Boring with a capital B – this follows in the vein of the two films about Coco Chanel, both of which were death affirmingly dull, as the French language biography of another power house in the fashion world, in this case Frenchman Yves Saint Laurent – and what does he have of interest or value for the cinema going public? Well, not much really, we learn he was vain and spoiled, what a surprise, and that he liked having sex with men as well as women, again what a surprise, and that his ego and his vices took a catastrophic toll on his life. Not clichéd at all then, but there is also a coldness to the direction and the acting that makes it difficult to really get into the film. It warms up a little later on, possibly due to the story moving to the warmer climes of Morocco, but if you’re really interested in Laurent you would be much better off investing in some of the literature concerning him, rather than this somewhat ill conceived wreck of a movie.
I feel somewhat duped by this film. My interpretation of all the marketing and advertising led me to believe that this was to be a life affirming, heart warming tale that would see the audience identify and sympathise with the ‘up against it’ struggling singer/songwriter Llewyn Davis in New York City 1961, and maybe spark a newfound romantic interest in the music of the era. Unfortunately, Llewyn is A TOTAL SHIT and his character is on a steady decline from start to finish ultimately leaving no room for redemption whatsoever (the cat he is so often advertised with most certainly will have wished it’d never crossed paths with him).
As a character study, this is ok. As an uplifting experience, you can forget it, and it has precious little to do with the music scene of the day, but rather we just watch the protagonist fail at everything and bemoan his chosen profession until, as things plummet even further for him, we see and hear a young Bob Dylan take to the stage behind him, the assumption being that it was his negative personality and amoral character that led to his continual mishaps rather than the industry which was about to propel Dylan into the stratosphere of international stardom.
Support from the likes of Carey Mulligan, Justin Timberlake and John Goodman is fleeting but fine, Garrett Hedlund appears as what seems to be a parody of his character in ‘On the Road’, which The Red Dragon appreciated, and Oscar Isaac is good in the central role of Davis. The rest of the production very much straddles a dangerous divide – the music is good, but verges on dull monotony, the cinematography is unique and distinctive, yet comes close to administering a soporific faded tinge to everything. It’s a gloomy film, and the attempts at humour dotted throughout do precious little to ameliorate the cheap and nasty feeling it ultimately delivers.
This is director Spike Lee’s remake of Park Chan-Wook’s South Korean film ‘Old Boy’. Given the original only came out in 2003, and if you are into film then you have almost certainly heard of it and probably at least thought about trying to watch it at some point, the question has to be asked, why remake it now? Especially since it’s a mystery, one who’s story has not been changed very much here, so if you know the outcome there is precious little reason to watch this version, and given that it’s a pretty flimsy attempt at a remake there is then no reason whatsoever to do so. So it seems this was either made for people who don’t like to watch films with subtitles, or was simply the inflection of Lee’s own ego – although to be fair, reportedly the producers did somewhat take the project away from Lee when it came to the final cut, much to the chagrin of director and leading man Josh Brolin alike.
The story revolves around Joe Doucett (Brolin) who is, for reasons unknown, locked up in a room for twenty years and then one random day released, and is then left to find out what on Earth happened to him and why. One of the first problems is that Joe does not look a day older when this two decade period elapses – initially we are shown his overweight gut and then a montage of him working out whilst interred, suggesting a level of commitment from Brolin, but still hardly accounting for the physical changes twenty years would bring. The all important story elements around the time of his release are simply delivered in a very weak way – in fact, judging by the random fight he gets into with some jocks immediately upon release, for no real reason, and his ability to contort their limbs at will, it seems twenty years of constant body building is enough to also grant one super powers to boot.
Elizabeth Olson turns up in what for her is not the first bad and unnecessary remake she’s appeared in (see 2011’s ‘Silent House’), Samuel L. Jackson has a brief role, and Sharlto Copley has another good turn after his memorable performance in ‘Elysium’. One of the biggest set pieces and most iconic scenes from the original is recreated – and from the point of view of the crew it’s a difficult scene all filmed in one continuous shot over multiple levels of the same building. Unfortunately, it looks completely ridiculous with stunt men throwing themselves all over the place willy-nilly, looking more like the WWE Royal Rumble on a bad year than a well rehearsed big budget action scene. That kind of sums up the whole thing – I did begin to get into the story again toward the final third, but overall it just feels like an ill conceived attempt to steal someone else’s thunder – the production team should really have just orchestrated the wider rerelease of the original if they were so taken with it. DEFINITELY watch the South Korean version, not this.
Released in the UK on the exact 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, this film appears to simply highlight that memorial – there really is no other point to the film whatsoever as we watch a dramatisation of the events surrounding that fateful day from the point of view of his staff, the medical professionals at Parkland hospital where Kennedy was taken, and the brother and mother of Lee Harvey Oswald who shot him (officially, at any rate). There’s lots of weeping, shouting, fake tension for events we already know the outcome of – all in all it’s an uninvolving soporific affair that barely adds anything at all to the plethora of other takes on the event. Indeed, simply rereleasing Oliver Stone’s ‘JFK’ (91), which is a real film, would have been a much better idea, if a somewhat controversial one. An impressive cast: Billy Bob Thornton, Marcia Gay Harden, Paul Giamatti, Zac Efron, Jacki Weaver, but each of them are given very little screen time, and just as little dialogue to work with.
The premise to this is a now familiar set up within scenario based horror films – a bunch of explorers and scientists explore a virgin cave system in Romania, and then it all goes to pot. In this instance the kicker is that stories of legend place titanic battles of knights versus satanic forces there – could there be any truth in this ancient legend as one by one the young adventurers fall foul of the labyrinthine tunnels?
The core problem with this particular outing is simply that it fails to create any real sense of tension, which combined with poor special effects and, for some of the cast, less than award winning acting (significantly less) results in a horror film which is conceptually fine but one that’s all too relaxing to watch. Lena Headey is the biggest name to feature here (with Piper Perabo and Morris Chestnut the two next most recognisable faces), and the screenplay makes sure to find reason to get her into a wetsuit and then unzip it to reveal her cleavage which is both a little groan worthy and at the same time I’m glad they did it (because otherwise her character would have died in that scene, obviously). Watching a film purely because you really fancy one of the main cast members doesn’t always pay dividends, but I still kind of enjoyed this on some level – although there are certainly better out there with a similar story – Neil Marshall’s ‘The Descent’ (05) and ‘Sanctum’ (11) for example. If you do see this, look out for the character (played by Perabo) who does the lion’s share of heroics but gets completely minced anyway, whilst everyone else just watches.
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’)
Despite the low rating, the action in this film is pretty darn good, it’s just that the story is both ridiculous and predictable, and the characters and acting largely follow suit. Set in the immediate future, humanity finds itself under constant threat of attack from alien invaders (the Kaiju), alas not from space above, but from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, wherein lies a previously dormant portal to another dimension. Every six months or so an aquatic behemoth comes through the portal and attacks, Godzilla style, a seemingly random coastal city. Our most obvious solution to this crises is to build enormous robotic warriors to fight the beasties with, each one controlled from within its head by two mentally linked humans whose consciences merge, which allows the story to digress down various emotional tangents.
There are multiple immediate problems with this of course, such as any real explanation as to why our current military capabilities aren’t enough to take down the enemy, or why since we know their point of origin it isn’t mined to high heaven. The robots themselves, or Jaegers as they call them (German for hunters), despite having huge plasma guns and an array of missile explosives, seemed to favour running up and smacking the aliens in the face as their weapon of choice, which naturally allows for the possibility for them to be, well, eaten. The chain of command in their outfit is at best flimsy, and at several times it’s easier to be against the protagonists than behind them.
An oddity that manages to be quite enjoyable and yet at the same time determinedly difficult to really like, it’s from director Guillermo del Toro and has very much the same feel and pace to it as his 2008 film ‘Hellboy II’. This, and del Toro’s continued determination to stick to real sets and props as much as possible, together with the visual effects, are the films strongest assets. It’s a real shame that, as is often the case, a money laden blockbuster is critically let down by basic conceptual errors and a hackneyed screenplay. If you like the look of the trailer, then this might still be worth a go on the big screen – watch out for the Optimus Prime lookalike truck that is no doubt deliberately crushed at one point, and there is a very brief post credits scene too.
A romantic comedy that sees over-the-hill Scottish professional football player George Dryer (Gerard Butler) move to Virginia to spend time with his son and hopefully rekindle something with the kid’s mother, played by Jessica Biel. The film’s biggest problem is it seems entirely confused as to what it is trying to say, and ends up as both completely formulaic and hackneyed, but also spurious and unbelievable in its delivery of the wayward-man-come-good-guy and responsible father routine. Dryer takes on a role as the football coach for his son’s team, and becomes a hit with the desperate housewives and single moms that watch the game. It would have been far better to have simply made this a comedy and had Dryer remain a complete louse shagging his way through the best the town has to offer and still winning the girl in the end somehow. It would have worked well with the pretty impressive cast they have – including Uma Thurman, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Judy Greer, and Dennis Quaid. As it is, they toyed with something interesting but then played it safe and ended up with nothing of much value at all. Not as completely dire as its critical drubbing would suggest though, and it also suffered from opening in the holiday season with all the big Oscar contenders going head to head around it.
“This is me with Celtic, 2003, played against Porto in the final of the UEFA Cup. Liverpool, AC Milan, 2005. I mean, what do you think? Pretty good stuff when you put it all together, four medals as well. And then these were the boots I wore when I scored against England when I played with Scotland. Best moment of my life.” Gerard Butler/George Dryer
If you are like The Red Dragon, you probably have intense difficulty in remembering what happened in Resident Evil 2, 3, and 4, and your memory of the first one is reduced to the outbreak of the T-virus in the beginning, people getting diced in the corridor in the middle, and then some fairly ropey computer graphics at the end. Happily, ‘Resident Evil 5: Retribution’ begins with not only a recap, but with the end of the last film replaying in slow-mo reverse. With some apt music playing it’s a nice intro. The rest of the film follows very much in the vein of its predecessors, which is precisely its problem. The reason distinguishing the previous incarnations from one another is so difficult, is that they all had precious little point to them.
Here, true to form, interest dwindles as the unrealistic plot is matched by an endless series of unrealistic fight/gunfight sequences. Parts look slick enough, and the characters and actors invest just enough to merit another possible sequel, but the next one must surely have more going for it for the franchise to continue in film.
Total Recall looks very, very good. It’s a remake of the classic 1990 Schwarzenegger film, itself based on the Philip K. Dick short story ‘We Can Remember It for You Wholesale’. The previous two incarnations of the tale all featured Mars – here it’s set in a dystopian future Earth where only the United Federation of Great Britain and the more impoverished ‘colony’ of Australia survive after global chemical warfare. Not too sure why they thought it would be a good idea to reduce Australia to colonial status once again, but the British element does give director Les Wiseman (‘Underworld’ 03) good basis to cast not only his wife, Kate Beckinsale, but also Irishman Colin Farell (Bill Nighy also appears, with what I think is supposed to be an American accent..). Graphically the settings are detailed and convincing, the only problem is there’s not much more to the entire film.
As it gathers pace, ‘Total Recall’ descends into an endless series of chase sequences and set piece gun battles, which are well constructed but nevertheless become tedious. Kate Beckinsale’s ‘Underworld’ training is put to good use and it is fun watching her whirl around like a peeved dervish of destruction, admittedly with trademark skin tight clothes on, but the story really needed a lot more depth put into it. Jessica Biel also has a sizeable role to play, but her character is fairly pointless and only really exists as an accessory to the inevitable conclusion.
It’s been a long time since The Red Dragon watched the original, but I think it’s fair to say it had more going on than here, though pleasingly they have stuck with some of the famous lines (sadly not the one from Sharon Stone and the retort) and also the three breasted girl element. If you like films with lots of mindless shooting and an attempt at a believable plot then there’s no reason you won’t like this.
