Let me tell you what to think...

Film Review: "The Raid" (2012)

Sun, 20 May 2012 22:48:50 +0100

The Raid has proved a difficult film to pass judgement on. It is in no way a bad film and it is, moreover, one of the better action films of recent cinematic efforts and far outstrips anything such as the recent Jason Statham release, Safe, for example; that film was just a rehash of multiple other action pictures but delivered with one tenth of the quality.

In The Raid writer/director Gareth Evans shows us (or at least showed me) something we’ve never seen before as a SWAT team storm a tenement building filled with disposable bad guys on every one of its 30 floors, with multiple and varied styles of death and execution along the way; everything from guns and knives to hammers and a doorframe is used in the film to maim, bludgeon, and destroy the opposition. One by one, the SWAT team is picked off until only three or four remain in a battle to the death with the crime lord who owns the building. The plot is simple and straightforward in any language and anyone who doesn’t like subtitles (for this is an Indonesian film) shouldn’t be put off – and should also learn to appreciate subtitles.

The opening 30 minutes is excellent as the film picks up the pace quickly and it’s not long until the action begins and it reminded me of the way Speed is set up; it gets the detail out of the way in the opening few minutes and clears the way for nonstop thrills. However, unlike John Woo’s Hard Boiled, to which this has been wrongly compared to, The Raid is mostly martial arts and fist fights, rather than the ‘ballistics ballet’ of Woo’s cinema – and this is the main reason The Raid lost its appeal to me from the halfway mark onwards. The film turns out to be a continual fight sequence, broken up by a change of location and this, for my tastes, is not exciting for such a prolonged period of screen time. I prefer my action to be guns and explosions, with a great fight to end with (Lethal Weapon and Die Hard being perfect examples of this balance) rather than what The Raid offers. That said, Evans has made a very competent film featuring some excellently choreographed fights and not a shaky-cam in sight. The script, however, is very weak and there are some needless twists along the way which slow the film down but add very little to the enjoyment of it.

Ultimately, if hand to hand combat is your thing then The Raid is the perfect action film for you. I, however, got a little tired of the relentless fighting, but have no gripes with the film making and would certainly recommend at least one viewing.

(On another note; the punctuation and grammar of the subtitles was atrocious and the worst I’ve seen either at the cinema or on DVD.)

Morbometer™: 6.9 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" (2012)

Sun, 13 May 2012 13:10:19 +0100

How I Spent My Summer Vacation is a return to form for many things. It’s a return to form for the action genre, unapologetic onscreen violence, dark black humour, simple and straightforward storytelling, and most encouragingly of all, for Mel Gibson. The film is one of the most refreshing I’ve seen this year, and it’s all about something which is increasingly missing in films as the years go on; star power. Personally, I’m bored of comic book or ‘young adult’ novels taking the box office by storm, each of them led by one-dimensional actors or A-listers under a mask or as a CGI creation. I miss the days of seeing the latest Mel Gibson film because, simply, it’s the latest Mel Gibson film.

At the height of his fame, he was box-office gold; no one else could have been Martin Riggs in the Lethal Weapon series, he took Shane Black’s screenplay and brought the character to life so perfectly that Riggs will always be remembered as one of the all-time great movie cops. Gibson has a charisma which is sorely missing from most leading males today; the twinkle in his eye when he delivers those killer lines added with a seemingly natural vulnerability which gave films such as Ransom, Maverick, Conspiracy Theory, and Signs their life and make them endlessly rewatchable. How I Spent My Summer Vacation deserves to be added to his long list of career highs.

Gibson is now out of favour in Hollywood because of some very public issues, but this review is not reviewing the man or his demons. His latest film should be reviewed on its merits alone. And the merits are numerous.

First of all, in a time where studios are cutting films to achieve 12A or PG-13 ratings, this is a refreshingly violent picture for anyone who misses the hard-hitting action pictures of the 1980 and 1990s. Due to the film being an Icon production (Gibson’s production company) and not released by a major studio, How I Spent My Summer Vacation has free reign on the graphic depictions of violence; a woman is tortured with electricity, a man’s toes a cut off (and we see this), a young boy is punched in the face, the same boy stabs himself in the kidney with a blunt instrument, and a huge body count is amassed in the 90 minutes. Like Gibson’s Icon produced The Passion of the Christ, this is not for the faint of heart.

The film isn’t just action and violence. At the film’s core is a relationship between Gibson’s unnamed character and a nine year old boy who lives in the Mexican prison where the film is set. Normally I despise scripts where children are involved in action films as for the most part they either cannot act or the film is toned down because of their involvement. In this picture, however, the nine year old (played by Kevin Hernandez) is as tough talking as Gibson and the film revolves around him and the violence that follows his every step. Their relationship feel real and there is something at stake in the film which keeps its pulse pounding from the very first scene.

For such an action-packed film, it is paced well; first time director Adrian Grunberg worked as a 1^st and 2^nd Unit director on some big films like Master And Commander, Man On Fire, and Traffic, and has chosen a good film to start with; it is low budget, low key, but has a major star carrying every scene. The film is dark and grimy and the prison scenes feel dirty and dangerous just looking at them, but the tone remains upbeat throughout thanks to the witty and zinging dialogue. The mix of all components works very well. Anyone who has seen Gibson’s 1999 Payback may feel this film is something like a prequel; I could image Porter (Gibson’s character in Payback) spending time in a Mexican jail and stealing from the other inmates and causing all kinds of carnage before escaping and making his way to Chicago where Payback’s action picks up. It’s not quite up to the quality of Payback (either versions) but for 2012, it’s the next best thing.

Ultimately, How I Spent My Summer Vacation is a triumph of star power and onscreen charisma. Casting this film which someone like Jason Statham or Clive Owen would render it just another disastrous action film, but thanks to Mel Gibson and his talent for such characters, the film is a low key success. It’s a shame it won’t see much of an impact at the box office and I wish it were made 10 years ago because it deserves to be a success.

Morbometer™: 7.8 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "Safe" (2012)

Thu, 10 May 2012 19:20:43 +0100

The all-out action movie is dead, we all know this. The Mission: Impossible, Bond and Bourne series are spy films, the Transformers series is based on a cartoon and toy series, and the Fast and Furious series is… an anomaly. Gone are the days when cops chased drug dealers and everything went BOOM along the way, and I for one miss that. I would, however, prefer action films never to be made again than seeing B-movie output in the shape of Safe taking over the mantel.

That’s not to say that Safe is a terrible film because it does have its merits in 2012. The action is loud, violent and frequent and it doesn’t rely on CGI to entice its audience, mainly because writer/director Boaz Yakin has attempted to make an ‘old school’ action film and doesn’t have the budget to do much else. The budget is so (relatively) small that he goes out of his way to show as much of New York as he can when filming on location and some of the locations are there just to see the skyline before we cut away to somewhere much cheaper to film (e.g. Philadelphia). Still, a film maker must do the best with what he can and Yakin does a decent job throughout and there is barely a shaky-cam in sight which came as a big and welcome surprise.

The real issue here is the complete lack of originality and the dreadful sense of having seen it all before and done so much better. Why even bother make a film like Safe for theatrical release when it looks like it belongs on Video On Demand? The film is nothing more than a violent TV movie and Jason Statham simply does not have the charisma of a Willis, Gibson, Stallone, or Schwarzenegger to make the audience believe in him and the ridiculous on-screen antics. He tries hard but is never convincing which is a shame because if you were to put Bruce Willis in this film, tighten the story, and clean up some of the atrocious dialogue, you might have something. I still believe a good leading man makes all the difference in action films, and Statham is not that man. He may have his place amongst a certain audience, but he and his films have yet to convince me.

Morbometer™: 4.3 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "The Avengers" (2012)

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:33:00 +0100

The Avengers is not a great film. It is at best an average summer blockbuster.

I want to make my opinions clear from the very beginning of this review because I know there are many, many people who will not agree with most or all of the criticism I have for the film. This is my personal opinion and I will back up my criticisms where possible.

Firstly, I love films based on comic book characters and I enjoy many summer blockbusters, so I cannot complain that I wasn’t part of The Avengers target audience. Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Batman, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, X-2, X-Men: First Class, Superman Returns (yes, that’s right) and the greatest superhero film of them all, Superman: The Movie all range from very enjoyable to truly outstanding in my opinion. It’s interesting to note that all but one of these were released before 2008 when Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk were made and paved the road to The Avengers. Moreover, it is this group of films – Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, – which were so poor (Iron Man 2 and Thor made my ‘worst of’ list for 2010 and 2011 respectively) and so rushed in order to get to The Avengers, that The Avengers ultimately suffers for it. The exception being Captain America, for reasons I will explain.

My main gripe with the film is the lack of excitement the action scenes generated. Just having these iconic characters on screen is not enough to warrant a free pass from criticism; the final battle in New York is no better than anything in universally-panned The Transformers series, borrowing inspiration from Michael Bay’s Armageddon along the way. For all their charisma and comic timing, Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo offer nothing to the action scenes involving Iron Man and Hulk, reducing their scenes to that akin of watching someone play a computer game. The film shows us a series of fights between the characters, all of which seem to be there to tick boxes off a ‘fan boy’ wish list, but add nothing to the development of the story; Iron Man v Thor, Thor v Hulk, Hulk v Black Widow, Black Widow v Hawkeye… It just becomes tiresome and predictable. The only character which doesn’t bore me when they’re in costume is Captain America, because his lack of super power means that we get to watch Chris Evans run and jump around rather than a special effects team showing off; this is the very reason I enjoyed the 2011 film so much and am highly anticipating the sequel on April 4 2014. Hawkeye, however, as character without his own film, does precisely nothing until, surprise surprise, the script calls for the all-action finale and he fires a few arrows and is involved in the weakest effect shot in the whole film.

Tom Hiddleston as the villain, Loki from the first Thor film, delivers the film’s best performance by a long way and is the only believable character stealing each and every scene when he is on screen. If it were not for him, The Avengers could have been a woeful affair. Yet, despite the undeniably funny scene where Hulk throws Loki around like a rag doll, I thought this completely undermined his menace and hinders the film’s already tired final act. Moreover, the lack of real threat is confounded when Loki’s army, barely seen in the 90 minutes beforehand, descend on New York for no other purpose than being cannon fodder for a shield, hammer, repulsor ray, arrow, bullet, or giant green fist. Again, there is no excitement here, nor does it come across as heroic.

There are three scenes which are just terrible. Firstly the cameo of Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts with Robert Downey Jr. is like a bad sitcom pilot destined never to be picked up for a full season. Secondly, the scene in ‘Stuttgart’ is clearly a film set and with $220m budget they should have either set the scene in America, or actually gone to Stuttgart on location, not that it matters that it’s Stuttgart – it could have been Sunderland and have had just as much impact. The (I assume) Jewish man who stands up and answers back to Loki as if he were Hitler is woeful in its attempts to say something about dictatorships.

The film isn’t without its merits, of course. The production value is excellent, the effect are mostly good, and writer/director Joss Whedon has done a very good job of putting this mammoth task together and making it family friendly and excellent entertainment for younger audiences who haven’t seen New York get destroyed before, and who may have enjoyed the previous films. The plot is simple and the action starts quickly and is non-stop for the 140 minutes so no one can complain about a lack of action, but I just expected so much more from a film 4 years in the making and over $2.3 billion in accumulated ticket sales. The film, so anticipated, felt too rushed to me and a better story and action set-pieces may have lifted it up to the standard set by Bryan Singer’s outstanding X-2, but not even a year after Thor and Captain America is just too soon and the lack of originality in the output shows.

Morbometer™ 5.8 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "The Cabin In The Woods" (2011)

Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:53:25 +0100

THIS IS A SPOILER-FREE REVIEW.

There are some film trailers which give too much away, and there are some which do not entice you to find out more. The trailer for The Cabin In The Woods trailer should not be seen by anyone wanting to see the film, and moreover the less you know the better your enjoyment of the film will be. The film itself, however, should be seen by everyone interested in horror.

The beauty of the film, co-written by Buffy The Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon, is in its successful attempts to deconstruct, parody and critique the genre whilst remaining scary and creepy in its own right. The very fact that I’m advising you to stay away from any spoilers suggests there will be a major twist or three along the way and that this is not an average slice ‘n’ dice horror picture. There is plenty of killing, but not from the usual horror film sources – let me at least tell you that much. Throughout the course of the 95 minutes, Whedon treats us to a checklist of horror clichés and wink and nods at the audience along the way. The characters, once they reach the cabin of the title, turn into the stereotypes we always see; jock, slut, virgin, slacker but they are clearly not this way when the film starts, but horror conventions tell us that characters in the genre have to be this way, without any good reason.

The second and third acts are hard to write about without mentioning any of the plot for the risk of spoilers, but I can tell you that the whole story is based on modern audiences’ desire to watch young people getting massacred, and why is that? Why do we spend millions of pounds at the cinema and on DVD watching these films? What would happen if watching them die were essential to… life itself?

Like the first two Scream films, The Cabin In The Woods is clever in both its dialogue and its action and knows the genre well enough to have the confidence to go all the way and never look back. If you’re not aware of the horror genre, you may think the film goes way beyond your expectations of what a horror film should be; but this isn’t a horror film, it’s a one-off experimentation that works. I just hope it isn’t copied like the Scream films were, because then well be in for a decade of Whedon-less attempts, and no one wants to see that.

Morbometer™: 8.0 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "Battleship" (2012)

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:21:00 +0100

Battleship is not a good film. There is no way in which I can ever say this is anything other than utter tripe, inspired by films just as bad and just as senseless. Aside from the terrible script, plot, acting, and complete lack of comprehension the real problem with Battleship is that there could have been a half decent popcorn picture in there somewhere, had the filmmakers attempted some degree of originality.

There’s no point in going into detail and tearing the script apart because anyone going to see a film based on a board game cannot complain if the dialogue is ear-achingly bad. The plot makes no sense from the minute it’s explained, but again, you expect this when you buy your ticket. The real issue is that the film doesn’t have the courage of its convictions to be one thing or the other; as a post-Transformers blockbuster it falls short simply because, and I never thought I’d say this, it doesn’t out-Bay Michael Bay. Director Peter Berg (of the equally poor Hancock) copies the classic Bay trademark shots but never captures his undeniably (at times) jaw-dropping visual style; the problem with Bay’s action is when it’s put into a film with scenes either side, and becomes intolerable. Berg, nor anyone, should ever attempt to copy Michael Bay and in doing so it comes across as lazy, uninspired, and draining on the senses.

The alien crafts look like Transformers and the aliens themselves look like Iron Man, neither of which are good films but when directly copied, for there is no source material on which Battleship could have taken its visuals other than previous box-office hits, you’re faced with a tragic case of déjà vu. This was also the loudest film I’ve ever heard at the cinema; it is as if the film is trying to draw our attention away from the visuals by looking to see if the speakers are exploding around us.

It is utter trash with no redeeming features and there are plenty of things I’ve ignored in this review because the film just isn’t worth going into in any depth. Although, maddeningly, it does come across at times as a sort of parody of brainless blockbusters, but never goes all-out in the fear that it may miss an opportunity blow something else up and lose the attention of its core audience. Some of the dialogue is so bad and the acting so unconvincing that you can only think its tongue is firmly in its cheek; there’s no way it can be taking itself seriously. The same goes for the Armageddon-style shot of the old sailors matching across the ship – it must be ridiculing its own genre, surely Berg wouldn’t expect his audience to take that shot seriously. If the film had been self-aware from the start and the script had had more obvious winks at the audience, then this could have been something, but as it stands it’s neither a good blockbuster nor a Starship Troopers style satire.

The very fact that Universal Pictures made the film reeks of desperation to rival Paramount’s Transformers series. The film doesn’t even try to deliver anything new or groundbreaking with its $200m budget and despite some good CGI and effects, Battleship misses its mark.

Morbometer™: 3.5 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "Wrath Of The Titans" (2012)

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:18:00 +0100

There’s not much to say when reviewing a film such as Wrath Of The Titans; it’s a sequel no one wanted but was financed off the back of a surprisingly successful first entry, the same of which can be said for countless other sequels. Simply put, if you didn’t mind, or even liked, 2010’s Clash Of The Titans, then you might not hate Wrath. If, however, you hated Clash, then stay well away of this latest instalment.

I watched Clash for the first time the day before seeing Wrath believing that, if I remotely enjoyed it then maybe I’d see the sequel. As you may have worked out form me writing this review, I did quite enjoy Clash; although far from faultless and at times wooden, the set design and special effects were so good and the story not hampered by too much romance or side-plots, I felt it was raised slightly above the usual CGI-laden offerings. So, it passed the threshold and off I went to see the follow-up.

Essentially it’s more of the same but just not as well rounded. There’s the same quota of action and mythological spectacle and the film makers have put every penny of the $150m budget on the screen which results in, yet again, some very impressive creature effects, sets, and visuals and at only 99 minutes it certainly can’t be accused of out-staying its welcome. There script, however, is far too rushed and is full of exposition in the opening ten minutes leaving the remaining 89 filled with either action and battles (which I liked) or crassly interspersed dialogue to remind the audience of why the characters are doing what they’re doing, because not one person either in screen or in the cinema could describe it by those points. It’s in these scenes where Wrath shows its weaknesses; we shouldn’t need great long speeches and laughably anachronistic dialogue to justify the action and character motivation, even in a film as silly as this. Ever other line is either an ill-advised attempt at humour (thankfully missing in Clash) or characters telling us what’s going on.

Worse still is the casting; in any other film Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Bill Nighy, and Rosamund Pike would be a casting dream, but here they are just paying the bills until something better comes along. That is not the case, however, with the leading man. Sam Worthington is so bad when it’s time to open his mouth, it’s a wonder he gets roles in such big films. Avatar, Terminator: Salvation, Clash and Wrath are all masterclasses in how not to act. I want him banned from any future big-budget productions but sadly I fear he’s here to stay for a while longer. He’s an absolute charisma vacuum.

You could tear into this film if you really wanted to (and many reviewers have) but to me it was passable entertainment and most importantly of all it was not offensive. It’s not a remake or reboot and there’s no foul language or racist robots or blatant rip-offs from other films. Yes, director Jonathan Liebesman can’t shoot a scene for more than three seconds without cutting, and yes that it very annoying and is an attempt to hide the fact that he cannot direct a film to save his life… but it’s a million times better than he last offering, Battle LA, so we have that to be thankful for.

Morbometer™: 5.0 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "The Hunger Games" (2012)

Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:32:20 +0100

This is a film review, not a book review. I’ve not read any of The Hunger Games novels and, moreover, I have absolutely no interest in reading them now that I’ve seen the film. If they are as average as this film, I’ll stay far away.

It’s been three days since I saw The Hunger Games and it has fallen drastically in my opinion of it. Upon reflection there is nothing new here; the main story is a cross between The Running Man and Battle Royale, the love story is as unbelievable as anything you’ll see all year, and the costume and set design is straight out of The Fifth Element. For a brand new film it looks like it was made 15 years ago and the shockingly bad visual effects only prove to evidence this.

At nearly two and a half hours, the film is needlessly long and its attempts to be an ‘epic’ are all part of its downfall. With the exception of the lead character, Katniss, not one of the cast is in the least bit believable and in a film where we are supposed to care about children killing children for live television broadcast, this is a major flaw. There are supposed to be 24 children who take part in the ‘games’ but none of them are given any background or detail, nor do we see any of them die unless Katniss is involved. Furthermore, the reason why the ‘games’ even exists is either A) never explained or B) so poorly written it passed me by. At least with The Running Man we know it’s supposed to be criminals playing the game and that makes perfect sense (in the world of the film) but here we never find out; why isn’t it the adults or the elderly, or the under 10s? In a dystopian world, the viewer deserves and should demand to know why the world they’re watching is like it is and why the rules are now in place. Imagine if Minority Report didn’t take the time to explain who the Pre-cogs are, or if in Logan’s Run the age limit rule was just passed over. It would be unacceptable.

The film does not work as a satire on government or reality TV and once the children enter the ‘games’ the fact that it is televised is barely mentioned and the need for sponsors, so emphasised in the first act, is rendered pointless in favour for straight-to-video standard CGI and underwhelming set pieces. And what is with the three finger salutes that is obviously supposed to be so significant? Unless you’ve read the book I can’t imagine how anyone would work it out.

The one saving grace and the sole reason you keep watching is the performance by Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. She has a real screen presence about her and conveys both the fear and strength you’d need if this situation were real. It’s just a shame nothing else about the film gives the same levels of commitment as Lawrence. The film isn’t a disaster in the way in which the Transformers or Pirates series are and is in no way offensive, but just because it’s more intelligent than Twilight does not mean it’s beyond criticism.

With the third biggest opening of all time at the US box-office, the other two parts of the trilogy will undoubtedly be filmed as soon as possible. They may well be an improvement on this underwhelming first instalment, but I won’t be there to see if that’s true.

Morbometer™: 5.5 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "21 Jump Street" (2012)

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:17:00 +0000

The churning out of yet another unwanted and needless remake of an 80s TV show continues this week with 21 Jump Street. The show is pretty much only remembered for being the launch for Johnny Depp’s career but you need know nothing about the show if you intend on seeing this as the film-makers have taken a familiar title and that is where similarities end. If you are intent on seeing the film, however, I would recommend you don’t as it is largely a complete bore.

Jonah Hill is not funny. He simply is not funny. That fact is crucial as this is supposed to be a comedy, yet the lead star cannot make you laugh and his writing (he is has story credits) relies on constant swearing to paper over the cracks of there being nothing else in his ‘locker’. His breakout role in Superbad was amusing, but seeing the same old routine time after time is simply boring and dull; there is nothing funny about a fat young man swearing for 90 minutes and knowing he’s been paid a fortune to do so. To make matters doubly worse, he is paired with the charisma vacuum that is Channing Tatum; a man so unbelievably dull and wooden he makes Vin Diesel look like a genuine talent. He delivers each and every line with such a lack of belief he may as well have the script in his hand on camera.

The tone of the script is all over the place. It starts as a parody on 2005 where wearing one strap of your rucksack was cool, but in 2012 everyone is ‘two strapping it’ but never keeps these nuances and observation up, rather ditching them for fights and swearing. Nor does the film keep up the only genuinely witty set up of Hollywood lacking ideas and creativity buy rehashing old material; this is mentioned only once and never referenced again which only goes to show the film makers could not write anything else to back it up, so in comes the fights and swearing again. The film soon moves in to action territory and takes itself way too seriously by trying to make us care about anyone involved, yet the action is not directed or staged well, so it just ends up as another woefully inadequate series of events. It’s half as funny as The Other Guys, which in itself was at best 3 stars.

As a side note, the day after watching this nonsense I revisited Midnight Run for the millionth time. Now there is a film with even more swearing and violence and action than 21 Jump Street but with a script and screen talent which makes it endless watchable and consistently funny; everything that 99.99% of modern action comedies fail to do.

Morbometer™: 3.5 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "Carnage" (2011)

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:33:00 +0000

Two married middle class couples having a constant argument for 80 minutes may not sound like a barrel of laughs, but that is the concept of Roman Polanski’s latest film comedy, Carnage. It is, however, a very funny film largely due to a razor-sharp script and four fantastic performances.

When Nancy and Alan Cowan (Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz) arrive at the luxury New York apartment of Penelope and Michael Longstreet (Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly), they are there to settle the matter of their son ‘attacking’ the Longstreet’s son with a stick following a playground argument. At first, Nancy Cowan is apologetic and goes along with everything Penelope (who is calling the shots) says. The husbands are either relaxed and say boys will be boys, in the case of Michael, or they are largely uninterested and have seemingly better things to do, like Alan. They agree that the children should meet and apologises should be said…. then comes the homemade cake, and the characters’ true colours begin to show.

The cake is simply a plot devise to keep these couples in the same room, but by eating it, it opens discussions about art, work, human rights in Darfur, and the misery in their lives. When Nancy is sick all over the coffee table, the couples are forced to stay even longer and then the real bitchiness and mud-slinging begins.

What makes Carnage work so well is that we are laughing at these rich and wealthy characters dissect their lives and marriage and hopes and fears to relative strangers because no one else will listen, especially their spouses. Not one of them has a real problem and, despite their seeming dislike of each other, the women team up against the men and husbands and wives swap allegiances whenever it suits them just so they can be heard. They soon turn into the very children they are supposed to be standing up for, and nothing is funnier (or sadder) than watching adults act like spoilt kids.

At only 80 minutes with end credits, the film is quick and breezy despite taking place solely in the apartment; and there are many times when you might think ‘why don’t they just get up and leave?’ but the comedy is in Cowans’ need to stay and prove they are just as good (or pathetic) as the Longstreets, and the Longstreets’ desire to have the moral upperhand no matter how much their own personalities are scrutinised. The acting is first rate and needs to be to deliver the satirical dialogue with a straight face; the comedic talent of three Oscar winners and one nominee is on show throughout and no one disappoints at any time. It is a joy to watch good acting at any time, but to have four people deliver in a four character screenplay is rare.

This may not be classic Polanski in terms of directorial brilliance (Chinatown, Rosemary’s Baby) but he stages the film perfect well and he keeps the film alive when it could easily have dragged or out stayed its welcome, like the Cowans do.

In an age where most comedies seem to have one of Judd Apatow, Seth Rogan, Will Ferrell, or Todd Phillips attached, Carnage make for a refreshing and welcome change; but if you like your comedy lowbrow, then stick to The Hangover Part II.

Morbometer™: 7.3 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "Safe House" (2012)

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:33:17 +0000

Let’s face it; action movies are not what they used to be. I’m referring to out-and-out action movies, not the spy genre where the James Bonds and Mission: Impossible are filed, but the likes of Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, The Last Boyscout, Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Sadly, it’s a dying breed with only lightweight imitations such as the Fast and Furious seriesor Jason Statham conveyor belt of tripe to keep the explosions and gunplay alive.

With Safe House we have a full-on action film that, for the most part, delivers. The film’s simple story stars Denzel Washington as the brilliantly named Tobin Frost, an ex-CIA operative who has gone rouge and has files on the organisation which could bring it to its knees. Ryan Reynolds plays a rookie CIA agent who is a ‘house sitter’ for a CIA safe house in Cape Town, where the film takes place, where Frost is brought in for questioning once he is caught – no spoiler here if you’ve seen the trailer. As is always the case, things don’t go to plan and the two stars are paired together for the next 90 minutes to work out why.

From beginning to end, Safe House is packed with action that is fast, violent, frantic, brutal, and relentless. The action scenes, however, while not particularly new or inventive are filmed with real purpose and executed with style and finesse; the sound effects editing is superb and adds real bite to the numerous smash, bangs, and booms which come thick and fast and was even too loud at times in the screening I watched. First time director Daniel Espinosa’s style undeniably owes credit to both Tony Scott and Paul Greengrass, but the film is never a direct attempt to be a knock off of anything else and the location of Cape Town is a refreshing change from the usual cities we see in action pictures. The film is certainly more like Man on Fire Scott and The Bourne Ultimatum Greengrass than Domino or Green Zone.

Washington and Reynolds make a fine team, and this is possibly the best I’ve seen Reynolds and delivers a much needed change in quality from him in comparison to last year’s woeful double bill of Green Lantern and The Change-Up. Washington, for the most part coasts through his slightly underwritten role but a coasting Denzel is better than many actors at the top of their game. I for one still go to see a film primarily if I like the actors’ or directors’ previous work and not on the best-selling book or TV show it might be based on, and Safe House uses its star power to good effect.

Moreover, where as Washington and Reynolds have a key role in the film’s success, the supporting roles are drastically underwritten; but this wouldn’t be so noticeable if they weren’t played by such talented actors (Brendan Gleeson) and actresses (Vera Famiga). The ‘twist’ in the final act is also so plainly obvious that you know it’s coming from the very start and just isn’t needed in films like this; that’s why screenwriter David Guggenheim is no Shane Black quite yet. Also, the title ‘Safe House’ isn’t really justified as not even a third of the film is set in the actual safe house, but it certainly sounds cool.

Safe House is certainly not a perfect action picture, but is far superior to most of the genre of recent years and that in itself is high praise indeed.

Morbometer™ 7.7 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "Chronicle" (2012)

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:15:47 +0000

Every year comes a few films from which the trailer does no justice at all, yet turn out to be far better than anyone expected. Chronicle looked to me like a superhero film for the Twilight generation but after some positive reviews from my trusted sources I decided to take a trip and see it at the cinema. This will go down as the surprise hit of 2012 and may end up being one of the year’s best films.

Three high school teenager boys find a hole in a forest and in that hole is a, seemingly, alien rock which when they come into contact with it, they develop telekinesis. From here on, we see the boys develop their new powers at different stages from moving Lego bricks, to moving cars, to eventually flying. One of the boys, an outsider, users his powers to get back at the world which has rejected him, and this is where the film gets really good – but my reviews aren’t here to tell you what happens but to tell you why a film is good or not, so here ends the plot spoilers.

Essentially this is a superhero origins story; powers given to those who didn’t want them, some use it for good, some for bad, first it’s a secret then the world finds out. The twist in Chronicle is that the characters don’t want to do anything with their powers; no costumes, no masks, no secret identities. The guys are just content with flying and moving objects at will – pretty cool stuff regardless what age you are. But, the story takes on an X-Men style arc as the outsider becomes more powerful and the superhero element continues.

The key to Chronicle’s success is in the pacing, character arcs, and plot development; far too many sci-fi/ action/ CGI-heavy films simply blast the audience with massive action scenes at the start, middle, end and all the areas in between. Writers no longer know that what we want to see is an increasing scale of action, not to show everything at the start and only go on to repeat the formula for another 90 minutes. Writers Gary Trank and Josh Landis have surprised and delighted me with this well thought out and carefully planned screenplay where it would have been all too easy to throw all the tricks at the screen from the start. In doing so, the characters are given time to develop in front of our eyes and by the time the final act comes, we’re ready to believe what happens would happen (in the reality of the film of course).

The CGI in the film is fantastic and as good as most $100 million productions; in the final act, where downtown Seattle is the scene of chaos, the CGI element is ramped up to 11 (to borrow the well known Spiral Tap quote) but this works because the finale isn’t just a bigger, extended version of the previous 60 minutes; it’s a true payoff worth waiting for that you don’t see too often anymore.

The film’s main problem lies in the handheld camera footage. This isn’t because it’s 85 minutes of ‘shaky cam’ because this is never the case, but because the film simply grows into something far superior to any ‘found footage’ rubbish that has plagued our screens over the last few years; Cloverfield as an exception. Moreover, the camcorder footage is never even explained nor are we told why we’re watching it unfold in this way; I was expecting an explanation at the end as to why we are seeing this story from, what ends up being, multiple camcorder, CCTV, and network news cameras. Without spoiling too much, I think the film needed a character to have compiled, or ‘chronicled’ if you will, all of this footage and presented it to us either at the beginning or end; one of the peripheral characters, a girl whose blog footage we watch part of, would have made the perfect candidate to make this happen.

Some of the techniques the film makers thought up to allow all the characters to be on screen at once are very clever, most significantly the ability to make the camcorder float, but I truly believe the film would have been even better if it were shot as a traditional narrative with ‘home footage’ inserted at key moments – most notably when the first learn to fly. I said that Chronicle grows into something far better than camcorder footage can allow, and the film’s brilliant climax is slightly hampered from an enjoyment perspective if you question how this footage is being caught; there are times when it’s not explained and is purely delivered from a movie camera, which is fine but goes against what the film makers set out to do. This also ties into my original fears that the film was for the teenage market because of the ‘found footage’ angle. It’s not needed and should be reserved for cheap trashy horror flicks.

Chronicle is a great film, better than it perhaps even ought to be, and comes highly recommended. It’s also one of the few films I’ve seen for many years from which not only would I welcome a sequel, but one which truly deserves and warrants one.

Morbometer™ 8.3 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance" (2012)

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:39:00 +0000

I must start this review by saying I’m a fan of the 2007 Ghost Rider. It was big budget, had great effects, was both dark and humorous, and saw Nicolas Cage take on the role he clearly loved. Sure, the story was hampered by a lack of a good villain and perhaps too much backstory before the Rider is unleashed, but for a second-tier comic book movie, it hit the mark. And by second-tier, I refer to the film never hitting the heights of Superman: The Movie, Batman, The Dark Knight, or X-2 but far superior to such disasters as Iron Man 2, Thor, Fantastic 4, or Green Lantern.

The first movie took a healthy $45m on its opening weekend in the US and went on to a decent final tally of $228m worldwide, so a sequel was inevitable and for me as huge Nic Cage fan, very welcome. However, five years have passed and Cage’s career has taken a nosedive in terms of quality with only 2009’s Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans and Know1ng worthy of his supreme acting talent and A-list status. Can a Ghost Rider follow up put him back up where he belongs?

The answer is… not really. The problems with Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance are the same as the first film; no decent villain, a storyline that doesn’t grip, and no huge set-pieces to put the film in the audience’s memory after the credits have rolled. What the first film had, however, was a lot of fun and a solid (if workman like) direction and style. This latest film suffers terribly from the non-stop and incessant jumps and cuts and upside down camera movements that would make Michael Bay proud; why the directors feel the need to speed up 2 seconds of footage of a crowd of people walking or a car moving at 30mph, only to resume normal speed again is beyond me. It makes no sense in terms of the story, characters, or action. In other words it is ‘style’ for style’s sake and it is not welcome for it not only adds nothing to the experience and brings too much attention to itself; all the hallmarks of filmmakers who have no idea about what an audience wants to see. Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor were behind the utter trash that was Crank and Gamer; films which should never have been made and whose audience are not those who want to watch a Marvel adaptation. Sadly, the story is so pointless I forgot what was happening or why half way through, so not even a Spielberg/Scorsese combo could have saved it.

And as for the 3D… The definition of pointless. I’m not one to want things flying towards the screen for the sake of the 3D ‘experience’, but there was nothing in this film which warrants the 3D upgrade you’ll be forced to pay for. If you think the Ghost Rider’s chain is going to hit you in the face, think again.

The elements which are out of the directors’ hands are the ones which make the film work and are the saving graces. Firstly, the CGI is excellent and the new design of the Ghost Rider is an improvement on the first film as he looks meaner and more menacing and his clothes are now also burnt which I thought was a nice visual touch. Also, we get to see Nic Cage as Johnny Blaze (Ghost Rider in human form) trying to contain the Rider from coming out, like Bruce Banner does before he turns into The Hulk; the effects show his eye sockets turning black and his skull breaking through his skin, which again is a nice visual change from the original. In turn, this also give Cage a chance to let loose his crazy side, which has been kept under wraps for too many films and this is what he does better than anyone else. Also, the lack of Eva Mendes means the film isn’t weighed down with romance which is a major plus.

Ultimately, by the film’s end you wonder what the point was and if this was really the best use of the Ghost Rider character that they could have come up with. I highly doubt it.

Morbometer™: 4.5 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "A Dangerous Method" (2011)

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:26:46 +0000

Director David Cronenberg’s career has taken a different path over the last decade; gone are the low budget bodyshock horrors of Rabid, The Brood, and Scanners of the 1980s and with 1996’s Crash, he made one of the most controversial films of all time but with it brought a new audience – myself being one of them. Cronenberg continued to explore the darker side of the human psyche with Spider in 2002 but his first mainstream success came with the surprise hit A History of Violence in 2005 which explored two of his main themes in identity and the violent nature of man but in a way much more accessible to mainstream audiences.

A Dangerous Method is a film which, on the outset, you may not associate with Cronenberg; a period piece set in the early 1900s, real life characters, no trace of physical violence or death, and no gore whatsoever. However, this is classic Cronenberg, just with the visuals turned down and the dialogue turned way up.

The story begins when, what we believe to be a highly disturbed young woman (Keira Knightly) is brought to the attention of Karl Jung (Michael Fassbender) who is in the early stages of his psychoanalytical career. He vows to help cure the woman with his ‘talking cure’ and in doing so turns to the already highly respected figure of Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen. The ‘danger’ in their ‘methods’ is multilayered as Jung risks his marriage and happiness when he begins an affair with the cured patient; their relationship is underpinned by a sadomasochistic sexual connection stemming from the beatings her father would give her. His relationship with Freud begins friendly enough, but the two men soon become rivals and disagree on the methods to cure their patients and Freud’s several comments about anti-Semitism are a warning to the dangerous that would come in 30 years time.

The acting is solid throughout and my choice for the best performance goes to Knightly. Her performance starts as a very physical one with the jutting jaw and contorted body of an insane woman, but as the film moves on, so does her performance to one of nuances and a maturity I’ve not seen from her before. Maybe it took a great director and wordy screenplay to get the best out of her because Pirates of the Caribbean this is not. Man of the moment Michael Fassbender gives yet another worthy performance to match his work in Shame and Viggo Mortensen and Cronenberg are starting a Di Caprio/Scorsese relationship with this being the director’s third successive film with the actor; each one requiring a different approach from Mortensen and giving him something to put his abundance of screen presence to good use. I have no doubt that in Mortensen and Fassbender we have two future Academy Award Winners.

This film isn’t for everyone because it is very wordy and devoid of almost any excitement from the story. But what is exciting is in the performances and the subtle dangerous which come to light as these three people meet. This is well worth anyone’s time who has a a mature enough mind for such cinema.

One final thing: Is the final shot a homage to The Godfather Part II? Both films show their protagonists sitting in a chair, broken men on the inside but knowing they must not show it. “Sometimes you have to do something unforgivable, just to go on living” says Jung. Michael Corleone knows all about that.

Morbometer™: 8.1 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "The Muppets" (2011)

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:14:00 +0000

For sheer entertainment value, you don’t get anything better than The Muppets. From their TV origins on Sesame Street to their big screen features such as The Muppet Movie and The Muppets Christmas Carol, everyone who can call themselves human loves these furry creatures. If you don’t, then you’re heart is made of stone and your soul belongs in Hell. OK? Good.

So, it is a great pleasure for me to say that latest adventure for Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo and the rest of the gang is a runaway success in all departments. The film is a non-stop treat with its songs, gags, nods and winks to the audience, Muppet heritage, and humour which both adults and kids can savour and enjoy. It is a stroke of genius that these characters have made us smile, laugh, and cry for over 40 years (well, 20 something for me) and still be as fresh and invigorating as they are today.

All credit goes to Jason Segal and Nicholas Stoller (whose past writing credits include some dire films) for finding the heart of The Muppets and bringing them back with a purpose. This isn’t just another kids film made for the SOLE purpose of making money in the way that Cars 2, Rio, Ice Age 4, and all those terrible Shrek films are; this film loves its characters and respects its audience. No one will leave the cinema with anything other than a huge smile. It’s impossible not to like this film. Moreover, gone is the cynical humour of the Shrek films and the action-packed CGI of pretty much any kids film I’ve seen (or seen trailers for) recently. This film doesn’t rely on that because it has too much to offer rather than to fall back on attempts to ‘dazzle’ the audience with chase after chase after lame joke after lame joke.

Moreover, Kermit et al have been off our screens for too many years, and the story takes this into account, too; the gang have abandoned each other, and it takes the determination of one such Muppet, named Walter, to bring them together again to save the Muppet studios from falling into the hands of Tex Richman (best character name of the year) with a live reunion TV show. By the end of the film, you hope this will be the first of many more big screen adventures to come.

Any fans of TV’s The Flight of the Conchords will appreciate this film’s songs and quirky tone from one of that show’s stars, Bret McKenzie. The Academy Award nominated song ‘Man or Muppet’ is both hilarious and moving at once. Other songs and dance numbers are just as funny, but this is a song with real heart, just like the film.

Morbometer™: 9.0 OUT OF 10

DVD Review: 'Perfect Sense' (2011)

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:59:03 +0000

The first thing to go is our sense of smell. Then we start to cry uncontrollably. Then an insatiable hunger as our sense of taste disappears.

In Perfect Sense, the question of ‘what makes us human’ is asked as a mysterious virus begins to infect the world and take away our senses, and no one is safe. Are we defined by what we hear, see, smell, taste, and touch? Could we love and connect with those around us if we lost these senses? In the film, we focus on the start of a relationship between a chef (Ewan McGregor) and a scientist (Eva Green) who are just two typical people living in Glasgow who get struck by the virus and the results are very melancholic, sad, thoughtful, and, for the most part, the film works due to its originality and realistic portrayal of human nature.

The virus is never explained, but is a mere MacGuffin for director David Mackenzie to ask us; would you embrace the senses you had left, or would you turn to anarchy? What kind of human are you and what do you think of fellow man? McGregor and Green have more ups and downs in this film than most married couples have in 50 years, but the extreme emotions they are feeling are very well played out and this is McGregor on rare form as he conveys an ‘average guy’ expertly well and we feel genuine sympathy for him as their happiness is put in jeopardy. The script is full of realistic dialogue in the way two damaged people might actually talk; most notable was the scene where Green asks him to tell her ‘something to make her feel special’. He tells her that he left his fiancé when she became critically ill and does so without any remorse and in return she tells him he is an asshole and he agrees, not putting up any protests. I found this to be refreshingly honest and open as here are two characters showing real life characteristics, not false creations.

Mackenzie has filled his film with interesting images and as each sense goes, we get a real understanding of how this might affect the key characters and the panic builds at an organic pace, never rushed. The final scene, when the two lovers are moments away from blindness is as touching as anything I saw last year and a perfect way to end the film both visually and thematically.

The film undoubtedly works most credibly when the attention is on McGregor and Green, and less so when the action spreads to the rest of the world in some montages of still images, and actual footage of humanity at its most destructive (war, fighting, looting). I found some of this to be borderline preachy as I don’t want messages that humanity can be harmful to its own survival rammed down my throat from what is, otherwise, a very intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Morbometre™ 7.0

Film Review: "Coriolanus" (2011)

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:18:37 +0000

William Shakespeare’s Coriolanus might not be the most famous of his plays, and certainly isn’t, in my opinion, as loved in popular culture as Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, or Much Ado About Nothing; I was surprised, then, when I saw it was to be brought to the big screen in a modern day setting. With Kenneth Branagh (the usual go-to guy for Shakespeare adaptations) making a mess of CGI settings and struggling with a dire story in Thor, this marks the directorial debut of fellow Brit and ‘thesp’ Ralph Fiennes. And what a debut it is.

There is nothing I enjoy more than seeing directors and actors who fully engage and understand the world of the film they are making, and can immerse themselves in the material. Fiennes clearly knows what a modern version of this story should look like and his understanding of the play’s themes and its pulse is evident from the start and never lets up. The film is packed with talent and Fiennes has surrounded his production with some of the industry’s finest.

Telling the tale of a war between the Romans and the Volscians in modern day urban war zone, Fiennes shoots his film entirely handheld and the style works well and is effective at all times; whether it’s putting the viewer in the battles as the bullets fly, or amongst the politicians and family as the drama reaches boiling point. The film’s opening half an hour is electrifying stuff and looks like a sequel to The Hurt Locker and is just a exciting; the sight of Fiennes as Caius Martius (later to be titled Coriolanus) in full military gear with guns and knives with another man’s blood covering his bald head is one of the most striking images I’ll see all year. However, the film is certainly not an action picture and the second half is far more talkative but in these scenes the actors deliver the thrills as we watch the likes of Jessica Chastain (fast becoming my favourite actress), Brian Cox and Vanessa Redgrave (the film’s best performance) hit all the right marks and, again, show an understanding of the play and the themes, and most importantly, the language. There is nothing more embarrassing than an actor who can’t deliver Shakespearian dialogue if called upon to do so. Even Gerard Butler walks away with his head held high, which is a miracle in itself.

Coriolanus may look like great with its handheld style and urban settings and all star cast, but it is for the more ‘mature minded’ audience who want to think about the character’s motivations and reasons for doing what they do, rather than having it spoon fed to them. If you don’t have the attention span for its 122 minutes, or think that everyone has to swear or say ‘like’ after every other word, then this may go over your head. If however, you can embrace the language, the politics, and appreciate how these can translate to 2012, then Coriolanus is the ticket for you.

Morb-O-Metre: 7.6 Out Of 10

Film Review: "War Horse" (2011)

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:31:29 +0000

The poster for War Horse tells us that horse and boy are ‘Separated by war. Tested by battle. Bound by friendship’. So why is it that even the Greatest Film Maker of All Time™ can’t make us care for either boy or horse, or any other character appearing over the course of 2 and a half hours?

War Horse has it’s problem rooted in three areas:

1. The story is far too episodic to allow the audience to feel emotion or engage with any of the human characters. If you did, then they’re off screen again as the horse moves on to its next owner. This is bad enough, but then some of these characters which you didn’t get the time to invest in reappear at the end for one great big mushy conclusion… only you don’t care by that point. The action scenes are not epic nor are they particularly shocking or hard-hitting. Spielberg set the bar so high in Saving Private Ryan that anything else he (or anyone else for that matter) makes in mainstream film will be compared to it and is destined for failure. The action scenes are fine, but they felt as if they were shoehorned in to give the film any degree of excitement. In another film of World War One, these may have made more of an impact but in War Horse, they add little to the proceedings.

2. The film doesn’t know its audience. It’s too dull and slow for kids; not emotionally engaging enough for adults; not exciting enough for the average popcorn-munching viewer; and nowhere near the standard you’d expect from Spielberg for anyone going to see it because he’s the director.

3. This point hurts my fingers to type it, but it has to be said… The holy trinity of Spielberg/ John Williams/ Janusz Kaminski is simply too overpowering in War Horse. The trademark Spielberg angles, Kaminski’s oranges and browns, Williams’ cues telling you when to start crying… Too much emphasise on trying to make the audience feel something, rather than actually making them feel it with a better story, less characters, less corny dialogue, and half an hour less footage.

Despite all of the above, War Horse is far from a terrible film and never reaches the depths of Spielberg’s worst film, Hook. It looks beautiful throughout and the sets and attention to detail of the trenches are excellent. However, it just does not work as effectively and as functionally as we’ve come to expect from the team involved.

Morb-O-Metre: 5.1 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "The Artist" (2011)

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:52:36 +0000

Modern audience may struggle to realise the medium they are watching at the multiplex started without the aid of spoken words and only a musical score to accompany the picture. Sadly, some won’t have even seen a film in black and white. The Artist is both silent and black and white, and even filmed in 1.33:1 aspect ratio. To those not familiar with aspect ratios, 1.33:1 means (in crude terms) the sides of the cinema screen are not filled, with the film looking like a ‘box’ rather than the usual full screen (typically 1.85:1 or 2.39:1) that we are used to. The effect works well in The Artist because that is how films would have looked in the 20’s and 30’s and is (literally) the first signs of director Michel Hazanavicius’ intention to make his film standout from anything else you’ve probably ever seen at the cinema before.

I’d like to point out that 1.33:1 is rare in modern film making but not unique to The Artist; watch Meek’s Cutoff, also released in 2011, to a truely jarring effect of the ratio. But I digress.

The (near) total lack of spoken word, 1.33:1 ratio, black and white, and a non-stop musical score make The Artist a refreshing and welcome change to modern cinema releases. It is funny, sad, charming and reward the viewer with almost every scene it gives us. I cannot praise the lead actor Jean Dujardin enough for his performance; his face expresses every word we do not hear and that is a talent in itself, and moreover he and the rest of the cast give such strong and understanding performances, knowing the director’s intention to remove the sound, that everything makes perfect sense. I say this because the amount of times I get lost in a film’s plot because the dialogue or performances don’t ring true, or the direction doesn’t allow me to follow or believe what I’m seeing, is far too high these days. The Artist is a simple plot told exquisitely well and is a delight to watch.

For a film which takes its origins from the silent era, it was interest to watch the director’s choice of lens, angle, and film stock. The Artist doesn’t look or even attempt to look as if it were made in the 20’s or 30’s but does have an undeniable revisionist feel to it. It is clearly a modern film set in the past and it looks great, unlike, say, Steven Soderbergh’s The Good German which presented itself as a film made in the 1940s using the camera and angles and effects of the period. Soderbergh’s film did not work despite being a brave experiment, but I was happy to see The Artist not falling into the same pretentious trap.

Had I seen The Artist last year it would certainly have made my top 10 of 2011, and I hope it gets all the awards it deserves. It is not without its faults, and I think the film works better in its more lively and happier scenes rather than when it gets more serious, as it does in the second half and loses some of its appeal by getting hampered with too much emotion. This is a minor criticism of an otherwise splendid piece of film making.

Morb-o-metre: 8.8 OUT OF 10

Film Review: "Haywire" (2012)

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:34:17 +0000

Steven Soderbergh is many things. He is one of the most pioneering directors of digital filmmaking working today and he can squeeze every penny out of a small or large budget. His frames are always interesting, his colour pallet vivid and striking, and he never allows himself to be mundane or obvious strives to challenge himself with new and fresh material, with the ‘Ocean’ trilogy as his only franchise and money-spinners. He is one of my favourite directors.

Having said all of that, it pains me to not have enjoyed his latest project, the supposed action/spy thriller Haywire. If anything, to me this is his weakest film to date.

The core reason, ironically, is because of all of the afore-mentioned reasons why I love his work so much but in Haywire it just did not work for the genre. This is his first attempt at the spy/thriller/espionage genre and he is hinder by a lifeless, dull, and stagnant script which, despite a decent opening 20 minutes, wastes away to nothing rapidly. I could not invest in any of the characters or their motives, especially the lead, Mallory the hard-done-by agent who is out for revenge for reasons I never really cared about. She isn’t the first and she won’t be the last; it surprised me Soderbergh was attracted to such a by-the-numbers story.

The film is filled with recognisable faces but Michael Douglas and Antonio Banderas are there to add gravitas to the poster and Ewan McGregor, Channing Tatum, and debutant Gino Carano deliver their lines like we’re watching rehearsal footage. It’s poor dialogue delivered badly. Channing Tatum has the on-screen charisma of a burnt match and is about as useful; I’m saddened to see he has the role in Soderbergh’s next picture, Magic Mike.

Soderbergh’s usual experimentation with colour, filter, framing, and editing are all on-screen in Haywire but only serve to hid the bland story and his inability to stage a fight scene with art-house pretensions. The fight scenes look like rehearsals of what was to come and never for one moment did I feel any enjoyment or excitement. I’m all for his usual style when the story and characters serve its purpose but Haywire, like Ocean’s Twelve, is not the right material for that. Moreover, I want to make a point about digital filmmaking and it’s cinematic qualities; this film looked out of place on a big screen, the Red One camera makes the lighting look too flat and almost too real, taking away any cinematic qualities the film may have had. I might enjoy this film better on TV, but the initial damage has been done. I do not and never will advocate digitally downloading new releases, but films which look like Haywire should have their place in that medium.

I don’t want or expect all spy films to copy James Bond or The Bourne trilogy and this is not why I’m against Haywire. I like a welcome new styles to familiar stories, but if they don’t work then it’s a case of “nice try, but better luck next time”. The final line in the film is “shit”, which doesn’t quite sum up Haywire, but is too far from the truth either. Sorry, Steven, but you set yourself up for that one.

Morbometer™: 4.2 out of 10