This really isn’t very funny at all. A remake of the 1966 film of the same name that starred Michael Caine and Shirley Maclaine, it bares precious little in common with its predecessor and spent the better part of two decades in development hell before finally being helmed here by Michael Hoffman (‘Restless Natives’ 85) and features a perhaps degraded over time script from the Coen brothers.
It stars Colin Firth as an art expert who is intent on defrauding the boss he hates, played by Alan Rickman, with the help of Cameron Diaz sporting a rich Texan accent, which takes most of the film to get used to. Stanley Tucci makes an appearance as a German rival to Colin Firth, and the talented and roundly respected cast are what finally lift the film someways from the doldrums of the truly awful first half. It won’t have you laughing much, but it may leave you with a smile on your face by the end of it. Not quite the beaming, bedazzling smile of Cameron Diaz, but a smile nonetheless.
Starring a young Randy Quaid, a youngish Jack Nicholson, and Otis Young, ‘The Last Detail’ follows the exploits of three US marines as two of them are put in charge of escorting the third across the country to Portland, where he is due to begin serving an eight year prison sentence for the grand crime of attempting to steal forty dollars from a collection fund for Polio victims. The harsh sentence forms the primer for the relationships that evolve and, despite the unrestored film quality looking decidedly dated, the story and the three leads have enough strength to make this an interesting and noteworthy film. Unfazed at being almost comically dwarfed by the physical stature of his two companions, this is a quintessential performance of Jack Nicholson being, well, Jack Nicholson, whose impish impiety finds itself more than at home in the body of a sailor on a road trip to an earthly hell.
Wonderful. As conceptually brilliant as it is surprising and multi-faceted. Paul Dano plays Calvin Weir-Fields, a talented writer who begins to write a story about a girl who then comes to life (Ruby Sparks, played by Zoe Kazan who not only makes her debut at screenwriting here, but is also the granddaughter of legendary Oscar winning director Elia Kazan – ‘On the Waterfront’ 54, ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ 47) straight from the pages of his unpublished manuscript. It manages to avoid both painting its message in bold ink and straying too much into making obvious farce, instead offering a joyous expression of romanticism and selling it to us through the looking glass. Not to be missed.
Woody Allen begins his picture with a discussion of whether or not life is essentially comedic or tragic. This occurs as a conversation between friends having drinks, and the point is made that it perhaps simply depends on one’s point of view. The director then illustrates this through the rest of the film by telling one story in two different ways, each with the central character of Melinda (played by Radha Mitchell).
It’s an interesting point. How often do we see in romantic comedies fairly tragic events being glossed over – perhaps using comedy to alleviate circumstance is a wonderful thing, thus the phrase ‘you have to laugh don’t you?’. Unfortunately for the sake of the film, the two stories have parallels but are actually quite different from each other, somewhat defeating the purpose of the exercise. The tragic storyline is most definitely more tragic than the comedic one. Some of the technical ploys stay true to the purpose, the use of music telling us to be in a good mood, the different cinematography to put a slightly glossier sheen on the comedic story etc. But the main flaw is too large, though the individual stories do hold the viewer’s attention for the most part.
A well put together and nuanced comedy with a great performance from Tommy Lee Jones, proving an equal and apt match for the talents of Meryl Streep who plays his loving wife of 31 years as they enter counselling for their stalled marriage. Just the right amount of seriousness and comedy, or comedic seriousness, for the very real and often intolerably difficult subject matter, it paints in many ways a palatable veneer on the inevitability of death as we watch the two central characters wrench their souls to debate whether a dwindling depreciation is the only thing they can realistically expect from their long extant marriage, or whether the final change of divorce or the equally tough facing up to reality might allow for a reversal of the trend.
Given that the timescale is just over one week in their lives, as the wife strong-arms her husband into a couple’s therapy vacation in Maine, the film deals with the issues at hand ably and you will probably recognise at least one person you know in each of the pair, but the inherent constraints do leave us wondering a little what the post-film prognosis might be. With Steve Carell and, briefly, Elisabeth Shue in support.
Interestingly, a recent scientific study looking at the longterm lifespan of couples found that the ones destined for success and stability were those who worked together constantly to solve the little day to day sundries which are precisely the sort of things that often get put to one side, the humdrum such as fixing a leaky tap or getting the shopping right, whereas those who regarded these constant pop-ups in a relationship as merely trivial were the ones who perished in the fires of deceased relationship hell.
Presumably this is all to do with basic communication, but also the constantly reinforced idea of working together as a well functioning unit and being listened to and taken seriously by your other half and indeed that boost of satisfaction from having solved a problem, even a small one, although I think I’m right in remembering that the study also concluded allowing the male partner to indulge in sexual consort with many libidinous women at the same time was also a normal and healthy way to speed the wheels to everlasting marital bliss. Yup, pretty sure …
Adam Sandler’s new film has all the hallmarks of most of his work. That feeling of ‘argh, how many times do we have to see the same thing over and over again, the same hammy characters, the same torrid toilet humour, the same douche bag protagonist that somehow wins everyone over by the end?’, and also ‘hmm, that bit was actually quite funny’. It’s a shame he can’t team up with someone who could shake out the detritus and just leave the good comedy. Which, incidentally, would have completely obliterated ‘Jack and Jill’ (11) from existence (his last effort, which won Razzies in every category). The film certainly deserves kudos for playing Meatloaf’s ‘Everything Louder than Everything Else’ at one point, its use of Vanilla Ice, and the casting of ever beautiful Leighton Meester along with Eva Amurri Martino. It does have some genuine good laughs in there, you just have to survive the eye gauging rest of the film to get to them.
Woody Allen’s latest, and it’s nice to see him in front of the camera again here as he joins a raft of other top billed actors in a multi-vignetted tale, much in the vein of his ‘You will meet a tall dark stranger’ (10). Once again, he successfully infuses everything with the feel and character of his setting, this time Rome. There’s nothing really new here and, although it’s pleasant to watch, there’s no real grit to the whole, with some of the individual stories much more whimsical and less interesting than the others. It’s a little light on the comedy front and largely thanks to the not so interesting stories it feels overly long. It’s unlikely to be a classic, but it shouldn’t be a complete disappointment either.
The Red Dragon does not get this movie. AT ALL. It’s trash, and quite why so many pop celebrities (two Spice Girls, Ronan Keaton, Garry Barlow etc.) have debased themselves in it is a complete mystery. Once upon a time Britain had Monty Python, now we have the likes of Leigh Francis (Keith Lemon). Sad times. It receives a single point purely for Kelly Brook – The Red Dragon leaves it up to your imagination as to why that might be.
Mini Review : ‘The Five-Year Engagement’ is a well rounded piece that sees both the main and the supporting cast deliver throughout. It follows in a similar vein to producer Judd Apatow’s previous work, romantic comedies with drama as subterfuge and a free rein on the actors to improvise. This, together with the familiarity of some of the cast and co-writer/director/producer Nicholas Stoller (Segel also co-wrote the script), has a telling effect on the production which gels together nicely. The film cleverly has at its core something everyone in a long term relationship can probably relate to, and yet despite the fact it plays out over the length of the film it never feels overstated or forced. Segel and Blunt combine to make a realistic and engaging (no pun intended) couple and a film that all involved with can be justifiably proud of.
Plot : Tom and Violet are madly in love with each other and decide to embark upon the adventure of marriage. Before they can set a date for the wedding though life interferes, and an extended period of postponement forces them to re-evaluate what they mean to each other.
Full Review (contains spoilers) : ‘The Five-Year Engagement’ opens with Jason Segel’s Tom fumbling his proposal of marriage to Emily Blunt’s Violet. She drags his plan out of him and they follow it through anyway, culminating in a rooftop restaurant scene with a New Year’s eve fireworks display over the Golden Gates Bridge as a backdrop. It’s a lovely scene, and it sets the tone for the entire film which in its entirety is well shot, edited, acted and written, with the gags shared between the leads and support in fairly equal measure.
We get some more of their back story – how they met exactly one year ago at a New Year’s eve party whilst Van Morrison’s ‘Sweet Thing’ played around them (which is from his very excellent second solo album ‘Astral Weeks’ – you can listen to the song here…)
Everything starts with them on a high after the marriage proposal is accepted. Tom works directly under the head chef in a swanky restaurant, whilst Violet is hopeful of getting into Berkeley to begin postdoc work in her field of psychology. Then of course things become more difficult. Violet is offered a position at the University of Michigan, the wedding is continually postponed, and their relationship is tested as Tom spirals downward, forced to endure work he feels is beneath him, whilst his friend Alex (played by Chris Pratt) back home takes the job of head chef at a new clam shell restaurant that otherwise would have been his. This allows the real centre of the film to play out, a drawn out examination of the realities of choosing a lifelong partner.
Judd Apatow has said of the moment Tom decides to go to Michigan for the sake of Violet’s career that it’s like he does it to score points for later, as if by doing so he gains ‘relationship chips’ that can be traded in at a later date, and that he himself, and probably lots of other people, has done the same thing, but that it’s a fantasy and there are no ‘chips’ – once it’s done you’ve agreed to it and that’s that. The assumption being if it then eats away at you then it’s your own fault. It’s a very interesting point, and one that will probably be familiar to anyone in a relationship, one half has accepted the decision and then largely forgotten about it, whilst the other is still expecting some sort of continual reward having made a sacrifice for the other’s benefit, perhaps sewing the seeds of resentment… It is true that because of this the audience do sympathise with Tom as we see him lose himself to a large degree over the years, becoming almost feral in a situation and place that he hates and, as he puts it, working at something he isn’t proud of. This is especially true when we are introduced to the suave university lecturer of Winton Childs played by Rhys Ifans. His introduction as the ultra cool psychology professor is very good, replete with pyrotechnics, but we know instantly he is going to be the contesting love interest for Violet. We the audience want him to fail because we feel what’s happening to Tom is pretty unfair and Childs seems somewhat insincere from the beginning (even his name suggests he might be praying on a younger generation). Rhys Ifans has said himself he was attracted to the character because he loves to see the ‘cool’ guy fall from grace, and that’s exactly what we are hoping for here. One can easily imagine a lonely life of academia leading to its abuse or payoff, depending on which way you see it, with attractive and impressionable young graduates/undergrads. The character then feels predictable but realistic, at one end of the scale of debonair cinematic professors perhaps, with Indiana Jones winning hearts and treasure at the other. The script is careful though not to alienate Violet in the process, which it manages to successfully avoid.
One of the worthiest moments comes at the dinner scene with Tom and his parents, who are still married to one another and seem pretty happy together. Tom has split from Violet and is seeing a young girl in her early twenties (the actress who plays her, Dakota Johnson, is the granddaughter of Tippi Hedren {‘The Birds’ 63, ‘Marnie’ 64} no less) and they rather directly tell him to get his act together and get back with Violet as he clearly loves her. When he says they aren’t one hundred percent right for each other, they reply that they themselves aren’t even sixty percent right for one another, but they are still the loves of each other’s lives. And this is essentially the main message behind the film – that if you find someone you really like, accepting they are never going to be perfect is paramount and once you’ve accepted that your responsibility to one another is to simply get on with enjoying yourselves. Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward were one of Hollywood’s couples that stood the test of time, happily married for fifty years right until his passing in 2008, and one of the reasons he gave for it was that they had some things they only ever did independently of one another. He loved racing cars, she couldn’t stand the sport, for example, but that was fine, the only thing that mattered was that they loved each other (I suppose having a legitimate break from each other with your separate hobbies also has a lot going for it. When asked about his devotion to his wife he famously once remarked “Why go out for a hamburger when you have steak at home?”). In the film, this concept is mirrored in sharp contrast with the deliberately accentuated coupling of Violet’s sister Suzie (played by Alison Brie) and Tom’s friend Alex, neither of whom seem right for each other but after an accidental pregnancy everything changes. They end up happy as can be, despite their lives having gone in the polar opposite direction from where they had each planned. We don’t see any of the interim period between the revealing of the pregnancy and their wedding, so the realities of their particular scenario are ignored in order to provide a counter point to the main couple. This is hammered home during the wonderful scene where, doing Elmo and Cookie Monster impressions respectively for the sake of the listening children, Suzie and Violet have their own version of the dinner table conversation, with the former suggesting it’s best to just pick a cookie and take a bite. It was actually Brie’s ability to impersonate Elmo that apparently may have landed her the part in the first place, despite the fact she is also the only cast member who had to learn an accent for her role. Full credit is due to her, not only for a very good Elmo impersonation but also for a convincing English accent to boot.
The film works so well because all of the constituent parts are good in their own right, and come together almost seamlessly. All of the support is good and Blunt and Segel are a joy to watch together. Segel in particular delivers the goods here and co-wrote the script along with director Nicholas Stoller (‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’ 08, ‘Get him to the Greek’ 10). This is the third outing for the main stars together, after ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ (10) and ‘The Muppets’ (11), with Stoller taking writing credits on both of these films too, and their familiarity with one another doubtless helped things along. For Emily Blunt it’s one of three very good releases in a short space of time (the others being ‘Salmon fishing in the Yemen’ 11 and ‘Your Sister’s Sister’ 11), indeed it’s difficult to think of many other performers with a similarly good back to back trio. It’s great to see after the misfires and waste of her talent in the aforementioned ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ and ‘Wild Target’ (10). Red Dragon did notice the one gratuitous shot of her in this film, as she mounts Tom after he has agreed to go to Michigan and the camera pans around the back of her body as she does so, almost as if the director had decided ‘Right, I’m going to show off Emily Blunt’s figure at least once in the film no matter what!’. The two of them sell the story of their characters perfectly, and it wouldn’t be at all surprising to see them collaborate together again in the future.
As with other Apatow productions the comedy is set against the backdrop of the emotional journey of the characters, and on set a lot of leeway was given for improv. It’s good to see a filmmaker who’s not afraid of the costs running over in favour of the actors and crew enjoying themselves with improvisation. After all, as John Rhys-Davies says on the special features of ‘The Return of the King’ (03), a high percentage of improvisation is probably going to be bollocks, and thereby result in extended shooting times and the use of more film. It may be that it’s one of the fundamental reasons his films do so well, and there is doubtless a lot to be said for a shoot that is constantly fresh and exciting, where the fun the actors have transfers to the screen and the audience. Much like when you see a comedy play on stage where the actors have delivered the lines a hundred times before – as the saying goes, it’s not just what you say but how you say it, so when suddenly one of them decides to mix it up a little and throw a bit of a curve ball delivery to their co-thesps, the obvious pleasure they get from doing so, and of course the enlivened retorts, makes it so much more engaging and pleasurable to watch.
The worst thing about the film would actually have to be the poster chosen for the main advertising campaign as it doesn’t bear witness to any scene in the film. In fact, it’s almost certainly been chosen to play off of the success of ‘Bridesmaids’ (11), something made all the more obvious by the ‘from the producer of Bridesmaids’ that’s splattered over the top of it. Perhaps understandable given its success, though with Bridesmaids the focus was on the comedy first and story second and here the story takes more of a precedence. The film could also have done without the scene which has Violet’s mother scolding and shouting at her whilst holding her sister’s new born baby – not a very nice introduction to the world that, it could easily have been filmed without the child, or they start bickering after they leave the room etc. The situation by the end of the film has also been reversed with Violet seemingly giving up her career in the immediate future in order to be with Tom, but the difference is made by the fact it’s her choice rather than a suggestion from Tom (even though he was also going to propose to her) and the progression of the film suggests both parties will now be happy and move on together, though it would be interesting to see if Violet was so happy with this a few years down the line…
Throughout the narrative periodic funerals of grandparents are edited in, which works well as a sort of pressure gauge on the main relationship but also to subtly and darkly make a deeper point from the stance of the usually neglected or trivialised romcom elderlies. Another constant theme, that of the doughnuts, is interesting – the premise of Violet’s experiment being to say to people in a waiting room there is a box of one day old doughnuts, which she apologises for, but that they will be replaced with new ones shortly; and to see who just eats the old ones, findings from which suggest a direct correlation between people eating the old ones and being ‘screw ups’ in their everyday lives. It’s used as a direct metaphor for relationships throughout, enjoying what’s in front of you instead of waiting for what might never arrive (as Tom points out, quite correctly). But are one day old doughnuts really that bad? What if someone thought ‘you know what, I’ll eat some of these ones now because they’re still pretty much fine, and then there’ll be more to go around for everyone else later’, in a sort of form of self sacrifice. Although this is based on real psychological tests used, both Tom and Violet end up eating stale doughnuts, uniting them forever via sugary bakery products. Red Dragon recently received a bundle of bakery goods that were otherwise going in the bin and neither he nor his friends thought twice before devouring them, admittedly there was no ‘better quality ones will arrive soon’ option in this scenario. Many eateries dispose of perfectly good produce each day because they have to by law, but most of them also forbid their staff from taking them home for fear of someone getting ill and it leading back to them. Red Dragon would like to suggest caveat emptor would be a more sensible approach in these situations, and would lead to less food being wasted, and more doughnuts for all.
Anyone really taken with the film might want to have a look at their blog – tomandviolet.com
Mini Review : Even die hard fans of Sacha Baron Cohen will probably admit he got the script wrong on this one. It may be that a couple of changes to the writing group he worked with on ‘Borat’ (06) and ‘Bruno’ (09), have made all the difference. However, with the same director, Larry Charles, on board as for those two successful films, it seems the most important change was that of the narrative. Here we see the mix of the archetypal modern romantic comedy, one designed to leave a smile on your face at the end and so distract you from the fact you didn’t really laugh much during the film, and a familiar type of character from Cohen, a despotic African dictator replete with toilet gags galore. All of the candid camera reality show intrigue of his previous work is gone, and what’s left simply isn’t witty, funny, or interesting enough to be particularly worthwhile watching. Unless of course a missile being called ‘The Beard of Doom’ has you rolling around in stitches, in which case you will LOVE this film. A successful PR campaign involving Cohen appearing in character along with his female virgin model bodyguards on numerous talk shows, admittedly using the same jokes most of the time, has ensured an overly long run for ‘The Dictator’ in movie theatres. On the strength of the final material, it is likely he will find that a bit more difficult to repeat in the future.
Plot : Admiral general Aladeen, dictator of the African nation of Wadiya, rules his country with an iron fist. He has all that money can buy, including Megan Fox, but secretly he is lonely, and longs for some higher meaning in his life, along with the destruction of Israel. The double crossing of his right hand man and procurer of women, Tamir, proves serendipitous, as he is put on the path of true love on the streets of New York City. But will he embrace this new opportunity, or will he reclaim his rightful throne in time to prevent Wadiya adopting a new democratic constitution?
Full Review (Contains spoilers) : Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest cinematic effort falls flat right from the word go. Well, almost from the word go. The very first thing the audience sees is a dedication to the late Kim Jong-il, suggesting that maybe what follows will be a biting political satire interfused with Cohen’s very particular style of comedy and perhaps moments where we once again find ourselves cringing at the plight of his onscreen victims, both wanting to turn away but also unwilling to miss what their reaction is going to be. This time, however, the famed for controversy Cohen has gone for a much more mainstream style of film, one in which he simply plays a character in a story full of actors rather than a mixture of thespians and chosen public targets. The result is a pretty formulaic romcom, with Anna Faris providing the rom, and racist toilet humour filling in for the latter.
Red Dragon likes the premise. The idea of sending-up the archetypal dictator, which still describes many autocrats around the globe, has a lot going for it. Imagine if you will, young members of the North Korean military watching their late leader on parade, humming ‘I’m So Ronery’ behind his back, under their breath, having gotten hold of an illegal copy of ‘Team America’ (04). It’s a wonderful image, but fantasy or not, that film produced a lasting legacy of jokes and caricatures, accidentally as much of Matt Damon as of Kim Jong-il. The titular character in this case proves to be someone we’d probably quite like to forget, and quite quickly too. His only real attempt at satire comes from a speech at the end, where he states if only America was a dictatorship then the majority of wealth could be distributed to one percent of the population, the rich could get tax cuts and be bailed out when they gamble and lose etc etc. It’s not bad, albeit a little obvious.
Cohen plays Aladeen, from the fictional north-east Africa country of Wadiya (wadi is the traditional Arabic word for valley). Wadiya encompasses parts of the real countries of Eritrea and Ethiopia, neither of which are actual dictatorships, though both are very far from what anyone in the West would consider democracies. The concept for the project was apparently thought of before the Arab spring took place. Perhaps not so fortuitous with much of the source material being deposed from power, but Wadiya is nevertheless well placed to ape parties from both North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The film’s biggest problem is that once you remove the scathing realist element from Cohen’s work, that which was so prevalent in ‘Borat’ and ‘Bruno’, what’s left behind is pretty crass. We see, for example, Aladeen relieving himself whilst suspended over a New York street and the ensuing excrement knocking a lady beneath him unconscious. The lady in question had just been robbed of her handbag and was shouting for help, as if Cohen is now literally going to poo on the stereotypes of cinema, and shortly afterward he just can’t resist showing his privates to the world once more, though in a much less confrontational way than in ‘Bruno’.
Even worse than the infantile nature of a lot of the humour is the fact that some of it is downright sick. Racist comments appear every now and then, some of which can be carried by the nature of Cohen’s character, and some of which don’t come off so well, but by far the worst offence is when we watch the dictator playing a video game based on the Munich Olympics, in which we see him first person shooter style bursting into the contenders homes and gunning down the Jewish Olympians. The fact that Sacha Baron Cohen is Jewish probably means that in his own mind anything anti-Semitic in his work is fine, with his character out to destroy Israel anyway, but I think it’s fair to say that for the average viewer this is probably going a little too far.
It’s not that the whole is completely devoid of laughs, it’s just that they’re few and far between. When they do come they are pretty predictable, and most of them were in the trailer anyway. The decision to have a romantic undertow, which eventually redeems the dictator to a large extent and makes him see the error of his ways, is instigated in such a plain and blasé manner that it’s impossible not to see it in many ways as a U-turn on Cohen’s previous hell raiser antics. Has he now received one too many lawsuits? Though, with Anna Faris in the love interest role it is kind of a package deal, with a similarly lacklustre romcom adventure in her back catalogue for every other film of value. The idea of a ruthless dictator being seduced and softened is not without merit, it’s a valid point of theological debate whether or not the despots of the world have ever known love in their lives to be capable of the things they do, or if they ever suffer from nightmarish regret when they have a family and children of their own. Here though, with the one exception of a scene where Aladeen helps birth a child, it’s simply a very dull plot device.
There are a number of big name stars who make an appearance throughout the piece – the most frequent of them being sir Ben Kingsley, who plays his duplicitous role of Aladeen’s top general very well, but for whom this will rank just above ‘The Love Guru’ (08) on his CV. John C Reilly delivers a couple of choice lines and proves the best of the supports before making an impromptu exit from the film. That is, of course, unless you include the support given by Megan Fox’s bra, as she slips out of Aladeen’s bed looking sleek and resplendent, having been paid to spend the night with him and stating she’s off to see the Italian Prime Minister but complaining her ‘goody bag’ doesn’t contain as much as Katy Perry’s did. Is someone on the production good friends with Russell Brand? Bizarrely Edward Norton also appears briefly, having similarly prostituted himself to a Chinese man in a toilet – a lineless cameo even shorter than that of his in ‘The Invention of Lying’ (09). Is he simply embracing those shunned by the Hollywood establishment after the troubles he had on ‘The Incredible Hulk’ (08)?
This is Sacha Baron Cohen’s most expensive outing yet and you might be slightly entertained by it, but unfortunately it’s much more likely you’ll simply be disappointed. Give this one a miss, go and see the Avengers again instead.
“Listen, while you’re here, I highly recommend a visit to the Empire State building. Before you, or one of your sand monkey cousins, takes it down.” John C Reilly/Clayton
“Why are you guys so anti-dictators? Imagine if America was a dictatorship. You could let one percent of the people, have all the nation’s wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes, and bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health care and education. Your media would appear free but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wire tap phones, you could torture foreign prisoners, you could have rigged elections, you could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group, and no one would complain! You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests!” Admiral General Aladeen/Sacha Baron Cohen
