Film Flare

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!)

 

 

33 - Avengers Assemble review (no spoilers)

Well here it is, after several years of films creating the invidual characters and tone of the Marvel Studios universe, here is the culmination of all that effort: Avengers Assemble (so called in the UK so no fool confuses it with the very similar Avengers film).

Duuuuurrrrrrrrr!

 

I suppose the question on your lips is 'Any Good?'

The short answer is 'yes'.

 

The longer answer is 'Fuck me silly, that film was awesome!'

 

The even longer answer is:

 

Joss Whedon has created a witty, entertaining superhero that more than capably juggles different characters and threads all together into an unsubtle, but solid film.

It helps if you've seen the previous Marvel Studio films in the franchise before seeing this. I had personally seen Iron Man 1 and 2, Captain America and Thor although I had not seen The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton and I had a good idea of the principal characters and what was going on. There is the barest bones of back-story for each of the heroes but the majority of exposition is around the character of Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo).

 

Speaking of which, Mark Ruffalo somehow steals the show as the Hulk, utterly removing the previously uninspiring film adaptations. He is amazing, in every way. Bruce Banner gets some quality lines and Mark Ruffalo delivers in pretty much every way, it is a lot more of a subtle performance than most of his fellow actors, who are much more brazen, brash and forward.

Robert Downey Jr once again delivers as Iron Man, a character that is as rich and as interesting two films down the line as he ever was. He gets the best lines and even though it takes a little bit of time to introduce Iron Man compared to some of the other characters, he sticks in the mind and has his own standouts moments alongside the rest of the Avengers.

Captain America (Chris Evans) is also on top form as Captain America, a character I was initially concerned would not fit well into the dynamic of the group but his character fits really nicely.

As a personal favourite, it is always nice to see Loki on the screen. His 'little brother' syndrome makes his a fascinating villain in Thor and Tom Hiddleston absolutely proves he is brilliant as this twisted, powerful trickster. In Loki, once again, Marvel Studios provide a villain that is as well fleshed out and as interesting as the heroes. 

 

I've already mentioned Josh Whedon's outlandish ability to fuse together so many characters into a film well. When all the Avengers have assembled, each character and their traits clash in a....realistic way, the selfless with the arrogant etc etc. Whilst the film does try extremely hard to have as many Avenger on Avengers fights as possible and they are thrilling, seeing them work together as a team is frankly fantastic. Again, several stunning shots pan seamlessly from one character to the next, cutting through the large amounts of chaotic action to deliver what you wanted to see, superheroes beating on things.

Another key Whedon-ish (tm) is the humour. It is a pretty funny film too boot.

 

Its $220 million budget went a long way too. Apart from the actors and the not inconsiderable sums of money  they would have been paid, the CGI is almost faultless. It is awesome, and always seems to make the events feel like a comic book. Again, the standout being a very realistic, physical Hulk. The best incarnation yet, for sure. 

 

It's not without fault:

The plot is nonsense. 

The script is sometimes clunky and awkward.

It is a long film (although doesn't really feel like it)

 

However, these are mere grains of sand on a beach of AWESOMNESS.

Watch this film!

 

9/10 easy.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

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:

 

27 (Film Diary 11: 26/03/12 - 01/04/12)

A fine and merry day to you all.

 

The formula you know: 7 days, 2 films (usually)

The name: FFFD

 

Sit students, and we shall begin our inward journey.

 

Black Dynamite (2009)

This is a funny film. 

A very funny film.

Possibly one of the funniest films I've ever seen.

 

This 2009 film is worryingly convincing as a low-fi, roughly made, poorly acted Blaxploitation film (a genre that grew in popularity in the 1970s USA, Shaft being one of the more well known results).

Starring Michael Jai White (Universal Soldier, Spawn) as the eponymous superman Black Dynamite, this film tells the tale of corruption, drugs and crime and Dynamite's quest to rid his streets of drugs and crime,  from the lowliest gangster, right up to the White House (The Honky House, complete with nunchaka wielding Richard Nixon).

White has pretty good comic timing and a lot of the humour is resting on his chisled shoulders, but the film overall is perfect in its tone. Seemingly very fond of the films it is based on whilst simultaneously being aware of the low production values and bad actors (intentional in this case) are a source of great amusement. So you have booms lowered into shot, forgotten lines, recycled effects, cameras unable to zoom or focus in correctly. I doubt I've laughed as hard as much at a film for a long, long time.

 

Another pleasant surprise of the film is that it doesn't drag on, or have long patches of weaker material between the funny bits. A sudden plot change 80% of the way through the film seems gratuitous but why shouldn't it be. Almost everything else in the film is over the top in much the same way. 

The action scenes are also a nice addition. Jai White, being a very good martial artist himself creates the most professional looking scenes in the film when he's punching, kicking, nunchaka-ing people in the face. 

 

It is still (at the time of writing) a little known film, something that I have been trying very hard to change one viewer at a time. I do urge you to watch this, you won't regret it.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

 

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)

 

We move now from a superfly, kung fu machine to a baby faced Belgian reporter.

 

This is one INCREDIBLE looking film. I'm sure you may have read that somewhere before my previous sentence, so had I and I was still amazed by it. The animation, facial expressions, eyes, eyebrows, Snowy, all of them look as real as animation could get, fantastic stuff. Several scenes are crammed with so much beauty on the screen that it really is awesome.

 

Watching this film reminded me of the book and the animated show. In my eyes that makes the film a success, the characters of Tintin (and Snowy), Captain Haddock, Thomson and Thompson are almost identical to my memories from childhood, a joy to watch. Several people have commented on the accents not being European but when I imagined the characters talking whilst reading the stories, they were talking in English accents. 

Speaking of voice actors, every cast member (Jamie Bell, Daniel Craig, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Andy Serkis) is on form, delivering joy and menace appropriately. Jamie Bell in particular gives his Tintin the sense of youthful adventure that I imagined he would do.

 

The story is a combination of several of the Tintin books and whilst the pacing is uneven at times, the story is a nice mix of adventure and danger. The first third of the film is fantastic, the initial set-up, introduction to characters and the plot as a whole are very well done, add to this a fantastic opening title sequence (think Catch Me If You Can) and it draws you right in. Whilst the rest of the film doesn't live up to these inspired first minutes, it certainly holds its own and has that kind of Spielberg magic where it just has a slightly magical feel to it.

 

A film I really quite enjoyed. That's two for two this week. 

Trailer:

  

 

 

 

Preview: Total Recall (2012) 

 

 

>/No mention of Mars?

>/It seems like Total Recall via the style of Minority Report. 

>/Directed by Len Wiseman and also starring Kate Beckinsale (sigh!) with Colin Farrell.

>/It looks like a lot of effort was put into set design/CGI/soldiers suits.

 

>/Verdict?

....Not off to a good start, I'll keep an eye on further trailers but so far, not hugely impressed.

 

 

 

 

26 - 21 Jump Street review

 

Through intense and extensive research, I discovered that the film 21 Jump Street is based on a television show of the same name that ran from 1987 for four years and starred a young and quote 'disarmingly handsome' Johnny Depp.

Consider yourself disarmed.

 

The tone of the original show was dramatic. A series about cops posing as high school students has the potential for comedy but the show ran the premise straight and (in some cases) hard hitting about social issues of the day involving children and schools. 

 

The film has an identical premise, undercover po-leece in  high school but unlike the TV show, the film is an out and out comedy.  This works heavily in the film's favour, firstly the film retreads the ground of the show from a completely new direction, so it never feels old fashioned or out of touch. Secondly, whilst the film is a touching homage to the television show, the comedy element is drawn from the changes between schools (and kids) now and then. Where the bullying jock character was king of hill when he was in school, he now finds himself out of place among the eco-friendly, alternative kids of today. By reversal, the bullied nerd finds himself a new place at the head of the table in schools today.

 

Surprisingly enough, the two leads Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum create a touching relationship between themselves. Between the comedy is actually a real friendship and a strong emotional core which anchors the narrative. The film would not be half as successful if either of the two leads were not as good as they are. Even though it is obvious that Hill is the better of the two actors in a comedic sense of the word, Tatum is still human enough to support his side to an equally high standard. 

Ice Cube has the best lines in the film and every scene he is in ranks amongst the film's best. His Capt. Dickson is both hilarious, gets great lines and turns an entire trope (the angry, black captain) on its head. 

 

The film has action scenes and these are as well done, as absurd and as over the top as they were in Pineapple Express. A car chase seems bizarrely placed in the film but it highlights and parodies several action cliches and doesn't detract from the film at all. The gunfights are well done (surprisingly so) and are funny due to inherent misplacement within the film. They don't belong in the film and are played dead straight and they work.

 

Overall though, the film is consistently funny and very entertaining to watch, I was surprised at the rating they were aiming for (15 in the UK) and they managed to fit an awful lot of language, drinks, drugs and violence into that rating. It's never nasty or malicious but always good fun. Add on top of this a well-documented cameo from two original actors (Depp and Peter DeLuise) and you realise that the film is a fine and loving remodeling of the original show in a similar vein to Starsky and Hutch but unlike that film, 21 Jump Street actually attempts to go in a different direction and therefore break new ground.

 

A very fine film and a great night in.

 

Trailer: