War Horse Review

The ultimate horse opera! The mane event! Saddle up for Steven Spielberg’s War Horse!

Exuberant intro over, now let’s settle down and review the film. War Horse is based on the children’s novel by Michael Morpurgo, and has previously (and currently) has enjoyed universal praise as a highly successful and innovative stage play. The narrative follows Joey, a horse that is bought to work on grouchy Peter Mullan’s farm. There he becomes the companion of Mullan’s chirpy sprog, Albert (Irvine) and together the pair manages to save the family farm from the grasp of unpleasant landlord David Thewlis. Shortly after, the First World War breaks out and Joey is shipped off to fight in France. There he will come to know several owners from all sides of the fighting – but will he ever meet his beloved Arthur again?Who can possibly say? The impressive cast also includes Emily Watson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hiddleston, Toby Kebbell and Niels Arstrup.

After the generally but not wholly positive response to The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Superfluous Subtitle, one imagines that War Horse is perhaps intended as the more heavyweight counterpart to the bearded one’s other family friendly film released in the latter part of this year. It’s a tricky balance to pull off – mixing heavyweight emotional heft with child-friendly wonder but Spielberg, as you might expect, mostly manages to do so. There are some rather hammy parts and subtlety is not always on the menu – which is perhaps a hangover from the theatrical origins of the film, but by and large War Horse ably caters for both children and adults.

There are some great things to say about the film. The horse is a uniquely cinematic animal – they look great charging across a screen – and Spielberg captures his equestrian thespians beautifully. Most of the actors give strong accounts of themselves. Hiddleston and the reliably good Watson are particularly strong. The battle scenes are scintillating (reminiscent, perhaps, of a gore-freeSaving Private Ryan) and there’s a curious interest in seeing the cavalry charge tactics at the start of the war superseded by hideous trench warfare by its end, and it’s pleasing to see both the British and the Germans humanised equally. Lastly, the emotional journey from utter distress when Joey enters ‘neigh’-man’s land in the final part of the film to cathartic joy at its conclusion is judged almost flawlessly.

Unfortunately, given the amount of characters in the film, it’s almost inevitable that a number of them pale in comparison to others. Mullan’s, for example, is denied the complexity required to make it work: the character’s often inscrutable actions and emotional distance are inadequately explained away with the clichéd ‘he saw bad things in the Boer War’ excuse. Likewise, Arestrup and newcomer Celine Buckens’ ever-so-French grandfather-granddaughter double act feels trite and somewhat stereotypical. It’s a wonder Gerard Depardieu doesn’t turn up at some point and offers to sell them some onions and cheese (that said Buckens still manages to be rather charming in her brief role). The film is also rather too long and there is an almost entirely unnecessary penultimate scene that does nothing except stretch the already strained believability of the film for a moment of serendipity.

Having said all that, War Horse still stands up as very decent family film, from which younger viewers may learn much about friendship, loss, trust and loyalty. Older viewers are likely to find much to enjoy too and everyone is advised to bring a tissue, or failing that, blinkers.

Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol Review

Tom Cruise is back for a fourth outing with the IMF. That’s Impossible Mission Force, obviously, not International Monetary Fund, as any sensible person would naturally assume. The film kicks off with Cruise being busted out of a Russian prison for crimes unknown. He and his team (Pegg, Renner, and Patton) are then sent on the trail of Michael Nyqvist’s nuclear terrorist via the Kremlin, Dubai and Mumbai. En route, the Kremlin gets a bit blown up in what is incorrectly assumed to be an American attack and Team Tom are formally disavowed and must go rogue in order to save the day.

MIssion Impossible: Ghost Protocol is inherently, inexcusably and spectacularly ridiculous. It’s overlong, makes baffling logical leaps and in Tom Cruise, boasts a lead actor who may just be getting too old for this shit. It is also a heck of a lot of giddy and occasionally breath-taking good fun. It is likely to make you happy; and for this it must be commended. The ‘good bits’ come fairly frequently. Some are eye-boggling set pieces, such as the outstanding (and arguably pointless) free climbing section on the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest skyscraper. Others are smaller moments, such as the witty exchange between Cruise and a pursuer as he thinks twice before jumping from a window ledge; “it’s higher than it looked!” (This sequence is undermined somewhat by the vaguely grotesque sight of Cruise’s forty-nine year old bare chest; he’s escaping from a hospital and would frankly look more dignified in a backless surgical gown).

Whilst it is rollicking good fun, there are some disappointing elements. Nyqvist is largely wasted – there are product placement items that get more screen time than he does (notably the iPad). In his white suit, he also looks like a psychotic Colonel Sanders in the film’s climactic fight sequence, which is unintentionally hilarious. Director Brad Bird is similarly absent from the picture. I was interested to see what the Pixar guru’s take on the franchise would be but the direction leaves little impression. It would seem that Bird’s biggest influence on the film was getting it shot (partly) in the IMAX format rather than in 3D, for which I personally am rather thankful.

It’s also a little disillusioning that Pegg must play the bumbling goofball to Cruise’s cool dude when in real life, I’m fairly certain the opposite is true. But then if you can buy that, you’ll probably also be able to handle some of the Die-Another-Day-Invisible-Car levels of gadget ridiculousness (the pretend corridor screen, the hovering magnetic suit) and the fact that at one point, Cruise attempts to outrun a sandstorm.

Despite these things, I still enjoyed the film a great deal and when I say that occasionally it was at the film’s own expense, I don’t wish that to come across as too mean-spirited. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is the ideal popcorn movie. It may be stupid, it may be brash, but it’s also good clean fun. And if you go to see it at the IMAX, you’ll also see some of the new Batman; what further recommendation do you need?

Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol Review

Tom Cruise is back for a fourth outing with the IMF. That’s Impossible Mission Force, obviously, not International Monetary Fund, as any sensible person would naturally assume. The film kicks off with Cruise being busted out of a Russian prison for crimes unknown. He and his team (Pegg, Renner, and Patton) are then sent on the trail of Michael Nyqvist’s nuclear terrorist via the Kremlin, Dubai and Mumbai. En route, the Kremlin gets a bit blown up in what is incorrectly assumed to be an American attack and Team Tom are formally disavowed and must go rogue in order to save the day.

MIssion Impossible: Ghost Protocol is inherently, inexcusably and spectacularly ridiculous. It’s overlong, makes baffling logical leaps and in Tom Cruise, boasts a lead actor who may just be getting too old for this shit. It is also a heck of a lot of giddy and occasionally breath-taking good fun. It is likely to make you happy; and for this it must be commended. The ‘good bits’ come fairly frequently. Some are eye-boggling set pieces, such as the outstanding (and arguably pointless) free climbing section on the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest skyscraper. Others are smaller moments, such as the witty exchange between Cruise and a pursuer as he thinks twice before jumping from a window ledge; “it’s higher than it looked!” (This sequence is undermined somewhat by the vaguely grotesque sight of Cruise’s forty-nine year old bare chest; he’s escaping from a hospital and would frankly look more dignified in a backless surgical gown).

Whilst it is rollicking good fun, there are some disappointing elements. Nyqvist is largely wasted – there are product placement items that get more screen time than he does (notably the iPad). In his white suit, he also looks like a psychotic Colonel Sanders in the film’s climactic fight sequence, which is unintentionally hilarious. Director Brad Bird is similarly absent from the picture. I was interested to see what the Pixar guru’s take on the franchise would be but the direction leaves little impression. It would seem that Bird’s biggest influence on the film was getting it shot (partly) in the IMAX format rather than in 3D, for which I personally am rather thankful.

It’s also a little disillusioning that Pegg must play the bumbling goofball to Cruise’s cool dude when in real life, I’m fairly certain the opposite is true. But then if you can buy that, you’ll probably also be able to handle some of the Die-Another-Day-Invisible-Car levels of gadget ridiculousness (the pretend corridor screen, the hovering magnetic suit) and the fact that at one point, Cruise attempts to outrun a sandstorm.

Despite these things, I still enjoyed the film a great deal and when I say that occasionally it was at the film’s own expense, I don’t wish that to come across as too mean-spirited. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is the ideal popcorn movie. It may be stupid, it may be brash, but it’s also good clean fun. And if you go to see it at the IMAX, you’ll also see some of the new Batman; what further recommendation do you need?

Goon Review

My experiences as a film blogger have taught me many things. That you have to take the good with the bad, for example. That you whilst may never receive any comments on the vast majority of your reviews, any criticism of Michael Bay will result in abuse. And that whilst not a sure thing, the quality of catering at a screening is often directly inverse to the quality of the film. So when I was presented with hotdogs from Bodean’s prior to the press screening of Goon, an alarm bell sounded in my mind.

I need not have worried. Goon, purportedly based on a true story, tells the tale of Doug Glatt (Sean William Scott), a stupid but kindly bouncer who stumbles into minor-league ice hockey due to his ability to give out – and take – a beating; mid-match fighting not only allowed but encouraged in ice hockey. All the hallmarks of a classic sports comedy, laid down in tablets of stone by Will Ferrell, who of course, invented the genre, are present and correct. The plucky underdog side, the feisty love interest, the intimidating rival (embodied here by Liev Schreiber) and the climactic, season defining game that stands between glory and ignominy.

Allow me to make a bold statement: the mark of a good sports comedy film is defined by two factors. Firstly whether its viewers who are not familiar with the game in question can adequately enjoy the narrative and secondly whether its humour is derived at the expense of or independently of its subject matter. Goon is successful of both counts. Despite having little prior knowledge of the sport, I was engrossed by the games – alongside the enjoyably scuzzy look of the film generally, there are also several lovely flowing shots of the game in action, especially when the team’s misfiring talisman Laflamme (Marc-André Grondin) gets his mojo back. The humour is also derived through the characters rather than through cheap shots at the sport.

There’s plenty to enjoy in Goon – the central performances from Jay Baruchel (who co-wrote the script with Evan Goldberg) as Doug’s lewd best friend, Allison Pill as his conflicted love interest, Schrieber as his nemesis/mentor and William Scott himself are all very good. Michael Dowse (It’s All Gone Pete Tong, Take Me Home Tonight and the FUBAR films)’s unfussy direction and the script’s clutch of decent jokes are also commendable. Best of all though, is the general amiability of Doug’s character that is reflected in the overall feel of the film too. There’s a real happy-go-lucky mood in the picture that makes it very easy to enjoy. An example of which would be the relationship between William Scott and Schreiber. Whilst they are ready to beat the living crap out of each other on the rink, they enjoy a quietly-spoken friendship off it.

Goon by no means reinvents the wheel as far as sports comedies are concerned and Doug’s abject stupidity is a little unbelievable at times, but neither of these minor quibbles can derail what is otherwise a very enjoyable and funny little flick. Get your skates on and go see it.

A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas Review

Harold and Kumar, the twenty-first century’s answer to Cheech and Chong return with their third film, a festive extravaganza featuring hi-jinks (or, if you will, ‘high-jinks’), Father Christmas and, of course, Neil Patrick Harris. Or if we’re being humbugs, child abuse, grievous bodily harm and attempted rape.

It’s fairly amusing to note that Kal Penn (Kumar) abruptly left his regular gig on House (the character was hastily killed off off-screen) to take a job with the Obama administration, a post he left with similar swiftness to film a new Harold & Kumar movie. Here is man with his priorities in order (Penn retook his post before leaving again to star in the NPH-starring How I Met your Mother). Bleary-eyed H&K fans will be glad that he did.

Taking place some years after Escape from Guantanamo Bay, A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas sees the stoned twosome estranged from each other. Harold (Cho) is raking in the cash on Wall Street and trying for a baby with Maria (Garcés), now his wife. He lives in thrall to the mother of all fathers-in-law, Danny Trejo, whose prize Christmas tree is destroyed almost immediately after Harold is reunited with the still slacking Kumar. The pair embarks on a bizarre journey through New York in search of a suitable replacement. Cue chaos.

The previous Harold & Kumar films have always been puerile, juvenile and consistently funny. They have also boasted something like a social conscious, offering sly commentary on racial attitudes in amongst the drug-taking and smut. Though the two preceding films are not exactly what you’d call cerebral, A Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas feels dumber even by H&K’s standards. The race jokes feel cheaper and less incisive, and rely more on daring to show stereotypes rather than challenge them. The attitude towards women is similarly troubling. NPH’s cameo still manages to be funny, but he’s disturbingly aggressive and rapey. Harris gets away with it, due to the ‘nice-guy’ persona he’s known for in the real world, but you feel there are probably very few other actors that would.

There’s probably an awful lot you could get offended by in this film (an infant being exposed to a frankly unhealthy amount of illegal narcotics, graphic penis abuse, Father Christmas getting shot in the face), but let’s not worry about all that and instead giggle ourselves silly at the antics these two get up to. There’s surrealist Claymation, wry stabs at the 3D medium, impressively up-to-date featuring of the Occupy movement, a funny robot; and that baby on drugs is pretty funny.

So: plenty of outrageous stunts, a lots of chuckles and a plethora of drug-taking fun (marijuana smoke appears to waft out of the screen into the auditorium with pleasing frequency, in what is possibly the best use of 3D yet). Most of all though, there’s the sense that the people making the film are having as much fun as those watching it. Not to get too deep man, but you can almost feel the love. A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas is a pleasing festive viewing that fans will delight in. Ding dong merrily on high.

Rewind and Rewatch?

On Thursday night my fellow film blogger Andrew Jones Tweeted that he’d just enjoyed his fourth viewing of Thor (or should that be ‘Thor-th’). I was actually stunned by this. What was more surprising was that Andrew hadn’t liked the film at the first time of asking. Fair enough, as he explained to me, his second viewing was as part of a Marvel all-nighter which is what won him over and the subsequent times were on Blu-Ray. So there were reasons, but this still seemed odd to me. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Thor well enough; it was enjoyably silly stuff with a likable cast and some witty ideas. But, given the option, would I see it four times in the six or seven months it’s been out? Heck no.

But then I wouldn’t even watch some of my favourite films again, given the option. I stopped rewatching films about four or five years ago. Generally speaking that is. There’s always going to be an occasion when an old favourite comes on TV and I’ll watch with friends or family, but by and large, once is enough for me. Whilst some of my favourite films include the likes of City of God,Star Wars and Twelve Monkeys, I can honestly say I have no true intention of ever watching any of them again. My reasoning being that with so many films out there that I haven’t seen (and believe me, there are dozens and dozens of glaring omissions from my ‘seen it’ list – but that’s another discussion for another time), where do I find the time to rewatch ones I have?

As any sensible twenty-first century film blogging gentleman would do, I put the question to Twitter. Perhaps unsurprisingly, as I follow a lot of lovely fellow film-friendly folks, all of those who responded were very much in favour of the rewatch. My friend and filmmaker Daniel Johnsonwas first to respond to the following questions: “Rewatching films: who does it and why? When there are so many films out there to see, who has the time to rewatch stuff? Or am I alone in this?”

Although he told me that in his opinion, ninety-nine per cent of films are irrelevant, it wasn’t about numbers for Daniel, more about finding the films that resonate with him and rewatching them to gain a greater understanding of himself. He also said that, “I don’t love movies, I just love the movies that I love.” Another Daniel and self-confessed ‘occasional blogger’ Daniel W. ventured that frame of mind is important when watching a film and can be the cause of different reactions on repeated viewings. Daniel Johnson countered that whilst that was true to a point, truly great films capture you first time around no matter what. Dan W conceded that he couldn’t think of a film that he’d radically changed his opinion about second time around.

The other contributor to the conversation was freelance journalist Michael Ewins, who did admit to a drastic change of opinion about some films he’d watched second time around. He told me he rewatched films in order to pick up on subtleties a first viewing had not revealed. He also believes that as we get older, we get pickier as we fear our own mortality, which, though ‘a bit heavy’, I agreed with.

I enjoy a good conversation, be it spoken aloud or via Twitter and this one forced me to question my viewing habits and draw some conclusions about them. It may be rather self-aggrandising, but I don’t feel like there are a great many films I don’t fully understand on a first viewing. Less pompously, I can concede that perhaps my appreciation of cinema has not yet fully developed. Finally, it’s true that I do watch a lot of trashy films and all too frequently, intentionally. There’s nothing wrong with trashy films, I love ‘em, but I believe they’re counterproductive to fostering a culture of repeat viewing for me.

Of course, one thing everyone said was that it is after all, a personal choice how often you rewatch. The great thing about film is that you watch it on your own terms. But what are your thoughts on the matter?

Holy Rollers Review

Who doesn’t love a good old true-life story? In particular, who doesn’t love a true-life story that involves drugs? And who doesn’t love a true-life story that not only involves drugs but also involves Hasidic Jews? On paper then,Holy Rollers would seem to have all the right ingredients to be a fun-filled, watchable romp. Unfortunately, things don’t play out quite so successfully.

Everyone’s favourite Social Networker Jesse Eisenberg stars as Sam, a Hasidic Jew living in Brooklyn with his family and amongst other members of the Orthodox community. Money being tight, he takes his friend Yosef’s (Bartha) advice and begins smuggling what he believes at first to be medicine into New York from Amsterdam. Sam quickly finds out that the ‘medicines’ are in fact stashes of delicious disco biscuits. Sam becomes embroiled in the drug running and falls for his dealer’s girlfriend Rachel (Graynor), all the while keeping up the façade of being a good citizen and devout Jew. Eventually of course, things spiral out of control as events accelerate towards a near inevitable conclusion. Can Sam stop his family finding out the awful truth? Will Sam realise the error of his ways, but all too late to save a friend? And will there be titles prior to the closing credits that tell us what everyone got up to next? What do you think?

Director Kevin Asch’s main problem is a debilitating lack of plot. Whilst the central conceit – Orthodox Jews as drug mules – is undeniably beguiling, there really isn’t any mileage or indeed anywhere unexpected that it can take us. As such, Asch pads out his thin film with all too many montages of people dancing in clubs to 90s house music, which is unfortunate as the people on screen are clearly having more fun than those in the audience.

Whilst Eisenberg gives a decent performance, it isn’t enough to carry the film. It may have niche appeal as a curiosity, but Holy Rollers is ultimately quite flat, fairly dull and pretty predictable and is surely one of a very select number of films that would have been better if played as a broad comedy.