THE GRIND (Rishi Opel, 2012)

Posted on May 13, 2013 by MoodyB

the grind

Starring: Jamie Foreman, Danny John-Jules, Zoë Tapper

You may like this if you liked: Baseline (Brendon O’Loughlin, 2010), Jack Said (Lee Basannavar and Michael Tchoubouroff, 2009), Dead Man Running (Alex De Rakoff, 2009)

Spoiler Alert: Any plot synopsis I write will make this sound much better than it actually is but here goes: The Grind centres on best friends Vince (Freddie Connor) and Bobby (Gordon Alexander). Vince manages a nightclub called The Grind that turns a healthy profit and he appears to be going somewhere. Bobby has just come out of prison and his drug and gambling addiction has lead to him having a huge debt to the scarily named local loan shark called Dave (Foreman). Dave also owns The Grind and is now demanding payment in full from Bobby. Vince is now torn between his loyalty to his best friend and the loyalty to his boss. Though a little clichéd and certainly unoriginal, that could be good if well made couldn’t it? Well it is not!

Since starting my film review blog this year I have upped the quantity of films I watch even more, but unfortunately the consequences of this is that I end up subjecting myself to rubbish like this. I still avoid films I know I will hate (Keith Lemon etc.) but I take a risk on the lesser known ones and that sometimes does not pay off. There is literally nothing redeeming about this film whatsoever and it is quite simply 90 minutes of your life wasted. The plot I have described is actually portrayed within the ‘narrative’ a lot less clearly.

The acting, dialogue and camerawork are all horrifically bad and every so often we get at a sequence that is at least 10 minutes long that just shows people dancing in a nightclub. Maybe this is intended to create some sense of ‘mood’ but is just filler that is beyond boring. Due to the budget this is all filmed using hand held cameras which could have been effective, but whoever is holding the camera perhaps needs a little bit more of a steady hand. Perhaps the low budget meant they could not afford a coat to keep the cameraman warm as he has the serious shakes! When the camera moves it is done with no grace whatsoever leading to the viewer feeling quite dizzy and just feels like they have given the camera to an over enthusiastic 10 year old.

A low budget of course means certain constraints but is no excuse for a film being as bad as this. Good dialogue and acting are the very basics of good storytelling and cost nothing, but here we are given characters that are impossible to care about. Shane Meadows has proved a low budget doesn’t have to stop good story telling with the likes of Twenty Four Seven, A Room for Romeo Brass and Somers Town. Vince and Bobby are in situations that we could potentially sympathise with but instead of solid character development we are shown people dancing in a club. The ending could have been poignant but is just an absolute mess and I just could not care about the characters as well as being so annoyed by just how the rest of the film had been. Perhaps inside the narrative is a poignant and tragic story depicting the struggles of life in London’s urban slums but I cannot describe in words how bad a job has been done of it here. What we have is basically an extended episode of Eastenders with a trance music soundtrack.

Amateurish, boring and forgetting all the fundamental basics of what great film making and storytelling is supposed to be. I implore everyone to avoid seeing this as most student films or indeed episodes of Eastenders are probably better made. It is so bad I could not even laugh AT it, so it must be truly horrendous!

2/10

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

A LIAR’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY: THE UNTRUE STORY OF MONTY PYTHON’S GRAHAM CHAPMAN (Bill Jones et al, 2012)

Posted on May 8, 2013 by MoodyB

a liars autobiography

Starring: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Michael Palin

You may like this if you liked: The Meaning of Life (Terry Jones and Terry Gilliam, 1983), Yellow Submarine (George Dunning, 1968), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones, 1975)

Involving all the surviving Pythons except Eric Idle, this is a completely animated story of the life of Graham Chapman told in a slightly off beat digressive and exaggerated way. Narrated by Chapman himself using audio tapes that he recorded before his death in 1989, this is essentially a series of animated vignettes by various different animators that try to capture the unique brand of Monty Python’s sense of humour.

As a huge Python fan I was really looking forward to this, however was left feeling a little disappointed. Graham Chapman is in my view the most fascinating of the Pythons, this maybe because he is the only one no longer with us, but he was a great comic actor but an extremely troubled man. There is a genuine and admirable attempt here to capture his and the Monty Python sense of humour and overall this was enjoyable and something I would recommend to any Monty Python fans, but only just.

Due to the fact the different scenes are animated by different people there is an inevitable episodic and inconsistent feel to the narrative. Some scenes are quite funny and others just are not and perhaps try too hard. The creative input of the actual remaining Pythons was minimal and it shows and there is a slight feeling of shameless cash in that does not do this fascinating and very talented man the justice he deserves. The animation styles of course vary and once again some work better than others, but are not up to the standard of Terry Gilliam’s. I did not get to see this in 3D and I can imagine the visuals did look very good as they are quite striking at times in 2D, but are just not enough.

The funniest and most compelling scenes tend to be the real footage of the man himself and perhaps beg the question that an actual documentary would have been more fitting. The fact they are limited by only what Chapman recorded was always going to limit them in certain ways. If the actual Pythons were the creative force behind this then maybe it could have been much better and do Chapman justice, unfortunately there is something severely lacking and the inconsistent tone of the narrative really does not help.

Very watchable but instantly forgettable, A Liar’s Autobiography is very entertaining and at times funny but lacks any consistency. It is a valiant attempt to capture the spirit and humour of Chapman and Monty Python, but barely touches the surface of a very private and fascinating man.

5/10

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

THE CAMPAIGN (Jay Roach, 2012)

Posted on May 8, 2013 by MoodyB

the canpaign

Starring: Will Ferrell, Zach Galifianakis, Jason Sudekis

You may like this if you liked: Step Brothers (Adam McKay, 2008), Horrible Bosses (Seth Gordon, 2011), Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (Adam McKay, 2004)

Congressman Cam Brady (Ferrell) is basically a political Ron Burgundy who has run unopposed in his small Carolina district of Hammond for decades. Unfortunately after a faux pas when he leaves a sordid message intended for his mistress on the phone of a Christian family his popularity dips slightly. Clichéd bad guys and millionaire industrialists the Moch Brothers (John Lithgow and Dan Akroyd) see an opportunity to gain power here so they can make a huge profit from basically opening huge Chinese sweatshops in Hammond and only employing low paid Chinese workers. To make sure this will be allowed they choose a naive but good willed local idiot called Marty Huggins (Galifianakis – who else?) to oppose Brady. They hire Tim Wattley (an evil Dylan McDermott) as Marty’s campaign manager to make sure he represents the American dream and beats Brady in the election.

Maybe I am turning into a hard to please cynical sod these days but I am consistently getting the disappointing feeling of unrealised potential when I watch a film. Unfortunately The Campaign was another for me that fits into this category. All the ingredients were there for a topical and satirical laugh out loud comedy. This of course did come out not long after the US election and I remember when watching the coverage that just as with British politics the comedy constantly writes itself. Throw in a typical over the top Ferrell and Galifianakis playing it typically naive and stupid, and then surely this could not fail.

Unfortunately The Campaign is very enjoyable and did have for me some genuinely funny moments, but always feels quite restrained with a focus more on visual gross out comedy that seems to dominate mainstream comedy these days. I am not asking for biting satire with a real message behind it, but the script is disappointingly weak with quite a basic story of bad guys against good guys. There may be an element of complacency here that those behind it thought the same as me about the potential and assumed they would not have to try that hard to actually make it funny. The fact is that comedy is extremely hard to get right and if those involved complacently assume a film will be funny just because it has all the right components are quite frankly insulting their audience. When in real politics the comedy tends to write itself this just feels frustratingly lazy. The inevitable conclusion does feel, well inevitable and though I understand why it has to be there, it is extremely cheesy and clichéd. Ferrell is obviously warming up for his Anchorman sequel and gets all the laughs and limelight with his constant OTT ad lobbing. Unfortunately this all feels quite a tiresome formula now and rarely generates the laughs intended of course apart from when he punches a baby. There are indeed plenty of comedy set pieces that should be funny, but for me were mildly amusing but no more and I must confess I found watching the actual presidential campaign or indeed the British general election campaigns funnier at times.

The Campaign is an entertaining, watchable and occasionally funny take on the political system that can be applied to any western democracy. Unfortunately it frequently fails to be funnier than the actual real gaffs and faux pas of actual political campaigns and just feels like a warm up gig for Ferrell’s Anchorman sequel.

5/10

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

I, ANNA (Barnaby Southcombe, 2012)

Posted on May 8, 2013 by MoodyB

i anna

Starring: Charlotte Rampling, Gabriel Byrne, Hayley Atwell

You may like this if you liked: Shadow Dancer (James Marsh, 2012), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Tomas Alfredson, 2011), any moody British TV crime drama

D.C.I. Bernie Reid (Byrne) is a middle aged burnt out London cop living a lonely existence. A murder investigation leads his path to cross with that of Anna Welles (Rampling) a lonely middle aged divorcee and he becomes fascinated by her. As he investigates deeper into the case and gets to know Anna better their damaged psyches find solace in one another but also lead to some darker revelations about both of them.

Though perhaps a noir crime thriller by genre I, Anna has at its heart very strong characters depicting the raw emotions we can all relate to. There appear to be many underlying themes of the vulnerability we all can feel produced by feelings of loneliness, loss, trust and suspicion. It is this emotional core to the narrative which makes this film such a compelling and involving drama. Though the main plot is the solving of a murder and the various twists and turns, this story alone is actually quite weak and would make for quite an unmemorable film. However it is the human themes of the film that dominate the entire narrative which appear to be more the subject of the film and this adds emotional depth. Though some of the plot twists are pivotal to elements of the character’s fractured psyches, what troubles these characters feels like a more central element of the film producing a very human drama. The direction, camerawork and cinematography emphasises these themes very effectively.

Living in a city like London can be a very lonely experience and the city has never looked more miserable on film than in I, Anna. The main setting is the Barbican and the grey cinematography along with the dominating high rise architecture of this modern and middle class part of London mirrors the emotions of the characters adding genuine atmosphere. It feels like the murder mystery element is there primarily as a tool to drive the narrative forward as we all know who did it, but the bigger questions are why they did it and why they found themselves in that situation in the first place.

Unfortunately there are crime thriller elements thrown in that for me didn’t work. There is a subplot involving some of the other characters from the murder victim’s life. I do not  want to go into too much detail but it is never clear as to why they appear at all and the fact these characters disappear completely from the narrative with no real explanation is a little frustrating. Their involvement poses questions that never really get answered and if perhaps they are there as red herrings then it just does not work and provides an unnecessary distraction. It is obvious from very early on who the murderer is (or at least I thought so) and so the police discovery of the actual murderer is never a real source of intrigue for the viewer.  The whole flashback structure feels a little too contrived and clichéd and so what could have also proved to be a good compelling crime drama fails and is thankfully saved by what lies at the actual heart and soul of the story.

Well made and acted, I, Anna is a deeply involving and humane drama. Do not expect crime drama style dramatic twists, but a film with genuine heart and emotions we can all relate to using the locations for great emotional impact.

6/10

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

STOKER (Chan-wook Park, 2013)

Posted on May 8, 2013 by MoodyB

stoker

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, Mathew Goode

You may like this if you liked: The Skin I Live In (Pedro Almodóvar, 2011), Wild at Heart (David Lynch, 1990), American Psycho (Mary Harron, 2000)

India Stoker (Wasikowska) is an 18 year old who lives a lonely existence but is happy for it to be that way as she is very close to her dad. When her father is suddenly killed this turns India’s world upside down, especially as it means spending more time with her emotionally unstable mother Evie (Kidman). The plot thickens when her estranged uncle Charlie (Goode) arrives at the funeral and Evie invites him to live there. What then develops is a bizarre love triangle as India and Charlie develop a strange, dark and murderous relationship despite Evie’s designs on Charlie.

This may not sound like the most exciting story, but trust me that story wise that is pretty much it. Anyone who has seen any previous films by Chan-wook Park such as Old Boy will know not to exactly expect Mary Poppins and though Stoker is perhaps a little more subtle than Old Boy it is still a film with very dark themes that is most definitely an acquired taste. Story and dialogue wise Stoker is in my opinion an extremely average film that is most definitely style over substance with in fact very little style. Thankfully Park’s visual flair and attention to detail is there to see throughout and that along with some memorable performances truly elevate this film into something better than it ever should have been.

This is most definitely a film made by a film lover for film lovers with Park truly enjoying himself. There are plenty of subtle and blatant but always playful references to various films and literature of the past. The fact this is all done so playfully adds to the good fun as there is a constant feeling of gallows humour throughout the narrative. This is a film that knows it is not teaching any moral lessons or trying to prove a point to anyone so keeps its tongue firmly in its cheek and never stops primarily being fun.

The attention to detail is what shows the passion and enjoyment Stoker is made with as the furnishings of the Stoker house, the lush outside landscapes and Clint Mansell’s excellent and slightly disconcerting score create a great atmosphere of dread, mystery and claustrophobia. Stoker is a perfect example of the different tricks and techniques that can be used by a film maker being utilised and this for me provided a thoroughly enjoyable experience. The striking imagery creates a plethora of subtexts and themes which I will not interpret here but they are all very enjoyable to spot and different viewers will inevitably find different meanings in them.

The performances are all excellent and really bring this story to life. Wasikowska is an absolute revelation and captures so many emotions in her subtle facial expressions. Kidman gives her best performance for ages and Goode is delightfully creepy, perhaps a little OTT but this is perfectly fitting with the tone of the film so works perfectly and it is obvious he is thoroughly enjoying himself.

However as much fun as Stoker is I know for a fact that many will find this annoying and alienating (and yes possibly a little pretentious) and so therefore absolutely hate this film. In terms of story though as with everything it is very easy to over analyse and say the film is about this or that, but for me there is actually very little here in terms of actual substance. The few plot twists towards the end are very obvious and add little in terms of surprise, but are simply just fun. The ending is also a little predictable and the very ending will frustrate as many viewers as it delights.

I know this is a film that has received a lot of praise and though Park deserves tremendous credit in my view Stoker is in no way a great film. I personally took very little away from this but thoroughly enjoyed it as for me it was just fun and at 99 minutes it does not outstay its welcome. I know many people will have a different experience but as Stoker never takes itself seriously neither could I. With a film as visual and subtle as Stoker it is very easy to dwell on what certain images mean or if there are underlying themes within the narrative, but I am not going to. Different viewers will have different interpretations and none of these are wrong as that is what makes it a unique experience. I personally choose not to think about that too much and feel that enabled me to enjoy the film more and take it at face value. As with anything, if someone one thinks Stoker is about something in particular then the evidence to prove it can be found. One of the reasons for films existing is to entertain and I found Stoker very entertaining and appreciated the attention to detail and deeply effective sense of atmosphere, but personally no more.

Stoker is a uniquely visual experience that is darkly entertaining and good fun; if you do not take it seriously then Park’s visual flair, attention to detail and the impressive cast provide 99 minutes worth investing in. However for those who want a little more substance and old fashioned story telling may well hate this film so be warned.

6/10

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

SIDE EFFECTS (Steven Soderbergh, 2013)

Posted on May 8, 2013 by MoodyB

side effects

Starring: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta- Jones

You may like this if you liked: Contagion (Steven Soderbergh, 2011), The Ghost (Roman Polanski, 2010), Unknown (Juame Collet-Serra, 2011)

Emily (Mara) and her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) lived a happily married and very affluent life due to his money earned as a stock broker. Unfortunately he got caught insider trading and was sent to prison and she was forced to live a much more humble life style. She has however remained loyal and he is now due for release. However what should be a happy time in her life is ruined by suffering severe depression which basically is dominating her life. After intentionally driving her car into a wall, Emily is seen by Dr. Banks (Law) at the hospital and she becomes his patient. After consulting Emily’s previous Doctor, Dr. Seibert (Zeta- Jones) and discovering many unsuccessful medications, Dr. Banks prescribes a new drug called Ablixa. The Ablixa appears to work as Emily feels like herself again, and her and Martin’s relationship dramatically improves. However the Ablixa also comes with side effects including sleep walking. After a violent crime occurs due to Emily’s sleepwalking she is put on trial but wins a not-guilty plea but is forced to stay in a secure hospital. Meanwhile Dr. Banks is blamed for the murder and his life begins to crumble around him. Determined not to have to have to take full responsibility Dr. Banks investigates further into the source of Ablixa to try and determine who or what is exactly to blame.

So apparently this is the directorial swansong from a man who it seems to make a film every other month, it should be a dramatic goodbye then. Well, Soderbergh is clearly at the top of his game here right from the off. This is an extremely well made film and the direction, camera work, editing and cinematography are all excellent and a major contributor as to why Side Effects are a very enjoyable and watchable film. The grey cinematography and Thomas Newman’s excellent score help to create a fitting atmosphere and the loneliness, claustrophobia and unforgiving nature of living in a big city. It is just as well Soderbergh is on such good form as the script he has been given to work with is pretty basic.

Writer Scott Z. Burns also wrote Soderbergh’s Contagion and though clearly avery well researched film was very soulless. Side Effects suffers from slightly the same problem as not a single character is particularly likeable and I found myself not particularly caring for any of them. This is a film with twists and turns aplenty and these are actually quite predictable but yet there is a certain feeling of slightly deluded smugness within the script. There are some interesting concepts here and I don’t want to give too much away, but the narrative tends to descend into a generic erotic thriller (though with very little sex). If this was a film in the 90s starring Sharon Stone there would be plenty of opportunities for cheeky sex scenes to be thrown into the story. Trust me, anyone who has seen those kinds of films and then watches this will not be able to help notice the similarities as the second half of the narrative unfolds.

Despite this, Side Effects is a very watchable and enjoyable film that does not fail to entertain. As well as Soderbergh and composer Thomas Newman who both help to create a great atmosphere, Rooney Mara is the true star that keeps it all together and makes this film so watchable. Her performance is exceptional and she is extremely watchable and gives a truly compelling performance capturing so many different emotions with convincing aplomb, it is just a shame she did not have a better script to work with. Jude Law is also pretty good and captures the desperation of his character very well. Zeta- Jones hams it up to the max and her eyebrows are permanently curved like a pair of archways but it is kind of fitting of the character she plays. As the story reaches its conclusion I was not particularly shocked at all the twists and turns but I did feel it was a satisfying conclusion.

If this is to be Soderbergh’s swansong then it is unfortunately nowhere near being his masterpiece, however a great reminder of the effect a director who knows exactly what he is doing can have on a film. Thanks to Soderbergh as well as some great performances, Side Effects is a very atmospheric and well made film that is very enjoyable, entertaining and extremely watchable. Do not expect to be blown away or shocked by dramatic twists, but just sit back and expect to be entertained and you will not be disappointed.

6/10

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

IRON MAN 3 (Shane Black, 2013)

Posted on May 2, 2013 by MoodyB

iron man 3

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle

You may like this if you liked: Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau, 2010), Avengers Assemble (Joss Whedon, 2012), The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan, 2012)

Set not too long after the end of Avengers Assemble, Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) is still haunted by his near death experience in New York. He cannot sleep, has constant panic attacks and is getting increasingly paranoid. However, his lack of sleep has given him the chance to build a new suit that piece by piece attaches itself to him using some sensors in his arm. Of course this being a super hero movie we need a bad guy. Well step up Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian an embittered and extremely slick tycoon fronting A.I.M. (Advanced Idea Mechanics). His firm has been able to design a programme that can tap into the human brain called Extremis. This is basically a sophisticated method of DNA reprogramming that can repair and regenerate limbs as well as giving super human strength. It emerges that this is connected to a series of terror attacks that all have something to do with super terrorist The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), a hooded and very secretive figure that vows destruction on America. After Stark’s chauffeur Happy Hogan (still Jon Favraeu) is left in a coma following an attack Stark vow’s revenge even giving The Mandarin his home address. Anyone who has seen the trailer knows what happens next. With no home and just one heavily damaged suit, Stark must get to the bottom of who Killian and The Mandarin really are and, well as he is a Superhero stop the bad guys, save the country and get his girl. Of course let us not forget Don Cheadle whose suit has had a very American paint job and is called the Iron Patriot.

For me Iron Man 3 was all about unrealised potential, which was frustrating and disappointing. This was a solid, watchable and entertaining action film but could have been so much better. I also have to point out that there were some extremely bad plot decisions that really left a bad feeling, but I unfortunately cannot go into those. However anyone who has seen the film will know what I mean.

Tony Stark is in my opinion one of Marvel’s best characters to appear on film so far, not Iron Man but Tony Stark and the very human flaws and emotions that he has. Downey Jr. has truly made the role his own and he is once again on top form for his fourth outing, but that basically goes without saying. He is once again at the start of Iron Man 3 a conflicted and troubled character and from herein lays the problem of unrealised potential. I found the story skirts over his problems too much and only mention these when it is a convenient plot point, almost complacently knowing we will route for him no matter what. It is this complacency and laziness for me that dominates Iron Man 3 and is perhaps the main reason why it is a good film but not a great film. It was obvious how much passion and effort had gone into the first Iron Man to make it work, but here the whole film just feels quite lazy and all those involved (with the exception of the actors) know they don’t have to put their all in it to make it a hit.

The film does start off a little slow but sets up the plot with all the components (probably a pun in there) of what could potentially be a great action film to rival Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy. Once again the apparent laziness and complacency just means Iron Man 3 peters out with more of a whimper than a bang. There are naturally some quite ludicrous concepts in there, but that is of course forgivable but maybe if they had worked harder at developing the characters involved. The action is good and there are some great set pieces that provide solid entertainment. As usual the best part of Iron Man 3 is the comedy and with Lethal Weapon creator Shane Black in charge the bromance between Stark and Rhodes delivers some great lines. The best lines come from the scenes between Stark and Harley (Ty Simpkins) a child that becomes an unlikely ally, and these scenes show Downey Jr. and Black on top form. Unfortunately even the comedy at time misfires with lines from bad guys that work in a cheesy 80s action film, but not here. At 130 minutes, at least twenty minutes could have been shaved off as there were some scenes that just felt like unnecessary filler. Even the bad guys present some potentially interesting concepts but even these fill a little underdeveloped and a tad lame, again failing to take advantage of great and menacing performances from Pearce and Kingsley.

Iron Man 3 is a perfectly enjoyable and entertaining blockbuster, but laziness and complacency has produced a disappointingly hollow and forgettable experience of what could have been a spectacular chapter in the trilogy.

6/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, Blockbusters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

SPRING BREAKERS (Harmony Korine, 2012)

Posted on May 2, 2013 by MoodyB

springbreakers

Starring: James Franco, Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens

You may like this if you liked: Piranha 3DD (John Gulager, 2012), The Rules of Attraction (Roger Avary, 2002), Spun (Jonas Åkerlund, 2002)

Brit (Ashley Benson), Candy (Vanessa Hudgens), Cotty (Rachel Korine) and Faith (Selena Gomez) are all College students disillusioned with college life. They plan to go to the extremely hyped Spring Break but do not have enough money. They commit armed robbery at a local diner (as you do) to pay for it. Once there the girls have a fun and frantic sex, drugs and drink fuelled holiday beyond their wildest dreams. Unfortunately they are arrested and subsequently bailed out by a local rapper and dealer by the name of ‘Alien’ (Franco). Faith wants nothing to do with it and returns home, but the other three are more than happy to immersive themselves in Alien’s extreme world of drugs, guns, sex, excessive wealth and Britney Spears ballads.

If ever there was a ‘marmite’ film of recent times it has to Spring Breakers some say it is trashy rubbish, and others say it is intentionally trashy and a satirical depiction of the shallowness of teenage life. The fact is that if you want a film to mean something then you can find the evidence to prove that. If you are determined to find irony or satire in a film then you will find it if you look hard enough. The only person that knows what exactly Spring Breakers is about is Harmony Korine and I doubt he will ever actually truthfully tell us. So it is up to everyone else to have a theory and all be pleased with themselves for ‘getting’ it. This may well be why Spring Breakers has made quite a bit of money. That along with the fact it has former Disney stars in it wearing bikinis, which in itself could be some satirical irony. Oh God! I am doing it now!

The undeniable fact is that Spring Breakers is a poorly made film. The dialogue, acting, editing and story structure are all pretty awful and amateurish. Though apparently if you read some reviews this is all intentional to prove a point. Fine, but then how the hell is anyone supposed to review or criticise this thing? Is this the cleverest film ever made and Harmony Korine is suddenly a genius?!? Well, for me Spring Breakers is actually quite uneventful overall. For me this is a very unique film and quite a trip, but not in a good way. Surely that was not intentional too? Korine struggles to fill 90 minutes and the constant repeats of the same shots or same montages that were simply stolen from Piranha 3DD add nothing but frustration. They may have made their point the first time, but fifth time round is just plain annoying. The repeated montages and James Franco repeatedly murmuring “Spring Break” just get incredibly irritating and make this film actually quite dull.

Is it some kind of clever social commentary? Well, the fact is that anyone who has knowledge of the world today will not be shocked by anything they see here, mildly irritated perhaps, but never shocked. I find it impossible to believe there is any intelligence behind this film.

There is a definite attempt at character arcs here with the four girls, proving to me that there must be some kind of attack on youth culture within the narrative. The editing and sound also show a sense of purpose from Korine. The repeated voiceovers, jump cuts and trippy music are all very effective at mirroring the ecstasy and trance like state of our characters.

When James Franco turns up then the (kind of) plot takes over and he is solid, but his character is an extremely clichéd caricature that is hard to take that seriously never mind find him menacing. Suspension of belief is also crucial as some of the acts the girls commit are unbelievable and ridiculous reminding you that this is fiction. For me it is these ridiculous things that take away any shock factor and truly dilute any real satirical attack. They produced a neutral feeling to both the characters and the film overall. Would normal bored college girls really commit armed robbery to pay for a holiday? I don’t think so. The final scene is even more ridiculous in terms of the girl’s transformation and just simply unbelievable. It is this final third that for me Spring Breakers became more ridiculous fun than biting satire. In the first two thirds I did hate these characters and therefore the culture they were part of. However as soon as they start doing some of the more unbelievable things they do in the final third these undermine any serious points this film was potentially trying to make. I found there were some serious mistakes in terms of plot decisions in the final third that undermined any potential moral messages. I understand that extreme examples can be used to really emphasise a point, but there are limits and I found the ending a misfire if it was trying to make any real serious point.

There is no doubting that Spring Breakers is a unique trip that is worth a watch with some great visuals, but in my view not as memorable or as shocking as Korine wants you to think. The visuals are effective but let down by some bad plot decisions in the final third. It can mean whatever you want it to mean but you don’t actually learn anything new, therefore producing an overall neutral feeling and quite hollow experience.

5/10

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

UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: DAY OF RECKONING (John Hyams, 2012)

Posted on May 2, 2013 by MoodyB

universal soldier

Starring: Jean-Claude Van Damme, Scott Adkins, Dolph Lungren

You may like this if you liked: Universal Soldier (Roland Emmerich, 1992), Timecop (Peter Hyams, 1994), Replicant (Ringo Lam, 2001)

John (Adkins) wakes from a coma after witnessing his wife and child brutally murdered by Luc Deveraux (Van Damme). Once he recovers, John predictably swears vengeance and vows to kill the man that killed his family and finds an unlikely ally in a Government agent. Meanwhile Deveraux and fellow UniSol soldier Andrew Scott (Lundgren) begin to form an army of UniSol soldiers who have been able to control the programme in their heads that allows the Government to control them. While John attempts to track down Deveraux he uncovers the truth as to who they are and who he is.

Anyone can be forgiven for thinking that as it is another Universal Soldier film and stars the increasingly wrinkled JCVD and Dolph it has to at least be cheesy fun. If an action film is fun, then poor dialogue, acting, story and predictable plot twists all forgivable. However, when a film takes itself as seriously Day Of Reckoning does then it is immediately on a very painful crash course to dramatic failure. Unfortunately, with a running time of 110 minutes the pain is very much the viewers’. This film takes itself painfully seriously and seems to misguidedly think it has a clever plot, with ‘dramatic’ twists.

No.

It is a dumb film without the dumb fun and has absolutely no redeeming features. Adkins does not appear to cut it as a leading man and the film just gets increasingly boring. I would strongly recommend against anyone ever having to experience this horrifically dull film. The action is brutal and half decent, but by the time it actually happens it is impossible to really care. If you want a cheesy fun action film then avoid this tripe and check out the generous selection in JCVD and Dolph’s back catalogues respectively.

2/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, Mindless B Movies | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

HOLY MOTORS (Leos Carax, 2012)

Posted on May 2, 2013 by MoodyB

holy motors

Starring: Denis Lavant, Edith Scob, Eva Mendez

You may like this if you liked: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008), Lost Highway (David Lynch, 1997), O Lucky Man (Lindsay Anderson, 1973)

So, we need a plot synopsis. Wish me luck! Well, Monsieur Oscar (Lavant) is a man driven around Paris in a white Limousine to his various ‘appointments’. These appointments happen to involve him dressing up in various bizarre costumes and becoming a varied selection of characters. While in costume he performs some extremely bizarre acts; first he is a beggar woman asking for change, then dressed in a motion capture lycra suit performing an erotic dance with a female similarly dressed character. Then he is an extremely horny and aggressive goblin who kidnaps a supermodel (Mendez). These various ‘appointments’ become increasingly bizarre and he even ‘dies’ in a couple of them and one involves Kylie Minogue as a fellow limo passenger singing at him.

It all sounds a bit random doesn’t it? Well it most certainly is and there can be various theories as what they all mean and what links them. I will not go into that as it is all pretty obvious when watching, but rest assured Holy Motors is one of the most unique, ambitious and downright bonkers films of 2012. It has attracted very mixed reviews and is in my opinion actually rather average, perhaps a little too smug and just not work as a feature length film.

Anyone who has read my previous review will know I am all for a film with unconventional narratives, but for me Holy Motors is in my view and admirable failure with a hint of directorial complacency. I have a belief, that admittedly may be naive, that every screenwriter, director, auteur has some kind of idea at the foundation of a film they do. No matter how random and utter nonsense a film may seem, those that made it had an integral idea or theme that they wanted to base the narrative around. The themes presented in Holy Motors are actually quite straightforward but in my view not enough to sustain a running time of just less than two hours.

At the half way point I was thinking “I get it, what now?” unfortunately it was only increasingly bizarre ‘appointments’ meaning that for me Holy Motors becomes increasingly boring and tedious experience that I desperately wanted to be over.

There is obvious affection and passion contained here as the film tries to be playful and references both the physical process of acting and performance as well as films of yesteryear. However, that is all well and good, but for me this still has to be held together by a story with characters that are actually interesting and in between the bizarre ‘appointments’ is nothing. The ending unfortunately makes very little attempt to bring it all together, with the exception of an extremely enjoyable scene involving parked limos which was actually in my opinion the best scene in the film.

The whole film about films thing is easy to get but not enough, leading to an unfortunate feeling of smugness and style over substance, but producing a very frustrating experience for the viewer. I understand a director doing what the hell he wants with his film, but not the extremely positive reviews Holy Motors has received. If Holy Motors was a short film then I would have felt it would defiantly work, but at just under two hours it simply does not. I know there are many that love this film, but I felt it was extremely complacent of Carax to think we would all find the style and affection to be enough. I personally needed some substance and found none. This is a shame as Denis Lavent gives an excellent and extremely physical performance, and there is obvious creativity and genuine passion from Carax here.

Smug, complacent and increasingly boring; Holy Motors for me was a case of style over substance complacently thinking the ‘style’ would be enough to sustain an extremely overlong running time. For me this has to be one of 2012s biggest disappointments.

4/10

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