Liam Neeson returns to defend a family once again in this action packed thriller about eye-for-an-eye vengeance.
Jimmy Conlon (Neeson) is a rundown assassin working for crime boss Shawn (Ed Harris) who, despite having distanced himself from his family, must defend his son after he kills Shawn's son in defence. Shawn sets everything after Jimmy and his son Mike, from corrupt police and professional killers.
While it is all fun and games to chuckle and say: "Gosh, how many times does Liam Neeson need to protect his family?" what with the three Taken films and now this, and the barrage of Neeson action films from The Grey to Non-Stop, it is kinda true. In the last five years he has made around six of these things.
What drew me to see Run All Night (I have not watched the Taken sequels) was its 15 certificate. But, it does have a familiar vibe to it... which given what I have just told you, is detrimental to its success.
It is altogether enjoyable however, at least it is a decent way to spend a couple of hours. We get to see Neeson in another action movie but this time he starts burnt out, the laughing stock of his criminal buddies; his ever growing conscience of his dark past leaving him reluctant and timid. This I liked.
Ed Harris, a favourite actor of mine, plays his old familiar character: a steely-eyed man of principle. Yet the early friendship with Neeson's character is genuine and it is great to see these two powerhouse actors together.
Even Joel Kinnaman does well here as Neeson's begrudging son Mike, recouping a lot of credibility after the lacklustre turn as RoboCop2014.
The action is excellent too with a great mid-point car chase, stealthy shoot-outs and brawls. The film is almost entirely taking place in one night (hence the title) and like all good action films, it is set around Christmas. I like my action movies at night. It takes on a very 1990s action vibe.
But whether or not I was expecting more, perhaps my own mistake, but Run All Night didn't feel as engaging as it could have been. For such a simple premise: Father kills other man's son, other father wants revenge in kind, the story feels very compartmentalised. This strikes hardest when Harris hires a professional hitman to go after our heroes, this must be half way through the film, and feels like a sub plot thrown in for a longer runtime. Plus this guy is cartoonishly evil, with a monocular glowing green night-vision device and a red laser sight on his pistol, having half his face burnt off yet he shrugs it off like its nothing?
He's a Terminator!
I don't know, it felt like a deviation from the real story: Harris and Neeson's relationship, and while that does pay off really well I felt even more time dedicated to it would have gone a long way. That and less stock dialogue, like one of Harris' first lines: "I'm a legitimate business man now", or "You should have killed me when you had the chance".
It is a good movie, mostly for the car chase and all of the scenes with Harris and Neeson, both easily carrying the dialogue and story. A gritty, urban, night time chase.
From the director of District 9 and Elysium, a robot is given a chance to experience growing up in a city of gangland warfare after an experimental artificial consciousness is loaded into it.
Dev Patel (of Slumdog Millionaire fame) plays Deon, a praised robotics designer responsible for ending most crime in Johannesburg by inventing Scout robots for the police forces. When one of these scouts is terribly damaged he takes the opportunity to experiment; installing an artificial intelligence he designed into it. But when his child-like prototype falls into the hands of two gangland thugs intent on raising the robot as a criminal and a fellow robotics designer wants Deon's Scouts replaced by his own military robots, Deon has a fight on two fronts.
First things first, I really enjoy director Neill Blomkamp's first two films, but yes... Chappie is part RoboCop, part Short Circuit. There are even scenes ripped clean from those movies, from our synthetic hero being helplessly beaten up by thugs, being pinned down and dismembered, which would pull at my heartstrings had I not seen it before. Hugh Jackman stars as Deon's rival Vincent Moore who has designed a robot almost exactly like ED-209.
But wait, before you start calling me a hypocrite; if you read my blog regularly you will know I hate remakes and have even stated I would prefer things to be like other films rather than direct remakes. Chappie is one such movie. Yes it is inspired by and borrows from classics, but it is its own invention. I will take Chappie over the 2014 RoboCop any day of the year!
Neill Blompkamp's style is everywhere, and I love it. The man's obsession with the destroyed, crumbling and ruined city of Johannesburg continues, the music is synth, people are covered in tattoos and speak in impenetrable accents. The visual effects on Chappie are incredible, motion capture and voice acted by Blomkamp's mainstay Shartlo Copley (gratefully allowed to ham up his acting this time, being an eccentric robot) and the action is strong, although perhaps not as incredible as District 9's finale.
But unlike his previous films, Blomkamp's third part of his self-styled "trilogy" is perhaps the most human. While a lot of characters are as self centred as his previous ones, by the finale I found myself really sympathising with them, even the ones who you positively hated earlier. When that happens, you realise this film has been doing something right all the way through.
It was a decent movie, though maybe not as involved as District 9 or as grand as Elysium, I enjoyed it.
Additional Marshmallows: The two gangsters who take in Chappie, Ninja and Yolandi are actually named Ninja and Yolandi and are hip-hop and electronica musicians.
Possibly the most innocent, light hearted and casual experience I have had in the cinema, Shaun the Sheep proves to be simple but unique fun.
Shaun, a young sheep in a flock, are tired of the same day-to-day routine on the farm, but when they play a trick on their farmer to get a day off things go awry; their farmer is lost in The Big City and they have to get him back!
I think a lot of people can forget, creator Nick Park first wrote the character of Shaun the Sheep in his Wallace and Gromit animated short A Close Shave back in 1995. Since Ardman Animation Studios have grown a movie starring Shaun the Sheep has always been a possibility. Between the years of 2007 and 2010 he had a television show, but only now did the Shaun movie come to be.
First off, this movie has the sweet style of a silent film, which works wonders for a film with an entire cast of sheep and dogs. It sets it nicely apart from other claymation animation pieces, it even sets it apart from other Ardman films which have a tendency to rely on star voice actors far too heavily.
As someone who grew up loving Park's original Wallace and Gromit shorts (A Grand Day Out, the awesome The Wrong Trousers, and A Close Shave) I found a lot to like here; it felt like a return to lazy childhood Sunday afternoons, or Boxing Day Creature Comfort features. It is a lot better than the bloated Curse of the Wererabbit.
So as I said the film is a silent film style experience in that our heroes don't speak, being sheep, but also the human characters don't speak actual words; they instead grunt and "babble" to give the appearance of what they are saying. This makes the popular music choices that spring up regularly feel even more punchy and fun to listen to. It makes for a very quiet, casual experience (you will hear people eating their popcorn!)
Of course there's plenty of slapstick action comedy, that is Ardman Animation and Nick Park's bread and butter after all. Our woolly heroes are pursued through the city by an aggressive animal containment officer, making a lot of the film a manic chase with sheep trying to blend in with funny consequences!
I will say though, it isn't exactly a big screen experience. I could have watched Shaun the Sheep as a Saturday morning feature. I left this viewing very late so I was in a small theatre, but this didn't bother me with this film.
Some people might find it too casual and too happy, but it was exactly what I was expecting and it was a good bit of light fun.
98% Fresh from critics on Rottentomatoes.com, 8.2 on IMDB.com, winner of one Academy award and nominated for five others including Best Picture and Directing, and winner of two BAFTAs and three Golden Globes. Yes, the sting for this opening paragraph is that I didn't care for Boyhood.
Progressively filmed over twelve years and edited down to a one hundred and sixty five minute story, Boyhood's actors visibly age over a decade as we follow Mason through the awkward years of youth and watch his parents struggle with their own lives.
It is a real shame there is nothing of substance here, making it the longest three hours I've ever experienced from a movie (since perhaps Barry Lyndon or The Assassination of Jesse James etc)
It is a fascinating thing to watch actors actually grow up, and how you almost take it for granted as it happens until it ends and you look at the poster again. "Oh hey", you say, "he started out like a little kid! That's neat." That's its gimmick, and it is an interesting idea for sure, and I give it kudos for that.
But there's so little character development, paradoxically for a film all about development. I was waiting and waiting and waiting for something to happen, something untoward or terrible to really shake up the story. But no, as if trapped by their own genius the film-makers just keep the pace plodding along as we watch a boy not really do anything and grow up to not really do anything.
The inspirational heart, what some describe as "epic" in this story is how it captures modern day living. Sure, a film about people never aspiring to anything, or people washing out, or people ignoring what's good for them sure feels like a reality check if nothing else but unfortunately I already live in the real world where these things can come in abundance. I don't need a film telling me what I already know, and I certainly don't need one saying these things are normal and part of the course.
Apart from its gimmick, that's exactly what it is: uninspiring. This could have been uplifting, or shocking, or a story to enliven people.
But to me it dragged itself through some of the most soap opera grind clichés available. A full hour into the film Mason, the boy of the title, goes to High School. I don't know if I felt relieved or depressed that finally High School stereotypes like bullies and tried and tested teenage macho-man talk can begin.
The only conflict comes early, as Mason's mother leaves his struggling father for another man, a man who turns out to be an abusive drunk. Eventually they leave and set up in another couple's home... only for that husband to turn into an angry drunk too!
It seems like most men are jerks.
I'm afraid Boyhood was more like Borehood for me. It has a great premise and Ethan Hawke actually proves to be the best part as the rather goofy but wholesome father who tries to raise his kids from a distance, but it lacked drive and any real gravitas outside of its own technical ideas, instead was chock-full of clichés.
Additional Marshmallows: Also Boyhood's revolutionary gimmick? I think the Harry Potter films technically did it first?
