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.