What I'm watching

#506/#57 The Five-Year Engagement Couple Tom Solomon (Jason...

Thu, 23 May 2013 23:41:00 +0100

#506/#57 The Five-Year Engagement

Couple Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) become engaged right as Violet is accepted to a post-doctorate position at the University of Michigan. This means they need to uproot their lives in LA right when Tom was about to become head chef in a top restaurant. Deciding to delay the wedding until they are settled in Michigan the pair leave, not knowing events will keep transpiring to put off their wedding.

Overly long, or at least the illusion of length, is the main thing which springs to mind when thinking about the Five Year Engagement. The movie starts off fine but by about halfway through the Michigan section it just begins to drag and it never really picks back up again. It’s got a couple of funny bits sprinkled throughout, but never enough to merit the long drawn out sections making up the majority of the film’s second half. The tone is also all over the map. Sometimes it’s a light hearted romp, others it gets a bit surreal before taking a left turn and becoming a serious drama suddenly. A dramady is one thing, but this movie just doesn’t stay consistent from one scene to the next

The film’s not all bad though. Segel and Blunt have a really believable chemistry, which keeps their romantic scenes pleasant and the beginning and conclusion of the movie quite nice. The supporting cast are also fairly effective and where most of the comedy stems from. Alison Brie and Chris Pratt, as the couple’s sister/best friend work well, while Rhys Ifans and Mindy Kaling, as Violet’s boss and co-worker, also get another couple of funny lines in.

I think this is going to be one of those movies women like more than men do, which is sad because it looked like it could have been one of those rare romantic comedy which speaks to both genders. Sadly, it’s not funny enough to be a good comedy but if you get invested in the characters and the story it might be considered an okay romantic movie. Didn’t do a whole lot for me personally, but nothing to make me hate it either. 2.5/5

#505/#56 Star Trek: Into Darkness When a rouge Starfleet...

Thu, 23 May 2013 17:28:00 +0100

#505/#56 Star Trek: Into Darkness

When a rouge Starfleet operative (Benedict Cumberbatch) takes out the top brass and escapes; Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto) and the crew of the Enterprise must track him into Klingon territory. All might not be as it seems however, and soon they find themselves in a fight for their lives.

Having generally liked the 2009 Star Trek film, but also having no particularly strong emotions for it or the original series, I was interested to see how the follow up did without really putting any expectations on it. I think Into Darkness did a remarkably good job at maintaining the tone it set with the reboot while also upping the ante the way a good sequel should.

You’ve got to give it to the visual effects, set design and the sound people for this film firstly, because sections of this movie are just beautiful and really put me at ease for what JJ Abrams is going to be injecting into the Star Wars universe soon. The space battles look epic, the ship interiors look futuristic while still functional and the score was grandiose when needed and complementary when an emotional scene required it. Great stuff all around.

From the cast I thought Pine and Cumberbatch were the clear stand outs in this instalment with Quninto as Spock, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Karl Urban as Bones and Simon Pegg as Scotty all getting an increased role this time around as well. Even John Cho as Sulu and Anton Yelchin as Chekov got at least one moment within which to shine. Alice Eve as Carol Marcus was the only one who really felt more like a plot point than a character.

Pine, who I’ve generally thought was kinda so-so in everything I’ve seen him in, was wonderful as Kirk this time around. He really brought an emotional element to the role, especially when dealing with Bruce Greenwood’s Pine character and with Spock, which you didn’t get in the 2009 movie. Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, I’ve always thought Cumberbatch was good actor but getting to see him as a villain this time around was a real treat. Some of the lines he gets to give and some of the actions he takes are wonderful to watch. Nero, from the original, was so forgettable that it was great to see Cumberbatch come in and just own this movie.

I’d definitely say this was a worthy follow up, and probably even surpasses, the 2009 reboot. Other than a bit of a lackluster final conclusion, some homage fatigue and a few logic failings here and there this movie is top notch. Can’t wait for Star Wars Episode 7 and Star Trek 3 now. 4.5/5

#504/#55 Escape From LA 16 years on from the events of Escape...

Wed, 22 May 2013 19:16:50 +0100

#504/#55 Escape From LA

16 years on from the events of Escape from New York, Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is once again captured and offered leniency for his crimes if he retrieves a stolen device and the president’s daughter from the ruins of Los Angeles.

Very much a retread of the original film, Escape from LA is enjoyable as a goofy action flick but it’s not as good at capturing the gritty 80’s feel of the first movie. This is mainly because it came out in the mid-nineties but it feels like it was still trying to go for the tone of the original film and didn’t quite make it. I also think it’s partially that L.A. is not as interesting to see people fight through as New York was, and that the supporting players were just weaker than in the former film.

Russell is still enjoyable in this, and watching him be Snake again is always fun, but it’s the supporting cast which isn’t as engaging this time around. Steve Buscemi as the weasley conman was okay but his character seemed fairly ancillary and could have been cut from the movie and it wouldn’t have mattered. George Corraface as Snake’s main antagonist was also rather weak. He didn’t seem like a credible threat at any point and really didn’t invoke much interest one way or the other in me.

Elements which did work however, were the slow poisoning of Snake as a motivational tool and the ending. The poisoning was enough like the bombs from the first movie that it felt familiar while also adding a new flavour to things as we get to see Snake getting weaker over time and having to compensate for that as well. The ending was, again, like the original but it had enough of a twist on it to make it work. It also felt very much like what Snake would do in that situation and it’s always nice to see characterisation continuing to pay off.

Nowhere near as good as its predecessor, but enjoyable in the same vein as say Demolition Man or Stallone’s Judd Dredd. Could have been better but still a fun watch. 3/5

#503/#54 Escape From New York Decorated soldier turned criminal...

Mon, 20 May 2013 22:15:00 +0100

#503/#54 Escape From New York

Decorated soldier turned criminal Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is given a chance at a pardon in exchange for rescuing the US President (Donald Pleasence) from within the now walled off island prison of Manhattan.

Watching Lockout recently made me think I should really get around to finally watching this cult classic. I was a touch wary however because I didn’t like Big Trouble in Little China at all and was unsure if another Kurt Russell/John Carpenter pairing would be my cup of tea. I shouldn’t have worried though because this movie is wonderfully 80’s and a ton of fun.

Plissken is the quintessential renegade badass and I don’t think it’s possible to not enjoy watching what he gets up to. He fits with his environment so well that the first moment you see him on screen you instantly know this is going to be somebody interesting to watch for the next 100 minutes. Russell plays him wonderfully as well, in a very low key manner. Others might have been inclined to go over the top, but Russell’s laid back attitude to the whole affair just screams ‘fuck you’ to every authority figure in this flick.

Lee Van Cleef, Donald Pleasence and Isaac Hayes all do well in these various authoritative roles as well. Van Cleef is probably the best of the group; working as the kind of ying to Snakes yang. He’s the road Snake could have gone down had he continued the way he had. They don’t like each other but there’s still a level of respect there despite their animosity. Pleasence makes a good cowardly president and Hayes, while not the deepest character, lends some presence to his role making him seem like a worthwhile adversary to Snake.

Other than this the rest of the movie is 80’s action at its finest and is what you would expect from a good ticking clock movie. The sets are also really good and the soundtrack is great. The opening credit music has got to be up there with the Terminator and Halloween for instantly resonating with the movie and locking itself forever within the recesses of your brain.

I’m definitely going to be rewatching this one again. Well worth checking out. 4.5/5

#502/#53 J. Edgar A biopic covering the life of J Edgar...

Sat, 18 May 2013 15:37:00 +0100

#502/#53 J. Edgar

A biopic covering the life of J Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), the creation of the FBI and Hoover’s fanatical drive to hunt down communists and criminals.

This one’s a little difficult to rate because it has a number of elements working for it but almost as many working against it. On the one hand it’s got a good cast all giving strong performances (with Armie Hammer, Noami Watts and DiCaprio himself doing particularly well), an interesting look at the man behind the FBI (which seems to be fairly unbiased in its portrayal) and some really good costumes/sets/locations/props making it feel like you’re back in whichever decade the story was in at that present moment.

On the other hand, instead of focusing on the pertinent points of Hoover’s life you kinda get all of it and are expected to gleam from it what you will. You would expect the film to narrow in on the historically salient aspects when they arise but those get about as much discussion as the seemingly inconsequential. The result, for me personally at least, was that the movie lacked purpose other than this guy lived in this time period and did a whole bunch of things. I suppose this is true of most biopics, but for whatever reason it just felt meandering in this one.

The rapid transitions between the past and the present were also rather jarring. Some (like the elevator sequence) work well but a lot of them didn’t give the audience any sort of cue we were now switching and it took a couple of seconds to acclimate. Not a huge thing but it happened often enough to become annoying. Additionally, the make-up was pretty terrible as well. That’s not something I really pay attention to normally but it was bad enough that it looked like Hammer was melting whilst in his old man get up. DiCaprio didn’t fair much better but at least his wasn’t distracting from the story.

The strong performances keep it at least interesting for the most part but the rambling and unfocused nature of the story made the runtime feel about a 1/2 hour longer than it is. Unless you’re a fan of the actors or really interested in Hoover’s entire life I’d skip this one. 2/5

#501/#52 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea In 1868, a mysterious...

Fri, 17 May 2013 22:30:00 +0100

#501/#52 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

In 1868, a mysterious sea monster has been apparently sinking ships all across the Pacific Ocean. Attempting to study the creature, French Professor Pierre Aronnax (Paul Lukas) and his assistant Conseil (Peter Lorre) join an American naval vessel charged with looking into the matter. When the creature attacks however, they are amazed to find it is actually a technologically advanced submarine helmed by the strong-willed Captain Nemo (James Mason). Along with the naval ships only remaining crewman, Ned Land (Kirk Douglas), the pair are invited aboard to marvel at life beneath the waves but it quickly becomes apparent they are more prisoner than guest.

Having never read the book I can’t comment on how well they keep to the story, but Disney’s live action version is a fairly enjoyable watch. It’s quite slow in a number of places, which does really drag down the whole feel of the film, but the locations and set pieces are grandiose and impressive. The look of Nemo’s ship, the Nautilus, and the battle with the giant squid during a thunderstorm are truly iconic and particularly well done. The underwater elements, while really dragged out, must also have been notable to a 1950’s audience.

From the cast, Lukas was probably the least interesting, having to work as the audience surrogate, but he does well enough as the go between for Nemo and his fellow captives. Lorre gives a good comedic performance as the loyal but put upon assistant and works particularly well when interacting with Douglas’ character Ned. Douglas himself however, is what keeps the longer boring sections from becoming unbearable. He just brings a lust for life to the character and it’s hard not to smile along with him as he gets from one antic to the next.

Nemo is also enjoyable but in a totally different way. He has some depth to him, which is revealed as the story progresses and Mason portrays perfectly, but he’s at his best when he’s acting like a James Bond villain. He genuinely doesn’t give a damn about anyone on land and it really comes across when he’s interacting with Ned. They hate each other and it’s fun to see them spar. Mason allows you to see glimpses of the good man that was once beneath the veneer but now he has clearly gone off the deep end.

There are certainly a great deal of other live action Disney movies which are a lot lower than this early contribution to the genre but at the same time I don’t think I’d be rushing to rewatch it any time soon. Pleasant, with a good cast, but nothing special nowadays. 3/5

#500/#51 The Sum of All Fears Tensions are high between the...

Thu, 16 May 2013 15:37:00 +0100

#500/#51 The Sum of All Fears

Tensions are high between the Russians and the Americans when a new supposedly hardliner president comes to power in the USSR. When a lost Israeli nuclear bomb is also thrown into the mix by a third party trying to cause war between the factions, it is up to CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck) to try and find who is responsible for what before somebody makes an irreversible decision.

Affleck is the weakest of all the actors to portray Jack Ryan. He’s not bad in the role, he just leaves the least impression after viewing. There wasn’t anything about him which makes him stand out from any generic action star in the way both Baldwin and Ford did. Maybe if he’d had another movie within which to grow the character he might have brought something to the part (like Ford managed) but as it is there is no great loss from this movie failing to revitalise the franchise.

Although this version of Ryan might be a bit of a dud, the story of Fears is probably the closest to recapturing the feel of Red October. Patriot Games was an action film and Clear and Present Danger was a political subterfuge but Fears is back to being a Cold War thriller. Like Danger though, it also does well in setting up a strong story only for it to not really deliver after the big “Oh Shit” moment. The action is still strong but it all gets a little silly after a point.

Ciaran Hinds and James Cromwell both do well as the Russian and American Presidents respectively. They both come across as likeable and strong people but they can also be clearly motivated by their emotions and events into making weighty decisions rashly. This made for a good sparing match when tensions are ramped up and really made it felt like it could go either way. Morgan Freeman was also good, filling much the same role as James Earl Jones in the previous movies, but didn’t really make that much of an impact on the story.

In the end I think the Sum of All Fears makes for a fairly enjoyable action flick but it’s not a particularity great Jack Ryan movie. I’m interested to see now if the second rebooting of the series later this year, with Chris Pine in the role, will be able to bring the franchise back or if it would be better just to let it die. 2/5

#499/#50 Clear and Present Danger When appointed the CIA’s...

Mon, 13 May 2013 16:21:00 +0100

#499/#50 Clear and Present Danger

When appointed the CIA’s acting Deputy Director, Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) has to deal with an apparent set of back channel dealings conducting an illegal covert war on the drug lords of Colombia.

This is where Ford works the best as Jack Ryan. This feels like it’s a couple of years on from the events of Red October, given the ages of his children, so a more matured and knowledgeable Ryan fits more appropriately into the narrative. It’s also more political thriller with action elements than the primarily straight action movie Patriot Games was.

The first three quarters of this movie really works. The political intrigue mixed in with the military guerilla tactic on the drug lord’s operations keeps the intrigue high while occasionally injecting some action into the mix. It also shows the shady side of politics and some of the hard lines and ramifications which come from keeping up a good appearance at any cost through dirty dealings.

It’s a pity it can’t quite maintain this momentum for the entire runtime, opting for an enjoyable, but ultimately kinda silly, action set piece and then a rather odd moral stand in the conclusion. It shattered the image the movie had been creating up until that point making it ring untrue and distance itself from the real feel of the rest of the film. It’ might be because I’m midway through House of Cards at the minute but Ryan’s boyscout black and white mentality to the political system just made him look naive. I didn’t root for him when he makes his big speech on right and wrong at the end, I just thought he was a bit of an idiot.

It’s still an enjoyable film for the most part, and it’s a definite step up from Patriot Games, but it does trip on those last few steps towards the finish line. 2.5/5

#498/#49 Patriot Games While on holiday in the UK, CIA analyst...

Thu, 09 May 2013 17:05:59 +0100

#498/#49 Patriot Games

While on holiday in the UK, CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) prevents an IRA attempt on a royal’s life, killing one of the attackers in the process. This paints a target on his back as the attacker’s brother Sean (Sean Bean) starts coming after Ryan and his family.

Patriot Games might be the weakest of the Jack Ryan films. It’s got a solid opening, with the IRA attack, and a climatic ending at Ryan’s house, but the entire middle section, and majority of this movie, is remarkably dull. It could be a case of the political climate at the time making the threat seem more credible but 20 years on it doesn’t hold up well. There is a distinct lack of tension.

Ford is a likeable and charismatic actor and this is what I think makes his version of Ryan work. He doesn’t fit the role all that well really (too old, never seeming out of his depth, not retaining the light comedy to his character from the previous film, etc) but he’s still enjoyable because he’s a competent actor and his personal likeability carries over. Ford is entertaining but his version of Jack Ryan is fairly indistinguishable from other roles of his such as in Air Force One, Firewall and even, to some extent, The Fugitive. It’s not bad, just a little lacking after Baldwin’s performance. He does however, have the best chemistry of all the Ryans with Ryan’s wife Cathy (Anne Archer). The two of them make for a solid paring.

Bean’s not really giving a memorable performance either. It’s one of his earlier roles, and as such he’s not given much in the way of dialogue. His determination to get the man who killed his brother creates a villain for the story but it also makes the character rather one dimensional as this is the only thing we ever learn about him. This comes more from the writing and story though, rather than from anything Bean did. Still it’s pretty bland.

Nothing about Patriot Games makes it stand out among the 100’s of other mid-90’s thriller movies and were it not tied to a famous fictional character I don’t think it would be remember today otherwise. It’s not a bad film but it’s entirely mediocre and not something I think I’ll be remembering a couple of weeks from now. 1.5/5

#497/#48 The Hunt for Red October (Rewatch) When a Russian...

Tue, 07 May 2013 17:30:00 +0100

#497/#48 The Hunt for Red October

(Rewatch)

When a Russian submarine with a new type of silent propulsion drive goes missing in 1984, and the entire Russian fleet goes out looking for it, the American’s quickly presume one of the Russian’s submarine captains has gone mad and is heading for them. CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) believes however, that the captain, Ramius (Sean Connery), is actually attempting to defect with the stolen sub. Hoping for the best, but planning for the worst, the government gives Ryan three days to try and prove this theory, otherwise they will be forced to destroy Ramius and his ship.

Red October is easily the best of the Jack Ryan films. It’s got a complex and compelling plot about espionage shadow games, two interesting main characters, a great supporting cast and a couple of intense submarine action sequences. It’s pretty much everything you want from a Cold War thriller. It hits the right balance of dialogue and action/tension to keep you invested in the plot and wondering if this encounter will finally be the one which gets Ramius caught.

Ramius has got to be one of Connery’s better roles. Even in his most dire movies Connery is still entertaining, but when he’s committed to a role he can really make it connect with the audience. As Ramius he actually doesn’t talk a great deal but you get all of the weight and emotions of his character through his body language and presence. This interacts with his XO Vasiley (Sam Neill) are particularly telling. He hasn’t made this decision lightly, but now that he has set his course there is no way he can be deviated from it.

I also think Baldwin is the best screen version of Ryan we’ve had to date. He feels every bit like the reluctant hero who only ever planned on working in the background but won’t refuse the call when needed. He just fits as an smart and capable, yet equally out of his depth, analyst. He also manages to be funny without taking away from the magnitude of the situation. Harrison Ford is a great actor but he was too old for the part, for one thing, and never felt like he was overwhelmed by what was happening to him. It’s a personal preference, but Baldwin just fit the bill better for me.

I’d honestly forgotten how good this movie was, and if nothing else comes from working through the Jack Ryan movies, I’m glad at least it got me to rewatch this thoroughly entertaining movie. 5/5

Top 10 Films from March and April, 2013 (Excluding re-watched...

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:28:00 +0100

Top 10 Films from March and April, 2013 (Excluding re-watched films)

Total watched this month: March: 9 (9 new) April: 12 (7 new)

Summer Wars 5/5

The Sting 4.5/5

Blackbeard’s Ghost 4/5

Iron Man 3 4/5

John Carter 3.5/5

G.I.Joe: Retaliation 3/5

Red 3/5

Chronicle 3/5

Battleship 3/5

Rock of Ages 2.5/5

#496/#47 Iron Man 3 Still recovering from the events of the...

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:46:00 +0100

#496/#47 Iron Man 3

Still recovering from the events of the Avengers, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) is attempting to deal with his panic attacks and a general sense of dread. As this is happening a new terrorist group, lead by the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), is attacking American civilians and instillations. Calling him out, Tony makes himself a target and is then thoroughly decimated. Left with no working tech, and only his wits to carry on with, this poses the question: what makes Tony the Iron Man? The suit or the man?

Continuing on from the Avengers was always going to be a tough act to follow but if any of the superhero franchises were going to do it, it was going to be Iron Man. Iron Man 3 has a couple of ropey moments here and there but for the most part it pulls it off well. Downey Jr is still fitting into the role like he was born to play it while the supporting cast of Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle actually get something to do for a change. Kingsley and Guy Pearce also provide worthwhile villains and it’s nice to see a baddy who’s not just someone in another Iron Man suit finally.

Some of the better aspects we get to explore in this film are that we get to see Tony Stark back to his most basic and having to cobble together makeshift weaponry on the fly, a la the cave sequence from the first movie. It’s interesting in this respect to see that Tony’s greatest asset is still his mind and that the suits augment him but they don’t have to define him.

It’s also probably the most humorous of the franchise despite being the darkest. I’m sure that has something to do with the new direction of Shane Black, of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang fame, coming on for this movie. For the most parts it works, but there are a couple times when there’s a bit of a whiplash between a dramatic and a comedic tone.

What might be an issue for some however, and what seems to be the most divisive aspect of the movie, is something which happens around the midpoint of the film. I won’t spoil it here but some people will accept it, and roll with this new development, while for others it will break the movie beyond repair. I went with it so it wasn’t an issue for me, but I can equally see why some people would be pissed. It’s really going to come down to your personal reaction.

I wouldn’t call Iron Man 3 a slam dunk, but I would say it’s one of the better third movie in a superhero franchise. Most of the time this is where everything goes to shit but IM 3 is a fairly strong movie in its own right and a solid capping point if they decided to stop here. It’s better than IM2 but it doesn’t outshine the original film for me and it doesn’t touch on the Avengers. If nothing else it will be interesting to see where they go with the characters from here. 4/5

#495/#46 The Sting During the great depression, two con-artists...

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:04:53 +0100

#495/#46 The Sting

During the great depression, two con-artists boost a mob courier by accident an one ends up dead for his trouble. Hooker (Robert Redford), the remaining grifter, then reaches out to a mutual friend (Paul Newman) of his dead parter who specialises in elaborate big pay-off cons in order to get revenge on the mob boss (Robert Shaw) in the only way he can.

This has got to be the granddaddy of all con movies. You can see so many of its influences in modern heist movies and with good reason. This film is captivating from start to finish. The set design and costumes draw you into this 1930’s world but the characters, the comedy and the con all keep you invested.

Redford and Newman proved in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid that they made a good team so pairing them back up in this film, along with the same director, could only mean good things. The two have such a natural chemistry together that it’s just fun watching them interact in the smallest ways. As well as them though, Shaw also gives a great performance as the ruthless mob boss and the pair’s mark. There’s a real menace to his role and you can’t wait to see how they finally take this guy for all he’s worth.

The con itself is largely straightforward, but there are a couple of twists in there to keep the audience on their toes as well. I imagine it is because it is so influential now, and has affected so many films, but the final twist was actually kind of obvious. It still works but having been exposed to so many of this type of film it’s not that hard to see coming. The movie still managed to go a couple places I wasn’t expecting though, so there is a little mystery still left in the tale even now.

If you’re a fan of the con movie, the Ocean’s 11 remake especially, then I would say check this out if you get the chance. Top notch older film. 4.5/5

#494/#45 John Q (Rewatch) When pushed to his limits trying to...

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:46:32 +0100

#494/#45 John Q

(Rewatch)

When pushed to his limits trying to provide for his sick son, John Archibald (Denzel Washington) has to take matters into his own hands by securing several hostages at the hospital in order to get his son a new heart.

This is another film I watched for the first time when I was quite young but something about it just stuck with me. Washington is very powerful in this role. He’s one of those actors who tends to be good no matter what he’s in but he’s especially on his game for this movie. Kimberley Elise plays his wife, and mother of the dying son, and she also commits to this whole heartedly.

There’s nothing about the sequences in the hospital, between Washington and the hostages, or the lead up to the discovery of the heart problems which I would consider lets the picture down in any way, but if there is one poorer section of this film then it’s the way the hostage situation is dealt with by the police. Robert Duvall plays the hostage negotiator and Ray Liotta the chief of police and it’s really not interesting. They’re both very reactionary and they don’t create the tension and/or friendship from the back and forth between the hostage taker and the negotiator you would expect to see. Everything interesting takes place within the hospital making those on the outside feel largely superfluous.

This aside, the rest of the movie is well worth your time. Some say it’s a little heavy handed with its message about the American health care situation (and in some instances it can be) but for that situation for a father pushed to the edge trying to look after his boy I think it hits the right balance of emotions. I’d happily rewatch it again and you should check it out if you haven’t before now. 4/5

#493/#44 Lockout When the president’s adult daughter...

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:49:25 +0100

#493/#44 Lockout

When the president’s adult daughter Emilie (Maggie Grace) is trapped on a rioting prison space station orbiting the Earth, CIA agent Snow (Guy Pearce) is sent up to attempt a rescue.

It’s a grade B Escape from New York in space, so you can basically tell all the major plot points from that, however the characters make the movie a little better than it should be. Pearce is cocky and wise cracking as Snow but has a little bit of integrity underneath all of his bravado. He and Grace work quite well together with an easy flowing chemistry that keeps the banter entertaining. Grace also does frightened victim to competent survivor believably over the course of the picture. Additionally, Joe Gilgun provides an effectively psychotic villain but his Scottish accent was rather thick in places, making it difficult even for me to understand him, so I imagine he was damn near unintelligible to American audiences.

Other than these three though, there’s nothing else to the movie really. It’s a B action movie with a slightly bigger budget and stars because Taken did well a couple of years before it. I’ve said it before but Luc Besson tends to make really good movies and really bad movies and this is definitely more Taxi/Transporter than in is Leon/Fifth Element. 2/5

Wilhelm Scream #41

#492/#43 Rock of Ages In 1987 LA, small town girl Sherrie...

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:48:00 +0100

#492/#43 Rock of Ages

In 1987 LA, small town girl Sherrie (Julianna Hough) arrives and starts working in the town’s famous rock and roll bar: the Bourbon Room. Under threat of closure from moral crusaders led by the Major’s wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones), the bar sets out to make the money it needs to stay open by having the legendary Stacie Jaxx (Tom Cruise) perform his last gig before his band Arsenal break up.

Rock of Ages is a little like Hairspray but with music you actually want to listen to. It’s from that fairly campy style of musical where you can tell how the entire story is going to play out as soon as you are introduced to each character but it doesn’t really detract from the enjoyment of the film because you’re being entertained by the silliness of it coupled with a good soundtrack.

It’s an odd movie though because it sets up a lot of what you expect to be really cliché plot points (e.g. we need to raise money to save the bar/rec-centre/orphanage etc) and then never does anything with them. Those it does remember end as predictably as you expect but you’re left feeling confused because so many things just stop being issues by themselves as the movie progresses. It makes the events of this film lose any sort of weight and leaves the remaining plot points feeling remarkably inconsequential.

Hough and her love interest Diego Boneta both work well enough as the naive newcomers to this rock and roll world, Paul Giamatti is good as the skeezy manger to Jaxx and Russell Brand, Alex Baldwin and Malin Akerman all pitch in as likeable comic relief characters. The scene stealer is Crusie as Jaxx himself though. He plays the out of touch rocker really well. The only one I felt was miscast was Zeta-Jones. I know she can sing and dance, having seen her do so in Chicago, but she just didn’t gel with her character here.

If nothing else the movie has a good classic rock soundtrack, and it’s enjoyable enough while watching at the time, but I’d say you could probably get the same experience with a best of the 80’s soundtrack and not really miss anything. 2.5/5

Wilhelm Scream #40

#491/#42 King Kong (2005) (Rewatch) Remake of the classic 1933...

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:18:00 +0100

#491/#42 King Kong (2005)

(Rewatch)

Remake of the classic 1933 monster movie in which a film crew travel to an unmapped island where their starlet Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is abducted by the giant gorilla Kong (Andy Serkis) and the crew must attempt to save her.

This movie both thrives and suffers by having a major fan at the helm. Peter Jackson, hot off of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, brought that grandness over to make Skull Island and the world of King Kong seem intimidating and immense. Also, like in the original, he was pushing the forefront of special effect and motion capture to make the locations and Kong feel as real and immersive as possible. Finally, as such a big fan of the original, he knew how to stay true to the its characters and storyline, while updating and revising when required for a modern audience.

The movie suffers however in terms of length and editing, most likely because he is so close to the source material and didn’t want to cut anything. This movie seems to go on forever and you really do begin to lose interest right when it’s supposed to be reaching its climax. This is most apparent while on the island because each of the various monster battles take up big chunks of time. In the 1933 version these were all relatively short battles due to the restrictive nature of stop motion animation but in this version they can be as long as Jackson wanted. As such each sequence is impressive in its own right but played back to back in movie form they become repetitive. By the time they are capturing Kong on the beach you’re less saddened by this and just glad to be moving on to New York finally.

Cast-wise everyone involved does quite a good job. Jack Black seems like a bit of an odd choice as the unscrupulous film maker Carl Denham, but he plays the part very well. Watts is a more well rounded character than Fay Wray’s original Ann Darrow was; forming more of a connection with the giant ape and coming off as more of a person than a plot point. Adrian Brody also works well as Ann’s love interest Jack Driscoll. He’s a little ‘every man’ but it work for the story. Finally Serkis, as he always does, nails it with the motion capture and really brings Kong to life.

If it were just a little less overindulgent with all of the battles/effects and a bit snappier with the pacing I think this would be one of the modern classics, but as it stands it’s a really good remake of a classic film which you don’t often revisit because of its daunting runtime. 4/5

Wilhelm Scream #39

#490/#41 Blackbeard’s Ghost New high school track coach...

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:30:13 +0100

#490/#41 Blackbeard’s Ghost

New high school track coach Steve Walker (Dean Jones) inadvertently casts a spell which lets him, and only him, see the ghost of the pirate Blackbeard (Peter Ustinov). In order to let Blackbeard’s soul move on from limbo he must perform one good act and he decides to help his descendants save their home/hotel by wagering on the outcome of Walker’s track team at the county’s annual relays. The local gangsters however have other plans for the hotel and set out to hamper the team’s chances.

I watched the second half of this film when I was a kid, and I just loved it, but I could never find it again to see the entirety of the movie. Sky’s new Disney movie channel finally gave me the opportunity to rectify this however. It’s not as good as I remember it being but it’s still quite enjoyable in that quaint, live-action 60’s Disney sort of way. It’s no Mary Poppins, but it’s up there with Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

Jones and his love interest Suzanne Pleshette play off of each other well, maintaining an easy chemistry throughout the film and gaining a few laughs of their own, but the real buddy act of the piece is Jones and Ustinov. Ustinov is great comedic actor and Jones makes talking to the empty air still feel believable and entertaining but it’s when they’re a pair, and bouncing off of one another, that the comedy really shines through. It’s this ‘odd couple’ mentality which keeps the pace going but the slapstick and physical humour derived from having an invisible character which made me remember this as fondly as I did even years on for a half viewing. This is most apparent in the track meet, restaurant and gambling hall scenes as each makes the best use of Jones looking like a crazy person to everyone who can’t see Blackbeard, while Ustinov casual saunters around messing with everyone he comes in contact with.

Maybe not the pick of the litter from older live-action Disney, but it’s full of likeable characters, good comedy and is short enough to be worth a shot anyway. 4/5

The film did give us this though. That was a bit of a WTF? when...

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:00:00 +0100

The film did give us this though.

That was a bit of a WTF? when the movie was announced. The expressionless wonder Kirsten Stewart is supposed to be the fairest of them all in a film with Charlize Theron and Chris Hemsworth? Yeeaahh…no.

#489/#40 Snow White and the Huntsman When Snow White (Kristen...

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:47:00 +0100

#489/#40 Snow White and the Huntsman

When Snow White (Kristen Stewart) manages to escapes from years of captivity under her evil stepmother, Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron), the Queen sends the huntsman Eric (Chris Hemsworth) after her. Once he meets her however, the huntsman changing allegiance and together, with the seven dwarves, the pair begins building an army to take down the evil Queen.

Underwhelming is probably the best word to describe Snow White and the Huntsman. There’s nothing particularly wrong with the movie but there’s nothing about it which makes me think I’ll even remember it 3 months from now. It’s heavily stylised, but not distractingly so, and it tells the Snow White story well, while adding a couple of new elements to proceedings, but nothing you wouldn’t think to see in any other entry into the medieval fantasy genre.

The cast aren’t exactly pushing the boat out either. Hemsworth is fine as the huntsman but he’s super generic. He’s a likeable actor and makes you empathise with the huntsman’s past/arc but it really could have been any relevant action actor and the same effect would have been achieved. Theron, on the other hand, is too much the other way. In some scenes she’s a very menacing and effective Queen only to turn around and become a pantomime villain screaming her head off and over pronouncing every other syllable. I see what she was going for but it’s way to over the top.

Surprisingly Stewart is the most effective of the main cast. I mean she’s playing a damaged, socially inept shut in who’s attempting to interact with people for the first time in years while being pale and looking attractive so it is pretty much right in her wheel house, but for the majority of the movie I totally believed she was the damaged, yet determined Snow White. Her ‘I’m now fantasy Jesus let’s go kill the Queen’ speech went down about as well as Keira Knightley’s did in the 3rd Pirates movie but you’ve really got to have a certain type of presence for that ever to work.

I wasn’t expecting a whole lot from this to begin with, and it is probably the most interesting retelling of Snow White we’ve had for a while, but on the whole it just felt lackluster and I can’t work up enough energy to care one way or the other about this movie. It’ll kill a couple of hours but don’t expect more than standard fantasy fare. 2.5/5

Wilhelm Scream #38