The Cinemasitter

Category: Film reviews

  • Review: Brave (2012)

    Brave posterThere’s been some talk lately about whether Pixar’s creative juices have begun to dry up. After 2010’s Toy Story 3 and last year’s Cars 2, and with prequel Monsters University due next year, there’s certainly mounting evidence for the prosecution. But then along comes Brave, which takes aim at such idle chatter and valiantly quashes it (for now at least). On the surface this is the latest in a long line of Disney fairy-tale movies: young Princess Merida has no wish to follow the path of domestic wedded bliss laid down for her by her mother, wanting instead to remain free to roam her beloved country and choose her own future. But after an encounter with a witch and a hasty wish that goes awry, she is forced to reconsider her life and learns to accept responsibility for herself. It could almost be Disney’s Aladdin transposed to medieval Scotland and told from the perspective of Princess Jasmine.

    But it’s worth remembering that this is Pixar, not Disney, and small things make all the difference. If this were Disney then the twee view of historical Scotland would likely be turned up to 11. The epic mountainous scenery is certainly present and correct, from lochs at sunset to mist-shrouded forests;  Pixar’s customary attention to detail combined with a slightly exaggerated sense of reality resulting in one of the most gorgeous films of the year.

    Directors Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman also embrace the traditional Hollywood stereotype of the Highland clansmen as loud-mouthed drunken braggarts who would just as soon lop your head off as look at you; but it’s wrapped up in a good-natured cartooniness that appropriately recalls the humour of René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo’s Asterix comic books. There’s even a hint of sauciness with the Queen’s bosomy handmaid – it’s not exactly Carry On Up The Kilt, but for a Disney-funded animation it at least nods in the direction of the unusual (if only Kenneth Williams could have voiced the magical will-o’-the-wisps that guide Merida on her quest).

    Family relationships are what drive Pixar’s pictures – The Incredibles or Finding Nemo being obvious examples, or even Carl and Ellie in Up – and it’s the rupture between mother and daughter that provides the emotional core of Brave. The pace picks up in the second half as Merida tries to save her mum from the curse that she inflicted on her, and inevitably learns some hard lessons about life along the way. It may be the old ‘teen rebelling against their parents’ routine, but it works rather nicely. The darker side of the Scottish wilds also come to the fore, rewarding patience with greater atmosphere and a race against time, while the eleventh hour introduction of a villainous prince adds impetus and drama to the exciting denouement, even if he is entirely superfluous to the plot.

    Unquestionably this is slighter stuff than we’re used to from those Pixar wizards; it lacks the storytelling power and emotional resonance of its greatest triumphs. But Brave‘s visual panache and robust humour still provide sufficient pleasures to make it worthy of the ‘P’ name.

    [xrr rating=4/5]

  • Review: Ted (2012)

    Ted movie posterQ. When is an Adam Sandler film not an Adam Sandler film?

    A. When it stars Seth MacFarlane instead of Adam Sandler.

    Really, if you want to know whether you’ll enjoy Ted, the hilarious new comedy about a hilarious talking teddy bear who hilariously swears, berates everyone around him and gets hilariously high with hookers, then just ask yourself whether you find Adam Sandler’s particular brand of comedy amusing. If the answer to that is Yes, then a) you’re very welcome to him, and b) you’ll definitely enjoy Ted.

    Ted is simply a slight variation on every Adam Sandler “comedy” ever made. A thirty-something man-child slacker (Mark Wahlberg) lazes through life doing drugs with his best friend while his sexy and impossibly tolerant girlfriend (Mila Kunis) tries to get him to grow up and make something of himself. In an Adam Sandler movie, the best friend might be played by Rob Scheider or Kevin James or Chris Rock. Here though, in an ingenious marketing move, he’s played by a magical talking teddy bear (voiced by writer/producer/director MacFarlane). Sandler must be kicking himself, in-between bouts of laughing in that really annoying voice at his stupendously-sized bank balance.

    The two key ingredients for any Sandler comedy are a liberal helping of offensive and/or gross-out gags, and a thick dollop of schmaltz to try and win the audience’s sympathy while deflecting any criticism about the film’s liability to offend. Ted has both of these in equal measure. Taking pot shots at targets like ethnic minorities or 9/11 is always a dicey proposition: it’s a fine line between teasing out the humour of any real-world situation and just pointing the finger and laughing at somebody else’s expense. Ted takes the easy option, lazily stereotyping and offending anyone it fancies (Indians, Muslims, Iranians, Chinese, Parkinson’s sufferers… it’s a long list) and just assumes this in itself is funny. Sorry old chap, but more often than not it isn’t. I don’t think of myself as a prude, and fair play to anyone involved here willing to send themselves up, but 90% of the alleged jokes just aren’t funny. Judging by the audience’s extended bouts of silence in the screening I attended, it wasn’t just me who thought so.

    Then, to make matters worse, the gooey schmaltz is applied to try and make us care about Wahlberg’s doofus while turning the film in to a sort of subversive fairy tale. Narrator Patrick Stewart (who vocally doesn’t come across as a natural comedian) tells us the bear came alive one Christmas night when a very young and lonely Wahlberg wished upon a star. Good grief. At first it appears the film is knowingly winking at the audience, but after a while it dawns on you that, no, it really is trying to tug at the heartstrings (especially towards the end). All of which leads you to suspect that the ultimate butt of the joke is anyone who pays to go and see Ted. Was it made as a bet between MacFarlane and Sandler as to who could hoodwink cinema audiences the most?

    To be fair, it’s not entirely mirthless: as a fan of the 1980 Flash Gordon movie, it was difficult to suppress a smile when its star Sam Jones turned up during numerous homages to that cult classic (especially the ‘Flash-jump’). Even here though, Ted simply mimics Sandler by getting a celebrity to cameo and be the butt of many a pop culture joke (hey, it avoids all that bother of actually having to write a decent script). CGI Ted does give a sporadically amusing performance however, unlike Wahlberg, who I have never found to be a particularly engaging presence, and who delivers his usual blank-eyed thing.

    It might be that I’ve completely misread the film and it is in fact an extended hallucinatory trip into Lynchian territory experienced by Wahlberg’s stoner. But I doubt it.

    [xrr rating=2/5]

     

  • Review: Magic Mike (2012)

    Magic Mike posterPredictably, much of the attention surrounding Magic Mike has focussed on the amount of bare male flesh on display. Partly this is because Hollywood is notorious for cheerfully throwing female nudity up on the screen without batting an eyelid, while remaining remarkably reticent to do the same for the opposite sex. Even here, in a film about male strippers, a girl goes topless in the first five minutes while the men’s modesty more or less remains intact (though you may think you see more than you actually do).

    But those hoping for The Full Monty 2 will go away disappointed. This is actually a low-key and quietly absorbing drama about stripper Mike (Channing Tatum) who introduces a wet-behind-the-ears newcomer (Alex Pettyfer) to the trade even as he starts to fall in love with the lad’s sister (Olivia Munn). Mike has turned 30 and is trying to get his custom furniture business off the ground as an alternative to the strip club, though he’s still happy to take the easy money and equally easy women that come his way from the main job.

    The story – exposing the rather seedy underbelly of an “entertainment” industry, and Mike’s increasing disillusionment with it – we’ve seen many times before, but as with previous films like Erin Brockovich and Out of Sight, director Steven Soderbergh has taken conventional material and elevated it to the level of high art with his stylish visual approach and a clutch of strong performances.

    Soderbergh opts to shoot in a sort of semi-documentary style, with the occasionally mumbled dialogue sounding semi-improvised at times. The cinematography – colourful and bright at night, hazy and washed out in the daytime – appropriately evokes the nocturnal existence of the strippers.

    It’s the behind-the-scenes stuff that is most engaging – the footage of the men shaving their legs or stitching their thongs back together. The juxtaposition of these beefy muscular guys actually being quite feminine backstage is gently funny and rather touching.

    It’s not perfect: the story does sag noticeably around the halfway point, and there’s a distinct lack of drama as the film meanders towards its conclusion, but the characters are sympathetic enough to carry us through to the end.

    Oh, and the Oscar campaign for Best Supporting Actor for Matthew McConaughey starts here – he sends himself up brilliantly.

  • Review: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

    The Dark Knight Rises posterChristopher Nolan winds up his Dark Knight trilogy with this highly entertaining action epic, told with energy and spectacle. Though it may fall some way short of its predecessors (Batman Begins and The Dark Knight), it is nevertheless a satisfying ending to Nolan’s reinvention of the Batman franchise, rescuing it from the scrapheap after 1997’s Batman & Robin and rebuilding it in to what will surely be remembered as a high-water mark for the superhero genre.

    The ambition and intelligence with which the director (along with his screenwriter brother Jonathan and David S. Goyer) infuses the caped crusader is a truly remarkable achievement. Raising a number of political and ethical issues within what is ostensibly a comic-book movie (including references to failed states and the Occupy Wall Street movement) and fashioning them in to a cohesive and genuinely exciting whole is little short of a miracle. The high calibre cast add yet further depth: regulars Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman are all reliable as ever, while among the newcomers Anne Hathaway makes for a suitably slinky Catwoman (never called by that name) and Tom Hardy is formidable as Bane; though unsurprisingly no-one is able to match the late Heath Ledger’s electric turn as the Joker.

    Despite all this however, TDKR is for me the least personal of Nolan’s film to date, and the least effective. There is a niggling sense throughout that the director just wasn’t as engaged here as he was with the previous entries. Perhaps he had said all he wanted to say about Batman with the first two films, but felt compelled to repay the trust shown in him by the studio.

    It’s the small things that give it away. The flow of the film is choppier here than before: what you might expect to be crucial turning points in the storyline are given short shrift, while the uncharacteristically contrived plot drags a little in the middle, and stretches credibility a little too far at times – something that’s not been a problem in the past. The sound mix is also problematic; dialogue (usually Bane’s, but sometimes Bruce Wayne’s too) is often inaudible or drowned out by Hans Zimmer’s score.

    I wasn’t entirely convinced by the characterisation of Bruce Wayne here either – his becoming a recluse for so many years doesn’t seem consistent with the man he became over the course of the earlier films.

    Yet Nolan is clearly a consummate professional and doesn’t do films by halves. The opening hijack sequence is more than worthy of a Bond film (something that Nolan would surely excel at), while the breathless final act brings the film together in a much smoother and genuinely exciting way, with the closing scenes especially crowd-pleasing.

    In a way, you might call this Christopher Nolan’s own The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: a more expansive (and more expensive) treatment of themes explored in the preceding entries. Though the analogy doesn’t withstand scrutiny because if Batman were the Good and Bane the Bad, then Catwoman would have to be Ugly – something that is self-evidently not the case.

    So where next? A reboot is probably in order now – seeing a Batman film that isn’t embarrassed to call Catwoman by her name would be refreshing – but to be honest, I would love to see where a direct sequel takes the series. Plenty of tantalising possibilities…

    [xrr rating=4/5]

  • Made in Britain season: all five reviews

    Made in Britain postcard

    Over the last month I’ve had a lot of fun watching the all-too-brief Made in Britain season, which saw a bunch of homegrown film gems get a big screen outing across the country. The pleasingly eclectic choices saw comedy happily rub shoulders with sci-fi and horror – genres too often overlooked when it comes to handing out cinema re-releases. It was a very real joy to experience these films in their proper habitat. The only downside was the occasional sniggering from some audience members who failed to grasp the concept that acting styles and production values change and evolve over the years.

    I propose that StudioCanal make this an annual month-long event. Not only would it be a perfect showcase for their back catalogue, it would continue to raise public awareness about the rich legacy of British cinema and provide support for those who continue to keep its flame alive.  There are after all plenty of other neglected gems that deserve a cinematic airing. More Ealing and Hammer classics of course, and I think we can all agree that Flash Gordon deserves the restoration and re-release treatment.

    Anyway, thanks to Take One I was able to view and review them all, and (as much for my benefit as yours) here are links to the complete set:

    Passport to Pimlico

    The Plague of the Zombies

    The Man Who Fell to Earth

    Hobson’s Choice

    Quatermass and the Pit

  • Review: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

    A choice of two reviews of the new Spidey flick what I wrote:

    Leaving aside the question of whether it’s too soon to reboot a film series that only began a decade ago, Marc Webb’s take on Marvel’s web-slinging superhero is proof that there is always room for another perspective on a character which has stood the test of time…

    The Amazing Spider-Man @ The Digital Fix

    The decision to go back to Spider-Man’s roots certainly makes narrative as well as business sense: more story opportunities about a young Peter Parker coming to terms with his new-found powers, while also allowing the studio to go after the same romantic fantasy audience that delivered gargantuan box-office returns for TWILIGHT and THE HUNGER GAMES…

    The Amazing Spider-Man @ TAKE ONE

     

  • Review: Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

    Moonrise Kingdom posterI first saw Moonrise Kingdom a few weeks back in preparation for Bums on Seats, Cambridge 105’s film review show which I’m fortunate enough to occasionally turn up on. Wes Anderson’s latest was enthusiastically received by us all, but I never got a chance to write up my thoughts. Its ongoing steady success at the UK box-office – nearly £1.5m banked so far – is worth celebrating, so here are my two cents (better late than never, eh?).

    The King of Ameriquirk (that breed of hip, modern film which deliberately goes out of its way to be strange, offbeat, ironic and uncool), Anderson returns with possibly his finest work to date. A charming coming of age tale about first love, it has the feel of a children’s film made by children, but with an expensive cast and decent production values. The colourful 16mm photography lends a lovely homemade quality to the 1960s-set tale, yet it’s masterfully assembled.

    The top drawer supporting cast includes the always reliable Frances McDormand, Bill Murray, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton and Tilda Swinton. But the two young leads – Kara Hayward as the depressed Suzy and Jared Gilman as the determined Sam – are the real stars. Sharing a similar sense of rejection at home, Sam plots for them both to escape by trekking across the rugged terrain of the New England island where they live and setting up camp in a remote cove.

    In Anderson’s world, adults act like children and children like adults; seemingly the only sensible people on the island are the young lovers. The grown-ups all appear to have significant issues that make them unreliable in some way, whether it’s McDormand’s unhappy housewife or Willis’ inadequate cop. This rather neatly leads the adult viewer to see the story through the eyes of the children, almost making you forget their ages. It’s rare for a film to make you feel like you’re a child again (in a good way), but Anderson succeeds admirably.

    At 90 minutes long it doesn’t outstay its welcome, if you are naturally averse to this sort of quirky yarn, and the soundtrack is a delight. In short it’s a beguiling slice of cinematic whismy, and I insist you catch it on the big screen if you still can.

    [xrr rating=4/5]

  • 10 reasons why Rock of Ages is the worst film of the year so far

    Rock of Ages is so indescribably tedious and rubbish, I can’t be bothered to write a full review (it was all I could do to stay in my seat). Instead I’ll just list the reasons why this pile of crap should be avoided like the plague:

    1. Musicals are well-known for their familiar plots (boy meets girl, they fall in love, trouble ensues, they get back together) but Rock of Ages is so familiar it feels like you wrote it yourself. It’s formulaic to the point of inanity. Did someone write this using the ‘Your First Musical’ guidebook?

    2. IT’S SO DULL. I can’t emphasise this enough. Rock ‘n’ roll? Not a chance. Rock of Ages, and Ages, and Ages, and Ages…

    3. It features a bunch of performances that range from the bland (leads Diego Boneta and Julianne Hough) to the competent (Catherine Zeta-Jones) to the bizarre (Tom Cruise). Cruise is one-note throughout; although his singing isn’t too bad, apparently strutting around bare-chested is more than enough to pass himself off as a rock star.

    4. When the male lead (who is supposed to be a ROCK STAR) is prettier and has better skin and more feminine eyes than the female lead, you know you’re in trouble.

    5. Comedy monkeys are no longer funny (if they ever were).

    6. The whole Alec Baldwin/Russell Brand relationship thing feels dreadfully cheap and deeply silly, and neither actor looks comfortable in any way. Maybe it works on stage, but not here. And let’s not even talk about Brand’s cross-country accent.

    7. The “classic hits” are largely forgettable, and even the fun ones are spoiled by the new singers and lyrics.

    8. The big musical set-pieces are incompetently shot and edited – it’s difficult to enjoy the dance numbers when you can’t tell who’s doing what, because the film cuts away every two seconds. The lazy lighting and photography make the whole film look like bargain basement trash.

    9. At one point the owner of a strip club tells the lead girl that the only way to truly express herself is by lap-dancing in her strip bar. Um, what? Is this really a good message to send out in a 12A film? It feels like a kid-friendly remake of Showgirls.

    10. The film’s only saving grace is the moment where the naff NKOTB-style boy band gets thrown off stage. Sadly they are replaced by the lead boy, who couldn’t look less rock ‘n’ roll if he turned up in a top hat and tails.

    [xrr rating=1/5]

  • Review: Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

    Snow White and the Huntsman posterThere are any number of reasons to write off this latest wannabe fantasy adventure franchise: the derivative, identikit script and visual design stolen from inspired by assorted recent films like The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia; the hand-me-down casting of Twilight star Kristen Stewart and Thor muscleman Chris Hemsworth; or the story – a puffed up version of the fairy tale with added teenage angst and testosterone – that tries (and fails) to inflate itself to epic proportions.

    But despite all of that, I have to say I still kind of enjoyed it. Visually it does look nice, with first time director Rupert Sanders working from a palette primarily based around black and white (see what he did there?). The action scenes are quite well done. Acting honours are stolen by Charlize Theron as wicked Queen Ravenna, a witch who usurped the throne when White was a young girl. Bella and Thor aren’t bad either, though they do lack any sort of onscreen chemistry together which might suggest a romantic connection.

    The dwarves who lost their position in the film’s title suddenly spring out of nowhere and turn out to be played by a who’s who of British middle-aged talent: Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost, Eddie Marsan, Toby Jones and a bloke nobody’s heard of; let’s call him Brad Dexter. Upping the humour quotient, they do feel a bit tacked on but nevertheless the film is all the better for their presence.

    I made the mistake of turning up for a subtitled screening of this film, which was oddly distracting. You wouldn’t think watching an English language film with English subtitles would be a problem, but in actual fact it is because your attention is constantly being grabbed by both forms of communication instead of just the one. As a consequence I spent half the film checking to see if what the cast were saying was the same as what the subtitles were printing.

    Regardless, the film is a modestly likeable diversion, but I suspect it would have been more warmly received if it had been released during the winter, when folk tales like these help to lighten the long dark nights. Perhaps the small matter of The Hobbit adaptation seemed too daunting to the chaps in marketing?

    [xrr rating=3/5]

  • The Angels’ Share and Ken Loach

    The Angels' ShareOn Thursday night I was fortunate to be able to attend a Q&A session with director Ken Loach at the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse, which immediately followed a screening of his new film, The Angels’ Share. The film itself is a thoroughly enjoyable and occasionally gripping mixture of inner-city drama and whimsical heist caper about Robbie (Paul Brannigan), a young Glaswegian lad who narrowly avoids a prison sentence and becomes a father within the film’s first five minutes. Thanks to his social worker he discovers he has a keen whisky palate, and it’s a talent he puts to profitable use when the opportunity arises to steal an extremely rare cask of whisky, which is due to go up for auction in the next few days.

    Loach seems quite at home (if that’s the right phrase) with the grim reality of living in a crime- and drug-ridden neighbourhood, and the difficulty anyone faces in trying to escape that world. The film doesn’t shy away from this: Robbie’s encounter with the victim of one of his violent outbursts is powerful stuff, making it clear the sort of person he is. But unusually for the director, the film takes a more upbeat path than expected, getting the audience on Robbie’s side and willing him to succeed in his elaborate scam, even though he’s breaking the law once again. Despite its comedy credentials – and it is very funny at times – Loach still views the film as a tragedy, even if this one did get away, as he puts it.

    I admit here and now that I’ve not seen many of Loach’s film – something I intend to put right as soon as possible. But I am of course aware of who he is and how much his impressive body of work is valued both here in Britain and abroad. The Loach ‘brand’ (a phrase I am sure he would shudder at) is famous for stories and characters that are often variously described as ‘gritty’ and ‘social realist’ in nature – two phrases he declared he would like to see buried forever. His political views are worn very much on his film’s sleeves; they are not diatribes, but by focussing on those parts of society that are too often neglected or marginalised, it is clear they have an underlying message.

    Loach was a fascinating speaker, and I count myself very luck to have heard him talk. For such a brave and forthright filmmaker, he is rather quiet and considered in person. His comments on the changes he’s seen during the course of his long career, in terms of both politics and cinema, were always interesting; whether it was lamenting the degree of micro-management that occurs in film production today, or the failure of politicians to tackle the rise in youth unemployment, which he sees as the cause of so many problems in society. The fact that politicians no longer campaign for full employment as they did in the 1960s seems to particularly disappoint him.

    To have directors working in this country today who have seen nearly half a century of political and social change, and who still want to shine a light on people and communities who deserve a chance to turn their lives around, is a fact that should be celebrated. Loach brings with him a wealth of experience and intelligence which guarantees any new film of his will be worth a look, and you will almost certainly feel better for having seen it. We should treasure him for wanting to carry on shining a light through his films; let’s just hope he doesn’t have to put up with too much micro-management.