Review: Looper

A unique, stylish, modern science fiction thriller that keeps you interested without exaggerating it toys but involving you with its characters.

The film is set in the near future where Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in his hundredth appearance in film this year!) works as a "looper", an assassin who kills people sent back in time from the future, a future were time travel is controlled by a criminal syndicate. Joe however finds his next victim to be his future-self, and both men struggle against each other to resolve their different (yet similar) struggles.

The film sets up everything you need to know very quickly; you become accustomed to the idea of time-travel easier here than you'd expect. This is possible due to the film's focus on the characters rather than the technology, it doesn't deliberately confuse you, it prefers to keep things close to its chest.
While it is possible to blast holes in the story's logic (which time travel movie can't you do that? ... Okay, maybe Back to the Future)
One such idea the film has is when a man from the future is in the present, and his present self is changed, he immediately changes too, ie: a character is tortured, and the future self loses fingers suddenly (a really grisly but incredible idea, I loved it!) but without any consideration for the thirty-odd years inbetween where the man would have known and adapted for this past event (and the film does state that memories change too).

However! To avoid falling into time travel mumbo-jumbo, these grievances are happily ignorable, because we get some of the best young-and-old actor casting since Men in Black 3. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis are near perfect, and carry the same character going through different traumas seamlessly, which is oh so crucial as we see how they develop as individuals (and in doing so we learn about the singular man). Also, if you are expecting Willis to be the usual do-good hero... think again, this film is full of strife and personal conflict!

I've only scratched the surface of this film, I came up with plenty of subtexts while watching this, and there's the supporting cast and the ultimate story behind the hero(es) all of which is excellent. Great to see Willis can still pick out the good films!

Definitely my sort of film, if you like science fiction films like Source Code etc, subtle and lacking in CGI effects, you will enjoy this a lot!

Additional Marshmallows: Director Rian Johnson was also the man behind the intriguing Brick, a film I really need to watch again!

Review: Lawless

A gritty, intense but reliably predictable gangster thriller that's loaded with good performances.

Lawless is set in the early 1930 in Virginia during the depression, where three brothers run a dangerous trade of "moonshine", alcohol made by the people for the people in a time where alcohol was restricted. When their legendary fame of being "indestructible" gives them fame, they get the attention of a corrupt Deputy from Chicago and the local gangland.

The performances are what's on display in this movie. Naturally Tom Hardy plays the role with absolute integrity and intensity, while having some great moments of comedic reluctance as the older brother Forest. Yes, Shia LeBeouf is in this film, and he does excellently well as the youngest and most timid brother Jack.
Gary Oldman has a bit-part, but his few scenes are excellent, while Guy Pearce is positively reptilian as the merciless big city law enforcer, a great villain (albeit transparently so).

The film isn't that groundbreaking outside of its excellent performances, it has familiar story beats and character arcs, but it does have some shocker moments and humour to jolt you out of your comfort zone. It felt like it dragged towards the end of the first act, but it quickly ramps up again  as pressure from all sides is placed on the brothers.

I'm glad I went to see it, it is certainly worth your time if you like thrillers, dramas, western and 1930s-1940s style films.

Additional Marshmallows: Tom Hardy's character Forest was meant to be quite slim, but having been filming The Dark Knight Rises, Hardy had to bulk up for the part of Bane.

Review: Anonymous

Maybe if I knew all there was to know about Shakespeare and what transpired around the time period, I may have more to say and more to appreciate. As is, I found this pretty tedious.

Anonymous explores the possibility that William Shakespeare's classic writings were not his own, and that he was little more than a face to obscure more devious intentions.

The primary reason I watched Anonymous was because Roland Emmerich directed it, I mean what's going on, the man isn't blowing up Manhattan with aliens, tidal waves or Godzilla? This is a straight-faced period thriller, book-ended as though it were a theatre play. Apparently Emmerich saw the script and funded its production from his own pocket, giving him complete control.

Honestly, I don't think Emmerich is the man to make these sorts of films. The editing work is pretty bad, making a relatively involved narrative feel shattered and garbled, jumping rapidly from scene to scene. I knew what the film was telling me, but it was told in such a way that I ceased caring, especially as it is mostly hypothetical.

Which is a shame, because there are some interesting ideas. The concept of a time where writing and poetry were considered evil, and those capable of creative imagination were deemed possessed or mad, is quite fascinating. The idea of written words, plays and theatre becoming weapons to control the masses was also interesting... yet... from being structurally garbled or blowing these ideas way out of proportion, I just wasn't gripped by it.

Anonymous could have been an interesting concept if executed neatly, especially in this day and age were the written word is so powerful (and often by "anonymous" artists) but I found it forgettable. Maybe I missed something, maybe others will enjoy it.

Review: I Am Number Four

I hate to say it... but I'm gonna... "I'm too old for this".

Or at least that's what it feels like, because watching the science fiction / high school drama that is I Am Number Four was one of the most arduous experiences I've had since... well, The Hunger Games?
So, the cliché-ridden storyline follows a young man who is from another world, he looks like a human, except for when his limbs glow like searchlights. He is one of a handful of children of this world who can stop the evil Mogadorians, and this alien war comes to Earth in an effort to hunt him down. In the meantime, "John Smith" decides to go to High School and ends up meeting a girl.
Urk.
This film opens in the worst manner possible; our lead hero monologuing about stuff we have no comprehension of, places we will never see, and people we will never meet. It only goes off the deep end afterwards when he goes to High School. Where is Buffy when you need her?

Everything I have seen before, or at least everything leading up to the finale. A thick-skulled football quarterback bully who's the boyfriend of our hero's love interest, who's father is the police chief, who both find themselves way over their heads. Or how about the nerdy kid who knows all about the aliens on Earth. I barely needed to watch this because it was so transparently obvious!
Yes so the abundance of CGI in the climax almost masked the redundancy of it all, but by then you don't care! It is just young people running around with super soakers going "pew pew" at each other.
Its budget is television sized. The villains are laughably silly, talking in such funny accents that all threat is erased. To be honest as the film takes itself way too seriously, way too seriously, the villains are the only goofy and therefore entertaining thing here!

I don't know, perhaps younger male audiences will enjoy it, but this is not what I call "film" calibre and I hope not too many people wasted cinema admission for it!

Review: Dredd (3D)

Dredd proves to be a short, angry, drug induced killing frenzy, bringing back memories of the grungy and seedier side of the early 1990s.

Karl Urban (of recent Star Trek fame) wears the iconic black and red helmet of the unstoppable law enforcer Judge Dredd from the 90s comic series 2000AD (which is a British publication, I might add!) as he takes on an entire tower block of criminals with only a telepathic rookie by his side.

The role has been played once before in 1995 by Sylvester Stallone, and while Urban may not have the jawline for the helmet, Dredd easily wipes out all memory of that ghastly film!
The specifics, Dredd is a "Judge", and in this future he is an embodiment of the law; acting as judge, jury and executioner. As one of the more merciless Judges, he is more than capable of dealing with the drug overlord Ma-Ma and her army of intoxicated followers.

The film has a great grungy mood; the music is thumping and angry, the visuals are dirty and strewn with grime. There's a real sense that this originated from the comic which it is based, I even found the technology and computers looking distinctly retro and makeshift. I may not have read the 2000AD comics, but I got a good idea from this!
Ultra-violence is rife here as the film relishes its 18 certificate. It is rewarding to see a genre film like this being unrestrained and uncompromising, people are riddled with bullets, bodies pancake into pavements. More controversially is the liberal imagery of drug use, SLO-MO as it is called, is a narcotic that slows down time for the user... making for a lot of super-slow motion effects which are either gorgeous or gruesome to behold. Very unique.

The 3D wasn't abusive, in fact outside of the SLO-MO sections I hardly noticed it, which means the 2D version won't suffer. My only gripe of the film is that it doesn't do very much; it is a one trick pony. But... it does it with a lot of guts (pun intended) and ultra-violence done with the glossy integrity of the comic that spawned it. 

Mission accomplished, I look forward to any sequel it might produce.

Additional Marshmallows: I deliberately haven't mentioned The Raid yet, but it is very similar in setting (but not in character or style, both are unique) to clarify, Dredd was already written and in production before The Raid, so it certainly did not rip off anyone. Rumour has it that the Dredd script was leaked, and The Raid was the result. That is a rumour, however!

Which is better, you ask?
Sigh. Dredd is the more visually stimulating picture, and is more immersive with the characters, I love its look and sound (plus it feels like a good adaptation!) while The Raid has some of the best martial arts and grisly eastern violence I've seen in a while (and is a great unique film, despite being a potential rip-off)
So, they are BOTH equally good but for different reasons, but at a push, I may go with Dredd.  

Review: Total Recall

The very definition of style over substance. As in, there isn't any of the latter.

Douglas Quaid is a man unsatisfied with how his life has turned out, living in a distant future where Earth has been ravaged by war, and only two continents survive, the United Kingdom and Australia, connected by "The Fall", a gigantic elevator through the centre of the Earth. Quaid visits "Rekall", a place were you can have any memory you wish implanted, only to get more than he bargained for.

While based off the novel "We Can Remember it For You Wholesale" by Phillip K. Dick, this is actually a remake of the 1990 Arnold Schwarzenegger film, with some swap-and-changed characters, settings and enemies (not to mention toned down for its 12A rating...) but the character's story remains the same.

Total Recall is pretty vacuous. It is a "trailer film", where the trailer sells it to you, but there isn't anything else to see upon watching the movie. I must say I liked the world designs, the synthetic robot security, the places felt lived in and crammed with details. Okay, so these details are often ripped from Blade Runner, but I can't pick apart everything!

My problem with the film is that after a while... I stopped caring. That is quite rare for me, I like my science fiction. The problem lies in the film's total lack of ambiguity. You assume that this film toys with Quaid's unknown identity, that he is never certain who he is? Well, Colin Farrell does a good job looking bewildered most of the time, but it is pretty clear who and what he is! The script hasn't the intelligence or sophistication to dupe the audience, ever, the best it can do is pretend to. Red herrings with massive bells ringing on them!
Immediately, the story's hook is neutralised, and you are simply watching bloodless robots getting mashed up, and occupy yourself with how brainless the world's society and economics are.

Oh, and one thing that really gets my back up in films. Bad casting. Do not have two actresses who look near identical in your film, especially if the film revolves around ambiguity, false identities, relationship triangles and flashbacks!

I think if you are thirteen or fourteen you will enjoy this film a lot!

Saga Review: James Bond (No.15 - No.16)

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. 

It is bitter-sweet, today's post, because after nearly two months of Roger Moore torture I only get two weeks of awesomeness that is the Timothy Dalton films. I grew up with these films, so naturally I am already biased, but believe me when I say this, these films are massively underrated. Massively. Underrated.

So let's see how much awesome action and spy work we can fit into just four hours! There will be great 1980s music, tanker trucks exploding, capable Bond Girls (for once), sharks, exploding toothpaste, angry eyes and steely stares! It is the Dalton duo.

The Living Daylights (1987)

Thank you, thank you; effort, honest to god effort!

The Living Daylights comes just two years after Roger Moore’s era, and boldly starts a brand new chapter with Timothy Dalton as an all new Bond.
While secret agents are being killed off, Bond is asked to protect a defector and informant from the KGB who was targeted by a female sniper. However, not all is as it seems, and a string of betrayal and death leads Bond to a war profiteering general and his diamond smuggling operation.

The tone has changed dramatically from the last seven Bond films; finally we get a film that feels like a thriller, a spy film. Not only this, but the film has integrity and the sense it has been written not for cheap laughs and silly stunt sequences, but to tell a story of espionage and double-crosses.

Not to say there aren’t any Bond staples, there’s plenty! We even get... skiing?? Actually, this is skiing with an awesome return of the Aston Martin, I always remember this early sequence; a car with pop-out skis, windshield projected targeting computers, rocket launchers, even the booster from the Batmobile! All of this without some stupid sheriff mugging at the camera, bliss.

Bond is far darker now, his mood is vengeful and often uncompromising, prepared to do whatever it takes to get what he wants – and get the job done. This may put off those who... for some reason... like Roger Moore’s take, for example. But Daylights isn’t without comedic relief, only it is done subtly, giving a wry chuckle and a knowing grin.

If you enjoy the recent Daniel Craig movies, yet haven’t seen Dalton’s, I implore you to do so! They are massively underrated spy action movies. Daylights has its teething problems, but it packs a punch and is consistently dynamic and eye-catching.

Licence to Kill (1989)

Timothy Dalton gets into his stride in what will be his second and final outing, making for the darkest and most intense film in the series!

Bond’s colleague Felix Leiter and his newly-wed are violently attacked on their honeymoon by a drug baron out to settle the score, this however forces Bond against MI6 as nothing will stop him getting revenge.

What a startling difference we can see compared to Moore, even more so than The Living Daylights! Licence to Kill has a reasonably simple setup and down-to-earth villains and settings, but it is head-shoulders-chest and feet above the drivel of Roger Moore’s era. Here we see an incredibly vulnerable Bond, a man blinded by revenge so great that he constantly puts those around him in danger, and this is sold perfectly by Dalton (who has grown in confidence since Daylights) and Robert Davi as the cold hearted Franz Sanchez, easily one of the best villains in the series. We even get a steadfast Bond Girl in Carey Lowell’s Pam Bouvier, who doesn’t make mistakes, has her own independent goals, and scowls at Bond’s attitude frequently.

The action is frequently excellent as it is entirely story driven, there are no random detours for the sake of it, and escalation never feels forced or contrived. It is easily, easily the bloodiest of the Bonds; people are torn apart by sharks, fed into grinders, exploded in decompression chambers. It is grisly stuff, but I love the darker Bond!

If I had to pick flaws in it, I would only say that the character of Lupe felt unnecessary, her romance with Bond felt forced to allow for a love triangle. She provided assistance to move the plot forward and help Bond, but everything else seemed needless.

Easily my favourite Bond film so far, and in this day and age you must see it if you haven’t already! It is a dark, realistic spy action film, and the way Bond should be!

Additional Marshmallows: This is the last Bond for many of the actors, not just Dalton, it was Robert Brown’s last part as the original M, and Caroline Bliss who took over as Moneypenny would not return.

The troubles of the Dalton era would strike even harder on the franchise; there would not be a Bond film for a further six years, the longest period without a movie in production. This was due to numerous setbacks: with Licence to Kill's box office failure, director John Glen left the production studios, the writer of thirteen Bond films died in 1991, and legal ownership of the franchise was hotly disputed. This caused Timothy Dalton to turn down the role in future films, while producer Albert Broccoli retired.

The James Bond franchise was in a bad place!

In 1995, Bond would finally return, and it would be all change (except maybe for Q!) it is the Pierce Brosnen era, and boy is it going to be an interesting one... Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day.

Here are my reviews for the previous Bond eras!

The Connery Era

The Lazenby / Connery Transition

The Moore Era

Memorial Trilogy Review: Tony Scott

Less than two weeks ago director Tony Scott passed away, and Hollywood lost one of its better contributors, a director whose films felt kinetic and real in an era of visual effects and padding. His films were often style over substance, and while his older brother Ridley Scott often directed cerebral movies, his films were always entertaining on the level that cinema should be.

I wanted to make a trilogy review covering the variety of his work, but there were just too many I wanted to watch! I hadn't fully realised quite how many of his films I watched growing up, and recent films I had enjoyed a lot.

Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop 2, Days of Thunder, True Romance, Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State and Man on Fire. To name a few classic and great films.

So here we are, three films that I feel encapsulate the man's talent and abilities.

Top Gun (1986)

Director Tony Scott’s second movie may be a hit or miss with critics, but it now has a loyal cult following for its boyish action sequences and roaring 1980s soundtrack.

Top Gun follows two expert fighter pilots; Pete “Maverick” Mitchell and Nick “Goose” Bradshaw as they partake in intense Navy training to become the best of the best.

That’s about as thin as the plot gets! The charismatic but reckless Maverick (Cruise) is living in the shadow of his father’s death, driven purely to prove himself to his commanding officers yet unable to stop bragging. His wingman and best friend Goose looks to taking care of his family, while competition lies with Ice Man (Val Kilmer). You already know how the plot goes, provided you haven’t somehow seen the film yet!
Top Gun is a guilty pleasure now, certainly in regards to its script which is positively brainless at times! The middle of the film somewhat drags as Maverick’s romance with Charlie (Kelly McGillis) flounders around like a High School drama (the pop song “Take my Breath Away” became exceedingly repetitive after a while) while life outside the aerial dogfights felt like story padding. These guys take Volleyball way too seriously (Vollyball, really?) never mind the homoerotic undertones. Probably to wake up the female demographic during all the fighter jets and military jargon!

But, the action sequences with the F-14 Tomcat jets is still gripping and still awesome to watch, it is easy to understand why there hasn’t been a film like Top Gun since; how can you do better than this? I challenge you not to get excited when “Danger Zone” starts playing! I’d have happily watched two hours of jets taking off from an aircraft carrier, let alone flying around!

So it is mighty silly at times, but the nostalgia for this film is intoxicating and the aerial footage is second to none. It is a blissfully 80s experience.

Additional Marshmallows: Tony Scott’s success with Top Gun got him signed up for the Beverly Hills Cop sequel, and guess what I am reviewing next!

Beverly Hills Cop 2 (1987)

This action comedy sequel gets a new style with director Tony Scott’s hand, but leans more towards action than comedy, making it an overall enjoyable movie.

Notoriously rebellious Detroit cop Axel Foley (played by the ever grinning Eddie Murphy) is back in Beverly Hills when a string of mysterious robberies and attacks occur, each with a sinister calling card from the “Alphabet” criminal. At odds with a useless Police chief, Foley ropes in some old friends and uses all the unofficial means at his disposal to uncover the conspiracy.

It has been a long time since I watched this, but two things struck me: how surprisingly low key the comedy is; and how violent and adult orientated it is. Certainly if this was made now, it would have been a 12A and wouldn’t have featured blood splattering about or a party hosted by Playboy!

Now there are plenty of funny moments in there don’t get me wrong, it uses Murphy’s ability to talk alarmingly quickly to full effect; most of the comedy comes from Axel’s ludicrous lies and tall tales to get the investigation going. Still, I prefer this to any of Murphy’s current films!
It is clear that Tony Scott had a great art of making a film eye catching. This film has a cookie cutter plot, and the comedic detours easily distract you from the larger picture, yet it is entertaining and wants you to keep watching.

Not perfect, but overall very enjoyable. Totally stuck in the 1980s!

Additional Marshmallows: Did you know Sylvester Stallone was originally to play Axel Foley in the first movie (as Axel Cobretti) with more action and less comedy? This is hinted in the sequel with appearances of a Rambo poster, and a poster for Cobra (which also starred Brigitte Nielsen) as well as one of the characters cursing Rambo’s name in the film’s finale!

True Romance (1993)

This violent thriller feels more like writer Quintin Tarantino’s film than director Tony Scott’s.

Clarence Worley is a nobody working in a comic book store until he meets call-girl Alabama and they instantly fall in love. Taking it upon himself to defend her, he kills her pimp and steals his stash of cocaine. Believing they are free of their old lives when they sell it, the unhinged couple are stalked by the gangsters looking for their missing drugs.

I’d seen True Romance before, and now I’m surprised I didn’t remember more of it, the entire cast is larger than life with some crazy (but effective) casting decisions; Gary Oldman as a pimp with dreadlocks, brad Pitt permanently stoned on a couch? There’s some bizarre stuff going on here! Director Tony Scott was given the task by Tarantino when he wanted to make Pulp Fiction his second movie, and he does a great job at handling the huge variety of characters and wild storytelling.

I believe what bothers me about it is how fractured it becomes towards the end. We are given so many characters all of a sudden, and while it does play up the chaos our two leads find themselves in, it does get a little overwhelming and unfocused, especially with its jump into ultra-violence.

It is a relatively straightforward story, but has plenty of unorthodox character acting from actors you wouldn’t expect to play such parts, and that makes it worth watching. Plenty of violence and dialogue-heavy scenes to keep any Tarantino fan happy, but not exactly a Tony Scott venture.

I had a great time watching these old films again, and I am now looking to find his first film The Hunger, which I have not seen yet!

Perhaps True Romance wasn't the best example of Scott's own talents, but it proved the man could handle any task, and taking the reins of a Tarantino movie cannot be an easy task! The same with Beverly Hills Cop 2, a sequel to a successful movie, yet a sequel I personally remember better than the other two in the trilogy!

I would have reviewed Days of Thunder, since that was another film I remember when I was younger, only my memory of that film is similar to that of Top Gun, and I didn't want two similar films in a trilogy review. I also thought about Man on Fire, and while that deserves mention, I wanted to review films that people may have forgotten were Tony Scott's handy work.

A relatively short filmography, but I hope we do not forget his unique talent for fast-paced, kinetic action, especially in his brother's lengthy shadow.

"Ridley makes films for posterity. My films are more rock 'n' roll." 

RIP Tony Scott.