|
 |
Constantine (Dir: Francis Lawrence) 80/100
A rare film for me in that I wasn't expecting much but I actually thoroughly enjoyed. I'm not familiar with the comicbook on which it's based and I believe they've changed some things around from the page to the screen (most notably the title from Hellblazer to Constantine which, while the former is catchier, may have sounded a little too much like Hellraiser - the 1987 horror film from Clive Barker), but as a film it struck me as a fine example of a comicbook adaptation done well, and staying true to the spirit of the source material. The film has a professional, glossy production design, the special effects are inventive, and the premise of the main character stuck between heaven and hell battling demons for redemption is an intriguing one. On the surface it may seem like a mistake to cast Keanu Reeves in the lead role, (he is a certified WoodenTop after all) but to his credit he's very good at picking the right parts to play. He doesn't have to do much in this film except run around weilding fantastical shotguns or sit about looking miffed and these things are within his narrow range as an actor. Add some good supporting players - Tilda Swinton somewhat surprisingly appears midway through the film as the angel Gabriel and Peter Stormare is suitably menacing as Satan himself. This is certainly one of the better comicbook adaptations out there. |
 |
The Descent (Dir: Neil Marshall) 70/100
A group of female pot-holers set off to a new cave system one wet weekend and, this being a horror film, soon get into deep trouble in numerous ways; they didn't bring the guidebook for a start. We know they're not going to be having a good day at the office. Now that's a decent horror film right there, simply due to the setting and the limited premise. If it's done well there's more than enough tension, atmosphere and grim entertainment to be had without the need to add otherworldly orcish creatures out for blood to the mix, especially if - like many of the audience will - you suffer from claustrophobia. The very idea of voluntarily entering a deep, dark cave and subjecting yourself to such inhospitable conditions, then squeezing your body through crevices humans weren't supposed to squeeze through - well it's enough to send a shiver down any sensible person's spine. After a little backstory to flesh out a couple of the characters the film gets going without too much messing around, and we're soon in the thick of things. There are a few good set-pieces that generate quite a bit of nervous tension, then the proverbial shit hits the fan. Of course the filmmakers do decide to throw in the creepy cave-dwelling orcs for good measure, which kind of wasted it for me as things get more and more silly up until the conclusion but as horror films go this is a very good effort, and the fact that we're watching a mostly female cast in such a physically demanding setup, where the protagonists would traditionally be male, is very refreshing. Shame about the monsters though. |
 |
Harsh Times (Dir: David Ayer) 70/100
This stars Christian Bale, and if it didn't then it most likely wouldn't be worth watching. He's fantastic here as Jim Davis, a disturbed war veteran looking to join the police now that he's back on civvy street. The problem is he's so unbalanced no police force in the civilised world would want him working for them if they knew just how out of whack he was. So we follow him and his hispanic buddy Mike Alonzo (played by Freddy Rodriguez - another fine young character actor who also turns in a great performance) as they ostensibly look for employment, but actually spend most of the time drinking, getting high, mixing with undesirables and getting into scrapes with the locals. It's edgy stuff; Bale plays the kind of character that puts everyone around him on edge. As a viewer, you never know what he's going to do next and feel tense every time he gets involved in a potentially dangerous situation - indeed the very fact that he's present makes every situation potentially dangerous, and you soon realise that his days are numbered despite the grand plans he has for the future. The only question left is whether or not he'll drag his friend down with him when his time comes, and this is the source of the emotional intensity in the second half of the film: You're willing Mike to break free from Davis and seize the opportunities dangling before him because unlike Davis he's a good person who wants to do the right thing. In the end, watching this film is quite a draining experience and as a commentary on the disillusioned and disenfranchised in modern America its message is a depressing one, but one that rings true. Harsh Times indeed. |
 |
King Kong (Dir: Peter Jackson) 60/100
Peter Jackson's first film since the epic Lord of The Rings trilogy is a remake of the 1933 classic King Kong. At over three hours it's too long for the tale it's telling, and far too much of its running time is devoted to the preparations to get the whole expedition underway, and setting sail for Skull Island, and to character development that's unconvincing, and ultimately wasted considering who the real star of the show is here. It does build the tension, but there are limits. When we do finally meet Kong it's not a disappointment, at least from a visual perspective - CGI has made huge strides towards reality in the last couple of years and Kong is probably the most impressive example of realistic CGI rendering yet. The fact that this giant gorilla is a fully formed character with more emotional depth and range than the rest of the cast is remarkable from a technical point of view, and yet depressing from just about any other point of view. The set-pieces featuring Kong battling various dinosaurs on Skull Island are impressive to behold, but again are drawn out way too long to have any real emotional punch. After twenty minutes of watching these great beasts grappling and throwing each other around, I found myself yearning for just a few minutes of peace and quiet. The temptation for Jackson to show off these monstrous creations to the full extent of the considerable computing power at his disposal was just too great to resist, resulting in bombastic and overblown action sequences that fatigue the viewer more than excite them. Sometimes less is more. |
 |
The Matador (Dir: Richard Shepard) 70/100
I wasn't expecting this to be anything special but everything works pretty well. Greg Kinnear is a salesman on a business trip who bumps into hitman Pierce Brosnan at the airport, and the two form an uneasy friendship. Brosnan's performance as a down at heel hitman whose losing his nerve is certainly one of the best of his career and is a ot of fun to watch. Greg Kinnear also hits the right note as his at first unwilling accomplice and it's always nice to see Philip Baker Hall, here in a cameo as Brosnan's handler. Hope Davis is also very good as Kinnear's wife, who has more than a passing interest in the contract killing business. The Matador is one of those films that knows what it wants to be and doesn't really put a foot wrong in achieving its aim. The story is interesting enough if a little generic, the characters are well drawn and well played, the direction is proficient and the location shooting and cinematography is spot on. But most importantly, it's consistently engaging and amusing. And if all doesn't sound tempting enough then let me mention the scene where Brosnan struts across a hotel lobby chugging a beer in nothing but his pants and a pair of cowboy boots, then jumps into a swimming pool with a shark in it - which clearly is worth the price of admission alone. |
 |
Munich (Dir: Steven Spielberg) 85/100
The latest from camp Spielberg, which seems to have regrouped after a string of mediocre, or just plain bad films over the last decade or so. Actually I would venture to suggest that this is one of his best films. It does seem as though Spielberg works best under time pressure and when the subject matter has some meaning to him. This is a thoughtful piece on Mossad's retaliatory tactics following the 1972 Munich olympic kidnapping and murder of a team of Israeli weightlifters - the detailing of which can be found in Kevin McDonald's excellent documentary One Day In September. Eric Bana is the leader of a small group sent to hunt down and kill those responsible one by one and Spielberg shows these revenge killings in quite a stark light. The style of this film and the brutality of some of the set-pieces I found quite surprising: The film, in tone and execution, reminded me of some classic seventies thrillers like Marathon Man and French Connection. You can keep your Minority Reports and your Terminals with their high gloss, high concept sheen. Give me a film that has something to say about human nature and says it in a realistic way. This should win Best Picture this year but won't. Loses a point for the extraneous and overwrought final scene |
 |
Sin City (Dir: Rodriguez/Miller/Tarantino) 80/100
A bit of a breath of fresh air among the endless sequels, remakes and cheap horror knock-offs doing the rounds right now, you can tell this was a project close to the heart of those involved. Mickey Rourke is tremendous fun as the human juggernaut that is Marv, and Bruce Willis does a great cop-on-the-verge-of-quitting turn in this dark, seedy, violent, fundamentally adult take on the comic book world of Frank Miller, who is the best in the business when it comes to the darker aspects of illustrative fiction. Robert Rodriguez obviously has an abiding interest and knowledge of comic book styles and conventions too, which guarantees Sin City won't be much like any other comic book adaptation you've seen so far: Imagine Sergio Leone had set out to make a film noir while coked up and playing X-Box in a brothel, and you'll have some idea where this film is coming from. As for the story its sometimes muddled, pretty implausable and downright silly at times, logic frequently takes a back seat and so on - shortcomings common to most comic books - but these things are really not important in a film like this. The things that are important are the atmosphere, the mood, the style; the sheer audacity it took to pull this particular rabbit out of the hat. This is a film borne of love, talent, energy and excitement at the endless possibilities of making a film in a new format, so it goes without saying that it's well worth your time. You should make the effort and see it on the big screen. |
 |
V For Vendetta (Dir: James McTeigue) 75/100
Another comicbook adaptation, and it's one of the more interesting comicbooks in what is a much more adult-oriented field these days. This is not your marvel universe where superheroes battle the forces of evil. No, it's a very stylish parable set in a future London where government has expanded out of control into a fascist state. Hugo Weaving stars as 'V' - a masked crusader intent on overthrowing the totalitarian regime by re-enacting the gunpowder plot of 1605 and blowing up the Houses of Parliament. I thoroughly enjoyed this film - even more so because I'd heard it wasn't very good so I wasn't expecting much. (I suspect the people who were disappointed were the one's expecting some superhero action). The film's directed with a lot of confidence and flair by James McTeigue who either learned a lot from the Wachowski brothers on the Matrix films (where he served as assistant director) or he sat back and let them do most of the directing themselves. Either way this is a sumptuous piece of filmmaking with a lot of articulate - sometimes prosaic dialogue, some elegant acting on the part of Hugo Weaving, and an intriguing set of circumstances played out with much wit and a poetic sensibility. Rather than a standard Hollywood blockbuster many were expecting this is a much more interesting and thoughtful affair. |
 |
Walk The Line (Dir: James Mangold) 55/100
Standard issue biopic. Introduce the subject as a child. Show subject as a young adult starting to do whatever it is they're now famous for doing. Detail drug and/or alcohol abuse in their middle years, leading to numerous dramatic situations. Just before the final credits, tell the audience what happened to the subject after the events you've just covered, by way of a couple of paragraphs onscreen. Movie by numbers, really. What usually distinguishes a biopic like this is the central performance, and the film usually succeeds or fails on the strength of this performance. Joaquin Pheonix's portrayal of Johnny Cash is very good, and his Johnny Cash singing voice is pretty astonishing, but it's not enough to carry the film. All the co-stars orbit this central performance and do their jobs well. The songs are fine if you like Johnny Cash and everything ticks along as expected, but there just isn't any spark of originality to make this stand out from the crowd. Your average biopic (and this definitely comes under the heading average) has this truncated, condensed Cliff Notes approach to a person's life that robs it of any emotional resonance or depth and in the end renders the whole exercise kind of pointless. It would be of more interest to Johnny Cash fans than casual viewers, and it does feature a lot of his best songs. Of course if you're a fan you could just watch a Johnny Cash concert instead. |
 |
War of The Worlds (Dir: Steven Spielberg) 50/100
Spielberg's track record of late has been abysmal, and this really isn't very good either. The film starts off very well. There's a little character development then the invading alien machines appear and immediately begin blowing to pieces anyone in their general vicinity with no mercy. Nice. Everything is portrayed as realistically as possible, so it all looks very promising. Ray Ferrier (Cruise) is not your typical hero - once he realises what's happening he wants nothing more than to get the hell out of Dodge. Very refreshing, and it sets the viewer up with high expectations for the rest of the film. Then the Hollywood part of Spielberg's brain kicks in and it's all downhill from then on. The killing becomes much more selective once Ferrier and family find themselves in the firing line. It's as if the invaders suddenly realise it's Tom Cruise the superstar in front of them and so can't kill him, or his two kids, so there's practically no tension or suspense when they're around. Actually, that's not quite true. There is some tension when the kids are around, but for completely unintended reasons - one is so obnoxious and the other so screechy that you're praying for their demise, all the while knowing that the chances of that happening are almost non-existent. This is a frustrating film, made all the more so by its promising first half. In the end it's nothing more than a standard disaster movie, with all the cliches you'd expect, and is further proof that if most of what you have in a film are special effects and explosions then you don't have much. |
|
