The Hurt Locker

Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie & Brian Geraghty

A taut and effective war-time thriller that wisely abandons most of the political overtones that have driven other war films addressing the military actions in the Middle East and focusing on the effect the war has on those troops entrenched in the actual warfare itself.

With many films having been made post 9/11 and after the start of the US led military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, most films have chosen to focus on the politics that have led to such campaigns and that drive them or have, instead, focused on the emotional aftermath to both the soldiers involved in the campaigns, ala 1980s The Deer Hunter, and upon the lives of the indigent populations of the countries involved. Where The Hurt Locker differs from such films is that it almost ignore the politics of the situation altogether instead diving straight into the action following the lives of three soldiers, bomb disposal experts, fight in Iraq and showing the day to day dangers and tensions that they face. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, a director known for examining the male psyche through action thrillers such as Point Break or living in male dominated professions such as Blue Steel, she is an ideal choice for directing The Hurt Locker and the result is a very tense film that feels surprisingly honest in its depiction of the experiences of its characters.

Having lost their previous sergeant to an explosive device that was detonated before they could disarm it, Sanborn (Mackie) and Eldridge (Geraghty) are dealing with the loss and with the very real prospects that they too could die before their tour of duty ends. When their new sergeant arrives, the risk-taking, cocky James (Renner) the tension in Sanborn and Eldridge’s already stressed lives is driven higher.

Whilst light in actual plot, going almost from one bomb disposal scene to the next with the stakes rising higher with each undertaking, and also light on heavy handed undertaking (little philosophising is made by the three lead characters and few glimpses given of their lives pre-Iraq), it could be easy to dismiss The Hurt Locker on a cursory glance as being a war-time action film with little added depth. However, Bigelow instead choosing to represent her character’s day to day lives under pressure without the added commentary adds an extra layer of authenticity to the events portrayed along with the handheld camera/cinema verite style of cinematography meaning there are many occasions where you feel drawn into the action. It also helps that there are several gripping scenes of tension when the characters are called upon to disarm a bomb. The tension of the situation, of disarming an explosive device without activating it, is heightened by the location being Iraq and the added danger of insurgents being present to attack any soldiers who attempt to disarm their devices. The very real feelings of paranoia that might occur within a soldier’s life in those situations is brought to the fore as the camera often glances quickly from one face in the crowd to the next, where any person could be a potential insurgent waiting to strike.

The Hurt Locker also features some very satisfying casting. In addition to Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes and David Morse appearing in smaller, supporting roles, the film rests mostly upon its three leads. Each of the three roles and performances seem to embody different reactions to war. Anthony Mackie gives a good performance as Sanborn, the soldier for whom the things he has faced has made him weary and frustrated. Brian Geraghty is suitably nervous as the Eldridge, the soldier who is growing increasingly fearful over his chances of survival after witnessing the loss of fellow soldiers and for whom the attitudes and actions of Renner’s James serves to heighten. The most memorable performance though is Renner as the reckless new sergeant James, whose cocksure attitude reveals a personality addicted to the adrenalin that being in such high stakes situations that his job role provides, satisfies. The Hurt Locker begins with a quote stating that for some “War is a drug” and in James, this can be seen and understood as James finds a thrill and a meaning to his life in protecting his fellow soldiers that his life back in America could not fulfil.

Overall, The Hurt Locker is an impressive film with many gripping scenes filled with suspense and some impressive and naturalistic performances from its three main leads. It may not provide audiences with explicit answers as to what drives soldiers living in such situations and sometimes does feel somewhat gung-ho in the presentation of their heroics but the film offers enough understanding to feel what they feel and that adds to the tension. Impressive.

Rating: 4/5

Funny People

Director: Judd Apatow
Starring: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen & Leslie Mann

An enjoyable film and Judd Apatow’s most mature effort to date raising the drama to balance out the humour and for the first half it mostly successful, but at almost 2 & ½ hours, Funny People loses its way some in the second half, detracting from the film’s overall success.

Making a career out writing and directing television and films that exploits humour from situations relating to his own life, Judd Apatow has covered high school (TV’s Freaks & Geeks), university (Undeclared), sex (The 40 Year Old Virgin) and parenthood (Knocked Up) and has also frequently employed his own friends to perform and launching the careers of actors such as Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and Jason Segal. Apatow is now a big name in comedy and so his latest film, Funny People, deals in part with celebrity and comedy but also confronts feelings upon death. The result is a film that feels very personal, manages to be very funny and demonstrates a lot more maturity than has been seen yet in an Apatow production however the film is also somewhat flawed with Apatow trying to cover too much leaving the second half of the film a little directionless and overlong.

George Simmons (Sandler) is a successful comedian. Having left the stand up circuit and now a famous film star, he is slowly coming to realise his life has not been that great since he found success and that he has very few people in his life that care about when he is confronted with the news that he has a fatal illness. When choosing to vent his frustrations in a surprise stand up performance he meets Ira Wright (Rogen), a struggling stand up comedian whose routine hasn’t taken off like those of his housemates Leo (Jonah Hill) and Mark (Jason Schwartzman). George however reaches out to Ira, initially hiring him to write him jokes for future routines before confiding in Ira that he is dying. Encouraged to reconnect with old friends and family, George finds his feelings rekindled for his ex-fiancé Laura (Mann) which only increases when he receives news that he may be recovering but desire to reconnect with Laura and his relationship with Ira are both threatened by the fact that Laura is now married with children and George still isn’t that nice a person anymore.

Having been college roommates with Adam Sandler in his youth, using actual home videos of the two together from that period to start the film, looking back at their beginnings, and having Sandler star in Funny People gives Apatow’s new film a feeling of being more true to life than any of Apatow’s previous films. The main character of George, being a stand up comedian turned successful movie star starring in many commercial if immature movies almost gives the feeling that George’s story could actually be Sandler’s (almost mocking some of Sandler’s own efforts and those of similar comedy stars such as Eddie Murphy who have moved towards duller, more non-threatening material). Meanwhile Ira’s story somewhat mimics Rogen’s life as an amateur comedian who is taken under the wing of someone more successful (as Rogen has found in Apatow) and finds himself discovering his own potential. For most of the film, George’s pain and general bitterness in relation to Ira’s nervousness and good will makes for an effective and often funny balance of drama and comedy however, the film begins to lose its way once George finds himself recovering and wanting to pursue the girl who got away in his youth which pushes the film towards more travelled ground and the film begins to wander without a clear intention of where it will lead based on the relative likeability of Laura, her husband (Eric Bana) and her children and the unlikeability of George. Stretching the plot out too much, the second half is less satisfactory than the first.

Featuring the usual who’s who of Apatow’s previous work, Funny People certainly benefits from such casting decisions this time around. For a film that is near auto-biographical at times, the casting of friends such as Sandler, Rogen, Hill and Apatow’s own wife Mann works well. Adam Sandler puts in an impressive performance as George Simmons, foregoing the OTT hysterics he often employs in his own films and instead giving a more restrained performance as the bitter George. Rogen is likeable as Ira, still possessing the loveable loser charm he perfected in Knocked Up and faring well against Sandler. Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman add enjoyable support to Rogen has his flatmates, Hill the slightly neurotic Leo and Schwartzman the narcissistic Mark, star of his own sit-com. Mann holds her own very well amongst the men as Laura, leaving the bitchiness behind of her earlier Apatow-written roles in favour of someone with more sense and heart and Eric Bana appears to relish returning to his comedy roots after years of drama even though his role is part of what feels like a different movie to Funny People’s first hour.

Funny People is more of a drama than a comedy but when it is funny it is very funny. Feeling very personal to both the director, Apatow, and its stars Sandler and Rogen the film is certainly more mature than Apatow’s earlier films but the film does run too long and loses some of the direction and wit of the film’s first hour as it moves into its second half. An enjoyable if flawed film, but one that shows lots of potential for those involved and still satisfying.

Rating: 3/5

Broken Embraces

Director: Pedro Almodovar
Starring: Penelope Cruz, Lluis Homar & Jose Luis Gomez

Yet another enjoyable drama from Almodovar though, whilst enjoyable, it is not quite as satisfying as previous efforts since much of the film feels somewhat derivative of earlier films from Almodovar’s career.

Always concerned with themes of love, death and family, Pedro Almodovar’s latest film embraces them all along with themes of the redeeming power of cinema in Broken Embraces. Reunited with his frequent leading lady, Penelope Cruz, Almodovar’s latest effort is fairly satisfying and certainly entertaining and more so than many other filmmakers are able to accomplish however, the film also feels a little too much like an assemblage of characters, scenes and themes from his own earlier, and superior films such as Bad Education, All About My Mother and Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown and feels less satisfactory in comparison to those films for those that have seen them.

In 2008 Harry Caine (Homar), a former film writer and director now just a screenwriter, is coping with blindness and making a living writing less personal, and satisfactory, scripts. When he is approached by a young director calling himself Ray X (Ruben Ochandiano) who wishes to make a film about a homosexual boy getting revenge upon his father that he wishes Harry to write, Harry realises Ray is the son of recently deceased businessman Ernesto Martel (Gomez) whom Harry had encountered 15 years before. In 1993, Lena is an aspiring actress placed into a relationship with Martel who pays for her dying father’s medical expenses. When Lena (Cruz) gets the opportunity to star in a film by Mateo Blanco, Martel becomes obsessed over her fidelity when she sparks up a relationship with Blanco, Blanco who will one day be known as Harry Caine.

With a shifting narrative taking place between two time periods similar to Almodovar’s Bad Education in 2004, allowing for the story to unfold partly as a mystery as the events of the past are revealed to explain the circumstances of the present yet still with consequences for the future, Broken Embraces has a satisfying story with which to engage its audience which it accomplishes successfully. Along with well developed characters where even supporting roles are given moments to live and grow outside of the confines of what is required to forward the plot making them all three dimensional characters and, of course, featuring Almodovar’s flair for rich, colourful visuals where even wallpaper appears sensual, all the ingredients are present for a typical Almodovar film. It is however, there, that lays the problem. So much of Broken Embraces evokes memories of Almodovar’s earlier films especially the film-within-a-film ‘Girls With Suitcases’ that Mateo Blanco is directing in the 1990s sequences which is inspired by Almodovar’s own 1988 film Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. While part of this is an intentional wink to audiences familiar with his work, other aspects such as themes of death and illness (similar to that of All About My Mother) and the appearances of familiar Almodovar collaborators amongst the cast, particularly Cruz, often gives the feeling that much has been done before and better. Broken Embraces is still very satisfying even for more experienced audiences helped by the performances of its actors and the interest of its central storyline, that of Mateo/Harry and Lena’s ill-fated romance.

Broken Embraces benefits from some excellent performances from its cast. Whilst Penelope Cruz gets top billing and prominence in publicity materials for the film, it is Lluis Homar who is the film’s star and he carries the film very well. Playing two different versions of the same character, the younger and more passionate Mateo of the 1990s and the damaged, but not dispirited, Harry of 2008, Homar believably distinguishes between the two roles whilst also making them believably the same person. Sensitive and passionate and narrating his past with mixed emotions of love and pain, Homar is the heart of the story and the film. Cruz however is still impressive and whilst not playing a character as charming as her role in Volver and rather playing a character that is rarely seen outside of her relationships with Mateo and Martel, she still draws the right amount, and kind, of attention. Martel is played with subdued rage and obsession by Jose Luis Gomez whose performance appears restrained but hints at deeper emotion and Homar gets strong support from Blanca Portillo as his loyal and suffering assistant Judith and by Tamar Novas as her son Diego.

Overall, Broken Embraces is strong, enjoyable drama, romance and mystery which will satisfy audiences and Almodovar fans with its rich visuals and characters but, with film feeling inspired by many of his previous efforts, Broken Embraces is an Almodovar film that might satisfy the appetite of his fans but doesn’t offer enough to truly impress.

Rating: 3/5

Inglourious Basterds

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent & Christoph Waltz

Tarantino’s WWII film is far more fun than any war film has a right to be. It might not rank up amongst Tarantino’s best films but it is highly enjoyable and features some impressive performances and moments of real tension.

Originally planned to be Tarantino’s next film after completing Jackie Brown in 1997, Inglourious Basterds has been long in development. With many rumours over the years regarding casting (the film was originally intended to star Michael Madsen with names such as Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy amongst those rumoured to have been cast), the Inglourious Basterds now being released is far different than what might have been imagined a decade before. With Brad Pitt the only member of the cast that is easily recognisable, the film itself, its story and structure are different than what might have been expected of Tarantino if made pre-Kill Bill. The resulting film though, while perhaps not living up to such heady expectations, is nevertheless highly enjoyable laced with humour, Tarantino’s usual flair for catchy dialogue and violence whilst also including some of the most tense sequences the director has ever filmed and featuring some memorable performances from its main cast.

The Basterds are a special forces unit lead by Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt) and consisting of Jewish soldiers with a mission to slaughter as many Nazis in occupied France as possible whilst scalping and disfiguring the corpses to put fear into the hearts of other Nazi soldiers. The Basterds soon become involved in Allied plot to kill most of the Nazi high command when it is learned that they will be attending the première of Goebbels latest propaganda film in Paris and must liaise with a German actress turned spy named Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger). Meanwhile Emmanuelle (Laurent) is a Jewish cinema owner in Paris concealing her identity after her family was slaughtered by Nazis years before. When Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), a Nazi soldier/actor with an interest in Emmanuelle, convinces Goebbels to launch his film premiere at Emmanuelle’s cinema, Emmanuelle plots her own revenge against the Nazis at the premiere. The plots of both Emmanuelle and the Basterds though face an obstacle in an infamous Nazi soldier/detective named Hans Landa (Waltz), known as the “Jew Hunter” who was responsible for the death of Emmanuelle’s family and is now leading the security for the premiere in which Hitler will also be in attendance.

Employing the same storytelling structure of chapters and chapter cards that he started in Kill Bill Vol 1, Tarantino brings the same novelistic approach to Inglourious Basterds. The approach works quite well as, in spite of the film’s title, the story of the film is as much Waltz’s Landa’s and Laurent’s Emmanuelle’s as it is about Pitt’s Raine and his team. With the chapters developing each character’s storyline almost back and forth, the various threads weave together for one final chapter where the build up throughout the film erupts in violence and death. The opening chapter to Inglourious Basterds is, perhaps, the film’s most memorable and filled with tension as the multi-lingual Landa, uses his various language skills to have a conversation with a farmer who may be harbouring Jews on his land. Keeping the farmer and the audience on edge with a mixture of natural charisma and mounting unease as he moves from humorous to serious gradually, and effectively, builds Landa up to more menacing and complex than the usual Nazis portrayed on screen. In comparison to Landa, Raine and his Basterds are almost cartoon caricatures. Committed to the killing and torturing of Nazis without mercy, few outside Pitt’s Raine, Eli Roth’s “Bear Jew” and Til Schweiger’s Hugo Stiltz get much screen time, let alone dialogue. Their gung-ho attitudes, Raine’s Tennessee drawl and the surprisingly enjoyable balance of violence and humour in their characters and actions makes their scenes very enjoyable though it is Landa and Emmanuelle’s stories which are the most gripping. Emmanuelle’s story is the most emotionally involving of the film, aided by a winning performance by Laurent, as her anger, her need for revenge is keenly felt as is her fears, particularly of those involving Landa. A scene involving Landa and Emmanuelle talking over dessert is as tense as the film’s opening since Tarantino had effectively established the danger lying beneath Landa’s charming, overly casual demeanour and Emmanuelle’s pain is stirring. Not everything in Inglourious Basterds does work however. Tarantino’s depiction of Hitler in the film crosses too far into farcical and the lack of development of the Basterds themselves makes them hard to truly engage with beyond a humorous level though the final minute of the film where Raine exacts a bit of vengeance will generate cheers of approval.

Of the film’s performances, it is Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent that most impress. Both get to play complex characters and both actors are able to deliver layered performances. Laurent especially should move audiences with her pain and her plight while Waltz manages to be equally likeable and despisable even within the same scene. Both are actors whose performances mark them as talents to watch out for in the future. Brad Pitt is very clearly enjoying himself on screen as Aldo Raine and such enjoyment is keenly felt making his performance very likeable while Kruger puts in a very decent performance as Bridget von Hammersmark while Michael Fassbender personifies British ‘stiff upper lip’ as Archie Hilcox. Daniel Bruhl effectively balances likability and creepiness in his performance as the Nazi/actor Frederick Zoller and Eli Roth and Til Schweiger stand out the most memorably of the little seen and little developed Basterds under Raine’s command.

Overall, Inglourious Basterds might not be Tarantino’s best film or even live up to the expectations that have been built for the film over the last decade but it is certainly very enjoyable. Tarantino makes the film far more enjoyable than any WWII has a right to be whilst mixing in some truly tense scenes and includes some very memorable performances from Waltz, Laurent and Pitt. Tarantino fans especially should enjoy the film.

Rating: 4/5

A Perfect Getaway

Director: David Twohy
Starring: Steve Zahn, Milla Jovovich & Timothy Olyphant

An entertaining thriller with a better than average cast though with a third act twist that fails to live up to the suspense leading up to it yet still enjoyable.

After achieving success, both critically and commercially, in 2000 with the low-budget Sci-Fi film Pitch Black, which also launched the career of Vin Diesel, director David Twohy has since failed to truly live up to the potential he displayed in his debut for crafting effective thrillers. With the little seen thriller Below, in 2002, and the Box-Office flop of the big budget sequel to Pitch Black, The Chronicles of Riddick, in 2004 Twohy has finally returned to film after a five year absence with the effective if unimpressive thriller A Perfect Getaway.

Cliff (Zahn) and Cydney (Jovovich) are a newly-married couple on their honeymoon hiking in Hawaii. After avoiding picking up a pair of hitchhikers, Cleo and Kale (Chris Hemsworth and Marley Shelton), Cliff and Cydney arrive at the beginning of the hiking trail and after some assistance from a fellow hiker named Nick (Olyphant), they learn about the murder of a married couple on another Hawaiian island with the suspects being a couple, a man and a woman. Finding Nick is travelling with his girlfriend Gina (Kiele Sanchez) and isn’t shy about demonstrating his Special Forces experience along the trail, Cliff and Cydney are immediately suspicious though the arrival of Cleo and Kale on the trail adds further suspects. Fearing that they may be in the presence of the killers from the other island, Cliff and Cydney continue the trail in Nick and Gina’s company whilst trying to gather evidence to confirm their suspicions.

While developing a fairly standard ‘Are they? Aren’t they?’ set up with its main storyline over whether either of the couples Cliff and Cydney encounter could be killers or not littering the story with several potential clues and/or red herrings to keep audiences guessing, A Perfect Getaway does manage to remain fairly tense and quite entertaining at least during the first hour of the film. There are several aspects to the film which help make the film more enjoyable than it should be. Firstly is the relative likeability of its cast. Casting Steve Zahn, a talented and underrated actor, as one of the main leads adds a little more interest in our main characters and Milla Jovovich in a far perkier, likeable persona than the usual video-game based action films in which she is usually cast, makes her performance more enjoyable than many of her previous roles. Timothy Olyphant also entertains as the rather gung ho, ex-Special Forces, character of Nick, one of the film’s potential suspects for the killer. Also adding to the film’s enjoyment is a fairly punchy script which despite the occasionally annoying attempts to be self-referential with characters pointing out how events might play out if this were a film, mostly entertains especially in regards to Nick. The location of the film, on a remote Hawaiian island, means the film can rely on many shots of the island to impress. However, the final act does not live up to the build up with an over-extended flashback required to explain it before the film descends into the usual stalk and slash formula of many horror/thriller films that have come before.

As mentioned before, A Perfect Getaway succeeds more than it should on its casting. Zahn and Jovovich both give good performances during the film’s first hour as the tension builds up in the story. Zahn is suitably nervous yet smart and likeable and Jovovich’s perkiness is endearing. Timothy Olyphant steals the film though with his performance as Nick. In his most enjoyable performance since the end of the TV series Deadwood and demonstrating an enjoyable balance of fun and danger in his character that has barely be seen by the actor since Go in 1999, Olyphant is highly entertaining. Whether his character turns out to be a killer or not is almost irrelevant as his character’s gung-ho “American Jedi” personality and frequent war stories entertain throughout. Kiele Sanchez is also very likeable as Nick’s girlfriend, and potential partner-in-crime, Gina who also manages to be charming and capable of looking after herself.

Overall, while mostly following formula and with a final act that strains believability, A Perfect Getaway is still a perfectly entertaining thriller featuring likeable performances from Zahn, Jovovich and Sanchez and a very enjoyable, and film-stealing, performance from Timothy Olyphant.

Rating: 3/5

Orphan

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Starring: Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard & Isabelle Fuhrman

Not entirely successful as a horror, though including a few standard jumps, Orphan is far more enjoyable for the sheer ridiculousness of its twist and the unintentional moments of humour littered throughout.

The latest in the popular horror sub-genre of spooky child horror, Orphan comes to cinema screens with a plot that feels somewhat clichéd and attractive to genre fans who embrace such clichés and featuring a cast of actors usually involved in independent drama but results in a film that entertains quite well for reasons that seem in complete opposition to the film and director’s intentions.

After Kate (Farmiga) loses her third child who is born stillborn, she and her husband John (Sarsgaard), in their grief, decide to adopt a child with whom they can share the love they had prepared for their lost child. Upon making a connection with a 9 year old girl from Russia named Esther (Fuhrman) at an orphanage, they bring her home and whilst initially it appears she settles in well it soon becomes clear that Esther has problems, a vague past and a secret no one could have guessed but while Kate remains suspicious, her husband remains sceptical blaming Kate’s feelings on her grief and her past problems with alcoholism while Esther continues to become a greater danger to Kate, her two other children and others.

Whilst initially starting off quite effectively with a birthing room scene in the film’s prologue that succeeds in being genuinely disturbing, Orphan’s later commitment to treating its plot and characters seriously could either frustrate or unintentionally entertain audiences based on their sensibilities. Holding to many familiar clichés in the sub-genre of disturbed child horror films throughout the first half, Orphan is only moderately entertaining if you are comfortable with cliché. With independent film actors like Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard adding more credibility than what a genre film this usually deserves, the characterisation of the child Esther at least possesses some enjoyment through how obviously unstable she appears to be. But, approached as a serious horror film, which is what the director and actors appear to intend, Orphan develops into something far too surreal to be taken seriously and too seriously that a film filled with the cliché’s in the first half could hope to achieve (the amount of trust John places in Esther despite Kate’s objections certainly places him high amongst the most stupidest characters to ever grace a horror film). However, if taken with a sense of humour, one where the ridiculousness of the film’s finale and its twist can be seen as comical and where many of the attempts to make Esther appear threatening throughout the film treated as black humour, Orphan can be incredibly entertaining and that the humour is unintended helps make that same humour more enjoyable.

Even with actors like Farmiga and Sarsgaard, Orphan barely rises above average in terms of most of its actor’s performances. Sarsgaard’s performance is particularly frustrating given his abilities in past films are wasted on a role that requires him to be oblivious to the dangers presented by Esther throughout the film. Farmiga is more satisfactory as Kate, carrying the role of main protagonist quite well looking suitably distraught by the events she is experiencing. The most critical performance in the film though is Fuhrman’s in the role of Esther. Whilst playing the role with one of the most muddled attempts at an East-European accent in recent memory, Fuhrman at least manages to pull off the necessary amount of creepiness that her role as Esther requires and despite her character’s age, audiences will still find themselves invested in her character’s defeat and demise.

Overall, Orphan fails to be a scary horror film but if not taken too seriously, the film’s clichés, its unexpected and ridiculous finale and amusing moments of sudden violence and profanity throughout makes Orphan far more enjoyable than it deserves to be. That it succeeds more as a horror/black comedy unintentionally makes the film all the more enjoyable. Audiences looking for serious horror though may come away disappointed.

Rating: 3/5

Land of the Lost

Director: Brad Silberling
Starring: Will Ferrell, Anna Friel & Danny McBride

An enjoyable comedy that manages to amuse through the absurdity of its plotline and situations but finds its tone muddled by mixing adult humour alongside more family friendly moments.

Land of the Lost, the latest in a series of big screen adaptations of popular TV shows into comedies for the big screen starring established comedians follows on from Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson’s Starsky & Hutch remake and Steve Carrell’s Get Smart adaptation. The difference between those films and this film, starring Will Ferrell, is that Land of the Lost is based on a series made for children where its big screen counterpart possesses a far more adult tone with its humour which, whilst appealing to older audiences, makes the film less accessible to the audience with which its source material was meant for.

When scientist Rick Marshall (Ferrell) is publicly ridiculed for his theories of parallel dimensions where time and space meet, Marshall finds himself reduced to teaching and shunned by the scientific community at large. When Marshall is approached by an enthusiastic student named Holly (Friel) who supports his theories, Marshall completes the device he’d devised to travel to other dimensions and finding an ideal spot beneath an amusement ride where a doorway can be opened, Marshall, Holly and a tour guide named Will, find themselves landing in a strange dimension filled with aliens, dinosaurs and other relics from across time and space and facing a plot by an would-be-alien conqueror who wishes to use Marshall’s device to enable him to invade dimensions.

Audiences looking for a film more in spirit with the original family-orientated TV series from 1974 will likely find themselves disappointed with this adaptation. Replacing the park ranger and his children from the original series with a scientist, his partner and love interest and a redneck tour guide in the adaptation allows the filmmakers the opportunity to explore more adult situations within the film and certainly more adult humour. While recognisable characters such as the lizard men known as the Sleestak, dinosaurs and lost items and buildings from history all appear and have prominence within the film, the nature of the humour in Land of the Lost, whilst light, is altogether different. With a generous amount of sexual innuendo with characters such as the caveman Chaka and much of it directed towards Friel’s Holly, the film also features a fair amount of drug related humour somewhat parodying the culture of the era in which the TV series first appeared, the surreal nature of the film’s environment and situations including one extended sequence where Marshall, Will and Chaka experience dizzying highs after eating a special fruit growing within the dimension. Some of these sequences hit their mark resulting in some funny moments, particularly the drug-inspired sequences, though the sex-related humour is often too crude to amuse more mature audiences. Still, while the humour might have mixed appeal with audiences, the storyline has some enjoyment in its embrace of some of ridiculousness of its premise. Dinosaurs are smarter than they appear, Lizard men sound like Leonard Nimoy, Ice Cream Vans fall from the sky, Marshall’s device plays show tunes when in use and musical interludes serve Marshall’s mission to retrieve his device that will take him home. Land of the Lost is often very silly, but enjoyably so and frequently amuses even though it rarely offers anything particularly memorable.

Ferrell leads the film with his usual dim, man-child persona. It’s the same, almost one-note persona that he uses in most of his films and it’s adequate for the film and for those fond of his brand of humour but it is the supporting roles that are more enjoyable. Friel, whilst playing a character whose attraction to Marshall stretches credibility, is nevertheless charming and engaging, bursting with enthusiasm and warmth while McBride plays the tough-talking, redneck stereotype quite well too getting some of the best lines.

Overall, while not particularly memorable of outstanding and with a brand of humour that is at odds with that of the TV series it is based on, Land of the Lost still amuses enough to satisfy. Fans of Ferrell will be fine with his performance too but its Friel and McBride that entertain the most. A decent comedy.

Rating: 3/5

G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra

Director: Stephen Sommers
Starring: Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans & Sienna Miller

An unimpressive summer blockbuster featuring lacklustre acting, action, effects and storyline. G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra lacks fun and originality.

Capitalising on the success of another film franchise based on a popular children’s toy line and cartoon Transformers, G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, based on the 1980s series (known in the UK as Action Man) comes to cinemas. The result however, feels rushed and like a haphazardly assembled sequence of set pieces inspired by other, more memorable, films and with a script and characters that seems to embrace cliché.

While transporting a newly developed weapon to a secure facility, two soldiers Duke (Tatum) and Ripcord (Wayans) find themselves the only survivors of an attack by a terrorist group known as Cobra whose attempt to steal the weapon is prevented by the arrival of an elite, an secret, US military unit called G.I. Joe. With the leader of the Cobra attack, the Baroness (Miller), known to Duke from his past, he and Ripcord find themselves inducted into the G.I. Joe unit as they seek to prevent the weapon from being used on the general public when a later assault on G.I. Joe headquarters sees the weapon stolen at last.

With a very thin plot revolving around the prevention of a weapon falling into enemy hands and the subsequent attempts to retrieve the weapon and prevent its usage when the first mission fails (essentially a follow-the-MacGuffin storyline). G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra swiftly moves from over the top and CGI-packed action sequence to the next with little pause for character or plot development. Were the action sequences and effects being better rendered and the characters more fleshed out then this could be perfectly acceptable and enjoyable for a summer blockbuster however, G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra fails to impress in any of these areas. The action sequences themselves all seem inspired by sequences from other films: a battle in the streets of Paris particularly fails to impress as such a sequence has not only been portrayed on screen before but took the form of a parody of action-blockbusters fives years before the release of this film in the comedy Team America in 2004. G.I. Joe’s final set piece, an attack on Cobra’s underwater base is an OTT, CGI-heavy rehashing of The Spy Who Loved Me. The CGI effects in these sequences are also unimpressive with the Paris sequence featuring Duke and Ripcord running through the streets in enhanced armoured suits in a manner that looks like a video game. With the characters also mostly underdeveloped (outside of Duke and Shake Eyes, most members of the unit get little more than a line of dialogue about their pasts and some don’t even get that) G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra does little to make you really care about many of its characters and therefore there is little sense of danger.

G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra also disappoints in terms of the performances of its cast. Despite featuring some noteworthy names in its cast such as Dennis Quaid as General Hawk, Christopher Eccleston as the villain McCullen and actors such as Said Taghmaoui, Adewale Akinnouye-Agbaje and Jonathan Pryce they are mostly relegated to fulfilling one-dimensional stereotypes of tough soldiers or evil villains as more screen time is given to less impressive actors. Channing Tatum is satisfactory as the main character of Duke though his character and performance is unmemorable, Marlon Wayans is slightly more enjoyable in the role of Ripcord who gets to add some comic relief to an otherwise too-straight film and Sienna Miller as the villainess The Baroness merely gets to stand around looking attractive rather than giving any impression that she’s an actual threat with her personality undermined by the likeability of Rachel Nichols in the film’s only other notable female role of the G.I. Joe Scarlett. None of the performances in G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra are particularly memorable.

Overall, G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra is a poorly assembled blockbuster film that fails to impress with its story, its performances, its action or its effects. There may some enjoyment for those who are devotees of the cartoon and toys from which the film is based but otherwise this film is a disappointment.

Rating: 1/5

Mesrine: Killer Instinct

Director: Jean-Francois Richet
Starring: Vincent Cassel, Gerard Depardieu & Cecile De France

An engaging crime-biopic that features an excellent central performance by Vincent Cassel and isn’t afraid to portray its subject’s flaws more prominently than his more well-remembered traits.

Originally planned as a single film chronicling the life of French gangster Jacques Mesrine, differences between Vincent Cassel and the director over the film lead to a change of director, an expanding of the story to allow for a more in depth, complex portrayal of its subject and the project becoming two films instead of one. The first film, Mesrine: Killer Instinct, portraying Jacques Mesrine’s induction into the world of crime and subsequent rise to the status of Public Enemy No 1 is a gripping affair with a very strong performance from Cassel.

After retiring from the military following a period in Algeria in 1959, Jacques Mesrine (Cassel) returns to Paris and pursues a career in organised crime after meeting with local crime boss Guido (Depardieu). His subsequent success within Guido’s organisation conflicting with his rebellious nature puts him at odds with other crime figures and with the law seeing Mesrine having to abandon the family he has gained to hide out in Montreal where his criminal exploits and time in prison make him an unlikely icon and therefore the French’s most wanted criminal.

Whilst somewhat episodic in nature, frequently experienced in biopics, Mesrine: Killer Instinct is nonetheless an engaging drama throughout and certainly more impressive than Hollywood’s own crime biopic this summer, Michael Mann’s Dillinger film Public Enemies. A large part of the enjoyment of this film likely comes from its near fearless approach to its subject matter and from Vincent Cassel’s commitment to giving a balanced portrayal of Jacques Mesrine. Acknowledging from the beginning that no film could accurately portray the life of Jacques Mesrine and that there will be elements of fiction as events are dramatised, the director, Richet, is still willing to take risks and rather than portray Mesrine as a charming rogue, a Robin Hood like figure, he is willing to portray the cruel and violent side of Mesrine perhaps even more willingly than his more charming traits. A tense opening sequence in Algeria where Mesrine, as a soldier, refuse to shoot a woman demonstrates the rebellious nature of the character but it is often the women in his life that suffer the most from his rising career in crime. Unflinching in his willingness to use violence in his job, his loving nature in regards to his children is offset by his treatment of his wife in later years. Having offended other figures in Paris through his temper, Mesrine flees to Montreal where embarks on far more notorious career as a bank robber, kidnapper and escaped convict, often with partner in crime Jeanne (De France) which involves them being dubbed the French Bonnie & Clyde. While sometimes feeling as though following the usual formula of convict in prison and convict escapes prison, these sequences in the latter half of the film are well made and impress in the near-unbelievability of what Mesrine achieves and a later attempt at breaking others out of prison thrills more than any sequence from Mann’s Public Enemies.

Mesrine: Killer Instinct also benefits from many impressive performances. Vincent Cassel carries the film almost effortlessly with the dangerous, violent side of Mesrine balanced quite effectively with the character’s charming, loving side helped all the more by Cassel’s own image from playing similar roles throughout his career. Cassel’s commitment to portraying Mesrine’s more negative attributes as believably as his charming ones makes his performance a more satisfying affair than Hollywood attempts with similar characters where the likeability of their characters are usually given preference. Gerard Depardieu is very enjoyable in a rare dark role as crime boss Guido, Elena Anaya portrays the conflicts of Sofia, Jacques Mesrine’s wife, over her husband’s lifestyle effectively and Cecile De France is satisfying as Jeanne though her role gets less development than that of Jacques Mesrine or his wife.

Overall, Mesrine: Killer Instinct is a gripping and complex portrayal of one of France’s most notorious criminals. With a willingness to portray the character’s good and bad sides both the film, and Cassel’s performance as Mesrine, are very satisfying and you’ll certainly be left eager to see what happens next in the second half of this saga in Mesrine: Public Enemy No 1.

Rating: 4/5

Antichrist

Director: Lars von Trier
Starring: Charlotte Gainsbourg & Willem Dafoe

Featuring disturbing subject matter and shocking violence, Antichrist is a difficult film to like and one that will engage and repel audiences in equal measure but whose themes will linger in the mind long after the end credits.

Lars von Trier is no stranger to controversy, shunning Hollywood and the conventions of western cinema; von Trier has always pushed to explore the boundaries of cinema or lack thereof. Having launched the Dogme movement, von Trier has often been at the head of the Art house film industry but his latest film, Antichrist, is likely his most shocking and controversial film to date offending even the critics when the film saw its debut at Cannes. Featuring explicit sex and acts of violence of a sexual nature it is the violence that has garnered more attention and anger than the film’s story which delves into themes of misogyny.

Whilst distracted during the act of lovemaking, He (Dafoe) and She (Gainsbourg) lose their infant son who climbs up to the window and falls to his death. Stricken with grief He, a psychiatrist, decides to treat his own wife’s severe grief taking her to a cabin in the woods where She feels uneasy following a summer spent there earlier where She dealt with research into Gynocide (the systematic slaughter of women). During their time in the woods, He is confronted with omens of death and disturbing insights into his wife’s psyche while She proceeds to become more unstable with her guilt and grief manifesting in violence.

Antichrist will likely offend many audiences through the acts of on screen violence alone and the acts of violence themselves are shot in a gratuitous manner and are certainly shocking due to sexual nature of the violence (challenging even the most hardened of audiences). However, as shocking and repellent that the acts of violence may be they do contribute to the overall mood and themes of the film. It is the film’s mood and themes that disturb and engage the most in Antichrist. The behaviour that She exhibits, the acts of violence and grief she commits and the reasons for why She does them are what linger in the mind after the film has ended. In an interesting attempt at manipulation, von Trier makes both He and She potential victims and villains and who is really to blame for what occurs will be subject to some debate afterwards. The approach though is interesting and certainly effective in the building of dread and fear towards a climax that feels more inevitable as the film progresses. Beautifully shot with stunning cinematography, the woods themselves become another character within the film representing nature as an almost conscious being influencing and being influenced by He and She. While certain scenes may seem comical in their approach (the opening prologue evoking feelings of European Beer Commercials in its black and white, slow motion depiction of sex and a talking fox in one sequence risking laughter if not for the mood of the scenes around it), many succeed in disturbing and/or angering the audience and whether the film is confronting misogyny or is merely misogynistic itself will also be left for audiences to debate. No doubt, von Trier has created a film in Antichrist that will be discussed and further cement his status as the bad boy of Independent Film.

The performances in Antichrist are centred around just He and She. Gainsbourg’s She delivers the most memorable performance, one that challenges he ability due to the nature of the acts and emotions her character experiences and the performance is impressive though more so in the first half while her character’s grief resembles a kind more recognisable to audiences where her later behaviour is suitably hysterical. Dafoe however delivers an interesting performance too with his character’s natural detachment from emotion being somewhat frustrating early on making him more unsympathetic but seeing his detachment challenged more and more as the film progresses. Defoe’s is the more subtle performance and one as good as Gainsbourg’s though will likely be overlooked.

Overall, Antichrist is not a film to be loved or even liked. Its violence is perhaps more extreme than it needs to be and perhaps there for shock value in its portrayal, but the film’s mood, its themes of violence, grief and misogyny the subjects that will provoke the most debate afterwards and make the film one that lingers in the mind far more than the violence itself. Antichrist is not for the squeamish or the easily offended but is certainly a film that will challenge its audience and not be forgotten.

Rating: 4/5