Directed by David Mackenzie. Starring Ewan McGregor, Eva Green, Connie Nielsen, Stephen Dillane and Ewen Bremner.
SYNOPSIS:
A chef and a scientist fall in love as an epidemic sweeps the globe.
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, with no one 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, with some montages of still image, 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.
Directed by Ralph Fiennes. Starring Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler, Brian Cox, Vanessa Redgrave and Jessica Chastain.
SYNOPSIS:
After being banished from the city, a military hero returns to Rome in order to extract his revenge.
William Shakespeare’s Coriolanus might not be the most famous of his plays, and certainly not, 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, 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.
Directed by John Flynn. Starring William Devane, Tommy Lee Jones and Linda Haynes.
SYNOPSIS:
A Vietnam veteran seeks revenge after the murder of his wife and child.
Part revenge tale, part human drama, part commentary on the Vietnam war, and part study on the human psyche, Rolling Thunder is a great example of ‘they don’t like films like this anymore’ and makes a welcome debut to DVD and Blu-Ray.
The story is simple; Charles Rane and Johnny Vohden return from 7 years spent in a Vietnamese POW camp to a hero’s welcome. America has changed – the people, the town, the politics but also their family life, too. Rane’s wife has had an affair with his friend and is leaving with his young boy. His boy, only 18 months when Rane went to war, doesn’t know him and they have 7 years to catch up on. Everyone’s life has moved on except Rane but when his wife and boy are murdered in their home, he only lives for revenge.
The film was written by Paul Schrader and is a classic Schrader story. Like Taxi Driver, American Gigolo, Raging Bull and Hardcore, this film is about men at war with themselves and their struggle to fit into the society in which they live. Rane is a man of few words and even fewer emotions; we are never sure what is going on inside his mind because he won’t let anyone in, like typical men in Schrader’s worlds seldom do. The film is teetering on the edge of explosive violence from the very beginning but it isn’t until the final act that the violence, built up and accumulated over the course of the previous 80 minutes, is shown in full force. Like Taxi Driver, the men whom Rane takes his vengeance out on are a manifestation of the evils encountered throughout his life; yes, they killed his wife and child, but Schrader never wrote a scene where Rane breaks down or expresses pain for his loss because the man who went to Vietnam is not the man who came back and has no pain left to feel. “It’s like my eyes are open and I’m looking at you,” he tells one character, “But I’m dead. They pulled out whatever it was inside of me.”
William Devane is on sensational form as Rane, with subtle emotions and gestures carrying the character into a dark place where he once again feels at home in a world of death and suffering. He wears a hook for most of the film after losing his hand to the thugs who kill his family and his disfigurement becomes both physical and mental as the film unfolds. Tommy Lee Jones has a small role as Vohden and even in this, one of his first big screen appearances, you can see an actor at the top of his profession and a master of nuance and body language; he is stone faced throughout the film but his first smile is when they talk of killing the men for whom Rane is out for revenge and it is a noticeable change of direction for the character in such a small, almost throw-away laugh. The men are of few words, and they use sunglasses to block out the world they have come back to; they hide their eyes from America each time the glasses go on you can almost feel the men boiling over into madness. All they know is death and destruction now, and are happy to turn their back on their hometown in search of more of what they once tried to escape.
Rolling Thunder is a simple story with multiple layers under the surface thanks to the brilliant Schrader and lead performances. It is violent, dark, disturbing, menacing and essential cult film viewing.
Directed by Steven Spielberg. Starring Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson, David Thewlis, Peter Mullan, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hiddleston and Toby Kebbell.
SYNOPSIS:
A horse is sold to the calvary and sent to the front during World War I.
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… there's too much emphasis 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.
Directed by Michel Hazanavicius. Starring Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell, Malcolm McDowell, Penelope Anne Miller, Missi Pyle and Uggie.
SYNOPSIS:
A silent movie star faces up to the advent of sound.
Modern audiences 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 is 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 20s and 30s and is (literally) the first signs of director Michel Hazanavicius’ intention to make his film stand out 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 and charming and rewards 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 interesting 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 20s or 30s but it 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 filmmaking.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh. Starring Gina Carano, Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor, Channing Tatum, Bill Paxton, Antonio Banderas, Michael Angarano and Michael Douglas.
SYNOPSIS:
After being double-crossed on her last mission, a female black ops soldier seeks revenge.
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 aforementioned 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 hindered 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 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 not too far from the truth either. Sorry, Steven, but you set yourself up for that one.
Directed by Victor Nunez. Starring Timothy Olyphant, Josh Brolin, Sarah Winter, William Forsythe and Josh Lucas.
SYNOPSIS:
A sheriff forms an unlikely alliance with an ex-con to bring down a local gang.
Before Josh Brolin made No Country for Old Men, American Gangster, and W. and before Timothy Olyphant made Die Hard 4.0 and Justified they starred together in this predictable and lifeless made for TV film. Well, everyone has to start somewhere.
The film is also known as Coastlines which, although utterly redundant as well, is far better and less misleading then the rather exciting sounding The Violent Zone. The film tells the story of Sonny (Olyphant) who is released from jail early having done time for dope smuggling and his interactions with his best friend Dave (Brolin) who just happens to be... you’ve guessed it, an officer of the law. This is one of several tried and tested clichés which unfolds as the clunky story develops. Others include Sonny having an affair with Dave’s wife, Dave then having a one-nighter with some bimbo, and a small-town kingpin (a cartoonishly leering William Forsythe) who wants out ‘hero’ dead, because, as is so often the case, money is owed.
The film feels like a first draft of the screenplay – scenes and dialogue borrowed from many other films and totally lacking in originality. It’s never exciting or thrilling enough to get you hooked nor is the romance believable to make you think lives and relationships are at stake. Sonny sleeps with Dave’s wife and five minutes after finding out he’s banged some stranger and then reconciled with his wife and Sonny too. Utter nonsense for a film which is supposed to take its characters seriously.
The sole reason to watch this would be for any die-hard fans of Brolin and Olyphant to see what they were like before they hit the big time. To be fair both are fine in the roles and you can see why they made the leap from this material to what they are making now. Aside from that, The Violent Zone offers the viewer precious little else but remains a watchable if unengaging 100 minutes.
Directed by David Fincher. Starring Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Steven Berkoff, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson, Goran Visnjic and Geraldine James.
SYNOPSIS:
A magazine journalist and a troubled computer hacker team up to search for a woman who has been missing for forty years.
Ah, the Hollywood remake. Often maligned by anyone who’s seen the original film on which Hollywood has taken upon itself to remake for 100 times the original’s budget, they can be hit and miss. But this is David Fincher and he directed Se7en and Zodiac, so The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is bound to be an improvement… Right?
Let’s look at this film from two different angles; as a remake of Män som hatar kvinnor, the Swedish movie of 2009, and as a stand-alone film. I think on both fronts this new film is only a marginal success.
The original film was something of a surprise to me when I first saw it over 18 months ago. The brutality, violence, and grim, dark and depressing storyline was not what I had seen at the cinema from the usual Hollywood fare for a long time, and I thought ‘You’d never get that if it were an American production’. The star, Noomi Rapace, had a real energy about her and the character (that of Lisbeth Salander, the girl with the tattoo) was far from anything I’d seen before. It looked polished and professional and had a great production value for a country not known for its cinematic output.
Fast forward two years and Fincher’s version is, in my mind, no better than what I’d seen before. It has all the usual trademark Fincher shots and lighting that we’ve become accustomed to but none of terror, fear or sheer genius of the aforementioned Se7en or Zodiac. It’s fair to compare this film to those, unlike The Social Network or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; those saw Fincher go in a different direction, but TGWTDT sees him go back to familiar territory but on autopilot. I assumed (having not read anything about this version) that the much publicised screenplay from Steven Zaillian would do what most remakes do and change the original to set it in the US, and with a reported budget of $100 million I again assumed we’d be treated to something a bit special. What we have is the same story in the same setting but with different actors. In my mind, this is a pointless exercise – why remake a film without at least trying to imprint something new on it? Yes, it looks good and is a perfectly functional piece of work, but this is the minimum you’d expect from the players involved.
Moreover, I believe this film is too easy for Fincher to make at this stage in his career and the script gives him nothing to make improvements on the perfectly watchable original. If this were 1995 and he was looking to follow on from Se7en, perhaps this would be a good film to make, but not now and not after he has cemented himself as the best at what he does in the business. Once a director hits the heights he has, I expect nothing but the very best, or at least attempts to move away from what we know they can do expertly well.
As a standalone film and forgetting having seen the original, TGWTDT remains a brutal, violent, and grim, dark and depressing story, but crucially it’s not a story I’m gripped by nor does it have characters which captivate me. Essentially, the ‘unique selling point’ of the story is Lisbeth Salander and her dark past and uncertain present; yet I found her (in both films versions) too far removed from what I want from a heroine. I can’t root for her because she hardly speaks and I don’t know anything about her other than she’s a bit mental and doesn’t shy away from a fight. Despite what happens to her, I don’t feel sympathy in the way I should for a woman who goes through such ordeals. Moreover, Mikael Blomkvist, the journalist character played by Daniel Craig, is someone I’m interested in because I found him a more believable character with something really at stake in his life. However, the film takes far too long for get Lisbeth and Mikael together on screen and by the time they do half the film has gone and their relationship is built over too short a time on screen to fully buy into. Both Craig and Rooney Mara as Lisbeth deliver fine work in their roles, but the story is, to me, not gripping or intriguing enough to warrant having two main characters fighting for screen time.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is by no means a bad film, but it’s not exciting or thrilling, or even disturbing and terrifying, and it’s far from cinematic, which for a Fincher fan such as I am, is a hard to take.
Directed by Brad Bird. Starring Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton, Michael Nyqvist, Anil Kapoor and Vladimir Mashkov.
SYNOPSIS:
Ethan Hunt and his team are forced to go rogue when the IMF is implicated in an attack on the Kremlin.
Simply put, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is this year’s best action picture and delivers everything you could ask from a non-stop, thrill-ride of a blockbuster. Let me tell you why.
The key to the film success (of which there are many) is the energy and pure spectacle of what we are watching. Director Brad Bird (of Pixar fame) handles his first live-action feature with a clear understanding of how an action scene should look and never lets the audience rest for a moment as the action moves around the world from Russia to the more glamourous Dubai and India. This, the fourth instalment in the M:I franchise, is the closest to how James Bond used to be, with nuclear missiles and globetrotting and luxury cars and beautiful women; however, the writers still keep the ‘impossible’ in Mission: Impossible with the gadgets and customary break-in sequence. The heart of the series remains despite the wall-to-wall action that runs throughout the 133 minutes of screen time.
The plot is more in line with the original 1996 film than the two previous sequels as Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his IMF team must stop nuclear launch codes from getting into the wrong hands. Unlike the Brian De Palma film, the plot of Ghost Protocol remains fairly straight forward and understandable, but never slips into the plain and rather boring story of the series’ weakest entry, M:I-2. But with $140 million on show, I want to discuss the reason why you should part with you money to see Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. And that is the action. And there is a LOT of it!
The story opens in Russia and this is where we have the break-in sequence and, although it’s not on par with the break-in to Langley or Vatican City as we’ve previously seen from the IMF, it’s still exciting and ends with the film’s first story arc; the explosion at the Kremlin. The film is split neatly into three acts. The Russia part is the first act and sets up the story and background of what’s happening, who the bad guys are, and who the new team members are (notably Paula Patton as Jane and Jeremy Renner as Brandt). From here on, it is non-stop as we move on to Dubai…
The marketing for the film has mostly focused on the Dubai section and the now well-known use of the world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa. In the trailers and online clips, we’ve seen Cruise scaling the building on the 135 floor, but believe me when I say that this scene MUST be seen in full IMAX just as director Brad Bird intended it to be. The Burj Khalifa scene is pure and utter movie spectacle, shot and made for no other reason than to wow and delight its audience. This is what sets Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (and the series as a whole) aside from its competition because Tom Cruise always wants to out do what we’ve seen on screen before. The iconic break-in to CIA headquarters at Langley in the first ‘Mission’ and the train and helicopter chase for the finale - nothing like it had been seen on film before and was a completely new direction for De Palma to go in. The drone attack on the Chesapeake Bridge in M:I:III remains, in my opinion, one of the greatest action set-pieces ever filmed and marked the arrival of J.J. Abrams to feature film directing. And now the most audacious set-piece of the series so far.
When Cruise stands by the open window and the screen goes from standard to full IMAX, you cannot help but feel a sense of vertigo. Even though we know the scene was filmed without a hitch, in those few minutes, the sense of danger for Cruise/Hunt is constant and remember that really is Cruise on the building – no CGI backgrounds or stuntmen here. It is the most exciting and awe-inspiring sequence of the year for my money and is worth the price of admission alone and certainly worth the trip to your nearest IMAX to experience it. This beats 3D any and every time.
But Dubai isn’t just about the Burj Khalifa, and we are treated to the most daring and ingenious car chase I’ve seen for many a long time - in a sand storm. Bird films this scene expertly well, and the CGI is used to great effect as neither Hunt nor audience is aware of what is in front of them. This isn’t in a blurred, frantic Michael Bay way, but from a director who knows how to give the audience something new. It is a brilliant 20-odd minutes of entertainment.
Finally, the action moves to Mumbai and this is where the film could lose maybe 10 minutes of its running time, and also lose one element of a scene completely. It has been rumoured Jeremy Renner is to take over the M:I series (although there is nothing in this film to suggest Cruise is ready to hand over his IMF badge) and because he is a fairly big name now, he gets his own action scene and it is the only element I would cut out. It’s too far-fetched even for the M:I series and it only serves to drag out what is already a long sequence. That criticism aside, the action is relentless as we focus on Hunt in yet another unique action set piece, this time in a multi-level automated car park. Cruise, once again, delivers the energy and athleticism we’ve grown accustomed to as he throws himself into, onto, and through an array of cars to save the day. Like any James Bond, Die Hard or Indiana Jones film, we suspend belief that the hero could survive any of what we’ve seen, and just enjoy the sheer entertainment of it all.
This is very much Tom Cruise’s film, but the supporting cast do their job very well, especially Simon Pegg who reprises his role as Benji Dunn and supplies much of the film’s comic relief. Moreover, this fourth film is funnier and more comedic than the previous entries despite having more action than the others put together; I especially like the self-destructing message which doesn’t self-destruct. It’s a blend which works well and sets itself apart from the other movies. Each ‘Mission’ has its own identity and each director has put his own unique stamp on each film, and Brad Bird follows suit. A special mention also goes to Michael Giacchino whose score is right on the mark, although possibly not a clinical as it was on M:I:III, but that can be decided on future listening.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is everything you can ask for from a fourth film in the series and is the most explosively entertaining film of the year. Your mission, and you should accept it, is to see this in cinemas and IMAX this Christmas.
A documentary following famed author Ken Kesey and 'The Merry Band of Pranksters' on their acid-fuelled cross-country road trip across America to the 1964 New York World's Fair.
This documentary of novelist Ken Kesey (One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest) and his band of ‘Merry Pranksters’ could not have been titled anything else other than what it is; ‘Magic Trip’. A trip across the United States in a multicoloured bus whilst tripping LSD. And it must have been, er, ‘magic’ for those involved.
But what about us, the viewer? Is this documentary insightful, intelligent, and educating? The answer is yes, if you’re a fan of the era and the rise of the drug-fuelled creativity of the early 1960s. Thankfully, I am, so I can recommend this for DVD consumption; yet unlike the recent When You’re Strange, the The Doors documentary, this doesn’t have the same cinematic quality, but remains a good way to spend 100 minutes.
As a film lover, what I found most striking was the 16mm colour film footage which the various members of Kesey’s gang shot on their travels. The footage has been restored by the directors Alex Gibney and Alison Ellwood, and this is obviously a work of personal importance to them both, and they have done their very best to synch the dialogue to the footage which has perished over time. Where perhaps visuals and audio were not available to show as a whole, actors provide voiceovers reading the original transcripts of the Merry Pranksters, which is presented as an interview with Stanley Tucci asking the ‘questions’. Again, this is an interesting way to get the most out of the footage available.
The scene I found the most entertaining, and also slightly odd to watch, was the audio recorded when Kesey took part in LSD experiments at his University. He describes the tape recorder as a frog and sees blinding lights in the ceiling, whilst we watch some very creative visual images depicting the mind-bending words he uses to describe his trip. Moreover, one line which stood out was on his defence of taking LSD; he describes the landscape in his mind as one untouched by humans and without any footprints. Poetic stuff from the man who wrote one of America’s greatest literary works of the modern era.
As the film draws to a close, there is a poignant scene showing the once lively bus now abandoned and covered in moss and rust. Those days could never last forever.
Directed by Roger Donaldson. Staring Nicolas Cage, January Jones, Jennifer Carpenter, Guy Pearce, IronE Singleton, Xander Berkeley and Harold Perrineau.
SYNOPSIS:
A husband enlists the services of a vigilante group to help him get revenge when his wife is assualted.
Season Of The Witch. A new low.
Drive Angry. Pitiful.
Trespass. A travesty of talent gone to waste.
And now comes the fourth film from Nicolas Cage this year, Justice. The good news is that it’s the best of his four films this year. The bad news is, it’s still sub-standard and a long way off of anything resembling what Nicolas Cage is worthy of.
The plot is simple; Cage plays Will Gerard, a man whose wife (January Jones) is raped and beaten and seeks the justice of the film’s title via a ‘secret organisation’ of vigilantes headed by Guy Pearce. When Pearce and his gang ask for Cage to do them some favours in return for the rapist’s murder, things start to get dangerous.
Or at least that’s what should happen if it were not for a plot which is so full of holes, it’s practically see-through. I won’t go into detail of the story and why it just doesn’t deliver, because it would be a spoiler for anyone who still decides to see it. What I will tell you is about the filmmaking aspect of it all (and why it doesn’t deliver). The film, shot digitally by director Roger Donaldson, is needlessly bleak and stark and devoid of any colour or contrasting surroundings. Each scene is lit the same and the ‘mean and moody’ atmosphere which Donaldson is trying to convey doesn’t work; the film ends up looking boring from a purely aesthetic point of view. Moreover, the film takes several opportunities to remind the audience that it’s set and filmed in New Orleans yet the story make little or no use of the city or its locations, except for an abandoned shopping mall which still remains unused after Hurricane Katrina. Very sad indeed for such an important American city. The film isn’t all bad and I was never bored but never at once excited either. It is the blueprint on how to make a by-the-numbers thriller.
The action scenes are, to be fair, well done if unoriginal and unexciting due to its small budget. After all, here we have an actor who is used to picking up $20 million pay cheques and starring in $100 million productions starring in, what is essentially, a TV movie. Long gone is the holy trinity of The Rock, Con Air and Face/Off. What is unforgivable is the ending where we see January Jones killing someone in the age old tradition of gunshots-come-from-off-screen-and-we’re-expected-to-be-surprised-when-the-shooter-is-revealed technique. Scriptwriting at its most lazy if I’ve ever seen it.
Finally, I have to say it again and it pains me to do so, but let’s mention Nicolas Cage’s career. Such a great talent and one of the finest actors of his generation, delivering performances that no one else could have done (Leaving Las Vegas, Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans, Adaptation), he is on a downward spiral like no other A-List actor I can think of. The film scripts he is choosing are terrible and are not allowing him to do his thing which is being the crazy and unpredictable Nicolas Cage we know and love. Cage is always (or at least nearly always) good, but the more films like this he churns out, the less time people are going to give him to get back on top again.
Written and Directed by Bruce Robinson. Starring Johnny Depp, Giovanni Ribisi, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Rispoli, Amber Heard and Richard Jenkins.
SYNOPSIS:
An American journalist takes on a job for a local newspaper in Puerto Rico, where he becomes increasingly unhinged.
In the 13 the years that have passed since Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas, Johnny Depp’s career has hit new heights, but the quality of film has not always matched the box office numbers which have cemented him in the A-List. The Pirates of the Caribbean series, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice In Wonderland were all mammoth hits, but despite the majority of opinions, I have never liked Depp in these films. I like the Depp of Public Enemies, Blow and The Libertine. So where does The Rum Diary place?
Thankfully, it’s in the latter category of performances. He’s not in disguise, covered in makeup and wigs but Depp gives yet another solid character performance in The Rum Diary as Kemp, from the pages of novelist Hunter S. Thompson’s book of the same name. However, for anyone thinking this will turn out to be Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas Part II, think again; the levels of madness, drug-fuelled paranoia and destruction are played out and much smaller level, and in their place we get the occasional laugh, the occasional rum drinking, and a romance that, is often the case, we don’t really buy into or care for.
This is a shame because the film starts off so promisingly. The first time we meet Kemp he is in a Puerto Rico hotel with crimson eyes, a pounding head, and a trashed hotel room. He drinks 161 miniature bottles from the hotel minibar in one week. He wears shades indoors to hide his eyes from those around him. He meets Sala (Michael Rispoli) and Moburg (Giovanni Ribisi) whose levels of alcohol and drug consumption pave the way for what we see in Terry Gilliam’s 1998 picture where the real madness takes place.
Without the sheer craziness of what we’ve seen before, The Rum Diary seems very flat and its plot turns out to be very obvious; Kemp meets a girl, they fall in love, she leaves her rich but no-good boyfriend, and they live happily ever after. In between all this we do get snippets of fun such as the brilliant scene where Kemp steers and Sala works the pedals of their little car with a rather bouncy suspension, or when Kemp uses 460 proof alcohol, a lighter, and his mouth as a weapon to fend off some angry locals. Thompson fans will most probably disagree with me and that’s understandable; but for all the fun parts and Depp’s great acting and the scenery of Puerto Rico, the film gets too serious in the final act and there’s juxtaposition within the narrative which just doesn’t strike the right balance.
If this film had been made first, I don’t think we would have seen Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas get made.
Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Staring Frederic Forrest, Teri Garr, Raul Julia, Nastassja Kinski, Lainie Kazan, Allen Garfield and Harry Dean Stanton.
SYNOPSIS:
In Las Vegas, a couple break up on their fifth anniversary and both go on to find whom they believe to be their perfect match.
From the director of The Godfather, The Godfather: Part II, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now comes... er... One from the Heart. Remembered now as the film which declared Francis Ford Coppola’s Zoetrope Studios bankrupt, it remains the complete and utter failure it was when first released in 1982.
God only knows what Coppola was thinking when he wrote the screenplay; his previous four films were examples of the finest films ever put to celluloid and he must have wanted a change from all that success and praise. One from the Heart couldn’t be further removed from the brilliance of what we now know as ‘classic’ Coppola.
The terribly written story tells the tale of a couple going through a breakup and the alternative partners they meet on the journey back to rekindling their love. The dialogue might be acceptable for a Broadway musical, but not a film; but Coppola only cares for the technical details here and his knack of creating characters that spring from the page like Michael Corleone, Harry Caul, or Col. Kurtz is completely ignored in favour for the, admittedly, impressive and lavish sets built entirely on Zoetrope’s sound stages. The film is lit in neon reds, greens, and blues which are supposed to give it a dream-like feel, but instead the result just looks tacky and cheap.
Cheap, however, is the last thing One from the Heart can be accused of being. After the ballooning budgets and production of Apocalypse Now, Coppola apparently wanted to make this film for a modest $2 million, but the film soon ran to a reported $24 million. And that was nearly 30 years ago. In return it took less than $1 million at the box office, resulting in his studio going bankrupt; Watching it you can’t help thinking ‘What a terrible film to go bankrupt on’. Through out the 1980s and on to The Godfather: Part III in 1990, Coppola was making films to pay back the debt he was in. Looking at his filmography since 1982, it begs the question if this film ruined the chances of another truly outstanding film ever being made by the master himself.
The only positive that comes from the film is the soundtrack and the excellent songs written by Tom Waits. But nice songs don’t save a film, Francis. And they didn’t save this one in the slightest.
Written and Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Starring Gene Hackman, John Cazale, Allen Garfield, Frederic Forrest, Cindy Williams, Michael Higgins, Elizabeth MacRae, Teri Garr and Harrison Ford.
SYNOPSIS:
During a routine wire-tapping job, a surveillance expert has a crisis of conscience when comes to suspect that the couple he is recording will be murdered.
We open on a wide shot over looking San Francisco’s Union Square. People go about their day. A mime entertains a small crowd. We hear conversations of the people, but only snippets and fragments; this is interrupted by a loss of audio and static. Something isn’t right – we shouldn’t be listening in on these people’s lives. The camera switches to show a couple caught in the crosshairs of not a gun, but a state of the art listening device. As the story unfolds, we will learn that it is just as dangerous.
The camera, after a slow and patient zoom, finds Harry Caul; a man clearly not at ease around these people, but there for a reason. The voices we hear soon become focused on the couple, but we can’t make out everything they say. But we do know they are of importance to Harry.
So begins Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation, one of the finest American films of the 1970s. And because the 1970s is, to this reviewer, the greatest period of film making, The Conversation remains one of the greatest films ever put to celluloid. These opening 10 minutes are a master class of direction and sound editing. There isn’t a wasted frame, let alone a wasted shot and the sound design puts the audience in the surveillance expert’s world from the very start. Moreover, each scene in this film could be analysed and discussed to share with you its brilliance. Coppola never allows the audience to know anything Caul doesn’t until the final act, when his paranoia has become too great and we can only watch as he descends into madness.
Caul is a loner, a man whose job is to listen in but never be part of society. He has three locks on his door yet admits to having “nothing personal” inside. He sees everyone as a threat to his personal security, and won’t let anyone in to his life. By writing Caul in this way, Coppola creates a perfect set-up for the story that soon follows; a man obsessed with saving the life of someone who doesn’t even know he exists. As Caul, Gene Hackman gives one of his career-best performances working with a script which allows him to bring a depth and fragility to such a lonely, sad man. At work, when he mixes the recordings and tries to decipher the audio, we see a man totally immersed in this world yet he cannot apply the same to relationships around him. His only comfort and enjoyment comes from playing the saxophone alone in his apartment.
The story of The Conversation is fairly straight forward. Caul makes a recording of a couple who are involved in an affair and his job is to deliver this to a high-powered man whom Caul soon believes will murder one or both of the couple involved. But the joy in watching the film comes from the sheer expertise of the film making. Building slowly and carefully, Coppola makes a thriller out of nothing and delivers one of the great final scenes in film history. Tormented by his own paranoia, Caul tears apart his apartment looking for a recording device which, as the audience, we can never be sure is actually there. With the floorboards up and the wires hanging off the wall, Coppola ends the film with a surveillance shot of its own; Caul sat playing the saxophone. Content.
This review is for the Blu-ray release, and the transfer is excellent with hardly any grain showing from the original print. Although, I have always liked the way 70s films looked when I first saw them; I like seeing the grain and texture and because of this I rarely buy Blu-ray copies of older films, unless they’ve gone through a serious restoration process as with Coppola’s The Godfather trilogy. Having said that, this new release is certain worth getting for anyone who doesn’t already own a copy on DVD.
VERDICT: 10 OUT OF 10 - Flawless filmmaking from start to finish.
Rohan Morbey breaks down the second trailer for Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol...
If you haven't already seen the latest trailer, shame on you. See it here...
An overview of M:I-GP (as I'm calling it) trailer 2 would be that it subscribes to a typical trailer format; it starts with some plot exposition and quickly hits the mark of fast edits covering the cast so we know all the faces involved, and treats us to some tantalising snippets of action with key lines of dialogue to add to the tension.
But let's go deeper than that and break it down. What do we actually see, hear, and learn about this new 'Mission'?
PLOT: Ethan Hunt and the IMF team are framed for a bombing at the Kremlin and they must work alone to clear their names and find the true culprits.
"The Russians are classifying this as undeclared act of war... The President has initiated Ghost Protocol."
'Ghost Protocol', we can now assume is a term for the shutting down of the IMF.
As for the rest of the storyline, it is all kept a mystery and that is a good thing. We don't want to be going into the IMAX knowing everything that's going to happen and why!
CHARACTERS: Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise): Hunt is taking the lead as usual, with the rest of his IMF helping out. Most of the action centres on him. Long hair, although not as layered as it was in M:I-2. Yes, this is important.
Brandt (Jeremy Renner): We don't know Brandt's role yet although Hunt includes him when he says “We’re all that’s left of the IMF”. What we do know is the men will have conflict:
"Who are you really, Brandt?" "We all have our secrets, don't we, Ethan?"
Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg): As in M:I:III, Benji appears to be the film's comic relief, although his inclusion in the trailer with dialogue suggests he'll have a much more significant role this time around.
Jane Carter (Paula Patton): Not much is known, except that she is a new character to the franchise and an IMF agent. A possible love interest for Hunt, as they are seen kissing at one point.
Trevor Hanaway (Josh Holloway): Nothing known about this character. Trailer suggests he is IMF. He appears to be filling the Jonathan Rhys Meyers role from M:I:III.
Various websites says Ving Rhames will be reprising his role as Luther Stickell form the three entries. Rhames is missing from both M:I-GP trailers, so we can only assume he has a small role in this latest outing.
Unlike the casting of Oscar winner Phillip Seymour Hoffman in M:I:III, we know nothing about the 'bad guys' at the moment. From the trailer it would appear actors Michael Nyqvist, Léa Seydoux, and possibly Anil Kapoor are taking these roles.
ACTION: The M:I series is full of spectacular action set pieces, each a signature of that particular director's filmmaking style. From this trailer, Brad Bird seems to be packing in as much action as the other 3 films combined!
Kremlin Explosion: Hunt gets caught up in the blast. CG effects look great!
Attack on the Secretary's car: Love how Bird has slowed down the crash scene here, without turning it in to something Guy Ritchie would do.
Car crash in the desert: In the previous 3 films, each trailer has shown Hunt involved in near-death stunt. Helicopter crash in the first; riding through the flames on his bike in the second; and getting thrown into a car from a missile attack in the third. Here, we see a car flip and crash, narrowly missing Hunt. Again, the effects look great.
Fight in a parking lot?: Very quick editing here, but it appears Hunt is fighting in a car as it is dropping, and he then rolls out clutching a silver briefcase. It looks like the same cylindrical building shown near the trailer’s start.
Car chase in India: Again, not much is shown here, except Hunt and Carter driving at high speed in the brand new BMW i8. Car looks superb!
Brandt does a ‘Mission: Impossible’ of his own: One shot shows Brandt replicating the famous scene from De Palma’s film where Hunt breaks in to CIA headquarters. Again, we know nothing more than this.
Burj Khalifa break-in: This is what M:I-GP has become known for in its production so far. The trailer only shows us a few glimpses of what promises to be the tentpole sequence in the movie. In the teaser we saw Hunt in free fall towards and open window, but here we see him not only jump out of the world’s tallest building, but also run down it too. Shot in IMAX, this could be the best scene in the M:I franchise to date. And that really is Cruise on the side of the building, no CGI, no stunt man.
With this little insight, watch the trailer again and count the days until its release!
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol open in the UK on December 26 in cinemas and IMAX.
Directed by Joel Schumacher. Starring Nicolas Cage, Nicole Kidman, Cam Gigandet, Ben Mendelsohn, Liana Liberato and Jordana Spiro.
SYNOPSIS:
A wealthy couple are held hostage in their home by a group of cold-blooded criminals.
Academy Award-winner Nicolas Cage. Academy Award-winner Nicole Kidman. Two of my favourite stars together in the same film; when I first heard of this production, I was hyped from the very beginning. Admittedly, Cage’s choice of film roles have been hit and miss over the past few years (to put it mildly), but I’ll watch anything with him in, and, add to that, Kidman choose the script, too… what could go wrong with Trespass?
The answer is: a lot.
The paper-thin storyline outstays its welcome after not 30 of its short 85-minute running time. Cage and Kidman play a, seemingly, very wealthy yuppie couple whose state-of-the-art modern mansion is broken into by a gang of thieves who want the contents of Cage’s safe. Like many films set in one location, Trespass uses up all of its ideas in the opening act, and we are left with an hour of the usual tried and tested formulas: thieves turn against each other, the daughter is a tearaway, the marriage is in trouble, alarms go off and are cancelled before the police arrive (several times), Kidman and/or daughter are used as leverage (several times)… the list is endless. Furthermore, the list never excites or even entertains because the age-old principle always applies: you cannot care about any characters you do not have an emotional investment in. If the script writer cannot be bothered to make us care, why should we even try?
The film becomes a repetition of shouting, swearing, punching, threats, chases and plot twists added in for no other reason than to squeeze out another 10 minutes before the next one and the next one and the next one until the film reaches the 85 minute mark and can justify a cinematic release. It certainly doesn’t help with director Joel Schumacher adding the woeful technique of splicing in a split-second shot of the room spinning each and every time a character is punched. I’m not a Schumacher hater like many people, but he’s not going to win any new fans with this film.
Trespass presents a strange dichotomy for fans of Cage and Kidman. The film is far, far below their talents and star power and you wonder what they ever saw in the screenplay to make them sign on. Yet at the same time, they are the only reason to keep watching, in the hope they will show us why they choose it the first instance. Sadly nothing turns up. In fact, Cage reportedly abandoned the project before filming started because he wanted to play one of the thieves; at least that way we might have seen one of his more extrovert performances.
The fact that the film was released on Video On Demand (i.e. to download) the same day as its theatrical release, and was planned to be released on DVD just 3 weeks after tells you everything you need to know about the film’s production. A quick, brainless marketing machine made with the sole purpose to reclaim its budget as quickly as possible so it can be forgotten about with the same speed.
Nicolas Cage has this to say about the digital and DVD release: “I want movies to be an event. I want people to get excited about it and go out for the night with their wife or their date, whatever it may be, and have it be an event. I don’t want it to get smaller and smaller and wind up on a cell phone.”
Personally, I am in complete agreement with Cage. Film should be seen in a cinema because that is how the director should have made it. Yet with Trespass, you can’t help but think the production was designed for a digital release, and because of this, it should never have been made in the first place. Filmmaking should be done properly, or not at all.
Directed by Michael Caton-Jones. Starring Robert De Niro, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Barkin, Jonah Blechman, Eliza Dushku, Chris Cooper, Carla Gugino and Tobey Maguire.
SYNOPSIS:
Desperate to make a decent life for her and her son, a divorced mother takes up residence with a bullying tyrant who is determined to make the boy's life as painful and difficult as possible.
Based on the biography of the same title, This Boy’s Life details the coming of age of its writer Tobias Wolff against the backdrop of searching for the American dream in the late 1950s. This was a time where people thought they could make money from finding Uranium on the streets of Utah and make a living from it. As Wolff’s life shows, this was rarely the case.
Yet this is exactly where the film begins, with 13 year old Wolff (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his mother (Ellen Barkin) driving their Nash sedan through the stunning scenery on the way to Utah with no other plans than to find said Uranium. The pair sing along to Frank Sinatra’s ‘Let’s Get Away From It All’ and the stage is set for the dream to end before it’s even begun. There is no getting away, only moving from one broken dream to another as idealism and reality collide. The idealist mother soon meets Dwight (Robert De Niro), a tough disciplinarian whose view of reality is to crush the hopes and dreams of all around him. We never really understand why he is like he is, but perhaps the young boy never knew; it is clear Dwight resented his own failings in life and couldn’t bear to see other succeed. To him, being a man consisted of joining the Scouts, doing a 3 hour paper round, and always winning a fight.
Wolff’s story doesn’t pretend to portray him as an angel and we never have cause to feel especially sorry for him, except when Dwight gets physically violent. Wolff represents the post war American attitude of rebellion and rock ‘n’ roll, with his Elvis hairstyle and smart mouth. Dwight is the exact opposite, a man who would have grown up in a much less privileged era and, we assume, fought in the war. The film is a microcosm of the period, yet there remains hope and a happy ending for those who want to break away from the Dwight’s of this world – because they remain in the present day, too. This is what makes This Boy’s Life a success beyond its film making achievements; it is a story which can be adapted to any time; all you need is one chance to turn your life around.
The performances are stellar throughout. Back in 1993 Robert De Niro wasn’t just one of the greatest and most dependable actors, he was also making great films too; This Boy’s Life shows a De Niro who still cared about the films he was making and could turn in those characters whom no one else could play. With De Niro playing Dwight, we have a man who is always on the edge from the first time we meet him – too eager to impress with his cigarette lighter tricks and fake air kisses, we know this isn’t the real Dwight and it will just be a matter of time until the true character come out. De Niro brought a physical intensity to the screen in the 1990’s that no other actor had; think of his menace in films like Goodfellas, Heat, The Fan, Casino, Copland and now add This Boy’s Life to the list. Watching him here is a reminder of the actor who, whilst not necessarily making his greatest work (save for Goodfellas, Casino, and Heat), certainly wasn’t making the rubbish he is today.
Anyone playing alongside De Niro needs to be on the top of their game to not get eaten up by his screen presence, and the casting of Wolff had to perfect in order for the film to be a compelling story. In a pre-Titanic role, Leonardo DiCaprio steals the show from even the great Bobby De Niro with a performance of such maturity and intelligence, beyond even his, at the time, 19 years of age. Watching the film at the time of release, people must have seen a future A-list star in the making. It is easy to see now how Di Caprio now can command the screen with the presence that he does in film like The Aviator and The Departed when he started off by putting in performances like this one.
Director Michael Canton-Jones captures the era expertly well as he did with Memphis Belle four years earlier and made a very watchable and enjoyable film from a source material full of violence and crushing despair. It’s a shame Canton-Jones would go on to make the terrible remake The Jackal and the unspeakably bad Basic Instinct 2.
VERDICT: 8 OUT OF 10 - Watch this to remind yourself of a great De Niro and see the beginnings of an excellent DiCaprio.
