Young Adult (Review)

Young Adult inhabits that annoying sub-genre of character study films, only they choose to study characters that are varying levels of bland, boring or reprehensible and expect that we the audience will cheer, gasp or at least remain fascinated as they go through their bland, boring or reprehensible existence.

That makes this flick an ugly step-sister to There will be Blood, Punch Drunk Love and Big Fan (which Patton Oswalt also starred in by the way). Oh and the Deuce Bigalow films.

In this case the supposed fascination is that the lead character acts exactly like a guy. That ‘guy’ is Mavis (Charlize Theron), a troubled young woman now in her second decade removed from her small town beginnings after landing a plush job as a fiction writer in the ‘big city’ of Minneapolis. Only as the film opens it is more accurate to say that Mavis is ‘batching’, dramatically behind in her work, wallowing in self pity and spending her evenings drinking and one night standing.

Desperate to shake free from her malaise and wanting to feel superior to someone – anyone – Mavis takes a group email as a cosmic sign, whacks on some makeup and a little black dress and heads to her childhood home to show the hicks still there just how far she has come.

With precious little advance planning Mavis decides that Phase 1 should involve reclaiming her High School sweetheart Buddy (Patrick Wilson), only Buddy is now happily married with a newborn baby at home, something Mavis actually was well aware of already.

But that squishy pink drooling fact alone is apparently no impediment to the irrational Mavis, who takes every full stop as a minor setback and every ‘No’ as a ‘Soon’… Actually didn’t I tell you she was just like a guy?

What Mavis didn’t count on was Matt (Patton Oswalt), another former classmate, only the ‘regular’ kind, meaning he wasn’t in her circle then and Mavis sure as hell feels he has no right to be anywhere near her circumference now, given that he is overweight, still unpopular and sports a limp from a terrifying act of schoolyard bullying taken beyond the extreme.

Mavis openly resents Matt and only converses with him in her downtime between assaults on Buddy while he is ‘busy playing Dad’. But because Buddy isn’t that welcoming of Mavis’s advances this means she ends up spending quite a large proportion of her time drinking Matt’s bootleg booze from his garage still and revisiting the glory days, or propped at the bar in the saloon where Matt happens to work.

We the audience are expected to be riveted to her failings and insecurities, and to dread whatever reaction that Buddy has to her increasingly bold and irrational decisions. I just felt sorry for Matt, who openly pines for Mavis despite knowing full well what a flawed individual she is, and even while she discusses every detail of her plan for Buddy with him.

To me this was a better film than all of those I mentioned above, but that hardly makes it necessary viewing. Theron is perfectly adequate as Mavis, a woman with that go far deeper than she wants to acknowledge, Oswalt is fine as the pathetic Matt (not pathetic in an inferior way), willing to overlook everything for that one shot. But in truth neither performance was world beating or Oscar worthy.

Neither is the film, which tells a dull story well, but that doesn’t make it any less a dull and pointless story.

Two thirds into the film I was thoroughly bored and ready for the film to end and end quickly, however the only partially redeeming feature was in fact the ending, which elevated the film a full point in the final score.

Even that still wasn’t enough to make this more than just a boring movie though.

Final Rating – 6 / 10. Well made, well acted and frankly well dull. A characterless character study with an unpleasant subject.

Posted in Film | Leave a comment

How to lose friends and alienate people (Review)

Supposedly based on a real life story about a British journo to whom (most of these) events actually happened, How to lose friends and alienate people has a couple of decent comedic moments, but like the lead character Sidney Young is dangerously homogenised by the Hollywood system that it tries so vainly to lampoon.

While I’m on the topic is there any chance that all these Hollywood star and film companies might take a break from telling us how fake and vacuous Hollywood is? Or at least stop charging us $20 per film in the process…

Sidney Young (Simon Pegg) is a young journalistic tyro, a tell it like it is and damn the consequences creator of a satirical underground British magazine that digs up dirt and pulls the piss out of celebrities and the industry in general.

Then  after an awards show mishap Sidney is miraculously handpicked by Clayton Harding (Jeff Bridges), only the editor of one of the biggest American magazines in that same industry ‘Sharp’s Magazine’.

Fine, thinks Sidney, I’ll tear down the fakeness and insincerity from the inside.

Sidney shows up for work as an irreverent t shirt wearing, hard partying, tactless wanker who thinks boss Clayton has lost his edge and that his co-workers Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston) and Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst) are merely sheep toeing the company line, and that publicists like Eleanor (Gillian Anderson) and her aspiring it-girl Sophie Mays (Megan Fox) are symptomatic of the problems in Hollywood, where arse kissing and backstabbing are as entrenched as the designer labels and the who’s who that feature on the glossy pages.

Only a strange thing happens, Sidney initially wallows in the periphery while he is sarcastically poking fun at the machine, then finds success when he kowtows and compromises his principles… Ummm, is this the message we’re trying to relay here; forego everything that makes you an individual and become one of the mainstream, you’ll make more money, bang starlets and drive a nicer car?

So the huge mystery becomes will Sidney stay true to label and retain his non-conformist bent, or will he simply become part of the system he simultaneously loathes and adores?

Confusing message aside How to lose friends and alienate people does have a few choice moments but it relies a little too heavily on pratfalls, unfortunate Chihuahuas and trannie penises for my liking. While I love Simon Pegg and he will have a lifetime exemption from bad movies thanks to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz he is largely wasted here, and I will forever remain confused as to what the ‘right message’ is with this film, as it seems to extol the virtues of both the ‘one of us’ conformism and the ‘I’m an individual that remains true to his values’ individualism.

Final Rating – 6.5 / 10. Neither the acerbic poke at Hollywood nor a sobering warning against mindlessly following the masses, the film gets caught in it’s own confused anti-moralising. At least there are some pretty people in it…

Posted in Film | Leave a comment

Inside Man (Review)

Why is Clive Owen in so many bland posters?

Inside ‘Inside Man’ is a bland one note heist movie desperate to bore audiences. Thankfully this generic formula flick is quelled by quality acting and an especially stylish yet subdued directing effort by Spike Lee.

At its core Inside man is a classic cops n robbers tale, kinda like Heat, and like that film the lead good and bad guys come face to face – well balaclava – on multiple occasions in this film.

Denzel Washington is effectively the public face of the law and order team as Detective Keith Frazier, though of course his side has other hangers on including his partner Detective Mitchell and Willem Dafoe as a street cop. While the only bad guy whose face we see for nearly two hours belongs to Dalton Russell (Clive Owen), his compadres are a little more reluctant to show their mugs, given that they for much of the film they are in
the process of committing a major armed robbery.

Dalton however is never shy about his role in the heist. He tells us from the film’s opening frames that he is the major conspirator, and he and his disguised team walk calmly into a major New York bank and systematically put their intricate and daring plan into motion, taking several hostages in the process.

The robbers are intimidatory but not especially violent, and their plan seems to welcome police interference and scrutiny, some of which they deflect with disdain, and the early discussions between Detective Frazier and Russell are effectively a high stakes game of cat
and mouse, with each party trying to work their own angles without incurring the wrath of the opposition.

The film cuts back and forth between the events of the crime itself and the post-gig interviews with freed hostages, with Frazier and Mitchell grilling those freed, unsure if they were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time, or perhaps accomplices…

It’s not really fair to the film to move further, however I might also mention that there is a subplot involving a problem solver Madeleine White (Jodie Foster) and the Chairman of the bank under siege Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer). As it turns out this diversion
does of course dovetail into the other events in the film – it would be extraneous if they didn’t – but I feel the film wouldn’t have suffered one iota if they excised the whole bit. And it would have been a good 20 minutes shorter. Perhaps Spike felt that removing the unnecessary arc might rob his poster of two big names…

The acting is uniformly excellent, with the two leads Washington and Owen setting the benchmark even though neither is forced to stretch much beyond their normal persona – though I haven’t heard Denzel swear this much in a while. The action is minimal but effective and there are more than enough twists, turns and red herrings to keep you guessing.

While the final reveal is equally effective but implausible (many years ago I worked in a bank tiny compared to the one held up here, and they had measures in place that would have foiled Dalton), the film earns a little leeway given the quality of the build up. There will always be a place for a decent heist film. Inside Man definitely fits that description.

Final Rating – 7.5 / 10. Spike eschews his normal hooks and tricks and tones down the racial themes to aim for a more mainstream audience. With Inside Man he comes up trumps. I wish he made more like it.

Posted in Film, Worthwhile Movies | Leave a comment

Idiot Box (Review)

Idiot Box tells an all too possible story of two perpetually unemployed bogans who decide to rob a bank after watching one too many movies and drinking one too many VBs.

The two lads are Mick (Jeremy Sims) and Kev (Ben Mendelsohn), they spend their days killing time by making minor mischief while they await the next dole cheque. One typically unremarkable day spent lamenting their lot in life and deriding the efforts of cinematic crims they hatch a plot to rob the local bank, then over the ensuing days set about prepping their big heist.

Unfortunately even the best laid plans of a couple of drunk idiots would rarely be described as a masterwork, especially when the local police are already a little on edge, what with a violent gun-toting masked robber already terrorising the suburbs.

Idiot Box gives quite an accurate view of suburban malaise, especially the more mundane aspects of drinkin’, talking shit and watchin’ telly – ever notice how no-one seems to watch TV in movies? But there is a reason that this is hardly glamorised on the big screen, for too many of us the more boring aspects are our day to day existence and hardly fodder for escapist entertainment.

Ben Mendelsohn is a whirlwind of misdirected energy as Kev, a troubled individual with distinct anger issues, and Jeremy Sims is fine as the slightly deeper – but still not especially deep – Mick.

Final Rating – 6 / 10. Idiot Box is a reasonable but hardly revolutionary film, it is perhaps best remembered as having a soundtrack produced by You Am I’s Tim Rogers, unfortunately with good reason, as the film is merely a relic of a bygone era.

Posted in Film | Leave a comment

Red Riding Trilogy 1974… 1980… 1983… Review

In the Seventies there was no Twitter, no email, no Google, no mobile phones, cars with sat nav, no bloggers demanding street justice, not even handicams to capture any Rodney King-like events. In the Seventies the board was heavily tilted toward those with connections, muscle, money, power, and a willingness to do what it took to get what you wanted.

If you knew the right guys no-one else need know how you got where you got, just that you wouldn’t be steeping down without consequences.

Corruption, deception and bullying wasn’t the exception, but the expectation.

Red Riding: in the year of our Lord 1974

In all-smoking, all-drinking, all long haired, sideburn rocking, brown trousered Yorkshire in Northern England, a young girl is missing.

Fresh faced journo Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield) is assigned the story and sets eagerly to the task. He theorises that this might not be a one off random occurrence, and wonders if this missing 10 year old girl might be linked to the disappearances of two other girls in the area over recent years.

He shares this possibility with his editor and others, only to find an almost total lack of support for his idea. In fact almost everyone in the area suggests – with varying degrees of force – that Eddie forget the case and move on. The editor and his colleagues tell him to leave well enough alone, the parents of other missing girls don’t want the memories dredged up again, the police are particularly and brutally insistent that he cease his bothersome enquiries post haste.

Even the (quite probably crazy) old woman who tells Eddie that ‘he reeks of death’ is hardly any help.

Then the little girl’s body shows up. Case closed? Eddie doesn’t think so…

The cast is uniformly excellent and lends credibility to what becomes an increasingly bizarre set of events as the plot gradually unfolds. Eddie’s probing instincts and nose for trouble result in him copping far more than his normal share of bumps and bruises as he realises that he might not be able to walk away from the investigation even if he wanted to.

I remember hearing a talk show once that lamented the number of acts of violence against children that were perpetrated against defenceless children in modern times. An unfortunate voice of reason suggested that in fact every decade prior to this one had just as many – if not more – victims of heinous acts, it’s just that most went unreported.

If that is indeed the sad truth, then Red Riding 1974 paints a realistic portrait of one series of events. With a smoky washed out backdrop (even in the precious few scenes where practically the entire cast aren’t lighting up) the truth somehow reveals itself at languid pace even though the film actually moves swiftly. Garfield – like Millennium’s Rapace – is an often magnetic presence even when in repose (and lends hope that the new Spiderman reboot won’t suck so much after all, even though it is by no means necessary).

Final Rating – 7.5 / 10. Red Riding… 1974 pains a disturbing picture of the ease with which the unthinkable could be swept under the rug… and those that sought to ensure the real truth was buried with it.

Red Riding: in the Year of our Lord 1980

The Yorkshire Ripper is still on the job six years later, in fact his bodycount has just cracked into the teens.

The police force still have no idea as to his identity and the media and community are hungry for information and results. So in an apparent act of desperation the police give Peter Hunter (Paddy Consodine) the reins of the investigation and carte blanche to do things his way.

His way involves scrapping all theories and ignoring all clues and starting with a clean slate and a fresh set of eyes. Hunter feels that with so many suspects interviewed over the years the chances are the force has already spoken to the Ripper but didn’t realise. He handpicks a small unit to help him delve through the evidence and files in the hope of uncovering the clue or breakthrough that will reveal his identity. His two chosen Lieutenants are John and Helen, both of whom he has worked with before, and Helen more than that.

The trio agree to commit themselves entirely to the case until they make a discovery, staying at a nearby hotel to remain near the headquarters.

The superiors in the operation demand only one inclusion, that of Bob Craven, an officer intimately involved in the investigation from the start and a target of a recent attack that nearly ended his life. Craven is openly sceptical of Hunter and the new direction the investigation has taken, and openly voices his doubts and those of other members of the force who feel that Hunter’s appointment is an unnecessary intrusion and his abandoning of other information a slight on their earlier efforts.

In fact Hunter and co find a decided lack of support at almost every level. There are unfortunate leaks to the media that waylay their progress, and rumours and whispers abound that undermine the operation. Despite this spirit of non-co-operation Hunter decides that one murder from the thirteen stands out as being out of place, that of a hooker named Claire Strachan.

Red Riding… 1983 is a decidedly atypical film in this genre. The film actually deals more with the politics of the various departments within the police force and how they manipulate and massage the course of justice through misinformation and suppression of facts.

There are no courtroom scenes, no monologues about the importance of the case. No car chases, footchases, near misses or cryptic clues or messages from the killer. There isn’t even a big ‘gotcha’ moment when they twig to the identity of the Ripper.

It does have a few twists and turns though, and some characters from …1974 reappear – it wouldn’t be fair to say who. But 1980 is slower, harder to follow and less punchy than the films that bookend it. The fact that it lacks any action sequences or scenes with visual impact until the very end hinder the enjoyment somewhat, but for those who pay attention and keep track of the motives and actions of the myriad characters you will be well rewarded for your patience.

Final rating – 7 / 10. The trilogy sags just a little in the middle as the ‘action’ remains mostly in the office. Not too many classics are set predominantly in the filing room, but Red Riding 1980 is rewarding in other ways.

Red Riding: In the Year of our Lord 1983

The final film in the trilogy looks to bring things altogether and features many familiar faces from the earlier films, some in flashback form, others reappearing on the scene.

Little girls have been going missing in the Yorkshire area for a decade and a half. The latest being a 10 year old named Hazel who vanished on the short route home from school. Her case is eerily similar to an earlier girl’s from almost a decade prior, only her killer is already in prison having admitted culpability for the crime.

The police have been running things their way for so long that wrong seems right. With their authority and methods unchecked they are downright cocky and overt in their corruption. No longer bothering with elaborate cover ups, now it seems that outright lies and misdirection does the same job with less effort.

This outing has no outright ‘hero’ or equivalent, but for the most part follows John Piggott, a slobbish and lazy lawyer who is reluctant to become involved, and Maurice Jobson, a cop involved in the investigation for some years now who it seems is having a crisis of confidence with the methods of his colleagues and the lengths that they take to exert their will.

Let’s just say “Put your hands flat on the table” might mean many things, but in the 70s and 80s in Yorkshire most of them were extremely painful.

There is a medium with the ability to see beyond the norm who proves portentous, flashbacks that help fill in some gaps, and the gay street hustler BJ pops up periodically as he undertakes a pilgrimage of his own.

With so many characters and no obvious ‘Eddie’ style central figure you need to pay attention to proceedings, but while Red Riding …1983 is circuitous and at times confusing, by the conclusion of the film we can see that it was always going somewhere.

Final Rating – 7.5 / 10. I liked the first film in the series more, but this is more intricate and layered, and wraps up a meritorious trilogy well.

Final Trilogy Rating – 7.5 / 10. Red Riding is an undiscovered gem. A series not unlike the Millennium trilogy in that it revolves around unlikely atypical central figures thrust into scenarios that frequently threaten their wellbeing and sense of normalcy.

The ‘heroes’ depicted in Red Riding are no human Google/Instagram/calculator with near ninja skills. They are rookie journos with a predilection for flared trousers, cops with differing views of right and wrong, flawed lawyers with otherwise dull lives …

Another example of a series that demands you see all three entries before casting judgment. For me that verdict is that the Red Riding trilogy is definitely a case of the whole being worth more than the sum of it’s parts.

I realised about half way through the 1983 edition that I shouldn’t be deriving such satisfacvtion from films revolving around paedophilia, violence and corruption. It is a credit to the writing and acting that these themes are so vital to the storyline, and despite the troubling material the series remains so fascinating and worth your time.

Posted in Film, Movie Reviews, Superstars & Movie Marathons, Worthwhile Movies | Leave a comment

The Mummy Trilogy Review

The Mummy

In ancient Egyptian times a particularly lovestruck (read: horny) individual named Imhotep got a little too close to the King’s main squeeze. The King was a little miffed, and in his rage killed the woman and buried Imhotep and his followers alive with only flesh eating beetles for company.

So is it really any wonder that the undead Imhotep might be a mite grumpy if someone was foolish enough to free him from his tomb and reanimate his corpse?

Which is exactly what happens 3000 years later when Rick (Brendan Fraser) Evie (Rachel Weisz) and her brother John raid the burial chamber of Hamunaptra in search for ancient hidden treasures.

No-one really cares about the search though. The ‘fun’ starts when the gan unwittingly unleashes the unfriendly undead onto an unsuspecting crowd.

By this stage I was already quite uninterested.

In truth the titular Mummy is not a mummified corpse as Imhotep was buried alive, but more a fleshless zombie searching for food… and we know what that means.

Bring on the minions.

But in this case the *cough* Mummy wants Evie too – 3000 years is a long time – and so Rick and John must spend a good 40 minutes alternately fleeing, chasing and avoiding computer generated variousness including bugs, locusts and of course more angry skeletons.

It’s all extremely teen’s own stuff – and in my mind teens only. I’m all for suspending realism and fantasy elements, but when these things verge into stupidity I quickly check out.

Final Rating – 6 / 10. This review was far briefer than I intended but The Mummy just isn’t worth the effort. Like the treasure they all seek it is sparkly and shiny, and entirely over-rated and not worth dying (or killing my brain cells) for.

The Mummy Returns

Somewhere in the bloated corpse of The Mummy Returns is a fairly decent action fantasy flick trying to get out. Unfortunately it suffocates in an over-ambitious jumble of annoying kids, ridiculously unnecessary dirigibles and computer generated fluff.

The O’Connells are still in the desert looking for treasure, Rick (Brendan Fraser) is still the deep voiced Indy lite, while wife Evy (Rachel Weisz) is having some especially convenient visions of former lives that advance the search.

In an especially welcome move The Rock was cast to provide both beefcake and lovely eyebrows as the Scorpion King, an ancient leader of a marauding army cursed to remain immobile for eternity… or until unleashed upon an unsuspecting globe by grave-robbers – whichever comes first.

You again?!?

Within minutes of the film opening the competing digging teams manage to unearth dusty Imhotep himself. With the Scorpion King’s arrival imminent though it seems that old Immy is barely an afterthought this time. To spice things up it turns out that the entire O’Connell clan is karmically involved in proceedings. Yep I said clan – turns out Rick has done some digging of his own with Alex the annoying young kid as the unfortunate result. Don’t they normally wait until the third film in a series to run out of ideas and unleash the kid? I can only wish, in one scene the naughty Imhotep and his crew kidnap Alex and take him away, yet for some inexplicable reason his parents actually choose to hunt him down and take him back.

There is far more action in this film set against desert backdrops as dry as Lindsay Lohan’s head after a big night out. Now ‘Uncle’ John (John Hannah) is selected as comic relief along with the yappy kid – both big mistakes – but as with all of these flicks it is the special effects that are the real (only?) draw, and like the film they’re not bad…

As mentioned with a few choice cuts (kid, dirigible chase) this could be OK, but it suffers from not enough Rock and more Mummies than a shopping centre coffee shop on a weekday morning. That and the fact that Fraser couldn’t carry Harrison’s Ford’s hat, combined with a deliberately PG lilt, means that while The Mummy returns is watchable at times, it is nonetheless just another middling piece of disappointment.

Final Rating – 6.5 / 10. At one point a character utters the phrase “There is a fine line between coincidence and fate”, and an even finer one between ‘blockbuster’ and ‘waste of money’.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

Now where were we?

That’s right. Hubbie and wife Mummy unearthing combo Rick and Evy O’Connell had just re-revived the ancient undead, which necessitated much screaming, bug-eyed staring and pointless kinetic movements to repel all sorts of PG computer assisted beasties and monsters.

After over three cinematic hours of this they apparently grew as tired of it as I did and decided to pull up stumps for a while in their stately manor.

However innocent movie-goers don’t fleece themselves, so after some hackneyed events of convenience Rick and (new) Evy (no longer Rachel Weisz, now decidedly less interesting Maria Bello) arrive in China, just in time to become embroiled in the latest mummy related shenanigans.

This time the mummy in question is an ancient Chinese emperor (Jet Li), cursed and immobilised forever – along with his thousands of loyal soldiers – patiently waiting for his curse to be lifted. This day comes when the O’Connell’s son Alex, now grown and still every bit as annoying, manages to circumvent numerous booby traps and guards to free the emperor from his underground prison.

And it’s only a hop, skip and a glowing orb before the Emperor is wreaking havoc in the Chinese streets with his undead horse and buggy combo.

Now it seems the three O’Connells and a cute female Chinese guard charged with protecting the tomb must prevent the now spritely Emperor from freeing his earthen army and laying waste to one and all.

Might I pause here for a moment to suggest that while it is indeed noble and very worthy that the O’Connells keep battling these fiendish and exceedingly dangerous undead foes, you can’t help but think that they are usually responsible for the perils becoming unleashed in the first place!

The last hour involves the usual running, screaming and bug-eying, and while it might be a bit rich to accuse a series about ancient undead people coming to life of going too far, but seriously, Yetis?

Amazingly enough this film manages once again to very nearly entertain at times thanks to some of the most overt mimicking of segments in the great Indiana Jones films. Thanks to this theft it matches the second film in the trilogy in terms of adequacy.

Final Rating – 6.5 / 10. Mmmmmm… adequacy. Another example of instantly forgettable kid’s stuff marketed to adults.

Trilogy summary: Like the Transporter series the Mummy films are remembered with way more fondness and credit than they deserve, to the point where they become MILF films. Movies I’d Like (to) Forget.

Posted in Film, Superstars & Movie Marathons | Leave a comment

Sherlock Holmes – A Game of Shadows (Review)

Yep, poster didn't help to drum up biz...

Look, I know the literary version of Sherlock Holmes rarely if ever engaged in life or death fisticuffs, even if he were able to deduce the immediate future he probably didn’t engage slo-mo in his visions. Though the novels didn’t make it explicitly clear he more than likely wasn’t much chop at parkour.

But that was the literary version of what I might add is a fictional character. This is the cinematic version. You don’t sell many tickets pandering to a generation that loves the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, you need a bit more spice than that.

The first of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes films slipped by me, though to be fair I hardly went out of my way to capture it. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I quite unexpectedly enjoyed the flick. For some reason though that didn’t translate into me eagerly awaiting this sequel.

Once again I let this pass by while I spent good money on The Muppets (worth it), The Inbetweeners (OK) and The US Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (vomit).

This is a better film than any of them, and nearly as much fun as the Muppets.

It is 1891. Europe stands on a knife edge of political unrest with a series of inflammatory acts by extremists and radicals pushing tensions to almost breaking point.

It seems that a World War is imminent, it just needs one little nudge to set it off…

Sherlock (Robert Downey Jr) is still around. Still quick with a joke, quick with his fists and of course unbelievably quick with the old noodle. This time around he has fallen in love with a disguise or two. He is also still as mad as a bag full of Kanye’s, seemingly having lost the plot even more than usual. As the film opens he comes across as a Beautiful Mind crossed with the Number 23…

Sherlock believes firmly that these apparently random terrorist acts and assassinations are the brainchild of one man, Professor James Morairty (Jared Harris). No-one believes him of course. It doesn’t help his claim that Moriarty is apparently an all round good guy, respected by all and even consulted on matters of national security on top of being a mathemagenuis.

But this doesn’t deter Sherlock, he deliberately waylays the honeymoon of Dr Watson (Jude Law), starting at the buck’s party, and together the duo set off on an adventure all over Europe to get discover the extent of Moriarty’s plans and the reasons behind them.

Rachel McAdams appears once again as Irene Adler in a role that is little more than a cameo. This time around the female lead is none other than Lizbeth Salander herself Noomi Rapace, as the gypsy Madam Sim, who unknowingly holds the key to breaking the case. Stephen Fry is also introduced as Holmes’ similarly loquacious, pretentious and almost as brilliantly intelligent (and lunatic) brother Mycroft.

With Holmes and Moriarty being eggheads at heart these gentlemanly combatants can go head to head and face to face numerous times without the credits scrolling shortly after. This is because the film plays out like the chess game that is a little shoehorned into proceedings before being launched proper near the finale. The sparring that takes place throughout the film is ever so polite and carefully worded as hero and nemesis openly discuss both their own plans and the expected counter-actions of their foe without fear of anything as crude and improper as physical violence.

It also helps that this time around the mumbling Holmes that frustrated me so in the first film has been replaced by a version that more clearly enunciates his dialogue. My ears quite appreciated this tweak.

But enough about the polite smart guys vying for mental and intellectual dominance, the best features of this film are in the action. With Lock, Stock… Snatch and Rock’N’Rolla Guy Ritchie has proven he has a knack for snappy dialogue, the Sherlock films prove that he is getting a lot better at producing blockbuster action.

Once again the centrepiece of the film starts with a beautiful big-ass explosion, which is then followed closely by a frankly awesome chase sequence through the nearby woods. Kinetic and furious, the scene is immaculately filmed and punctuated with several gorgeous super slo-mo moments and some of the trickiest camerawork that I can remember.

This one sequence makes the film worthy of a solid recommendation, but the remainder of the film is solid too.

I ignored the first Sherlock film for too long, catching it some months after it was released to DVD. That was my bad – more fool me. This film is even better, with only a couple of ill defined characters holding it back from greatness, (unfortunately the gypsy Sim is one of them). Again I waited until the DVD to catch it.

Fool me once, shame on you Sherlock. Fool me twice…

I won’t be making the same mistake thrice. If Mr Holmes and Doc Watson once again grace the big screen – and I for one hope they do – I will this time be lining up for tix.

Final Rating – 8 / 10. Sherlock might not do as much deducin’ as he did in the books, but he is just as entertaining in other ways. With the lamentable state of blockbusters these days it’s a shame that this film didn’t get more attention, (from me also).

Posted in Film, Movie Reviews, OGR Recommends, Worthwhile Movies | Leave a comment

The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford (Review)

My notes to this film have the heading ‘Commercial Suicide’, after all who gives away practically the entire plot and the ending in the title?

I mean if the writers of this film decided to remake some classics we might just have;

  • - The Titanic hits an iceberg and inks. Then Jack dies.
  • - An Extra-Terrestrial comes to Earth, befriends some kids, changes their lives and eventually gets home.
  • - Andy is wrongly imprisoned and touches many lives. He eventually escapes & buddy Red gets out too.
  • - There are a bunch of space battles and Darth Vader turns out to be Luke’s Father.
  • - A kid sees dead people. His psychiatrist Bruce Willis is one of them.

In any case the film itself is an excellent – albeit overlong – character study that might have generated more business were it not for the fact that punters had to pause for a sip of water before they could get the title out at the ticket counter.

The film follows the last stages of the famed James gang who terrorised the United States for years, yet as often happens managed to become folk heroes in the process. When we meet Jesse James (Brad Pitt) and brother Frank (Sam Shepard), it is clear that they are past their prime as a fearsome unit, relying on past glories to keep their aura alive. Aside from Jesse and Frank though the gang members are a ragtag bunch of sketchy hacks and scrubs, among whom are the brother’s cousin Wood (Jeremy Renner), and two other brothers Charley (Sam Rockwell) and Robert Ford (Casey Affleck).

Aside from a very early train heist that shows Jesse’s true capabilities and the willingness to use unnecessary violence the film is largely about the changing relationship between Jesse and Robert Ford, who starts out a longtime ardent devotee of the renowned criminal, before as the title spells out cooling off on the man to the point where gunning him
down becomes an alternative.

Ford starts out a just happy to be there over eager hero-worshipper, breathlessly reminding Jesse of events from the past and moving perilously close to professing his love for the man, which the non-James guys remind him of when he gets ahead of himself. In these early scenes Jesse is still very much ‘the Man’, cool and menacing even at times when his guard is down, yet still capable of snap decisions culminating in brutal violence. During periods of time when the James gang weren’t actively ‘working’ Jesse nonetheless randomly showed up at the member’s homes, just to stand around and strike the fear of god into them.

Eventually Robert and Charley become semi-regulars in Jesse’s ever changing cast of fellow criminals, though it is clear and apparent to one and all that Jesse is also on the wane, physically and mentally. And he knows it too.

The film contains many long scenes with sparse dialogue, providing an ever increasing sense of the emptiness and isolation that Jesse feels, and similarly the changing in Ford’s attitude to his one time idol. At a certain point it becomes evident to both as to the
inevitable end to their relationship – perhaps because they too took the time required to read the title…

If films charged by running time this would have been a $50 ticket at 2 and ½ hours. Amazingly though the initial cut was a mind melting 4 hours plus! With an hour required to even read the title that is a genuine commitment to watch a film that gives away the ending on the poster. The film spends altogether too long dwelling on the period elapsing after the titular event, and if the title alone didn’t give it away it doesn’t shy away from casting judgment as to who is the lesser of the two men. In fact the sober voiceover narration calmly informs us that the descendants of Jesse James believe that this is exactly how it went down, despite the fact that the film shows none of them present at the time of the… unpleasantness.

As a non-American I tend not to get too caught up in canonising killers and lionising reprobates, so I see this film as a version of what might have happened, perhaps at best something as factual as possible given the information available. As it stands The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford is an interesting film covering a
declining relationship.

Final Rating – 7.5 / 10. A very well made film, very well acted, but not really very necessary.

Posted in Film, Worthwhile Movies | Leave a comment

A History of Violence (Review)

"OK so it WAS a gun in your pocket..."

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a well known, well liked small town café manager.
Or is he?

He works long hours, knows all his customers – and they know him – and has a loving wife (Maria Bello) and two kids.
Or does he??

Stall is a humble quiet man who it seems wouldn’t hurt a fly.
Or is he???

While the answer to all the above questions is actually “Yes”, what A History of Violence actually asks is ‘did he always’.

When Stall finds himself, his staff and customers confronted by cold-blooded criminals threatening all sorts of nasty just prior to closing shop one evening, he swiftly takes action and nullifies the risk… By expertly disarming and killing both assailants.

Stall’s actions bring all sorts of media attention and public recognition, including a couple reluctant interviews and unwanted stories lauding his unexpected act.

Unfortunately for Stall and family, this short term media attention brings new visitors to the town, visitors that saw the TV items and feel that they know more about Tom Stall than everyone else in the town, including his own wife and family. The initial visit is lead by Carl (Ed Harris), a menacing, well dressed man with extensive facial disfigurement who refers to Stall as nothing other than Joey from Philly, something Tom from not-Philly writes off as mistaken identity.

But Carl is not easily dissuaded, and his dogged determination and line of questioning is both disconcerting to Stall and his loving wife. Surely Tom is nothing more than a hard working everyman and not the cold blooded murderer Carl describes.

The man who he alleges is responsible for rearranging his face.

The film features some solid acting (William Hurt shows up to play a role that’s against his normal ‘type’), has a couple of unexpectedly violent and gory moments and some even more unexpected sex scenes. My problem with A History of Violence is for a film that wants to be realistic no-one actually acts in realistic fashion. In fact the more you think about things the less realistic it all becomes…

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

David Cronenberg has made a career out of seeing things just a little differently from everyone else. But it seems in later years he has eschewed the more way-out themes of body part distortion and straight up weirdness – yet retained the occasional sudden burst of violence – and with this film and Eastern Promises has secured a little more box office success to add to the reasonably consistent critical acclaim.

If anything though I think that the fact critics came clamouring to congratulate Cronenberg for the more recent films emanated from the fact that they didn’t fully understand his earlier work, but so wanted to admire it.

I am no different, I wanted to like some of his earlier efforts yet couldn’t embrace them wholeheartedly, especially Videodrome, Dead Ringers and eXistenZ (I found Crash exploitative rubbish).

An almost-mainstream film like A History of Violence is just more easy to understand, so perhaps the knee jerk reaction was ‘hey we get this one, so even if it isn’t great let’s talk it up, because we might never get one this straightforward again!

A History of Violence is solid, well acted and boasts a couple of memorable moments, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves people.

Final Rating – 6.5 / 10. The ingredients are in place: A ‘name’ director and solid cast, along with a reasonable premise and some effective scenes, but that doesn’t alone justify the moist fawning this film seemed to engender upon release.

Posted in Film, Worthwhile Movies | Leave a comment

Drop Zone (Review)

Screams "We got nuthin but Wesley for ya".

I liked Drop Zone better when it was called Point Break, it had more action, a few more jokes, and Gary Busey was on the other side. It also wasn’t confined to the ‘this will always be the cutting edge of danger… until the X-Games are invented’ world of sky diving.

Even though it is very nearly 20 years old Drop Zone opens with an Oprah joke, I wonder if in another 20 years the kids will wonder who the one they call Lady Ga-Ga is?

While performing a taxi-service by taking a white collar computer-genius criminal to trial, US Marshalls come under attack by terrorists who hi-jack the plane, killing one of the Marshalls in the process. (It is strange in this pre 9/11 world to see the guns galore emerging as the plane is taken over.)

The partner of the slain Marshall happened to be his brother Pete (Wesley Snipes), he lands to find that the cops are inexplicably blaming the many civilian deaths upon his dead brother. Ummmm didn’t the cops think to ask some of the passengers what happened? What about the pilots or crew?

Regardless of logic Pete finds himself suspended and decides to pursue the real men responsible, something that the FBI has not bothered with as they have assumed that no-one could survive the fall from a 747 – parachute or not.

So Pete ‘dives’ into the close-knit world of competitive sky-diving and all the death defying colourful characters that inhabit it. Fortunately the very first person he runs into – the bushy eye-browed, smoky voiced Jessie – seems to know everyone, including the criminal types that Pete is hunting (though that fact remains unbeknownst to both for a while).

Despite the fact that no-one thinks to ask Pete exactly why he needs to be a competitive sky-diver in order to locate his prey Pete does just that, joining Jessie’s crew for an upcoming demonstration over a major US capital city, the same big jump that the nefarious types are using as cover for their own shenanigans.

What ensues is a never ending series of hijinks, sabotage and near misses, which culminate in the inevitable show down between Pete and the good parachute jumping guys and the bad parachute jumping guys, lead by Gary Busey as Ty, all with the ‘gee can you believe these guys are so damn death defying theme’ as a backdrop.

While it is not their fault that the special effects limitations of the early 90s production time result in some shonky moments in the climactic stages, it does hamper the effectiveness of the film. Not that Drop Zone is any great shakes in any case, I might label it Point Break in the air, but that might unfairly lead you to expect some decent action scenes when in fact this is not the case.

Final Rating – 6 / 10. At the time they were trying to hype up Wesley Snipes as the next big action star to take the reins from Arnie and Sly, they did him no favours with this roman candle (google it).

Posted in Film | Leave a comment