IMDB number 3: The Godfather: Part 2

 

I have never had more than a fleeting dalliance with commitment.  My attempt to work my way through the IMDB top250 films was always a little ambitious as I never really believed that I could stick with it until the end.  I did think I would get further than number3 on the list though.

Perhaps I am being a little harsh on myself; I gave The Godfather: Part 2 1hour 54mins of my time before I thought “nope” and turned the dvd off.  I promise you all I tried.

I am only writing a few short paragraphs for my own blog to show that I didn’t skip out number3 on the list.  What I lack in commitment I make up for in a desire for order.  I will lose sleep if there are any gaps in the list.

The Godfather: Part 2 started off well and I honestly thought I would enjoy this film more than The Godfather.  I really liked the opening section – the interplaying scenes of a big Corelone family event and Michael discussing business. It was a nice, but not subtle, parallel to Don Corelone in opening of The Godfather.

Marlon Brando and Robert Di Niro have both won Oscars for their portrayal of Don Corelone and I don’t have anything negative to say about their performances.  I viewed the Godfather as Michael Corelone’s story which meant that I really didn’t care about the flashbacks to Don Corelone’s younger days.  I think this is when my interest in the film began to wane. 

I understand that the flashbacks are accurate in terms of Mario Puzo’s book.  It simply transpired that I didn’t care enough to watch them.

Al Pacino is excellent as Michael Corelone and there is a part of me that wishes I had availed of the scene selection option and followed his story arc to the end. 

To society, The Godfather: Part 2 is the greatest film ever made.  To me, it’s the greatest film I will never finish.  Typical.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

 

The Mortal Instruments is Hollywood’s latest attempt to kick-start a franchise based on a series of bestselling young adult novels. The only difference between The Mortal Instruments and duds such as Beautiful Creatures is that I have read the books, not once, but twice.  I am fully aware that the books are not particularly original but I do have a genuine affection for them.

I discovered about an hour before I went to see the film that Cassandra Clare had adapted her own Harry Potter fan fiction and “created” The Mortal Instruments.  I had originally written several paragraphs outlining my dislike of fan fiction and my lack of interest in the Harry Potter franchise.  I may have used the word “betrayal” several times.  I deleted these paragraphs because they don’t change the fact that when I read the books I enjoyed them.

Unfortunately for us all this is going to be one of those annoying compare and contrast reviews. I  apologise in advance for the length but the blog is called Mundane Rambling for a reason.

 

Here goes.

 

PLOT:  After Clary Fray (Lily Collins) finds her home ransacked and her mother Jocelyn  (Lena Headey) missing she meets Jace Wayland (Jamie Campbell Bower) a Shadowhunter who excels in hunting and killing demons.  Clary reluctantly accepts Jace’s help to find her mother and discovers that her family history contains some very dark secrets.  END PLOT

 

The City of Bones isn’t original and the teen romance, werewolf and vampire themes are familiar but having said that the books are a very good read.  I had always said that the books were begging to be made into a film and I believe that due to the way they were written this was Cassandra Clare’s ultimate goal.

 

The plot moves along at breakneck speed and despite a running time of 2hours 10mins the film is rushed and lacked subtle little moments such as Alec’s glances at Jace which would have given the characters more depth.  A deeper understanding of the angels vs. demons mythology would also have been welcome.

There were quite a few changes from the book – some worked and others did not.

The decision to omit "Simon the rat" was correct.  The idea works on paper but it would not have transferred well to the big screen.  It also meant that we got to see more of Simon (Robert Sheehan) and this is not a bad thing.

Shadowhunters having an English accent did throw me slightly but it didn't take longer than the two minute the trailer for me to accept this.  It separated the Shadowhunters from Clary and Simon and drummed home the point that Clary was not one of them. 

The biggest mistake was to ruin one of the most important plot threads.  The twist that Clary and Jace are brother and sister is one of the main storylines.  I suppose, in an attempt to simplify the story for non-readers, I can understand why we were made aware that this is a lie straight away.  Jace Wayland goes by four different surnames during the series so his story arc does get messy! 

The problem was the execution.  Hodge suggesting the idea to Valentine diminishes Valentine’s cleverness.  Valentine is intelligent (albeit in a very misguided way) but that one line by Hodge weakened the character.  If this deviation from the book was necessary Valentine should have been the one to instigate it.

I didn't mind that the final section took place inside the Institute – this is probably the biggest geographical difference from the book.  The film had a relatively small budget so I can see why they kept their sets to a minimum.

The sets were gorgeous and both the Institute and the City of Bones looked great.  I always imagined the Silent Brothers to be short so it was weird to see them being portrayed as tall. 

On a budget of $60million the effects were basic but decent.  The CGI was better than an episode of Supernatural so the special effects get the benefit of the doubt.

The best effect was the flower opening scene in the roof garden however a very sweet little moment between Clary and Jace was ruined when I was slapped in the face by a very loud and cheesy love ballad.

The set pieces were fine with the battle in Hotel Dumort and the fight between Jace and Valentine being surprisingly well choreographed.  The action department can consider this a job well done.

The casting of Lily Collins and Jamie Campbell Bower did not bother me in the slightest and the two young actors were excellent as Clary and Jace. 

Robert Sheehan (Simon) was perfectly cast although I would have liked to have seen some witty tee-shirts.  Jemima West (Izzy) got more screen time than expected however Kevin Zegers (Alec) was short changed.  Alec didn’t have much to do in the book but he was almost completely ignored in the film.  Alec needed more interaction with Jace but the Parabatai concept was dropped and this ruined their bond.

Lena Headey was spot on as Jocelyn Fray and managed to look like a bitch while sleeping.  I think I love her.

I always thought the casting of Aidan Turner was slightly odd purely because he is too young to play Luke.  The makeup department died his hair slightly grey and I got over it.    Godfrey Gao as Magnus Bane looked the part but he is not a good actor.  I love Magnus so hopefully Gao can grow into the role.

The major misstep was Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Valentine).  Aside from being a poor actor he is physically too small to capture Valentine's intimidating persona.  I imagined Valentine as being a cross between Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Disney’s Hades so I was always going to be disappointed.

(any excuse I know)

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones is by no means perfect and I worry that the film is not good enough to create a fan base of its own. 

It will be interesting to see how well City of Bones performs at the Box Office.  As Sigourney Weaver has already been cast as the Inquisitor (I read it as Helen Mirren) it bodes well for the franchise continuing but money talks – it needs to perform well for a second film to be made. 

As a fan of the book I have mixed feelings.  The cast (for the most part) and the sets were spot on however there were some dud moments.  The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones gets a generous 6.5/10. The film could easily have been better.

The potential is there but it cannot be squandered in City of Ashes because quite frankly I am more interested in seeing City of Glass.

IMDB number2: The Godfather

 

I don’t feel too embarrassed to admit that this is the first time I have watched The Godfather.  I do feel a slight sense of shame when I confess that the only reason I decided to sit down and watch the film is because it appears at the top of the IMDB top250. 

I have absolutely nothing against The Godfather; it’s just I’ve never had any desire to watch it.  Until now.

PLOT: Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) is the head of one of the biggest mafia families in New York.  The family is threatened after Don Corleone refuses to venture into the drugs trade.  The Corleone family find themselves caught up in a mafia war and it falls to the youngest son Michael (Al Pacino) to ensure that they remain in business.  END PLOT

The Godfather opens with a cheery family wedding but behind the festivities we see Don Corleone in his office discussing business.  The mixture of grandchildren, family dinners, guns and violence makes for intriguing viewing.

The film was less about Don Corleone (Marlon Brando) than I thought it would be with his youngest son Michael (Al Pacino) being the main character.  It was fascinating watching his character change from the idyllic young war hero into the head of the family business.  This was a slow process with the timespan of The Godfather covering about ten years.

 

Pacino is the true star of the film although Marlon Brando is equally memorable.  James Caan (Sonny Corleone) and Robert Duvall (Tom Hagan) provide very able support.

There were perhaps too many characters for my tiny brain to cope with as I had to keep stopping to double check who each character was and how they were involved with the Corleone family.

The Godfather is the template for all gangster parodies and as I am of The Simpsons generation I was worried that it would feel like I was watching the birth of several clichés.  I was very relieved that this did not turn out to be the case as the characters, the familiar phrases and the iconic scenes worked in the proper context. 

The main issue I have with The Godfather is the length – 2hours 55mins.  My mind started to wander on quite a few occasions and it was hard to stay focused. The extra length allowed us to delve deeper into the Corleone family dynamic so I appreciate the reasons for the running time, it was just hard to stay fully engaged.

The Godfather is classed as a masterpiece and I have no real arguments to the contrary.  I am glad I have finally watched it but I don’t think it is a film that I will ever love.  It gets 7/10.

Pain & Gain

The trailer for Pain & Gain looked pretty decent but let’s be honest, Pain & Gain didn’t need an advertising campaign as the pairing of Mark Wahlberg and The Rock pretty much sells itself.

PLOT:  Bodybuilder Daniel (Mark Wahlberg) gets fed up working in a dead end job and decides to steal everything from Victor (Tony Shalhoub), an obnoxious client.  Daniel recruits Paul (Dwayne Johnston) and Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and together they plot to kidnap Victor and force him to sign over all of his assets.  As the trio enjoy their stolen life of luxury Victor plots to expose them.  END PLOT

Pain & Gain opens with the disclaimer that it is based on a true story.  This little factoid is quickly forgotten about as we watch the farcical and very funny attempts of Daniel, Paul and Adrian to carry out their plan.

I had watched three idiots kidnap and torture a man for thirty days, steal his fortune and thereafter murder two people, chop up their bodies and dump the remains in a river.  This is a true story.  This was also the premise of a Michael Bay comedy.  What. The. Fuck.

Attempt to kill Victor number 4.

 

There are a good number of laughs in the film and I spent the two hours wondering how it could become any more ridiculous only to have this question answered several times.  The humour is dark and there are some brilliant flinch-and-cringe moments most of which involve a chainsaw. 

The problem is we are reminded towards the end that this is indeed a true story.  At this point the film lost me completely. 

Given that the film takes a very dark turn the last person you want directing is Michael Bay; a man who does not know the definition of subtly and is not renowned for handling comedy.  The mixture of truth and farce made for one of the most bizarre film experiences in recent memory.  I am sure the families of the murdered victims are simply ecstatic with their portrayal in the film.

Pain & Gain is saved by the cast – Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnston and Anthony Mackie are all excellent and cannot be faulted for their performances.  Rebel Wilson also pops up as Mackie’s wife and is a very welcome sight.

Bay owes these guys a beer

It was impossible to feel any kind of sympathy for Daniel, Paul and Adrian and there was absolutely no way to redeem their actions.  In fairness to Bay I don’t think he tried but overall Pain & Gain is one big ill-conceived mess. 

The end credits showed pictures of the cast alongside their real life counterparts.  It was not classy. It served as a reminder of how mishandled this film was.

There are laughs but they become more uncomfortable as the film progresses.  Pain & Gain would work as a black comedy but only in the hands of a much more capable director.  Bay’s bright colour pallet, slow motion shots and his love of helicopters and low flying aeroplanes were not right for this story. 

Pain & Gain gets 5/10 and is one of the oddest cinema experiences I have had in a long time. 

IMDB number1: The Shawshank Redemption

 

My latest blogging whim is to have a crack at reviewing the IMDB top250 list.  I am not the quickest, and let’s face it, most committed blogger in the world so this will be a long project.

It was almost off putting that The Shawshank Redemption is number1 on the list as I have never been a fan. I’ve always had this sneaky suspicion that it is popular for people to claim The Shawshank Redemption is a favourite film as it is a trendy title to name drop.

I haven’t watched the film for years; I must have been a young teen when I watched it.  I will admit that I was curious to see how my first viewing of The Shawshank Redemption as an adult would fare.

PLOT: After banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is wrongfully found guilty of the murder of his wife and her lover he is sent to Shawshank Prison where he begins serving his two life sentences.  Andy soon makes friends with Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding (Morgan Freeman) and a twenty year friendship begins.  END PLOT

My plot synopsis of The Shawshank Redemption is short and is so basic it looks as though I haven’t really tried.  This isn’t the case.  The story of The Shawshank Redemption deserves more than a few paragraphs – it deserves to be watched rather than read.  Stephen King will be thrilled.

The friendship of Andy and Red spans twenty years during which time fellow prisoners and friends come and go, change seldom happens and there are occasional, and at times, brutal altercations with the guards.

The key themes in the film are hope and friendship and the notion that both are necessary to survive.  Despite the grim setting The Shawshank Redemption is a surprisingly uplifting film.  It is a testament to the script and performances of the cast that the tone never becomes cheesy or saccharine. The themes flow naturally and I did start to well up on more occasions than I care to admit.

Tim Robbins is incredibly understated and gives a very stoic performance as Andy Dufresne.  Andy may have been the main character but it is Red who is the true heart of the story.  Morgan Freeman is excellent as always and the narration provided by Red is an important part of the film. 

I think I would cry if Morgan Freeman narrated an extract from the Yellow Pages.  The Shawshank Redemption would have been a completely different film without Red’s simple and matter of fact narration.  It certainly would not have packed such an emotional punch.

There were a few occasions when I felt myself tear up.  The most emotionally devastating section of the film is the little subplot involving Brooks and his struggle to adapt to the modern outside world.  This part of the film really got to me.

The Shawshank Redemption is one of those rare, quiet films that rely on the script and cast to make it great.  There is no action.  There are no special effects, bells or whistles.   There is no weak link in the entire film and there are no unnecessary scenes.  The Shawshank Redemption has aged very well and I don’t see how its quality can be weakened through the passage of time.

I was probably too young to “get” The Shawshank Redemption first time around but watching it now I can fully appreciate its brilliance.  In terms of storytelling and performances it cannot be faulted so I suppose I must give it 10/10.

I don’t mean to begrudge giving The Shawshank Redemption a perfect score.  This rating is kept for films that I not only love but will watch to the death.  The Shawshank Redemption will not be watched again for quite some time.  Perhaps it doesn't need to be.

2 Guns

 

I am not (too) ashamed to admit this but I absolutely love Mark Wahlberg.  Whether the entertainment factor is caused by intentional or unintentional means Mark Wahlberg is always watchable.

 

The trailer for 2Guns was enough to convince me that the film would be worth a look.  It was also enough to convince me to push Kick Ass 2 down the cinema viewing queue.  I didn’t see that one coming.

PLOT:  Robert “Bobby” Trench (Denzel Washington) is a DEA agent deep undercover with the mob ran by Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos).  Bobby meets Michael “Stig” Stigman, (Mark Wahlberg) who is undercover with Navy Intelligence, and the two agree to rob a bank and steal $3million belonging to Greco.  After the robbery goes wrong Bobby and Stig find themselves being hunted by several government agencies and the mob.  END PLOT

2Guns relies on a “who’s playing who” format however this does make the plot seem unnecessarily complicated.  It could have been more streamlined if they had cut Deb’s (Paula Patton) character completely.  Although the storytelling is quite messy it does all come together quite nicely in the final shootout.

Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg are a great double team.  Washington brings a cool dryness to his comedy whereas Wahlberg turns into a hyper puppy that winks…..ooh the winking……..*sigh*

When Washington and Wahlberg are together the film noticeably lifts and the banter zips along nicely.  Unfortunately there are sections of the film when they are separated for a tad too long.

 

Bill Paxton and Edward James Olmos provide very capable support and although James Marsden was perhaps slightly miscast it was nice to see him on the big screen again.  Paula Patton, Bobby’s love interest, was absolutely awful.  The character was the weak link in the film and Patton’s performance made it all the more obvious.

The action is good old fashioned “shoot em up” and when that wasn’t enough it was upgraded to “blow shit up”.  This isn’t a complaint as the set pieces were generally good fun. 

2Guns is by no means perfect and there were two completely unnecessary scenes in the film:

1: Denzel Washington’s contract clause which states that he must be lying in a bed as a half-naked woman parades slowly around him has now become really sleazy.  Well done to Paula Patton on the wonderful body because this must surely be the reason she got the job.

2: The chicken shooting scene.  The point of the scene was to show how good a shot Stig is however there were many other ways they could have done this.  This entire section made me feel quite uncomfortable – it was such a bizarre setting to try and make funny.

The film does have some flaws but the laughs make up for this.  The chemistry between Washington and Wahlberg is more than enough to carry the film and it makes me wonder if they will sign up for a sequel should the opportunity arise.  I won’t be upset if they do.  2Guns gets 7.5/10 and will almost certainly be a DVD purchase when the time comes.

The Lone Ranger

 

The Lone Ranger has finally arrived and I thank the gods for this.  If I had to sit through the trailer one more time I could not have been held responsible for my actions in a court of law.  It feels like the trailer has been played in the cinema at least once a week since the dawn of time.

The bandwagon of hatred may have rolled down my way this week but I promise you I didn’t jump on board brandishing my pitchfork and torch.  My dislike of The Lone Ranger began with the teaser trailer which I hated from the off and my long running love-to-hate relationship with Johnny Depp.

The trip to see The Lone Ranger on opening weekend was inevitable.  It was to prove to myself that it was possible to go to the cinema without that trailer being played.  This thought process happened fairly recently with Flight.  The trailer for Flight played for years prior to the film’s release and I went to see it with a “thank the gods it’s over” attitude.  Flight turned out to be an amazing film.

Despite my premeditated hatred of the The Lone Ranger I was daring it to “pull a Denzel”. 

PLOT:  In 1869 John Reid, a newly deputised Ranger, rides out with his older brother to capture Butch Cavendish, (William Fichtner) a notorious outlaw.  The Rangers are ambushed and John watches his brother get brutally murdered.  John is saved by Tonto (Johnny Depp) and the mismatched pair form an unsteady alliance to bring Cavendish to justice. END PLOT

As The Lone Ranger is an origins story focusing on John/Tonto’s first adventure is perfectly acceptable. The major mistake was to have an older Tonto retelling this particular tale to a boy in 1933.  The only purpose it served was to add unnecessary length to a never ending film. 

The technique highlighted the weaknesses in the script as when the Comanche Chief was telling John the tale of Tonto’s childhood we had a flashback scene within a flashback.  It also made the film feel extremely disjointed with the main storyline being brought to an abrupt halt to watch a random child eat peanuts in 1933.  At one stage the jump forward to 1933 was signalled by Johnny Depp mugging into the camera.  The framing device should have been cut completely. It was an absolutely terrible idea.

Metaphor.  No caption required.

The tone was as disjointed as the plot.  Hammer and Depp appeared to be going for slapstick whereas every other cast member played it straight.  This left us with cartoon humour against a gritty Wild West backdrop.  

The attempts at comedy failed for the most part and I found myself being more embarrassed than amused – this isn’t to say that I didn’t smile.  There were a few moments when a smile sneaked out thanks to the antics of the horse.

As soon as Armie Hammer realised that he would be relegated to the sidekick in his own film he should have got on the horse and rode off into the sunset.  Given the origins theme it was fine to let the Ranger have his coming of age moment.  Unfortunately the Ranger spent the film stupidly bumbling around only to come good in the last ten minutes when he became an expert rider and could use a whip better than Indiana Jones.

Hi Ho Silver, take me to my dignity!

The casting of Johnny Depp as Tonto wasn’t a mistake.  The mistake was giving Depp the lead role and an extended amount of screen time as with Johnny Depp less is always more.  It wasn’t as excruciatingly bad as I predicted but it was by no means an enjoyable watch.  My neck muscles are now the size of The Rock’s from cringing so hard. 

One of them is talented, amusing, and entertaining. The other is called Johnny

The supporting cast were all fine in their very limited parts.  William Fichtner as Cavendish was excellent as was James Badge Dale (Dan Reid; a much more interesting character than John).

The Lone Ranger had a staggering budget of $250million (IMDB) so the funds were there to create some spectacular action scenes but like everything else it didn’t quite work.  The opening train crash sequence was ridiculously silly however the shoot-em-up battles looked good.  The mishmash of cartoon and grounded action clashed as the film couldn't get the balance right.

I will admit that the final set piece on the train was great fun.  It was fast paced, well choreographed and genuinely amusing.  There is an argument to be had that at one stage the horse defied both the laws of gravity and physics but I can let this go.  The ten minute train ride was the best part of the entire film.

The Lone Ranger had potential and many opportunities to succeed but it refused to take them.  The film could have worked as a solid 90min action comedy however the film was such a bloated mess I have had to resort to visual aides to describe it.  Thank you Monty Python.

The Lone Ranger gets 4/10.  The combination of Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp is as arrogant as the Burton/Depp partnership is stale.  If heads have to roll at Disney it deserves to be theirs. 

Don't listen to the bad reviews Johnny.  If you don't hear them they can't possibly be true.

Now if you will excuse me.  I am off to watch and enjoy John Carter.............

High Life

 

Those of you who have had the misfortune to become trapped in the mundane world of my blog will be well aware that I take notions for certain actors.  Will we ever forget the Norman Reedus phase of 2011? Yes is the answer to that question.

High Life ticks two boxes – Timothy Olyphant and Joe Anderson.  I am nothing if not financially efficient in my DVD purchases.

My knowledge of the film prior to its purchased stemmed from an IMDB trailer. 

PLOT:  In 1983 drug addict Dick (Timothy Olyphant) has just been released from prison.  Dick’s attempts to lead a normal life are interrupted when his former cellmate Bug (Stephen Eric McIntyre) tracks him down and cajoles him into robbing an ATM.  Dick recruits Donnie, (Joe Anderson) an extreme hypochondriac and Billy (Rossif Sutherland) to help execute the plan. The four junkies try to stay clean for long enough to pull off the heist.  END PLOT

The idea of four junkies successfully carrying out a bank robbery works surprisingly well as a slow paced black comedy.  There is plenty of humour although it raises more smiles than actual giggles.  It is lazy viewing at its finest.

Timothy Olyphant sports a wonderfully scruffy haircut and carries the film with ease.  Olyphant has the exasperated sigh and wide eyed stare of disbelief down to a fine art.  This is the cause of most of the bigger smiles.

Timothy Olyphant: also comes in scruffy pink.  The dude always looks good in a hat

The supporting cast of Stephen Eric McIntyre, Joe Anderson and Rossif Sutherland play their parts well.  There is obvious chemistry between the four cast members which makes the banter and bickering seem genuine and at times amusing.  The characters are all underdeveloped but the cast are so watchable it leaves you wanting to see more of them after the credits role

High Life looks cheap and dirty as do the characters – everything about the film looks as though it needs a good wash.  The film does what it can with a nominal budget but the grimy look suits the down an out junkies.

It is by no means a classic but High Life fits the bill very nicely for easy background viewing.  The short running time of 80mins also works in its favour.  High Life gets 6/10. 

The Conjuring

 

The trailer for The Conjuring was excellent.  It was brilliantly creepy and I was instantly sold.  The Paranormal Activity franchise has taught me that horror films have a habit of producing effective trailers but poor films.  I decided to ignore this and deployed extreme levels of excitement.

James Wan gave us Insidious.  I was not expecting disappointment.

PLOT:  After the Perron family move into a remote old house Carolyn (Lili Taylor), her husband Roger (Ron Livingston) and their five daughters start to experience strange happenings at night.  As the noises and terror escalates they contact paranormal investigators Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine (Vera Farmiga) Warren.  The Warrens discover that the Perron family is being haunted by a demon and it becomes a race against time to perform an exorcism before someone gets seriously hurt.  END PLOT

Creaking floorboards, drafts and exploding light bulbs are a staple part of any haunted house.  If you throw in a sceptical father, a barking dog and a kid with an imaginary friend and you essentially have a full house of horror clichés.  The Conjuring has all of these in heavy doses but the film is so well put together that absolutely everything about it feels original….and terrifying.

The film starts out strong with a very tense opening section which focuses on Annabel and steadily builds on it until the finale.  There is no drop in pace or dud scenes.

The Conjuring is set in the 1970’s and although it gave Farmiga some wonderfully over the top blouses I am not sure what it brought to the film.  At the end of the day it doesn't really matter.

Purples frills.  More terrifying than crocs and Tom Cruise. All three together is too horrifying to contemplate

Lili Taylor is excellent as Carolyn Perron and the five young actors all hold their own which helps to elevate the film.  Ron Livingston as Roger Perron isn’t given much to do but it’s only a minor quibble.

The stars of the show are Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga.  Wilson is becoming a horror favourite after his performance in Insidious and is rapidly creeping up my list of actors I want to hug.  He is currently third behind The Rock and Liev Schreiber.

Wilson and Farmiga have great chemistry and their sweet husband and wife routine in an exorcism setting made for great viewing.

The Conjuring is a scary film and it is impressive that it does this with very little blood and gore.  I always say that the less blood in a horror movie the scarier it is.  The Conjuring has finally proven my point.

James Wan has created a genuinely unsettling film and more intriguingly may have started a very decent franchise. The Conjuring gets 8.5/10.

The Conjuring 2 has already been announced and I can’t pretend to be anything less than uber excited.   

The Conjuring 2 could be the scariest film of all  time! Annabel will be a regular nightmare visitor

The Wolverine

 

I grew up with the X-Men cartoon. I was obsessed with it and although I have next to no experience with the comics my love of X-Men has been strong since I was a kid.

The one thing that always irked me about the cartoon was Wolverine.  It felt like he set up camp on the centre stage and refused to budge.  This trait was carried over to the films.  It became more annoying with each instalment.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine was an average film. It satisfied a childhood craving for Gambit but other than that I haven’t watched it since the cinema. 

Despite my usual love for comic book adaptations I had absolutely no interest in The Wolverine.  Watching the trailer was more effort than I was prepared to give.

My trip to see The Wolverine was out habit rather than interest.

PLOT:  Set after the events of X-Men 3 Logan (Hugh Jackman) heads to Japan at the request of a dying man he saved during WW2.  While struggling with the loss of Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) Logan finds that his healing ability has been taken.  A now vulnerable Logan must discover who has taken his powers and save Mariko (Tao Okamoto) his rebound love.  END PLOT

Having Wolverine lose his healing ability wasn’t clever as he took several beatings and bullets before he was miraculously healed again.  It didn’t create any tension and I did not believe for one nanosecond that he was ever in any danger.  I don’t know why they bothered.  The entire concept was impressively boring.

The love affair with Mariko was cheesy as were the consent flashbacks of Jean Grey rolling around in bed sheets.  I didn’t give a fuck about Jean Grey when she was alive.  I certainly didn’t want to hear from her from beyond the grave.  I will confess that the Jean Grey scenes did awaken me from my slumber but it was only because it sparked a fiery hatred. 

The major misstep in The Wolverine is Viper.  A mutant who looked so 90’s I bet Uma Thurman is pissed off that she didn’t get the call.  In fairness to Viper she did have the most character development - as the movie progressed there was a very noticeable correlation between Viper’s slutty attire and her level of evil.

W.T.F is she wearing? W.T.F is she wearing it? I do NOT have a top that shade of green........

There is no denying that Hugh Jackman has been excellent as Wolverine but the character is so familiar it feels as though he is operating on autopilot. Nothing new was offered.

The supporting characters are all instantly forgettable save for Yukio (Rila Fukushima) however she is underused.

The action scenes are not inspiring.  There are almost no mutants which means that Wolverine is chased through Japan by men in suits and shades firing guns.   The bullet train set piece was perhaps filmed for a 3D audience but it was such a stupid concept there were a few giggles coming from various corners of the audience.

I suppose the shoddy action scenes can't really be faulted when the vast majority of the CGI budget when on ironing the wrinkles out of Famke Janssen's face.  The woman was airbrushed within an inch of her life. 

Luckily for us all Wolverine decided not to hang around in Japan.  Unfortunately it looks as though he will be back in New York just in time for the new X-Men film.  Dammit.  I expected little from The Wolverine and I suppose I should be happy that I got exactly that.  I am not.  The Wolverine gets 4/10. 

It speaks volumes that the post credit sequence is considered the best part of the entire film.  I missed it.  Typical.