Review: Argo (rough)

There are some decisions that people look back on and think ‘why?’ Why did I get that haircut? Why did I buy those clothes? Why did I vote Argo for best picture at The Academy Awards? Anybody who did the last (luckily very few of my lovely readers fall into this category) are bound to be laughed at by friends, scowled at family events, and generally treated like the film illiterate misfits they clearly are.

There is an established trend of the wrong film getting the Oscar: Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas in 1990, Forest Gump over Pulp Fiction in 1994, and now we can add Argo over The Majority Of The Films Nominated in 2013. Years from now, Argo is destined to feature in a lazy article, bashed out over lunch by a movie hack, entitled ‘movies that nobody remembers’. We will all look very silly.   

That isn’t to say that Argo is a train wreck, it’s not on the steaming piles of dog turd level of The Last Stand, it’s just bland. like the 70’s, the era in which the film is set, it’s mainly beige - it isn’t going to make you convulse or vomit, it’ll just leave you unsatisfied, like a panda’s man bits (google that).

Oscar stealing aside, the film is pretty competent. It is the, true (wikipedia), story of the escape attempt of a bunch of Americans who found themselves holed up in the Canadian embassy following the Islamic Revolution in Iran. That attempt was genuinely batshit crazy, and does make for fun viewing. The acting also is generally competent, particularly Ben Affleck, and the pacing and sense of tension is well managed. It’s not as good as good as a lot of other films, even in the same genre (see below), but you probably won't regret watching it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call ‘damning with faint praise’.

Watch if you liked: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

If you liked this watch: Munich       

Review: I Give It A Year

I Give It A Year is a funny, original, British comedy.  The film focuses on a failing marriage, and we get to see how things break down through the course of the film. It's sometimes funny, sometimes sad, and is  a really great movie to take your partner to see tomorrow. One of the reasons for this is that it mixes up the rom-com set-up.

Romantic comedies might be accused of being a bit formulaic - boy meets girl, they form a bond, something goes wrong, everything gets resolved and they all live happily ever after. IGIAY comes at it from a different angle: boy has already met girl, they’ve got married, and we get to see it all fall apart. This keeps things  nice and fresh. You end up excited to see where the plot is going to go, not predicting how everything will pan out in the first 5 minutes. This is a pretty big achievement in a genre that is more stuck in it’s ways than a metronome.   

Another aspect that really makes the film is it’s intelligence. Without giving too much away, the way a particular piece of underwear is used multiple times (you’ll see what i mean) is particularly good. The comedy is also pretty clever, there are several scenes where the joke is played out, going for big laughs rather than quick ones. It’s nice that people are taking the time to write films that go a little deeper than normal, especially  in a genre like this.  

The comedy is generally of a really high standard. It plays a lot on awkwardness and embarrassing situations, think Peep Show and you’re not far off, and has a fantastic cast. Olivia Colman and Stephen Merchant are particularly memorable in support roles, and the rest of the cast are all bloody funny as well. You certainly won’t leave the cinema having not had a good laugh.

All in all this is a funny, interesting, clever take on a genre that has occasionally felt quite tired. Well worth a watch.

Watch if you like: Good Richard Curtis films or recent British TV comedy

If you like this try: Tyrannosaur (just to be blown away by Olivia Colman's acting range)

Review: Django Unchained

Django Unchained is a really good film. It’s probably the best Tarantino film in years, and is, in many ways, absolutely fantastic. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, the dialogue is amazing. This is pretty much a given in a Tarantino film - intelligent, tight, funny dialogue has always featured heavily in his scripts – and it’s nice to see it here as well. QT has always favoured long, drawn out, scenes with the aforementioned talky bits as the centrepiece, and Django is, marvellously, packed with them.

It’s not just well written, the film is also bloody gorgeous. The sets are unbelievably good looking, particularly the plantation houses and grounds, you really get a sense of the grandeur and decadence of the slavers. The contrast between the loveliness of the setting and the nastiness of the slaving is also really unnerving, and effective.

The other big aspect of the film’s look is the violence. Tarantino is known for his B-Movie inspired ultra-violence, and this film features it in bucket loads. But, unlike some of his other movies, it feels entirely appropriate here. The slave trade was really violent, and people did do deeply unpleasant things to other people, the film just reflects that, in a stylised way.

Finally, the acting is really good. Christopher Waltz gives, what I think, is a standout performance, but all the actors are fantastic. In fact, the only bit of dodgy comes from the director’s obligatory cameo. That man cannot do a convincing Australian accent, just saying…

So yeah, this is a pretty freaking awesome film .Unlike some of his other films, it feels together (Kill Bill in particular can be accused of being a bit bloated), looks good, is well written, and is amazingly acted. You should go and watch it, then watch it again for that matter, it’s that good.

Watch if you liked: Pulp Fiction

If you liked this watch: The Dirty Dozen 

Review: The Last Stand

This film is bad. Not in a “it’s so bad that it’s good” way, it’s just bad.  Don’t go and see it. There are much better films on at the moment, go and see one of them instead. Got that? Good, now I’ll move on to why it’s bad.  

The main reason is that the acting is terrible. Arnold Schwarzenegger has very few roles that he can play convincingly. None of those roles involve portraying depth, or human emotion. Playing a barbarian warrior? Fine. A robot assassin from the future? No problem. A small town sheriff, i.e. someone you might actually meet and have a conversation with? No can do. A plank of wood with a smiley face painted on it conveys more human emotion than Arnie, he’s just not built for any kind of vaguely realistic role. Johnny Knoxville is also predictably annoying. He does his weird, zany, thing he has been doing since 2000, which has gotten super old. The man is 41 years old, isn’t it time he cut this shit out? The other actors are all pretty horrible too, even the mighty Forest Whitaker isn’t enough to lift the film, which is saying a lot. So yeah, C- for acting.

The other big problem is the action is really limp, which is a major failing in a film like this. Say what you like about The Expendables - some of the acting in that film was bloody terrible - but at least it got the action right, which is what an action film is all about (the clue is in the genre title). A good action sequence will surprise you and make you feel excited, it’ll make you squeal with joy and say “wow”. The problem with The Last Stand is that the action does none of those things, it’s not visceral, it’s not impressive, and it’s not cool, it’s just boring and crap. A bit like the rest of the film really.

There are other problems with the film as well, the pacing is terrible and the plot makes no sense, and it all just feels really weak and poorly thought through. The Last Stand doesn’t seem to have an obvious reason to exist, and there definitely isn’t any reason for you to watch it. So go and watch Django Unchained instead (review next week), it’s much better.  

Watch if you like: being disappointed

If you like this watch: The Expendables

Review: Les Miserables

Les Mis is a musical. You probably know this because it has been around, literally, forever. So chances are that you probably have a rough idea of what it’s like, maybe you know some of the songs, and whether or not you like it. For those of you who haven’t come across the stage version before, it’s a musical set in early 19^th century France, it has themes of redemption and love, and has lots of people in costumes singing huge, melodramatic, bangers. It’s a Marmite kind of a thing really, you either love it or you hate it.

Those who fall into the second camp might be disappointed - the film doesn’t mix up the formula at all. It’s a straight up movement from the theatre to the silver screen. It is however a bloody good production, and this is for a couple of reasons.

Firstly the singing is really good. Which is pleasantly surprising given that none of the cast have a history of singing (not entirely true I know, but none of the cast are famous for their singing career). Particular mention goes to Hugh Jackman, who manages amazingly well throughout the whole film. Who would have thought that Wolverine could reach the high notes?

The other reason the film is so good is that the set and costume design is amazing. It really brings everything to life. From huge ships to dramatic barricades to bawdy inns, it’s all there in well thought through, sumptuous, detail. It makes the world feel as big and epic as the music which is, quite frankly, a pretty massive achievement.

Ultimately, the film is like a slice of super-rich chocolate cake. It’s indulgent, it’s probably too much for some people, but if it’s your sort of thing you are going to love it.

P.S What is up with Hugh Jackman’s new face? Has he got skinnier? Or does he just look really different with no sideburns? 

New Hobbit Pictures and Jumanji!

Check out this picture from The Hobbit: There and Back Again. It’s Legolas (obviously) and Bard the Bowman, which is kind of cool I guess.

There is also the news that Jumanji is being remade to “update it for the present”. I was going to say that the original was only made in a few years back in 1995, but then I remembered that that’s 18 years ago. Which made me feel pretty old to be honest. Anyway, I can’t really think what they would do to update it, other than put in CGI that’s better than what they could manage in the 90’s (which wouldn’t be hard). Could be good though - call me cautiously optimistic.

Other than that is the news that a new writer for Tron 3 has been announced. His name is Jesse Wigutow and he wrote a short called Ugly Naked People. Cool.    

OMG

This is the coolest thing ever. EVER!

Sometimes Life Isn’t Fair

There are thousands of failed writers and directors in Hollywood, flipping burgers or waiting tables, living for that one breakthrough that means that, finally, they will be on the receiving end of a Big Mac and fries. But, while they toil away, studio execs green light sequels for movies that haven’t even been released yet. Screw you Guillermo del Torro and your, probably very good, Pacific Rim franchise…

In other news, Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane is to director in and star in a comedy Western titles A Million Ways To Die In The West. Hot on the tails of this years Ted (read my review of that here), this will be darker in tone, which is good because, as far as Seth is concerned, darker is better. This is also going to be MacFarlane’s first appearance in the flesh, as it were, which will be interesting, if nothing else.  

That’s all for today folks, see you tomorrow for a first look at a brand new Star Trek Into Darkness trailer. Exciting times.  

Steve Jobs vs Guillermo del Toro vs Jamie Foxx

First up, this picture of Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs has appeared online:

Which can be compared to his one, which is Steve Jobs as Steve Jobs:

Pretty neat huh?

The portly Mexican we all know and love has said that the next picture he will direct, after Pacific Rim, will 

be a horror film called Crimson Peak.

He said it will be “very set-oriented, classical but at the same time modern take on the ghost story. It will allow me to play with the conventions of the genre I know and love, and at the same time subvert the old rules.”

He went on to say that it will channel such horror classics as The Shining, The Omen, and The Exorcist.  Which is pretty freakin sweet. 

Finally, we have confirmation that Jamie Foxx will be playing Electro in the upcoming spidey picture. See, sometimes rumours do come true. Until next time folks…

Sci-Fi Super Heroes and Zombies, It's a Winning Combo

You see this new Star Trek Into Darkness poster?

Looks quite a lot like this poster doesn't it?

Well, you know what they say about not fixing things that ain't broke...

In other news: the rumor mill today pumped out the news that the villain for the upcoming Justice League movie might well be Darkseid. Given that Jack Kirby modeled the character on famous historical dictators, he should prove a big enough bad guy for the all star roster this film will have to have. We need more details people!

Finally there is this new trailer for warm blooded, which looks cool.

See ya tomorrow folks!

Review: Gambit

Gambit is properly old school. The characters, sets, even the camera work, hark back to the days of the original, which was made in the 1960’s. Like a lot of Cohen Brothers films, it has a really strong sense of its time, and the comedy also feels like a throwback to that age. The jokes are physical and about ridiculous situations, as opposed to the self-referential irony we get a lot of today (I’m looking at you FamilyGuy).  So although this might not be a remake in the traditional sense of the word, the plot is totally different, it’s true to that age, and  to the feel of the original.

It’s also bloody funny, which is kind of important for a comedy. The plot follows Harry Dean (Firth), a down-on-his-luck art curator, who enlists the help of cowgirl PJ Puznowski (Diaz) in an elaborate con, involving the copying of a famous Monet painting, the target of which is multi-millionaire arsehole and publisher Lord Shabandar (Rickman). While it’s not the world’s most exciting plot, it’s classic rather than innovative, I provides for many, quite frankly hi-bloody-larious, set pieces (special mention goes to the Savoy scene, which is just amazing) and guffaws. You can probably guess that I did laugh a lot, which is saying something because this sort of thing usually is not my cup of tea at all.

It’s pretty difficult to say more than that really, the acting is good, the sets are good, the scripting is tight and everything just works well - it’s just a solid good film. I laughed my arse off and had a great time, and I don't even like farce. Go and watch it basically.  

Watch if you liked: The Pink Panther (the original)

If you liked this watch: BurnAfter Reading 

Sci- Fi Bonanza! Plus Awesome Django Unchained TV spots

Two bits of sci-fi news today for you lovely people today. Firstly, Ridley Scott’s Forever War has got a writer. Dante Harper, who is yet to have a screen play actually delivered onto the big screen, has been announced to help translate the classic sci-fi novel into moving pictures. Untested as he is (although note the releases that will come out soon, on IMDB)I trust RS to deliver on all things sci-fi, especially one that has been at the back of his mind for a looong time. If this isn’t magnificent I’ll eat my hat.

The other bit of news is that the plot synopsis for Star Trek Into Darkness has been released. Official bumbf says: “When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.

“With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.” Which all sounds rather marvellous I think.

Now you fine individuals, two cracking Django Unchained TV spots here and here.  

Wikileaks and Scary Aliens

The word is out that Laura Linney is in talks with DreamWorks about their, as yet untitled, Wikileaks project. There is nothing I like to see more than British actors doing important, mainstream films, so the idea of Benedict Cumberbatch, James McAvoy and LL featuring in a project about one of the most important  issues of the last 5 years is really bloody cool.

There is also this trailer, for the film Dark Skies. Which is a horror movie with aliens. I am, basically, fine with aliens, so this might be one horror movie that I actually watch, rather than scrabbling for the off button on the remote when its ad comes on TV…

Men in Tights and Weird Scots News

First up: Zack Snyder has been making cryptic comments that it will be his version of Superman that will appear in a 2015 Justice League film. He said, "I don’t know how Justice League is going to be handled. Honestly, I don’t. But ‘The Man of Steel’ exists, and Superman is in it. I don’t know how you’d move forward without acknowledging that," in a recent interview with The New York Post.  This is on top of confirmation that there will be at least another two Superman films in the current series. It would be pretty odd to have two representations of Superman running concurrently. So I guess this is pretty good confirmation that the Supes we will see in JLA 2015 will be Henry Cavill. I’ll keep you posted.

The other superhero news is a bit of clarification on the tone of Iron Man 3 will be darker, but not as dark as the Dark Knight. Think Mocha, not Espresso. Producer Kevin Feige said, in The West Australian, “It’s not a serious movie, but we do seriously dig into exploring more of Tony”. Which doesn’t make things entirely clear, but it sounds pretty interesting. Bring on 2014.

Finally, Fox Searchlight has secured the rights to a Susan Boyle biopic. Don’t really care about this but it gave me an opportunity for a funny picture. Tune in next time for some more hard hitting journalism and deep analysis. 

Slow News Sunday!

Wow, really not much to say today. This footage arrived on the web of the filming of Terry Gilliham’s The Zero Theorem. From what I can see the aesthetic looks pretty cool. And the plot looks interesting. So yeah, keep an eye out I guess. I’ll bring you something more interesting tomorrow. Cub Scout Promise.

Here is a funny picture of some cats...

Nemesis and TMNT News.

Before we get onto more trivial stuff I want to say RIP Larry Hagman, you will be missed.

Twitter, oh great font of some knowledge, we shall never again doubt your ability to provide semi reliable news. This week’s possible truth is that there is an adaptation of Mark Millar’s Nemesis. Having read the Wikipedia article on Nemesis, and having read some of Millar’s other stuff, I can confirm that this is 

something to get pretty excited about. If it’s anything like the recent adaptation of Kick Ass it will be fricken sweet.  Anyway the tweety business can be found here, at the moment it all seems legit. I’ll keep you posted.

 

Other than that, Corey Feldman has said he has been “in communication” with Michael Bay, about reprising his role as Donatello in an upcoming Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot. Which I guess is good for fans of the original TV show. That said, given that Bay has a history of bending popular franchises over a table, I’m finding it pretty difficult to get excited about this. I think I speak for everyone of a certain generation when I say “Mike, please don’t take a dump on our childhood… again”. That is all. 

Late to the Party Reviews: Ted

The big problem with Ted is that the jokes don’t stretch far enough. While the main joke, that there is a womanising, dope smoking, sweary teddy bear running around, might last for a half an hour TV episode, in a film it gets really old really quickly. That’s not to say that it isn’t funny, it’s about a million times funnier that a lot of films that come out, it’s just that it isn’t as funny as it could be. It’s like too little jam spread over one massive crumpet.

The other major beef I have with the film is that a lot of the humour is aimed pretty low. Whilst that other MacFarlene project, Family Guy, often mixes up the crude with quite sophisticated (not entirely sure that’s the right way to describe it, but anyway…) jokes, Ted seems like it’s been pitched much lower. I don’t know whether this is just because McFarlene had an off day, or whether it was a conscious decision to give the film a broader appeal. Whatever the reason, it’s a real shame, if I wanted to watch something at this level I would go and see Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay for the tenth time.   

Again though, it’s not that the film isn’t funny, it’s just that it feels like it could have been a lot funnier. And that’s pretty damning in a comedy film. The one thing that I will say in its favour is that the fight scenes are all really good. This is one of the things that I have always found odd about MacFarlene, how the hell does he manage to choreograph such awesome fights? Anybody who has seen the Peter Griffin vs Giant Chicken fights will know what I mean. I mean, it wasn’t enough to change my ultimate opinion of the film, but it was still nice to see.  

So there you go then, a pretty funny film, with some good fights, but which is basically a bit disappointing. Watch it if you like Seth MacFarlene anyway, but don’t expect it to change your life.

Watch if you like: Family Guy

If you like this then watch: Harold and Kumar 

Fun Friday Trailer Time

This looks funny, way funnier the 21 and Over. British comedy FTW!

This looks cool. Kinda makes me want to watch the first one. Korean girl vs. weird fish monster, who will win? The video also has a cool bit showing before and after CGI at the end, which is awesome if you are into that sort of thing.

And this looks way better than I previously thought. Looks like it might be a genuinely good retelling of an old fairy story, without being shit.

SEALS and Supes!

Millennium films, well known for The Expendables, have bought a high concept script, titled "High Value Target",  by Spencer Cohen, well known for not much, about a US Special Ops team (actually not SEALS, but the picture wouldn’t have worked otherwise) shooting some Somali pirates.  Kind of like Pirates of the Caribbean, only with more geo-politics, and fewer zombies. It’ll be shot in a found footage style, which is soooo original… I mean seriously, The Blair Witch Project was 12 years ago, get over it. Anyway, I think that the subject matter needs to be treated pretty sensitively, otherwise the whole thing will end up being in terrible taste, and probably rubbish. Let’s hope it’s not.    

Other than that, Zack Snyder has confirmed that the first trailer for Man of Steel (i.e. the Superman film, not a biopic of Stalin, which would also be pretty cool I guess) will premier before The Hobbit. Which is fan-bloody-tastic. I was already massively excited to see Bilbo et al. and this is just the icing on the nerdy cake. Awesome news. 

Late to the Party Reviews: Prometheus

Back in 1979 Ridley Scott directed a film called Alien. It was bloody awesome. In 2012 he directed the prequel, called Prometheus. Is it as good as the original? No. Is it still very good? Yes. Here’s why.

Firstly, the sense of pacing is good. You might fondly remember how very little happens in Alien for half of the movie, in a good way. Prometheus is pretty much the same, the enjoyment is in the wait. It’s a pretty bold director who holds of action for so long, but it works and really builds the tension.

That said, no amount of clever pacing could save the film if the acting was rubbish. Luckily Fassbender has managed to avoid dropping into his “Oirish” accent. No repeats of X-men: First Class here! (seriously, kinda breaks the realism when Magneto starts sounding like an extra in Father Ted). Other than that Idris Elba is reliably good, although he isn’t on Stringer Bell form (The Wire, watch it) and that bloke from Pete vs Life is also, surprisingly, good. Although, why do they give them all weird American accents? Do they think that we won’t believe that Chas from Elephant and Castle can fly a space ship? Especially when there are other Brits who get to keep their voices. Odd, very odd.

Anyway, the other thing that really sets the film apart is the way that it looks. The style is very similar to the original Alien, and it has that cool H R Giger vibe running through it as well.  The action scenes are also very pretty in a way that it is not immediately easy to put your finger on. It’s a tasty morsel for the eyes, in addition to everything else.

That’s not to say the film is perfect. It’s burdened by some huge expectations that it doesn’t quite live up too (how could it, given how fricken cool Alien is), some of the plot points don’t make a huge amount of sense, and  there are lots of questions that are left unanswered, which, to some, might seem like a pretty cynical set up for a sequel. Overall though, this is a cracking movie and, as far as I‘m concerned, well worth a watch.    

Watch if you like: Alien

If you liked this watch: Moon