Dallas Buyers Club  (2013)    65/100

Rating :   65/100                                                                     117 Min        15

Despite the very, very worthy story being told here, I found it difficult to properly engage with the gritty way in which it is delivered to the audience. The mostly true story of AIDS victim Ron Woodroof who finds he cannot afford the drugs which is believed would keep him alive (he is given approximately four weeks to live) and who ends up in Mexico trying desperately to get a hold of this life extending elixir. Whilst there, fate introduces him to a doctor who explains what he has been told about this miracle drug simply isn’t true, and instead he prescribes him several much simpler and much healthier substances, all of which were legal in the United States although not FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved. Seeing not only a way to help his own health and that of others, but also a nice way to make a lot of money, he heads back up north to set up the eponymous Dallas Buyers Club.

We bear witness to the legal ramifications of his club and those like it, whilst the pharmaceutical companies still ram their product down the throats of the medical professionals and the lives of many thousands of patients are put into the balance. Some liberties have been taken with the personal story of Woodroof and his personality, there is no mention of his daughter in the film, for example, and two central characters, fellow AIDS sufferer and transsexual Rayon (Jared Leto – pictured above on the left) and romantic interest/doc with a conscience Eve (Jennifer Garner), are entirely fictional. Matthew McConaughey gives a very committed performance as Woodroof, initially a homophobic, drug abusing electrician/rodeo cowboy and general scallywag and both he and Leto are not only up for Academy Awards this season but also lost an unhealthy amount of weight for their roles.

In a way this highlights both the eerie quality of the film and yet some of its strength – when we see these two actors who do very much appear that they are not far from death’s door, there is a part of you that is shocked and forced to consider that reality for people with the disease not just then but now too, despite the improvement in our medical understanding, and yet we are simultaneously aware in the back of our minds that these two people do not have AIDS and have in fact done this to themselves. There is a sickening quality to the deed, and we have to ask – was it necessary? When Dustin Hoffman and Laurence Olivier starred together in ‘Marathon Man’ (76) they were preparing for a scene when Hoffman declared that he was off for a run – responding to the quizzical look from his co-worker he explained that his character had been on a run just before the scene and so he had better go for one too, to which Olivier’s response was ‘There’s a reason they call it acting’. In the scenario of this film he certainly has a point, especially in the age of computers when some weight for the naked torso scenes could probably be digitally removed. Tom Hanks last year attributed his current Diabetes condition to gaining and losing weight for some of his roles in the past and one wonders if that’s true and if so just how much he regrets doing it. McConaughey has gone from strength to strength over recent years and so it’s great to see him nominated at the Oscars and it is deserved (as is Leto’s nod) but, should the industry really be encouraging this kind of thing? How long before someone goes too far and ends up seriously ill or worse, all for the sake of a film role?

I’ve posted the clip below a few times before but it’s worth repeating here due to its relevance and also to show just how much corruptive power drugs companies still wield in today’s world, with not only the medical profession but also large parts of the sports/recreation/therapy industries being driven by chants of ‘Sell, Sell, Sell’.

Devil’s Due  (2014)    0/100

Rating :   0/100           COMPLETE INCINERATION           89 Min        15

Following in the tradition of what Blumhouse productions have set in motion with their Paranormal Activity franchise, although here not connected with that company, this is just another abysmal take on the handheld, or ‘found footage’, horror genre. Although Blair Witch did kick off the whole racket back in 99, this particular wave of films is designed with a very, very twisted core idea using the technology to in many ways assault the viewers psyche, with sudden jumps and the mixing of real footage with what are designed to be terrifying images. The Red Dragon coins this the ‘Battery’ genre, where as well as the standard use of batteries your visual and audio experience is reduced to being hit repeatedly with shocks and screeches, sudden jumps, and prolonged shots where you know a jump is coming and you just have to wait for it.

It doesn’t sound all that different from the horror genre in general over the decades, but there is a big cinematic difference and the end result is simply a sickening experience on a par with ‘Torture Porn’, and this kind of filmmaking is just about the most rudimentary and easiest to create. Literally anyone can make this stuff, and the team behind this have barely bothered at all with believable characters or a story, with the focus being on a young couple who get hoodwinked by a cabbie into going to a party with him where they get drugged and the girl impregnated by some kind of demon and the offspring starts to twist the young girl’s being into a creature of evil, whilst her partner figures out what’s going on and precedes to do very little about it except stand in the right places for the jumps to arrive.

Same old, same old – to compare this style of film with one of value we have ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ (68) which has essentially the same storyline (and also has Mia Farrow’s unconscious character raped by Satan at the bequest of her husband, played by John Cassavetes, and to explain her bruises the next day he says something like ‘Oh yeah, you passed out so I just used you anyway’, not exactly an elaborate excuse) and is revered as a classic, it’s disturbing but watchable. I don’t believe any human being could get anything positive out of this sort of trash which is becoming ever more frequent at the cinema, to the point where I may simply start drawing a line and not even bothering to watch future releases, there really is no point.

Delivery Man  (2013)    70/100

Rating :   70/100                                                                     105 Min        12A

I actually rate this as one of Vince Vaughn’s best films (I am very surprised by this, for all kinds of reasons, the trailer being just one of them). He plays the central character of David, who is a bit of a screw up and finds out his girlfriend is pregnant but that she would rather raise the child by herself than remain with him – about the same time he is confronted with the fact that he is additionally the father of many hundreds of other children due to a mix up at a sperm bank he donated to in his youth; hundreds and hundreds of times. Not quite sure how to deal with this, he decides to secretly spy on some of his now adult children and get to know them a little, and what ensues is actually a fairly touching and slightly redemptive story, despite the potential for a mass scale Greek tragedy, with little dashes of comedy thrown in here and there. It’s directed by Ken Scott and is a remake of his previous film ‘Starbuck’, which is also the name David went by when he performed his services for the sperm bank.

Don Jon  (2013)    69/100

Rating :   69/100                                                                       90 Min        18

Joseph Gordon-Levitt chooses a very interesting subject for his directorial debut – pornography. Also written by Levitt and starring him as central character Jon (nicknamed Don Jon by his friends on account of his pulling prowess with girls) we watch as he works out on his body at the gym, keeps his flat immaculately clean, and works his way through a succession of young hotties – and yet still finds jacking off to pornography more pleasurable than the real thing. Then he meets knock out blonde Barbara Sugarman, played by Scarlett Johansson, and becomes convinced she is the one – but will even her curvaceous figure and sublime features be a match for the infinite and easy choices available online?

The subject matter has been treated very well here by the man at the helm (no pun intended) dealing with it head on (ditto), and by mixing in a lot of good comedy. It is thematically reminiscent of Steve McQueen’s ‘Shame’ (11) but I would argue this is in many respects better as it ditches the prevalent moralising tone which permeated that film, and in many ways it does actually represent the differences between a British and American treatment of the topic, one prudish and judgmental – the other forthright and more fun. Indeed, the very idea of porn is often still hugely divisive between the sexes – the next time you’re in a group scenario just throw in the subject of masturbation over your friends facebook pictures and you’ll quickly see the dichotomy that exists generally (you can google that particular aspect of the debate for a plethora of very humorous threads – also something which works quite well is the timely interjection during a game of ‘I’ve Never’, which is normally used as an excuse for people to show off their real or exaggerated sexual exploits, of the line ‘Never have I ever … masturbated whilst thinking about anyone in this room’. This never fails to issue forth a blanket of silence over the sophistic podium, and you can usually tell by the extremely sheepish faces who indeed has done exactly that. Most amusing).

Both Levitt and Johansson sport very convincing accents (it’s set in New York City) and give really good performances, as does Julianne Moore in support. Although Levitt has done a couple of short films prior to this, for a first feature this is a sterling effort – and kudos definitely has to be given for opting to write about difficult subject matter with originality. The alienating problems with intimacy that Jon suffers from will strike a chord with many viewers, some of which will be surprised by the resonance – so seldom is any light shone on this area in a way that audiences can relate to. The only real criticism would have to be there are many aspects of a more traditional resolution to the movie, and although it makes sense for the story and what he’s trying to do, it nevertheless feels a little too black and white – the shades of grey are conveniently, and swiftly, removed from the equation…

Dom Hemingway  (2013)    31/100

Rating :   31/100                                                                       93 Min        15

Jude Law plays the titular Dom Hemingway – a crook just released from prison after a twelve year stint in the clink, and now on a mission to make amends with his estranged daughter. It’s a black comedy, but its primary faults are that it’s simply not that funny and Law convincing us he’s a hard-ass, cockney geezer (despite his commitment to the role) is just asking a bit too much from the audience. It’s like the film is trying to emulate the laughs from ‘In Bruges’ (08), whilst evoking Tom Hardy’s performance in ‘Bronson’ (08), and it doesn’t come close to being as good as either of them – in fact for the first third it is difficult not to want the main character to get killed, with him coming across as repulsive rather than endearing or comedic as he either hits/fucks/or insults everyone he meets (I’m making this sound more interesting than it actually is) and demonstrates how hard he is by lighting up a cigarette in a pub in defiance of the anti-smoking law – send him back to prison! There are a couple of nice moments, the support form the likes of Richard E. Grant and Demian Bichir is fine and the central character becomes a bit more palatable as the film progresses, but the whole film feels too forced and amateurish. From writer/director Richard Shepard (‘The Matador’ 2005, ‘The Hunting Party’ 2007).

Diana  (2013)    50/100

Rating :   50/100                                                                     113 Min        12A

An odd film that, despite being complete rubbish in pretty much every respect, still delivered a bit of an emotional punch by the end. Indeed, two of my initial criticisms may perhaps work in its favour. This is of course the story of Princess Diana, portrayed here by Naomi Watts, who was once a potential candidate for the British throne, but who met an untimely death on a Parisian road in 1997 after the Paparazzi (incidentally this word is generally accepted to have derived from Fellini’s ‘La Dolce Vita’ and the character name of the press photographer – Paparazzo) hounded her car and the inebriated driver panicked and lost control of the vehicle. Or it was a professional hit, if you prefer the conspiracy theory. To go back to the aforementioned criticisms, the film opens on that fateful night as we see Diana getting ready to head down to her waiting car, and she suddenly stops and looks back down the empty corridor behind her – and as she does so the camera zooms backward. I assume this is to give the impression of the photographers spying on her/we the current voyeurs looking back on a fairly tragic human life, but for the audience it just looks weird, and certainly does not herald well what follows. Bizarrely it’s now one of the images I remember most about the film, and I’m wondering if it ultimately didn’t help deliver a sort of haunting/haunted feeling. We never see the crash, and again initially I thought this was something of a cop out, as if they were too afraid of a possible backlash and yet shot in the right way it could have really hammered home the main point the film tries to make about the invasion of celebrity privacy by the press. Perhaps though, since most people are very aware of what happened, not filming the event has a greater impact, I’m still undecided on this point ….

In any case, the film focuses on the life of the Princess after she separated from Prince Charles but before they became officially divorced, and it primarily concerns itself with her sexual relationship with Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews), a heart surgeon working in London. The film is the first major casualty of what I term ‘The Argo Effect’, where, on the back of the success of that film, other filmmakers consider it perfectly acceptable to take enormous liberties with actual historical facts – here they have not gotten away with it because there is a very high profile individual involved and all of the events are much fresher in people’s minds than those taking place in Iran in 1979 (most of which was covert anyway). The most obvious thing that’s changed is that here Diana chases after Khan, whereas in real life it was the other way around. In fact, in the film Diana merely looks at him for a brief moment and then, for all intents and purposes, it looks very much like she goes home and sets herself up for a nice masturbatory session over the memory. Returning to the hospital she’s like a hopeless besotted teenager, and all of the dialogue contains sexual undertones. In fact, throughout the entire film she comes across as a wayward dizzy blonde – not that Khan comes off much better, as he is portrayed ultimately as a terrible coward, and when he first goes to see Diana in her stately residence he tells her the dish she’s cooked is dreadful, suggests they order hamburgers, lights up a fag inside, then puts on the tele to watch the football. As if anyone who wasn’t reared in barn would do any of those things in anybody’s home they were visiting, never mind a trip to Kensington palace!

Watts is Ok in the role, but it never feels like we’re seeing her really embody the character, and she has done herself no favours whatsoever by claiming Diana visited her in a dream – lending her permission and support to make the film. The film also shows everyone in Khan’s neighbourhood being woken up around 4am after the accident – as if everybody in Britain rang everyone else in a sort of state of national emergency that Diana had been killed. Ridiculous. All of this also detracts from the important message regarding press intrusion – very topical in the UK after the recent Leveson enquiry into press standards, one which showed without a shadow of a doubt (although it was pretty blooming obvious anyway and shouldn’t have required millions to prove it) the horrible corruption, and the effects of that corruption, throughout the British tabloids. Sadly for the public, the country currently has in place of a leader, a pathetic little arse gerbil climbing up the back passage of big business, and despite the findings sweet f.a. was done about it. People’s privacy being torn to shreds and being followed everywhere they go at all times – seriously, how difficult is it to make that illegal? There was an enormous public display of mourning after Diana passed away – if the same public stopped buying trashy crap like ‘Heat’ magazine, then they might actually prevent anything similar from happening again.

Despicable Me 2  (2013)    65/100

Rating :   65/100                                                                       98 Min        U

A reasonable sequel to 2010’s ‘Despicable Me’, featuring the voices of Steve Carell, Kristen Wiig and Steve Coogan. From Illumination Entertainment (who’s other films to date are ‘Hop’ in 2011 and 2012’s ‘The Lorax’, with a release planned for next year based entirely on the Minions from this series… ) it’s easy to watch and just as easy to forget, but should be fine for families and for fans of the original. Also introduces a love story arc for main character Gru. Not very despicable.

Dead Man Down  (2013)    60/100

Rating :   60/100                                                                     118 Min        15

There is a lot of promise shown throughout this film, almost like a shadow haunting it as it fights to try and conform to humdrum banality, a fight that it disappointingly wins. Colin Farrell is a member of Terrence Howard’s gang of miscreants, but someone is out to sever the leader’s head, someone who keeps sending clues to his identity, mysterious notes, and a trail of criminal corpses. Enter the girl, not quite next door, but across the chasm between their high rise buildings, played by Noomi Rapace, who has evidently been checking out Farrell through the window in unguarded moments and eventually plucks up the courage to introduce herself, but she has a story of her own too.

The central focus of this film is revenge, and it almost deals with it in a serious manner, but it winds unerringly down into pointless cliché. Rapace gives a strongly believable performance – we are told her character has had part of her face rebuilt after a car crash, and there is certainly a very visible scar, only it’s really not that extreme for the sort of surgery she’s describing, she still looks good really, and one can’t help but feel that it could possibly be concealed with make-up if she so chose. A more original, tougher treatment with the same cast could have been something more worthwhile watching.

Dark Skies  (2013)    30/100

Rating :   30/100                                                                       97 Min        15

The new horror film from the makers of ‘Insidious’ and ‘Sinister’ (Blumhouse Productions), and bearing similarities to their ‘Paranormal Activity’ franchise which began before those two releases, sees many familiar motifs return and take on new cross-genre twists, actually leaving the film in danger of becoming a parody of itself. The culturally ubiquitous idea of ‘The Boogeyman’ is back, and right from the beginning we are informed this stalker of children’s nightmares will now appear in the guise of extraterrestrials. Some of the scares are decent enough, though most are exactly what we expect from previous material and the screenplay is dire to say the least, especially when it comes to the adults in the story. As per the norm the action concerns an average, struggling with bills, family of four that have mysteriously become the centre of attention of some otherworldly visitors.

What the film doesn’t swipe from its predecessors, it takes very obviously from other sci-fi sources; mention of the truth being out there and wanting to believe immediately bring the wonderful ‘X-Files’ to mind, the title is shared by another nineties sci-fi tv series about alien invasion, scenes are lifted directly from both Spielberg’s ‘E.T.’ and ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’, and at one point we witness scores of birds flying kamikaze style into windows and walls, identical to scenes in ‘Red Lights’. The introduction of alien expert and victim Edwin Pollard, played by J.K.Simmons, brings a bit more interest to the piece, and also a little more sympathy for the family, but it’s nothing more than a brief glimmer of what could have been with the application of more invention and originality. If done in the right way, this could have spawned a franchise in its own right, ‘Dark Skies’ the tv series was good until it lost its way toward the end, and long before that there was ‘The Invaders’ (and the bit more camp ‘V’), a fantastic series that highlighted the potential for ‘they are amongst us’ stories to engross and fascinate skeptics and believers alike.

This is a dilution of the genuinely quite scary ‘Insidious’ (10), and then the nowhere near as good ‘Sinister’ (12). Look forward to the next logical step from Jason Blum and co where the aliens discard their used human experiments at Fukushima, wherein they become zombies that all look like the girl from ‘Ringu’ and can only be properly seen by the naked eye via surveillance cameras, forcing the army to get involved, who originally blame immigrant Korean workers until the evidence becomes overwhelming, although the Japanese emperor still refuses to acknowledge what’s going on, until his wife turns into a zombie and eats him.

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….