HANSEL & GRETEL: WITCH HUNTERS (Tommy Wirkola, 2013)

Posted on July 7, 2013 by MoodyB

hansel & gretel

 

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Famke Janssen

You may like this if you liked: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (Timur Bekmambetov, 2012), Drive Angry (Patrick Lussier, 2011), Dead Snow (Tommy Wirkola, 2009)

Right, well we all know the fairy tale, but here we go. As children, siblings Hansel (Renner) and Gretel (Arterton) are left in the woods by their dad and all of a sudden come across a cottage made entirely of candy. They are then captured by the witch that lives there but somehow escape after killing the witch. Now older and armed with guns and American accents, the two orphans are bounty hunters who make a living from killing witches across Germany. Trust me whatever moment in time this is supposed to be is irrelevant. The mayor of a small town hires them to hunt down who has been abducting the local children, which they discover to be the extremely powerful dark witch Muriel (Famke Janssen). Soon they discover that they must stop a plan to use the children’s blood that will make the witches even more powerful as well as learning about the true identity of their parents.

Well, with a title like that before watching this I was hardly expecting something deep and meaningful! Personally, I thought this was the concept for something that could be enjoyable fun if done the right way. The last dying words of a character emotionally connected to one of our protagonists is “Kill that f***king witch”, so this never wants to be a profoundly moving piece of cinema.  As controversial as it may be to say this, but I did prefer this to Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (just) as it is most definitely made with a more tongue in cheek tone. However, despite the over the top violence, outrageously advanced weaponry and ‘funny’ swearing (“Whatever you do, don’t eat the f***ing candy!) this is actually quite boring.

I don’t care about the flaws and plot holes, if I was to go into them this would be an extremely long review, but for me H&G:WHs is nowhere near as fun as it should be. The main reason for this is the casting decisions. Renner maybe a big deal now, and though I thought he was excellent in The Hurt Locker, he is horrifically miscast here so much that it is quite frankly embarrassing to watch. He is quite boring to watch in most of his films, and here he is given ‘comic’ lines and fluffs them beyond description. If maybe he looked like he was enjoying himself then it may not have been so bad, but even he looks bored. Arterton is not much better, doing an (appalling) American accent for no reason; she looks even more bored than Jeremy. I would never expect Shakespeare standard thesping, but the two lead actors (who I am sure would be earning a decent wage) at least looking like they are having fun would be nice. If they aren’t having fun, then why the hell should the viewer?!? For example, Knight & Day: Tom Cruise, Drive Angry: William Fichtner. Very silly films yes, but it is obvious these two are really enjoying themselves, it should never be underestimated how much of a difference that makes to the viewer. Famke Janssen and Peter Stormare (looking like inspector Clouseau) may chew the scenery and completely overact but at least they are having a go. Better to overact than look physically bored the entire time.

OK, so I have seen worse and some of the moments of action are quite enjoyably gory and over the top. When our extremely bored heroes face a fraternity of witches this scene is visually quite fun, complete with machine gun (!). There are plenty of exploding and crushed heads, flying body parts and claret everywhere, so there is potential fun to be had. Norwegian director Tommy Wirkola did the bonkers, but actually a lot of fun Nazi zombies in the snow film Dead Snow, and there are times when this could have been just as bonkers and enjoyable as that. Maybe a bit more effort on the script and this would have been a welcome addition to the ‘guilty pleasures’ list. Alas, the final product is a potentially fun, but a predominantly boring splatter fest. There is a plethora of ‘silly and gory’ films out there, so a little more effort and a little less complacency is needed when making one. One pointer Tommy: If your ‘actors’ are looking this bored when you are directing, do something about it!

There was potential here, but what could have been a thoroughly enjoyable bit of gory over the top nonsense is ruined mainly by two protagonists being so visibly bored that the trees of the German forests actually look less wooden.

4/10

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MUD (Jeff Nichols, 2012)

Posted on July 7, 2013 by MoodyB

mud

Starring: Mathew McConaughey, Tye Sheridan, Jacob Lofland

You may like this if you like: Stand by Me (Rob Reiner, 1986), Whistle Down the Wind (Bryan Forbes, 1961), Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)

Two 14 year old Arkansas boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) set out on their small boat on the Mississippi river to an Island to find a boat they hear about that is suspended high up on some trees. Looking to claim the boat as theirs, they discover that it already has a resident; A wanted criminal by the name of Mud (McConaughey). The three of them make a deal that if they help Mud get the parts needed to get the boat back on the water and help him be reunited with the love of his life; Juniper (Reese Witherspoon) then Neckbone can have Mud’s pistol. While Ellis, whose parents are about to divorce and he himself has confused thoughts on love, agrees to do it for much deeper reasons.

There is much to be admired regarding the ambition behind Jeff Nichols’ (Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter) latest. Most impressive is the conformation of Mathew McConaughey’s career serge of the last few years. From awful romantic comedies where he always struggled to stand up straight on the poster to working with Scorsese and Nolan on their latest projects; this is definitely a Mathew McConaughey renaissance. Here as the enigmatic Mud he gives a magnetic performance. Naturally he has his shirt off most of the time (some things will NEVER change) but he is note perfect and extremely watchable and likeable whenever he is on screen.

This is most definitely not just about McConaughey though as the two teenagers, Tye Sheridan (The Tree of Life and the incoming Joe with, gulp, Nic Cage) and newcomer Jacob Lofland provide superb performances as the films two main characters. Sheridan getting the more screen time as what would appear to be the films main protagonist manages to capture all the emotions that a 14 year old goes through with subtle perfection. As an impressionable 14 year old he does look up to the enigmatic Mud and as the narrative develops there are parallels in both of their behaviour and language. At 14 he is trying to understand the world, and especially the concepts of love and masculinity. His parents are on the verge of separating, he thinks he is falling in love with a girl at school a few years above him and it is this belief that Mud and Juniper genuinely love each other that initially motivates him to help Mud.

At 130 minutes this a film that likes to take its time and the gentle pace never feels rushed and that is only a good thing as the slow pace suits the tone of the film perfectly. It is not just the narrative’s pace that suits the seemingly slow pace life of deep Arkansas but this is also a film that is beautifully shot. There are defiantly elements of Malick in how Nichols and cinematographer Adam Stone capture both the beauty and subtle danger of Arkansas and the Mississippi River. When watching you genuinely feel the sun drenched heat and humidity of that place. It is a film with an incredible atmosphere where the setting is as much a major character as anyone else.

As the slow burn plot flows along this is a film that is consistently watchable and involving, with characters that you start to genuinely care about. However for me what stopped Mud from being a total masterpiece was that there is a lack of any real emotional punch. I understand the subtle and often gentle nature of the narrative, which works extremely well, but I was not personally completely gripped like in Take Shelter. Maybe this film is a victim of its own ambition and there are just far too many characters that it becomes a little diluted. Reese Witherspoon, Nichols regular Michael Shannon and Sam Shepard all give good performances playing emotionally significant characters but are given very little screen time. Mud would appear to be at its heart a coming of age story, but there is so much else going on involving other characters that the subject of two boys learning about life becomes a subplot. This is a layered film with many themes such as the subplot involving Ellis’ parents splitting up and the council likely to have their houseboat taken away, destroying his father’s way of life. Though again this is treated as a subplot but yet plays a huge role in Ellis’ emotional journey. Maybe not even having Reese Witherspoon appear at all, as well as the gangsters after Mud may have worked better for me personally, so I could have then focused more on the journey of the main characters.

Though Ellis is the main protagonist there is a dramatic change of point of view and pace in the final third. Though this is essential for Mud’s character arc it would be possible to debate if he needs one in some ways if this is a coming of age story. Again the final third, as watchable and genuinely involving as it is, appears to be a perfect example of Nichols trying to be over ambitious and give every character emotional closure. Though there were many times in the final third where I shuddered in fear of huge clichéd moments and thankfully on the whole Nichols manages to avoid these which is no mean feat.

Mud is a deeply involving slow burner of a tale that maintains a consistent pace, and is both beautifully shot and impressively acted by all. Real emotional impact is perhaps compromised due to an over ambitious attempt at too many character arcs and to incorporate too many themes, but otherwise this is a thoroughly enjoyable watch.

7/10

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MICHAEL H – PROFESSION: DIRECTOR (Yves Montmayeur, 2013)

Posted on July 2, 2013 by MoodyB

michael H

 

Starring: Michael Haneke, Juliette Binoche, Isabelle Huppert

You may like this if you liked: The films of Micheal Haneke basically

An insightful documentary on Austrian auteur Micheal Haneke, showing interviews with the man himself, and showing behind the scenes footage of him filming scenes and directing actors on all of his films from Amour (2012) back to The Seventh Continent (1989).

Like all directors of the sort of films we get from Haneke, do not expect him to explain his films. I expect, like David Lynch, he refuses to do director’s commentaries because he respects the audience enough to make their own conclusions from his films. For anyone who is a fan of his unique brand of unflinching cinema (I most certainly am) this is compelling viewing. This is not the man explaining his films, but an insight into the man himself who it has to be said is quite a suitably enigmatic figure.

One of the most insightful and genuinely fascinating parts of this documentary are the behind the scenes footage of how he creates some of the scenes in his films. As a director who likes long takes the enthusiasm he shows when showing what he wants from his actors is compelling viewing.

When interviewed Haneke is as fascinating and enigmatic as his films, when saying “I don’t want to answer questions that make me interpret myself”, however when answering the more personal questions, his answers are fascinating and eloquent. Another interesting revelation that is shown from both behind the scenes footage and interviews with actors is how much fun there seems to be on set, despite the general tone of his films.

On  a personal note, the audience interviews after seeing the premier of Funny Games (1997) was a highlight due to the huge variation in reactions.

This is essential viewing for Haneke fans, as it provides a genuinely fascinating and passionately made insight into a man that has produced some of the most unique cinematic experiences of the last twenty years.

7/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, World Cinema | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BROKEN CITY (Allen Hughes, 2013)

Posted on July 2, 2013 by MoodyB

broken city

 

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Russell Crowe, Catherine Zeta-Jones

You may like this if you like: City Hall (Harold Becker, 1996), State of Play (Kevin Macdonald, 2009), Chinatown (Roman Polanski, 1974)

In New York private investigator and ex cop Billy Taggart (Wahlberg) is hired by Mayor Nicholas Hostetler (Crowe) to investigate his wife’s infidelity. Desperate for the money, Taggart is happy to accept and tries to uncover the identity of the man before an approaching mayoral election. Despite warnings from Hostetler’s wife (Zeta-Jones) Taggart reveals to Hostetler that the man in question is Paul Andrews (Kyle Chandler), the campaign manager for Hostetler’s rival and favourite Jack Valiant (Barry Pepper) to win the election. However, as anyone who has even seen the poster will know, later developments reveal things to be far more complicated.

If you ever want a definition of ‘genre piece’, then Broken City comes pretty close to that. Even the poster tells you everything you need to know about the plot and who is who. This is an extremely well made and put together thriller, but so incredibly generic that you will see every plot ‘twist’ before it happens. Unfortunately this is all shown with such serious stoicism that Broken City does almost border on patronising and insulting to the average viewer.

Russell Crowe, complete with fake tan, comb over and dodgy accent is obviously as bent as nine bob note (an English phrase there) that when he and Zeta-Jones pose certain questions to the reliably intense Wahlberg we are just thinking “get on with it” as we know there is some serious corruption going on. There are obvious nods and winks to noir thrillers of the past (such as Chinatown), and that is fine but Broken City lacks any ambition to do something different with what is a very tried and tested narrative. Everything you see in this film you will have seen before, and I am afraid to say done much better. Due to the serious tone, this is obviously a film that takes itself very seriously and at times appears to think the audience is a little stupid, which is a little insulting considering we are usually one step ahead of the plot.

All that said, Broken City is well shot and put together, and is always just about watchable. The high rise city shots and cinematography adding a good atmosphere that is crying out for more substance plot wise. The dialogue is surprisingly sharp, though of course let down by the generic and predictable plot. The performances from all are more than adequate but never spectacular. Due to the serious tone, there is never also any fun to be had. Considering the totally serious tone this does make the film feel like a very long 109 minutes at times.

What we see here almost feels like the rough draft of a script that could have done with a few more re writes to add more intriguing twists and turns and maybe slightly less clichéd characters that are also more sympathetic. At its heart this could have a very compelling genre piece, but there appears to be either a lack of ambition, or a demonstration of total complacency from all making this. Ok, so there is one good twist near the end and the ending is not actually a cop out with a bit of emotional pay off, but would have been so much better if we were given a more sympathetic protagonist.

On a side note, this film is obviously sponsored by Jameson whisky as in every other scene someone orders one or pours from a bottle of it. Perhaps it is a clear indication of this film’s lack of ability to completely engage that I noticed that?

Competently made, competently acted and competently plotted. Broken City had the potential and is perfectly watchable, but lacks any ambition or genuine ingenuity to stand above superior similar political dramas.

5/10

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST (Mira Nair, 2012)

Posted on July 2, 2013 by MoodyB

the reluctant fundamentalist

Starring: Riz Ahmed, Liev Schreiber, Keifer Sutherland

You may like this if you like: Body of Lies (Ridley Scott, 2008), Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow, 2012), The Assassination of Richard Nixon (Niels Mueller, 2004)

In a café and in Lahore, Pakistan American journalist Bobby Lincoln (Schreiber) interviews University lecturer Changez Khan (Ahmed). After the kidnapping of an American lecturer at the local University, Changez is suspected to be involved and Lincoln is determined to get the truth. So begins Changez telling Lincoln his life story and how he moved to America to live his own American dream and become a wealthy Wall Street analyst. After the events of 9/11 things changed and he is met with constant suspicion causing him to question his morality and loyalties. Is he a terrorist though? Is Lincoln working for the CIA? As the two men talk and learn more about each while a riot is occurring outside, many questions will be answered while new questions posed of each other.

I have not read the book, but have heard good things and at its heart The Reluctant Fundamentalist has some very interesting and thought provoking ideas. Without wanting to give too much away, as we gradually learn more about the enigmatic Changez more interesting ideas and broader questions emerge. Despite this, this is a slightly inconsistent and overlong film that perhaps tries too hard at hammering home too many ideas. Post 9/11 some of the scenes, though perhaps realistic to some extent, do feel a little contrived and clichéd. It is very well shot, acted and there are some terrifically tense scenes but overall at 125 minutes it all feels a little bloated.

Anyone watching this film with any knowledge of the world will not learn anything new from these scenes of Changez in post 9/11 New York. I understand they are there for a reason but are perhaps emphasised a little too often and shown for too long when just being mentioned by Changez would be enough for any intelligent viewer. The subplot involving Changez’ relationship with New Yorker Erica (Kate Hudson) does not work too well either in my view. I understand she is there to depict some of the American attitudes that drive the narrative but some scenes involving her achieve nothing.

When the film feels like it is dragging (and it does at times) and it feels like descending into boring lecturing Riz Ahmed’s charismatic and extremely watchable performance keeps things going along nicely. His performance as the lead character in Four Lions would have been so easy to get wrong, but he was exceptional in that film and once again is fantastic here. The role of Changez would be easy to get wrong but he is note perfect and provides an extremely watchable and charismatic screen presence. He does very often carry the films over stuffed and clunky episodic narrative. Schreiber is suitably and effectively intense in his role.

With what is going on around Lincoln and Changez’ conversations there is also seems to be an intention from both screenwriter and director to make this a tense against the clock thriller. This feels more like an annoying and contrived distraction from what is potentially an interesting character study. There are some interesting revelations admittedly, but it is when Changez is revealing his inner thoughts that the film as it’s most compelling. This is a film that could be interpreted as a little anti Western in many of its depictions of us lot, but some of Changez’ rational thoughts and justifications do provide a genuinely sympathetic character and some thought provoking ideas.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist is a film with some interesting thoughts and ideas, depicted with admirable and compassionate ambition but feels overstuffed and at times a tad boring. It could have done with being at least twenty minutes shorter but is predominantly very watchable, mainly due to Ahmed’s fantastic and charismatic central performance.

6/10

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

POPULAIRE (Régis Reynard, 2012)

Posted on June 30, 2013 by MoodyB

populaire

 

Starring: Romain Duris, Déborah François, Bérénice Bejo

You may like this if you liked: Untouchable (Olivier Nakachi and Eric Toledano, 2011), The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius, 2011), Potiche (François Ozon, 2010)

France 1958, Rose Pamphyle (François) decides to leave her humble life in a small Normandy village and goes for an interview to be secretary for Insurance agent Louis Echard (Duris). Rose gets the job due to her impressive typing speed but proves to be an extremely clumsy secretary. However, due to his natural competitive streak, Louis decides to enter Rose into the regional speed typing contest and she moves in with him so she can learn and win. Of course, the two do start to fall for each other, but due to Louis’ fear of commitment and some personal ghosts something will inevitably be compromised.

I must be some kind of philistine! Apparently speed typing contests were extremely popular (globally) in the 1950s and I never knew about it! Well they were and here we have a French romantic comedy about it. I was sceptical about this one when seeing the trailers, but I am really glad I saw it and would thoroughly recommend Populaire. This being a romantic comedy it does come with all the usual conventions and trademarks of the genre. Yes it is a little predictable, cheesy and clichéd. However, the fact it contains such traits is not necessarily a problem, it is how it deals with them that is the issue. After all, most stories presented in films come with clichés, but it for me is all about how these clichés are both presented and dealt with. Populaire for me unashamedly knows exactly what it is from the off and embraces the functions of the genre, and basically enjoys using them. It never pretends to be original or revolutionary and solely focuses on being fun, and it does this with great success.

Anyone watching this will be able to easily predict all the narrative outcomes, but when the journey to those outcomes is so much fun that is not a problem. Reynard has created a beautifully made and thoroughly engaging film, which is enhanced by excellent performances from the entire cast. Romain Duris is an extremely charismatic presence in any film he is in, and here he is and doing a very effective Don Draper impression with added va-va-voom. His face must be made out of plasticine as some of the facial expressions he makes throughout the narrative are quite incredible. He provides an enigmatic, charismatic and extremely watchable character that manages to capture so many emotions solely through his facial expressions (and great hair). Déborah François is perfect as Rose, capturing naivety, innocence and compassion all with charming perfection. There is obvious natural charisma between the two actors and this enhances our emotional involvement with the film. The supporting cast are also extremely effective in their roles adding the necessary emotional depth to the two protagonists.

The production values are also excellent providing a genuine sense of time and place. There is also genuine excitement when watching people type as fast as humanly possible against each other, which is very impressive as I would have never thought that to be possible. Though there is part of us that knows certain outcomes, we cannot but help to want to punch the air in delight at certain times. The script is also very sharp and witty, and though the narrative has inevitable clichés and cheesiness, watching the film never becomes dreary or laboured as the dialogue is too clever and self aware to be bogged down by such easy traps. The lines exchanged between the two protagonists only enhancing the extremely watchable and compelling screen presence the two of them share. Despite the overall predictability there are some refreshingly surprising moments, the Christmas scene in particular a real entertaining delight.

It is very predictable, cheesy and very self aware. However Populaire embraces the flaws of its genre to create a naturally uplifting and immensely enjoyable film complemented by some exceptional performances. Trust me, when this film finishes you will be in a much happier mood compared to before you started watching it. If such a thing exists, this is most definitely ‘good mood cinema’ at its finest.

7/10 

Posted in All Film Reviews, World Cinema | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ATLANTIC RIM (Jared Cohn, 2013)

Posted on June 30, 2013 by MoodyB

atlantic rim

Starring: Graham Greene, David Chokachi, Jackie Moore

You may like this if you like: Pacific Rim (Guillermo Del Toro, 2013), Transmorphers (Leigh Scott, 2007), War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave (C. Thomas Howell, 2008) or anything by The Asylum

So prolific mockbuster maestros The Asylum are at it again and this time it is Del Toro’s imminent big budget spectacle that gets their unique treatment. When an oil rig in the ATLANTIC Ocean (Yes, not that other Ocean) disappears down one of the deepest parts of the ocean the US government decides it is time to finally put one of its secret operations to the test. This naturally involves giant robots that are each powered by one human. When checking the sea they discover giant sea monsters (naturally). As these giant monsters head for New York (it is on the Atlantic coast see!) it is now only these untested robots and their maverick pilots that can save humanity (well, New York).

For anyone that is not aware of The Asylum, watching this will be quite a shock. For the majority of us that have stumbled across their unique brand of film making while trawling the movie channels in the evening that are, shall we say, at the lower end of the quality spectrum this is business as usual. Expect the usual trademark Mega Drive style CGI, a wafer thin plot, a clunky as hell script, some of the worst acting you have ever scene and a few “I recognise that face from somewhere” moments. Well, as they say, ‘if it aint broke, don’t fix it’! Their films often make a profit and so they will keep churning out these err, things. Though this is of course not hard, considering they have the budget of a minimum wage monthly pay packet and probably take a few days to film. Well, they certainly look like they do.

This being The Asylum, I am not even going to attempt to review this properly as that would be a pointless task. To say it is made by The Asylum says more than any review can point out. I approach their films differently, knowing it will be absolutely abysmal in so many ways I look for little unique parts of the film that make me laugh. These are bits that could be described as the ‘extreme’ end of really bad film making. They are so bad you just have to laugh. As with most of their films, the front cover of the DVD looks better than what we see on screen, and could certainly be described as a little misleading. Tentacles? On the cover, never in the film!

In the case of Atlantic Rim there are some very funny moments to look out for and here is a few that stood out for me. In any action film you get the inevitable slow motion shot of our heroes walking intently. Well here you have it from multiple angles for a few minutes. When you think we are ready to go to the next scene, there is yet another angle of it! In this film we have three robots, and they all have one colour each: Green, red and blue. So cue patronising Power Rangers style less than subtle colour coordination for each character throughout. These were both highlights for me that really made me chuckle. David Chokachi’s character is even called ‘Red’ for god’s sake!

Of course, this being a film from The Asylum a few familiar faces turn up. We cannot name them as we watch them desperately cling on to those narrow threads that remain of their acting career, but we recognise them from somewhere. Well here we have David Chokachi who was a regular in Baywatch and Anthony ‘Treach’ Criss who is a rapper who rapped on songs in 8 Mile and Up in the Air. However, for me there were two true standout performances and these were Graham Greene (he was in Die Hard: With a Vengeance you know!) and Steven Marlow (nothing). Graham Green plays the wise old commander Admiral Hadley and he never moves his head, blinks, changes where he is looking or changes the level of his voice. Now that is method acting at its finest! Newcomer Steve Marlow gives a break out performance as the excellently named Sheldon Geise and brings a new definition to the word intense. Wearing an eye patch (no idea why), giving a deep voice to match Christian Bale’s Batman voice and a stare so intense it could kill small children. He is one to watch. These are a few standout moments for me, but the beauty of such a profound piece of cinema is that it will be different for everyone.

One thought that always occurs to me when watching such ‘films’ though, due to the budget most of those making it know exactly what they are making. However what about the screenwriter (in this case there are three of them), do they genuinely think they have crafted a strong script that may elevate them to the Hollywood big league? They haven’t of course, but do they think otherwise?

What is the next cinematic masterpiece to come out of The Asylum then I hear you ask! Well, it is called Skarknado and stars Tara Reid…

Posted in All Film Reviews, Mindless B Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

MOVIE 43 (lots of directors – but Peter Farrelly is the main culprit, 2013)

Posted on June 27, 2013 by MoodyB

movie 43

 

Starring: Quite a few people

You may like this if you like: Torture, pain and misery

The actual ‘story’ to this film varies depending on what country you watch it in. Apparently in the states it centres on a film producer played by Dennis Quaid pitching film ideas. Over here in Britain we follow three incredibly annoying teenagers as after the two older ones play a prank on the younger one claiming there is a movie on the internet called Movie 43 which is the most dangerous and banned film of all time. As they trawl the glorious World Wide Web they come across different short films. These are basically a series of ‘comedy’ sketches involving famous actors embarrassing themselves and the jokes involving various parts of the human anatomy, poo, Gerard Butler as a leprechaun and Hugh Jackman with testicles hanging from his chin. Sounds hilarious doesn’t it?!?

So why did I even watch a film that is famously regarded as being beyond awful you may you ask? Well that would be a fair question. Though I cannot provide a complete answer it must be due to some sado masochistic, sadistic compulsion combined with an intrigue to see just how bad it is and what the hell all these big names are doing in it! I enjoy a bad movie, anyone who knows me is well aware that in fact I often embrace them. I love the films by The Asylum and bad films can be so bad they are funny. I also do not have a problem with Farrelly brothers’ style puerile and crude humour, but this is intended to be funny and simply is not. This is quite possibly one of the worst films I have ever seen, watching it was a horrible experience and I would implore anyone reading this to never, ever watch it!

There is nothing funny or redeeming about this film. The sketches are never funny and the scenes of the ‘story’ are an horrific experience to watch. I do not care for any of the apparent shock value of all these big names being in it, as after all they are only actors. I know for a fact they earn a lot more money than I do so good luck to them. There may be here some satirical portrayal of modern culture or proving that actors care more about money than integrity here, I say maybe. Apparently all these names got very little money and that is irrelevant as this film just simply is not funny, you cannot laugh AT or WITH. It is just sheer torture to watch. Peter Farrelly was apparently the genius behind this and though I like some of his earlier films he should be put in prison for crimes against humanity.

Like I said, I am not too bothered about all these big names being in it as they just actors who earn a lot money anyway. Yes they should have more integrity but their scenes must have taken a few days to film, they will have already forgotten about this film existing. It means nothing to them. What is genuinely disturbing is the fact that someone has pitched this idea and others have somehow thought this film is a good idea and agreed to pay for it to be made. According to IMDB the budget was around $6 million, a lot can be done with that money. I will probably never get to see what that much money looks like, and if it looks like Movie 43 then I never want to.

Movie 43 is not funny in the slightest, but simply painful to watch and definitely one of the worst films I have ever seen. I implore people to never subject themselves to this pain and misery.

1/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, Rants | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

SONG FOR MARION (Paul Andrew Williams, 2012)

Posted on June 27, 2013 by MoodyB

song for marion

 

Starring: Terence Stamp, Vanessa Redgrave, Gemma Arterton

You may like this if you liked: The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (John Madden, 2011), Calendar Girls (Nigel Cole, 2003), Quartet (Dustin Hoffman, 2012)

Shy and grumpy pensioner Arthur (Stamp) lives a quiet life and is happy for it to be that way. He has a troubled relationship with his son James (Christopher Eccleston) and looks after his wife Marion (Redgrave). Marion is a member of a local singing choir called the OAPZ, who led by music teacher Elizabeth (Arterton) sing contemporary songs, but Arthur prefers to have nothing to do with that. As Marion’s illness deteriorates she vows to carry on singing with the OAPZ as they enter a local singing competition, but Arthur is still reluctant to join until tragedy strikes.

So here we are again, another ‘grey pound’ film. Of course that inevitably means it will have certain characteristics. So yes it is clichéd, predictable and as corny as hell, yet all is forgivable due to innocent intentions and some great heartfelt performances. Of course the cynic in me that has seen Paul Andrew Williams’ other films may think he wrote and directed this just because he knew it would make a profit and fund other projects. Even if that is the case that would be forgivable, but there appears to be genuine heart and soul here which turns all the cliché and melancholy into a very enjoyable and involving film.

It is at its most raw and heartfelt that Song For Marion is at its most emotionally effective and compelling. Apparently the film was intended to be rawer and it is a shame that Williams did not have the confidence to stick with this. The sillier and lighter moments feel a little forced and cringe inducing, almost undermining all the good work done elsewhere. The novelty of some of the jokes does ware thin after a while and get a little repetitive.

The tone is predominantly judged well and the relationship between Arthur and Marion is spot on as they have two very different personalities yet also complement each other so well. The character of Arthur would have been so easy to get wrong, and if this was the case would have undermined anything good about the film. However Stamp gets it spot on, Arthur could be a difficult character to like but Stamp allows us to understand and truly feel compassion for a character that is just as flawed as all of us. He has many feeling going on inside his head but is just unable to express them. Redgrave gives an energetic and truly heartfelt performance as the free spirited Marion complementing Stamp’s melancholy and the scenes between them are genuinely heartfelt and emotional. Eccleston gives a solid performance and the troubled relationship between father and son is clichéd but yet presented with such raw emotion that it provides a genuine emotional backbone to the story. In fact it felt that Eccleston’s character was underused and the troubled father-son relationship could have been explored further. Arterton gives an enthusiastic and likeable performance but her character is a little unbelievable and convenient in terms of narrative.

Though it will not win any awards for originality and the more comic elements perhaps misfire more than not, at its core Song For Marion is a genuine and heartfelt human story we can all relate to. Due to the excellent performances only the truly coldest of people will not be moved by the end.

7/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, British Films | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

WORLD WAR Z (Marc Forster, 2013)

Posted on June 26, 2013 by MoodyB

world war z

 

Starring: Brad Pitt, Mirreille Enos, Mathew Fox

You may like this if you liked: 28 Days Later… (Danny Boyle, 2002), I Am Legend (Francis Lawrence, 2007), general zombie apocalypse-ness

Gerry Lane (Pitt + mullet) is an ex UN investigator who quit to be able to send time solely with his family. When he and his family are travelling through Philadelphia he is suddenly  caught in crowded panic stricken streets of what appears to be infected humans attacking each other (i.e., zombies, apparently). Using his skills acquired and the convenience of still being mates with one of the UN leaders he manages to stay alive and get a chopper to the apparently last operating American battleship. Once there, as he learns that this is a global pandemic, he is asked to find answers to the cause of this pandemic, and supposedly some kind of cure. This being Hollywood, he of course refuses but is persuaded when it means his family can stay safely on board the ship. So he, a nerdy stereotypical scientist doctor type person and loads of soldiers (with no personalities as we obviously do not care about such disposable characters) travel the globe from expensive set piece to another (as well as Wales) to find the cause and some kind of cure.

A true big budget zombie movie is well overdue (Resident Evil does not count!) and this is the source of both the strengths and weaknesses of World War Z. Well, I say zombies, it is more 28 Days Later style with them running, snarling, scratching and head butting  like the usual drunks in any English high street on a Friday night (minus the kebab in their hands.) It is when we are given scenes of these humongous hordes of fast running flesh eaters that WWZ as it its most spectacular and effective.  They are running ferociously through claustrophobic streets, piling franticly on top of each other to make human mountains, overrunning coaches and helicopters like ants and these scenes all look mightily impressive and effective. That is it, the world as we know it is over. With these CGI scenes we truly believe it. The opening sequence too is very well constructed and utterly exhilarating; throwing us into the carnage and panic headfirst and singlehandedly writing off New Jersey.

However, while putting all this effort into some very effective set pieces, someone obviously forgot to give this film any substance, heart or actual genuine tension. Of course, this being a big budget blockbuster, inevitably bad things tend to wait to happen to places when our protagonist is in town. This is fine to an extent but that is not the only oh too familiar zombie apocalypse cliché that appears and as the narrative develops we do indeed tread down a way too familiar road. When the film has to actually have ideas and a little substance there is very little and as the story goes on it peters out with very much a clunky, familiar and dull finale compared to its spectacular anxiety ridden opening roar.

It indeed seems the focus of those making it is too much on the undead and forgetting to give us a reason to care about those still with a pulse. Pitt (an actor who I am most definitely a fan) gives a solid, likeable and indeed believable performance but it is not enough to make up for the lack of substance or heart. However despite Pitt and his family being the apparent emotional centrepiece, due to the fact it is so casually presented it is really hard to care. Due to his past, Pitt’s character is hardly an everyman and so this all feels like a really convenient and therefore contrived narrative function. This automatically leads to a lack of association or indeed empathy with the film’s protagonist. Considering the story is built around the protagonist this plays a major part in the downfall of any genuine involvement of the narrative of WWZ. This film is also happy to dispose of its living characters so easily too and it does not help. Mathew Fox, David Morse and James Badge Dale are all decent well known actors in their own right, but yet once they have their one scene they are simply thrown out with the undead trash.

When seeing that it had a 15 certificate I was relieved and thought that at least they haven’t focussed predominantly on getting that huge budget back by making it a 12A. However I then learnt that it is PG-13 in the states and it certainly shows. There is a severe lack of blood, and this does play a part in undermining the story considering its basic premise. I am not asking for claret to appear all over the screen, and I respect the fact that the fear is intended to be more psychological, but as soon as the family leaves New Jersey there is no real genuine sense of threat or danger in the supposedly more intentionally atmospheric scenes. The huge CGI set pieces are all well and good, but when it is characters are alone it all feels a little too clean. Even though there really should be genuine fear and tension. The final third appears to be intended to be more intimate and raw, but not only is it just pure theft from other zombie films; it is quite frankly a little boring.

Maybe it is a case of this basic sum: Zombie apocalypse film + big budget blockbuster = predictable narrative, seemingly indestructible big name protagonist and therefore lack of genuine tension, fear or interest.

The fact perhaps is that zombie films perhaps should be lower budget, murky and nasty and therefore have more unpredictability and be more compelling, involving and actually scary. Not clean, crisp and neat like a Hollywood blockbuster. Maybe if making apocalyptic films in the future, Hollywood should stick to Roland Emmerich style disaster movies!

Big, bold and very often boring; World War Z delivers on spectacle as much as it fails on substance. It is certainly worth a watch, but do not expect to actually care too much.

6/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, Blockbusters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment