Australia

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman & Brandon Walters

An attempt at a sweeping epic romance that, while having an impressive middle hour and some very strong performances, is also too long leaving an epic that is good but not as great as it aspires to be.

Baz Luhrmann certainly has ambition. After mixing Hollywood Musical with Bollywood Musical in 2001’s Moulin Rouge! involving Busby Berkeley style dance routines, modern pop songs and a sense of showmanship to rival Cecil B. DeMille, Luhrmann has turned his attention to the epic period romances such as Gone with the Wind and applied the formula to his beloved home country of Australia whilst throwing in some of the magic of The Wizard of Oz for good measure. The result is Australia, and while certainly epic and featuring some truly breathtaking sequences and stunning visuals, it also suffers somewhat from Luhrmann having too much ambition.

Set during the years of 1939 to 1942 in Australia, with the threat of WWII looming over the country as its backdrop, Australia follows the unlikely romance of Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman), a woman of wealth from England, and the cattle rancher Drover (Hugh Jackman) brought in to help manage her late-husband’s cattle ranch in northern Australia. Facing threats from the local cattle competition, Lady Ashley comes to terms with a different way of life thanks to a young, mixed-race Aboriginal Boy living on her property named Nullah (Brandon Walters) and her desire to prove herself the equal of any man in this new land. Australia does take a while for this main story to finally get moving. After an opening act where Luhrmann rapidly introduces characters, plot pieces and ideas whilst maintain a comedic tone that borders on farce, he finally takes the time to stop and slow down allowing us to see the characters we’ve met and begin to see what drives them. Once Luhrmann begins to focus more on his characters is where Australia entertains and succeeds most, at least for middle hour of the film. Alongside some stunning visuals (Australia itself looks nothing less than stunning throughout the film whether it be desert outback or lush waterfalls and greenery) and a truly impressive cattle drive sequence at the film’s mid-point, the building friendship and then romance between Lady Ashley and Drover is touching and believable, as is the softening of Lady Ashley’s initially icy demeanor as she comes to accept young Nullah into her life despite the nature of mixed-heritage making their friendship a taboo during this period of Australian history.

However, despite a very strong middle hour that more than makes up for the uneven opening scenes, Luhrmann’s ambitions get the better of him. After the thrilling cattle-drive sequence where Lady Ashley and Drover seemingly accept each other and settle down to a new life together, the film and its story continues for another hour bringing WWII to Australia and a sequence of events that break up our three main leads and frequently threatens to replace the earlier, happier moments in the film, with a different ending filled with tragedy. Like the rest of Australia, these war-based sequences look amazing and are suitably epic in scope, in keeping with Luhrmann’s intentions, but it also excessive and an unnecessary attempt to suggest that epic romances are not sufficiently epic unless confronted with tragedy or the threat of tragedy. Fortunately these final sequences are still watchable.

Overall, Luhrmann has made an epic romance and it certainly encompasses much of Australia’s checkered history as well as it’s wonders but, while it is certainly enjoyable, beautiful to behold and well acted, it could have done with less commitment to being an epic, and to the conventions of the epic romance, and rather been content to just telling a romance. A good, if flawed, film but one certainly best seen on the cinema screen.

Rating: 3/5

Twilight

Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson & Billy Burke

An adaptation of the best-selling novel that offers some interesting twists on the Vampire genre whilst also succeeding in appealing to more than just fans of the novels.

Twilight the novel, and the series of novels spawned from it, have been best sellers particularly amongst its target audience, teenagers. The story, that of a teenage girl falling in love with a mysterious boy at school who she discovers is a Vampire has successfully mixed fantasy and romance and captured an audience on teens attracted to tales of love everlasting. It is not surprising then that, after adaptations of fantasy books for younger crowds have achieved Box Office success (Harry Potter, Narnia etc) that Twilight would soon receive its own cinematic adaptation.

Twilight the film is a largely faithful adaptation of the novel, helped by the involvement of the novel’s author, Stephanie Meyer, and directed by Catherine Hardwicke, a director already making a name for herself with intelligent teen dramas like Thirteen and Lords of Dogtown. However, rather than focus so heavily upon the romantic elements that it feel excessive, Hardwicke has shown enough restraint to keep much of the film grounded in character. The character of Bella Swan (Stewart) feels genuine rather than a stereotypical teen. Her story, of separated parents and having to relocate to a new town and find new friends might not be original but the character’s reactions feel natural, mature. Feeling something of an outsider, even amongst those that accept her, is something she soon discovers she shares with Edward (Pattinson), one of a family of teens that keep to themselves and shun interaction with others in town. What initially begins as a prickly relationship (Edward wanting little to do with Bella but unable to stop staring at her) begins to evolve when Edward saves Bella from a swerving vehicle and revealing hints of his true nature to Bella. Unable to leave the mystery alone, Bella persists to follow Edward until the truth about him and his family is revealed that they are Vampires.

Wisely playing down the stereotypical elements of Vampire lore (no fangs, coffins etc… They can come out in the day but avoid direct sunlight) helps with the believability of the relationship between Bella and Edward. His life being one made more difficult by his nature, being unable to forge friendships due to his not aging and the reminder that his kind generally feed of Bella’s (though Edward and his family are one that refuses to feed on humans). Playing on the reluctance of both character’s desires to keep their feelings guarded in this new town, Hardwicke allows the characters to get to know each other gradually. Edward gets to show Bella his world a step at a time and Bella gets to show Edward a normal life in return. This slow approach feels somewhat refreshing and helps make the relationship more appealing to adult audiences and the performances of both Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson as Bella and Edward are suitably impressive.

Twilight does however suffer slightly towards the end. The build up throughout the film involving a second group of Vampires in town that have been attacking innocents is left too late to be resolved a decent matter leaving the film’s climax feeling very rushed as one Vampire, upon discovering Bella and her relationship to Edward seeks to hunt her as a prize. With so much of the film’s strengths lying in its gradual development of character, this direction feels like something from another film altogether and the other group of Vampires receive very little development. However, despite this and despite the occasional moment where teenage fantasy overwhelms the relationship between Bella and Edward (having Edward, and the Vampires of this series shine like diamonds in the sunlight is a step too far), Twilight still manages to resolve many of its storylines with maturity and manages to feel like a complete story rather than a deliberate set up for a franchise (though the potential for sequels is there).

Overall, despite a rushed ending and the occasional pandering to its teenage audience, Twilight is an enjoyable fantasy film. It offers enough maturity in its director’s handling of the subject matter and in the performances of Stewart and Pattinson that adults and teens alike should have much to enjoy.

Rating: 4/5

Inkheart

Director: Iain Softley
Starring: Brendan Fraser, Eliza Bennet & Paul Bettany

A fairly entertaining family adventure that has enough moments of magic to enjoy even though it does not quite live up to the potential of its premise.

Based on the novel by Cornelia Funke, Inkheart bears many of the traits of classic storybook style adventures: magic, adventure, romance, a heroic lead, a dastardly villain and even a storybook style narrator during the opening who sets the scene for this film about Silver-tongues and their ability to bring books to life by reading them aloud. Leaping ahead 12 years, we meet Mo (Fraser) and his daughter Meggie (Bennet), two avid fans and collectors of rare books on another European trip. However, Mo has another reason for his book hunts, one book in particular he seeks and this book, Inkheart, reveals the nature of his gift as a Silver-tongue to his daughter as the characters he freed, unwittingly, from the book 9 years earlier catch up to him with mixed motives. One, a fire breathing performance artist named Dustfinger (Bettany) just wants to return to the book and to his family, others like the thug Capricorn (Andy Serkis) want to use Mo to grant themselves riches and power in the real world.

So far, so good. With the story set up and our characters in motion, Inkheart is set for high adventure however, despite some very entertaining moments, particularly at the film’s climax, Inkheart only occasionally lives up to the potential it has. While Mo can bring characters to life and out of the books, there is a price that involves someone from the real world going into the book to take their place. As such, this somewhat limits the greats that the film could achieve as Mo resists using books to help him out of trouble as much as possible. When he does submit (such as bringing forth the tornado from The Wizard of Oz) then the scenes become more interesting (and fleeting shots of characters landing into novels like Arabian Nights are fun, if brief) and glimpses of other escaped characters (a Minotaur, flying monkeys and the crocodile from Peter Pan) seen in Capricorn’s dungeons hint at the possibilities that are being avoided.

Still, Inkheart, in spite of its self-imposed limitations, generally entertains. Brendan Fraser is a likeable hero (once again employing the kind of role seen twice already in 2008 with The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor and Journey to the Center of the Earth) and Eliza Bennet is incredibly charming as his highly intelligent and strong willed daughter (though perhaps is too much of both for a character that is, supposedly, 12 years old!). Paul Bettany is enjoyable as Dustfinger, the character desperate to get home who constantly tries to fight the selfish characteristics given to him by his writer, Jim Broadbent is also a joy to watch as the author of Inkheart who marvels at his creations come to life even when they threaten to harm him. Andy Serkis seems to enjoy playing a dastardly villain fitting to a literary stereotype and has several British character actors filling out the roles of his henchmen. Helen Mirren however is somewhat irritating as the high and mighty, no time for adventure, Aunt of Mo and Meggie but is fortunately not too intrusive in the scenes in which she appears.

Overall, Inkheart is certainly a fun, family film and makes a decent case for the adventures to be found in books (though of course the irony is that it takes a film to do this). Some entertaining moments and some fun casting means that the film is still quite enjoyable even though you kind of wish its main characters would have opened a few more books and read aloud.

Rating: 3/5

The Day The Earth Stood Still

Director: Scott Derrickson
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly & Jaden Smith

A somewhat average remake of the 1950s Sci-Fi classic which succeeds most in scenes which don’t employ the use of CGI effects.

The original The Day The Earth Stood Still, released in 1951, is widely regarded as a Sci-Fi classic. Capturing the atmosphere of an era in a world post-WWII and in the midst of a Cold War, the film used the background of world conflict and general distrust amongst nations to tell a cautionary tale of how the Human Race could bring about its own destruction if it were to continue to pursue its, then, course of action. Told in the form of a Sci-Fi film it entertained and educated audiences in equal measure. It is now 2008; the world is still engaged in multiple conflicts alongside an additional environmental threat. So here comes a remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still.

Where this remake succeeds most is where it follows some of the themes and events of the original film. Early scenes where the newly arrived alien Klaatu (Reeves) is questioned by the military and then escapes to see how the Human Race lives are strong. While not sticking precisely to events of the original film, Klaatu’s experiences of the Earth and its people are faithful to the tone of the original film. Dismayed by the warlike and destructive nature of the Human Race, Klaatu questions whether they should be allowed to continue existing, only to find that Humans are capable of more than destruction. The remake also manages to maintain the tone relating to the world’s political climate where decisions involving other nations are hindered while military decisions are often rushed and uninformed (a statement perhaps of the US military response post-9/11). The messages given in the film about war and its consequences and also about the effects we are having on the environment (another cause that has gained popularity in recent years after decades of concerns) are not particularly subtle but are still handled in a decent manner and certainly make for relevant present day concerns for a remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still being set in the present day.

The Day The Earth Stood Still impresses less though when it tries to embrace the technologies of today’s cinema. Making this remake a big-budget affair with modern special effects sometimes distracts the tone of the film from what could be a thought provoking Sci-Fi Drama. Replacing the flying saucer of the original film with a glowing, gaseous looking sphere in the remake is a move that succeeds in providing an effective feeling of other-worldliness in a modern Sci-Fi film where a flying saucer today would feel dated; however other special effect driven decisions are less successful. In particular is the remake’s version of the robot GORT. Here the robot is a giant and, while fearsome, bears too much resemblance to the Cylons of TVs current Battlestar Galactica series and when GORT unleashes its power on the Human Race it does so in the form of a swarm of metallic insects feeding on the manmade environments and its people. Once this event occurs, story takes a backseat to spectacle however the spectacle proves to be less interesting than the build up to it would suggest and the ultimate resolution to the problem that Klaatu describes occurs fairly quickly and predictably.

The Day The Earth Stood Still does benefit from some great casting. Keanu Reeves, often criticized for having a limited ability to convince emotionally in his performances, finds his somewhat detached persona working well for him in his portrayal of Klaatu, an alien in a Human body who has little experience with the ways and emotions of Humans. Jennifer Connelly delivers a good performance as, scientist, Helen Bensen who is raising a child alone and wants to show that Humans are capable of good. She is convincing as an intelligent woman capable in her field and also in displaying the emotional vulnerability of someone left to raise a child alone. There is strong support from Kathy Bates as the somewhat uncooperative Secretary of Defense and John Cleese in a small appearance as a professor. The only problem amongst the casting comes in the role on Bensen’s stepson Jacob who, while supposed to be demonstrating a child struggling over the loss of his father, often comes across as annoying instead of sympathetic.

Overall, The Day The Earth Stood Still is a decent remake and a decent message film. Bolstered by some good casting decisions it manages to tell a decent story, however, a weak conclusion, an over-reliance on big budget effects sequences in the final act and the resistance to truly delve too deeply into the issues it tries to raise means that ultimately this remake is a missed opportunity that disappoints more than it satisfies.

Rating: 3/5

Lakeview Terrace

Director: Neil LaBute
Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Patrick Wilson & Kerry Washington

What looks to be an average stalker/crazy neighbor thriller actually succeeds at being far more entertaining thanks to a scenery-chewing performance from Samuel L. Jackson and a strong performance from Patrick Wilson as on of his suffering neighbors.

There was a time in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there was a trend at Hollywood to produce thrillers involving obsessive/psychotics tormenting neighbors, housemates and ex-lovers in films like Pacific Heights, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle and Fatal Attraction. While none of these films are remembered as being masterpieces, they are nevertheless memorable and hold place in many a film audiences list of guilty pleasures. Now, in 2008, we get another addition to this genre that will likely serve a similar purpose for a new audience in Lakeview Terrace.

Set, very much, in present-day Los Angeles in the midst of forest fires and in an economic climate where being or becoming a home-owner is a big undertaking, Chris and Lisa (Patrick Wilson & Kerry Washington) are a recently married couple who’ve just moved to Los Angeles and bought their first home. As if the strains of purchasing a new home and starting a new life are not enough, they soon find that the police officer next door is far from the ideal neighbor they had hoped for. The neighbor, widowed single father and policeman, Abel Turner (Samuel L. Jackson) is a man with strict rules and a very black and white outlook on what he believes is appropriate behavior and his new neighbors being an interracial couple is something he does not condone. Initially bothering his neighbors with more minor acts of intimidation such as subtle hints of his disapproval of their lifestyle in conversations to leaving his security lights on at night and directed open his neighbors windows soon leads to more aggressive actions when Chris and Lisa show that they won’t be intimidated.

As a thriller, while the steady escalation of the threat Abel poses to Chris and Lisa is predictable, the performance of Samuel L. Jackson as Abel succeeds in convincing of his character’s instability. With just a few hints of recent events involving his dead wife to justify his reactions to Chris and Lisa while hinting his anger has always been an obstacle to his relationships with others (as seen by the reactions of his sister and of fellow police officers). Jackson manages to make Abel incredibly menacing yet also maintaining enough charm to keep us interested and also managing to dominate many scenes in a manner that would make the performance memorable in a genre that usually struggles to add anything interesting to what has been seen before.

In addition to Jackson, Lakeview Terrace also features good performances from Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington as the victimized couple next door. Washington has the slightly less developed role mostly showing her character to be strong and intelligent and able to hold her own in some scenes with Jackson. It is, however, Wilson that gets the bigger role. Wilson’s character faces many conflicts in the film and represents a different perspective on the question of racism and relationships. As the white male in the relationship with his wife, he is the main focus of Abel’s intimidation tactics and Chris refuses to back down as he finds the attitude of Abel to representative of an attitude he has faced from Lisa’s father that he perceives to be based on the color of his skin. Effectively portraying a man frustrated by situations where he feels he cannot win, he also maintains enough decency that his frustrations can be understood even if his actions are not always condoned.

Overall, while building up to a predictable conclusion, the performances of Wilson and Jackson and the effective raising of tensions makes Lakeview Terrace a more enjoyable and much memorable film than it could have been. Fans of Samuel L. Jackson is particular will find many reasons to watch the film again. A three star film the gains and extra point for casting.

Rating: 4/5

Changeling

Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich & Jeffrey Donovan

A strong, engrossing drama featuring an impressive performance from Jolie and is another worthy addition to Clint Eastwood’s directorial resume.

While the story of Changeling, based on the true story of Christine Collin’s search for her abducted son in 1928 and the LAPD’s attempts to demonize her when they return the wrong child, is material that certainly brings up thoughts of Oscar nominations, especially given the performance from Angelina Jolie and direction by, frequent Oscar winner, Clint Eastwood; it would be foolish to dismiss Changeling as deliberate Oscar bait. Changeling is, nevertheless, a well made, well acted and engrossing drama.

The first half of Changeling follows a fairly standard course as we get early scenes of Christine Collins (Jolie) playing the hard-working single mother of a little boy Walter and how important he is to her. When she comes home from work one day to find Walter missing, she is, understandably, distraught and waits anxiously for news from the police that begin searching for Walter. The twist in the story comes when, upon being told her son has been found, she is presented with a child who is not Walter but claims to be. With the LAPD already under scrutiny on allegations of corruption, they refuse to acknowledge their mistake and face further embarrassment and proceed to pressure Collins into accepting the boy as her son. When she takes the matter public with the help of a local Pastor (Malkovich) she is deemed unstable by the police and sent into a psychiatric ward.

While the story here and its twists are powerful and gripping, made even more so because the events are true, the telling of the story is also very traditional. Jolie is convincing as the distraught mother, shedding tears when necessary and crying out in anger and frustration over her missing child with conviction as expected while other characters are portrayed as idealistically good, the Pastor, or villainous, Captain Jones of the LAPD (Donovan). Even scenes in the psychiatric ward run towards the familiar with nurses willing to hand out pills and shock treatment without question and the doctors quick to dismiss anything Collins says as a sign of madness although they are still effective in allowing audiences to feel Collins’ frustration at those that are preventing her from finding her son.

Fortunately, at the film’s halfway point, the narrative takes a darker turn and becomes altogether more complex when a boy found on a chicken farm reveals shock shocking, gruesome revelations involving kidnapped children. Changeling turns somewhat darker at this point with the added atmosphere of Noir pictures like L.A. Confidential as the revelations expose the police forces mistakes with Collins and her son whilst also sending the search down a different path and following up on the aftermath of what is revealed. Even when the film moves towards the use of two simultaneous trials, one against the LAPD for their treatment of Collins, the other for the prime suspect in the kidnapping of Collins’ and other people’s children, Changeling still keeps tensions high as we await the ultimate fate of Walter and the effect this ordeal has had and will continue to have on Christine Collins. Whilst the supporting characters and performances still run towards the black and white presentations of good and bad characters with the addition of an honest cop and an unstable suspect, Jolie is given plenty of material to work with and despite frequent reminders from other characters as to how strong a woman Christine Collins is, Jolie is able to convince us it just as well with her performance.

Clint Eastwood demonstrates the skills and experience expected of a director with the experience and award-winning acclaim that he has achieved. While Eastwood’s characterizations involve traditional good or bad stereotypes, the ability to cast talented actors like Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich and Amy Ryan ensure that the characters have more depth from the actor’s performances than the script alone would afford them. Eastwood also shows great ability to capture the feel of 1920s America with much attention to detail and his usual use of a jazz and brass instrument score that feels appropriate for the period. Also, in addition to focusing on the plight of Christine Collins, Eastwood is also able to effectively portray the treatment of women during that period of history in addition to ineptitude and corruption of the LAPD.

Overall, Changeling is very moving, very well made drama. In spite of its adherence to somewhat old fashioned storytelling techniques, it also aids in not only capturing the mood of the 1920s but also some of the feeling of the films of that period. With a decent opening and a strong second half, alongside Jolie’s impressive performance, Changeling is a very good film, worthy of Oscar attention though perhaps not of success.

Rating: 4/5

Choke

Director: Clark Gregg
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kelly MacDonald & Anjelica Huston

A very dark and funny comedy from the writer of Fight Club that may lack that film’s visual flair and its intensity but certainly maintains the writer’s dark wit and inventiveness.

Nine years after the release of Fight Club, based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, we finally get to see another adaptation of the author’s work. While Fight Club only achieved moderate box-office success and received a lot of criticism for its violence and tone, it was nevertheless a cult success building up a faithful following and receiving positive reviews from many critics. In the aftermath, many of the author’s works were prepared for film adaptations but none were ever able to get into production and see release until now. Choke, while based on one of Palahniuk’s later and less intense novels, is still a successful adaptation and certainly an entertaining one.

Sam Rockwell stars as Victor, a college drop-out and sex addict who, through conning people out of money by faking choking attacks in restaurants and then milking his rescuers for money to help pay for the medical fees of his dying mother (Huston) who was once an activist dragging Victor from town to town as a child. Victor is a fairly unlikable character; he cares little for the women he sleeps with, feels no guilt for the kindness of his ‘rescuers’ that he exploits, and feels spite towards his mother whose medical fees keep him working yet she never recognizes him anymore and speak disapprovingly of the choices he has made, choices me has made to support her. Like Ed Norton in Fight Club, Sam Rockwell narrates as well as stars in Choke and like with Palahniuk’s other protagonists, his perspective is one of cynicism towards society.

Things begin to change for Victor however when his mother gets a new doctor in the form of Paige (MacDonald) whose resistance to his advancements to sleep with her and her general kindness towards him and his mother make him wonder whether he could like someone for once. When Victor also learns that his mother has lied to him for years over the identity of his father and is then presented with possibilities that his actual father may have ‘Holy’ ties, he begins to question his identity and his ways. Victor’s life, his sex addiction, his second job as a historical tour guide where everyone must stay in character, the other patients at his mother’s care facility and the revelations over Victor’s possible parentage is source for a lot of dark humor in Choke and it is this humor that makes the film so enjoyable especially given Rockwell’s deadpan, weary performance. In addition to the humor and the entertaining twists and turns of the plot, the film and Victor also give many insights into the nature of people, especially those prone to similar acts as himself and makes commentary on the meaning of good and kindness even in a world that has so much despair and meaningless relationships.

More die-hard fans, purists, of Palahniuk’s novel might criticize the changes made to the ending of Victor’s story in this adaptation and the changes are somewhat disappointing, leaning towards a safer, almost happier ending, but considering some of the novel’s themes and acts, that this adaptation stays faithful so much of it should hopefully satisfy most fans while entertaining audiences unfamiliar with the novel. Rockwell is perfect casting for the role of Victor and is well supported by Angelica Huston as his activist/now-dying mother, a sweet and endearing turn from Kelly MacDonald as Dr. Paige Braddock and a somewhat loveable loser in his best friend Denny, played by Brad William Henke.

Overall, while some Palahniuk fans might be disappointed by some other changes and Fight Club fans looking for something similar might be disappointed by the lack of intensity or immediacy in Choke, it is very funny, well performed and a very satisfying film and adaptation. Here is hoping the next Palahniuk adaptation does not take another nine years to be released.

Rating: 4/5

Body Of Lies

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe & Mark Strong

A well acted, visually impressive espionage thriller that, while entertaining in places, is not quite as deep as it would have you believe.

Ridley Scott is very talented director but if there were just one criticism to be made of his abilities it is that he often makes films that have much more style than substance. Frequently Scott gets the balance just right, impressing you with a meaty story and impressive visuals such as with Alien, Gladiator or Blade Runner (where, arguably style is the substance). Sometimes though, the style takes a bigger hold and despite coming away impressed you may later realize that there wasn’t as much depth to the film to truly satisfy such as in Matchstick Men, A Good Year or even 2007’s American Gangster. Scott’s latest film, Body Of Lies, falls into this second category. Body Of Lies does feature some strong performances, plenty of twists and turns and some technically brilliant action sequences but ultimately it keeps you on your toes so much that it rarely settles to allow more than the occasional insight into the war against terrorism.

Starting in England before quickly moving on to Iraq and then Jordan, we are quickly introduced to our main players. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Ferris, a CIA operative tracking a terrorist cell from Iraq to Jordan while liaising with Jordan’s head of intelligence Hani (Mark Strong). Ferris’ boss Hoffman, played by Russell Crowe, is a manipulative individual who controls and interferes with Ferris’ investigations from the comfort of the United States, watching the action from satellite feeds and communicating primarily by phone. With Ferris in the thick of the action, he often finds himself too close to see what other operations are going on and Hoffman, in a room more than a million miles away, can’t see the small, important details. The result is some operations are compromised and Ferris finds himself struggling to fulfill his objective while also trying to maintain something of a normal life in a job that involves secrecy and the risk of death, capture or relocation.

What Scott is effectively able to communicate is that the breaks in communication, between operatives and their handlers overseas, leads to more harm than good. What the film rarely does however, is stop to look too closely at the deeper, and more long term, effects of their strategies. Only in scenes where Ferris works alongside Hani and we can see the different methods, attitudes and results between Jordanian intelligence operations and those of the Americans, do we get an understanding into how the American drive for immediate results undermines their efforts and hinders their own progress. Also, an incredibly gripping final act where Ferris is forced to trade himself to the enemy for the safety of a woman he has grown to care for, we see the potentially fatal implications that operatives may face in the field with some detailed and shocking acts of violence and intimidation.

Body Of Lies, in addition to strong cinematography, also benefits from strong performances from its cast. Crowe entertains as the somewhat arrogant CIA chief back in America, though his performance while entertaining is also underdeveloped. Mark Strong puts in an impressive performance as Jordanian intelligence chief Hani, and effectively conveys the character’s intelliegence and confidence, but also his ability to intimidate even experienced officers like Ferris. Strong is able to command control over most scenes he is in which helps elicit a strong performance from DiCaprio as Ferris. DiCaprio has the hardest job in the film; acting across from Strong in the Jordan scenes while also having to act alongside Crowe when most scenes place them miles apart with just a phone connection to link them, DiCaprio needs to be able to live up to their performances while also making his character a believable CIA operative and human being when alone. Fortunately, DiCaprio succeeds and delivers a great performance.

Overall though, despite good acting, skillfully handled action sequences and the occasional insight into the real war of terror and its effects, Body Of Lies is still dominated by style over substance. Its characters are underdeveloped and the film is more content at showing you operations in action than delving into the hows and whys of terrorism or how better to fight it. Entertaining, but not wholly satisfying.

Rating: 3/5

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

Director: Kevin Smith
Starring: Seth Rogen, Elizabeth Banks & Craig Robinson

Kevin Smith’s eighth film, and second not featuring his cult creations Jay & Silent Bob, is likely his most mainstream effort to date and while it sometimes lacks the bravery of some of his earlier pictures it still entertains and is very funny.

Kevin Smith and Seth Rogen make a good team. Smith has been making low-budget, ‘Indie’ comedies for 14 years now. While none of his films can make claims to being huge hits at the Box-Office, they’ve certainly garnered ample critical appraise based on Smith’s risqué yet honest dialogue filled with movie references, particularly Star Wars, whilst also capturing the thought and feelings of entire generations. Seth Rogen, with the help of director/producer Judd Apatow has done much the same as Smith only with slightly tamer material and with much greater commercial success with 40 Year Old Virgin in 2005 followed by Knocked Up, Superbad and 2008’s Pineapple Express. It comes as no surprise then that this pair should eventually collaborate on a project together.

Zack and Miri make a Porno is their first collaboration and the results are quite good and, as the title suggests, the subject matter is very risqué. Rogen plays Zack who, along with his housemate Miri (Banks) whom he has lived with for 10 years, find themselves too poor to pay their rent, their water or their electricity. With the prospects of facing homelessness they turn to an idea to make a porn film. Despite a long friendship, the pair believes they can keep things professional despite sex, and make the film that will solve their debt problems only to find that sex can indeed change a relationship.

The first half of the film is its strongest. Starting with a high school reunion where Zack and Miri face the reality that they have done much less with their lives than their classmates and featuring some scene stealing from Brandon Routh (Superman Returns) and Justin Long (Die Hard 4.0) as a gay couple, the film is then set up for its main plot when Zack and Miri decide to make a porn film of their own. Pulling in a few friends including Craig Robinson (Americas The Office TV series) and Jeff Anderson (Randall of Kevin Smith’s Clerks films) to produce the film and casting Traci Lords, Katie Morgan (Lords a former pornstar herself, and Morgan a current pornstar) and Kevin Smith regular Jason Mewes to act in the film they then have to decide on a plot and title, including many amusing twists on famous movie titles including Star Whores before launching into production. With dialogue laced with Smith’s trademark sex and movie references, Zack and Miri succeeds most when its characters are talking and the subject matter leads in to some hilarious scenes of sex acts and nudity including one moment when a stranger wanders into the set (a coffee shop being used out of hours) and another with Mewes involving an act referred to as the “Dutch Rudder” that ranks as one of Smith’s and Mewes’ funniest moments.

However, where Zack and Miri make a Porno disappoints is in the use of Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks in these later scenes. While Smith, Rogen and Banks, are happy to talk dirty, they all seem too afraid to actually ‘be’ as risqué which, considering the film’s title and the willingness of the supporting cast to engage in raunchy scenes is disappointing. This is especially so since not only has Smith shown he is more daring with his main stars within his earlier pictures, but also in knowing that Rogen and Banks have had much raunchier scenes, Banks in particular in 40 Year Old Virgin. However, Rogen and Banks are much more commercial now than they were then and by extension, in starring in a Kevin Smith film, they bring that level of commerciality to Zack and Miri. Perhaps all involved were a little too scared to cut as loose and brave as they had when there were less well known. Also, while Smith has shown he is willing to take more unpredictable paths with the relationships of his main characters, avoiding the usual Hollywood ending, in films like Clerks and Chasing Amy, here the path of Zack and Miri is a predictable one. This is not really a bad thing as the cast are likeable enough that the ending the film has is the one audiences want but is still a little traditional for a Kevin Smith film all the same.

Overall, there is still a lot to like and enjoy about Zack and Miri make a Porno. It is neither Smith nor Rogen’s funniest film to date but is still a solid addition to both their filmographies and future collaborations are welcome and the film also serves as better start to Kevin Smith’s non-Jay & Bob film career than 2004’s Jersey Girl. This is still a very funny film and audiences will be entertained.

Rating: 3/5

W.

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Josh Brolin, James Cromwell & Elizabeth Banks

At best, an average biopic of the most controversial American President since Nixon, but, at worst a disappointing and toothless effort from Oliver Stone, a director known for controversy himself.

On paper, W. (pronounced ‘Dubya’) looks to have the potential to be another classic in the filmography of director Oliver Stone. A biopic of an American President, an unpopular one at that, in a time when the US is embroiled in an unpopular war, which for Stone, who is known for his anti-war films (Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July) and his biopics (JFK, and the scathing Nixon) seems to be the ideal mix of subject matter and timing (with George W. Bush’s presidency in its final months). However, the result is something that is not only unsatisfying as a biopic, but also incredibly disappointing coming from a director such as Stone.

Opening in the White House, with George W. Bush already President and debating the name he and his administration are going to give to the Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan alliance they want to reveal to the American public to aid in their plans to invade Iraq, the tone is somewhat mixed. Perhaps harmed somewhat by the real-life Bush still being in office, perhaps also by the large amount of ridicule he has faced on his actions and demeanour, this opening scene strikes a somewhat humorous (presumably unintentional) tone. While the casting of actors such as Brolin as Bush, Wright as Colin Powell, Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney look the part and certainly go on later in the film to inhabit the personalities of their characters delivering believable performances without merely being caricatures, in this early scene the commitment to the look and demeanour of these characters almost feel like parody. As said, while these roles are developed better later, diving straight into scene such as this so early in the film still mixes the tone of the film. Will W. serve to ridicule George W. Bush? Illuminate his past and his motives? Or will it outright condemn the man? The opening scene, and scenes, leaves this uncertain and by the end of W. the film ultimately fails to do very much of any.

Initially, once Stone starts jumping back into the past to show George W. Bush’s early years, we see many scenes with great potential for the future of the film. Leaping right into Bush’s college years and a fraternity party, we get a glimpse of Bush’s early, fun-loving, responsibility avoiding years. While little of Bush’s past is unknown given the scrutiny he has faced during his Presidency, actually seeing the enactment of Bush as beer-drinking, girl chasing young man who fights, gets arrested and constantly disappoints his father, Bush Sr., is a refreshing change from the Bush audiences have seen in the news these past 8 years. These scenes not only allow Brolin to deliver a more rounded performance as Bush, one that extends beyond looking the part or inhabiting the man’s mannerisms, but also serve to look at the events that helped define how a man who avoided responsibility might ultimately take on the ultimate responsibility and this lies in his relationship with his father.

However, while early scenes between Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. lay promising groundwork for what is to follow, Stone unwisely chooses to make this relationship the primary focus of defining Bush Jr.’s motivations. While it does not, and should not, excuse Bush Jr. of his later mistakes it certainly helps to take away some of his accountability. Skimming by other defining relationships in George W. Bush’s life such as that with his wife Laura (ably performed by Elizabeth Banks but sidelined to a role of supportive wife who keeps her opinions to herself and off screen), with Karl Rove (again performed admirably by Toby Stephens but without insight as to how their relationship developed) and most importantly his relationship with his faith which develops and strengthens all too quickly, we are ultimately left with a man who is driven mainly by Daddy-issues.

Also, Stone’s focus on George W. Bush’s relationship with his father leaves him avoiding the more controversial acts of his Presidency such as his election itself and his actions on 9/11 with more present days scenes taking place post-9/11 and pre-Iraq War as Bush Jr. and his administration look to how they can justify the war with Iraq and Iran the seek to engage in. While many of these scenes display evidence that Stone has lost all his skills for delivering political commentary on his subject matter (Colin Powell is portrayed as a reluctant hero, while Cheney and Rumsfeld are demonised as unsympathetic power-mongers) it rarely digs deep enough or for long enough before veering back to Bush Jr.’s father issues.

Performance-wise, W. does manage to excel. Brolin manages to embody the personality of George W. Bush by showing he can do much more than merely look the part and speak with Bush’s mannerisms. Brolin manages to make Bush Jr. a much more sympathetic character than many could imagine him being while also remaining true to the personality seen in the public eye. In supporting roles we have excellent performances from Toby Stephen’s as Bush’s advisor Karl Rove and from Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, Bush’s Secretary of State. Powell is portrayed as the reluctant, resistant figure to Bush’s actions with Rove the talented spin doctor that helped Bush justify his actions to many. Richard Dreyfuss and Scott Glenn deliver unnerving performances as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the two men judged even more harshly than Bush during his presidency. While they are perhaps portrayed somewhat as caricatures (a little too evil?), given the actions and words of the actual men themselves these performances are nevertheless believable.

Overall, despite occasional moments of insight, of political commentary and despite some generally excellent casting and performances, Stone’s decision to focus too frequently on George W. Bush’s family relationships and not enough on other relationships or on the more controversial decisions he has made and the reasoning behind them result in a very unsatisfying biopic and an even more unsatisfying Oliver Stone film. Perhaps if Stone had waited a few more years to distance himself from the presidency and any critical/audience backlash he may have faced if he openly engaged the subject matter of Bush Jr.’s life while he still held the office of President, then Stone may have made a much more daring and satisfying film. Instead we are left with W., a film as disappointing as the man himself.

Rating: 2/5

Quantum Of Solace

Director: Marc Forster
Starring: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko & Mathieu Amalric

A difficult follow up to the excellent Casino Royale, Daniel Craig’s second outing as Bond has many impressive moments but is held back by its own restraints and owes too much to its predecessor to truly stand out as its own film.

The return of the Bond franchise with Casino Royale in 2006 owes much of its success to the Jason Bourne films as it does to its new Bond (Daniel Craig). The last Pierce Brosnan Bond film, Die Another Day in 2002, came over as too bloated and smug compared to The Bourne Identity released the same year which was a more fast-paced, lean and mean affair. As a result, MGM Studios started the Bond franchise anew. Losing much of the usual Bond trademarks and creating a cooler, meaner Bond with Daniel Craig that was much closer to Ian Fleming’s original creation resulted in Casino Royale which achieved massive, and well deserved, critical and commercial success. With such a success, the follow up would under much pressure to live up to the standard of Casino Royale and subsequent Bourne films (The Bourne Ultimatum in 2007).

The result is Quantum Of Solace which, while maintaining the tone set by Casino Royale, is both entertaining but also frustrating. Starting off strong with a first for a Bond film, in that it is a direct continuation of the previous installment, with an impressive car chase and a sequence where in questioning a subject he reveals a secret organization with people in Bond’s own ranks that turns into a thrilling rooftop chase where Bond, and Craig, step up to show they aren’t afraid of the competition set by Bourne and Matt Damon. However, with such a strong set up for a later conflict, it is shame then that Quantum Of Solace seems content to take its time following lesser villains and their schemes. Having Bond search for the man responsible for the death of his lover, Vesper, from Casino Royale would make for a decent sub-plot, but with the man responsible being revealed to little more than a minor player and the amount of time devoted to the search, by way of bringing down a middleman (Amalric) who plots to buy up land in Bolivia and destabilize its government, results in a film that never really sets out to establish itself a worthy addition to the franchise and rather wraps up loose ends from Casino Royale while setting up events up for the next Bond film.

There are some things to enjoy about Quantum Of Solace, quite a bit in fact. As expected from a Bond film, the action sequences, the stunt work in particular, is excellent. With an opening car chase, rooftop chase, sequences on water and in the air and a literally explosive finally, Quantum Of Solace offers plenty of breathtaking action sequences with minimal obvious CGI (with the exception of an obvious parachuting sequence). In addition to great action and plenty of decent intrigue involving Bond’s initial attempts to investigate the secret group, named Quantum, and his subsequent attempts to avoid his own government as he goes rogue, we also have another strong performance from Daniel Craig as Bond. Keeping with the cold, yet charming Bond he played in Casino Royale, he makes Bond’s efficiency believable while also hinting at the deeper emotional depths of his character that Bond understandably tries to deny.

In addition to Craig as Bond, we have strong support from Judi Dench who reprises her role as M and with Olga Kurylenko who performs admirably as female equivalent to Bond’s emotionally damaged spy, a character who is also seeking her own revenge and is as willing to use Bond and others to get it as Bond himself. In terms of villains, the main villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) is less impressive. Written of early as a middleman who can provide Bond with the identity of Vesper’s killer and also as but one member of the larger Quantum organization, little is done to really establish him as a credible threat to Bond himself. Amalric, while generally a fine actor, also lacks the physical presence of Daniel Craig and thus is unable to compete with Craig when on screen together. Like much of the film, Amalric’s Greene is merely a step on the ladder to a bigger and more dangerous enemy/film in Bond’s future.

Overall, while maintaining an impressive Bond in Craig and offering some very strong action sequences, Quantum Of Solace is too occupied with other Bond films both past and those yet to be, that it struggles to really satisfy or stand alone. It is a film that will entertain for the most part but will be enjoyable at a later date when the next Bond installment is made and its place in the overall scheme is revealed. A solid installment but will ultimately be less memorable than Casino Royale.

Rating: 3/5

Eagle Eye

Director: D.J. Caruso
Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Michelle Monaghan & Billy Bob Thornton

An entertaining thriller that just about makes up for its preposterous plot and lack of originality by delivering plenty of effective thrills and action sequences.

Reuniting director D.J. Caruso and actor Shia LeBeouf, Eagle Eye is a fairly entertaining action thriller that, like the pair’s previous outing Disturbia, takes a Hitchcock-style premise and adapts it for the Blockbuster generation. Where Disturbia was loosely inspired by Hitchcock’s Rear Window, Eagle Eye owes inspiration to Hitchcock’s North By Northwest in its innocent man on the run for something he didn’t commit with a larger conspiracy at play. However, as many a discerning filmgoer can imagine, no-one can match Hitchcock for building and maintaining suspense and while the set up for Eagle Eye is very strong, the execution and resolution is certainly less effective.

Despite some highly enjoyable action sequences (mostly all chase scenes too), the identity of the mastermind behind why copyboy Jerry (LeBeouf) has been framed as a terrorist and driven on the run along with distraught mother Rachel (Monaghan) is built up to be so powerful that much of the plot itself makes no sense until the end and even then still defies much logic. The necessity that Jerry be drawn into the plot the way he is, makes little sense due to how it draws attention to the mastermind’s plans by government agents Morgan (Billy Bob Thornton) and Perez (Rosario Dawson) and even the why as to why Jerry is picked rather than someone else only begins to make sense much later and stretches the plausibility as to how much Jerry and his, recently deceased, brother are/were alike.

Still, despite the need to suspend a lot of disbelief, the already mentioned chase scenes/action sequences are well executed and certain to satisfy fans of the action/thriller genre. In terms of characters, whilst only Jerry is given any real character development of insight into his past, most of the characters serve their purposes and are helped by the performances of the actors playing them. Billy Bob Thornton delivers a good performance as FBI Agent Morgan, Rosario Dawson is able as Agent Perez although has a certainly less developed role than Thornton’s. Michael Chiklis plays against type as a Secretary of Defense that actually seems to care about lives while Michelle Monaghan is strong enough to generate empathy for here character whilst also being forgettable enough as to not distract scenes away from the film’s star Shia LeBeouf. LaBeouf further demonstrates his likeability as a leading man, though this time around his character is somewhat less enjoyable that previous performances which may be due to his usual nervous wisecracking being toned down for this role. However LeBeouf still manages to carry the film well and is also able to point out the various improbabilities in the plot in a way that makes them a little more acceptable.

Overall, while Eagle Eye suffers under its own attempts to deliver a high-tech, modern blockbuster equivalent of a Hitchcock classic, the execution of the action is enjoyable as are the performances. Enjoyable if not particularly memorable, Eagle Eye is a decent enough film provided you are able to suspend your disbelief.

Rating: 3/5

Burn After Reading

Director: Joel & Ethan Coen
Starring: George Clooney, Frances McDormand & Brad Pitt

An entertaining, drama/comedy from the Coen Brothers which is enjoyable but less so than many previous efforts.

After the grim, gritty (and later to be award winning) crime drama of No Country For Old Men, it wasn’t too surprising to find the Coens following this up with something lighter as the Coens followed Blood Simple with Raising Arizona and Fargo with The Big Lebowski. This time around they’ve mixed drama and comedy again for a plot involving the CIA, lost documents, inter-marital affairs and internet dating whilst casting big Hollywood names like George Clooney and Brad Pitt into roles where intelligence rarely applies.

There is plenty to like about Burn After Reading. In true Coen style, the plot takes some unpredictable turns, mixes dark moments of humor and violence and features a strong cast delivering, generally, strong performances. The storyline’s central plot involve a fired CIA analyst (John Malkovich) and a copy of his memoirs that turns up in a local gym where two dim-witted employees (McDormand & Pitt) attempt to blackmail the analyst. Meanwhile, a treasury officer (Clooney) who is having an affair with the analyst’s wife also begins dating McDormand’s character. What occurs as a result is a mixture of mixed signals, paranoia, blackmail and murder. Additionally, as the big picture of what is occurring where and to whom, is seen by no one in particular, there are some amusing asides as we meet two CIA chiefs (lead by J.K. Simmons) trying to make sense of everything that occurs and failing (a sly stab at the actual Intelligence operations of the United States on the behalf of the Coens).

While there is much to enjoy, Burn After Reading also has its problems. For all its characters and the sometimes clever juggling of their storylines, Burn After Reading lacks an identifiable central character with which to root for. Is it Clooney’s womanizing treasury officer? McDormand’s slighty-dim if charming gym employee? Malkovich’s spurned analyst? Is it hard to really say, and with most of the characters bearing more unlikable traits that loveable ones, it is somewhat harder to root for any of them as you would have The Dude in The Big Lebowski or Everett in Oh Brother Where Art Thou?

The cast in Burn After Reading is impressive but also somewhat distracting at times. Clooney is entertaining but seems to have chosen to resurrect the same persona he used in Oh Brother Where Art Thou? and Intolerable Cruelty and, while it helps establish his character as a womanizer and sleaze, it also threatens to undermine some of the more dramatic scenes that occur later in the film. Pitt, too, is entertaining, letting loose as the gym trainer who lacks the mental stamina to match his physical training. Again, Pitt is entertaining but his status in Hollywood means his presence is often amusing but also distracts from the drama at times. More dependable are McDormand, Malkovich and Tilda Swinton (as the analyst’s ice queen wife) who are more well suited to the roles they perform while J.K. Simmons deadpan performance as a CIA chief is one of the film’s most enjoyable.

Overall, Burn After Reading is a good film and should entertain most audiences whilst satisfying most Coen fans, however, coming so soon after No Country For Old Men, and compared to many of the Coens previous efforts, Burn After Reading is also a little disappointing.

Rating: 3/5

Righteous Kill

Director: Jon Avnet
Starring: Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino & John Leguizamo

A fairly predictable, cop-thriller that stands out because of the opportunity to see two great actors, DeNiro and Pacino, work side by side on screen. However, while somewhat enjoyable, the experience does not quite live up the expectations.

In 1995, director Michael Mann made movie history with the crime thriller Heat, which was not only an excellent crime film, but boasted the first, shared, on screen appearances of Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. DeNiro and Pacino, still considered to be two of the finest actors ever produced, received excellent reviews and after an already long wait to see them on screen together, audiences have been waiting for them to reunite again. In 2008, with Righteous Kill, audiences get that reunion only this time, while enjoyable, it doesn’t quite live up to expectations.

In an effort to come up with material worthy of starring both DeNiro and Pacino, Righteous Kill seems to try and be too clever for its own good. After the success of films like The Usual Suspects, Fight Club and The Sixth Sense in the 1990s, all films that had memorable twists in their endings, there have then been many imitators, most of which, sacrificed good stories and good characters for a big twist at the end and trying to capture the success of those films who began the trend. Righteous Kill broadcasts its intentions early on. With a, supposed, confession from one of its lead characters, Righteous Kill then proceeds to throw in additional suspects for the identity of a serial killer hunting criminals. In doing so, it undermines an otherwise interesting beginning that had potential to be a subtle character piece and builds it up for an expected twist that may, or may not come.

While the film takes a somewhat predictable course, there are still the performances of DeNiro and Pacino to enjoy and they are enjoyable. However, both DeNiro and Pacino have seen better days and neither has had the best record of quality films/performance post-Heat that they had pre-Heat. Both DeNiro and Pacino give decent performances in Righteous Kill and they are certainly enjoyable to watch working together onscreen but the flaws in the film’s script denies them the material with which to deliver a truly memorable performance though DeNiro certainly has more scenes and events to work with than Pacino. DeNiro and Pacino are also, ably, supported by John Leguizamo and Donnie Wahberg as fellow detectives, DeNiro’s love interest in the thrill seeking Carla Gugino and Brian Dennehy fills the stereotypical role of grizzled police captain with ease. The supporting roles are performed well enough without distracting from the central performances of DeNiro and Pacino which is the true attraction for audiences.

Overall, fans of DeNiro and Pacino should be happy, if under whelmed, by this second chance to see these two icons sharing screen time but it is a shame that the material is not worthy of either actor, even in their recent, less outstanding periods in their careers. A decent but disappointing thriller.

Rating: 3/5

Taken

Director: Pierre Morel
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace & Famke Janssen

A decent action/thriller that owes most its success to a suitably gritty performance by its star, Liam Neeson.

Taken is another action/thriller from the studios of Luc Besson, but where other efforts have focused on bigger action and featuring less established stars, Taken is a somewhat darker affair and benefits from the lead performance of Liam Neeson, well known as a talented oft-award nominated dramatic actor, who adds much gravitas and credibility to his role as an ex-CIA operative on the hunt for his kidnapped daughter.

The plot of Taken is fairly straight forward, an ex-CIA operative (Neeson), estranged from his ex-wife and daughter, finds his daughter kidnapped while in France leaving him with days to use his skills to locate her or lose her forever. With a lesser known actor, or one with less experience in drama, the abilities and weariness that Neeson infuses the character of Bryan with, might have come across as too forced or unbelievable but, with the credibility that an actor like Neeson brings and the decision to keep the action sequences smaller (i.e. guns but kept close quarters and with few explosions) adds to a genuine feeling of danger and of Bryan’s desperation.

Neeson is excellent choice to play Taken’s lead role, able to add feeling into his character’s expressions and body language to support the dialogue. In supporting roles there are decent, if one-dimensional, performances from Famke Janssen as Bryan’s bitter ex-wife and Maggie Grace as Bryan’s good natured, if spoilt daughter. However, while Taken has a strong hero/anti-hero in Liam Neeson, it is not so well served in the villain department. With no overall mastermind to the operation that kidnaps girls abroad, including Bryan’s daughter, we are left with many, faceless, goons working in various operations. All are dubiously portrayed as ‘foreigners’ (Eastern European or Arab) exploiting young women which, while also somewhat morally unethical, leaves no real impact as Neeson’s Bryan works his way through them one, or a few, at a time.

So, while the performance from Neeson is enjoyable, as is the execution of several action sequences, the overall storyline is less satisfying in its lack of ambition or originality. The dialogue is also somewhat lacking, with only Neeson getting any decent moments to deliver memorable speeches.

Overall, while not particularly original or memorable, Taken is still worthwhile entertainment if only for the strong performance of Liam Neeson who makes an unlikely yet enjoyable action hero.

Rating: 3/5

Appaloosa

Director: Ed Harris
Starring: Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen & Renee Zellweger

A decent, if unambitious, Western that offers some decent scenes and performances but it is a little too laid back for its own good.

There is nothing really bad to say about Appaloosa, the western adapted by Ed Harris from the Robert B. Parker novel, but there is also nothing particularly great or memorable about Appaloosa either. When viewing Ed Harris’ adaptation (in which he also stars), there is almost the feeling that this is a period Harris himself would like to have lived in as he and his co-star, Viggo Mortensen, take a laid back approach to their characters and their tale. This laid back atmosphere results in some of Appaloosa’s strong moments such as the casual witticisms exchanged between its two leads but also contributes to the film’s weaknesses, in that, when something important does occur in the film’s story, it is over quickly and our characters are soon back to sitting on the porch of their office. At first this feels somewhat refreshing, a natural, realistic approach to confrontations by two men who’ve seen a lot and are too weary of it to give it much energy but as the lengthy runtime continues on, it contributes to the feeling that not enough occurs in the film to keep your attention.

The characterization in Appaloosa is fairly strong. Little real details is given on the backgrounds or motivations of any of its characters with most willing to describe themselves as experienced guns for hire and allowing audiences to come to its own conclusions. The interplay between characters though is quite strong, especially between Harris and Mortensen and, even though these are men of few words, the sense of a shared history is strong and believable with the already mentioned humor between the two being one of the film’s strengths. Jeremy Irons and Lance Henriksen appear as villain and competing gunman respectively and likewise feel suited to their roles while Timothy Spall leads a group of three bumbling town elders as a sort of comic relief with mixed results.

However, Renee Zellweger’s performance as Allie, the woman who comes to Appaloosa and turns many heads, has the toughest role in the film playing the somewhat flirtatious Allie who will cast a seductive glance the way of whichever man is best suited to look after her needs. Zellweger’s performance is a decent one, portraying Allie’s flaws quite well but is less convincing in demonstrating what makes her character worth the attentions of Harris and Mortensen’s gunmen.

Overall, Appaloosa is an average western. The performances are good though not particularly memorable and the storyline plods along at too sedate a pace, but there is some enjoyment to be had in its dry humor and in the relationship between its two lead characters.

Rating: 3/5

Tropic Thunder

Director: Ben Stiller
Starring: Ben Stiller, Jack Black & Robert Downey Jr

An entertaining, OTT comedy satirizing Hollywood and the war movie genre with jokes that, thankfully, hit more than they miss.

Ben Stiller returns to the director’s chair for Tropic Thunder with all the OTT sensibility that made Zoolander so entertaining but with a far bigger budget. The budget is put to good use, this being a send up of war films, with huge explosions, gunfire and helicopters. Tropic Thunder is certainly one of the most impressive looking comedies of recent years. The comedy however is a mixed bunch. Tropic Thunder works best when it is satirizing the conventions of the Hollywood industry (especially Hollywood agents), helped significantly by several inspired casting decisions.

Stiller himself stars as action star Tugg Speedman, looking for a big hit after a recent attempt at ‘serious’ acting backfires (a hilarious, if controversial stab at Hollywood’s admiration for acting roles involving characters with disabilities). Stiller is entertaining as Speedman, though his role is very familiar to many he has played before playing a dim-witted, machismo fuelled movie-star who refuses to believe, when he and his co-stars find themselves in an actual war-zone, that his reality is anything other than a movie set prepared for his benefit. His commitment to this character helps make his character’s commitment to his reality more entertaining as a result. However, while Stiller is the star, he is outperformed by several other performances.

Robert Downey Jr gives a stand out performance as Kirk Lazarus, a multi-award winning actor, whose commitment to character involves him having his skin surgically dyed to play the role of a black Sergeant. The role itself is hilarious, avoiding offending African-Americans by satirizing how far some actors go to get into character and helped by having African-American actor Brandon T Jackson play another actor to point out the ridiculous lengths Lazarus has gone too. Downey Jr plays the role with confidence and conviction, perhaps satirizing his own commitment to playing a method actor. Another stand out performance is an, initially uncredited, appearance by Tom Cruise as top Hollywood producer Les Grossman. Cruise, almost unrecognizable with a bald-cap and fat suit, seems to relish in the opportunity to play the foul-mouthed, power-crazed producer with scenes involving threatening heroin dealers and dancing to rap music amongst the film’s highlights. Tropic Thunder also has strong support in smaller roles from Matthew McConaughey as Speedman’s over-earnest agent, Steve Coogan as Tropic Thunder’s suffering (in one scene literally) director, Nick Nolte as a gruff former P.O.W. and Jay Baruchel as a young, rookie actor who is perhaps the film’s most sane character and it’s heart.

Unfortunately, between the superb performances from Downey Jr and Cruise and the headlining antics of Stiller, Jack Black is sidelined for most of the film and provides moat of Tropic Thunder’s least entertaining gags. Playing a low-brow comedy star on drugs, Black is reduced to a mainly one-note performance playing it twitchy and providing the film with fart and toilet jokes whenever required. With little else to do and many other, more impressive, performances in the film, Black is often an unwelcome presence when he is able to make an impression at all. This is perhaps a casualty of Stiller cramming too many ideas and gags into Tropic Thunder than it can handle. While there are many great gags and inspired scenes and set pieces, Stiller also over-extends himself on some occasions. Tropic Thunder is perhaps 30 minutes too long with gags involving Speedman’s past performance as a mentally-disabled farm-boy becoming excessive and several scenes between Speedman’s capture by Heroin dealers and his rescue that are unnecessary and less funny.

Overall, Tropic Thunder is certainly very funny. Worth seeing for Robert Downey Jr and Tom Cruise’s performances alone, the film also boasts some very funny action scenes and plenty of successful jokes at the expense of Hollywood. Jack Black might be wasted and the film overlong, but Tropic Thunder is still very entertaining.

Rating: 3/5

Pineapple Express

Director: David Gordon Green
Starring: Seth Rogen, James Franco & Danny McBride

Reuniting Seth Rogen with his Freaks & Geeks co-star James Franco, and Superbad co-writer Even Goldberg, results in Pineapple Express, a truly funny and unique twist on the buddy/action movie.

There have been many films that have starred drug-smoking lead characters, Cheech & Chong and Harold & Kumar all being examples. All of these films though have been screwball comedies with little ambition beyond making as many drug-fuelled gags as possibly, usually with actual story content and characterization being of secondary concern. Trust Seth Rogen, star, writer and producer of hit comedies such as Superbad and Knocked Up. Taking his laid back, likeable loser persona and placing him a storyline that finds more comedy in the effects of weed on its users and filtering it through an action/thriller plotline that also exposes the humor to be found in the conventions of the action genre (much like the film Hot Fuzz) and still manages to include a genuine and touching tale about friendship between Rogen’s likeable loser and his well meaning drug-dealer played by James Franco.

While directed by David Gordon Green, an independent director not known for comedies but for introspective character pieces, Pineapple Express is nevertheless a very funny comedy/action film that likely owes most of its success to its star’s, Seth Rogen, talents as a writer and comedic actor. David Gordon Green is known for getting good performances from his actors though so his presence is likely more felt in the development of the supporting cast and in also providing a more grounded perspective that allows this ‘stoner’ action film to feel more true to life an not straying so far into OTT situations that the story can’t find its way back to its characters.

While not going into the histories of its characters or giving many of them chances to develop on screen, Green nevertheless, with help from Rogen & Goldberg’s script, breathes life into most of the film’s characters including minor ones, through half mentioned comments of past shared experiences and mannerisms that demonstrate the kind of comfortability people develop with others over time. Henchmen, Matheson & Budlofsky (Robinson & Corrigan) demonstrate as much shared history and chemistry as lead characters Dale (Rogen) and Saul (Franco) and even the film’s villain, drug Kingpin Ted (Gary Cole) takes time to joke around with his partner in crime (Rosie Perez) after talking business. The care taken to subtly flesh out its cast elevate Pineapple Express above the average ‘stoner’ and action comedy making most characters a pleasure to watch rather than merely performing to type and filling screen-time between scenes starring its film’s stars. Pineapple Express also benefits from a strong cast with roles and cameos featuring veteran actors such as Gary Cole, Nora Dunn and Ed Begley Jr and its lead actors, Seth Rogen and James Franco, demonstrate great chemistry developed from their previous collaboration on TV series Freaks & Geeks. While Rogen entertains with his usual likeable onscreen persona, James Franco really impresses as perpetually stoned, yet good at heart, drug dealer Saul. Franco, who has usually played straight and serious lead roles in films such as Annapolis and the Spider-man films and often suffering in comparison to his co-stars who have more interesting and charismatic roles, Pineapple Express feels like it has provided Franco with the opportunity to free himself from stereotype and actually have some fun on screen and demonstrate the skills for comedy he possessed as a TV actor that he has been unable to show in his big-screen roles to date.

In addition to finding comedy in the clumsy attempts of its stoned lead characters attempting to escape a drug kingpin after Rogen witnesses a murder and leaving evidence behind to link himself and Saul (Franco) to the incident, also finds comedy in subverting action movie clichés as our two leads, having seen many action films and television shows themselves, find situations rarely going to plan. Pineapple Express also being a film starring and co-written by Rogen, a lot of comedy is found in the witty dialogue, much of it ad-libbed and most (though not quite all) generating strong laughs. The moments of fake attempts at machismo between Dale (Rogen) and Saul’s friend Red (McBride) in particular are highlights of ad-libbing leading to hysterical and unpredictable lines and put-downs.

However, because the cast are so good at portraying just how likeable and inept its lead characters are, it ultimately means the climax of the film suffers slightly at how well Dale and Saul are able to solve their predicament relying too much, perhaps, on dumb luck. While the ending does have some moments of predictability, brought on by the required and inevitable ‘happy ending’, even the climax is filled with successful jokes and sight gags that it still remains satisfying.

Overall, Rogen, with help from his director, co-star Franco and co-writer Goldberg, manage to blend action movie and stoner comedy together with much success resulting in a film that certainly entertains on many levels.

Rating: 4/5

RocknRolla

Director: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Gerard Butler, Mark Strong & Tony Kebbell

After the critical and commercial failures of Swept Away and Revolver, Guy Ritchie is back, returning to his roots but with added confidence and maturity. The result is RocknRolla, possible his best film to date.

While some critics and audiences might be quick to dismiss RocknRolla as Guy Ritchie taking the easy option of returning to the genre that originally brought him success, after two box-office failures and accusations of losing his way after achieving fame and fortune, those critics are going to miss out on a very good crime caper. RocknRolla isn’t so much about the kind of gangsters seen in Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch, but it does deal with dodgy dealers and small time crooks involved in the kind of complex story of interweaving plotlines that Ritchie is known for and comfortable with. However, while there is humor, this time around Ritchie has dropped the cheeky, somewhat smug, tone of his earlier films and the glamorized violence for something that feels altogether more grown up, possibly like Ritchie himself.

The plot, more relevant to today than that of Ritchie’s previous efforts, deals with back door property dealings, rich foreign investors, a few small time crooks caught in the middle and a, presumed dead, rock star living the rockstar (dubbed ‘RocknRolla’) lifestyle. After scamming two ex-crooks, One-Two & Mumbles (Butler & Elba), out of money who wanted to get onto the property investment ladder, and with an eye to likewise scamming a rich Russian investor also looking for land deals, underworld property dealer Lenny (Wilkinson) and his right hand man Archie (Strong) find themselves in a predicament when the investor’s money is stolen as is the ‘lucky painting’ the investor left in Lenny’s care. From here develops a number of plotlines involving dodgy accountants, Russian hit-men, Lenny’s rockstar step-son Johnny Quid (Kebbell), an informer turning members of the cast in to the police and plenty of memorable characters and performances.

Ritchie seems to be back on form with RocknRolla, juggling the many plotlines and characters but with more focus with humor occurring naturally from events in the plot rather than distracting from it and also leading to some interesting twists, turns and moments of philosophy. While RocknRolla is an improvement on his earlier efforts, there are a few elements that that demonstrate Ritchie’s tendency to let his ambition overcome him as there are certainly a few characters, while pleasant, that are surplus to requirements (Piven & Bridges band managers) and the ending wraps up a little too nicely and consequence light as Ritchie sets things up for a sequel (Ritchie has expressed an interest in making a trilogy involving RocknRolla’s cast and characters) but the film is still a very satisfying affair and one that re-establishes Ritchie potential to be one of Britain’s top directors.

RocknRolla also boats an impressive cast. Gerard Butler (300) is entertaining as lead character One-Two, an accomplished, if somewhat naïve, crook who further builds upon his leading man potential here and has strong support from Idris Elba (TV’s The Wire) and Tom Hardy as his friends Mumbles and Handsome Bob, the latter of which has an interesting and entertaining relationship develop with Butler’s One-Two. Also sharing the spotlight, and narrating RocknRolla, is Mark Strong (Stardust) as Archie, the number two man to Wilkinson’s underworld boss and a man who has been in the game long enough to see most of the angles. Strong delivers a good performance, one that acts as the balance between all the other characters and plotlines. Tom Wilkinson relishes in his chance to chew the scenery as Lenny, the underworld boss, likely the only character that occasionally veers towards caricature, and Thandie Newton provides the necessary sex appeal as the accountant that hires One-Two to rob her Russian investor client and helps kick start the escalating events of the film’s storyline. Finally, and standing out from the rest of the cast, is Tony Kebbell (Dead Man’s Shoes) as rockstar Johnny Quid, stepson of Lenny and presumed dead while in hiding and high on drugs. Kebbell gives an impressive performance taking shots at modern day rockstars such as Pete Doherty, while also demonstrating more intelligence and personality, waxing philosophical with regularity, even when under the influence of drugs than a whole rehab centre full of rockstars could accomplish combined.

Overall, RocknRolla is a very good film. With more confident direction and some excellent performances, it is Ritchie’s best film to date and will, hopefully, help calm the critics and make audiences as eager to see his next film as they were when Ritchie first made his directorial debut.

Rating: 4/5

Step Brothers

Director: Adam McKay
Starring: Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly & Richard Jenkins

Will Ferrell reunites with fellow Talladega Nights director, McKay and co-star Reilly for an amusing comedy about sibling rivalry between two, immature, 40 years olds with much success.

How much enjoyment you get out of Step Brothers depends greatly on how much you like Will Ferrell’s man-child persona or John C. Reilly’s recent conversion from drama to comedy. If you’re not a fan of either then this film is likely not for you. If you are a fan then this will entertain and is of a much higher quality than some of Ferrell’s more recent efforts (Semi Pro and Blades of Glory) due to the chemistry between Ferrell and Reilly and with the supporting cast of Richard Jenkins (TVs Six Feet Under) and Mary Steenburgen as their parents.

Ferrell plays Brennan and Reilly plays Dale. Both a 40 year olds that never learned how to grow; Both stayed home, living with their parents and living off their charity but, when their parents meet and decide to get married, Brennan and Dale find themselves thrust together under one roof when see their lack of achievements reflected in their counterparts, and with the threat of losing their easy lives when their problems are highlighted to their parents forces these step-brothers to abandon their hate-hate relationship and unite. However, neither brother having learned how to fend for themselves, find their shared resources still amount to very little.

The comedy, while usually following similar methods despite changing intentions, is frequently amusing. Watching two grown men behaving and fighting like children has its moments of hilarity, though there are occasional gags that fall flat such as a repeating gag involving sleepwalking habits, but most succeed due also to their sheer lunacy (one testicle gag in particular generated a lot of laughs). There is are also amusing confrontations with a third brother, Brennan’s younger brother, Derek (Adam Scott) whose success and independence humiliates Brennan and Dales failures all the more even to the extent that Derek is able to conduct a family rendition of Guns N Roses hit “Sweet Child O’ Mine.” The efforts of the brothers, once they end their rivalry, to find jobs while prevent the selling of their home by their parents also entertains with many gags at the expense on the brother’s ineptness. A temporary change in tone for the third act though slows the gag rate down as the brothers are forced to accept reality and grow up which leads to a predictable resolution to their problems, including reuniting their parents who split over their attitudes to having 40 years old sons living at home, but there are still some worthy moments of laughter.

While Ferrell and Reilly perform to type, the supporting cast are of a high quality. Mary Steenburgen is particularly impressive, not known for appearing in comedies, least of all the type that Ferrell produces; she delivers a warm, charming performance as the boys’ mother and is likewise well supported by Richard Jenkins as their father who gives an amusing performance as a man frustrated by his sons’ ineptness. Most impressive is Adam Scott as the ultra-successful younger brother Derek who more than manages to hold his own when sharing scenes with Ferrell and Reilly.

Overall, this is a comedy that succeeds on the likeability of its stars and their ability to play to the kind of physical comedy that they are skilled in. While the plot itself is less impressive and the third act a little too slow and laughter free, the success rate of the gags in the rest of the film and the strong supporting cast make Step Brothers a superior addition to Ferrell’s comedy catalogue.

Rating: 4/5