Film Review - The Hunger Games

As a plot device, people killing people for others' entertainment has been done, done and done. Battle Royale, The Running Man, Tron, Gamer... even Gladiator. I could go on. So what makes The Hunger Games stand out above these? Truthfully... I don't know, and I am not even sure that it does. But it's definitely one of the better examples.
Firstly, a disclaimer. I made the rare (for me) decision to read the book of The Hunger Games just before seeing the film, so I have to say some objectivity may have been lost in this review, as I had grown attached to the characters before they even appeared on-screen. I enjoyed- but didn't completely love- the book, and the film was a pretty faithful adaptation. [I do have issues with the changes to the ending that I won't address here for spoiler reasons.]
The film is a strange concoction of contradictions. The story is oddly intriguing and yet rather uneventful. It manages to be both predictable and surprising, playing with your expectations before ripping the rug from under your feet, and then sneaking it back again.
The build-up is slow, but, as with all book adaptations, the film feels like it's on fast-forward if you've read the source material, whilst the uninitiated may be left a bit wanting. The visual effects veer from almost comically bad to completely convincing, but the direction is cohesive and effective.
The biggest praise, however, must go to the casting. Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci and (an unrecognisable) Elizabeth Banks ham it up just enough without overdoing it, and Josh Hutcherson remains one to watch (see my Journey 2 review), making the most of his best acting showcase since (the amazing) Bridge to Terabithia.
Just a couple of years go, Jennifer Lawrence was Oscar-nominated for Winter's Bone and would have received my vote (over Natalie Portman). She then made for a sympathetic Mystique in the fantastic X Men First Class. But would the curvy blonde cut it as a starved hunter? Truthfully, yes. Every moment is played with complete sincerity, and you're never watching "a performance", and I can't think of a higher compliment.
And yes, I've started reading "Catching Fire"... which I hope to be praising here in a couple of years' time...

Film Review - This Means War

Awards Season is now well and truly over, so if you've been waiting for one of the year's guilty pleasures, then wait no longer, it has arrived.
A film that encourages you to laugh at it, as much as with it, This Is War takes a ludicrous premise, and does increasingly ludicrous things with it. What more could you want?
Reese Witherspoon may be the one with the Oscar on her mantelpiece, but it's the two male leads that steal the show. She opts for the more-OTT-the-better approach to comedy, which rarely works. It doesn't here, as she's clearly unaware that she's in the straight role. The boys, however, play it relatively straight, and are funnier for it. One scene in particular, which involves Hardy taking paintballing just that little bit too seriously, is properly laugh-out-loud hilarious.
Yes, it's a throwaway piece of trash that's predictable, with a rather obvious sense of humour, but if you've come here for subtlety, then you're the fool. The film ups the spectacle, all the while maintaining the laughs and keeping the action coming. There's a little bit of sag at the transition into the final act, but that's a minor gripe if you want a completed story arc.
If the film hits a duff note, it's probably thanks to Chelsea Handler. Anyone who has seen her TV chat show would know she just isn't funny. So she's taken the same schtick (and as far as I can tell, the same writers) and dropped it in this film, passing it off as the ballsy/ kooky/ contradictory best friend. Her character isn't a dislikable one, and she does provide a laugh or two, but her dialogue is atrocious, the apparently hilarious one-liners proving anything but.
I laughed and smiled throughout and whilst I wouldn't rush to see it again, I'll no doubt be flicking channels one day, see this is on, and next thing I know I'll likely have watched it to the end.

Film Review - John Carter (in 3D)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
100 years ago this month, Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs published his first novel about the hero to be known as John Carter of Mars. Amazingly, this is the first time that this character has been brought to life on the big screen.
The result? Rather than being the original, fantastical adventure the likes of which cinema audiences have never seen, we're instead given something of a rehash of the films that took it as its inspiration.
The character's legacy in the movies becomes increasingly apparent. You're frequently reminded of Avatar, Attack of the Clones, Return of the Jedi, and, most worryingly, Cowboys Vs Aliens. John Carter fans cry "but this story came first". That doesn't excuse this film adaptation from being derivative, however slavishly it follows the book. In the hands of Pixar genius Andrew Stanton, the man who gave us Wall-E, Finding Nemo and the Toy Stories, it's even more inexcusable.
Firstly, the film takes AGES to get going. With a few notable exceptions (foiled escapes, discovering the gravity on Mars), there's an awful lot of ramble. You know they're setting up a pair of bookends for the film- and, indeed, the ending is more satisfying as a result- but it's not done in a way that's interesting enough to the casual viewer who doesn't know where it's all going. Perhaps on second viewing it'll fly by, maybe even resonate emotionally... but it's unlikely many will choose to sit through this twice.
The cast are shockingly bland. The likes of Mark Strong, James Purefoy, The Wire's Dominic West and the mighty Ciaran Hinds are wasted on forgettable roles and Lynn Collins makes a non-existent screen presence as the female lead, rather then making the most of a potentially career-launching role.
Thankfully, it's Taylor Kitsch, John Carter himself, that gives the film any star power. He has the requisite bad boy charm to pull off his early scenes, and gets to flex some very impressive action muscles. Lean and lithe, rather than built and bulky, Kitsch looks the part, even if he isn't asked to do much more in terms of acting other than smoulder. Let's just say he plays to his strengths; once the shirt comes off, it pretty much stays off.
It's certainly not all bad news, and I don't want to misrepresent this as an absolute turkey. The visual effects are, of course, incredible, and there's more than enough on display here for you to get your money's worth. It's a shame you have to have to wade through so much tedium to get to it.
One more thing to note, I have long been a dissenter against this 3D trend, especially 2D films that are later converted into 3D. This is one of the latter, and, I have to say, they've done a pretty remarkable job. Quite a few times I found myself noticing the 3D effect, and was quite pleased with the results. If you are going to see it, I might actually recommend seeing the 3D version for once. If nothing else, it's got me even more excited about the forthcoming Finding Nemo re-release in 3D.

Film Review - Tyrannosaur

Having missed this in its initial run, I managed to catch it recently, during its BAFTA tour re-release. It's received a lot of acclaim, including a BAFTA for its debut director, actor Paddy Considine (a man coincidentally born on the same day as me).
But it's the performances, in particular, Olivia Colman, that have received the most attention. And she deserves all the praise in the world- tender, caring, downtrodden, and yet forceful when required. She is absolutely heart-breaking.
Peter Mullan is just as fantastic (as usual), playing a terrifying brutal streak with a horrifying believability, whilst keeping the character relatively sympathetic and relatable. Imagine Victor Meldrew with a violent streak.
A worthy mention also to Eddie Marsan, a now-familiar welcome presence in any movie, and whilst his character is as brutal and tender as Mullan's, it's in a completely different, yet no less believable way.
As for the plot, it's one of those where you think you know where it's going, but doesn't really get there. You suspect it's heading somewhere bad, but there are opportunities for redemption- reminding me of This Is England '86. Unfortunately, once the film reveals its final, most shocking secret, it quite possibly should have ended there. Instead, it continues, rather ambiguously, only hinting at what came next regarding the leads' relationship. Nothing wrong with that per se, but I felt it was unsatisfying as and end to the rather brilliant, if harrowing journey on which we'd been taken.

Film Review - Safe House

After the temporary blip that was the rather marvellous Unstoppable two years ago, Denzel Washington is back on tediously disappointing form with this run-of-the-mill actioner.
Throw in some grainy stock footage, far-too-close-to-see-what-the-hell-is-going-on action scenes, highly expected twists and overly long scenes of waffly exposition and you get the picture.
That said, the performances are surprisingly good. I hated Training Day and thought Denzel's Oscar win for that was an absolute travesty, and this is the far more convincing hard-man performance he should have given in that film. Similarly, Ryan Reynolds gives a tear-filled, emotionally-charged performance that is, frankly, far too good for this film.
Some of the action is pretty good, what you can see of it, anyway. There are quite a few extended chases, car chases, shoot-outs and punch-ups, not to mention quite a few jump-out-of-your-seat moments. Unfortunately the film seems a bit preoccupied with its delusion of its own depth, and drags itself down in the process.

Film Review - Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

This has potentially become the Best Picture Oscar nominee with the worst reviews EVER. Does it deserve them? In a word, no. It's not even the worst film of the nominees.

Yes, it has its flaws, but given that this will be one of the few positive reviews of this film on the web, I'd like to explain why.

Of the Oscar-nominated films about a kid whose late father left behind a key, this is the one that's worth watching. For me, Hugo just didn't work, nor emotionally connect. This film did both, and in 2D.

Yes, it's flawed and manipulative, but a lot of its criticisms are unfounded. Setting a film around the events of "9/11" is a risky thing to do, as it can be (and, in this case, has been) accused of using the events to create an emotional bond that the characters/story should have managed on their own. As far as I'm concerned, the film has succeeded.

The emotional weight in the story comes from the emotional connect/disconnect between father and son, mother and son, husband and wife, grandson and grandparent, but, most overwhelmingly, the emotional bond that can be achieved between complete strangers.

The inclusion of the 9/11 events are important, however. This is the tale of a child wandering the boroughs of New York, on a mission to extract personal details from complete strangers. The fact that his father died in 9/11 serves to make these strangers more open to his quest, rather than some cheap attempt to emotionally manipulate the audience into more sympathy. This accusation has been levied- unfairly- by many a sniffy critic, but it's certainly no cheaper nor emotionally manipulative than War Horse, even if the latter was more successful.

The performances are strong, and not just from Supporting Actor nominee Max Von Sydow. Hanks and Bullock are given very little to do, but their brief appearances do still manage an emotional weight. Bullock's late revelation does generate a little scepticism, even if it does go some way to justify why someone would allow their young son to walk the streets of New York alone. Sydow's character, whilst adding a quirky charm that lights up the screen, ultimately adds nothing to the story, especially his "so what?" twist regarding his potential connection to the boy (which is never confirmed anyway).

Oskar, the boy, is something of an acquired taste. He has some form of social disconnection- Autism? Aspergers?- and his rapid-fire delivery (not to mention that damn tambourine) can irritate more than charm. But Thomas Horn does a phenomenal job, given the complexity of his role, even if you ignore his age and the fact that this is his first acting role. Director Stephen Daldry, of course, discovered a young Jamie Bell, and appears to have found another potential star. He's the man that directed both Nicole Kidman and Kate Winslet toward their elusive Oscars, and, again, his direction is very assured. Once more he has made a worthier contender for Best Picture than a few of its rivals.

Film Review - Chico & Rita

A couple put more time and energy into arguing about each others' infidelities than they do into their relationship, both professional and personal. 47 years later they decide they should be a couple. I assume we're supposed to care.