I was pretty surprised by this film. Starring Justin 'Rock Your Body' Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, I saw the trailers and thought 'oh, that looks an interesting premise wasted'.
Turns out I was only half correct in my judgemental way.
It is a film that does carry a reasonably interesting premise, that time is currency. It sounds cliched but in the film the idea is actually explored in surprising depth, with wages, services, gambling being done with time. It's an oddly futuristic world, where almost everything is identical apart from the times glowing on peoples wrists and that old cars make hovering sounds even though they are on wheels.
The idea that time can be transfered from physical contact sort of makes sense and the idea of stealing time from one person (as Alex Pettyfer's mob boss does) is quite neat.
The actual story itself is a pretty heavy handed 'Rich thrive, poor die' deal which has been done better elsewhere but it allows Justin Timberlake's Will Salas to get suitably angry and to attempt to rebalance the world almost single handedly, helped out only really by rich kid Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried).
So the story is not as good as I'd have hoped considering the potential boundaries offered by the central premise could really offer a genuinly interesting and subvertive look at commodities and life but instead we've got a pretty good, relatively simple sci-fi/action film which looks fantastic (I'm super serial, the glowing clocks are cool!).
In terms of the cast, JT is actually pretty likeable, not Cillian Murphy good (who is pretty good in this film) but better than Alex Pettyfer's slightly awkward English mob boss. Olivia Wilde is pretty underused and her last scene is really really dumb, which is a shame. It's meant to be really sad and so on but it just didn't work for me.
All in all however, this is not a terrible film. You can find better films that have a similar message and frame the whole argument better but the premise is interesting and well fleshed out enough that the film's flaws do fall into the background of this enjoyable film.
Trailer:
Speaking of trailers, I have come across two more which have interested me.
The first, from one of the most talented contemporary South Korean directors, Kim Ji Woon comes a fun little action film starring a fun little action star called Arnold Schwarzenegger. The script seems to enjoy having Arnie in it and all in all, it looks like potentially great fun:
The second trailer is the intense as anything red-band trailer for End of Watch, a gripping look at LA Police and it looks to be very good:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
