The Cinemasitter

Author: Cinemasitter

  • Review: The Lone Ranger (2013)

    Arriving in the UK with the word ‘FLOP’ seared into its flesh, thanks to a lacklustre marketing campaign, an underwhelming performance at the box office stateside and a critical mauling in many quarters, Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer’s adaptation of The Lone Ranger had a bad reputation before it even opened. All the more reason to rejoice then that it turns out to be one of the most purely enjoyable films of the year: full of spectacular action, eccentric humour and loving nods to the entire history of the western genre. Most surprising of all is that the near two and a half hour running time just flies by. Why can’t all flops be this much fun?

    Full review: The Lone Ranger | Cinema Review | Film @ The Digital Fix

  • Review: Dial M For Murder (1954)

    “Hitchcock’s 3D Masterpiece” proudly proclaims the re-release trailer for this 1954 effort by the Master of Suspense. Frankly “masterpiece” might be pushing it, but Hitch’s only excursion into three dimensional filmmaking is still an enjoyable, if unexceptional, entertainment. The director’s distinctive black humour and thematic preoccupations remain intact, but he tackled similar subject matter in many other, much better works. He was basically treading water creatively, yet the use of 3D does add a little interest to what is otherwise a fairly by-the-numbers exercise.

    Full review: Dial M For Murder | TakeOneCFF.com

  • Review: The Wolverine (2013)

    The X-Men franchise rehabilitation continues apace with The Wolverine, a sturdy second spin-off for the mutton-chopped, metal-boned mutant. Arriving in the wake of 2011’s fast-paced First Class, and with one eye on next year’s sure-to-be-epic Days of Future Past, this new entry is akin to a pause for breath, centring as it does on its lone character and a relatively grounded, more intimate story (for a comic book adaptation at least). It’s a refreshing change of pace, noticeably helped by relocating the action to Japan, and it gives room for star Hugh Jackman – notching up a sixth appearance in the role – to counterbalance his usual aggressive action scenes with a few quieter moments of character drama.

    Full review: The Wolverine | Cinema Review | Film @ The Digital Fix

  • Review: A Field In England (2013)

    A mesmerising exercise in Lynchian weirdness and English folk horror, Ben Wheatley’s latest project cements his claim as British cinema’s most promising genre talent. Though there’s very little in the way of the usual horror trappings, the terror here is all in the mind, as befits a film made on a shoestring budget and confined to a (more or less) single location. The film’s multi-platform release – simultaneously in cinemas, online, on DVD & blu-ray, and the Film4 television channel – has at the very least given it a degree of exposure it could never have hoped to achieve under normal circumstances, which means Wheatley’s star should now ascend even further.

    Full review: A Field In England | TakeOneCFF.com

  • Review: Before Midnight (2013)

    It might seem something of a paradox that cinephiles – people who generally prefer sitting in absolute silence with a room full of strangers to making idle conversation – have fallen so hard for a trilogy of films which consist almost entirely of two people talking to each other. Just talking. Not even talking about big, important things necessarily (though it does cover these), but every day stuff too. Yet such is the case with Richard Linklater’s rambling Before… series, of which Before Midnight is the latest entry. What is perhaps more astounding is that all three films – beginning with 1995’s Before Sunrise and continuing with 2004’s Before Sunset – should be so compellingly written and performed. This new instalment is every bit as beguiling as its predecessors, as it progresses the central relationship between Jesse and Celine to an older, more mature, yet no less problematic phase.

    Full review: Before Midnight | Cinema Review | Film @ The Digital Fix

  • Review: Much Ado About Nothing (2013)

    It’s an incredibly brave – or incredibly foolish – person that tries to film a Shakespeare play in under two weeks while officially on leave from work. That Joss Whedon felt he was up to the job should come as no surprise; this is a man who for years has thrived on similar challenges, be it directing a film version of an all-too-quickly cancelled TV series (Firefly) or creating a musical episode for a hit primetime show (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). As a low budget take on a familiar play, it’s an entertaining enough diversion: the low-key approach adds to much to the overall charm. But the flip side of that is there is a slimness to the end product which prevents it from being more fun that it might have been.

    Full review: Much Ado About Nothing | TakeOneCFF.com

  • Review: Man of Steel (2013)

    Zack Snyder’s mega-hyped Superman reboot arrives burdened with great expectations. Not only must it win over audiences disappointed by 2006’s Superman Returns; not only does it have to measure up to its billion dollar stablemate, the Dark Knight (as interpreted by Christopher Nolan, here wearing his producer’s hat); but it has also been tasked with establishing a cinematic universe comparable to its Marvel competition, allowing other characters and franchises to launch from its muscular shoulders and finally giving DC a chance to catch up. Not surprisingly, Man of Steel doesn’t quite succeed in delivering the knockout punch that Warner Bros might have wished for, but there’s still plenty to enjoy here, and, crucially, further sequels are an attractive prospect.

    Full review: Man of Steel | Cinema Review | Film @ The Digital Fix

  • Review: The Hangover Part III (2013)

    The Hangover Part III posterIt’s not unusual for films to mine laughs from emotionally darker territory, but it’s a brave comedy that deliberately tries to avoid making its audience laugh at all. The Hangover Part III delivers about as many gags as The Turin Horse. One can only wonder how a film that felt like a breath of fresh air in 2009 managed to spawn two clunking sequels so utterly bereft of fun, despite Todd Phillips directing all three. It’s testament to the skills of the principal cast that it is at least endurable – depending on your tolerance of Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) – but even they seem to be struggling with a plot that smacks of desperation and a script with so little in the way of anything approaching comedy.

    Let the records show that there was only ever one Hangover film.

  • Review: Populaire (2013)

    After a cavalcade of mediocre rom-coms from the other side of the Atlantic, it falls to France to beat the Americans at their own game. A winning homage to the Technicolor delights of Hollywood’s golden age, the beautifully coiffed Populaire might have been a vehicle for Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn in a parallel universe. But stars Romain Duris and Déborah François are more than acceptable replacements, and the plot is every bit as enjoyably predictable (and predictably enjoyable) as its forebears.

    Full review: Populaire | Cinema Review | Film @ The Digital Fix

  • Review: Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

    Star Trek Into Darkness posterJJ Abram’s follow up to his largely well-received Star Trek reboot has met with very mixed reactions, and it’s not hard to see why.

    On the one hand, it propels forward the 2009 film’s iconoclastic spirit of energy and reinvention, continuing to explore familiar elements of the classic Trek universe while simultaneously subverting expectations. There’s a whole lot of action and noise going on here, and very little time to pause for breath. As an attempt to open the franchise out to newcomers, it has to be judged a success; unencumbered by narrative baggage, Into Darkness roams where it likes, taking old plot points and characters from wherever it likes and moulding them into something fresh and new. Newcomers feel able to enter a world they would otherwise know or care very little about, while those who are more knowledgeable about Trek’s past can enjoy the tips of the hat and revel in the past being recreated with such dynamic verve.

    That’s the theory anyway. The other side of the coin is that there is a strong sense of déjà vu hanging over Into Darkness. The central plot tries once again to mimic that of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the film widely regarded as the franchise’s finest hour. TWOK has long cast a shadow over the series; its epic battle of wills between Kirk and the villainous Khan, a man hell-bent on revenge against the captain of the Enterprise, has inspired many imitations. Thanks to an intelligent, literary script (which elevated an otherwise routine bad-guy-of-the-week plot to near-Shakespearean levels of drama) and Ricardo Montalban’s deliciously muscular performance as Khan, the film delivered everything one could hope for in a Trek film, as well as a surprisingly emotional finale.

    Since then, there have been several attempts to replicate its formula, most obviously in 2002’s Star Trek: Nemesis, which saw Patrick Stewart’s Captain Picard face off against a Romulan clone of himself, and the 2009 reboot itself, with another Romulan, Nero, hell-bent on avenging the destruction of his planet by trying to kill Spock, whom he held responsible. Into Darkness’ idea of a conspiracy within the Federation to kickstart a war has also been seen before, in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, while 1998’s Star Trek: Insurrection similarly exposed dubious goings-on within the Federation’s own ranks. And the déjà vu doesn’t end there; when Leonard Nimoy is crowbarred into an entirely unnecessary cameo, you can’t help but feel that too much old ground is being trodden once again.

    So how does this new take on familiar material stand up? It’s a fun ride, certainly: there’s action by the bucketload and the special effects continue to dazzle. Cocky young Kirk and his crew are an interesting bunch to be around. But will anyone remember this as fondly as they remember the earlier adventures? The performances are good, the script okay (plot recycling notwithstanding), but it seems to be all surface, no depth; the emotional core of the story is impossible to connect to when the action is dialled up to 11. Into Darkness is a hyperactive pastiche. Perhaps that’s the right attitude for this early stage of Kirk’s career, but if so, then this story is all wrong. There will come a time to deal with conspiracies and vengeful villains, but it’s not now. First he has to live; first he has to make enemies. New enemies.

    Of course, this won’t matter one jot to those who love nu-Trek and view the classic era as old hat. Abrams’s shiny reinvention of the Star Trek world continues to be enjoyable. But for those of us who do remember the original era, and remember it fondly, there’s little going on here that hasn’t been done before, and done better. By pillaging from Trek’s finest hour, Abrams and his writers are inviting comparisons, and this time they aren’t all that flattering.

    [xrr rating=3/5]