The Mechanic Review

Jason Statham is, as we all know, the go-to-guy for violence, stunts and stubble that entirely covers his head. Sylvester Stallone considered his action credentials well established enough to cast him in last year’s The Expendables, alongside such luminaries of the action genre as Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren. Lately, Statham’ stock in trade has been knock-about, tongue in cheek actioners such asDeath Race and the Crank and Transporter movies. But every action idol needs to clock in a semi-serious, half decent film every once in a while to keep credibility in check and to avoid tumbling into embarrassing, straight to DVD self parody, like Steven Seagal. Is The Mechanic another Statham by numbers or a cut above?

Statham plays Arthur Bishop a hitman working for mysterious company, who performs his assignments with a high level of professionalism and proficiency. Bishop is surprised to learn that his next target is a close friend and colleague, Harry McKenna (Sutherland). After dispatching Harry, Bishop takes his adult son, Steve (Foster) under his wing as an apprentice in an effort to channel the young man’s self-destructive tendencies and for companionship. It also stars Tony Goldwyn, star of Ghost, voice of Disney’s Tarzan and director of currently showing Hilary Swank-’em-up, Conviction. Go figure.

I was reasonably surprised to find myself impressed by The Mechanic on several occasions. Perhaps it’s simply the choice of its eye-catching New Orleans location (which certainly lent Bad Lieutenant and even the animated The Princess and the Frog a certain visual flair), but The Mechanic certainly doesn’t look half bad. The film is shot beautifully and creatively, not at all like your average action thriller. The first act manages to just about avoid dullness and comes over all broody, with some of the original’s existential angst thrown in for good measure. Ben Foster (sadly not Birmingham City’s goalkeeper) is surprisingly good in a role that could easily have been over-egged by a lesser talent. The film generally teeters on the edge of stupidity but somehow manages to avoid falling in.

Those not inconsiderable good points aside, the film has some disturbing problems. Most questionable was its treatment of minorities – the only black character in the film is brutally beaten half to death and the only gay character is killed is also brutalised, though this time all the way to death. Of the film’s four female characters (who have about twelve lines collectively) two are prostitutes (one of which asks Foster to ‘hurt me’) and the other two are a mother and daughter who exist simply to be terrorised and tortured by the male leads. This being the twenty-first century, these issues are really quite inexcusable in any film, but especially in one that would like us to take it seriously.

The film is utterly amoral in its outlook too, but it was actually quite refreshing not to have clear cut good and bad characters. It did make for a vaguely unsatisfying ending, however, as you’re never really sure which of this nasty bunch of characters you want to prevail. The violence was also really quite horrible and nasty, though again, it is something of a relief to have some realism and not ‘cartoon’ violence, as in so many action films. When people get punched, it looks bloody painful and when they get shot, all this red stuff comes spurting out. There’s actually a great deal more red stuff spurting about than I would have expected for a film with a fifteen certificate, which, coupled with a gratuitous and largely unnecessary sex scene (does anyone really want to see a nude Jason Statham grunting all over some poor woman?) must surely push the boundaries of what is acceptable at this age bracket (largely by not portraying any of the above ‘glamorously’, according to the BBFC report).

So, in spite of some incredibly poor creative decisions, The Mechanic does remain a beautifully shot and even somewhat interesting film that perhaps stands a bit above standard action fodder.

The Dark Knight Rises Casting

If it has not already been drawn to your attention, it was announced today that Anne Hathaway and Tom Hardy have been cast as Catwoman and Bane in Christopher Nolan’s third Bat-film,The Dark Knight Rises. Whilst it is a little early to gauge a prevailing popular opinion on this news, allow me to offer my two cents on the matter.

It seems clear to me that a great deal of the point of The Dark Knight was to set up The Joker as the proposed trilogy’s final villain – as the late, great Heath Ledger taunts Christian Bale’s Batman at that film’s conclusion, ‘I think you and I are destined to do this forever’. Unfortunately, sad real life events put a stop to any further outings for The Joker in Nolan’s saga. Also unfortunate (but to a far lesser degree), was the decision to kill off Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent, who would have served as an excellent third film villain in Ledger’s absence. These two deaths, both fictional and real, have forced Nolan to enlist new villains for the inevitable third film.

Of course, the watch-word for Nolan’s series thus far has been realism, or at least something approaching it, which rules out a great deal of Batman’s rogues gallery (Killer Croc, for example). There were also rumours regarding an admirable ambition on the scriptwriter’s behalf of a reluctance to utilise villains that had appeared in Batman films before (though that clearly hasn’t materialised). As such, Catwoman seems like a reasonable choice, though Bane perhaps less so.

Like Batman, Catwoman traditionally is a superpower-less character (barring a vague ‘nine-lives’ power in some iterations), who operates as a thief, so that fits into Nolan’s world relatively nicely. Hathaway seems like a reasonable choice for the role and the tone of the previous Nolan Batman films suggests that The Dark Knight Rises would bridge the gap between her more mature roles (in films such as Brokeback Mountain and Rachel Getting Married) and her more family-friendly fare (The Princess Diaries, Get Smart, Bride Wars). The woman has decent range and so long as her part is written well, she could well be exemplary in the role. It would be interesting (though perhaps ill-advised) if Nolan were to tackle the romantic angle between Batman and Catwoman, though probably unlikely given Bruce Wayne’s devastation at the death of Rachel Dawes in the previous film.

Bane, on the other hand is a more risky choice. Traditionally portrayed as a magic potion enhanced super soldier, he may have to be adapted to fit into Nolan’s world, perhaps as a steroid freak? His major contribution to Bat-lore would be breaking the Caped Crusader’s spine back in the early nineties. Whilst that was a thrilling arc in the comics, it is hard to imagine how it would be written into what is presumably the final instalment in Nolan’s saga, without leaving an awful lot of loose ends or making for an awfully rushed film. Hardy, however, is an extremely promising actor and his turn in Bronson as a semi-psychotic hard arse would suggest he could suit the role.

If the previous two films (and his other work) have taught us anything, it’s that Nolan has more than earned our trust with the Batman franchise, having not put a foot wrong thus far. Cillian Murphy’s Scarecrow is still potentially in the mix, so we should not rule out an appearance from him. If there has been one positive from Ledger’s death, it would be the fact that his excellent performance in The Dark Knight has forced any other actors entering the franchise to really raise their game. If Hathaway and Hardy comply, then I’m sure they’ll shine in The Dark Knight Rises.

The Dilemma Review

Vince Vaughn arguably hasn’t had a leading role in a decent film since 2004 with Dodgeball, which seems like an awfully long time ago. And whilst The Dilemma does not really hail a glorious comeback, it is something of an interesting failure.

Ronny and Nick (Vaughn and James) are best friends and business partners on the cusp of sealing a major deal with Dodge automobiles, having successfully pitched their idea for an electric car engine that provides the same revs and rumbles as a gas-guzzler. Things become problematic, however, when Ronny spies Nick’s wife Geneva (Ryder) kissing another man (Tatum). Ronny’s titular dilemma is how and when to tell Nick about Geneva’s infidelity and whether telling him sooner rather than later will compromise Nick’s abilities in the engine room in the crucial week before their big presentation. Ronny’s increasingly secretive nature also jeopardises his own relationship with Beth (Connelly). The action is directed by Ron Howard.

In its original draft, I’m willing to bet that The Dilemma’s script was actually very good – despite the film’s frothy, friendly, advertising campaign, the picture is actually surprisingly dark at times. Ronny’s previous gambling addiction informs much of the action and his friends’ suspicions of him. The effects of infidelity on lovers and friends are also portrayed with something approaching brutal honesty. Unfortunately, the film has rather obviously been rewritten into a rather tamer beast, possibly at the behest of its director or star.

A more mainstream-friendly rewrite is not the film’s only problem. Drastic shifts in tone, an uneven focus on the engine-development subplot, rather outdated usage of the word ‘gay’ and a slow start to the humour don’t help the film. Women are given something of a short shrift in the film. Jennifer Connelly is lumbered with dull role and given little opportunity to shine and Winona Ryder’s ‘bitch’ role seems reductive of the more complex issues hinted at in the script and is also a rather annoying stereotype. Whilst Ryder’s character takes whatever flak is thrown at her, the menfolk are seemingly beyond reproach. There are also several weird flaws in the plot – the strand that discusses Nick’s visitations of massage parlours is never resolved and it seems strange that Ronny wouldn’t tell Beth about Geneva’s unfaithfulness straight away, rather than risking their relationship. There’s also a needless layer of extra jeopardy added between Geneva and Ronny that serves very little to the plot.

There are other flaws too, but to list too many would distract from the film’s strong points. The cast give generally decent performances and Vaughn in particular redeems himself somewhat for the recent tripe he has put his name to with a good comic performance (his toast at Beth’s parents’ anniversary party being an obvious highlight). Channing Tatum is also surprisingly funny as Geneva’s younger lover and Queen Latifah also raises a smile in a minor role. The charm of the cast, some genuine, if infrequent moments of humour and the central conundrum of the plot saveThe Dilemma from being a total car crash. Whilst it is perhaps too problematic to justify parting with ten pounds at the cinema, it may enjoy more interest on DVD. And even if you don’t like Vince Vaughn, you can console yourself with the frankly astonishing frequency with which he gets smacked in the face in the film.

Soul Men Review

Samuel L Jackson and Bernie Mac star in this road movie/rockumentary/buddy comedy. Louis and Floyd were backing singers in a legendary 70s soul group, The Real Deal, but fell on hard times after lead singer Marcus Hooks (played by John Legend) went solo. Thirty years later, Floyd is stuck in a retirement home and Louis is living in poverty after a spell in jail. When news of Hooks’ death reaches the pair, they are cajoled into travelling across America to perform at their former band mate’s memorial concert. Things, however, do not go smoothly, as estranged daughters, aging groupies and their own acrimonious relationship threaten to derail the whole venture.

It is unfortunate that the film is overshadowed by the deaths of Bernie Mac and Isaac Hayes (who has a small part as himself), who both passed away within weeks of filming. A sweet tribute to Mac plays out over the credits, which is in stark contrast to the otherwise frenzied tone of the film. Apparently, the film was re-cut following the deaths to allow for a softening of its tone, which is surprising – the film is relentlessly rude from start to finish, with enough f-bombs launched to level a small country.

The film is ultimately something of a mixed bag. There are several funny one liners, the ‘archive’ footage of the band in its heyday is amusing and Samuel L Jackson remains an actor I’d be happy to watch in anything. The music is also not too bad (there was a quite clever moment in which a soul song was given a rendition with country and western instrumentation) and Mac is also reasonably charming. In spite of this, though, the film is wholly unoriginal, rather scattershot in its approach and uncomfortably offhand towards women. There was also a sequence featuring domestic violence, which, while commendably punishing a wrongdoer, sat uncomfortably with the more adolescent humour throughout the rest of the film.

Soul Men is a rather rough diamond then; or a highly polished turd. Given the inconsistencies in tone, it would have been interesting to see how the original cut played out, one hopes it may see the light of day yet, if only out of curiosity.

Morning Glory Press Conference

To promote their new film, Morning Glory, actors Harrison Ford, Rachel McAdams and Patrick Wilson Patrick Wilson and director Roger Michell held a press conference at Claridge’s Hotel in London. A large selection of the international press arrived to ask questions varying from environmental issues to ‘special body language’. Harrison Ford was a quietly dominant presence and both very intelligent and dryly humorous. Patrick Wilson seemed a little as though he might be suffering from an inferiority complex from his co-star, but was also interesting and funny. Rachel McAdams was charming and excitable and Roger Michell was also a pleasant interviewee.Mr Michell, I’m sure you’re aware that in this country the title of the film, I’m told, can mean something… Different?

RM: I had heard that it can have a second meaning. I think Paramount caught up with this possible confusion quite late in the day. I’m not sure if it’s something current in America, Patrick are you familiar with the expression?

PW: I think it’s left a bit open by ‘late in the day’, the way I understand it.

Was there any question of changing the title for Britain’s sensibilities?

RM: On the contrary, I think it’s especially appropriate to Britain.

As well as being a comedy, the film makes some pertinent points about the blurring of journalism and entertainment nowadays. Is this something you were keen to get across without being preachy or shoving it down our throats?

RM: Exactly. The film doesn’t attempt to proselytise about what the balance between hard news and entertainment should be. Clearly that is the debate television in general and morning television in particular. How far do you stress the hard news bit and how far do you stress the funky cooking bit and that’s integral to our characters and to our plot. The film raises that debate and then kicks it around with some passion but it doesn’t pretend to come up with a formula or a particular answer.

Ms McAdams, I was struck by how much your performance reminded me of a young Katherine Hepburn, I wondered if that was the way you approached it, to capture that tone and zestful feeling?

RMcA: Thank you, that’s very flattering. I don’t know what I was thinking. I really loved the way [scriptwriter] Aline [Brosh McKenna] wrote this character. I thought she was really hopeful and energetic. There was lots of room for physicality which is something I love to do and Roger encouraged that a lot. I don’t know that I had anyone in particular in mind. I certainly met a lot of producers – not many women in this role, because it is a really taxing job and difficult to have balance in your personal life. I liked her energy and her gusto.

Mr Wilson, there would be no need for you to…

PW: [interrupting] to speak at all!

That’s true!

PW: [Motions as if to leave] Thank you, thank you!

I’m far too polite to let such a thing happen. There was no need for you to go to anchorman school for this film, you just needed to phone your dad.

PW: That’s right, my dad and my brother are both TV anchors, on the same station.

No rivalry there then?

PW: I think my brother’s waiting for my dad to retire to take over the spot.

What was their critical assessment of the film?

PW: They loved it. I remember there was a time when my dad, who’s been a night time anchor for over forty years, was switching channels and had to do the noon news and that wasn’t even a morning show – it was hilarious to see my dad up, much less speaking at eleven or noon. That’s one of the things I said to Roger when I first met him, for what it’s worth, the script is a pretty accurate description of the attitude of the evening presenter. My dad’s not nearly as crotchety as Mr Ford’s character, but the attitude of the evening news men towards morning fluff was pretty accurate.

In another lifetime, I worked on a morning programme and apart from the comedy, the film’s depiction is sadly spot-on. Mr Ford, you give a brilliantly dry comic performance, but we so rarely see you in comic roles. Is this through choice or do you not get enough comedy scripts?

HF: I don’t think there’s a lot of wit in comedy anymore. In America it’s taken on a certain adolescent humour. I’m a little too old for that. I was grateful to have this script. It was very well-written and the character was an interesting one for me to play.

Were any of you watchers of breakfast television before making the film and do you have any newfound respect for the practitioners who make it now?

RM: I didn’t watch much of it and I had the usual kind of prejudices and almost contempt for them, until we started to see how they were made in New York, where there’s such a vibrantly competitive market for these shows. I became more and more in awe of the people who stay up all night doing these shows and by ten o clock it’s all over and they have to do them again. Rachel and I spent a lot of time hanging out with these people, going to their meetings, seeing what their lives were like, what remained of them and seeing what a difficult balancing act it was for these networks with morning shows to assemble a news-y, entertaining programme, so I came out of it with much more respect for them.

Ms McAdams, what was it like making a film about one of the programmes you’ve undoubtedly appeared to promote your films in the past?

RMcA: It’s very interesting to be on the other side of the fence. I watched a lot of morning television growing up as a kid because I skipped school all the time. I didn’t play hooky or go out and smoke pot or do normal things, I watched daytime television. So I had a fair amount of experience with what you see in front of you but not so much behind the scenes, so it was really fun to go on these shows and see the anchors with their fluffy slippers on behind the desk or their accoutrements beside them off camera. And from the point of view of the control room, it’s a gong show back there, it’s completely crazy, fast-paced, melodramatic… I had a hard time following it when we first got there, it’s so vast. Stories are over before you’ve even acknowledged it. I have a lot of respect for what happens back there and how much energy and vitality you have to have to make it through a 3am to 10am shift and then do it all over again the next day.

Mr Wilson, did growing up in a TV family give you a different perspective on breakfast television, if indeed you watched it at all?

PW: I did watch it. I watched a lot of news. I think what was interesting was watching the shift from news to entertainment back pre-cable when everybody watched the news and the ratings were astonishing because the numbers of people that watched news were just huge. It was a daily ritual. With cable it became much different with people jockeying for a position, ratings became more important so news became much more like entertainment. That was really interesting to see from a perspective of growing up around news and watching how that’s shifted. I had the same reaction growing up in a newsroom, watching the madness. The good presenters and anchors are the people listening to someone yelling in their ear going, ‘camera one! Stall them! Keep going!’ [adopts, calm, measured newsreader tone] and all the while you’re sitting there, talking, telling the news. The good ones are the ones that don’t get rattled or if the teleprompter screws up being able to speak and not just be automatic.

What is your experience of watching or not watching morning television Mr Ford?

HF: My experience comes from appearing on morning television over the years to promote films. I have been part of all kinds of morning shows. I certainly admire those people that do it well and there are a lot of people I think that do. My character [Mike Pomeroy] is a pretentious, stuffy, self-satisfied person who really only has respect for what he’s done, his particular form of journalism. I could understand what Mike’s point of view was, but as I say, I respect people who do a good job, no matter what their job is.

He’s an old-school journalist; he’s always done his job properly and got the story, which is a dying art.

HF: He thinks it’s a sacred profession. And in a sense it used to be. In the United States, the most trusted man in America was Walter Cronkite, who kept his opinions out of it until nearly the end of his career when he came out against the Vietnam War. I still think that the network news anchors do a very good job, they have the resources and the budget in order to do it, but there’s another brand of news now that confirms whatever political prejudice you have and is full of bombast and vitriol and I think that contributes to the divisiveness and the lack of civility in American culture.

Ms McAdams, can you tell us your favourite news programme favourite broadcaster?

RMcA: Actually nowadays, I really like to listen to the radio; I find it a nice way to start the morning. I’m not as up on television anymore, I think I wore it out when I was younger. I OD’d on it. I really like CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]. I still live in Canada so I listen to CBC Radio every morning, John Givenchy, Matt Galloway. Shout out to the Canadian radio guys!

Mr Ford, can you tell us about your environmental work?

HF: I’m delighted to be involved in communicating about the environment. For twenty-five years or so I’ve been involved with an organisation called Conservation International and it was at their behest that I went to Nagoya [where a UN Biological Diversity Convention was held last year] to urge adoption of their agenda by the 192 nations that were assembled there, of which, only three nations are not signatories to the UN Convention on Biodiversity, one is The Holy See, The Vatican, the other is Andorra and guess what the third one is? The United States of America. So I went not only to urge for the protection of more of the terrestrial surface of the earth and the ocean, but to interesting the American government in stepping up to the plate and use that opportunity to become a signatory to the Convention. I feel that there was some significant agreement at Nagoya that was followed up by some positive approaches the following Convention. It’s an ongoing battle but I’m happy to be able to be part of it. It’s critical that we make significant attempts to address the issue so our children can have something left of the world to live in. It’s that simple.

Mr Michell, what are your thoughts about ITV’s Day Break, which shares its name with the fictional programme in your film and how do you think it might improve its ratings?

RM: Well just a little background to that: we got there first! We were called Day Break before they were called Day Break. We had to go through all the names of the real TV shows and we were amazed to find that of all the 250,000 stations, no one had thought of the name Day Break. Adrian Chiles’s mob then put us wrong by choosing that name. [Addressing McAdams and Wilson] Weren’t you on that show today? I think that’s going out tomorrow. I have it on good authority that Rachel McAdams makes an anchovy and chocolate omelette.

PW: Mars Bar and anchovy, a McAdams speciality.

RMcA: [Embarrassed] they said not to take it seriously!

What was it like, Ms McAdams, taking part in the programme?

RMcA: It wasn’t the tastiest interview I’ve ever had. Patrick won the omelette competition that I wasn’t aware we were having and proceeded to eat his omelette and not share any.

PW: Not so much. Harrison looks after the environment, I make an omelette.

RMcA: Yes he did, he made a nice, fluffy omelette and I made a Mars Bar omelette, which I think will catch on one of these days, so you better get used to it.

Mr Ford, how do you think Piers Morgan will do in succeeding celebrated television host, Larry King?

HF: He’s promoting his show by professing to be looking for the truth in his subjects. So I shall have nothing to do with him! I’m not interested in the truth; I’m interested in selling product. You want the truth? Go someplace else. Not my business.

Mr Ford, how did you find playing the ‘third worst person in the world’, as your character is repeatedly described and can you tell us anything about the forthcoming Cowboys and Aliens?

HF: I had no difficulty at all slipping into the skin of the third worst person in the world. It was a very well written script, the characters were very clear, the path of the character, from being the third worst person in the world to perhaps the fourth, that he had through his relationship with Rachel’s character, was a clear dramatic obligation and it was great fun to play that character.Cowboys and Aliens, which comes out in July, seems to be the kind of movie people go to these days, more than once. I liked being involved in one of those. I think everyone involved did a bang-up job. It was wonderful working with Daniel Craig, who is a funny, smart, guy and the director, Jon Favreau. It was a very different kind of movie, I was very happy to do it. I love Westerns, it’s great to be outside all day on a horse. I play a grumpy old man in that as well.

I understand Kim Jong-il as being the worst person in the world, but what did actress Angela Lansbury do to be the second, Mr Wilson?

PW: Oh, that’s the trick right there. It was a toss-up between her and Betty White. But she’s not pleasant, let me tell you that.

How was it acting like you didn’t like Diane Keaton in the film, when clearly she’s so likable, Mr Ford?

HF: I’m in it for the money, that’s what I do. It was clear that that was the relationship. She’s fun to work with, she’s very smart. I’ve always admired her work; she was a pleasure to work with. Roger is a really helpful director, he sets up situations very well and it was easy and fun to do.

And how did you find working with Diane Keaton, Ms McAdams?

RMcA: I’ve been fortunate, this is the second time I’ve worked with Diane. It was sort of a strange shift because I played her daughter in The Family Stone a few years ago and then to go to playing her boss, whom she didn’t like – I was so used to being her baby and she was so lovely and we were on the same team against Sarah Jessica Parker’s character and now she’s slamming doors in my face and making fun of me and calling me Gidget and I was like, ‘well this isn’t fair!’ But it was great to have those two very different experiences with her because she can do so much and I love being around her as an actress and as a person. She’s a fabulous person, even at six o clock in the morning.

Mr Ford, there’s a scene in the film we’re you’re in a bar with several real-life newsreaders, what did you talk about off camera with them?

HF: Chicks. No, we told terrible, bad jokes. It was midday, in a bar, with no drinks, with several people I’d never met before. They were all very charming, but their jokes were terrible. So that’s what we did, we sat around telling jokes, we didn’t talk about the news business.

Back to Diane Keaton, there’s an amusing scene in which she plays the bagpipes, had she had any lessons before?

RM: We did have group bagpipe rehearsals but unfortunately only Diane showed any aptitude for the instrument. That was a longer sequence as you can imagine, but no she never really got a single note out of it. It was her only attempt and it was a dismal failure, but it’s funny.

Mr Ford, do you recall working with Alison Doody, on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? What was she like to work with? I met her recently and she had nothing but praise for you, she said you perhaps one of the most important people she’d ever met.

HF: What was the name? Of course I remember her, she was a pleasure. She was quite new at the game at that point but she was great. Quite beautiful, playing my love interest… lucky me. She brought a lot to the table. She was delightful. I never got to know her quite as well as she got to know me, apparently, but she was really sweet.

You’ve obviously got a great sense of humour; who makes you laugh Mr Ford?

HF: I laugh a lot, largely at appropriate junctures. A lot of people make me laugh, Steve Martin, Robin Williams. Steve Martin’s a classic comedian and Robin is in a world of his own. I like Billy Connelly quite a lot, but then I like Benny Hill.

Ms McAdams, have you, like your character, ever had trouble with your work life interrupting your relationships?

RMcA: Probably that I’m not aware of, yeah! I think that the nature of film is that you work really intensely for a few months and you leave your home and your family, everything behind and it’s really easy to become very myopic and focussed on that one thing, so I’m sure I’ve pissed a few people off doing that. But then you get time to come home and reconnect.

252 Sign of Life Review

The title of this film refers to the emergency signal used by Japanese fire fighters, basically their equivalent of an SOS signal. When a massive typhoon hits Tokyo, causing enormous hailstones to rain down on the city before a huge tidal wave swamps the streets, hundreds of commuters are killed in an unprecedented natural disaster. Former fireman Yuji and his deaf daughter Shiori are trapped in the subway after it floods, along with a precious few other survivors. Yuki must utilise his survival skills to ensure his small band stays alive long enough to be rescued from the unstable underground prison they find themselves in. Meanwhile, Yuji’s former colleagues above ground work tirelessly to rescue the survivors.

252: Sign of Life is portentous, over-long, predominantly dull and very cheesy. There’s supposedly a central debate about to what extent rescues services should put themselves at risk to help others, but the arguments are uninvolving and lost in the overwhelming tedium. There’s no sense that any of the characters are ever in any real danger – anyone who has a line to speak survives; it’s hard to care about any of them when the film plays it this safe. There’s a passing resemblance to the disaster movies of Roland Emmerich (indeed, the scenes of Tokyo being destroyed do look rather like a monster-less Godzilla movie) and whilst he is hardly a creative genius, at least there’s a sense of fun and entertainment in his films, which is shockingly absent in 252.

True, the scenes of destruction are quite impressive visually and the film’s one moment of invention and interest is done well – an electric aquarium pump is repurposed in an intelligent manner – but this is far too little to recommend the film by. The killing blow comes with its none more melodramatic ending, which takes things so far over the top, it was actually very funny – including, but not limited to, a fireman tearfully saluting his former ally Yuji, emerging from the earth, covered in mud and blood, carrying a comrade on his shoulders, all in glorious slow motion, backed by quivering strings. That scene was wholly, if unintentionally, hilarious, but far from a reason to see this film. When there’s a whole world of excellent cinema out there to explore, it’s impossible to recommend films as dull and listless as this one.

Morning Glory Review

The setup for Morning Glory seems promisingly funny, if unlikely to rip up any rulebooks. Roger Michell (Notting Hill) directs spunky television producer Rachel McAdams, who is given a tough break in charge of an ailing breakfast television programme (which, in an amusing coincidence, is called Day Break), to which she manages to lure Harrison Ford’s crotchety and serious newscaster as a new presenter. Ford’s commitment to hard journalism and general misanthropy clashes with the triviality of the show, his co-anchor Diane Keaton and McAdams’s positivity. Comedy, surely, ensues.

It feels wrong to criticise a film that seems to try so hard and has plenty of good things going for it, but Morning Glory is terribly lacklustre, utterly predictable and painfully average. Those good things going for it include an impressive cast – Ford, Keaton and McAdams are flanked by Patrick Wilson and Jeff Goldblum – a buoyant central character and some amusing sparring between Keaton and Ford. The latter is wonderful on screen and draws attention like some sort of cinematic black hole, warping the very fabric of the film around him, to utilise a rather eccentric metaphor. His acerbic comments are delivered very amusingly. Keaton is another charismatic screen presence, but is underused. McAdams’s character is a reasonably decent female role model, but is reduced to waddling around in her pants in a couple of instances. There’s also an all too brief cameo fromModern Family’s Ty Burrell, arguably the funniest man in American television right now (though that is possibly not an argument you would win).

It comes as no surprise to learn that the film’s script is written by Aline Brosh McKenna of The Devil Wears Prada fame. No surprise, as the plot of Morning Glory is nearly identical – a young woman enters high powered workplace and experiences trouble with an older, unpleasant colleague. Eventually, however, she earns their respect and finds success and love. The plot goes nowhere you wouldn’t expect it to and a very false of jeopardy is created by some totally arbitrary deadlines. You’ll also see the final payoff coming a mile away.

The central conceit of Ford’s character – who pertains that the news is scared and under threat from the influence of crass entertainment – is rather undersold too: as McAdams further dumbs down Day Break, its ratings go up, yet there is little indictment of this or any negative outcome, or any real discussion of the issue at all. Surely a film should expect its audience to be able to handle a more complex debate than that?

Ultimately, the film is a disappointment, not really because it is particularly bad, but because it failed to live up to its potential, a true shame given the calibre and talents of its cast and of Harrison Ford in particular. One wonders how closely art imitated life in this film: was Ford unwillingly herded into a fluffy feature that is quite possibly beneath him? A bigger dose of his character’s nasty streak and a curbing of its more sentimental sensibilities would have doneMorning Glory a lot of good. As it stands, the edgiest thing about it is its poorly chosen title.