The Cinemasitter

Category: Film reviews

  • Review: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)

    The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp posterIf you’ve not yet seen Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, currently on nationwide re-release, then you really should treat yourself. It might be the best part of three hours long, but the time really does fly by. Starring the phenomenal Roger Livesey, it’s a moving yet warmly humorous portrait of Clive Candy, a British career soldier, starting from his youth in the Boer Wars, through his active service during the First World War, and ending with his forced retirement in the Second. During this time he falls in love with two different women and takes a shining to a third – all played by Deborah Kerr. He also duels and later befriends a German military officer, Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff (Anton Walbrook), with whom he shares much in common.

    It’s difficult to say quite how brilliant the film is without simply gushing forth hyperbolic praise. The performances are fantastic: Livesey is simply superb, portraying a fully rounded character (in every sense) as he ages down the years from youth through middle age to over-the-hill has-been. It’s also a beautifully crafted film, as all Archers productions are, despite wartime shortages hampering the production.

    Basing its central character on a well-known cartoon figure of the day that famously lampooned the British Army, it is said that Winston Churchill wanted the film banned for fear of it demoralising audiences and spreading dissent. The first few scenes suggest he was right to worry. Candy is very much Blimp personified – old, overweight, full of bluster and pomp, and completely out of touch with the modern world. Furthermore, the sympathetic portrayal of Candy’s German friend in the middle of World War Two was a remarkably brave decision, earning the film the disapproval of the British government.

    But that’s exactly where the brilliance of Colonel Blimp lies.

    Despite the romantic interludes with Kerr’s characters, the key to the film is really Clive and Theo, both soldiers from another age when soldiering was an honourable career and war was governed by a gentleman’s code of conduct. The portrayal of a friendship between two men united in a shared belief of common decency and honour despite being on opposing sides – a belief that transcends borders, politics and language – speaks very much to traditional British values of fairness. By the film’s beautifully bittersweet ending the two are also united in their obsolescence, and Candy finally comes to realise and accept this.

    But Powell and Pressburger have built up such strong sympathy for Candy, I think it’s clear they are not out to criticise the British Army or the men who led it at the time. It may well have been a warning, but it was an absolutely respectful one. Instead I think they tried to show that the values that Candy cherished were still worth cherishing, even if they were no longer applicable on the battlefields of Europe. The fighting may have got dirtier than the campaigns of old, but that simply made it even more important for the British to hold on to their humanity and stay true to their beliefs. Contrary to the concerns of Whitehall officials, is that not in fact a fiercely patriotic message?

    Blimp reminds us that behind every man and woman there is a personal history, a story that shaped their lives and beliefs, and we ignore that story at our peril. In an age where our sense of community is at risk of crumbling away, I wonder if Blimp is actually more relevant today that it ever has been.

    [xrr rating=5/5]

  • Review: The Raid (a.k.a. Serbuan maut) (2011)

    (Review originally published at One Hundred Words Magazine)

    The Raid posterThe action film genre gets a kick in the pants with director Gareth Evans’ kinetic Indonesian martial arts thriller. Set in an apartment block in the Jakartan slums, a SWAT team tries to arrest the chief occupant – a seemingly untouchable criminal overlord. Problem is, all of the other occupants are on his payroll, and it’s left to a single cop (Iko Uwais) to punch, kick, stab and shoot his way through the henchmen to the top dog. The plot is of course a flimsy hook on which to hang the action, but what artfully shot, adrenaline-pumping action it is.

    [xrr rating=4/5]

    Postscript: On a side note, it’s nice to see that multiplexes have embraced this low-budget, low-tech festival hit. Indeed, I can’t remember the last time a foreign language film was playing at the local Cineworld but not at the Picturehouse. Yes, it’s an action film of course, and as such its natural audience will be rather more mainstream than that of the arthouse circuit. But that in itself doesn’t guarantee a wide distribution, and being subtitled with a no name cast certainly doesn’t help.

    So what makes The Raid different? Is it perhaps serving an audience that Hollywood has tended to ignore in recent years – that of the adult action thriller? Something that hasn’t been watered down to get a more marketable rating, like PG-13 in the States or 12A in the UK? Certainly The Raid pulls no punches when it comes to its onscreen violence (though it doesn’t dwell on injuries; it’s a visceral, not a gruesome watch, and it’s not nearly as bloody as something like Tarantino’s Kill Bill). But those of us who remember films like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon in the 80s remember a time when the 18/R-rated thrillers used to be Hollywood’s bread and butter.

    The other point is that martial arts is a language that transcends linguistic boundaries. Hong Kong action flicks have been doing the rounds on video for years, and any modern American beat ’em up/shoot ’em up movie worth its salt will normally feature some form of fighting technique imported from the east. Given that dialogue is pared down to a bare minimum in The Raid, and the plot could be written on the back of a postage stamp, it’s probably fair to say that subtitles aren’t going to put the multiplex crowd off from seeing it.

    Might this open the floodgates for more overseas action films turning up at the local multiplex? I suspect not, but The Raid at least proves that it can be done, and it certainly won’t be the last.

  • Review: American Reunion (2012)

    American Reunion posterThis is one of those films that relies a good deal on sentimentality, and as such your enjoyment of American Reunion (a.k.a. American Pie 4) will depend on your tolerance for basking in past glories. Certainly there is little reason for this film to exist beyond a loyal audience’s curiosity as to what happened to that likeable bunch of high school kids we last saw nearly ten years ago.

    Original series writer Adam Herz seems to be MIA (his last credit was 2003’s second sequel) so Harold & Kumar franchise veterans Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg step in as both writers and directors, and the change is more or less seamless. The characters are quite believably moved forward several years, with Jim (Jason Biggs) and Michelle (Alyson Hannigan) now parents whose marriage has begun to lose its spark; Oz (Chris Klein) is a TV sports presenter in LA with a bimbo girlfriend; Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) is a domesticated house-husband; and loudmouth Stifler (Seann William Scott) is still living at home with, er, Stifler’s Mom (Jennifer Coolidge) while temping in an office. Only Finch’s (Eddie Kaye Thomas) backstory doesn’t quite hang together, thanks to an 11th hour twist; but it doesn’t spoil the story much.

    From here it’s very much business as usual: pratfalls aplenty, drunken parties, the odd gross-out gag and a few more life lessons learned. Even some of the jokes are recycled from earlier entries. But the cast still spark nicely together; it is after all down to them that the series has endured for as long as it has. Without getting too mushy, it’s a real pleasure to see them back together (which is probably why this fourth film was bankrolled at all). It’s a solid enough entry in the franchise, coming in above American Wedding but below the first two films (I’ve not seen the numerous – and widely reviled – direct-to-dvd spin-offs). Unquestionably it’s aimed at the series’ fanbase, but newcomers will probably find much to enjoy as well, particularly if they’ve ever harboured doubts about meeting up with old school friends many years after graduating.

    [xrr rating=3/5]

  • Review: The Avengers (2012)

    Avengers Assemble posterBefore we start, let’s get the title out of the way: in the UK, it’s supposed to be called Marvel Avengers Assemble, which is such a hideous mouthful I’m going to ignore it completely (from now on at least).

    The story: Earth’s mightiest heroes are brought together by S.H.I.E.L.D., an agency dedicated to protecting Earth from the threat of invasion. Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) must battle with Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who leads an invading force of aliens with the intention of taking control of the planet.

    Marketing pedantry aside, The Avengers is the film we’ve all been waiting for since 2008’s Iron Man first hinted at such a team-up. It’s been the holy grail for comic-book fans for decades: a film universe equivalent to that of the comics, where superheroes not only co-exist but join together to take on a superior foe, or alternatively beat seven bells out of each other. Or preferably both.

    There have been hints at such a prospect before. Joel Schumacher’s Batman films (*shudder*) made mention of  Superman and Metropolis, though fans prefer not to remember this (or indeed his films). Then in the early 2000s Warner Bros attempted to jump-start both their DC superhero big guns with Batman vs. Superman, an epic to be directed by Wolfgang Petersen from a script by Andrew Kevin Walker. This was scrapped when separate reboots were chosen instead; and, needless to say, don’t expect Clark Kent to turn up in Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight series any time soon.

    The main obstacles to a gigantic Marvel superhero mash-up have always been legal ones. The company had in the past made deals with different studios to adapt specific characters. Thus, Spider-Man lies with Sony and X-Men and Fantastic Four are locked in at 20th Century Fox – and studios are notoriously protective of their properties. But this changed when Marvel set up their own independent financing. As rights began to revert back to the company, several of their characters came back under the same roof and a team-up project became a legal, if rather unlikely, possibility.

    But pipe dreams finally began to turn in to reality when in 2008 Iron Man featured a post-credits tease with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, who in the comics is in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D. This obviously sent fans in to something of a tizzy, and sent a clear signal to Marvel that an Avengers movie was worth pursuing.

    The Avengers are of course a team of Earth’s greatest superheroes. Except they’re not; they largely consist of Marvel’s second (or even third) tier of characters, the ones you find after you get past the aforementioned crown jewels like Spider-Man, X-Men, or Fantastic Four. Only the Hulk could be considered a true A-lister; Iron Man has been popularised by two blockbuster films but was largely unknown to the masses before then, while Thor and Captain America only have a single film to their names, both of which – though financially successful – mainly served to set up the story seen onscreen here. The remaining two characters, Russian spy Black Widow and ace archer Hawkeye, only had minor roles in previous Marvel films and were certainly unknown outside of comic geek circles, mainly because they don’t really have any noteworthy superpowers.

    So it’s greatly to Marvel’s credit, as well as that of writer-director Joss Whedon, that this project is the success it deserves to be. After all, trying to fold several characters with such varied backgrounds – a billionaire in a hi-tech flying suit of armour, a man who transforms in to a giant green bodybuilder, a defrosted WWII super-soldier and a Norse demigod wielding a magic hammer – in to a single universe is no easy task.

    But by laying the groundwork so far in advance, with Samuel L. Jackson popping up across most of the films (he’s only absent from 2008’s The Incredible Hulk) dropping hints about bigger things to come, audiences had plenty of time to get used to the fact that they were watching characters that shared a larger onscreen world. The softly-softly approach has clearly paid off, with huge public demand for this epic culmination. Just take a look at the early box-office returns for proof – £15m+ in the UK alone.

    The film itself is a fast-paced, action-packed delight: from start to finish it’s a blockbuster that treats its characters and its audience with respect. The action is suitably grand and thrilling but never deafeningly so (Michael Bay could learn a lesson or two here). This being a Joss Whedon film, there’s wit and humour to spare which makes it palatable to Marvel newcomers without alienating longtime fans. Unlike Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, which try to sit within the real world as far as possible, The Avengers is a comic-book film and proud of it, and as such it’s perfect summer entertainment. That’s not to say there isn’t drama and suspense – certainly plenty of that – but Whedon finds exactly the right balance, letting the humour naturally permeate the breathless action sequences. All the main characters get their moments in the spotlight (though Captain America and Thor are pushed to the background a bit towards the end). Hell, even the 3D isn’t bad.

    If one was to nitpick, the humour did occasionally undercut the threat that Loki was supposed to present, and the film might have benefited from easing up its pace a fraction every now and again. But when you’re having this much fun, why quibble? I can’t wait to see it again – surely the ultimate seal of approval.

    [xrr rating=4/5]

  • Review: The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

    The Cabin in the Woods posterOn the surface, the latest genre flick from writer-producer Joss Whedon (a busy man this month, what with this and superhero blockbuster The Avengers almost upon us) and writer-director Drew Goddard (Cloverfield) sounds like your common or garden horror set in some remote American woodlands  – a blatant Evil Dead rip-off. Five students head off to a remote holiday cabin for a break, not realising the supernatural horrors that await them… yawn.

    But The Cabin in the Woods is so much more. Without wanting to demean it, it is clearly the new Scream.

    If you recall, in the mid-1990s the whole slasher movie genre typified by endless sequels to Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th had not only played itself out, it had dug its own grave and carved the headstone. Then suddenly Scream arrived: a post-modern horror that mocked the films it seemingly imitated while reinventing and rejuvenating the genre for a new generation. Director Wes Craven happily subverted the very films he had founded his career on.

    Cabin pulls very much the same trick, but on a much grander scale. It’s a deconstruction, satire and celebration of just about every horror cliché in the book. Just like Scream, it’s funny, it’s scary, it’s quite bloody, and it completely messes with your expectations. It’s a real treat, especially if you know your horror films.

    To say any more would spoil the surprises in store – this is a film where you really should avoid seeing the trailer in advance. Suffice it to say the script is sharp and the performances spot on. If I could level one complaint, it would be that there aren’t quite enough genuine scares to justify labelling it an instant horror classic – Goddard just doesn’t have the expertise that Craven did in his prime – but there’s still enough tension to keep things interesting.

    Just don’t expect a sequel.

    [xrr rating =4/5]

  • Review: Battleship (2012)

    Battleship posterSome films are so astoundingly silly that, against your better judgement, you can’t help but have fun. Such is the case with Battleship, the latest movie to be based on a Hasbro franchise (there are no toys or games any more, just brands and franchises). Given the enormous financial success of the Transformers franchise, it’s only slightly surprising that a two-hour plus movie based on a simple, wet-summer-holidays strategy game has emerged as a special effects-crammed, self-appointed blockbuster.

    In tone and look, Battleship does feel like a spin-off from one of Michael Bay’s ultra-loud slices of robotic mayhem; it’s certainly in love with the military hardware and mass destruction on display, and is unabashedly patriotic. This is a film that would blow the word ‘subtle’ out of the water if it dared to sail within firing range. Explosions pile on top of more explosions as an outnumbered and outgunned American naval crew try to outwit a technologically superior alien invasion force who have decided to invade our planet (best not to ask why they have chosen to do so, or how the crew find out why). Naturally they pick Hawaii as a starting point. Well, wouldn’t you?

    On the surface it’s a simple jingoistic exercise in machismo and CGI: clean shaven Americans blow up evil aliens, the end. All well and good of course (assuming it’s done well), though the suggestion that those wacky scientists are to blame for bringing this threat to us by attempting to send a signal to a nearby exo-planet grates somewhat. Never mind the highly questionable science – what annoys is the oh-so-tired suggestion that science will bring about Earth’s doom, and the military will naturally have to step in to save the world. Er, is it the 1950s again?

    Even more laughable than the back-of-a-fag-packet plot is its barking mad cast. Taylor Kitsch and Rihanna decked out in military uniforms couldn’t look more out of place if they were running for parliament. Kitsch once again looks all at sea (I-thank-you) in a big budget sci-fi spectacle, after last month’s otherwise OK John Carter.  His singular lack of charisma and expression recalls that other one-dimensional Hollywood star, Paul Walker; line them up side by side and you could start building a fence. Rihanna’s anaemic performance suggests she should probably stick to the singing. Brooklyn Decker as Kitsch’s girlfriend was clearly only cast for two reasons, though to be fair they both offer strong competition to the beautiful mountainous scenery she finds herself stranded in. Thank God then for Liam Neeson, who injects some much-needed presence to his role as Admiral Shane, though the plot relegates him to the sidelines in little more than a cameo (or maybe that’s what attracted him to the largely Hawaiian-set production – who knows?). Occasionally he looks as if he can’t quite believe he actually signed up for this nonsense. Audiences will probably be thinking the same.

    Almost single-handedly stopping the whole thing from sinking under the weight of its own preposterousness is director Peter Berg’s occasional hints of tongue-in-cheek. I particularly enjoyed the bit where Kitsch and his Japanese buddy ran up the deck of a sinking ship just to jump off the stern, rather than leap off the side like everyone else. Clearly that route just wasn’t quite spectacular enough. It’s moments like these when the ridiculousness of it all shines through that you can’t help but smile, and I have to admit I smiled quite a few times. The mid-film sequence where the crew play Battleship for real with the aliens (after radar has been rendered useless) is also quite amusing, though you do end up wishing you could just go home and play the game instead. But I guess that was Hasbro’s mission all along; there’s certainly no doubt which of the two will have a longer shelf life.

    [xrr rating=2/5]

  • Review: Le Havre (2011)

    Le Havre is one of those quintessentially continental slices of whimsy that drops in to your local arthouse cinema every couple of months or so. Imagine if Nick Park decided to switch from stop-motion to live-action films, and remade Casablanca in a rundown port city in the present day. All that’s missing is a talking penguin.

    André Wilms stars as elderly shoe shiner Marcel Marx, who takes young illegal immigrant Idrissa (Blondin Miguel) in to his home after the boy evades capture by the port authorities. How Marcel goes about trying to reunite him with his mother in London is a strangely sweet story, neither sentimental nor political. The townsfolk who assist Marcel – a baker, a greengrocer, even a washed-up rock star – are as uncomplicated as Marcel himself. Only Jean-Pierre Darroussin as the inspector on the child’s trail has anything like a character arc. This is not a film that deals in shades of grey – what you see is what you get. And in its old-fashioned way, it’s rather charming.

    Director Aki Kaurismäki (whose other films I have yet to see) has a clear talent for deadpan humour, and isn’t afraid to let scenes run to within touching distance of the absurd; witness the inspector buying a pineapple, or rock star Little Bob’s fundraising gig. He also captures the rundown feel of the port town very well, the camera finding beauty in several unlikely places.  It won’t be for everyone, but Le Havre is definitely worth your time.

    [xrr rating=4/5]

  • Review: The Hunger Games (2012)

    The Hunger Games posterThe Hunger Games is being trumpeted in some quarters as the new Twilight – an adaptation of a series of young adult fantasy novels which has acquired a rabid teenage fanbase. But while Twilight is firmly placed within the horror genre (though with obvious romantic inclinations), The Hunger Games deals with a dystopian sci-fi future where the United States has collapsed and subsequently re-formed as Panem under a feudal dictatorship. Each of Panem’s twelve districts are required to send two teenage “volunteers” to the Capitol every year to fight to the death until there is just one left standing – a reminder to the districts of who’s in charge, as well as suitably dramatic entertainment for the aristocratic ruling elite.

    Sound familiar? Of course it does. But originality is the least of The Hunger Games‘ problems. Indeed, some of the best science-fiction films have been those that recycled ideas and plots from earlier stories. The problem comes when it fails to do anything of interest with them.

    I would agree that the set up is ripe with potential. Series author Suzanne Collins has recycled ideas most obviously from Lord of the Flies and Rollerball, but you could also point to the likes of The Running Man and Battle Royale. Her stroke of marketing genius was to graft a teenage love triangle on to the side of her sci-fi mash-up and aim it at the young adult market, which the Twilight series ignited a few years earlier. Hey presto – instant cash machine. Ok, maybe it wasn’t that easy, but given the lack of inspiration onscreen I’m struggling to think of anything else that could account for the astounding success of both book and film.

    Director Gary Ross spends a long time – basically the first hour – setting the story up, and boy does it FEEL like a long time. If this were an intricately detailed universe, I could understand spending the entire first half of the film on getting the two main characters – Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen and Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark – from their homes to the Capitol and kitting them out with natty new clothes (literally – this was all that happened). But this is a world that we’ve seen hundreds of times before: a future where the poor live in semi-medieval squalor and the rich live in swanky hi-tech apartment blocks and watch endless TV. The only difference here is that the rich dress like they are auditioning for an episode of Star Trek set in revolutionary France.

    As if trying to compensate for this extended lack of action,  Ross shoots the film in shaky-cam style dialled up to 11. I’ve never really had a problem with this hand-held style in the past; the last two Bourne entries didn’t irritate me in the way it did many others. But well done to Ross: he’s succeeded in putting the shooting style in the way of the story. It called attention to itself so much in the early stages it started to verge on parody.

    When we finally get to the Hunger Games themselves, it inevitably disappoints. The action is competently done, despite being limited to a 12A classification. There’s very little blood on display after the distributor asked to be passed at that rating. The tame violence is not necessarily a problem; what is a problem is the near-total absence of suspense and excitement. The film threatens to get pulses moving in a couple of places, when Katniss and Peeta are running around the enclosure avoiding the other contestants and occasionally firing arrows. But just when you think something really interesting might be about to happen… it doesn’t. It lacks a single memorable set-piece, content instead to serve up scene after scene of running and hiding, and then some more running and hiding. And then some more again.

    The actors do their best: Jennifer Lawrence at least confirms her rising star status, perfectly cast as the gutsy Katniss. Hutcherson, a bit stiff in Journey 2: The Mysterious Island a couple of months back, is also a bit stiff here as the seemingly dim baker’s boy Peeta, who mostly just waits around to be saved by Katniss and occasionally camouflages himself in icing. Donald Sutherland turns up for a few lines and takes the money. Best of all is Woody Harrelson as a former Games champion, looking both surly and silly in an unbecoming and extremely ill-advised wig.

    And what of the film’s alleged satire of current television trends (so-called reality shows with contestants being voted off by a bloodthirsty public)? A character suggests at one point that if everyone stopped watching the Games, then the government would have no choice but to throw in the towel and cancel the whole thing. Quite possibly true, but that’s as sharp as the satire gets. It’s difficult to imagine legions of teenage Americans switching off America’s Got Talent as the result of having seen this film. Stanley Tucci as greasy chat show host Caesar Flickerman (yes, that really is his name) comes off as just another greasy chat show host, but in a blue wig. I assume he was supposed to be funny or critical, or possibly both, but in the event he is neither. In all honesty, The Running Man was far more savage and certainly more amusing (if not always intentionally).

    By the end I had had quite enough of the film’s tepid action, tepid romance and tepid satire. It will satiate fans of the books, I’m sure – the overly long running time surely proof of its fidelity to the novel. But unless you’re a massive fan of wigs (in which case you really need to see this film), The Hunger Games amounts to little more than reheated leftovers from older, better sci-fi stories.

    [xrr rating=2/5]

  • Review: Mimic (1997)

    Mimic posterGuillermo del Toro’s 1997 creature feature is the film from his CV that now tends to be forgotten – usually on purpose. Compromised almost from the word Go, the Mexican director disowned it for a long time until last year when he was invited to assemble a director’s cut, returning the film to a version which came as close as possible to his original vision. I’ve finally got around to watching this cut of the film, hence this somewhat tardy review.

    Mimic wasn’t a great film in its original iteration, and to be honest it still isn’t. But it remains an extremely polished and very enjoyable melding of Hollywood B-movie clichés with del Toro’s trademark fantasy-horror preoccupations, and this version is something of a modest improvement.

    The plot, based on a short story by Donald A. Wollheim, is par for the monster movie course. A group of scientists led by Mira Sorvino, in an attempt to halt the spread of a disease killing New York City’s children, create a mutant insect that wipes out cockroaches, the disease’s carrier. Three years later, random people are being picked off in and around the subway system. It turns out those mutant insects have done a lot more mutating that anyone expected, evolving to human size and enjoying the taste of their new prey: humans.

    As an example of del Toro’s work, Mimic features many of the themes that the director would subsequently return to: Frankenstein science, fairy tales, the innocence of childhood, religion (specifically Catholicism), and of course horrors lurking beneath the surface of the ordinary world, both real and imagined. Almost all of these are more successfully explored in his finest achievement to date, Pan’s Labyrinth. Here he only skims the surface; clearly this was a stepping stone to greater things, though frequent interference by the film’s producer Bob Weinstein probably didn’t help much.

    Yet the twin compensations of a strong cast and a beautifully shot production make Mimic an effective genre entry. Mira Sorvino as the inventor of the giant mutant cockroaches (of which there are far too few movies in my book) and Jeremy Northam as her colleague and husband are both much better than this sort of material, but they still treat it with an admirable seriousness. A stronger-than-expected supporting cast (Giancarlo Giannini, Charles S. Dutton, Josh Brolin, F. Murray Abraham) adds another level of class to the film, keeping it together even as the familiar plot refuses to deviate from its well-worn path.

    Dan Laustsen’s cinematography delivers a pleasing glossiness to the sewer and underground sets, heightening the dank and slimy gloom in a way that favourably recalls Alien (clearly a strong influence throughout; Charles S. Dutton’s casting certainly feels like a nod to the franchise). The highlight is the sequence set within a subway car, as the key characters come under attack from a swarm of the oversized critters. It’s suspenseful, fun and offers up lashings of goo; indeed, much the same could be said of the film as a whole.

    There’s nothing new or special here, but this cut of Mimic delivers the goods while offering tantalising glimpses of the director del Toro would go on to become.

    [xrr rating=3/5]

  • Review: The Raven (2012)

    The RavenWith its nicely brooding atmosphere and a characteristically lively central performance from John Cusack, The Raven is something of a small gem. It’s clunkily directed by James McTeigue and the serial killer plot doesn’t really make any sense, but it goes about its ghoulish business with an admirable determination and persuasiveness.

    The central conceit is based on a crumb of historical truth: that Edgar Allen Poe was found dying in Baltimore in October 1849, and that his whereabouts prior to his death remained a mystery. On to this has been grafted a gruesome kidnapping plot that feels like reheated leftovers from the 1990s serial killer fad spawned by The Silence of the Lambs and Seven. A murderer is on the loose in the city, recreating deaths from Poe’s literary works. When the author’s secret fiancée Emily Hamilton (Alice Eve) is abducted and buried alive inside a coffin, the mastermind insists that Poe prints his thoughts and private anguish in the local paper until she is found.

    McTeigue is a workmanlike director who has a knack for picking interesting material (see V for Vendetta). He gives us the dank streets and foggy forests that are par for the course – the gaslit gloom of Baltimore provides plenty of shadows for something to lurk in – but he also delivers a satisfying amount of suspense, along with a side order of bloody shocks, on the way to an unsurprising ending. It feels faintly reminiscent of Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow, which for me is a good thing.

    Cusack is always a welcome presence and his caustic interpretation of Poe feels just right for this tale. The strong supporting cast, including Luke Evans as a detective assisting Poe, Brendan Gleeson and Pam Ferris as Emily’s parents and Kevin McNally as Poe’s publisher, are equally good. If you’re in the mood for some gothic gloom and doom, this might well fit the bill.

    [xrr rating=3/5]