not if baddie mutant Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova) has anything to do with it – a fairly bad ass villain who is given no history or real flesh whatsoever, even Gargamel in ‘The Smurfs’ (11) has more onscreen presence, and it’s a complete waste of both the actress and the character. We also see our hero team up with Mariko (Tao Okamoto), whom we are supposed to believe is another mutant, but we actually doubt it – so poorly are her powers depicted to us. Indeed, one of the human characters seems a much better candidate for super hero abilities with his seeming inability to miss with his bow and arrow, much like Hawkeye in ‘Avengers Assemble’ (12).
Having said all that, I did enjoy seeing Wolverine back on the big screen, and Hugh Jackman vigorously embodies, with all his growling testosterone, the part he was born to play. All in all, it feels like a very, very standard comic book story, one that on the page probably wouldn’t achieve anything greater than wetting your appetite for more, but on the big screen the lackluster story can barely be concealed (ironically, the Japanese story arc in the comics is one of the best received ones). The visuals of Japan, whilst not spectacular, are certainly very beautiful, to Iranian cinematographer Amir Mokri and director James Mangold’s credit (who previously directed Jackman in ‘Kate & Leopold’, opposite Meg Ryan and Sabretooth actor Liev Schreiber, in 2001), and indeed showcasing Japan is probably the film’s biggest success. Mangold is capable of better than this, and bar a few moments of involving action, he and the cast deserved a much better script.
There is an after credits scene that you most definitely have to wait for (it plays after the initial credits, not after the full sequence so the wait is a short one), though I have very mixed feelings about what is revealed there too …..
