Brick director Rian Johnson delivers up his sophomore effort with The Brothers Bloom – a slick and classy con artist pic with some great performances but too many quirks to be a classic of the genre.
Orphaned brothers Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrien Brody) bounced from one foster home to the next as children – a lifestyle spurred on my intricately-planned cons like that which starts the film. 25 years later, the dramatics have reached fever pitch but the same problems remain – Stephen loves the thrill of the con while Bloom is terrified that he has never had a genuine moment in a life of deceit. Together with their mostly mute explosives expert Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi), the brothers take on one last job which Stephen promises will finally give Bloom what he really wants. The target – Rachel Weisz’s Penelope; a rich shut-in with a hundred expert hobbies and no sense of reality.
The Brothers Bloom lays on the charm from the outset – building the symbiotic relationship between the leads through scenes of expertly narrated visual poetry. The first adult con is gloriously unveiled and luring in Weisz heiress is done stylishly and with good humour, as the audience is slowly embroiled in a convoluted plan which sees her join the gang of 'art smugglers' as they set off on a picturesque criminal world tour - taking in Montenegro, Prague and Romania. Inevitable romantic
complications and devilish twists arise as we wend our way towards the dramatic finale.
It’s clear that Johnson has a love of genre films – Brick was his ode to film noir and The Brother Bloom seems just as enamoured with the con movie. The problem is that the best con artist films are as complex as the criminal plans themselves and while the film is technically impressive and all the genre elements are in their proper place there’s one important part missing. The best con films are just as concerned with fooling the audience as the mark, but we never feel that The Brothers Bloom is really getting under our skin.
Thankfully, the cast are excellent - particularly Weisz who captures Penelope's unusual mix of naiveté and experienced hobbyist while looking absolutely stunning and pulling off skateboard and card tricks with aplomb. Kikuchi's near silent performance should be laughable but she brings a huge amount of personality to a mute pyromaniac and Ruffalo seems to be having a lot of fun as the scheming Stephen. Only Brody is a tad disappointing - he's a world class brooder and the intense scenes are note perfect but has some trouble with the films many lighter moments.
The Brothers Bloom is a fun caper flick with some gorgeous images and a memorable performance from Rachel Weisz. But its not as clever as you would like it to be and the endlessly quirky tone ultimately distracts from the potentially dramatic twists of the finale. There's no doubt Johnson is a talented filmmaker but maybe this project was a little too ambitious for an inexperienced director.
3/5
28.5.10
REVIEW - [REC] 2
Sequel to the 2007 shocker, this second film picks up minutes later, as an armed SWAT team is sent in with a medical officer to find out what exactly is going on in the quarantined apartment building.
Rec was a brilliant exercise in first person terror, playing with the limits of a single perspective to create an unnerving action/horror with a genuinely unsettling finale. The sequel ramps up the pace from the very beginning and changes the rules by sending in our heroes armed to the teeth and forewarned about some of the dangers inside. It's a welcome change, ensuring that Rec 2 isn't a typical horror sequel with the same scares in a different location.
But it also robs the film of some of its tension, forcing the directors to fabricate reasons to make the response team vulnerable. Some work, like a moment when one squad member is isolated in a duct and pursued by a shadowy form, but several other contrivances just make this elite team of killers seem like imbeciles. And don't get me started on the idiotic trio of kids who improbably sneak into the building in a parallel story clearly introduced to pad out the running time. The creeping dread is also lessened by endless scenes of exposition made necessary by the new supernatural, pseudo-religious explanation for the horrors taking place. These elements did make an appearance in the first film but when Rec 2 briefly decides to turn into The Exorcist, it threatens to lose its audience.
Happily, there's still a ferocious energy to the proceedings, and directing team Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza clearly had a much bigger budget to play with this time. Squibs explode everywhere, deaths are impressively gory (particularly some underage headshots) and there are several impressively staged first-person moments, courtesy of the SWAT teams helmet cams. But they also overstretch their abilities, particularly as the film draws to a close and nightvision becomes essential to driving the story forward. It's a great concept but, layered on top of so much extraneous narrative and technical feats, it overcomplicates what should be an exercise in pure terror.
Watchable and technically impressive, Rec 2 is so busy trying to impress its audience that it forgets it's supposed to scare them too.
REVIEW - Prince of Persia The Sands of Time
When adopted Prince Dastan leads his father’s army in a successful attack on an enemy stronghold, he earns the acclaim of the people. But when his father his assassinated and Dastan framed for the murder, he goes on the run with the cities Princess and a seemingly innocuous dagger in tow. Little does he know that together they have the power to erase the terrible recent events, or destroy the world.
Based in part on the 2003 video game and featuring one of the genres most revered characters, Prince of Persia is as close as you can get to video game royalty. After our chat last month with creator and co-writer Jordan Mechner we were confident that The Sands of Time would be a step above the average, video game adaptation.
And it certainly is – arguably marking the first time that a proper narrative film has been successfully inspired by game material, bolstered by some stunning visuals, a massive production budget and a top drawer cast.
It’s a progression for the sub-genre then, no doubt helped by steering clear of the plot of the games, instead focussing on creating a vivid adventure, complete with its own mythologies and supernatural items. Chief among them is the Dagger of Time – in the games it allowed the Prince to steal back a precious few temporal seconds in the event of imminent death. In the film it becomes a doomsday device, protected for centuries by a clan of guardians, with Gemma Arterton’s Tamina the latest in the line. The Dagger is the crux of the film; in the wrong hands it could unleash the sands from the Hourglass of the Gods and destroy the world or rewrite history.
The problem here is that the mythology is opaque and unfamiliar, leaving the audience adrift. The powers of the Dagger themselves are limited, ill-defined and a little pointless. The time-reversing sequences in the film are attractive to look at but nothing more – we aren’t given time to linger on the awesomeness of being able to manipulate time. And the power is rarely used to compliment the action – more often by accident or to prove a point. Apart from one decent moment with a snake attack, it misses the appeal completely of knowing that you have a lifeline, of being able to make an incredible leap of faith without the possibility of death.
Naturally enough, the film looks dazzling, with massive sets and decent CG that is a little cartoonish but makes up for it with the scale of the Persian cities it recreates. But too little use is made of these massive sets and locations and the Parkour-inspired running and vaulting of the games is almost entirely absent, despite its obvious appeal to an action/adventure film. The Prince is too often saddled with a whinging side-kick and further hampered by Gyllenhaal’s minimal physical prowess. He may be newly buff and acquits himself reasonably well in the swordplay but he’s too bulky for the copious acrobatics, forcing the film to resort to judicious editing to make his actions seem fluid. Apart from an opening fortress assault, there are few memorable set pieces and a focus in the final act on remarkably dull one-on-one fights. It’s not helped by the sudden introduction of a band of comically villainous Hassansin warriors who appear to have magical powers just because they can.
When he’s not flailing around like a reject from Cirque Du Soleil, Jake Gyllenhaal is almost brilliant as Dastan. His faintly Cockney accent rarely slips and despite looking decidedly un-Persian he’s an easy-going lead with some decent comic timing. It’s just a shame he shares most of his quip-heavy scenes with the increasingly dull Arterton, who presents all her dialogue without a hint of inflection, irony or humour. Most of the time she stands there looking like a fake-tanned, anorexic guppy while Gyllenhaal tries his best to wring some bitchy rapport from the proceedings. Toby Kebbell and Richard Coyle (that Welsh one from ‘Coupling’) are decent as Dastan’s brothers and Ben Kingsley seems lost as their uncle. The only consistently entertaining performance comes from Alfred Molina’s Sheik Amar, who rails against taxes and conjures up massive conspiracy theories. It may be anachronistic but at least he has some token personality.
And it’s that personality which is missing most from The Sands of Time, particularly if Bruckheimer expect this series to be the new Pirates of the Caribbean. But there’s none of the latter films’ quirkiness here, no bizarre but accessible characters and none of its self-aware charm. But crucially Gyllenhaal, though a fine actor, is no Johnny Depp and the lack of a compelling central character is the biggest barrier to the film’s success.
As a blockbuster summer adventure movie, The Sands of Time is only intermittently successful. While I was watching, I couldn’t help seeing it as a symptom of the increasingly strained relationship between the audience and the viewer, of films that cost so much money to make that they strive to appeal to every possible demographic and end up satisfying no one.
Take, for example, the need to make things complicated. This is fundamentally a kid’s film and yet the filmmakers feel the need for conspiracies and plot twists. The villain changes no less than three times, despite it being obvious from the start that Kingsley will be the eventual evil-supremo – he spends so much time wearing eyeliner and looking arch that it’s almost a relief when he finally reveals his nefarious plans. But it’s supposed to be a family adventure, with clearly defined good and evil. We don’t even get a band of heroes to cheer for until the closing minutes and their eventual demise is edited down to nothing; a better film would have milked a late-on sacrifice to tear-jerking climax but director Mike Newell is too busy rocketing towards the CG overload of the finale.
It would be easy to give The Sands of Time a pass as a mostly competent action adventure which raises the bar for game adaptations but is that really all we can hope for from our summer blockbusters? That they aren’t as bad as we were expecting? The action is pedestrian and edited into rarely coherent shreds and the central conceit of the film, the accursed dagger, actively negates any peril by leaving us assured that even death can be reversed. The heartstrings barely ripple as we see characters fall by the wayside, safe in the knowledge that they’ll return. Oh and the score blatantly rips off better themes from Pirates... and The Mummy.
Based in part on the 2003 video game and featuring one of the genres most revered characters, Prince of Persia is as close as you can get to video game royalty. After our chat last month with creator and co-writer Jordan Mechner we were confident that The Sands of Time would be a step above the average, video game adaptation.
And it certainly is – arguably marking the first time that a proper narrative film has been successfully inspired by game material, bolstered by some stunning visuals, a massive production budget and a top drawer cast.
It’s a progression for the sub-genre then, no doubt helped by steering clear of the plot of the games, instead focussing on creating a vivid adventure, complete with its own mythologies and supernatural items. Chief among them is the Dagger of Time – in the games it allowed the Prince to steal back a precious few temporal seconds in the event of imminent death. In the film it becomes a doomsday device, protected for centuries by a clan of guardians, with Gemma Arterton’s Tamina the latest in the line. The Dagger is the crux of the film; in the wrong hands it could unleash the sands from the Hourglass of the Gods and destroy the world or rewrite history.
The problem here is that the mythology is opaque and unfamiliar, leaving the audience adrift. The powers of the Dagger themselves are limited, ill-defined and a little pointless. The time-reversing sequences in the film are attractive to look at but nothing more – we aren’t given time to linger on the awesomeness of being able to manipulate time. And the power is rarely used to compliment the action – more often by accident or to prove a point. Apart from one decent moment with a snake attack, it misses the appeal completely of knowing that you have a lifeline, of being able to make an incredible leap of faith without the possibility of death.
Naturally enough, the film looks dazzling, with massive sets and decent CG that is a little cartoonish but makes up for it with the scale of the Persian cities it recreates. But too little use is made of these massive sets and locations and the Parkour-inspired running and vaulting of the games is almost entirely absent, despite its obvious appeal to an action/adventure film. The Prince is too often saddled with a whinging side-kick and further hampered by Gyllenhaal’s minimal physical prowess. He may be newly buff and acquits himself reasonably well in the swordplay but he’s too bulky for the copious acrobatics, forcing the film to resort to judicious editing to make his actions seem fluid. Apart from an opening fortress assault, there are few memorable set pieces and a focus in the final act on remarkably dull one-on-one fights. It’s not helped by the sudden introduction of a band of comically villainous Hassansin warriors who appear to have magical powers just because they can.
When he’s not flailing around like a reject from Cirque Du Soleil, Jake Gyllenhaal is almost brilliant as Dastan. His faintly Cockney accent rarely slips and despite looking decidedly un-Persian he’s an easy-going lead with some decent comic timing. It’s just a shame he shares most of his quip-heavy scenes with the increasingly dull Arterton, who presents all her dialogue without a hint of inflection, irony or humour. Most of the time she stands there looking like a fake-tanned, anorexic guppy while Gyllenhaal tries his best to wring some bitchy rapport from the proceedings. Toby Kebbell and Richard Coyle (that Welsh one from ‘Coupling’) are decent as Dastan’s brothers and Ben Kingsley seems lost as their uncle. The only consistently entertaining performance comes from Alfred Molina’s Sheik Amar, who rails against taxes and conjures up massive conspiracy theories. It may be anachronistic but at least he has some token personality.
And it’s that personality which is missing most from The Sands of Time, particularly if Bruckheimer expect this series to be the new Pirates of the Caribbean. But there’s none of the latter films’ quirkiness here, no bizarre but accessible characters and none of its self-aware charm. But crucially Gyllenhaal, though a fine actor, is no Johnny Depp and the lack of a compelling central character is the biggest barrier to the film’s success.
As a blockbuster summer adventure movie, The Sands of Time is only intermittently successful. While I was watching, I couldn’t help seeing it as a symptom of the increasingly strained relationship between the audience and the viewer, of films that cost so much money to make that they strive to appeal to every possible demographic and end up satisfying no one.
Take, for example, the need to make things complicated. This is fundamentally a kid’s film and yet the filmmakers feel the need for conspiracies and plot twists. The villain changes no less than three times, despite it being obvious from the start that Kingsley will be the eventual evil-supremo – he spends so much time wearing eyeliner and looking arch that it’s almost a relief when he finally reveals his nefarious plans. But it’s supposed to be a family adventure, with clearly defined good and evil. We don’t even get a band of heroes to cheer for until the closing minutes and their eventual demise is edited down to nothing; a better film would have milked a late-on sacrifice to tear-jerking climax but director Mike Newell is too busy rocketing towards the CG overload of the finale.
It would be easy to give The Sands of Time a pass as a mostly competent action adventure which raises the bar for game adaptations but is that really all we can hope for from our summer blockbusters? That they aren’t as bad as we were expecting? The action is pedestrian and edited into rarely coherent shreds and the central conceit of the film, the accursed dagger, actively negates any peril by leaving us assured that even death can be reversed. The heartstrings barely ripple as we see characters fall by the wayside, safe in the knowledge that they’ll return. Oh and the score blatantly rips off better themes from Pirates... and The Mummy.
REVIEW - The Losers
Betrayed by their government and presumed dead, The Losers drop off the radar to try to escape from their past. But when the opportunity arises to strike back at the man who tried to kill them, they head home to steal back their lives.
Maybe I was foolish to look forward to The Losers. The polished trailer promised slick pyrotechnics and a some action-packed wit, while a browse of issue 1 of Andy Diggle’s comic promised a gritty revenge thriller with a fantastic array of hard-bitten characters.
The film starts well, despite feeling a pointless need to give us comic book panel versions of the leads, as our five man team waits in the jungle, guiding an air-strike in on the camp of an evil drug-lord. The one note code of honour as they break ranks to rescue a bunch of kids was fine, as was the escape through the jungle in a clapped out school bus and the resulting explosion. It was the cloying sentimentality as the kids are led to a rescue chopper that first weakened my resolve, while the event which directly followed shattered it completely with its vulgarity, leaving me reeling for all the wrong reasons.
And that just the first few missteps by the filmmakers. One minute, the leads will be beating the crap out of eachother as a sublimation of camaraderie or sex while the next Jason Patric will be launching people off buildings and shooting them in the face for laughs. The cast are appearing in wildly different films – Idris Elba thinks he’s in a dark drama, Patric’s in a Naked Gun film while Chris Evans is the comic relief in a competent action film. And Jeffrey Dean Morgan, so effective as The Comedian in Watchmen, is still in his trailer learning his lines while watching reruns of his better performance in ‘Greys Anatomy’.
It’s a shame because when The Losers is knee deep in a halfway decent set piece (admittedly all borrowed from the comic) and the ensemble cast are bouncing one-liners off each other it can be a lot of fun. But even then it too often shoots itself in the foot – first by choosing to go the PG-13 route (some violence and bad language would have least given it a little personality) and secondly due to the barely TV-worthy staging. Apart from the haphazard, freeze-frame heavy editing, each encounter is set up with a minimum of style and shoddy effects work, particularly in a last minute plane crash, further lessens the impact. Stomp the Yard director White simply doesn’t have the experience to wrangle this large cast and deliver a flippant actioner at the same time – instead opting to do neither.
The Losers had great potential as an early summer slice of mindless action. The cast is brilliant (though we would have swapped Elba with Morgan), it’s nice to see Saldana has some range and Chris Evans regains his mantle of a budget-range Ryan Reynolds. But Patric’s take on the supposed evil genius Max is insufferable and the film is scrappily directed. Maybe if co-writer Peter Berg had taken the reins we might have had another guilty pleasure like his underrated 2003 effort Welcome to the Jungle.
If you’ve got a problem, if no one else can help... stick with The A-Team.
Maybe I was foolish to look forward to The Losers. The polished trailer promised slick pyrotechnics and a some action-packed wit, while a browse of issue 1 of Andy Diggle’s comic promised a gritty revenge thriller with a fantastic array of hard-bitten characters.
The film starts well, despite feeling a pointless need to give us comic book panel versions of the leads, as our five man team waits in the jungle, guiding an air-strike in on the camp of an evil drug-lord. The one note code of honour as they break ranks to rescue a bunch of kids was fine, as was the escape through the jungle in a clapped out school bus and the resulting explosion. It was the cloying sentimentality as the kids are led to a rescue chopper that first weakened my resolve, while the event which directly followed shattered it completely with its vulgarity, leaving me reeling for all the wrong reasons.
And that just the first few missteps by the filmmakers. One minute, the leads will be beating the crap out of eachother as a sublimation of camaraderie or sex while the next Jason Patric will be launching people off buildings and shooting them in the face for laughs. The cast are appearing in wildly different films – Idris Elba thinks he’s in a dark drama, Patric’s in a Naked Gun film while Chris Evans is the comic relief in a competent action film. And Jeffrey Dean Morgan, so effective as The Comedian in Watchmen, is still in his trailer learning his lines while watching reruns of his better performance in ‘Greys Anatomy’.
It’s a shame because when The Losers is knee deep in a halfway decent set piece (admittedly all borrowed from the comic) and the ensemble cast are bouncing one-liners off each other it can be a lot of fun. But even then it too often shoots itself in the foot – first by choosing to go the PG-13 route (some violence and bad language would have least given it a little personality) and secondly due to the barely TV-worthy staging. Apart from the haphazard, freeze-frame heavy editing, each encounter is set up with a minimum of style and shoddy effects work, particularly in a last minute plane crash, further lessens the impact. Stomp the Yard director White simply doesn’t have the experience to wrangle this large cast and deliver a flippant actioner at the same time – instead opting to do neither.
The Losers had great potential as an early summer slice of mindless action. The cast is brilliant (though we would have swapped Elba with Morgan), it’s nice to see Saldana has some range and Chris Evans regains his mantle of a budget-range Ryan Reynolds. But Patric’s take on the supposed evil genius Max is insufferable and the film is scrappily directed. Maybe if co-writer Peter Berg had taken the reins we might have had another guilty pleasure like his underrated 2003 effort Welcome to the Jungle.
If you’ve got a problem, if no one else can help... stick with The A-Team.
14.5.10
REVIEW - Robin Hood
When Robin Longstride (Crowe) returns to 12th Century England from the Crusades to fulfil a promise to a dying man, he finds himself trapped in a country destroyed by taxation and threatened with invasion by France. When the newly crowned King John begins to steal from his own people, the lords of the land unite against their crown – while a greater enemy lurks to the south.
Oscar-winning lead Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott reteam for the fifth time for a take on one of the most enduring legends in English history. But this is not a story of Merry Men loose in the wilds of Sherwood Forest, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. This re-imagining steps back from that much adapted tale to give us a glimpse at the events which led to the birth of Robin of the Hood.
And who better to tackle a period action drama with a heady mixture of myth and history than the team behind the stupendous Gladiator and almost-worthy Kingdom of Heaven. Scott is a director who creates world’s that feel utterly real and Robin Hood is no exception. From the opening, tactically-rich siege of a French castle, through incredible recreations of medieval London and all the way to the massive final battle, the attention to detail is incredible.
More problematic is the story. While Scott and his gaggle of screenwriters should be commended for giving us a new perspective on the overly familiar tale they simply take their changes too far. The reason the Robin Hood legend has endured for so long is because it is a brilliant tale of a small band of adventurers taking on the might of the establishment. By widening the scope of the story, adding political intrigue and the possibility of French invasion, we lose the thrilling fight of the few against the many and the mythical tale of one man who tried to redress the imbalance between the wealthy and the impoverished (surely a timely theme).
This wouldn’t be such a problem if the period epic we are left with was a little more sprightly. At almost two and a half hours long, there’s little for the audience to sink their teeth into. The more realistic scale means it lacks the awesome spectacle of Kingdom of Heaven and the decision to make it suitable for little ‘uns means there aren’t even delicious scenes of dismemberment to keep us entertained. When Robin Hood ramps up to its historically-fabricated finale (a blatant, medieval version of the Normandy landings) it’s a pretty measly collection of drab soldier types, hacking away in bloodless fashion for a few moments before a hideously easy rout.
Crowe is fine as Robin, with an accent that occasionally takes a holiday around the north of England but there’s not enough meat on the Longstride character to keep the audience engaged. The cast arrayed around him is undoubtedly impressive but the character bloat means few are given time to distinguish himself – even the normally dependable Mark Strong flits by as a one note evil dude with a scar. It’s left to Cate Blanchett to steal the film completely; her Marion may be a little older than the norm but she looks absolutely stunning in the role and hits each emotional and mildly humorous note perfectly, selling the burgeoning romance with Longstride despite limited screentime.
Robin Hood is an attractive period epic which gets by on its performances rather than its spectacle. Scott’s attention to detail is impressive but the film often seems torn between a serious tone and some broad comedy – like Mark Addy’s Friar Tuck who attacks the invading French with bees and saucepans. There are marks of extensive trimming (a montage of towns sacked for taxes looks like something from the History Channel) and the fights are small, bloodless and lacking in any sense of peril. Ultimately, it lacks the enjoyable histrionics and spectacle of Gladiator and proves that the birth of the legend isn’t nearly as interesting as the legend itself.
3/5
Oscar-winning lead Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott reteam for the fifth time for a take on one of the most enduring legends in English history. But this is not a story of Merry Men loose in the wilds of Sherwood Forest, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. This re-imagining steps back from that much adapted tale to give us a glimpse at the events which led to the birth of Robin of the Hood.
And who better to tackle a period action drama with a heady mixture of myth and history than the team behind the stupendous Gladiator and almost-worthy Kingdom of Heaven. Scott is a director who creates world’s that feel utterly real and Robin Hood is no exception. From the opening, tactically-rich siege of a French castle, through incredible recreations of medieval London and all the way to the massive final battle, the attention to detail is incredible.
More problematic is the story. While Scott and his gaggle of screenwriters should be commended for giving us a new perspective on the overly familiar tale they simply take their changes too far. The reason the Robin Hood legend has endured for so long is because it is a brilliant tale of a small band of adventurers taking on the might of the establishment. By widening the scope of the story, adding political intrigue and the possibility of French invasion, we lose the thrilling fight of the few against the many and the mythical tale of one man who tried to redress the imbalance between the wealthy and the impoverished (surely a timely theme).
This wouldn’t be such a problem if the period epic we are left with was a little more sprightly. At almost two and a half hours long, there’s little for the audience to sink their teeth into. The more realistic scale means it lacks the awesome spectacle of Kingdom of Heaven and the decision to make it suitable for little ‘uns means there aren’t even delicious scenes of dismemberment to keep us entertained. When Robin Hood ramps up to its historically-fabricated finale (a blatant, medieval version of the Normandy landings) it’s a pretty measly collection of drab soldier types, hacking away in bloodless fashion for a few moments before a hideously easy rout.
Crowe is fine as Robin, with an accent that occasionally takes a holiday around the north of England but there’s not enough meat on the Longstride character to keep the audience engaged. The cast arrayed around him is undoubtedly impressive but the character bloat means few are given time to distinguish himself – even the normally dependable Mark Strong flits by as a one note evil dude with a scar. It’s left to Cate Blanchett to steal the film completely; her Marion may be a little older than the norm but she looks absolutely stunning in the role and hits each emotional and mildly humorous note perfectly, selling the burgeoning romance with Longstride despite limited screentime.
Robin Hood is an attractive period epic which gets by on its performances rather than its spectacle. Scott’s attention to detail is impressive but the film often seems torn between a serious tone and some broad comedy – like Mark Addy’s Friar Tuck who attacks the invading French with bees and saucepans. There are marks of extensive trimming (a montage of towns sacked for taxes looks like something from the History Channel) and the fights are small, bloodless and lacking in any sense of peril. Ultimately, it lacks the enjoyable histrionics and spectacle of Gladiator and proves that the birth of the legend isn’t nearly as interesting as the legend itself.
3/5
10.5.10
Review - Four Lions
Christopher Morris' feature debut is a typically controversial comedy about Islamic fundamentalism in which four Muslim's decide they want to send a message by blowing something up... they just aren't sure what or how. Four Lions is a brave attempt to use comedy to address the very real fears we have of suicide bombers, and Morris and co make some powerful points about the mindlessness of religious or idealistic zeal. It's terrifying to see this group of people who compare the chance to go to heaven to going on a ride at Alton Towers instead of being stuck in the queue and are quick to reference Mortal Kombat as a murder tutorial, working their way towards terrible violence. It's a shame that these potentially strong messages are smothered by a film that is more intent on reaching for farce than illumination. For what it's worth, there are many hilarious moments in Four Lions but the comedy is so broad that it's hard to see beyond it.
4/5
4/5
Review - A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Freddie's back as the Michael Bay-owned Platinum Dunes production company takes another swing at a horror classic. We had relatively high hopes for this revamp, chiefly because the mechanics of the Nightmare series lends itself perfectly to movies which play with the expectations of the audience as much as the cast. 1984's Krueger was a maniacal trickster, flitting through the early scenes in a barrage of fun and often cheesy effects. 2010's version of the character has transformed into a staid movie monster - walking slowly through dank environments before boringly slashing his perma-tanned victims into mincemeat. The jumps are limp, belonging strictly to the cinema of loud noises = scary and an attempt to explain the psychology behind what is going on comes off as merely laboured pseudo-exposition. Worst of all, the kills are uninspired (though the final sting is a winner), the cast utterly forgettable and the modernisation of Freddie's crime more than a little distasteful.
A nightmare you could sleep through.
2/5
A nightmare you could sleep through.
2/5
28.4.10
REVIEW - Iron Man 2
Since outing himself as Iron Man, Tony Stark has become the world’s first openly active superhero – ushering the world into the longest period of peace it has ever known. When a senate hearing insists he hand over his potentially dangerous creations, he arrogantly suggests that no one else could possibly harness the technology. But when a mysterious man shows up at the Monaco Grand Prix and nearly kills Stark, it becomes clear that he can no longer keep Iron Man to himself.
As the sequel to the unexpectedly successful 2008 original, Iron Man 2 (it’s refreshing to not have a ridiculous subtitle) had some big shoes to fill and it does so pretty admirably. Rather than following the normal blockbuster sequel formula of the same, only bigger, it delivers a much more rounded, and slightly darker, experience than the first film. 2010’s Stark is boastful but secretly is slowly being crippled by the machines which have brought him so much fame. Robert Downey Jr. brings his trademark sparkle to the character and there’s more quirks here than you’ll find in a regular comic book film.
The best additions are not one but two villains, something which the first film almost omitted completely. Mickey Rourke’s Ivan (yes, really) is wearing way too much eyeliner and his finale is underwhelming but Sam Rockwell brings layers and laughter to flashy salesman of death Justin Hammer. Gwyneth Paltrow gets a more meaty role this time, Don Cheadle is a personality-free replacement for Terrence Howard and Scarlett Johansson looks great but is totally superfluous - her lone action scene feeling utterly tacked on.
As before, much of the charm of the film comes directly from Downey Jr's performance - even if the constant quippy behaviour is starting to seem repetitive. His motor-mouth is ultimately to the detriment of the film though, as it often gets so bogged down in comedy, exposition and ad-libbing fun that it neglects story progression or, more importantly, action. There are only two major action scenes in Iron Man 2 - the much publicised attack at Monaco and a lengthy, metal on metal finale. The first is sharply crafted, taking Stark out of his suit and putting him in real harms way in a smaller scale set piece that actually creates some token tension. The latter is a bloated series of nondescript suits hitting each other for 15 minutes, which manages to be even more insufferable than the vacuous ending fight in the first film. It's clear that director Jon Favreau has a knack for directing comedy but his action is dull and lacking in personality, geography or danger.
Iron Man 2 is a slightly deeper film than the facile original but also suffers from too many unnecessary characters and inexpertly-directed action. The cast is mostly fun and there are some solid comedy moments but those expecting an action-packed superhero extravaganza will be a mite disappointed.
3/5
[Nostalgia trip - check out what I thought of Iron Man back in 2008 here]
As the sequel to the unexpectedly successful 2008 original, Iron Man 2 (it’s refreshing to not have a ridiculous subtitle) had some big shoes to fill and it does so pretty admirably. Rather than following the normal blockbuster sequel formula of the same, only bigger, it delivers a much more rounded, and slightly darker, experience than the first film. 2010’s Stark is boastful but secretly is slowly being crippled by the machines which have brought him so much fame. Robert Downey Jr. brings his trademark sparkle to the character and there’s more quirks here than you’ll find in a regular comic book film.
The best additions are not one but two villains, something which the first film almost omitted completely. Mickey Rourke’s Ivan (yes, really) is wearing way too much eyeliner and his finale is underwhelming but Sam Rockwell brings layers and laughter to flashy salesman of death Justin Hammer. Gwyneth Paltrow gets a more meaty role this time, Don Cheadle is a personality-free replacement for Terrence Howard and Scarlett Johansson looks great but is totally superfluous - her lone action scene feeling utterly tacked on.
As before, much of the charm of the film comes directly from Downey Jr's performance - even if the constant quippy behaviour is starting to seem repetitive. His motor-mouth is ultimately to the detriment of the film though, as it often gets so bogged down in comedy, exposition and ad-libbing fun that it neglects story progression or, more importantly, action. There are only two major action scenes in Iron Man 2 - the much publicised attack at Monaco and a lengthy, metal on metal finale. The first is sharply crafted, taking Stark out of his suit and putting him in real harms way in a smaller scale set piece that actually creates some token tension. The latter is a bloated series of nondescript suits hitting each other for 15 minutes, which manages to be even more insufferable than the vacuous ending fight in the first film. It's clear that director Jon Favreau has a knack for directing comedy but his action is dull and lacking in personality, geography or danger.
Iron Man 2 is a slightly deeper film than the facile original but also suffers from too many unnecessary characters and inexpertly-directed action. The cast is mostly fun and there are some solid comedy moments but those expecting an action-packed superhero extravaganza will be a mite disappointed.
3/5
[Nostalgia trip - check out what I thought of Iron Man back in 2008 here]
23.4.10
REVIEW - Dogtooth
Winner of Un Certain Regard at Cannes 2009 and Best Director at our own Dublin International Film Festival, Dogtooth tells the story of an unnamed family who live outside of normal society. While the father works in a factory office nearby, his wife and three grown children (known merely as Eldest, Youngest and Son) stay at home in a fabricated commune where the rules and even the language of everyday life have been turned upside down.
The film starts with a voice over where the meaning of words is described, a recurring theme which sees a salt cellar called a phone and a zombie transmuted into a small yellow flower. The corruption of language, and thus the ability of the children to cope outside of the home, is where the film starts – and it just gets more bizarre from there.
The Father has enlisted Christina, a worker at his factory, to help his son relieve some of his baser urges and her invasion into their closed loop of an existence is the catalyst for the Eldest daughter (Papoulia) to begin to question the rules which govern their tiny world.
Dogtooth is often an uncomfortable film, as the terrifying control which the Father wields become more and more apparent over time and the frank way in which he deceives, abuses and socially cripples his offspring is shocking. But underneath the explicit sex and violence, the most surprising thing about the film is the humour. The child-like ways of the young adults are perfectly captured and their twisted beliefs a constant source of hilarity – as in the moment when the Son first comes face to face with a cat or the messages from their so-called ‘grandfather’.
The performances are remarkably committed, particularly Papoulia (who is the main point of contact for the audience) and Christos Stergioglou as the unrelentingly creepy Father and the straight-faced presentation somehow manages to sell this bizarre family unit. It’s undoubtedly a film that requires patience to fully appreciate but once you get over the initial discomfort and buy into the world that has been created, Dogtooth is brilliantly wrought, terrifying and hilarious, all the way up to its shocking finale.
4/5
The film starts with a voice over where the meaning of words is described, a recurring theme which sees a salt cellar called a phone and a zombie transmuted into a small yellow flower. The corruption of language, and thus the ability of the children to cope outside of the home, is where the film starts – and it just gets more bizarre from there.
The Father has enlisted Christina, a worker at his factory, to help his son relieve some of his baser urges and her invasion into their closed loop of an existence is the catalyst for the Eldest daughter (Papoulia) to begin to question the rules which govern their tiny world.
Dogtooth is often an uncomfortable film, as the terrifying control which the Father wields become more and more apparent over time and the frank way in which he deceives, abuses and socially cripples his offspring is shocking. But underneath the explicit sex and violence, the most surprising thing about the film is the humour. The child-like ways of the young adults are perfectly captured and their twisted beliefs a constant source of hilarity – as in the moment when the Son first comes face to face with a cat or the messages from their so-called ‘grandfather’.
The performances are remarkably committed, particularly Papoulia (who is the main point of contact for the audience) and Christos Stergioglou as the unrelentingly creepy Father and the straight-faced presentation somehow manages to sell this bizarre family unit. It’s undoubtedly a film that requires patience to fully appreciate but once you get over the initial discomfort and buy into the world that has been created, Dogtooth is brilliantly wrought, terrifying and hilarious, all the way up to its shocking finale.
4/5
REVIEW - Date Night
Arguably two of the funniest comics working today, Tina Fey and Steve Carell are a comedy match up made in heaven in Shawn Levy's Date Night.
Phil (Carell) and Claire (Fey) Foster are 40-somethings with good jobs, two kids and a slowly crumbling relationship, relieved by weekly date nights to a local eatery. When they find out that two of their best friends are divorcing, they begin to question what is holding them together and embark on a massive date in the city to try to save their marriage. But when they steal another couples reservation and are mistaken for a couple of thieves, their night turns out more interesting than they could possibly have imagined.
Date Night is a very likeable film - the plot is overcooked tosh and action-led attempts to break out of the linear comedy set-up are jarring - but the easy performances of the leads are always there to prop up the sagging direction. It's clear that much of the charm, and most of the laughs, come from the pairing of Fey and Carell - as a series of outtakes over the final credits see them adlibbing rings around the rather staid script.
With a more assured director and a higher age rating, this could have made a fantastic action comedy. As it is, there's barely enough content to fill the 80 minute run time, a bevy of underused cameos (Wahlberg is good but what was the point in having Ray Liotta, James Franco or Mark Ruffalo in there?) and some great comedy moments for the add-libbing leads. Fluffy fun.
3.5/5
Phil (Carell) and Claire (Fey) Foster are 40-somethings with good jobs, two kids and a slowly crumbling relationship, relieved by weekly date nights to a local eatery. When they find out that two of their best friends are divorcing, they begin to question what is holding them together and embark on a massive date in the city to try to save their marriage. But when they steal another couples reservation and are mistaken for a couple of thieves, their night turns out more interesting than they could possibly have imagined.
Date Night is a very likeable film - the plot is overcooked tosh and action-led attempts to break out of the linear comedy set-up are jarring - but the easy performances of the leads are always there to prop up the sagging direction. It's clear that much of the charm, and most of the laughs, come from the pairing of Fey and Carell - as a series of outtakes over the final credits see them adlibbing rings around the rather staid script.
With a more assured director and a higher age rating, this could have made a fantastic action comedy. As it is, there's barely enough content to fill the 80 minute run time, a bevy of underused cameos (Wahlberg is good but what was the point in having Ray Liotta, James Franco or Mark Ruffalo in there?) and some great comedy moments for the add-libbing leads. Fluffy fun.
3.5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
