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

The Taking of Pelham 123

Director: Tony Scott
Starring: Denzel Washington, John Travolta & James Gandolfini

A unsatisfying remake of a 70s classic that manages to entertain as much as it does on the back of the likeability of its star Denzel Washington and an occasionally tense first hour.

In the world of remake-heavy Hollywood, it was only a matter of time that the highly regarded 1974 thriller, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, which starred Walter Matthau as a transit cop having to deal with a hostage situation on a subway train lead by Robert Shaw’s hijacker. Now renamed The Taking of Pelham 123, the remake now sees Denzel Washington taking on the Matthau role with John Travolta leading the hijackers. While director Tony Scott, known for being more flash than substance, at the helm of the remake there was cause for concern that the remake might feel hollow though Scott was also responsible for the tense thriller Crimson Tide in 1995 (which also starred Washington). Unfortunately The Taking of Pelham 123 does more resemble Scott’s more recent output rather than that of Crimson Tide.

Victor Garber (Washington) is a New York Subway controller under investigation for accepting bribes who, upon being reassigned to subway dispatcher, takes the call when subway train Pelham 123 is hijacked by a group of men lead by an individual named Ryder (Travolta) who is demanding $10,000,000 within the hour or he’ll execute his hostages. Unwilling to deal with anyone else, Ryder forces Garber to handle his demands as the city try to gather the ransom, learn the hijacker’s identities, their motives and secure the safety of the hostages.

Immediately dispelling hopes of a more restrained thriller, Scott begins the film with his usual flash and fast moving camera shots and cuts with a booming hip hop style soundtrack announcing the villain’s arrival to the storyline. The film does slow down a little at that point to introduce Denzel Washington’s character, his environment and his situation and it is these moments in the subway control room that engage most. With the interactions between Garber and Ryder mostly confined to conversations over a radio mike for the first half of the film, these sequences from Garber’s perspective at least are quite enjoyable helped by a confident and likeable performance from Denzel Washington. In fact, it is the conversations and arguments in The Taking of Pelham 123 which most satisfy and offer more thrills and tensions than Scott’s attempts to in inject action sequences and explosions into the film such as a police car crash midway into the film or the foot chase at the film’s finale. These sequences are only enjoyable though from Garber’s perspective. From the other side, within the subway car with Travolta’s Ryder, they are less effective with Travolta’s Ryder a somewhat OTT demander inserting expletives into his conversations with Garber that come off poorly through Travolta who also relies too much on raising the volume to appear threatening. So, while occasionally there are moments that are enjoyable and gripping in the first half of the film, they are often upset by Scott’s reliance on loud explosions and louder characters.

One strength The Taking of Pelham 123 does have is in the casting of Denzel Washington in the role formerly played by Walter Matthau. Whilst not giving his best or a particularly memorable performance, Washington is nonetheless enjoyable and convincing in the role of Garber. His calm and likeability make him immediately sympathetic when compared to the louder, more egocentric, characters within the film. John Travolta though entertains less successfully. Whether it is on Scott’s insistence or Travolta’s, his Ryder is frequently portrayed as too loud and course as opposed to demonstrating the level of control or intelligence that his character requires given his plan and how he pulls it off. With a frequent lack of restraint, Travolta’s Ryder compares poorly in comparison to Washington’s Garber. With Ryder’s henchmen, the subway passengers and many of Garber’s fellow subway workers filled with unmemorable faces and characters, The Taking of Pelham 123 relies too much on Washington’s charisma to entertain. Even John Turturro and James Gandolfini as a hostage negotiator and the mayor barely merit attention.

Overall, The Taking of Pelham 123 remake is inferior to its predecessor and despite some occasionally tense and engaging sequences within the first hour and an enjoyable performance from Denzel Washington, Tony Scott’s reliance upon flashy camera work, action sequences and John Travolta means the film disappoints more than it entertains.

Rating: 2/5

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Director: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson & Rupert Grint

Whilst frequently engaging and enjoyable, the sixth instalment of the Harry Potter franchise is a little too uneven in tone and slow in its build up to be as gripping as more recent instalments have been.

As the Harry Potter film franchise continues with each instalment getting progressively darker and more mature and with its child actors slowly overtaking the ages of the characters they are performing, each instalment has more expectation put upon it to succeed previous instalments in both quality and in Box Office performance. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the sixth instalment and penultimate chapter in the series, arrives with even more of a challenge as it deals not only with the death of a major character but also with the purpose to set up the characters and events of the franchise in preparation for the final instalment whilst possessing a less action driven script than previous films.

With the forces of Voldemort gaining strength and making open attacks within the magic and non-magic worlds, Harry Potter and his friends return to Hogwarts under greater threat to their lives than before as Harry is openly recognised as the chosen one prophesised to be the only person capable of defeating Voldemort in the future. Struggling with the weight of his responsibility and with ever-increasing feelings of teenage romance towards his friend Ron’s sister Ginny and a mission from his headmaster Dumbledore to befriend a returning teacher who possesses a secret about Voldemort’s past, Harry has much to contend with. Meanwhile Harry’s friends Ron and Hermione are struggling with romantic feelings for one another and Harry’s rival Draco has been entrusted with a dark mission by Voldemort.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is an interesting film, one which, while frequently engaging, is also frequently uneven in its tone. Unlike several previous instalments in the series, this film lacks a clear direction with its plot. Without a prison break, a magic tournament or even a Quidditch final with which to hinge its storyline upon with an idea of where/how a final confrontation might take place, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince seems driven by a series of sub-plots and mysteries. The mysteries themselves are actually quite intriguing and frequently gripping. One deals with a secret mission with a sinister purpose involving Draco Malfoy, a rival of Harry’s, while the other involves the secret surrounding Voldemort’s past encounter with a teacher at Hogwarts from when he was a student and which Harry must uncover. The former plotline is suitably tense and ominous while the latter is frequently engaging with its teases and slow reveal helped by the welcome addition of Jim Broadbent to the franchise as Professor Slughorn. However, as intriguing as these plotlines are, particularly for older audiences, the addition of romantic sub-plots between its characters with frequent approaches to them that are intentionally comical means that the tone of the film frequently switches from the dark to near slapstick. These sub-plots, in addition to extending the films already ample running time, and far less action set-pieces with which to really thrill audiences means this instalment whilst very mature, also stands out as less of a complete film in its own right and more of an extended prologue to the franchise’s final films.

Fortunately Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince benefits from many enjoyable performances that help make the slowly intertwining plotlines that more enjoyable. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson show further progression in their growth as actors as the mature with their characters Harry and Hermione though Rupert Grint as Ron is relegated too frequently to comic relief. Bonnie Wright and Tom Felton also get to show more maturity as their characters Ginny Weasley and Draco Malfoy get more time to grow and more drama to work with while Michael Gambon continues to be enjoyable as Professor Dumbledore. Alan Rickman impresses as the he gets to handle more complexities with his character Professor Snape while Jim Broadbent is a highly enjoyable addition to the cast as the returning Professor Slughorn whose ambitions to teach the very best students puts Harry Potter in his sights whilst also reveals his history with his former students including Harry’s mother and the boy who would become Voldemort.

Overall, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is enjoyable, a good addition to the franchise and handles several of its plotlines quite impressively, however the romantic elements of the story are less well-handled undermining the overall tone on occasion and its story performing well enough as a prologue for the next instalment in the franchise but not standing as satisfactorily on its own as a film.

Rating: 3/5

Bruno

Director: Larry Charles
Starring: Sacha Baron Cohen & Gustaf Hammarsten

Funny in places, Bruno is enjoyable but fails to deliver the laughs or the scathing insights into prejudice that Borat achieved in 2006.

Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, already famous in television for his fake Staines born rapper Ali G and his TV interviews where he lured many well known politicians into embarrassing themselves unsuspectingly, Cohen finally achieved global stardom when a second TV creation, Borat, made the successful transition to the big screen that Cohen had failed to accomplish satisfactorily with Ali G. Virtually unknown in the United States, Cohen was able to take his fictitious Kazakhstan reporter to America to interview various religious and political groups and celebrities and expose their ignorance and prejudices regarding foreigners. A huge success, Borat soon saw Cohen’s character become widely recognised as audiences either embraced the humour or were offended by it. With such success it was only a matter of time for Cohen to attempt and encore which now results in his third creation, Austrian Gay fashion star Bruno, to come to cinemas.

Having exposed some of the xenophobic and even anti-Semitic attitudes in areas of American society, Cohen has now turned his attention to confronting homophobia and in also parodying the fashion industry. Bruno, after an accident on a fashion runway involving a suit made of Velcro, finds himself blacklisted from the European fashion circuit. In an attempt to revive his ailing career, Bruno, along with his faithful assistant Lutz, head to America in a quest to become the most famous Austrian since Hitler. Bruno’s quest to become famous involves attempts to launch his own celebrity talk show, bring peace to the Middle East, adopt an African baby and eventually try and become straight and along the way meet and interview various celebrities, religious officials, politicians and unsuspecting citizens.

Bruno, whilst sometimes funny, fails to quite reach the heights that Cohen’s previous film Borat achieved. Whether Cohen’s fame as a result of Borat is a contributing factor is difficult to say though Cohen’s Bruno often fails to illicit as many incriminating responses from his targets in this film as Cohen had in his past film with many subjects choosing to cease talking altogether or leaving interviews before anything truly revealing or damaging can be said. A bigger factor for why Bruno succeeds less than Borat could be because with Bruno, Cohen has cast his aim too broadly. With the character of Bruno embodying a flamboyant Gay stereotype that has already been parodied by many films and TV that Cohen’s contribution feels flat in comparison with perhaps many of his intended targets becoming suspicious fairly soon during their encounters with the character. In addition to the Gay stereotype on display, Bruno also casts a broad parody of the fashion industry that only occasionally amuses but was accomplished in a more successful fashion by Ben Stiller’s Zoolander in 2001 though the willingness of parents in one scene to allow their children to be degraded and endangered in the name of fame stands out as one of the film’s highlights. There are other scenes in Bruno that do succeed to generate laughs including a talk show appearance reveals his adopted African baby to an African American audience, a visit to a swinger’s party and a cage fight finale where excess manages to amuse are all scenes that are as memorable and amusing as similar in Borat.

Sacha Baron Cohen is enjoyable in his role as Bruno, though unlike Borat his character lacks much charm or sympathy often being too narcissistic to really engage with. Cohen’s only real stand out moment comes at the finale when he reveals Bruno’s new heterosexual alter-ego Straight Dave whose appearance and mannerisms are a stark contrast to Bruno’s and reminds the audience of Cohen’s skills as a performer. More enjoyable is Gustaf Hammarsten as Bruno’s faithful, loving and suffering assistant Lutz who gives Bruno a more sympathetic companion with which to interact with.

Overall, Bruno is entertaining and features some worthwhile scenes that will be remembered and discussed, unfortunately, the film lacks focus and with its stereotypes so broad and its targets for humour so wide, and Bruno just isn’t as funny as Borat or as Cohen’s TV incarnations of his characters.

Rating: 2/5

Public Enemies

Director: Michael Mann
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale & Marion Cotillard

A very enjoyable crime biopic that while not delving too deeply into the motivations of its main character John Dillinger or his pursuer Melvin Purvis, is still frequently gripping, with a good performance from Depp and featuring Michael Mann’s usual flair for impressive gun fights.

With audiences fascinated with stories of criminals, particularly famous ones, and with Michael Mann looking for a better success after the disappointing film adaptation of Miami Vice, Public Enemies works quite well at times in satisfying both. The story of John Dillinger, a bank robber who robbed banks but not their customers during the Depression when banks were seen less favourably (raising comparison’s with the current economic climate), is something of a legend with Dillinger regarded almost as a heroic Robin Hood type, though without sharing his rewards with the people, making him a celebrity. The story also, in regards to the FBI manhunt to capture Dillinger lead by Melvin Purvis, also allows for comparisons to Michael Mann’s classic film Heat, though such comparisons are mostly superficial.

John Dillinger (Depp), having broken several accomplices out of a prison and gone on to lead several successful bank robberies in different states, has now become the most wanted criminal for the newly formed FBI. Despite being a wanted criminal, Dillinger’s attitude to bank robberies where he robs the banks but not their customers, has made him a celebrity to many. Enjoying his fame and the rewards his riches bring him, Dillinger finds himself and his associates, and a newly begun relationship to Billie Frechette (Cotillard), threatened by the newly formed FBI and their ability to use new crime fighting techniques to track him down even over state lines which also makes him a risk to organised crime lords. Meanwhile, the FBI task force charged with capturing Dillinger and his associates, lead by Melvin Purvis (Bale) finds Purvis having to resort to more ruthless methods with which to ensure success.

Impressively shot, using digital film which effectively gives the feeling of seeing raw, live footage of events and a heightened sense of reality. Also impressive, and not surprising from a director like Mann who filmed Heat and Collateral, are the gun fights. Devoid of the usual Hollywood flourishes like slow-motion or CGI, the sequences in Public Enemies are impressive and intense including a sequence in the woods at night that is gripping. There are also some memorable scenes dealing with Dillinger’s fame including a scene in a cinema where a news report asks the audience too look to their left and right while Dillinger looks on with amusement and another moment where Dillinger walks into an FBI office to witness their investigation on him but going unrecognised. However, while technically very impressive and with attention to keeping the plot of the film as accurate to actual events as possible, there is often a lack of emotional drama in Public Enemies. While Depp’s Dillinger gives a brief speech to Billie stating his likes and dislikes and asking what more does she need to know and this working in some regard to establishing Dillinger as a man whose past is less important as what his future actions will be, the lack of exploration into the personalities or motivations of the film’s other main characters works less successfully. The development of Melvin Purvis is disappointing. Treated more as a cipher, with no look into the character’s past, his life outside of his work and with little hint of emotion (made more disappointing by the mention at the film’s conclusion of Purvis’ suicide years later).

Johnny Depp’s performance as Dillinger is enjoyable but only really impresses when interacting with Cotillard’s Billie or when Dillinger is flirting with his fame, otherwise his Dillinger is played fairly straight. Christian Bale is dependably stoic as Melvin Purvis but the lack of exploration into his character and the comparison to more colourful characters such as Dillinger and his associates means that Purvis is a character hard to empathise with and Bale’s performance unmemorable. Cotillard is good as Billie especially in later scenes and while she is convincing in her portrayal of Billie’s affection for Dillinger. Of the other supporting roles, Stephen Graham is enjoyable in a small role as the criminal Babyface Nelson and Billy Crudup’s portrayal of FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover is enjoyable if too dependant upon Crudup capturing his speech patterns.

Overall, Public Enemies is an enjoyable crime drama with good performances from Depp as Dillinger and Cotillard as his love interest Billie and some excellent gun fights, but is too often lacking emotional depth and Bale’s Purvis is unmemorable. While not as good as Heat or some of Mann’s other films, is still a worthy entry into his catalogue and in the crime genre.

Rating: 3/5