Review: Argo (rough)

There are some decisions that people look back on and think ‘why?’ Why did I get that haircut? Why did I buy those clothes? Why did I vote Argo for best picture at The Academy Awards? Anybody who did the last (luckily very few of my lovely readers fall into this category) are bound to be laughed at by friends, scowled at family events, and generally treated like the film illiterate misfits they clearly are.

There is an established trend of the wrong film getting the Oscar: Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas in 1990, Forest Gump over Pulp Fiction in 1994, and now we can add Argo over The Majority Of The Films Nominated in 2013. Years from now, Argo is destined to feature in a lazy article, bashed out over lunch by a movie hack, entitled ‘movies that nobody remembers’. We will all look very silly.   

That isn’t to say that Argo is a train wreck, it’s not on the steaming piles of dog turd level of The Last Stand, it’s just bland. like the 70’s, the era in which the film is set, it’s mainly beige - it isn’t going to make you convulse or vomit, it’ll just leave you unsatisfied, like a panda’s man bits (google that).

Oscar stealing aside, the film is pretty competent. It is the, true (wikipedia), story of the escape attempt of a bunch of Americans who found themselves holed up in the Canadian embassy following the Islamic Revolution in Iran. That attempt was genuinely batshit crazy, and does make for fun viewing. The acting also is generally competent, particularly Ben Affleck, and the pacing and sense of tension is well managed. It’s not as good as good as a lot of other films, even in the same genre (see below), but you probably won't regret watching it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call ‘damning with faint praise’.

Watch if you liked: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

If you liked this watch: Munich       

Review: I Give It A Year

I Give It A Year is a funny, original, British comedy.  The film focuses on a failing marriage, and we get to see how things break down through the course of the film. It's sometimes funny, sometimes sad, and is  a really great movie to take your partner to see tomorrow. One of the reasons for this is that it mixes up the rom-com set-up.

Romantic comedies might be accused of being a bit formulaic - boy meets girl, they form a bond, something goes wrong, everything gets resolved and they all live happily ever after. IGIAY comes at it from a different angle: boy has already met girl, they’ve got married, and we get to see it all fall apart. This keeps things  nice and fresh. You end up excited to see where the plot is going to go, not predicting how everything will pan out in the first 5 minutes. This is a pretty big achievement in a genre that is more stuck in it’s ways than a metronome.   

Another aspect that really makes the film is it’s intelligence. Without giving too much away, the way a particular piece of underwear is used multiple times (you’ll see what i mean) is particularly good. The comedy is also pretty clever, there are several scenes where the joke is played out, going for big laughs rather than quick ones. It’s nice that people are taking the time to write films that go a little deeper than normal, especially  in a genre like this.  

The comedy is generally of a really high standard. It plays a lot on awkwardness and embarrassing situations, think Peep Show and you’re not far off, and has a fantastic cast. Olivia Colman and Stephen Merchant are particularly memorable in support roles, and the rest of the cast are all bloody funny as well. You certainly won’t leave the cinema having not had a good laugh.

All in all this is a funny, interesting, clever take on a genre that has occasionally felt quite tired. Well worth a watch.

Watch if you like: Good Richard Curtis films or recent British TV comedy

If you like this try: Tyrannosaur (just to be blown away by Olivia Colman's acting range)

Review: Django Unchained

Django Unchained is a really good film. It’s probably the best Tarantino film in years, and is, in many ways, absolutely fantastic. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, the dialogue is amazing. This is pretty much a given in a Tarantino film - intelligent, tight, funny dialogue has always featured heavily in his scripts – and it’s nice to see it here as well. QT has always favoured long, drawn out, scenes with the aforementioned talky bits as the centrepiece, and Django is, marvellously, packed with them.

It’s not just well written, the film is also bloody gorgeous. The sets are unbelievably good looking, particularly the plantation houses and grounds, you really get a sense of the grandeur and decadence of the slavers. The contrast between the loveliness of the setting and the nastiness of the slaving is also really unnerving, and effective.

The other big aspect of the film’s look is the violence. Tarantino is known for his B-Movie inspired ultra-violence, and this film features it in bucket loads. But, unlike some of his other movies, it feels entirely appropriate here. The slave trade was really violent, and people did do deeply unpleasant things to other people, the film just reflects that, in a stylised way.

Finally, the acting is really good. Christopher Waltz gives, what I think, is a standout performance, but all the actors are fantastic. In fact, the only bit of dodgy comes from the director’s obligatory cameo. That man cannot do a convincing Australian accent, just saying…

So yeah, this is a pretty freaking awesome film .Unlike some of his other films, it feels together (Kill Bill in particular can be accused of being a bit bloated), looks good, is well written, and is amazingly acted. You should go and watch it, then watch it again for that matter, it’s that good.

Watch if you liked: Pulp Fiction

If you liked this watch: The Dirty Dozen 

Review: The Last Stand

This film is bad. Not in a “it’s so bad that it’s good” way, it’s just bad.  Don’t go and see it. There are much better films on at the moment, go and see one of them instead. Got that? Good, now I’ll move on to why it’s bad.  

The main reason is that the acting is terrible. Arnold Schwarzenegger has very few roles that he can play convincingly. None of those roles involve portraying depth, or human emotion. Playing a barbarian warrior? Fine. A robot assassin from the future? No problem. A small town sheriff, i.e. someone you might actually meet and have a conversation with? No can do. A plank of wood with a smiley face painted on it conveys more human emotion than Arnie, he’s just not built for any kind of vaguely realistic role. Johnny Knoxville is also predictably annoying. He does his weird, zany, thing he has been doing since 2000, which has gotten super old. The man is 41 years old, isn’t it time he cut this shit out? The other actors are all pretty horrible too, even the mighty Forest Whitaker isn’t enough to lift the film, which is saying a lot. So yeah, C- for acting.

The other big problem is the action is really limp, which is a major failing in a film like this. Say what you like about The Expendables - some of the acting in that film was bloody terrible - but at least it got the action right, which is what an action film is all about (the clue is in the genre title). A good action sequence will surprise you and make you feel excited, it’ll make you squeal with joy and say “wow”. The problem with The Last Stand is that the action does none of those things, it’s not visceral, it’s not impressive, and it’s not cool, it’s just boring and crap. A bit like the rest of the film really.

There are other problems with the film as well, the pacing is terrible and the plot makes no sense, and it all just feels really weak and poorly thought through. The Last Stand doesn’t seem to have an obvious reason to exist, and there definitely isn’t any reason for you to watch it. So go and watch Django Unchained instead (review next week), it’s much better.  

Watch if you like: being disappointed

If you like this watch: The Expendables

Review: Les Miserables

Les Mis is a musical. You probably know this because it has been around, literally, forever. So chances are that you probably have a rough idea of what it’s like, maybe you know some of the songs, and whether or not you like it. For those of you who haven’t come across the stage version before, it’s a musical set in early 19^th century France, it has themes of redemption and love, and has lots of people in costumes singing huge, melodramatic, bangers. It’s a Marmite kind of a thing really, you either love it or you hate it.

Those who fall into the second camp might be disappointed - the film doesn’t mix up the formula at all. It’s a straight up movement from the theatre to the silver screen. It is however a bloody good production, and this is for a couple of reasons.

Firstly the singing is really good. Which is pleasantly surprising given that none of the cast have a history of singing (not entirely true I know, but none of the cast are famous for their singing career). Particular mention goes to Hugh Jackman, who manages amazingly well throughout the whole film. Who would have thought that Wolverine could reach the high notes?

The other reason the film is so good is that the set and costume design is amazing. It really brings everything to life. From huge ships to dramatic barricades to bawdy inns, it’s all there in well thought through, sumptuous, detail. It makes the world feel as big and epic as the music which is, quite frankly, a pretty massive achievement.

Ultimately, the film is like a slice of super-rich chocolate cake. It’s indulgent, it’s probably too much for some people, but if it’s your sort of thing you are going to love it.

P.S What is up with Hugh Jackman’s new face? Has he got skinnier? Or does he just look really different with no sideburns? 

New Hobbit Pictures and Jumanji!

Check out this picture from The Hobbit: There and Back Again. It’s Legolas (obviously) and Bard the Bowman, which is kind of cool I guess.

There is also the news that Jumanji is being remade to “update it for the present”. I was going to say that the original was only made in a few years back in 1995, but then I remembered that that’s 18 years ago. Which made me feel pretty old to be honest. Anyway, I can’t really think what they would do to update it, other than put in CGI that’s better than what they could manage in the 90’s (which wouldn’t be hard). Could be good though - call me cautiously optimistic.

Other than that is the news that a new writer for Tron 3 has been announced. His name is Jesse Wigutow and he wrote a short called Ugly Naked People. Cool.    

OMG

This is the coolest thing ever. EVER!