This Means War Review

The improbably named Tuck and FDR are top CIA spies and best friends who fall for the same woman, with zany consequences! Well ‘zany consequences’ were the intention anyway. The actual consequences are tedium, annoyance and great swathes of mirthless drivel.

To be fair, improbable names aren’t surprising when your film is directed by a man known as ‘McG’ and by the same token, the bizarre monikers of your protagonists are also the least of your concerns. The ingredients are reasonably promising; you’ve got a decent trio of lead actors in Tom Hardy, Reese Witherspoon and Chris Pine (though he perhaps isn’t as decent as the other two), a simple plot which shouldn’t be too difficult to mess up and loads of money to throw at the screen. Heck, you’ve even got Will Smith as a producer. Who wouldn’t want the Fresh Prince of Bel Air helping you out with your film?

Unfortunately, that’s about the best that can be said the film. It’s not that it’s outrageously and objectively excruciating, just really irritating and, crucially, very unfunny. I laughed once during the whole ninety-eight minutes (hey, at least it’s fairly brief). For what is supposed to be a comedy, that’s really not good enough. The unfunniness, to coin a term, is kind of rooted in the central premise. Having two secret agents using the full range surveillance equipment and invasions of privacy allowed by the Patriot Act to spy on a woman in order to gain more information about her interests in order to boff her first and also to scupper the other’s attempts to woo her stops being a faintly amusing plot device almost immediately and simply becomes incredibly creepy. While I’m at it, using the torture of a suspect and military drones[1] as sources of comedy is spectacularly ill-judged and in extremely poor taste. Would the film get away with these things if it was being satirical?Possibly. Unfortunately that’s not an angle that the filmmakers opted to explore.

You might argue that I shouldn’t be taking a frothy rom-com quite so seriously. Fair point. I would counter with the assertion that perhaps if there had been a few more laughs in the script, I wouldn’t have dwelt on these matters. Instead, I dwelt on how ignorant and insensitive the film was, how lunkheaded, trite and painfully predictable. I dwelt on all of these problems with the film and focussed my annoyance on four major factors of rubbishness: its poor taste, the fact that I highly doubt that an Englishman could work for the CIA, the character’s stupid names (seriously, what British person has ever been called ‘Tuck’ since that Friar that Robin Hood used to hang out with?) and Chris Pine’s freakishly large cranium. Check out the poster. It’s massive. Other than my obligation to write this review, the only reason I would have stayed in the cinema otherwise would have been to satisfy my curiosity as to whether or not Pine’s enormous skull would topple off his shoulders like an errant scoop of ice cream from a cone. Unfortunately it did not.
__________

[1] Which, lest we forget, are responsible for the deaths of an estimated 392 civilians, including 175 children in attacks in 2004 alone.

The Amazing Spider-Man Preview

You know, if you’re looking to create a buzz around a film, holding an exciting multi-national event featuring new footage and Q&As with its talent and inviting bloggers to come and write about it is an excellent idea. Such was the case with the upcomingThe Amazing Spider-Man. An even better idea is to allow said bloggers to use recording devices to accurately portray the event in order to publicise your film. There is something deeply ironic about being told to ‘please switch off your phones… and if you want to Tweet about the event, use the hashtag #TheAmazingSpiderman!’ Still, at least it means I don’t feel too much pressure to write with my usual razor sharp accuracy.

Anyway, despite that rather cynical opening paragraph, the event was actually very well put together and certainly stirred up no little excitement for the film. Taking place in several cities across the globe simultaneously, we were treated to several excitable presenters on one of Leicester Square’s big screens, each joined by cast and crew. In LA was director Marc Webb, lucky Rio de Janeiro had Emma Stone, New York boasted the presence of Andrew Garfield and live in person in our auditorium was Rhys Ifans, who was accompanied by a tamed grizzly bear called Cedric, though I may not be remembering that correctly.

The main event was the unveiling of the new trailer, which you may well have seen by now. It looked good. Really good. It’s evidently a lot slicker-looking and snarkier than the previous Spider-films and there’s more than a little bit of the Dark Knights about it (the police versus vigilante aspect, the Zimmer-esque soundtrack), which isn’t too bad a thing, provided Spider-Man can retain his own identity. I’m think I’m right in saying that Brian Blessed made a brief but memorable cameo in the trailer too, but again, there’s a chance I’m mistaken.

We then had a few Q&As from the talent. Here’s what we learnt:

• The ‘untold story’ promised in the film’s tagline will focus on Peter Parker’s parents.
• Emma Stone is as genuinely funny and charming as her reputation suggests.
• She also outlined the main differences between Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane. Basically, Stacy is rich, likes her dad and falls in love with Peter Parker, not Spider-Man.
• Rhys Ifans said it wasn’t difficult to figure out the motivation of a character that has a missing arm and is a geneticist specialising in lizards.
• Andrew Garfield is also rather funny and charming and convincingly won over the fans.
• He’s also nine feet tall, has fangs and a prehensile tail.
• I think.

We then got to see some further extended footage/trailer, which focussed on the ‘meet cute’ between Parker and Stacy, which was as enjoyable to watch as you might reasonably expect from two such well-lauded young talents (and deservedly so). Yet another charming thing in the footage reel was the fact that several effects shots were included that were far from complete, giving us some early nineties style computer graphics of cars flying around and some blue screen Spider-Man swinging fun. There was also a fair few glimpses of the Lizard, who is looking good.

Ifans stuck around after this to answer a few more slightly inane questions. One enthusiastic fan asked if the Lizard would have a snout, to which Ifans responded in his lovely Welsh lilt, ‘no, but he could smell you a mile off’. He was nonplussed about being immortalised as a Pez dispenser. He may also have declared war on the Prussian Empire at some point too.

On the way out, we all got a snazzy Spider-Man t shirt. I know that this definitely happened as I am currently wearing the evidence.

Man on a Ledge Review

Man on a Ledge’s director, Asger Leth, has few other credits to his name; the only other of note being his assistant director and co-writing role on The Five Obstructions, Lars von Trier’s experimental documentary in which he challenged the filmmaker Jørgen Leth (Asger’s father) to remake his 1967 film, The Perfect Human in five different ways. What then, could we expect fromMan on a Ledge? Surprisingly, it’s fairly slick and mainstream American thriller.

The plot is relatively simple – a man stands on a ledge of a building in New York, but rather than being suicidal, he is distracting attention from the diamond heist his co-conspirators are undertaking in the opposite building. Of course, there’s a little bit more to it than that. If you want to get bogged down in the specifics, Nick Cassidy, our hero, is an escaped convict and former cop, sent down for stealing the aforementioned diamond. Naturally, Cassidy didn’t steal the diamond but was in fact the fall guy in a dastardly insurance scam at the hands of an unpleasant property magnate. The only way to clear his name is to steal the diamond for real and present it to the authorities.

The simple plotting and robust structure of the film are to its strengths. It also boasts a strong cast. Jamie Bell and (relative) newcomer Genesis Rodriguez impress – their sparky double act as Cassidy’s brother and his girlfriend being the film’s most enjoyable aspect. Elizabeth Banks as the police negotiator and Ed Harris as the baddy give particularly good performances and supporting turns from Anthony Mackie and Edward Burns also please. Unfortunately our man at the centre of all this is played by charisma-vacuum Sam Worthington, an actor that never fails to bore.

The film will suffer in comparisons with comparatively recent releases such as Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and Tower Heist. The would-be vertigo-inducing ledge-standing shenanigans are thoroughly emasculated by Tom Cruise’s skyscraper shimmying. It’s hard to feel too frightened for Worthington on his rather roomy ledge once we’ve seen the Cruisester stuck to the side of the world’s tallest building with a just a sticky glove for assistance. Tower Heist also rather steals the film’s thunder in the ‘have a couple of slightly goofy characters perform an elaborate and risky robbery on an old evil rich dude in a tall building’ stakes.

The film that Man on a Ledge would clearly prefer to be compared to is Phone Booth, a classic example of that sub-genre of the thriller movie, the character stuck in a single location scenario.Man on a Ledge is too flighty to truly belong in this genre, but like Joel Schumacher’s neat effort, it’s fairly engaging, pleasingly taut and not beyond all realms of possibility.

Man on a Ledge’s biggest problem is its bizarrely Neanderthal attitudes to its female characters, of which there are three of any note (four at a push). Two of which (Banks and Kyra Sedgwick’s TV reporter) are described as being ‘despised’ and ‘hated’ respectively by male characters. Genesis Rodriguez is reduced to mere eye candy. Throughout the film, she wears a ridiculous push-up bra, which I assumed she was wearing in order to seduce a guard or something, but no, it’s simply to keep the adolescent boys in the auditorium paying attention. Similarly at one point, Rodriguez has to strip down to her undercrackers and don a skin-tight cat suit, for no good reason whatsoever. Well, for no reason to do with the plot at least. It’s especially irritating given how good Rodriguez is in the film; she shouldn’t have to be objectified and in such a crass and cynical way.

Nevertheless, Man on a Ledge was still largely enjoyable. By no means flawless, it is a strong ensemble thriller and a decent mainstream debut for Leth. On the strength of Man on a Ledge, and as long as he can shrug off its slightly derivative and uncomfortable sexist tendencies, it will be most interesting to see what his next project will be.

Go to Blazes Review

First released in 1962, Go to Blazes is a frothy British comedy in the classic mould. The film follows the escapades of a trio of hapless criminals. After their getaway from a jewellery shop robbery is foiled by a traffic jam caused by a fire engine, the gang decide to procure a fire engine of their own as the perfect getaway vehicle. With zany results!

For some reason it feels more difficult to criticise old movies than it does modern ones. I think there’s an innate instinct to revere that which has gone before, at least in terms of cinema. Of course, the language and culture of cinema today is vastly different from the early sixties, which makes it tricky, for me at least, to offer a fair critique. All that said, I didn’t really get a lot out of Go to Blazes. It’s not that funny and the sits from which the actors are expected to derive com are often pretty silly and not in a good way.

It did make me think what the film would be like if it were made today. Probably not much better. I expect you’d have Martin Freeman mugging his way through the thing with someone like Danny Dyer and/or the equally awful James Corden providing support. Freeman would also probably end up with the posh totty – in the real version played by a young Maggie Smith, in my fantasy modern version by, let’s say Gemma Arterton.

It’s not to say that Go to Blazes is total rubbish. It rattles along fairly well (especially the first half) and there are some nice shots of sixties London. It’s also a film that offers equal opportunity entertainment. Your granny is as likely to like it as your six year old cousin. Probably. I don’t know them personally.

Anyway, if you’re looking for a mildly distracting, but not that great sixties comedy featuring actors that would go on to work on Dad’s Army, Coronation Street, et al and fire engines, look no further. You’ll get on like a house on fire.

Cash Review

Part of the fun of being a deckhand for the good ship Blogomatic3000 is reviewing DVDs. More often than not, I never know exactly what’s going to arrive in the post and again more often than not, I think it’s fair to say, the DVD screeners are usually fairly obscure fare. As such, I might not know anything other than the film’s title when I push it into the DVD player, which was exactly the case with Cash. What would it be? A hard hitting documentary about capitalism? A rom-com set in a bank? That long-awaited biopic of Australia’s finest tennis player? I was just hoping it wasn’t another godawful 50 Cent gangsta flick.

Turns out, Cash is a fairly charming French heist film, first released in 2008. 2008? I hear you think (I really can hear you. And see you. Put some trousers on for godssakes). What on earth is it doing being released now? Well, Cashstars a certain Jean Dujardin, the now Oscar-nominated lead in The Artist. With near-worthless euros gleaming in their eyes, Metrodome have decided to release this in order to cash in on Dujardin’s sudden success.

There’s nothing wrong with that really. It is the movie business after all. Fortunately, Cash is actually pretty good. Dujardin is the titular rogue, the leader of gang of con-people, who enlist the help of a police detective in order to out-con a rival con-gang led by Jean Reno. A whole load of clever tricks, silly escapades and double-crossing and side-swapping ensues.

Dujardin is as droll and charismatic as he is in The Artist (turns out he can do acting in sound and colour too). He reminds me a lot of a French Hugh Jackman. Reno isn’t on screen much and more or less phones it in, but you can forgive that, because hey, it’s Jean Reno. The flick comes across rather a lot like a Gallic Ocean’s Eleven film (at least I think it does; I haven’t seen an Ocean’s film in about eight years). There are lots of snappy cuts of people zipping up zips and clicking open brief cases, a fair amount of wit and a superficially complex but not really if you pay attention plot.

Other than that, it’s a decently made, quite likable little film. It’s probably not going to wear out its welcome and you probably won’t give it a moment’s thought after you eject the disc, pop it back in its case and replace it alphabetically by title onto your DVD shelf. Still, it’s fun whilst it lasts and serves as a little curio from Dujardin’s past as he skyrockets surely to global superstardom.

Perfect Sense Review

Perfect Sense spent very little time in the cinema upon its release last year and I was very sorry to miss it. I was therefore glad to receive a test disc to review for its DVD release and pleased to report that it was well worth the wait. Set in present day Glasgow, the film introduces us to Susan (Green) and Michael (McGregor), a scientist and a chef. They meet, get together and fall in love against the backdrop of a global epidemic. An unknown disease afflicts the entire human race, which, over a fairly long period of time, robs people of their senses one by one.

First to go is smell, which the world’s population largely takes in their stride. Taste is next, which proves more troublesome. By the time hearing makes its exit, society is starts skating on thin ice. Superficially, you might compare this to Steven Soderbergh’sContagion, which released around about the same time. Whilst that film was interested in how organisations and governments reacted in the face of a crisis, Perfect Sense is much more interested in the response of everyday folk and their relationships. It is also, for my money, the better film.

Green and McGregor perform well and convince as a loving, modern couple – we see their relationship and devotion to each other develop, but we also see their complexities, desires and regrets as individuals too. Director David Mackenzie (Young Adam, Hallam Foe) tells the story well and, as you might expect, reflects the sensory deprivation of his protagonists on his audience. From a slightly geeky point of view, he also does some interesting things with locked off and roving cameras.

The emotional highpoint of the film is its ending, in which there is a moment of wonderful yet quiet catharsis, which is conveyed better than most such attempts in recent memory and manages to deliver a sense of both great joy and heartbreak in a truly stunning scene.

Some may criticise the film’s occasional penchant for the whimsical and there is one moment where the character’s actions don’t quite ring true, but that’s about the worst I can say about it.Perfect Sense was an engaging, inventive (the subplot regarding how Michael’s restaurant diversifies its menu in the face of the epidemic was very well done) and at its best, very affecting. Go buy it now. You know it makes sense.

Invisible Circus - No Dress Rehearsal Review

The Invisible Circus is a Bristol-based collective of performance artists, specialising in ‘site specific’ productions. Their shows involve cabaret, acrobatics, music, dance, theatre and humour. This documentary, directed by Invisible Circus collaborator Naomi Smyth, showcases the ups and downs of troupe over a formative few years in the latter part of the previous decade.

As well as having plenty to say about the group specifically, the film also looks at the wider issues of the contention between public and private spaces (an issue more relevant than ever in the wake of the recent Occupy movement) and squatter’s rights. The performance spaces in which Invisible Circus live and work consist of derelict buildings (pubs, cathedrals, police stations), often to the ire of private investors. It’s easy to sympathise with the IC – why should buildings that once belonged to the public be left to do nothing but accrue value when groups such as IC can provide something of value to the community at no cost to the owners of the space?

We see the group grapple with those that don’t share their beliefs – a particularly frustrating sequence sees bailiffs and security brought in at great expense in order to keep out the IC who were essentially caretaking the building in the first place. Of course, we also see how both the collective and the council benefit mutually when the latter decides to work with them, rather than against them. Later on, as their success grows, the group also faces a moral dilemma when offered the opportunity to work with a commercial partner.

We’re also treated to rather candid footage of a great deal of the collective’s individuals; their arguments, discussions and hard work all on display. No Dress Rehearsal also works as a rather fascinating ‘how to’ guide for anyone with an idea they want to see brought to fruition.

Some viewers may find the division between the ‘behind the scenes’ footage and actual performance (about two parts of the former to one part of the latter) to be unfavourably balanced. You may also feel that some of the individuals a bit too wilfully eccentric and the film may be difficult to enjoy if you by no means share any of the beliefs or principles of the group. Still, we can all surely agree that as a portrayal of a bunch of people doing something they believe to be A Good Thing For Everyone, No Dress Rehearsal is an inspiring and exciting film.

The Invisible Circus: No Dress Rehearsal is available on DVD now, seehttp://www.invisiblecircusfilm.com/ for further details.

John Carter Preview

In preparation for its release in March, cast and crew members of the forthcoming Disney sci-fi extravaganza John Carter were in the capital this week to promote the film. I, along with seemingly every other film blogger and journalist not at the London Critic’s Circle Awards was in attendance at the Apollo cinema to see a selection of preview clips and partake in a Q&A with the film’s star, Taylor Kitsch, animation whiz Eamonn Butler visual effects wizard Sue Rowe. Producer Kevin Kurtz was on hand to introduce the film and its concept and director Andrew Stanton introduced the clips in pre-recorded videos.

John Carter (formerly known by the less vague denominator, John Carter of Mars) is based on the books of Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs. Carter is an American Civil War veteran that is mysteriously teleported to Mars, where he finds warring races, scary alien creatures and a convenient love-interest in the form of Princess Dejah Thoris. Bringing the character to the big screen has been the realisation of a childhood dream for Stanton, whose has previously worked on pretty much every Pixar film up to Toy Story 3 in some capacity, most notably directing Finding Nemo and Wall-E.

Of the clips we saw, the first was perhaps the most amusing. It saw Carter being forcefully recruited by Bryan Cranston’s colonel. Each time Carter makes to attack or escape there’s a hard cut to him being further restrained or incarcerated, much to the amusement of the audience. Other clips included Carter meeting alien ally Tars Tarkas, an Attack of the Clones style gladiatorial arena battle, Carter meeting his dog-like companion and a ‘last stand’ type battle which was particularly engaging, though probably a bit spoilery too.

Perhaps the most interesting thing I learned was that although John Carter was always intended to be a 3D film, the decision was made to add the effect in post-production, rather than shoot with 3D cameras. After the poor reception received by Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland for using this after-the-fact method of 3D-ifying, one wonders how wise this decision was.

The cast and crew seemed rather smitten with their director and each had several anecdotes to tell about his hardworking and visionary nature. Kitsch possibly hints at sequels to the film. I must apologise for some ellipsis and summarisation in the following transcript; I unwittingly left home without my Dictaphone and had to rely on my mobile phone and some rough notes to bring you the following Q&A…

Taylor; Andrew Stanton has had a vision in his head of John Carter for over thirty years. How do you make sure his vision tallies with what you have in your own head?

TK Yeah no pressure by the way! I wasn’t exposed to John Carter until my first meeting with Andrew. I walked into the room and it was literally floor to ceiling in preparation. Not just the visuals we’ve just seen, but a complete character arc for John Carter. [I left] completely inspired by that energy that he had. You envelope yourself in the books, but more importantly, when you get the script, it becomes your bible… We were collaborative in shaping Carter. It’s a very empowering thing directing with a vision like this. He wants your take on it to draw from too.

Carter’s rough edges haven’t been taken off. He’s a dark hero at heart.

TK That’s the most important thing for me. It’s truly an origin story of where John’s from. Obviously you can’t relate to be on Mars or dealing with the Tharks [aliens] and whatnot, but the Civil War and the family and the honour was what truly grounded me with who John is and is what I held on to throughout the whole thing.

Eammon, how difficult was the on-set motion capture?

EB Pretty difficult! We knew going in that we were going to use motion capture and facial capture for Willem Dafoe and Samantha Morton. Their characters were an abstraction that we took from real world to visual world… We needed animators that could work with the data… The actors would put on a real 70s looking Lycra suit on which captured their movements… They were allowed to act in this film. It’s a natural progression from Disney animators using mirrors [to draw facial expressions] and taking video references. Having actors acting their characters which we could just drop into the scene and mix and match; that was a big deal for us.

Sue, you and your team designed the film’s environments, often by taking real locations such as the Utah landscape and altering them, but also creating completely new sets. How long did that take?

SR Yes, along with Eammon, I’ve spent about two and a half years on the film, from storyboards to scripts… We built the sets in Shepperton and used cinemascope lenses to create different scales… We looked at the light, the sand, the dust, the rock [in Utah]; we took all those things and applied it to our digital environments.

Did the real geography of Mars inspire you?

SR Yes. We did a lot of research, looked at a lot of NASA photographs. In the opening shot of the film, we look all the way through; we see the canals of Mars, as Burroughs thought of them, we travel all the way through the clouds and into the Utah landscape. Then again we did have to make sure what we shot fitted into the live action stuff, so it was a little bit of one and a little bit of the other. The most important thing for Andrew was to make it photo real. It’s got to feel like you’re really there.

EB He wanted to make it feel like a period film.

SR We had a blue sky, not a red one, though a sunset on Mars would actually be purple. That’s how geeky I’ve gotten.

Was the film always conceived as a 3D movie and what considerations did you have to take to make that happen?

SR We knew pretty much from when we started shooting that it was going to be 3D. We decided not to shoot it in 3D because Andrew wanted to shoot it ‘for real’. We dimensionalised it afterwards, which has been done badly in the past, but this process has been done very well, it’s the best work I’ve seen. From an animation point of view, we had to take into account how the shot would be done.

EB In animation terms, it reduced the amount of cheating we could do. Animators are big cheaters. We had to make sure CGI characters were arranged in the shot properly to create the correct depth. Working in 3D is like working in a set of handcuffs, you can still work, but you’re kind of limited in what you can do. Andrew was very honest with us. He said he had enough on his plate directing his first live action film, a very complicated film from a special effects standpoint. He said he had enough on his plate without stereoscopy.

Are you a fan of 3D Taylor?

TK I am when it’s done right. I love it on this.

Did you want to throw things towards the lens?

TK To be honest it didn’t really factor in with my prep!

Why was the film’s title changed to John Carter from John Carter of Mars?

TK John Carter is truly an origin story and when you see film in its entirety, you’ll see why it was that way. Story-wise, he earns that title, something that I’m a huge fan of. Especially the last couple of minutes, they’re pretty great.

What’s it like going from independent films to big productions like this?

TK Oh, I just act harder [laughter]. I’ve done four million dollar independents, to these [these? Are we to assume Kitsch is signed up for a sequel? Probably] and others that are coming up… it’s no different.

John Carter has obviously influenced so many properties in the hundred years of its existence, from Superman to Avatar. How do avoid being accused of inadvertently ripping something off when that’s not in fact the case?

EB That wasn’t really a concern, we just wanted to make a great movie. You’ve got to get over your own prejudices towards those sorts of movies. You have to get past it and focus on what the story needs. Story is very important to Pixar and we knew we were in a safe pair of hands.

TK I think the beauty of this gig is that everyone’s going to have their own perception of it. I’ve read the books now that Stanton read when he was eight years, what we’ve both got in our heads is different and I love that. The second you start trying to emulate something, you have no base. The most important thing for any film or character is to have that true base and if I’m going to steal or copy from someone else, I got nothing.

Given that this is Stanton’s first live action film, at one point did you think ‘this is going to work’?

TK Going back to that first meeting we had. I knew nothing about JC. So at what point? Ten minutes into that first meeting. When you walk into that room it’s incredible. When we shot in London it was snowing really badly and just him and I made it in to the rehearsals. I walked into his office and obviously there were all the incredible action storyboards and so forth, but when in walked I saw in 360 degrees around the ceiling the emotional arc of JC, from the loss of his family, to his time on Mars, to his relationship to his dog, to Dejah, to Tars. It was a defining moment and I thought ‘I’m alright, I can trust this guy’.

I take it there were no questions about John Carter that you had that he didn’t have the answers to?

TK Oh I came up with some good stuff. One of Carter’s abilities is that he can jump really high. We were described scenes in which I’d be surrounded by Tharks and I was like, ‘Stant, why wouldn’t I just jump out of here?’ He gave it a minute and then he said, ‘Tharks with guns man. Any time you think you can jump away, there’s Tharks with guns. Right there.’

EB Andrew was very well prepared. If he didn’t have an answer to something, he’d come up with one very very quickly…. We were in very safe hands. He slotted into the live action worl very quickly.

SR You watch and learn, because man, he knows everything. He’s got it all boarded. On the back of his eyelids. He knows the emotions, how he wants stuff to look. He’s very articulate. He’d tell you exactly what he wants. Sometimes I’d have a visual effects problems and he’d tell me ‘it’s about the story, Sue!’

What was your favourite bit – what made you think ‘wow, I’ve done it’!

TK I don’t know if I’ve had that feeling. It’s an incredibly grounding gig. But it’s an honour to breathe life into a guy Andrew idolised growing up. When Andrew thanked me for the sacrifices I’d made, that was probably the greatest part.

EB So many great parts. Probably a scene where Carter and Tars and grappling, which was a technical challenge. I left it to the team and came back to it later. Being able to back away… You can get very myopic. It was good for me. I learnt a lot about being a supervisor. Sometimes you’ve got to trust dedicated people.

SR There’s a section in the movie where John and Dejah go to a building made from nanotechnology. How do you build something no one’s ever seen before? How do you make that? We went through months developing this idea. When we worked it out, I was like ‘oh this is what you mean!’ Andrew said, ‘I love it. You guys go to the pub. You’ve got it!’ That was a breakthrough.

Mr Kurtz, was there any pressure to update the time setting of the movie?

KK Andrew was trying to be as true as possible to how Burroughs saw Mars back then… That’s what Burroughs thought back then and that’s what Andrew tried to bring to life. Same thing with the Civil War part of the story in the character arc. It’s an event in John Carter’s life that people can relate to. They can relate to war, to loss, to trying to find themselves. Andrew tried to be true to the books and stayed within that timeframe.

Last question for Taylor; what preparation did you to get into the character?

TK None [makes as if to leave]! Well the body CG was great ‘cause I could just eat whatever I wanted… No, there was an excessively boring diet, a regiment of eleven month and training. I really tried to connect to the Civil War. I sat down with a bunch of historians at a university in Texas and studied it. They gave me hundreds of letters from Civil War veterans, guys who were writing home. I learnt an incredible amount through that. That was probably the biggest thing, the honour he has and the guilt for leaving his family.

Mercenaries Review

It would be disingenuous to suggest that I had anything other than fairly low expectations for my first screening of 2012. A low-budget, war film starring a bunch of unknown actors ‘and Billy Zane’ (a title card that actually caused titters of mirth among some of the more openly dismissive members of the audience)? How good could this possibly be?

If 462 users on the IMDB (at time of writing) are to be believed, not very good at all. It currently holds a rating of 4.4. Having seen Mercenaries, this seems a little unfair to me. Sure, it’s no classic, nor even a rough diamond, but it’s far from a stinker. The film begins with a military coup in Serbia. The low budget is evident from off, though the brutal execution of the president and his family is an arresting opening. Warlord Olodan Cracovic is behind the coup; he assumes command of the country and kidnaps the US ambassador and his aide. The US decides not to take direct action themselves for diplomatic reasons (how very like US foreign policy), but instead enlist the services of a team of mercenaries led by the resourceful Andy Marlow, a man haunted by his tragic past (of course). Can the team make it through enemy lines, capture the baddy and rescue the ambassador (and get off with his aide)?

Mercenaries is writer/director Paris Leonti’s second film. Previously he had production roles on a clutch of obscure flicks, but worked on Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan in the transportation departments (under the much less directorial moniker ‘Barry’ Leonti), so to be helming his own films is a considerable step up in anyone’s book. Mercenaries is solidly put together and even has moments of flair. It’s a shame the same cannot be said for Bazza’s writing. The no-frills setup should be fairly tricky to get wrong, but some bad dialogue and basic plotting glitches come dangerously close. For example, until I looked up Mercenaries on Wikipedia for the purposes of writing this review, I had assumed that Kirsty Mitchell’s ambassadorial aide was in fact his wife, which meant I was left rather confused as to why she was not so much flirting with as practically dry-humping Andy right under her supposed-husband’s nose throughout the film.

The performances are similarly uneven. More often than not, the actors give decent turns, but occasionally indulge in some distracting histrionics. And squad member Vas Blackwood wildly overplays his part throughout, making his character’s inevitable demise more of a relief than an emotional highpoint.

To focus so much on the film’s flaws seems unsporting though. Generally, it’s pretty solid, often gritty stuff. It’s generally rather believable and the final battle sequence is orchestrated very well indeed. You may not be getting slick, glossy, no holds barred shock and awe, but you do get an assured and distracting ninety minute adventure. And Billy Zane.

Top Ten Films of 2011

There were a lot of top-notch films this year; choosing a shortlist was tricky, picking the ten best of those was difficult and deciding the final order was challenging to say the least. Except for number one, this was an immediate gut instinct. As for the rest, let’s not worry about rank too much – they are all outstanding.

10. Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn)
Refn’s tribute to Michael Mann boasted sumptuous photography, an ice-cool performance from man-of-the-moment Ryan Gosling and an unbeatable soundtrack.

9. Rango (Gore Verbinski)
This wonderfully animated and marvellously skewed Gonzo-western proved that a team up between Johnny Depp and Gore Verbinski doesn’t have to be totally crap.

8. Bridesmaids (Paul Feig)
Bridesmaids was the funniest film of 2011 by some distance, was performed by an excellent cast and written by Kristen Wiig, who is evidently some kind of genius.

7. The Skin I Live In (Pedro Almodóvar)
The Skin I Live In was an exquisitely assembled visual treat; a perfect mix of brains, beauty and brawn.

6. Red White & Blue (Simon Rumley)
A powerful, gripping, horrifying and emotionally exhausting dissection of the lives of three very messed up people, which has been criminally underrated.

5. Trust (David Schwimmer)
A remarkably mature and sensitive study of an incredibly tough subject, which was brought to you by the bloke that used to play Ross in Friends.

4. 127 Hours (Danny Boyle)
I told you it would have made number two in last year’s list; evidently it faced stronger competition this year. Nevertheless, a combination of excellent direction, performance and writing meant 127 Hours held its own.

3. Tyrannosaur (Paddy Considine)
Completing my trilogy of ‘tough watches’ (see entries five and six), Tyrannosaur re-established three things: that Paddy Considine is amazingly talented, that Peter Mullan is amazingly talented and that Olivia Colman is amazingly talented.

2. Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky)
One of the most mental, insane, off the hook, thrill-ride, psycho-sexual horror show you’re ever like to see.

1. Source Code (Duncan Jones)
Duncan Jones went two for two, following on from the excellent Moon, with this bigger, bolder and better effort. Simply impeccable filmmaking.

Honourable Mentions

In no particular order: Never Let Me Go, True Grit, Patagonia, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Water for Elephants, Attack the Block, Senna, Super 8, and Melancholia. Finally, a couple of films that most people seemed to love but I thought were total rubbish: Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Kill List.

If you want to see just what films I’ve seen in 2011, then check out my Film 2011 spreadsheet below (*denotes a film I particularly liked).