Film Flare

40 (Film Diary 18: 14/05/2012 - 20/05/2012

Happy Monday to the lot of you.

 

It's been an action packed week this week, quite literally. Seagal season continues!

A mixed series of blessings however because whilst he's still punching and kicking (and shooting) any thing with two legs and a groin between the two, the films themselves show a...ahem...rapid descent from the giddy heights of Under Siege.

The late 90s was not a good time for Steven Seagal films, let's put it that way. 

 

Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995)

Seagal returns as Casey Ryback, SEAL turned cook. Oddly enough, apart from the same character, there is almost no mention of the first film, there's none of Die Hard 2's 'How can the same stuff happen to the same guy twice?' going on here.

But instead of a battleship being seized by hostages it is a train, as the poster above makes plain as day. This time, instead of Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey crazy-ing it up as the villains, you have a computer hacker and his mercenaries using the train to take control of an awesome weapons satellite. I'm not going to give a spoiler alert warning this time because if you're worried about me spoiling the 'plot' of this film, you're watching the wrong film.

So whilst the set up is similar (mode of transport aside), we have added into the mix Ryback's neice, played by Katherine Heigl.  Whilst she is not given much to do, Heigl does stand out as one of the better performers in this film. The villains (as I said earlier) pale in comparison with the baddies of the first film and there is none of the menace or cunning. Instead you have the writers stretching the bounds of plausibility to stretch Seagal's game of hide-and-seek over nearly 100 minutes.

 Needless to say, this is one of the worst film I've seen in a long, long time. It is so bad it is hilarious. Some of the particulars of the plot caused me to break out into rich peals of laughter like the merry bell I am. One particular line 'Oh my god! An earthquake....in midair.' (DURRRRRRR!) was a standout as was the delaying of the terrorist's plans as an investment banker wants to pay $110 million dollars to explode an airliner carrying his ex-wife. It is baffling! Amusing but baffling, no one told me this film was a comedy.

 

Trailer:

  

 

The Glimmer Man (1996)

I was told that this film was an action comedy, the blurb on the back specifically made reference to 'punches mixed with punchlines' and the Pulitzer Prize winning 'the wit hits the fan'.

What I actually got was a very large, rusted nail heavily thumped into Seagal's credibility. This coming from the guy who'd watch Under Siege 2 several days earlier.

The Glimmer Man is ACTUALLY an action-thriller film about two cops trying to find a serial killer called the Family Man because he kills and crucifies whole families, what a hoot! Add in a dash of political intrigued, Vietnam veterans and conspiricy and you have a flop.

The problem with this film is that the gunfights are handled relatively well but the fist fights (Seagal's selling point) is so rapidly edited that you only ever see about two kick strung together before the footage cuts elsewhere. Watching classics martial arts films (I'm thinking Bruce Lee/Donnie Yen films here) is that the editing and filming actually shows off the skills of the fighters on display. That is not present in the Glimmer Man, 

So what you eventually have with this action comedy is a film that has very little comedy and the action is badly done. Not all is bad however, the plot is actually fairly reasonable and there are plenty of twists and turns that somehow command your attention and there is quite a lot of potential there but you somehow end up with a hugely forgettable film. 

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Executive Decision (1996)

If you notice a lack of a particular creased face on the DVD cover, your eyes work 100%. Even though this film was in a Steven Seagal boxed set, Seagal himself only appears for a totla of about 5 to 10 minutes before he's bumped off. 

It's a sad sight in a boxed set when a film in it hardly contains you.

Yet, thankfully, Kurt Russell is there to save the day, both in terms of the film's plot and acting talents. This ends up being on of the better 'Seagal' films, almost there with Under Siege (1, not 2).

 

I'm going to leave the review there because I don't consider it a Seagal film. It's a passable evening's entertainment though. 

Trailer:

 

  

 

 

IN OTHER NEWS:

James Bond Skyfall trailer is out!

 

 

I literally cannot WAIT!

38 (Film Diary 17: 07/05/2012 - 13/05/2012)

All of the films I've watched this week have a theme.

That theme is Steven Seagal. 

 

 

The reason for this being that over the weekend, a discussion took place as to what martial arts film we wanted to watch (being in the mood for martial arts). After deliberating the classics, Enter the Dragon, Fist of Fury, Game of Death, Way of the Dragon, Ip Man 1 and 2 etc etc, we decided to see what either we could rent online or purchase.

We ended up with a Steven Seagal boxed set.....and we started from the beginning.

 

 

Nico: Above the Law (1988)

See that face? That's a 'not screwing around' face and Seagal wears it for pretty much the entire film. This early on in his career, Seagal has not mastered emotion or facial expressions beyond 'serene', 'angry' and 'concentrating'. Luckily, the film attempts to bypass the leading role's lack of acting talent by placing as many humanoids in his way for him to punch, kick, throw and shoot. 

With a script that is so far into parody it makes Black Dynamite look like a subtle treatise on inter-race relations, it is surprising that the film started up a career considering action films by 1988 had produced some stone cold action classics (Die Hard, Predator). The inclusion of FBI bigwigs, Vietnam buddies, mafia connections and terrible, terrible clothes means that this film is frankly laughable at several opportunities and only means to be funny less than half of the time. Sharon Stone stars as Seagal's wife and is easily the best acting talent in the film, no contest. Add to this ol' Foxy Brown herself Pam Grier in an underwritten role (she's an action star in her own right) and you have a reasonably enjoyable film.

 

This film's attempt to introduce Steven Seagal as a new martial arts star works fairly well, it gives descriptions of the character's martial arts prowess which oddly mirror Seagal's own. It is strange then that there is remarkably little martial arts in the film, there's a lot of shooting and foot chases and car chases but considering I was expecting a 'martial arts' film, I was hoping Seagal would have had more akido to do.

 

All in all, not a good film.

Not a good film at all. It is interesting (and a little odd) that Seagal became the action star some of us know and love today off the back of this vehicle. 

 

 

 

 

Out for Justice (1991)

Aww, they don't mess around with these films titles do they? There's none of this '2001: A Space Odyssey' nonsense going on here. Steven Seagal is 'Out For Justice', need you know more?

 

The reason Seagal is 'Out For Justice' in this film is because his childhood friend, Bobby Lupo got shot in front of his family by one time friend now turned enemy, Richie Madano. The name of Seagal's character is Gino Felino and at one point Gino tells a story about his uncle Pino.....Pino Felino. These are all true. Honest.

Unlike Nico, the reason this film instantly gets a better score in my eyes is that there is a damn good fight scene in this film. Seagal vs Dive Bar. One man enters, one man leaves. Unlike a lot of flashier martial arts, Seagal isn't about looking good, he's about breaking limbs and throwing people about the place and he does it very well. Actually this fight is the film's highlight because the final fight scene is so implausibly one sided, it is funny to watch Seagal spend the best part of five minutes beating up some overweight guy. 

 

The overweight guy in question is William Forsythe, who I only recognise as the gravel voiced sheriff in The Devil's Rejects but here looks like a psychotic child, shooting people for no reason and being menacing and unpleasant to everyone he meets. Needless to say, Seagal and his mob connections are back to find Richie and make him pay. Seagal is on better form here, both with the fighting and the acting but the film still is bordering on self-parody, but without knowing it. A particular highlight is near the beginning when the opening credits begin, the camera freeze frames of Seagal's face through a broken car window that he'd just thrown a pimp through. It's funny and again, it doesn't mean to be a lot of the time.

 

However, the story in this is a lot less complex than Nico. It's too simple. It's 'Where's Richie?' and then they find him and they fight. Where Nico started to add in crazy plot twists to appear clever, Out For Justice is almost brain dead. There surely must be a healthy medium.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Under Siege (1992)

Aww, they don't mess around with these films titles do they? There's none of this 'Citizen Kane' nonsense going on here. Steven Seagal is 'Under Seige', need you know more?

 

Well, this film is the height of Seagal's career. The best film he has ever done.....fact!

Playing Casey Ryback, the ship's cook, Seagal brings a level of charm, charisma and action man can-do attitude to this film. Aided, of course by beautifully OTT villains, played by the unholy trinity of Tommy Lee Jones, Gary 'Insane in the membrane' Busey and Colm 'DS9' Meaney, they all chew the scenary until their mouths are full. Gary Busey especially excels as the charmless and dangerous Commander Krill (Busey in drag is a scene that highlights his frame of mind).

The director, Andrew Davis (who also directed Nico) directs this film with flair and style and commands a not terrible cast to perform well with a run of the mill script. The story is a simple, terrorist highjacking narrative but it is elevated with a cheeky humour, nice little one liners and characters fleshed out a little bit more than you would have expected from a film of this type. Once again, the martial arts and gunfights are well done, there is a knife fight towards the end of the film which is just good and there is no shortage of explosions, creative deaths and gunfire to keep the crowd from noticing a number of plot holes.

 

All in all, a good film. Not even a good film compared to the other Steven Seagal films listed here, it is actually a good film if you're in the mood for, and can tolerate, mindless action. 

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Until next time folks!

 

 

37 - In other news

The 'lines tonight.

 

Avengers Assemble destroys US box office opening weekend record

 

According to conservative reports, over 75% of the population of the western hemisphere have seen the film already, with figures set to increase in the upcoming weeks. With critic's reviews licking the film with praise, it is the positive responses from the regular audience that has been most impressive. One man in his late fourties with brown hair described the film as 'the finest gathering of superhumans since the last supper', an event which if to be believed took place around 30 B.C, two thousand and fourty two years before this film's release. 

It is the projected takings that are even more impressive however. Box office analyst company Figurewatch has given us an exclusive look at a dossier they have created. Analyst Joffrey Baratheon said " If we take the figures so far and ignore them, the potential total worldwide gross for this film could be in the thousands of bajillions, second only to Avatar". Avatar still remains the highest grossing film of all time, several critics suggest this is mainly due to the inflated costs of the 3D tickets. It is rumoured that with the money James Cameron made from Avatar, he has terraformed Venus and renamed it Pandora whilst genetically engineering all of the creatures found in the film. We tried to call Mr Cameron to verify or deny this rumour but he was unobtanium for comment.

 

 

 

Trailer Watch:

The Expendables 2:

  

 

Explosions! Guns! Punches! Kicks!

A frankly jaw dropping cast of action stars from recent times and yester-year assemble for what could be quite good fun. Casting Van Damme as the bad guy is a nice move and having Stallone and Van Damme face off is something that'll be worth the wait. I like how you see JCVD's (as he shall be known) token move, the aerial kick.

Statham and Li are always good to watch. Schwarzenegger and Willis having their cameos in the first film extended looks to be good fun and brings legitimate claim to the potency of the cast list this film has. By the way, cue internet frenzy as Chuck Norris memes are set to return.....sigh.

 

The Amazing Spiderman:

   

Notice the same guitar riff playing in both trailers!

 

Webs! Lizards! Reboot!

The best trailer yet for this film still has it firmly behind Dark Knight Rises and Avengers Assemble in the trinity of 2012's superhero films. It is interesting to me that this is a Sony Pictures film (Columbia Tristar being owned by Sony) and only co-produced by Marvel Studios (much like other Marvel franchises X-Men etc). This means that whilst Spiderman is a Marvel character, we are unlikely to see him in any Marvel Studios film (possibly another Avengers film) unless Sony loses the film rights to Spiderman.

Shame!

 

 

DVD Watch:

 

It is with an odd sense of pride that Mission Impossible: Ghost Recon is released on DVD. The first new film Film Flare reviewed is finally out on DVD and I feel that the circle is complete.

Go back to where it all began!

 

 

 

36 (Film Diary 16: 30/04/12 - 06/05/12)

A warm and hearty hello to you all,

 

Hope this finds you all well.

 

In all truth, I have only watched one film this week. Well, I watched a 2nd but it was the virtuoso 13 Assassins which I have already reviewed here when I was young and brash, and I don't want to put you all through that again.

 

So here it be:

 

The Expendables (2010)

 

With a hilariously titled sequel on the way (Expendables 2, what imagination!), I finally decided to push aside both sets of reviews (it's brilliant/it's shite)  and watch the film myself. 

 

However boring it appears to be, I am placed firmly in the middle. It's an alright film. A guilty pleasure, obviously but not terrible either if you approach it from the right angle. 

So we are back to several action film trappings from the 80s, fictional South American country, large private army of what can only be described as warm bullet holders and a very male-centric world with women mainly in the peripheries. If you've seen films like Commando, it almost identical but with better stunt work. 

In fact, given the reputation of so many of the cast (a reputation the film's success was founded upon), it is reassuring to see the stunts are good. Most of the cast did their own stunt and with Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham and Jet Li (to name a few), there is more than enough bang for your buck. Add in charmingly throwaway cameos from action classics Willis and Schwarzenegger (a bit unfair since if Die Hard 4 was anything to go on, Willis is STILL an action man), and you have a film that tries to be nostalgic but in doing so highlights just how little the genre has changed.

The script and dialogue is still rubbish, there are still hilariously dubious zoom shots of fists bumps, veined arms and tattoos. Whilst the film and the cast (and story) play to the expectations of an old school action film, it is revealing that it is only really Jason Statham that comes across as a real action hero. He is not a steroid fuelled melted waxwork, or a flesh coloured egg made entirely out of sinew, Statham is (and has always been) the achievable, human, emotional action man and placing him next to MMA stars, NFL stars and 80s action men and he emerges as the film's winner. 

Jet Li is given a criminally small amount of arse to kick, which is a shame because you watch him do his thing and he places almost everyone else in the shade:

  

WARNING! The above clips contains excessive punching and kicking and as such may not be suitable for those of a nervous disposition.

 

What is bizarre is that for all my........elaborate tastes in films, apart from Stallone, Statham, Li, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Lundgren and Austin, the other I had not heard of at all but they more than hold their own against the more familiar names. 

Oh, and the brief time that Mickey Rourke is on the screen is a pleasure. A standout performance.

 

I have no great desire to watch the film again, many of the older films The Expendables tries to homage are better and more inventive and with steadier camera work. The acting, script and story have almost always fallen away with this genre, the emphasis being on fights and explosions and The Expendables delivers on this level, as I expected it to.

I was just hoping that for a modern film to be made in the style of old action films, it would be a bit more clever, more nudge-nudge, wink-wink about the whole affair but the film is played straight the whole way through and since it was directed by Stallone, one of the old school, is that any wonder.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

34 (Film Diary 15: 23/04/12 - 29/04/12)

Good day everyone.

 

No idle chit-chat this time, we're going straight in.

(Apart from that sentence.....and these parentheses.)

 

Kidulthood (2006)

This drama film about London youths is bleak, depressing, violent, shocking and simultaneously deep, stylish and witty. Much like the characters portrayed in the film, you think you what is going on and that you've seen it all before. The greatest strength of the film is not letting you down in that respect by delivering what you expect whilst at the same time, providing a bit more dimension and depth than you'd expect.

 

When a girl at at a West London school kills herself because of bullying, the students are given a day off for mourning and this film is about that 24 hour period. Needless to say, there is not much mourning done by the principle characters as they prepare for a house party in the evening and on the way they drink, do drugs, rob, flirt and do sexy things.

Without wishing to sounds like the old man I'm not, considering the film follows the exploits of these characters and they are meant to be around 15 years old, they do a lot of dubious and highly illegal activities. However, as I mentioned earlier, whilst you initially see the characters and judge them instantly as hoodies/thugs etc, throughout the film it is made clear that everyone has a surprisingly deep character, something which I started to notice more and more as the film went on.

The tone of the film is pretty unrelenting though in its approaches of violence and revenge, something which may be in place to put the viewers in a similar state of mind as the characters. However, the effect of all this is that film operates mostly as a diary of single events with not much narrative driving each event. It ends up being 'meet up - flirt with lady - rob short - beat up man' without a consistent narrative drive linking each event together.

That being said, the film is remarkably well acted and directed. A directorial style is present which propels the film along and keeps the various characters and their stories linked together. Add to this a fiery soundtrack of UK rap (Dizzee Rascal et al.) and you have a style of film that adds onto the power of the events themselves.

All in all, a potent and thought provoking look at inner city London.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Iron Man (2008)

 

The first Marvel Studio film entirely produced in-house had a lot riding on its shoulders. The possibility of creating a new franchise beyond the co-production of the X-Men films, the Blade films as well as introducing another 'layer' of superheroes beyond the big three (Batman, Spiderman, Superman). 

Initially, when news reached me of the original story being updated and set in contemporary times instead of the Vietnam setting of the comics, I assumed this was the first of many rusty nails that would make Iron Man a failure.

 

Luckily I was proven extremely wrong. The film instantly grips your short and curlies (as they are fondly known) and doesn't let go until end credits. Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man was a masterstroke of casting, he brings the perfect amount of arrogance and unpleasantness balanced with the change in attitude and character that being Iron Man brings. Opposite Downey Jr. is the frankly stunning Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane, a fantastic character with enough depth and drive to make him more than Downey Jr's equal. Much like Loki in Thor and Avengers Assemble, Marvel knows that the secret success to any good superhero film is the villain and they have the material to select the very best and bring them into a real world setting successfully.

I say real world rather than comic because director Jon Favreau goes to extraordinary lengths to give the film a realistic setting, even the idea of creating an Iron Man comes naturally to Tony Stark given the situation he finds himself in and the actual building and refinement of the Iron Man suit is built on a bed of science and extremely realistic. It is a joy to watch Tony Stark build his suit and even peripheral machines and AI are given playful and entertaining personality with very little effort. 

 

This film had a lot resting on its shoulders and it more than succeeded, spawning a direct sequel in 2010 and a third being filmed soon for release next year as well as the runaway success of Avengers Assemble. 

Marvel hit the jackpot. 

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

Contagion (2011)

 

And finally, the third film in the list of 'doesn't have much in common with the previous two films' is Contagion, a 2011 medical based thriller posing an eerily accurate depiction of a lethal epidemic. Created with assistance from the CDC, the film spans a period of time from discovery through control to cure with (seemingly) a very high level of accuracy.

Steven Soderbergh very ably intertwines several individual narratives and characters successfully, each one a different aspect and angle of the epidemic. Also, considering the not terrible cast list (wiki), Soderbergh controls every aspect of this complex and intelligent film with a mastery of balancing the micro with the macro, mainly by using Matt Damon.

Damon is the emotional core of the film, whilst other characters face trials and hardships, it is Damon's character the film returns to as the small-scale individual effect of the large scale epidemic. Other characters work for the CDC or WHO, others are scientists or epidemiologists but Damon is just a man, a human being on the ground. His story is therefore the most painful, emotional and scary. Damon himself is more than capable of carrying the film on his own, acting with aplomb.

 

The film was described to me as a medical horror, a term I found didn't do the film justice. It was not horrifying in the way I had assumed, I would say it was more of a medical thriller. It makes you think and uses suspence and tension rather than exploiting a fear which horror films usually do. I personally did not find the film scary, I found it a fascinating study of what would (probably) happen if a very nasty epidemic did spread.

Although if you are a germaphobe, you will be terrified. Soderbergh lingers the camera on surfaces that could and would cause a contagion to spread, you end up being able to trace the spread back to its Ground Zero as the characters do.

 

One of my main problems with the film was that I found it very hard to place events that occur within the overal narrative structure. It is not an overly long film but characters would get sick, recover or whatever and I couldn't place if the narrative was near the end. I suppose this adds to the realism but it wasn't structured like a regular film. It threw me off at several points where I assumed the end of the film and yet it continued. 

Overall, I was very impressed with the technical ability of the film, the soundtrack adds a nasty electronic pulsing to the proceedings which helped the film's tone. The main successes of the film are the near real feel of it as well as using one character as the emotional core of the film to identify mostly with.

Impressive, and interesting.

 

Trailer:

 

 

That's it, that's all there is (for now!)

 

 

32 (Film Diary 14: 16/04/12 - 22/04/12)

Eee, what do readers!

 

Before we begin with any FFFD shenanigans for another week, I just want to bring a little something to your attention:

 

Another startlingly good piece of viral advertising for the upcoming film Prometheus (1st of June folks!), starring the always impressive Michael Fassbender as an android David.

 Again, a smart and diverting expansion on the characters and the universe of the film similar to Guy Pearce's Peter Weyland TED talk that seems on the surface to have no purpose other than the fleshing out of some of the film's characters. However, this advert in particular ends up being really, really creepy and extremely well done.

 

Ok, we are now back on route, the SATNAV is back on and it says we are nearly arriving at Film Flare's Film Diary episode 14!

 

Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001)

 

 

Now this is a bizarre film. A startling mix of action, historical drama, thriller, horror, fantasy and (most importantly) erotica. It is a film that is hard to categorise and indeed lurches quickly from one to the other, often within the same scene.

Watching this, I suspect my reason for enjoying it so much is that it is charming and inventive. It is a flawed film (something I will elaborate on later) but it is so shameless in its style and story that I can't help but be swept up in it.

The story itself starts out very simply, a Beast (la bete!) is terrorising a region of France so the King sends a taxidermist and knight to the region to capture the beast and bring it back to Paris for examination. The knight, Gregoire de Fronsac brings with him an Indian, Mani. The film soon plunges forward with other tales of incest, political intrigue, assassination and religon at an alarming rate, so fast in fact that some of the more subtle parts of the film don't get the time and the resolution that they deserve.

Some of the actors are extremely familiar, including Vincent Cassell (one of my favourites) as the slimy and creepy Jean-Francois de Morangias, who lost an arm in Africa to a lion. Samuel Le Bihan (Fronsac) and Monica Belluci (Sylvia) are reasonably good but despite the genre blending nature of the film, the characters (among others) are irritatingly under-developed. Whilst each has a reasonable back story, motive and so on, there is little characterisation beyond that.

 

The director, Christophe Gans appears to be a huge fan of slow motion, the effect coming in often at bizarre and borderline intrusive times. Whilst the action is very entertaining, the fighting scenes in some cases are obviously shoe-horned into the scene with little or no relevance to what is currently going on. The film also goes on for a long time and could easily shave off several scenes overall and not lose pacing or characterisation. 

 

All in all, an odd film. I find it really quite entertaining and inventive, enough that I can overlook the flaws that can be levelled at it.

 

Trailer:

  

 

 

District 9 (2009)

 

Amply filling the previously lacklustre genre of South African science fiction, District 9 is one of the smartest, most engaging, emotionally powerful and well directed film I've seen in recent times. It is as simple as that.

 

Acting as a mirror for the events of the apartheid regime (specifically District 6), this film is a powerful social and political allegory for those events brilliantly moved over to the fictional narrative of an alien race landing on earth. Apart from this, if you do not have much knowledge of that era of South African history (and I am no expect by any means), the film also operates as a fantastic piece of cinema by its own right.

 

Originally Peter Jackson (who produced) had picked South African director Neill Blomkamp, to direct a film adaption of the Halo game. When this project fell through, Jackson gave Blomkamp around $25 million to make any film, District 9 was an expansion of a 6 minute short film Blomkamp made in 2005 called Alive in Joburg.

 

Playing the main character is Sharlto Copley, who is absolutely incredible. His Wikus van der Merwe is an incredible character, an utterly fallible real human being. The narrative means that he spans this incredible scope from callous and distant to heroic but never in a linear fashion and he still remains a flawed but identifiable character. It's a marvel of script writing married with great acting.

The direction is beautiful too. Handheld but visually alive, occasional static CCTV type shots fit right in with the inventive style of directing and considering the director had less than $30 million, the CGI is stunning. Christopher Johnson (the main alien) is almost as emotive as fellow CGI creature Gollum even without being able to speak English. It is a great lesson in how far money can get you in cinema (By contrast, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End cost upwards of $300 million to make....)

 

Even as the film nears the end and it becomes more of a 'regular' action film (although expertly done), it still retains all the character and style of the preceding events and unlike a lot of films, it ends in a very satisfying way without handing you all the answers. The 'bad guys' too are almost comically nasty, evil laughs and all. It's not hugely detracting but it does seem odd considering how fully realised Wikus is. This is literally the worst criticism I can level at the film and it is not a film-destroying accusation by any means.

 

Please, please watch this film if you haven't seen it. 

I don't usually plead or beg but in this case, I will make an exception.

 

Trailer:

  

 

 

 Alrighty folks.

That's all for now.

 

I've had a sneaky feeling I will be watching Cabin in the Woods later. Cannae wait!

31 - The Hunger Games review

 

A charmingly late 7 days after I watched this film, the review is hitting the interweb. Classy!

 

Based on the incredibly popular novel of the same name by Suzanne Collins (New York Times Bestsellers list for 100 consecutive weeks, Collins is also currently the best selling author on the Amazon Kindle) , this is an incredibly popular film (4 week No.1 US Box Office four weeks in a row, over $500 million grossed already).

 

I must begin my review by stating that I have not read the books. My views may be altered if I did read them but I have not and this may be taken into account

 

I was initially hesitant about seeing the film mostly because I had up to that point assumed that it was a watered down version of Battle Royale, a soulless and charmless big budget film aimed at young adults.

I was only half right.

The film does have noticeable similarities to Battle Royale, the idea of youngsters fighting to the death is similar to both films as is the purpose of the fight being a tribute or lesson to keep a fragmented society in line. Where the two differ is that whilst Battle Royale was a controversial and twisted pieces aiming its lens at social groups in schools and how school children would react in a 'kill or be killed' situation, The Hunger Games instead is a much less cynical study of individual strength and psyche. Whilst a group does form early in The Hunger Games, it is not a social clique as would have been found in BR, it is instead a group of individuals who find that grouping up early helps themselves in the short term.

Another aspect of the film that really surprised me was the highlighting of just how important and pervasive the media is in the film. Centered around the fantastic Stanley Tucci, the media and appearance play a huge role in making each participant in the Games popular (an attribute that helps the participants). Tucci interviews each youngster and tries his best to show each in their best light to give audience a good show. It was a theme I was not aware would come up when I started to watch the film.

So I guess the best and most flattering way I could describe the film would be a mix of both Battle Royale and The Running Man, in particular Richard Dawson's character in the latter (in reality, he used to host a popular US gameshow, a stunning piece of casting). 

Admit it, you want to see this film now!

 

I've already mentioned Stanley Tucci's acting in this film and he is only one piece of a solid cast, each performing the solid script without fault. Jennifer Lawrence in particular shines as Katniss, her performance is incredibly nuanced, intelligent, strong, resourceful, shy and emotive. She does a fantastic job. So does the always entertaining Woody Harrelson. Another surprise (in a good way) is Donald Sutherland as the President, a chillingly subtle portrayal of a leader without much screen time or lines, a pleasure to watch.

 

The direction is perfectly fine apart from an occasional over-use of the handheld camera work, not so much an issue during quieter scenes but during the action it really turns the events on the screen into streaking blurs. This helps keep a lot of the violence implied (thereby achieving it's 12A rating despite quite a dark tone), as well as creates a documentry feel that plays against the calmer (still not static) shots of the capitol and the cameras in the Games itself.

The film goes on with a long running time of just over 2 hours and 20 minutes and it does feel long. They could have easily have trimmed at least 15 minutes without losing too much of the films power and emotion. The actual event itself doesn't happen until at least halfway through (it seems) so you have a sudden jarring change in pace from the slow buildup to the rapid culling of several minor (really, really minor) participants and the rest of the film is a slow fight for survival. Not in itself a bad thing but the pace really switches up and down very unevenly at times. 

 

However, whilst the 84% it currently resides on at Rotten Tomatoes I think is a tiny bit high (I'd say closer to 75-80%), it is a very good film and it is proof that you can turn a popular young adult novel into a complex, thrilling and entertaining film. 

 

Trailer:

 

30 (Film Diary 13: 09/04/12 - 15/04/12)

Unlucky for some, lucky for you. 

It's episode 13 of Film Flare's most audacious and stunning Film Diary, FFFD.

(those words are entirely my own and not endorsed or verified by any independant authority)

 

Leggo! (meaning 'let's go')

 

License to Kill (1989)

The second of only two James Bond film Timothy Dalton ever did I think is one of the more underrated films of the whole series. In terms of character development and story, the film attempted a similar tone to Casino Royale but was instead often overlooked for seemingly being distant from the tone of the series which to be fair was still bogged down in post-Roger Moore silliness (Dalton's first bond film The Living Daylights was a step in the right direction though).

 

This is also the only Bond film to be rated a 15 in the UK, mostly for shark related mishaps, although a man does get exploded, there's a bit of implied rape and it's strongly implied a man has his heart cut out and given to a woman (aww!). Most of these actions are carried out by the film's villain, the drug lord Franz Sanchez, played through and through nasty by Robert Davi.

Just look at that face: what a prick!

 

The story is a brilliantly simple story of revenge wrapped around a mildly more complex story of drug dealing, double crossing and generic Bond tropes. A heavy influence of this film is Japanese stories of the Ronin, a master-less samurai alongside Bond's much more insidious actions of abusing the mistrust of the bad guys and performing very little direct action to bring the villain down. It's a little more intelligent of Bond and fits well into the revenge narrative that fills the story with emotions and a human core. Add to this the fact that for this film, Bond is in fact, a rogue agent and suddenly the reasons for misdirection seem even more evident.

The Bond girls, forever a staple of the series are suitably glamerous although not really fleshed out (haha) as characters themselves, instead they remind me of the incidental woman Sean Connery's Bond would sleep with, with them having little or no impact on the story as a whole.

 

However, it is the stunt work here that shines. It is wonderful.

Many of the stunts are brilliantly realised and executed and one in particular brought to mind a similar stunt that most of you will see (if you haven't already) when The Dark Knight Rises comes out later this year, although I'm not telling you which one. The plane stunts are insanely good and the whole thing looks very convincing whilst still retaining that slight OTT James Bond edge. 

 

In the end, it was the increased violence and the darker side to Bond that put off many reviewers and viewers. Whilst not badly reviewed in and of itself, I personally feel it deserves to be much more loved by Bond fans. It's a grown up Bond.

 

Oh and keep your peepers peeled if you watch it for a young Benicio Del Toro!

Trailer:

 

 

Twelve Monkeys (1995)

 

Now this is a beautiful, twisted piece of genius.

Easily the best thing that Terry Gilliam has directed (if you disagree, you're wrong!), this film is incredibly well directed, insanely well acted and a story that demands attention and rewards what attention you give it.

 

The story is time-travel at its core. It cleverly removes a time-travel paradox by not sending Bruce Willis back in time to change the future, instead he is simply told to observe and gather information to help the future repair and rebuild. By removing the idea of James Cole (Willis) having to 'save' the world, the emphasis is instead on the futility of life in 1996. The narrative contains many setbacks and tiny scenes and moments which mean nothing in themselves but each comes back with massive force and power by the time the credits role. It's a marvellous piece of storytelling and an exercise in how to tell a non-linear, confusing story and simply and as stylishly as possible.

 

By the way, I have never seen Bruce Willis on such form, ever. He is strong, resilient but he conveys such weakness at times, it's amazing. His James Cole is often as confused as we are but towards the end starts to build up incorrect ideas with such conviction and sense that we (as viewers) wonder if and how the carpet will be taken form under our feet. Madeleine Stowe gives her Kathryn Railly a fierce intelligence and charisma which remains a constant throughout the film. Brad Pitt is on top form too as the slightly odd (to put it lightly) Jeffrey Goines, with similar characteristics and ideals to one of his more iconic roles, Tyler Durden (Fight Club).

On top of all the praise I've given it so far, it has a charming tie-in to several Hitchcock films (most notably Vertigo) in a similar way to La Jetee, the film that inspired 12 Monkeys. 

 

So really then, an incredibly well made, well acted, confusing story told quite simply. Add to this several references to classic films and art and it is a beautiful film to boot.

 

If you get the chance and you've not seen it yet, please watch this film. 

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

 

29 - Bel Ami review

 

 

Based on the novel by Guy de Maupassant, this film documents the rise (and set backs) of George Duroy, a slimy ex-army officer as he sleeps his way through every worthwhile woman in Paris. Starting as a penniless and lonely man, he rapidly carves a path through the upper levels of Parisian society, acquiring a lot of wealth and standing on the way.

Interestingly enough, the acting in the film is actually pretty good. The three main actresses, Uma Thurman, Kirstin Scott Thomas and Christina Ricci all do remarkably well with relatively weak material. Each Fleshes out their characters beyond the 'three generations of lovers' scenario would suggest. 

Even Robert Pattinson, Old R-Patz himself surprised me. To be honest, he plays an utter shit in the film. Patterson said early on that the character was completely amoral but  even so, the character is a true bastard. And R-Patz plays a shit pretty well, he is required to smolder a lot (no doubt a tricked learned from his Twilight days) but he is actually a very unpleasant character and you have to admire the gusto with which Pattinson throws himself into the role.

 

The film also looks good. The period costumes and settings are convincing and there is a suitably large visual gap between the cold, dark poorer areas of Paris and the brighter, warmer rooms of the well-off. The cast are also made up in a convincing style but I was made aware of how the actors and actresses move and emote facially in a very modern way that inadvertently creates an anachronism with the period setting of the film.

 

However, whilst the look of the film is fantastic and the acting is pretty good, it is there that the strengths of the film end. The story overall skips all over the place, one scene leading straight into the next shows a difference of character so strong, you wonder what revelation you missed to caused the change. Some of the script is mighty odd, leading to situation where a character is lounging around in her underwear talking about the weight of grain being shipped to Algiers. 

My main complaint about the film is what I consider a major flaw. It is a film about seduction and sex and whilst there are sex scenes in the film, they are remarkably un-sexy. I guess I was just hoping that for a film filled with good looking people, the sex scenes would have had more intimacy to them. They just felt a little weak. A flaw exacerbated by the tone and nature of the film.

 

So in summery, not the worst film I've seen all year but certainly not far from the bottom. It looks great but in the end, looks can only take you so far.

(Yes, I did just end that review with a moral that applies to a character in the film. If you are reading this and you are from a major news or entertainment publication and you do need film reviews that end in such a witty and cheeky fashion, please email me.)

 

Trailer:

 

 

28 (Film Diary 12: 02/04/12 - 08/04/12)

A-ha!

 

Good day to you all. Hope this entry finds you well.

(See, I can be nice!)

 

Apologies in advance for the mild tardiness of this FFFD. Monday being a bank holiday meant that I was required elsewhere.

But here it be, the film in question you may find questionable:

 

Johnny English Reborn (2011)

 

Oh yes!

The first Johnny English (2003) was a lacklustre affair. Its main crime was the waste of a considerable amount of comedy talent in the frame of Mr Rowan Atkinson, a man who is usually hilarious. However, off the back of its $35 million budget, the film grossed over $160 million. 

I would be surprised at how long is has taken a sequel to be created but since the first was quite badly savaged by critics, I'd assume that part of the delay was to have the old film removed from some people's memories before releasing it.

 

First of all, good news. This film is not as bad as the first one, by a large margin. The jokes are slightly fresher, slightly. Just a bit. There are still only so many times you can see a man being kicked in the groin before you start to feel numb. A few of the scenes were genuinly laugh out loud funny but the jokes are by and large not great and in some cases, pretty poor, or done before and better.

 

Rowan Atkinson is pretty likable in the role, obvious doing his best with weak material. Dominic West is on his top slimy form as Agent 1, if possible an even more blatant character rip-off of James Bond than Johnny English himself. Gillian Anderson (sigh!) is on top 'stuffy-english accent' mode as Pegasus and Rosamund Pike is wasted as the love interest. The peripheral characters are much more fleshed out and one in particular (Agent Tucker) was actually pretty good. Certainly it puts John Malcovich and his TERRIBLE French accent thankfully into the past.

The plot is somewhat darker in tone than its predecessor, it is also more coherent and overall an improvement on the original. It feels more like an actual spy film plot and allows the writers to place English in several exotic location and comedic scenes that bring to memory several classic scenes in several James Bond films.

 Overall, the film displays more confidence and aptitude than the previous J.E film. It is still by no means a 'good' film, it is forced and there is still a waste of considerable acting talent and comedic talent but when watching it on a Sunday evening, it was enjoyable and I did laugh out loud at several scenes. Certainly more than I did during the first film.

Certainly for a film series to have been created for a character that appeared in a Barclaycard advert is no small feat. The problem I found is that the spy genre is rich and ripe for parody and it has been done extremely well in several films, this is not one of those films.

  

 

So, to repeat. It's not a good film, it has its funny moment but it does gratuitously waste a surprisingly large amount of acting ability in its cast. It would good sunday evening fodder with a friend and a large pizza but I'd find it hard to recommend it beyond that.

 

Trailer:

 

 

Speaking of trailers, there is another new PROMETHEUS trailer (Imax version) out.

Oh sheet!

It's another badman.

 

Regard: