For youngsters, the smooth graphics, rich voice cast, and traditional tale of the underdog realising his dreams through determination and self belief will probably make this quite an enjoyable experience – for adult viewers it’s a little too simplistic and flat to really engage with.
Theo (Ryan Reynolds) and Chet (Paul Giamatti) are ordinary garden snails, ordinary, that is, except for Theo’s ambition to one day race in the Indy 500. Fortune smiles on the intrepid young mollusk when a freak accident effectively turns him into a miniature F1 car, allowing him the chance to fight for what he’s always wanted. With Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Peña, Luis Guzmán, Bill Hader, Snoop Dogg, Maya Rudolph, Richard Jenkins, Ken Jeong and Michelle Rodriguez in support, and an upcoming spin-off children’s TV series on Netflix due at the end of this year.
There are shades of meaning here, but overall this is another American template film – cheesy fluff disguised as comedy and accompanied with repetitive chirpy music, interspliced with moments of real drama. The trouble with this ‘playing it safe’ formula is that it rarely satisfies, either as simple entertainment or as serious thought provoking art. The subject of the day is sex addiction, and two of the main characters, played by Mark Ruffalo and Tim Robbins, are sober former addicts who have bonded through their therapy sessions, where they meet new addition to the group Neil, played by Josh Gad. Ruffalo’s self will is put to the test with succubus Gwyneth Paltrow, Robbins must confront the long lasting effects his addiction has had on his family, meanwhile Gad is the only one who really convinces as having real problems as we see him trying to resist rubbing up against women in the subway and give up junk food at the same time – then in steps pop artist Pink as the sex addicted woman simply in need of a male friend and a good hug.
Comparing this to Steve McQueen’s ‘Shame’ (11), which was a much more focused portrayal of the same subject, it’s impossible not to see this as almost laughably bad for the most part, and it is not really until the final quarter that it dares to show any real teeth at all. The inclusion of Pink doesn’t help – she is actually quite good in it, but there is a natural dismay at seeing someone who already has an established high profile career and image appear on film at the expense of another actress trying to get a foot in the door, especially when they appear onscreen out of the blue and look for all intents and purposes exactly as they do in their other career.
Paltrow’s character almost laughs off sex addiction as an excuse for men to play around – and it is fair criticism for something that isn’t really in the public domain, asides from Michael Douglas publicly claiming he was a victim of it, and the aforementioned ‘Shame’. Is it a real condition on a par with alcoholism? This film did not leave me especially convinced. Could it perhaps be that it is more the cocktail of chemicals that must be floating around the body of someone who is constantly chasing tail – a mixture they enjoy but also suffer from: the weight of society’s watchful gaze, the lies and deception that might come with that: the stress of worrying about infection constantly: the knowledge one day it would have to end in order to have a family: the boredom of mundane work compared to the adrenaline fix of trying it on with every hottie around (especially the ones at work). With a substance addiction even though the body can’t handle what’s being thrown at it, that same body can continue to physically administer it – but with sex the body will reach a point where it’s simply no longer possible to continue with it, and surely drive must fall when that happens?
Probably it is also a question of loneliness, or emptiness – and perhaps it is possible to become addicted to anything that can be used to fill that void, forcing any addict to stare into it whenever the fix has run out, spurring them to run back to their crux with ever increasing desperation. The film shows the support group giving up on masturbation for extended periods of time (possibly indefinitely) – I was always under the impression human males have to ejaculate a certain amount of times a week in order to keep various bits and bobs healthy. Naturally, I was never sufficiently interested to investigate this further – I can only advise that easily the most satisfying way to end a sexual encounter is to quickly EAT your partner. Interpret that how you will.
From writer/director Paolo Sorrentino (‘The Consequences of Love’ 04, ‘This Must be the Place’ 11) and seemingly owing a lot to Fellini’s seminal ‘La Dolce Vita’ (60), with a similar raft of the well to do social intelligentsia going through existential crises, this Italian film follows main character Jep Gambardella (Toni Servillo), a writer and one time novelist living in Rome (with a flat overlooking the Colosseum, incidentally) whom we learn never penned a second book as he was searching for ‘The Great Beauty’ of existence. A strong vein of comedy permeates this semi-surrealist consideration of the human experience, but it’s never really, to use a bit of a juxtaposition, LOL worthy despite the good intent. The undeniable sophistication of the conceptual artwork of the film is grand, but I can’t help but feel there exists a depressing smugness to not just the movie, but also many of the characters – garish in their almost nihilistic narcissism.
The avant-garde direction is at its most successful when capturing the frenetic and hedonistic atmosphere of the several florid and somewhat debauched parties that the main characters like to throw for one another, like a sort of extended cerebral series of art house Carlsberg ads (although here the product placement is very obviously for Peroni, whose ads have of course also alluded to ‘La Dolce Vita’ and Anita Ekberg’s classic scene in the Trevi Fountain). Someone I spoke to after the screening concluded that they had no idea what this film was about, but they were certain they liked it, and would probably go and see it again. I’m not sure it merits a second viewing (says I, going to see the not quite so high brow R.I.P.D again), but giving it the once over is certainly justified, and there are some nice touches – like the end credits playing over the top of footage of the Tiber in Rome, for example.
‘Baby, it’s You’ by The Shirelles, a version of which featured in the Peroni ad, followed by the original fountain scene from ‘La Dolce Vita’
Haley Berry stars as an emergency call centre operator who one day makes a mistake that results in the brutal execution of a young teenage girl at the hands of a sadistic serial killer (Michael Eklund). As she has questions of faith about herself the killer remains at large, just waiting to strike again….Of course, casually chatting with people on the phones and just as casually taking self appointed breaks in the beginning never really boded well for her career. Brad Anderson of ‘The Machinist’ (04) fame directs, and despite an iffy start this becomes an engaging thriller with moments of both genuine excitement and revulsion. I’m not convinced by the ending, but Eklund and Abigail Breslin as a young victim in particular give very good performances.
The trailer for this did not deliver an especially mouth watering premise – a young boy growing up isn’t understood by his parents and he is forced to turn to the fast cracking comedy schtick of Sam Rockwell to find both a friend and a vague sort of father figure. A film like this gets released on a fairly regular basis, and there was little to suggest this was anything other than a standard and predictable coming of age drama, nor were my immediate sympathies with the protagonist who seemed to be a movie version of a troubled teenager, sporting relatively perfect hair and skin – one can’t help but think a British/realistic version would feature some poor young acne ridden soul with pulsating pustules of pus obscuring his vision and his face turning an explosive vermillion whenever a girl so much as looks in his direction. Magically, the film had genuine moments where I’d be surprised if there existed a single person sitting in the auditorium without a smile on their face, or indeed who didn’t feel the same level of empathy with the characters during their more negative travails, and this achievement alone garnered the movie peals of genuine applause come the end.
Liam James plays the central character of Duncan, who is dragged to Cape Cod (the large Massachusetts peninsula that juts out eastward into the Atlantic) in order to spend some ‘quality’ time with his mother, stepfather and stepsister. All hope is not lost though, as he discovers the impossibly cute girl next door Susanna, played by AnnaSophia Robb (‘Bridge to Terabithia’ 07), who prefers reading books and the pleasure of her own company to that of the more shallow girls in town. The adults do a fantastic job of being conceited twats to Duncan, who is shown to be quiet, shy and unsure of himself but by no means weak as he elects to cycle a pink bike around town of his own accord, which in itself takes a certain measure of courage, and then under his own steam he finds himself a job at the local aqua park – an occupation he keeps secret from his family who are preoccupied with themselves and their own internal drama.
Toni Collette, Steve Carell, Allison Janney, Rob Corddry and Amanda Peet play the adults Duncan is surrounded by at home, whilst Maya Rudolph and Sam Rockwell appear as his co-workers and friends. Janney and Rockwell’s characters are often used in much the same way by the narrative for quick fire comic relief, which does work but is a tad overdone, but other than that this is a well acted, great little film. I’m tempted to draw parallels with last year’s indie hit ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ as another movie where everything combined really well together, but will this one find its way to the Oscars ..? It’s also the directorial debut of Nat Faxon, pictured at the far left above, and Jim Rash, who plays the ‘determined to leave his job’ Lewis at the aqua park. An impressive first time behind the camera from the veteran actors, who also co-wrote the screenplay and each share a best adapted screenplay Oscar with Alexander Payne for 2011’s ‘The Descendants’.
Careful not to confuse the title with Peter Weir’s 2010 film ‘The Way Back’, nor indeed Emilio Esteves’ ‘The Way’ from the same year.
Fantasy fare with vampires, werewolves, demons and pretty girls – I’d be lying if I said I didn’t like this on some level, but it manages to be derivative of pretty much every other popular fantasy universe out there, and the fact that the author of the teenage fantasy book it’s based on, Cassandra Clare, began by writing fan fiction for Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings comes as no surprise at all. The effects are good, but the story and dialogue leave a lot to be desired, especially when it comes to central character Clarissa Fray (Lily Collins mmm) who is more than hopeless as she discovers her ancestry and its place within the fraternity of ‘shadowhunters’ that stalk and kill demons lurking amongst mortals. It starts off well, with Lena Headey (double mmm) playing Clarissa’s mother and guardian, but it’s mostly downhill from there, with too much emphasis on a particularly limp love triangle which apes the Twilight trend of young girls leading multiple men on and causing general carnage around them, and lots of just silly moments, like managing to freeze a bunch of demons and then waiting until they unfroze to kill them, possible just to show off the CGI. Daft. Envisioned as the first in a franchise, also with Jamie Campbell Bower and Robert Sheehan as the male love interests, together with Jared Harris and Jonathan Rhys Meyers in support.
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’)
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.
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 …..
