Review: Warrior

A very downplayed, mellow drama that ramps up into an emotional finale, a film where characters speak more in actions than in words.

Following two brothers from a broken family, Tommy (Tom Hardy) is an ex-Marine unable to forget the ghosts of his past, and Brendan (Joel Edgerton) who is struggling to support his family, both use their father's upbringing in kick-boxing to enter a prestigious tournament. Their sibling rivalry will become the focus as they fight their own inner battles.
  
I find that Warrior is a film of two halves; there is an hour to introduce the characters, and an hour for the tournament battle. The latter is a great torrent of built-up emotions and inner turmoil, actions speak louder than words and everything is expressed through the two brothers' different desires to win: honour and family.
However, it is a bit of a slog to get to this point. Don't get me wrong, it is totally worth the wait, but you have to stick with it through the first hour which feels meandering. Tommy's character is recluse and mysterious, snapping and angry at everyone, little is given as to why until much later. Brendan's story is the opposite, he has family life to maintain and had given up kick-boxing to become a teacher instead. Begin the Training Montage!
There's a lot of The Fighter, and a lot of Rocky influences here, from "best son" and underdog family strife, its very own "Adrian" character, to the Big Scary Russian in the tournament... the beginning is a bit of a mire of clichés. But Tom Hardy steals the show with yet another role he disappears into; often appearing unrecognisable here as he becomes a force of pent up anger.


You have to stick with it early on, the pay off is rewarding if you do, but its probably best suited for fans of The Fighter and other films of the genre.

Additional Marshmallows: I highly recommend upping the volume on this one... I have mine set at a specific level for films, but with Warrior I found some of the dialogue (certainly early on) was a little too quiet.

Review: Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter

All flashy style, bright visuals, gothic silliness. Exactly what I expected from the director of Wanted, Night Watch and Day Watch!


I'm not a huge fan of Timur Bekmambetov, his films go from slick-and-stylish to downright goofy. Ironically he seems best suited to direct the adaptation of a book called "Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter" the fictional tale of Lincoln's pre-Presidential life as a slayer of vampires.
If you have seen the other films I have mentioned, you know what to expect. If not then I can only describe the film as a feature length deadpan joke, but it is gloriously well photographed, lit and has some creative fight scenes (the signature fight being in the middle of a stampede!)
Like a lot of Bekmambetov's movies I found the CG elements used were a little fake looking, certainly not the best seen. The vampires are reasonably traditional, only their jaws widen impossibly (no, not as bad as I Am Legend) and they can survive in the daylight. I think the best element of this indulgence is seeing a man whirling an axe around like a dervish, smashing vampires' heads off.

However, I was never surprised by the film; it went through the paces, character twists were expected, and perhaps a lot of the best bits were seen in the trailer already. It slows down - naturally - in the middle as Lincoln discovers his love for politics, and while this is temporary, the pay off of having vampires working with the Confederacy felt quite jarring. I preferred the pre-President story compared the war after his election.


It is nonsensical, go and see it for entertainment and leave your brain at the door if you are seeing it at all!
What's next I wonder, Danny Boyle to direct Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?

Review: Borat

It is hard to review something most people love with a lukewarm reception! Don't get me wrong there was more to Borat that I enjoyed than I expected, I went in with a lot of scepticism, but I  just don't think its quite my kind of comedy.


Borat is a fictional character, created by Sasha Baron Cohen, from Kazakhstan who is a journalist going to America to learn about American society. What follows is a lot of ridiculous situations with Borat falling into every social faux pas imaginable, sometimes in improvised scenes with the general public, other times within the film's staged acts. The effectiveness is somewhat mixed.
It is painfully obvious when Borat is "staged" and when it is improvising; the film quality becomes grainy and guerilla-style, making sure the public are unaware of a camera. These scenes though, are definitely my favourites. The initial subway trip in New York was good fun to watch, his walking about the streets welcoming everyone was good too, and Pamela Anderson... well, the less said the better!
However, asides from some of the buried honest subtext of social strife the film adds, a lot of the "staged" comedy (be it completely, or with the public at least aware of the filming) felt a little forced. The goods store he accidentally trashes, for example.


I might be a little hard on it, as there are great moments scattered throughout the mire of toilet, low-brow humour I cannot stand. It is a mixed bag with varying levels of inappropriate comedy, and I warmed to it a lot more than I thought, but the bar was set very low!


I'm definitely not watching Bruno.

Sorry to all the Cinema Cocoa fans who are now disappointed I didn't adore it, I have a very precise taste in comedy!

Saga Review: James Bond (No.1 - No.5)

That's right, with Skyfall releasing later this year I am opting to give you my thoughts on all of the Bond films! There's twenty-two films, and when I started this challenge there were twenty-two weeks before Skyfall, sounds good to me!
I grew up in the six year drought of Bond films, between the Dalton and Brosnen Eras, so my definition of Bond is Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights and License to Kill, while Goldeneye is one of my top favourites. It took me a little while to watch all of the other James Bond films, but they were regularly shown on television, and while the Brosnen films quickly worsened I would never grow to like the Roger Moore era. At least not yet.


Because there are twenty-two films I am breaking my reviews down into eras as best I can. Today's post is all about the original Bond, Sir Sean Connery, and the first five films.


So without further ado, let's find out what bowler hat throwing, jet-packing and scuba-diving excitement we can expect!

Dr No (1962)

I hadn’t appreciated how the “first James Bond film Adventure” had aged until now!

Oh it is still Bond, wonderfully so, all the classic elements are here; car chases, double-crosses, world-domination-obsessed villains, beautiful women around every corner. Less on the gadgets mind you.

While sent on a rather simple assignment to locate the whereabouts of a missing operative, secret agent James Bond uncovers a secretive mastermind bent on controlling the world. With few allies, Bond must use his wits and cunning to find out what is going on.

The film itself is remarkably slow paced (by today’s standards) much of the film has Sean Connery’s Bond sneaking about on his own, which has a convincing atmosphere to it. He is a spy after all. But Connery is an excellent Bond, aggressive, sophisticated and more than a little selfish.

Despite how I knew it was coming, the soundtrack to the film still irks me. I guess I am too accustomed to the later, flashier Bonds, but Dr No’s opening with Three Blind Mice, and the constant use of “Underneath the Mango Tree” throughout the film really bewilders me!

But still, it is classic and I have no overwhelming problems with it at all. Bond couldn’t have had his debut any better.

From Russia with Love (1963)

Certainly compared to Dr. No, From Russia with Love has a much stronger identity and personality; it is clear that the future films’ formula began with the second film.

After the defeat of Dr. No, the criminal organisation S.P.E.C.T.R.E plans to entrap James Bond by baiting him with a decoding machine. Bond must go undercover, yet the woman he is accompanied by (and the assassin pursuing him) works for S.P.E.CT.R.E, and could get the better of him.

The film’s pacing maintains the first film’s slower structure; most of it takes place onboard a train where Bond and Tatiana are undercover as a married couple. Earlier scenes include a detour to a gypsy camp (with included a cat-fight and belly dancing) and the first appearance of “Q division” at MI6.I like the supporting characters here a lot more here than in Dr. No, Tatiana actually has some depth and loyalties (unlike Honey Rider) and Bond’s associate Kerim is great at parrying Bond’s transparent womaniser nature. However I have to say the actual storyline isn’t too memorable; there aren’t set pieces and it is heavy with espionage, probably the most spy-like Bond movie ever made! It also started with a terribly deliberate false surprise.

But, it is a solid spy movie. The pride in the Bond theme is apparent; they really enjoy using it here! It is slow, but it is intelligent and feels more honest than most (even with some of Bond’s first proper quips!)

Goldfinger (1964)

Goldfinger was always one of my favourites from the early Bond eras, although watching it again... it is the template for future Bond films, even more so than From Russia with Love.  For the Connery films though, it remains one of the strongest, breaking and turning Bond’s established character traits against him.

When a young girl is killed by a gold smuggler Bond had been tracking, the secret agent takes on a personal grudge. Bond must find out what cunning schemes Auric Goldfinger has in store, and prevent them before it’s too late. 

The film has a darker tone than Dr. No (Bond does seem to get captured a lot!) but it also has the beginnings of goofier traits that will be exaggerated in future films; the Korean assassin Oddjob, with his deadly bowler hat, ace pilot Pussy Galore, and a stream of one liners quipped by a seemingly carefree Bond.

It is the definitive Bond, paving the way for the franchise; including the first full opening theme song, Q and his gadget laden Aston Martin DB-9 (“An ejector seat, yer joking!”) car chases and more Bond girls than you can shake a martini at. But is it possible some of From Russia with Love’s serious espionage is lost from the series at this point, in favour for more accessible action story telling?

Personally, I do enjoy it, it feels complete and very confident – how many third entries in a film franchise can you say that about??

Thunderball (1965)

Thinking back, I remember disliking Thunderball, but watching it again makes me realise it simply has a slower pace than the popular Goldfinger.

Bond is back in action when S.P.E.C.T.R.E’s second in command, the eye-patch wearing Largo, steals a bomber carrying two nuclear weapons. While S.P.E.C.T.R.E demands money, Bond must go on the hunt for the missing plane and stop Largo.

Thunderball is an underwater adventure, and surely for the 1960s the sights of marine vehicles and combat must have been unique. It still is, but today’s audiences may find it a little slow. The initial investigation takes a little time to get going: Bond has some random encounters; uses a jetpack; is nearly killed on a traction machine (wait, what?) and the investigation is simply “finding the bomber” anyway. Naturally this requires several Bond girls, although I did feel this movie presented one of the first true Bond femme fatales, and a good one too; a girl unmoved by typical Bond charms.

I enjoyed the soundtrack here too; John Barry really used the Bond theme and music library well here, adapting it to suit different scenes and moods (rather than the same song blaring over and over ala From Russia with Love!)

Overall, I enjoyed this more than I thought I would, it wasn’t as silly as I remember and something of a grand mix of the previous Bond movies.

Additional Marshmallows: Unfortunately live sharks were harmed in the production of the underwater sequences of Thunderball.

You Only Live Twice (1967)

As Sean Connery becomes more and more reluctant to play the role, we get a rather lacking “final” entry to his Bond era.

You Only Live Twice tells of Bond’s tracking down and identifying of the leader of S.P.E.C.T.R.E after numerous space craft from different countries across the globe are captured, threatening all out world war.

The film opens with Bond “dying”. But luckily the film’s title neutralises the threat even quicker than From Russia with Love’s opening scene. The film has less of James Bond’s traditional investigation and plays out more like a collection of brawls and set pieces stitched together, secondary characters and even Bond girls come and go with little to no development.
There’s the strangest of plot developments later in the film where Bond must “become Japanese” and learn the ways of the Ninja to lead a Ninja army. Isn’t an MI6 operative the British equivalent of a ninja, would Bond even need those skills? This replaces most of Q’s involvement; his only addition to the film is the zany mini-helicopter Bond flies in a throwaway reconnaissance mission.

While featuring a great over-the-top volcano base of operations (complete with monorails and rocket launch pad) the reveal of S.P.E.C.T.R.E’s commander, Blofeld (played well by Donald Pleasance) is surprisingly mediocre. He’s really quite stupid for the leader of one of the most powerful criminal organisations ever created. The payoff did not live up to the build up.

For the effective end of an era, and the culmination of the previous films’ mysteries, You Only Live Twice is pretty forgettable.

Additional Marshmallows: You Only Live Twice breaks the cycle of a Bond film being released every year, with the first four films being 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965.

Bond will return, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds are Forever!

Review: Snow White and the Huntsman

Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all? Duh, Charlize Theron, obviously.


The classic Grimm's fairytale gets a Gothic makeover in this atmospheric and wonderfully visual fantasy film. I am a sucker for "atmospheric, visual, Gothic fantasy films", so I really enjoyed this.
As I eluded to in my Mirror, Mirror review, the make-or-break with this film lies with (big sigh) lead actress Kristen Stewart, and while I may have gone in pessimistic, she did nothing to change my opinion in that she's an awful actress.
Luckily she has a great supporting cast (pun fully intended) Chris Hemsworth isn't quite given enough focus but makes good with what he gets, while Charlize Theron easily steals the show as the narcissistic but power-mad Queen Ravenna. I actually had far more sympathy for her character than I did for Snow White, and the film reminded me how much a good villain gives to a story. People respect heroes, but they love villains.


There's a very strong sense of atmosphere and presence in the film's visuals; every shot feels full and designed, from the armoured knights and horses, to magical forests both good and evil. I was reminded of the fantasy films of the 1980s, like Ridley Scott's Legend (a classic, if you've not seen it) with great costume work and even competent CGI. It is dark, sometimes unsettling and always visually interesting.


The only problem is Stewart, she is often a blank space on the screen, so little human reaction to anything, making Snow White merely a plot device for the other characters' emotional resonances. Fortunately though, there are so many good things going on around her, you can distract yourself quite easily.


Very much recommended for all; young will be inspired, older audiences will find it visually intriguing. It gets a very generous:

Review: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Having finally gotten around to seeing this film, I can enjoy some of the best acting talent Britain has to offer. That, and feel a little bewildered.


Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is the film adaptation of the popular spy novel of the same name which was also adapted for television in 1979 starring Alec Guinness. It follows an elite British agent who is brought out of retirement to track down a Soviet spy within the British intelligence agency MI6. His prime suspects are, alarmingly, the four top agents he once worked with.


Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hardy and John Hurt. Five reasons to see this film. There are some powerful and incredibly subtle performances here from all of them, and with so many strong personalities you'd think one would stand out or break the immersion. But no, they all work incredibly well together. Gary Oldman especially, I will never get over how well the man bends into his characters.


There are however, problems. The film is only two hours, and while I was initially impressed at this "short" runtime, I come out of the film feeling like there's a lot missing. Yes, it is a slow, ponderous and extremely sombre piece, relying on expressive glances and moody set pieces to tell the narrative, that isn't my problem. In fact I really enjoyed that unique aspect. I felt the editing was a little jarring; like there were scenes abridged and cut out, making others seem sporadic. I came away thinking there should have been a further thirty minutes, and I certainly wouldn't have been offended if there had been!


It certainly is not for everyone. It reminded me a little of The Conversation, and if it weren't for the excellent acting talent here, I'd say that film suited me better. It begs the question about how far you can really take book adaptation into film; there is definitely a line being crossed here. I enjoyed it for the unique experience it was though.

Trilogy Review: Men in Black

Men in Black

You know, when this came out in 1997 I loved it, yet shamefully I have not watched it for years; this film is great!

Based off a Marvel Comic (originally Malibu comics) Men in Black follows a New York cop who is enlisted into a secret organisation assembled to protect the public from alien invaders. Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) instructs the new Agent J (Will Smith) when a hostile bodysnatching Bug lands on Earth and threatens humanity’s existence!
The two actors are two of my favourites, and the film capitalised both of their talents while at the peaks of their careers; they have ridiculous amounts of on screen chemistry, almost every line is witty, memorable and very funny!

What’s also noteworthy is the creature design (it did win the Oscar award for best make-up) special effects (sure, they’ve dated, but this film looks pretty slick for 1997!) and even the score by Danny Elfman has its own personality without falling into “generic Elfman sound”.

I believe this film is embedded in my mind; even as I watch it I feel as though there is a laughter track after the jokes, as if I can remember the audience reactions. It is a unique and sometimes surprisingly adult science fiction comedy; there’s a lot of swear words here given its PG rating! But that makes me like it even more, it’s the last of an era in film were creators could be liberal and didn’t have to slap 12A on everything.

I love it, very, very close to Ghostbusters levels of awesome. It has great dialogue and humour that isn’t stupid, often intelligent, and is just an all around fun experience, recommended for all.

Additional Marshmallows: Did you know, Clint Eastwood was approached for the part of Agent K?

Men in Black 2

Five years later in 2002, the Men in Black return...  but they unfortunately leave behind the rich enjoyment in the previous century.
An experienced Agent J is now working alone; unable to find a new partner who can replace Agent K, but when an alien dominatrix arrives on Earth he needs the knowledge his old partner once had to stop her.
The film has a promising start. We see Agent J no longer a rookie yet angry from missing his old partner; many agents regard him with anxiety as he neuralizes most of his new partners. However, I’m sorry to say, the plot quickly becomes mindless when the liberated Agent K is awkwardly woven back into the story.

MiB1’s ending was bitter sweet, but gratifying. The sequel backtracks yet the script does not capitalise with these characters in the same way; the two agents spent most of their time arguing and complaining and the chemistry once shared feels lukewarm without the student/mentor relationship of the first film. Instead the jokes are dished out by the talking dog and the Worm aliens, who get repetitive quickly.

With a lacklustre villain, a throwaway romance, an illogical and seemingly transparent doomsday plot device, Men in Black 2 is sadly quite forgettable. Yes it has more aliens, and the occasional flare of class, but it stumbles around with too many toys to make it worthwhile.

Men in Black 3 (3D)

Ten years after a quite disastrous second act, the Men in Black return to the big screen with a time travel caper. On face value, it is even less promising, but in actuality... it’s an almost full recovery!

When an alien with a grudge against Agent K breaks from prison and alters time so he never existed, Agent J must go back to the 1960s and save his partner. He’ll need help though, and who better than the younger version of K himself?

I was very hesitant to see this, especially after reminding myself of MiB2, with time travel and Tommy Lee Jones only on screen for the beginning and end segments, but I was more than happy to see the film recovering the sense of humour in the first film, and actually having an understandable script! Plus, Josh Brolin plays the younger Tommy Lee Jones, and does a pretty fantastic job of it.

The creatures on show are as interesting as ever, the villain is much better than in MiB2. The 3D unsurprisingly isn’t necessary; there are one or two gimmick shots but nothing excessive. The plot, well when time travel is concerned there’s always problems. Agent K is erased from history, my first problem is... why is Agent J still with MiB if K wasn’t around to recruit him? There is a nice sting in the tail of this story though, which links with the original film... but again, time travel, paradoxes, aaaargh.

I was very pleased with the end result though. While it may have missed some beats that the original wouldn’t have, time travel is always hokey, and there’s little to no consistency with secondary characters throughout the films, it recovers the franchise nicely for one last hurrah.

We just don’t talk about the utterly... utterly horrendous song by Pitbull, right?

Review: Invictus

Took me a while to watch it, and I had my reservations beforehand, but Invictus is simple but compelling.

I think I have my issues with sports films, mostly because there's very little scope or variety; they almost always tell of an underdog struggling to succeed and overcome adversity, and they always do.
Invictus I suppose is that formula... The South African rugby team become the flag bearers for newly elected President Nelson Mandela's bid to restore the county's hope and self confidence. The team are in shambles, virtually a laughing stock on the verge of being disbanded, while the President himself faces ridicule and doubt with his ethics of free-thinking and prosperity. Mandela's goal to restore his people's faith is to have their team win the World Cup.

These two characters, Freeman's Mandela and Damon's team captain Francois Pienaar, share the strife of a disbelieving public, and really seals the emotional investment of the story. The film is full of unlikely partnerships, from the lead actors to the extras (who make the final struggles all the more entertaining) and it quickly becomes a rewarding feel-good film.
Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon do excellent work in their roles, especially Freeman (can he ever do wrong, seriously?) who gives full conviction in Mandela's selfless confidence. Clint Eastwood is directing, and fortunately this is less heart-string pulling and more heart-warming and confident.


It does not have an exact antagonist, except for in the final rugby match, other than the potential failure of the characters' efforts, and it does seem to move along at a steady pace without great causes for concern. I felt there would have been more focus on Mandela's insomnia than there was, for example.
It is a sport film with a difference, I would recommend it to anyone who is even remotely curious.

Review: Prometheus (3D)

Prometheus (3D)


"The most anticipated film of the year" is an incredible burden some times. Ridley Scott returns to science fiction with brazen confidence, but provides as many questions as there were answers.
Set at least thirty years before the events of Alien, Prometheus tells of a science vessel sent out into the far reaches of space by the mega-corporation Weylan industries, their goal is to find the answers of life itself: why are we here, where do we come from? Naturally what they find is much worse.

Prometheus looks great (even the 3D is decent) with gorgeous spaceship visuals and lofty H.R Giger-esque sets. Alien fans will be impressed, and I was sucked into the murky atmosphere when the team start uncovering the mysteries and discovering sights Ellen Ripley may later find.
For a 15 certificate there are some pretty gruesome scenes, specifically one which, like its predecessor, will stick with you long after the film's ended. A tip: don't go see Prometheus if you are pregnant... you'll probably lose a lot of sleep...

There is however an unforgiving amount of mystery, even after the film's end; if you are looking for answers to the Alien origin, you will get some but not all. I was a little put out by this, I hope Scott merely wants people to debate about it rather than spell it out (after all, part of Alien's charm was its mystery) but the "loose ends" here feel clunky.
The characters aren't half bad, lying somewhere between Alien and Aliens; they are unique and far from typical, but not fully fleshed out. There's a smell of a lurking "Director's Cut" about the script, several events appear to happen for sake of convenience, but could be explained with an extra scene or two.


I will need to watch it again, but I love how it is more Alien than its sequels, a more otherworldly science fiction than the popcorn gnashing sci-fi action flicks of today. As a fan of the series the film gave me a lot of new imagery I wasn't expecting but it does not ruin the franchise outright. There will however be a lot of confusion from the masses; Prometheus is unforgiving in its almost "arthouse" sci-fi mystery. This is Ridley Scott, not James Cameron.


I like it a lot, the atmosphere gripped me, the uncovering of old mysteries was chilling and the return to the Alien universe was welcome, but there's an unnecessary amount of questions raised, and some of the script felt missing.

Additional Marshmallows: The initial discoveries made by the science team on Earth include cave paintings on the Isle of Skye, Scotland. I was excited and amused to see familiar territory in a Ridley Scott science fiction film!