Film Review: The Descendants

Alexander Payne has been making enjoyable dark comedies for a while now. Not a huge output, but with films like Election, About Schmidt and Sideways under his belt, quality far exceeds quantity. His latest, The Descendants, is a bit softer than those films, but is still enjoyable, with an outstanding lead performance.

George Clooney plays Matt King, a land baron living in Hawaii, trying to deal with the fallout of with his wife Elizabeth being in a coma after a jet ski accident. He's trying to re-connect with his daughters Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and Scottie (Amara Miller), and things are made all the more complicated when he discovers Elizabeth was having an affair...

Clooney is truly superb as Matt. It's probably one of his best performances, and he perfectly captures every nuance on a character in a surreal situation such as he is in. I am hard pressed to think of any other actor that could have played him, such is the power of Clooney's performance.

The rest of the cast are good too, albeit with one or two slightly iffy casting decisions, with Beau Bridges being the main issue I had, playing one of Clooney's cousins, Hugh. In the films subplot, Clooney and the rest of his cousins have to make a decision on a land deal that would turn a Hawaiian beauty spot into a tourist are, full of houses and shops. Bridges just doesn't fit well into the film, I thought.

The writing is wonderful, and conveys nicely the sentiment that just because Hawaii is known as a tropical paradise, doesn't mean there aren't people there who have the same problems as the rest of us. But as stated earlier, it's all slightly more sentimental than you are used to with Payne.

Hawaii is shot brilliantly, in both ways you'd expect, the beaches, sea and tropical foliage we have all seen a million times in shows like Lost (shot in Hawaii) and Magnum P.I., to the suburbs of Hawaii, because real people do live there after all.

Overall, The Descendants did miss a little something for me. It's a marvelously acted film, with Clooney putting in a performance of a lifetime, and an intelligent, touching and witty script, but it just missed that extra edge you normally get in an Alexander Payne film.

****
A great film, although not up there with the directors other work. George Clooney is superb in the lead role though, and makes any other inadequacies with the film nearly irrelevant. Nearly.

Film Review: Love Birds

I've got a lot of time for Rhys Darby. Like most people, I first saw him in the excellent Flight Of The Conchords (and when I say excellent, I mean the first season only, the second one went off the boil quite a bit) as the bands incompetent manager Murray.

Since then he had a great supporting role in Jim Carrey vehicle Yes Man (a film I still really like), and has done his stand-up tour around the world (in fact, I'll be seeing him in Ipswich in July) and has written a book. He's also found time for more movies, including Love Birds.

Darby plays Doug, who after his self-obsessed girlfriend Sarah (Faye Smythe) dumps him, finds himself nurturing an injured duck that runs into his garden. Not knowing what to do with the wounded quacker, he meets zoo veterinarian Holly (Sally Hawkins), and the two start a relationship that has to overcome all the usual hurdles you'd find in a film like this - the child who doesn't want a new Dad, the ex coming back on the scene, and some that are not, the trials and tribulations of looking after a duck called Pierre.

There's a lot to like about Love Birds. The two leads are great, both separately and together, and have a really good chemistry with each other, and Doug's relationship with Pierre is equally sweet, although that gets a bit far-fetched on one or two occasions (I'll come back to that later), and there's some good comedy moments to be had, mostly coming from Darby, obviously.

But that about does it for the plus points, unfortunately. The plot in romantic comedies are never going to be especially complex, but when you're watching a film with people and everyone is calling what is going to happen later, you know your film is a little too formulaic.

The supporting cast is pretty poor also. Doug's workmates are set up to be comic relief, but when you have someone like Rhys Darby supplying the laughs already, it just doesn't work. And the character of Sarah's friend Brenda (Emily Barclay) is so one dimensional, that all she talks about is relationships and/or sex. She literally has nothing else to say.

As I mentioned earlier, things do get a bit silly as the film progresses. A scene where Doug has to chase his car as it is being towed away as Pierre is inside seems almost as if it was shot just so it include 'Bicycle Race' by Queen, who contribute a lot to the soundtrack, with varying degrees of success.

Also a scene where Doug, who has lost Pierre, opens his car doors and blasts out 'Who Wants To Live Forever', again by Queen, in order to find him is pretty ludicrous.

Another thing that started to grate on me was how similar the words Doug and duck were. In a New Zealand accent they sound quite similar, surely they could have given Darby's character a name that didn't sound like duck (and things are made worse when another character says Dad in a thick NZ accent, that sounds like Doug and duck too!)

If you're a fan of Darby, it's worth a one time only watch, but there's a lot better out there if you are looking for an original rom-com.

**
Likable enough lead characters, a nice performance from Rhys Darby and the odd amusing moment throughout, but overall Love Birds is a generic, predictable, poorly written in places romantic comedy, albeit with an adorable duck thrown in.

Film Review: Seeking Justice

Only one week after his last film was released in the U.K (the truly dire Trespass), came another Nicolas Cage film. Seeking Justice came out in this country last November under the shortened name Justice, but has yet to see a U.S. release date strangely enough. It's to be released in March in the States.

Maybe it was the blow back from the disastrous box office takings (so bad in fact, the film was pulled out of cinemas and released on DVD just two weeks later) but it's actually slightly unfair on the film, because it's not the worst film Cage has done recently...

Cage plays Will Gerard, who after his wife Laura (January Jones) is raped and assaulted enlists the help of a vigilante group led by Simon (Guy Pearce) to 'seek justice' on the perpetrator. But if the group does this for him, Will owes them a favour, and six months later, they come to ask for it...

Seeking Justice is nothing original by any length, but it managed to keep this reviewer watching for the duration. There are some nice action scenes throughout, and you do wonder where Will's debt to the group is leading. It's watchable fluff, can't really add much more praise than that.

The cast is filled out by a few recognizable TV faces. As well as the aforementioned January Jones (from Mad Men of course), there's also Harold Perrineau (Michael from Lost) and unfortunately, Jennifer Carpenter from Dexter, who I feel is one of the worst actresses working today. Luckily, she is barely in it, thus saving the film from her awful acting.

Cage is OK as Will. He doesn't go O.T.T. as he has been prone to do in recent years, but by the same stroke, it's not a particularly memorable performance either, but a huge step up from stuff like Trespass and Knowing etc.

But, overall, while I didn't mind the film at all when it was on, and it kept me engaged throughout, I'm struggling to find much to recommend it to anyone. If you're after something that isn't very challenging and mildly distracting, this is the film for you.

**
An odd one. Originally, I was going to award the film 3 stars, but as I wrote the review, I struggled to find anything really good about it. It's watchable, and never dull, but not much else stands out about it.

Oscar Nominations 2012: My View

Preface

It seems that every few years the Oscar nominations are absolute garbage. Last year we had The King's Speech, The Fighter, The Social Network and more jostling for awards, but the year before had the likes of the watchable but vastly overrated The Hurt Locker and Crazy Heart, which did feature a hell of a performance from Jeff Bridges, but was flawed as a film. Other nominees that year were Sandra Bullock slush-fest The Blind Side, the middling Up In The Air, and the absolutely dreadful Avatar.

The two years year before that (presented in 2008 and 2009 if you have lost track already) were both years full of well deserved nominees and winners, a rarity that two years back to back contained so many worthy films, acting performances etc. They included No Country For Old Men (one of the most deserving Oscar winners of all time in my opinion), There Will Be Blood, Frost/Nixon, The Wrestler and The Dark Knight, with acting and writing nods going to many of those.

But so many times, Oscar gets it so brutally wrong it defies logic. Just look at some of these past indiscretions, and I'm just limiting these to Best Picture, in the interests in saving time. And please note, except when stated, I'm not saying anything negative about the winner, more the superiority of the runner/s up...

1964, My Fair Lady wins Best Picture, Dr. Strangelove does not.

1979, Kramer vs. Kramer wins Best Picture, Apocalypse Now does not.

1980, Ordinary People wins Best Picture, Raging Bull does not.

1994, Forrest Gump wins Best Picture, not Pulp Fiction OR The Shawshank Redemption - that one may be the worst of all.

1996, The English Patient wins Best Picture, Fargo does not.

1997, Titanic wins Best Picture, L.A. Confidential does not.

2001, A Beautiful Mind wins Best Picture, Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring does not.

2002, Chicago wins Best Picture (bet you all forgot that one), Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers, The Gangs Of New York and The Pianist do not.

It's nothing that hasn't been spoken or typed before, but it's well worth a reminder. Some shoddy films have won the Best Picture Oscar in the past. All this brings me to this years nominations, and I've never had so much umbrage with a list before. And I'm going to cover my problems, one by one...

Lack Of Drive


Probably the most glaring omission from the nominations is Drive. Nicolas Winding Refn's superb picture garnered glowing reviews, made most critics top ten list, and was my favourite film of 2011. But other than BAFTA, there was not much awards buzz. The Academy, who can't have bothered to watch it that closely, seemed to go with the flow here, electing to give it one nomination. For sound editing. Maybe they chose to have a bit of shut-eye when it was on?

The most blatant miss was for Albert Brooks, who was simply brilliant as Bernie Rose. They don't give a Supporting Actor nomination to him, but do for Jonah Hill? Yes, he was the best he has ever been in Moneyball, but it was by no means an award worthy performance, and he's still only known by most people for stuff like Superbad, The Sitter and Get Him To The Greek. Not to say that doesn't make him capable of performing in 'grown up' films, but it's just not that good a performance.

But really, why was Drive not nominated for more? The only thing other than the Academy flat out missing it was the bursts of ultra-violence throughout. Most of them probably have heart conditions.

The Oscars Have No Shame


Another huge acting miss here, both for Lead Actor and Supporting Actress, in Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan for their respective fearless performances. Not to mention Steve McQueen's fantastic direction, the cinematography (another nomination Drive could have had also) and probably one for Best Picture too. Some may argue, but if you can consider harmless but bland War Horse and inevitable weepy Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close (a film where the Academy must have just glanced at the plot and saw their old faves Tom Hanks and the reliably awful Sandra Bullock were in, and added it to the list) both worthy of Best Picture, then you can sure as hell include Shame.

I can only imagine the opposite happened to when the Academy saw the plot for Extremely Loud..., as to what happened to Shame. They saw it was about sex addiction and had a few shots of genitalia in and they burned their screener copy at the stake.

Bridesmaids? REALLY?


I didn't mind Bridesmaids when I saw it. It was a fun enough film, superior to the Hangover films, but the script could never really settle on what kind of comedy it wanted to be, it was all over the place. If you told me that it would not only receive an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay, but also a supporting actress nod for Melissa McCarthy as Megan, I would have probably called you an insane person, not before I asked "What? The one whose most memorable moment in the film was the bit where she took a shit in the road?".

Turns out the Academy must be insane people. It's been said for years that the inclusion of more comedies would be great at the Oscar's. But this is not the place to start, and the film is flat out unworthy of any awards consideration, except maybe frivolous honours like 'MTV's Wackiest Comedy 2011' or something.

If the Academy wanted a fantastic comedy, with great performances and a brilliant screenplay, they should really have checked out The Guard.

This Is Making Me Melancholic

As big an injustice as the lack of anything major for Drive, was the non-existent amount of nominations for Melancholia. I've not seen a performance by an actress in the last 5 years, let alone the last year match Kirsten Dunst in this film. It was simply incredible. The film deserved a nomination, the cinematography deserved a nomination, and Lars Von Trier deserved a nomination. But I think we all know why no nominations were forthcoming. Von Trier's ill-advised  comments at Cannes last year. Yes, they were idiotic, but I'd like to think the films are looked at for what they are, not the directors statements. Obviously not.

This Is The Pitts


Slightly dramatic header, I did enjoy Brad Pitt in Moneyball, a top film with top performances. But did the Academy not see him in The Tree Of Life? I know they watched it as it got a couple of the few deserved nominations of the lot. Pitt delivered a career best performance in that film, and should have been nominated for that instead, if not both.

Aping A Decent Awards Shortlist


Another popular choice for Best Supporting Actor would have been Andy Serkis, for his role as Caesar in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes. People had mentioned Serkis in previous years for his role as Gollum in The  Lord Of The Rings films, but for me ROTPTA was where he really shone. But it's not your traditional role.

The film at least got a Visual Effect nod, but that leads me to perhaps the worst nomination of them all. Visual Effects and Sound Mixing nominations for Transformers: Dark Of The Moon. Yes, I know they are minor awards, but they can call it an Oscar nominated film now! And it's truly one of the most vile, repugnant headache's of a film ever to be released.

The Rest, And What I Didn't Mind


Nothing for Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for their music work on Girl With The Dragon Tattoo? The opening credits sequence was THE music moment at the cinema for me in 2011, but best play it safe and give a nomination to John William's pedestrian wankery for War Horse, eh?

I know this one is old news, but why the hell did Senna not get a nomination for Best Documentary? It was one of the best films of last year, let alone the Best Documentary and nothing! At least BAFTA got it right, giving it nom's in both British Film and Documentary categories.

God, I really need to see We Need To Talk About Kevin. Critically acclaimed, went on many a top ten list, and no nominations whatsoever. That film must be amazing.

I've not actually seen The Artist or The Descendants yet, looking forward to both though. If anyone was wondering.

Finally what I liked - it was good to see Nick Nolte get a Supporting Actor nomination for Warrior, he was great in that and a lot of other places seemed to forget that, and as mentioned earlier it's good to see The Tree Of Life in there, as well as a Supporting Actress nomination for Rooney Mara in Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. That's about it though.

Conclusion


I just can't care about The Oscar's anymore. This year is the final straw for me, I don't care who wins. They are meaningless. I just can't believe it took me so long to figure that out!

Film Review: Pieces

The great thing about 80's horror is that some of it is so bad it's brilliant. Films like Slaughter High, Silent Night, Deadly Night, and this, 1982's Pieces are never going to be considered classics, but are riotously entertaining for that precise reason.

The good people at Arrow Video seem to know this. They bring out great releases of actual classics like Dawn and Day Of The Dead, lesser known gems like Romero's brilliant teen vampire film Martin, and 80s cult hit Vamp, but they also release definitive versions of films that I mentioned in the first paragraph. And in the days of just throwing a disc into a case, all their releases come complete with booklets, posters, reversible covers, and all the extras that it is possible to amass. You can tell their releases are real labours of love.

I'm going to be honest. I'd have never even heard of Pieces if I hadn't noticed it had been released by Arrow. One brief look at the synopsis and I knew it was something I had to see, and I hope you feel the same...

After a particularly disturbing childhood incident involving a jigsaw puzzle which results in a kid caving his Mother's head in with a sharp and blunt weapon, we jump 40 years to 1982 where the kid is now a psychotic man, intent on cutting up sexy young college students with the intent of making a human jigsaw puzzle.

Pieces is pretty terrible on all levels. The story line rarely makes sense (the 1940's flashback features a touch tone telephone!), the acting is dreadful and a lot of the cast are dubbed because the film was shot in Spain, doubling for Boston. As in Boston...America.

Just when some kind of sense is forming something weird happens, whether it be a character (an obvious red herring at that) attacking police officers for no reason, or the appearance of a Bruce Lee lookalike (apparently because the producers of the film were also making a martial arts film at the time and just thought it would be a laugh to have him in a scene.)

It's also almost too gory as well, if you can have such a thing as too much gore. Copious amounts of blood splash all over the shop, and heads and other various limbs get hacked off left, right and centre. Compared to similar films of the time it's really over the top grue-wise (but Arrow have released it uncut, so that's a bonus.)

But it's the terrible acting, the dubbed dialogue (the DVD have the option to play the film in Spanish, so I guess half the characters would be dubbed into Spanish. Stick with the English version. Unless you are Spanish), the strange nonsense that occur on screen, the excessive gore and nudity that make Pieces an absolute blast.

Sitting watching it on your own probably won't do it justice as much as sitting with a group of friends mocking it. Hell, even one of the films tag lines almost seem to be taking a pop at it, the slightly insulting 'It's Exactly What You Think It Is' (I bet the writers and directors were really pleased with that, although the film is awful. so they only have themselves to blame.)

Pieces is one of those glorious horror films that are so bad they are positively genius, and it's for this reason that everyone can rest easy that it will never get ruined by a terrible-for-the-wrong-reasons remake.

***
A hard film to rate. From a cinematic standpoint it's an absolute turd and should be given less than one star, but for entertainment and unintentional comedy value it rates around a 4 or 5. Highly recommended for any 'Bad Movie Night' you may host.

Film Review: The Muppets Take Manhattan

As you may have read in my reviews of the first two Muppet movies (The Muppet Movie and The Great Muppet Caper), one of my big fears for the forthcoming (unless you live in the States, where it's actually soon to be released on Blu-Ray!) Muppet movie was that it wasn't going to include a key feature for me, namely, the characters knowing it's a film (apparently, this isn't the case.)

But way before now, this had already happened, and my fears were for naught. While it doesn't reach the spectacular heights of The Muppet Movie, The Muppets Take Manhattan is a hugely enjoyable film in which the fourth wall is never broken.

Directed this time round by voice of Piggy, Fozzie, Animal etc. Frank Oz, the story involves The Muppets newly graduated from college, and deciding to take their successful college play to Broadway. But things are tougher than they seem when they hit New York, and before long they have to go their separate ways.

All the key elements are there, the songs (which are superb this time round, after being a bit forgettable in the previous film, especially 'Together Again' and the rather emotional 'Saying Goodbye' and 'He'll Make Me Happy'), the cameos (although these are definitely more aimed towards an American audience, Joan Rivers, Elliott Gould and John Landis were the only ones I actually recognized) and the great dialogue.

There's a few things that didn't work well for me however, the Muppet Babies cutaway was a rather blatant advert for the TV show which was soon to begin, cute as it was. And the amnesia story line that effects Kermit was both an easy way to pad the film out a bit and slightly disturbing, the sight of him being hit by a car was a bit much for what is essentially a kids film.

But the emotional connection with the characters was what made it for me. After being unable to connect on any level with War Horse, I was shocked at how sad I was when the gang failed to make it in New York and went their separate ways (the aforementioned song didn't help in the slightest) and the wedding scene at the end (complete with pretty much the entire Henson universe singing along), well I think I might have had something in my eye. That says a lot about both the failings of War Horse, and the likability of The Muppets.

After watching these first three Muppet films, I am still a bit worried about how a new one can be pulled off in this day and age. In the late 70s and early 80s thing seemed a lot simpler, and the world has grown into a more selfish and cynical place. I just hope that cynicism doesn't spill over into the Muppets, because the innocence, silliness and heart of films like The Muppets Take Manhattan towers over everything else about it.

***1/2
Not quite as good as The Muppet Movie, better than The Great Muppet Caper. Save for a useless storyline element (amnesia...ergh) and essentially a short advert for a TV show, The Muppets Take Manhattan is great fun on all levels. The ball is in your court Bobin, Segel et al...

Film Review: Shame

I can only imagine that sex addiction isn't the barrel of laughs it sounds like. A heady mix of getting laid whenever you want or just generally being able to be Hank Moody from Californication is what you'd think, but British writer/director Steve McQueen presents a more realistic, cold portrayal of sex addiction in his new film Shame.

Set in New York, Michael Fassbender plays Brandon, who is lives alone, helping him to keep his private life...well, private. This is all disrupted when his reckless sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) shows up unannounced, needing a place to stay.

The main thing that Shame left me with were the performances and the direction. Fassbender is truly superb as Brandon. You're not meant to like him, and it's tough to really connect with his character unless you happen to be going through the same thing, but it's such a layered performance. Struggling with his addiction, whilst trying to cope with his sister's presence, which seems to make his situation even worse, and not just for the reasons you'd think. And to say he goes above and beyond for the performance is putting it mildly.

Carey Mulligan is also superb as the free-spirited sister. Another layered performance, acting the fun loving role on the exterior, but there's a sadness we never really get to the bottom of. Also a great singing voice, as the film just stops for her to sing a slowed down version of 'New York, New York', in a absolutely spellbinding scene.

There are plenty of spellbinding scenes in fact, the best of which are the ones where the camera is just trained on people having a conversation, whether it be Brandon and a date at a restaurant (albeit with a supremely annoying waiter, one of the few moments of levity in the film) or a discussion with Brandon and Sissy, shot over their shoulders, whilst a cartoon plays on the television in front of them.

Scenes like that are usually not the work of relatively new director, but this is only Steve McQueen's second film, which makes it all the more impressive. The direction of the film did leave this viewer slightly cold and alienated at times though, but considering the subject matter and how it was portrayed, may well be intentional.

One of the things that really impressed me also was the fact there was only one sex scene in the entire film. And that wasn't even shot in focus! Not saying there isn't nudity, scenes before and after the act, or during where you don't see what happens, but for a film about sex addiction to have one relatively sex scene in it borders on genius for me. In fact, the argument could be made that the sex scene didn't even need to be there. By no means totally superfluous, but not completely needed at the same time.

Just over two weeks into the new year and contenders for Film, Actor, Actress and Director of the year have already emerged. The subject matter is pretty powerful, but so is the film. Highly recommended.

****
You might not click with the characters, and it may just leave you a little cold, but regardless, Shame is well worth 100 minutes of anyone's time. Amazing performances and direction throughout.

Film Review: The Great Muppet Caper

Following on from my review of the first Muppet Movie (see here), comes the second original film that was released. The Great Muppet Caper came two years after, in 1981 and was helmed by the creator of all things Muppet himself, Jim Henson. But while the film retained a lot of what made the first film great, there was something missing this time round.

Again, everyone in the film knows they are in the film (something I love about The Muppet Movie and The Muppet Christmas Carol, although it's more just Gonzo and Rizzo in the latter), so we are introduced to proceedings by Kermit, Fozzie and Gonzo, with a nice song and the whole set up that they will be playing newspaper reporters who travel to London to interview the rich victim of a jewel thief (Diana Rigg.)

Once there, they find the Happiness Hotel, where most of the regular Muppet gang are staying, and Kermit 'meets' Miss Piggy, working for Lady Holiday (Rigg), and obviously, they fall in love.

I just couldn't get used to the 'fictional' storyline. The Muppet's playing themselves, but not themselves. It's clear that this is meant as a film the Muppet's made after they hit the big time in the first film (in fact there's one scene where Kermit and Miss Piggy break character and have a domestic!) but I just couldn't click with the story from that point of view.

But the positives, the songs are all good (although not quite as good as the first film), and there are some absolutely brilliant sequences. they may seem a bit ropy now, but the level of effort that would have had to go into a scene where all the Muppet's are cycling in a park, or a lavish underwater musical number at that time, must have been off the chart.

As usual, there's some great one liners, and the usual procession of cameos, with Peter Ustinov, John Cleese and Peter Falk being particular highlights, especially Ustinov whose appearance heralds another cameo from a different Henson show (no prizes for guessing that one!)

Also worth noting was an incredibly young looking Charles Grodin, hamming it up (no Piggy pun intended) as Holiday's dodgy brother, who is holding a candle for Miss Piggy too! He is great fun in the role.

It's not the greatest Muppet story ever told, but it's still highly enjoyable stuff. Just a shame about the story within a story stuff. Although, the next film is Muppet's Take Manhattan, where they drop the 'they know it's a film' factor entirely. Slightly worrying!

***
Another entertaining slice of Muppet fun, although inferior to The Muppet Movie that came before it. It still contains the charm that I don't know if the new Muppet film can replicate. Time will tell!

Film Review: War Horse

Already strongly predicted for glory at awards season, War Horse an adaptation of the children's book by Michael Morpugo, and the stage play that first started in 2007, and is the latest film from Steven Spielberg.

The film, simply put, is pure Oscar bait. Sweeping story, lots of emotion and some war thrown in as well. But is it award WORTHY? In my opinion, not especially.

The premise is quite simple. A young man, Albert (Jeremy Irvine) enlists in the army after the horse he raised, Joey is sold to the military to help during World War I. We follow both Albert and Joey as they both travel to mainland Europe and see their war stories, leading to the inevitable reuniting moment.

There's a lot to like about War Horse. Obviously this being Spielberg, the sequences of war are amazing - don't go expecting Saving Private Ryan or Band Of Brothers levels of bloodshed though, this is a family film. There are genuine moments of humour, and on the flip side, plenty of touching moments, and the films two and a half hour running time just flies past.

The performances from the actors are all great, but this is very much a horse film, so the likes of Benedict Cumberbatch and David Thewlis don't get much of a look in, which is a shame, and the characters they portray are not very well developed at all.

It's a double edged sword when it comes to Steven Spielberg though. Whilst he shoots some amazing stuff, he does tend to lay it on a little thick though. The worst example of that is a scene that briefly unites a British and German soldier. While it isn't as vomiting inducing as it could be, it's really a bit much considering.

But the main issue I had with the film is one that definitely won't apply to everyone, but will to some. And considering the title of the film,  it's pretty big. It's the horses, and the lack of emotional connection I made with them. It was just asking too much of this reviewer.

I don't want to sound flippant here. Horses are amazing creatures, granted. And there were times when funny things happened to Joey, and the other horses in the film, and those were funny. And there were sad things that happened too, and those were sad. But I think the film was asking for more emotion about the horses than I had to give.

Maybe people who see the film who get more emotional about things, or someone who owns a horse, or just more of a general lover of animals would be effected more, but I just couldn't get too much into the horse side of things. There were people being killed left, right and center, and while that was given some respect, it seemed like a side note to Joey getting stuck in barbed wire.

I'm sure that opinion won't be too popular with some, but even without my lack of real emotion when it came to the equine members of the cast (and the human ones too, due to the aforementioned shoddy character development), War Horse was still just a pleasant, easy to watch film. Nothing more, nothing less, and definitely not worthy of any kind of awards consideration.

***
A well made film, with some brilliant and dramatic sequences. But, it's all going to come down to how much of a 'horse person' you are. But even that may not overshadow the poorly written humans, and what seems like a rather in your face attempt to get an award nomination.

Film Review: Hostel: Part III

Bypassing a theatrical release completely, and answering the sequel requests of pretty much nobody, Hostel: Part III has arrived, albeit with some decent horror movie credentials, as it's directed by Scott Spiegel (who, along with Sam Raimi, wrote Evil Dead 2.) But is it worth the effort?

Whilst at a bachelor party in Las Vegas, four friends find themselves seduced by some attractive ladies who take them to a club off the Sunset Strip, where things get bad when they find themselves participants in a sick form of gambling and torture, hosted by the Elite Hunting Club, which you may remember from the original film.

That's where the connections to the original films cease, however. This is a very, very loose sequel, and you don't even see a Hostel till almost an hour in. It feels more like someone decided to make a torture porn film after seeing The Hangover.

The cast (Kip Pardue, Brian Hallisay, John Hensley and Chris Coy star) are all pretty bland, with Thomas Kretschmann continuing to take any film that is offered to him, as the club boss Flemming.

But, in the films defense, when it finally starts with the gore, it's pretty good. It takes almost a third of the film for that to happen, but there are some gruesome scenes, and the gambling aspect of it is a nice little twist. One guy loses everything he's bet, when one poor sap being tortured wets himself. It seems a bit more than just the usual stuff in this respect.

There's nothing else of note about the film really. It's watchable, although the ending is absolutely ludicrous, but it's no worse than the awful second film in the series. If you're a fan of the Hostel films, it could be worth a rent, but can't really recommend it for anyone else.

**
Aside from a couple of cool grue scenes, and the whole gambling on torture element of the plot, there's not much to the third Hostel installment at all. Not surprising it went straight to video, but it's not 1 star bad.

Film Review: Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol

I'm not going to lie to you, I had no interest in seeing this film, and I'm still not entirely sure why I did, especially considering that I saw it in IMAX. Allow me to explain. The more and more weird things I heard about Tom Cruise (not to start controversy, or let someone's beliefs have any impact on a film review, but Scientology is a little odd), the harder I found it to watch him in things.

Putting a film with him on instantly conjured up images of him jumping up and down on Oprah Winfrey's couch proclaiming his love for his new missus/detainee Katie Holmes, or banging on about "thetans" or "Xenu", it was as off putting as watching Mel Gibson in a film after you listen to his deranged answer machine messages.

And it's not just Cruise I have issue with. Co-star Simon Pegg really gets on my nerves now. Once at legend status in my eyes thanks to the likes of Spaced, Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz, but now thanks to Twitter (a real pain for shooting down your lofty opinions of the famous, just ask fans of John Cusack) I just find him a really grating character.

So these two things put the new Mission Impossible film pretty low down on my to watch list. But for reasons passing understanding, I ended up going, paying the extra £4 to see it in IMAX, and God help me, thoroughly enjoying it.

It's not that I didn't enjoy the other films in the series either, the first film was great, and the third one was a right laugh too. The less said about the woeful John Woo helmed second film, the better, though. But this 4th installment (even though it's one of those sequels that opts to drop the number) was surprisingly entertaining. Utterly ridiculous, but entertaining.

After a bodged mission in Russia that causes the Kremlin to blow up (told you it was dumb), Ethan Hunt (Cruise) and his IMF team Benji Dunn (Pegg) and Jane Carter (Paula Patton) are disavowed but are helpfully tipped off by the IMF Secretary (an uncredited Tom Wilkinson), and with the help of 'analyst' William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), the team go rogue to find the people behind it, and to clear their name, before an even worse atrocity occurs.

Cue the most over the top action set pieces you've seen in ages. And I don't mean that in a negative way, most of them are absolutely thrilling. Impossible (no pun intended) in real life, but on a great big IMAX screen they just look amazing. Not to give too many away, but highlights for me included the Dubai skyscraper sequence, and the sandstorm chase that followed, and the frankly mental automated car park face off between Hunt and the man behind the bomb, Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist, more on him momentarily.)

The cast are all likable, even the little guy. The first time in several years I could watch a performance of his without my mind wandering to his personal life (admittedly, this is probably because he hasn't done anything weird lately.) Pegg also doesn't grate on my nerves, and some of the films funniest moments come from him, in particular a great one liner after the aforementioned skyscraper sequence.

Patton is fine as the teams female member, and it's actually nice that no romantic subplot with her and Cruise is forced upon us. Jeremy Renner is particularly good, and most amusing as the quite grounded Brandt. He even gets to mention how ridiculous and implausible one of the many action scenes were. An interesting fact is that his character has been introduced to the series to replace Cruise when he decides he's done enough of the films.

There's also a couple of smaller appearances from Josh Holloway (Sawyer to the Lost fans out there) as the IMF agent whose death got the whole incident started (calm down spoiler whiners, it happens in the first scene of the film), and Anil Kapoor as the spectacularly sleazy Brij Naath.

One cast member that doesn't quite work is Nyqvist as Hendricks. It's a really poorly written bad guy, and I mean that almost literally, he barely has any dialogue at all, and the guy is a great actor. Very brief appearances, and a really undefined character when so much better could have been done. Anyone who has seen the original 'Girl With...' films knows how much Nyqvist can bring to the table, and he is utterly wasted here.

The director this time round (replacing J.J. Abrams, who still hangs round in a producer capacity) is Brad Bird, best known for his work in animation, starting with The Simpsons in its glory years then going onto The Iron Giant, before heading to Pixar to direct The Incredibles and Ratatouille. This is his first live action film, in fact and it really does not show. Everything is shot spectacularly, and when you look at it, the film pretty much is a live action cartoon, so may not have been that much of a stretch.

Ghost Protocol won't change your world, or make your favourite (or least favourite) film list, but it will entertain you for a couple of hours, but just remember to leave your brain at the door.

***
An entertaining two hours of action. Probably one of the stupider films to come out recently that doesn't include CG robots, but just switch your brain off and enjoy some stunning action sequences, and a little bit of plot if you want. Just a shame that the bad guy role was seemingly forgotten this time. True popcorn fare, for better or worse.

Film Review: The Muppet Movie (1979)

In the run up to the (belated) release of the new Muppet movie here in the UK, I've decided to take a look back at the original three films, The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper and Muppet's Take Manhattan, and try and get sorted what Jason Segel, James Bobin et al need to do to give us a proper Muppet film, and even if that's possible in this day and age.

It had been a long time since I last watched The Muppet Movie, probably not since I was a kid, and it just instantly draws you in. In fact, it made me kind of worried already about the new one, because I honestly don't know if it could replicate the silliness, the heart and the charm of the original.

The film (kind of mirroring creator Jim Henson's rise to fame) tells the story of how Kermit, Fozzie, Miss Piggy, Gonzo and the rest of the gang became famous. Starting with Kermit sitting in his swamp singing The Rainbow Connection (a song that went on to be nominated for an Oscar) before leaving on the road to Hollywood, meeting his new friends along the way, everything about the film is a treat.

A air of danger is introduced with Doc Hopper (Charles Durning), a evil frogs legs restaurant owner who is relentlessly pursuing Kermit with eyes to make him his companies new spokesman/main course.

As is standard with Muppet movies, there's tons of cameos from the world of entertainment. Most kids today wouldn't have a clue who any of them are but it's generally amusing seeing the likes of Steve Martin, Richard Pryor, Bob Hope and even Elliott Gould show up. They don't all hit the mark though, Mel Brook's appearance gets pretty tiresome, and it's frankly bizarre seeing Orson Welles crop up near the end. The best cameo, though, is saved for a cousin of the Muppet universe, let's just say.

But it's a minor quibble, everything else about the film caused a massive smile on this reviewers face throughout, the fantastic songs, the in-jokes (if the new Muppet movie isn't aware that it's a movie, then they are seriously doing it wrong) and the hilarious one liners ("Ah, a bear in his natural habitat - a Studebaker")

Another thing I hope the new film has taken from this, is that the film is about the Muppet's, not humans, they are incidental players in the whole story. Every human character in The Muppet Movie, bar Doc Hopper and his hapless sidekick, is just a cameo, and that is what makes it work so well. But time shall tell.

The Muppet Movie is fantastic fun for young and old alike. Sure, some kids won't get some of the dated references (I didn't get them all!), but there's loads here to recommend it. If you haven't seen it, and you want a crash course before the new film comes out, it's the only place to start.

****
A few ropey cameo appearances aside, this is a great film for kids and adults, who remember the Muppet's from when they were kids. Great songs, jokes, and tons of heart. You'd have to be made of stone not to get on with this.

Film Review: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

On the whole, I could never really see what the whole fuss was about when it came to Stieg Larsson's 'Millennium Trilogy', or the films that came out after that. The first book, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was a great read, granted. But the original film adaptation wasn't the masterpiece so many proclaimed it to be in my eyes.

Then the second and third books, The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest, respectively, just turned into one boring slog, which I thought could have probably been edited down into one book. The film adaptation of the former was alright, but needed trimming down too, and I never bothered watching the film of Hornet's Nest, due to just being a bit bored of it all.

But when I heard one of my favourite directors, David Fincher was going to be directing a US remake (US in the loosest sense, this is set in Sweden, just like the book), my interest was renewed.

Along with Fincher came screenwriter Steven Zaillian (Schindler's List, Gangs Of New York and the recent Moneyball), and after I read an interview with him saying he wasn't even going to be watching the original film I was sold.

Unlike so many sequels, there wasn't that much of a backlash towards it either. In fact, the only negativity came from the director of the original, Niels Arden Opev. And after watching Fincher's remake, I can see why he was so peeved. It's because he was totally outclassed. The new Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is far superior in every way to the original.

For those few people, who haven't read any of the books, the plot goes a bit like this. Disgraced reporter Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig, not even attempting an accent, thankfully) is offered a 'job' of uncovering the death of Henrik Vanger's (Christopher Plummer) niece, whilst investigating the whole Vanger clan, under the auspices that he is writing a book about the elder Vanger. As he starts to unravel the mystery, he is aided by his new research assistant, the very troubled Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), and the truth starts to emerge.

Even though I didn't think a great deal of the original film, the role of Lisbeth Salander was played to perfection by Noomi Rapace, and the odds were really stacked against Rooney Mara to top that. But I'm happy to report she did. While it's impossible to say who the best Salander is, Mara's certainly holds it's own, albeit not quite as rough as Rapace's. But I was very surprised that Fincher found an actress as game as Mara. The role calls for a hell of a lot, and she bought something to the table that a lot of actresses today could never do.

Craig is also great as Blomkvist. It speaks volumes of his range that the name 'Bond' never once crossed my mind, only during the films opening titles, where Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross cover Led Zeppelin's 'Immigrant Song' with an industrial edge, and that seemed almost like an 'anti-Bond' credit sequence. Craig plays a quite unlikable character at times, but he still manages to keep the viewer on his side.

The rest of the cast are solid, in particular Christopher Plummer as Henrik, and his nephew Martin, Stellan Skarsgard. Also, it's always good to see Steven Berkoff on the big screen.

If I had to find fault with the film, is that sometimes it moved a bit too quickly, especially when it comes to character development. I'm aware that the film was over 2 and a half hours long, but a bit more time when Salander arrives to assist Blomkvist would have been greatly appreciated. Any other fault would be just comparing the film to the book, and you can never do a 100% accurate job on adaptations.

Fincher's direction, like The Social Network before that, is not as flashy as it has been in the past. Whether that's a change in style, or just the material he's working with, it shows some great variation either way. That's not staying the film isn't stylishly shot though, pretty much every set piece in the film is done so much better than the original.

As of writing, the film has done solid business in the States (the only place it counts), but hasn't exactly raked it in, but a sequel is in the works in 2013, obviously being The Girl Who Played With Fire, where the rot really began to set in for me. If they can keep the leads, the director and the writing skills of Zaillian, they may be able to make something more coherent out of the source material. I certainly hope they can.

****
Aside from running ahead too far with some character development, this remake far surpasses the original in my opinion, and manages to stick closer to the book, whilst being it's own film. A great performance from Craig, and a stunning one from Rooney Mara also makes this a must see.

The Worst Films of 2011

Unlike my Top Ten of the best of the previous year, I'm not going to present anything spectacular here, just a list, in no particular order, of the worst dreck that has been released. No pictures, no directorial information, just the facts.

But before that, let me just say that there may be much worse out there. I had no interest in seeing pointless remakes like Conan, Fright Night and their ilk. And neither did anyone else by the look of it, as the takings were pitiful. But the following films were the worst I've tolerated this year.

Honorary mentions should go to these films first though. They weren't dreadful, but just lacked a point and/or were a huge disappointment...

The Honorary Mentions


Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows - the original wasn't exactly mindblowing, and this offered more of the same, but duller. At least Jared Harris was good as Moriarty.

Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence - not entirely sure what I was expecting, but it didn't come off very well at all. Lost the dark humour of the original, and was genuinely unpleasant to watch.

Troll Hunter - The trailer for this looked so promising, and it wasn't dreadful, but I was let down by it. Quite a personal choice there, someone else may get more out of it than I did.

The Green Lantern - Didn't mind it at the time (this will be a common theme in my list) but as time went on, the fact dawned on me that I don't really want to see it again. Or a sequel.

Right, then. The following is the worst of the worst. If you got any enjoyment out of these, you're seriously on the wrong blog. In no particular order...

THE WORST FILMS OF 2011


Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
OK, forget what I just said. This is truly the most vile, repugnant piece of shit of the year. A film about toys is turned into another bad language peppered, T&A fest by the detestable Michael Bay. Naming a film Transforners and have it be about incredibly annoying humans is all kinds of wrong. No one comes out of this with any dignity, not even John Malkovich, whose last scene in the film involves him being tickled by a Transformer. And a character from the next terrible film on the list showed up in it for no reason! Transformers: Dark Of The Moon was the definition of 'cinema for idiots'.

The Hangover Part Two
Whereas the original Hangover was vaguely amusing (not the "funniest film ever" as some frankly insane reviewers stated), the sequel looked to repeat that. Literally. It's the exact same film, but in another country, and with the same jokes slightly grosser. Even the 'wacky' cameos of the first film repeat, for absolutely no reason other than to keep idiot fans of the franchise feeling safe and within their comfort zone. A sickening turd of a film.

The Thing
Not so much terrible, as absolutely pointless. John Carpenter's version had an air of ambiguity in places, questions that needed answering, but were left open. Not even pressing questions - just "what happened to the original camp?". This prequel clods along and answers the questions no one was asking, but removing all tension that the original possessed.

30 Minutes Or Less
Absolute waste of time. Written by someone who just discovered how to swear, this was mercifully short, but still dragged. There were some amusing moments, but they were few and far between.

Trespass
Only natural that a Nicolas Cage film appears on the list. I had real trouble staying through this one, mainly because I expected better from everyone involved (well maybe not Cage). A home invasion turns into an Eastenders style melodrama, but with worse acting. Everyone screams a lot, and Joel Schumacer almost makes a film that stinks even more than Batman And Robin. Had the most hilariously dire box office haul in the States too, was on DVD 2 weeks later!

Cowboys And Aliens
Too many cliches spoil the film. Yeah, you should expect them in a film with this title, but it was just awful. Everyone has a special quest to achieve, and the moment you saw Harrison Ford, you knew he'd turn out to be a good egg in the end. Forgettable pap.

Sucker Punch
Confusing nonsense from Zack Snyder, who I expected better from. Yes, there are attractive young ladies in leather beating people up, but not even that can maintain the interest levels. The wrong kind of 'stupid action movie'. Hopefully he's got it all out of his system in time for Man Of Steel.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
I must have been in an amazing mood when I reviewed this originally, granting it two (!) stars. In hindsight, it should have dropped one. You'd think it would be better, losing the cardboard cut out duo of Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom, and having a much shorter running time, but it's just as bad, if not worse. Even worse supporting actors, with a coma inducing storyline, and most criminally of all, wasting the great Ian McShane in the role of Blackbeard. Utterly sick of Jack Sparrow too now, and that takes a special kind of bad to make that happen.

Scream 4
Or Scre4m. Quite a lot of people seemed to love this, and I have no clue why. Slightly better than the third installment, but not by much. This is truly the definition of a sequel nobody asked for. I don't know what Wes Craven has been smoking the last couple of years, what with this and My Soul To Take, but he needs to kick it. A boring waste of time.

11-11-11
At least not many people (if anyone) saw this. I'm not even entirely sure it got released, or if it did it wasn't on 11-11-11, which would have made sense. An interesting story about a man whose life revolves around events that include the number 11, this could have been really good. Sadly it was as dull as dishwater and never seemed to start, let alone end. And who would want to watch it now anyway? As it is about a single day in a single year that will never happen again, it had a shelf life of 24 hours. Good work.

So that's the list for 2011. I know 2012 will bring it's share of awful films. I can see them coming already, just look at Men In Black 3. Everyone getting quite excited about how amazing it's going to be. Have they all forgotten the woeful MIB2? That film sucked!

I like to think I could avoid everything awful out there, but I have a feeling I'll be back here in a year with another list. In the meantime, you'll read about everything I see at the cinema on here, as usual.

Happy New Year!

The Top Ten Films of 2011

It's been quite a year for quality films, and it has taken quite a while to decide on a order in which to put these, so first allow me to list the 'honorable mentions' of 2011, films that I thoroughly enjoyed, but aren't quite Top 10 material. In no order at all...

The Fighter, Super, X-Men: First Class, Drive Angry, True Grit, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Ides Of March and Moneyball.

And now (drum roll please), here's my top 10 of 2011...



10. Midnight In Paris (Director: Woody Allen. Writer: Woody Allen)
A surprising treat from Woody Allen this. Went in having barely any clue what it was about and was charmed by it from the outset. Also, one of those films that I found myself liking more after I watched it and really started thinking about it. As I said in October, don't read what it's about, just watch and enjoy.



9. Black Swan (Director: Darren Aronofsky. Writers: Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, John McLaughlin)
Aronofsky delivers a stunning companion film to The Wrestler, somehow managing to equal that film on quality. Dark, twisted and almost channeling Argento in places, the film is bolstered by an unbelievable (and deservedly Oscar winning) performance from Natalie Portman.



8. Warrior (Director: Gavin O' Connor. Writers: Gavin O' Connor, Anthony Tambakis, Cliff Dorfman)
Yeah, it was a bit cheesy in places but Warrior was a superb 'Rocky style' look at the world of MMA, but more importantly the relationship between 2 brothers, and their relationship with their father. The fights will thrill you, and the performances will bring a tear to the eye, with a special mention for Tom Hardy's role as the emotionally detached Tommy.



7. The Tree Of Life (Director Terrence Malick. Writer: Terrence Malick)
Truly one of those films that will leave you exhausted by the end, but this offer so much. At the most basic level, it's the story of a sons strained relationship with his father (an astounding Brad Pitt) mostly told via flashback, but things get non-linear with images of what comes after life, and a jaw dropping 20 minute sequence of how the world was created. Bold stuff, but not the easiest watch.



6. The Guard (Director: John Michael McDonagh. Writer: John Michael McDonagh)
Easily the funniest film of the year, The Guard has another fantastic turn from Brendan Gleeson as an in your face Irish policeman, the perfect foil for Don Cheadle's FBI agent. And a brilliant turn from Mark Strong also. Just a film that you can tell everyone had a blast making.



5. The Kings Speech (Director: Tom Hooper. Writer: David Seidler)
Just sneaking into the year end list (it was released on January 7th!) is something that normally isn't the usual kind of thing I watch, but it was bolstered by wonderful performances from Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and even the usually annoying Helena Bonham-Carter, and a fascinating real life story. I think everyone in the world has seen it by this point, but still highly recommended.



4. Super 8 (Director: J.J. Abrams.  Writer: J.J. Abrams)
I was hoping that this film would just nail the look and feel of the Spielberg classics of the 1980's and this did it with style. Spielberg probably had a hand in it as he was producing, but that takes nothing away from J.J. Abrams, and his best film to date. And special mention to the child actors in it, in no way annoying and they swore. It doesn't sound much, but these things really make these kind of films for me. Magical stuff.



3. Melancholia (Director: Lars Von Trier. Writer: Lars Von Trier)
Lars Von Trier shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a microphone or tape recorder anymore, granted, but based on films like this, he should just let the stunning imagery and story do the work. Another draining film, Melancholia left me with the same feeling as Antichrist did upon leaving the cinema, like I'd just been winded. And you can't not mention a career performance from Kirsten Dunst, it would be a travesty if she didn't get an Oscar nomination (she won't, of course.) Kiefer Sutherland and Udo Kier deserve a nod for keeping the first half of the film relatively light too. A fantastic film in all areas.



2. Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (Director: Rupert Wyatt. Writers: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver)
It says so much for 2011, that a film as amazing as ROTPOTA is 'only' number 2. As much as I was looking forward to this, being an '...of the Apes' fan, I never thought it would be as good as it was. Respectful of the original, and with an outstanding performance from Andy Serkis. And let's not forget it contained THE cinematic moment of 2011, one that made every audience member I saw it with gasp. Bring on the sequel.



1. Drive (Director: Nicolas Winding Refn. Writer: Hossein Amini)
I did call it a "very strong contender for film of the year" back in September, and I wasn't wrong. Drive had it all, style, class, violence, an amazing soundtrack, just everything. A throwback to films like To Live And Die In L.A. and Manhunter for me in terms of style. And further proof, if anymore were needed, that Ryan Gosling will probably be taking over the world in 2012. Not seen it? Don't even finish reading this sentence. Go now.