Prisoners

 

When the trailer for Prisoners appeared it looked like a solid thriller.  The Oscar buzz which followed took me by surprise as there was nothing from the trailer to indicate that they would be making a run for gold.

I was always going to see Prisoners but the unexpected cries of brilliance from the cinema going public did pique my interest.

PLOT:  Following a Thanksgiving meal Anna Dover (Erin Gerasimovich) and Joy Birch (Kyla Drew Simmons) go missing and the only clue to their whereabouts is an old R.V driven by Alex Jones, (Paul Dano) a mentally impaired young man.  Anna’s father Keller (Hugh Jackman) loses patience with the investigation conducted by Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) and takes matters into his own hands in an attempt to find his daughter.  END PLOT

A film that focuses on missing children should always be a tense affair however Prisoners only manages this in short bursts.  The early scenes between Dover and Jones are genuinely nail-biting however they quickly peter out and leave us with a hanging plot thread that no one really knows what to do with.  It is thereafter ignored completely.

Prisoners lasts for 2hours 33mins (IMDB) and although the film doesn’t feel slow the long running time does it no favours whatsoever.  I figured out the whereabouts of the children very early on in the film.  This made the investigation into the girls’ disappearance drag and I ended up watching Prisoners feeling more impatient that tense.

It did not help that the film resorted to glaringly obvious clichés such as “conveniently timed phone call” or the “desk tantrum that throws up a vital clue” to move the story along.

As I had figured out the culprit long before the characters it meant that I couldn’t get on-board with their actions.  Detective Loki is probably the most incompetent police officer in history and Keller Dover’s actions became unnecessarily overdramatic.

There was no emotional engagement with Keller Dover as his actions were simply wrong.  The film tries to raise the question – what would you be capable of doing to save your daughter – but it doesn’t do this well.  Instead of seeing a grieving father desperate to find his child we see an obsessive man torturing a mentally disabled boy for a period of five days.

Viola Davis (Nancy Birch) and Terence Howard (Franklin Birch) fare much better in this regard.  The Birches inner conflict and doubt has a much greater effect than Jackman’s emotional bullying tactics to encourage their involvement.

I will only acknowledge Maria Bello to say that I actively dislike her in all her endeavours.

Jake Gyllenhaal is as dependable as ever although Detective Loki is underwritten to the extent that his first name is Detective.  Loki’s backstory is nothing more than a throwaway line about growing up in an orphanage with dodgy priests.  It is probably a good thing that this little tit-bit of information was not explored as it would create a whole other movie.  The constant blinking was incredibly distracting as it took me a while to realise that this was a character trait and not Gyllenhaal having the onset of glaucoma.

Paul Dano, Melisa Leo and David Dastmalchian all provide very capable support to an already stellar cast.

The performances can’t really be faulted.  Jackman is as good as he has ever been and deserves the hype surrounding his performance.  Prisoners is a good reminder that Jackman can and should be more than Wolverine.

If Jackman, Davis and Howard get award nominations they will be deserved as the cast carry the film.  In lesser hands Prisoners would have passed by unnoticed and it would have been no great loss to cinema.

Prisoners is a decent film.  The film looks good and the cast are excellent but it is grossly overhyped.  Prisoners gets 7/10.  It will be watched again if I can pick it up cheap on DVD but other than that Prisoners killed an afternoon in the cinema and nothing more.

Rush

 

After the success of Senna I was cautiously optimistic about Rush.  I am a fan of F1 and I am familiar with the legendary status of James Hunt and Niki Lauda. 

The trailer was excellent and excitement levels were high.  Rush was one of my most eagerly anticipated films of 2013.

PLOT: James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) a free spirit clashes with the quiet but intense Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl).  As they progress from F3 into F1 their rivalry intensifies and comes to a head during the 1976 season.  END PLOT

I didn’t know the details of the Hunt/Lauda battle prior to seeing the film so I can’t pretend to be a stickler for details now.  I don't know what was fact and what was dramatic licence.  I am too lazy to google.

Chris Hemsworth has never been lacking in easy charm but in Rush he turns this up to the max.  There was potential for Hunt to be portrayed as an arrogant dick but his constant “rat” taunts never comes across harsher than competitive banter. 

Daniel Bruhl is the real star as Rush is surprisingly more Niki Lauda’s story than Hunts.  Bruhl is excellent as Lauda and shows a hidden softer side behind Lauda’s intensity.

The personality clashes were undoubtedly amplified but it made for fantastic drama.

 

Rush relied on the performances of Hemsworth and Lauda and luckily the pair are on top form and have fantastic chemistry.  They are not going to be bothering anyone come award season but they have done enough to make people sit up and take notice.

Aside from Lauda and Hunt Clay Regazonni is the only other F1 driver of the era to appear.  There are familiar names of the era scattered throughout the film – Fittipaldi and Andretti are both mentioned but never appear.  This is a pity.

The tone ranges from dramatic to amusing to downright stressful.  It unfortunately lacks the emotional punch of Senna but then again there are few films on the planet which live up to this film.

The action scenes are frantic and genuinely exciting.  I knew who won the 1976 World Championship but it didn’t make the final race of the season any less tense.  The death rate in F1 during the 1970’s was staggeringly high and the raw racing and crash scenes emphasise the dangers of the sport.  It made for thrilling viewing.

I can imagine the purists who watched F1 in the 1970’s finding faults and getting bogged down in the details.  I don’t care.  As a drama Rush succeeds on merit but the strong action scenes are what makes it memorable.  Rush gets 9/10.    

I eagerly await F1: The Alonso Saga.  That'll be a loooong one.

 

Insidious: Chapter 2

Insidious is one of my favourite cinema films. The balance between scares and laughs was perfect and the crowd on the night bought into this 100%.  The film has become a genuine favourite and has given Patrick Wilson a respectable third place in the list of actors that I would like to hug.

The success of Insidious meant that a sequel was inevitable and I was not unhappy with this.

PLOT:  Elise (Lin Shaye) is now dead and Josh, (Patrick Wilson) Renai (Rose Byrne) and their children are still being haunted.  It falls to Lorraine, (Barbara Hershey) Specs (Leigh Whannell) and Tucker (Angus Sampson) to investigate who is haunting the Lamberts and more importantly why.  END PLOT

The scares in Insidious were affective as the entire film took place inside a house which allowed the claustrophobia and tension to build.  Insidious: Chapter2 loses this slightly as the plot is much more spread out.  The investigation, although creepy in its own right, takes up a surprising amount of screen time leaving the Lamberts an afterthought in their own film.

There were portions of the film which didn’t feature the Lambert family but it made me realise that the characters created in Insidious were so strong that I didn’t mind. 

The twist could be seen a mile off but I was happy to go with the flow and watch it play out.  The Further was explored in greater depth and although it tied in nicely with events in the first film the time travel element made Chapter2 unnecessarily complicated.

Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne are excellent as Josh and Renai Lambert.  Byrne has got the worried look down to a fine art and Wilson was clearly having a ball toing and froing between personalities.  Judging by the reaction of the nearly full cinema screen Wilson’s teapot lob was the comedy highlight of the film.

The supporting cast of Hershey, Whannell and Sampson get much more to do this time around.  The double team of Whannell and Sampson creates quite a few giggles and screams spinoff series. Rock, paper, scissors is now redundant.

A character played by the writer gets more screen time in the sequel.  Shocker.

 

Insidious 2 did not disappoint and ticked all the necessary boxes – it gets 8/10.  Unfortunately it didn’t surpass the first instalment but I never ever really expected it to.  It brought the Lamberts’ story to a close and I am more than content with this.

 

About Time

It’s normal for me to avoid comedies at the best of times therefore the chances of me watching a romantic comedy voluntarily are non-existent.  A Richard Curtis film is my idea of hell.

The trailer for About Time implied that scene stealer Bill Nighy would have an important role to play.  This was enough for me to break with tradition and go along quite happily to see the film.
 

PLOT:  When Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) turns twenty-one his Dad (Bill Nighy) reveals a family secret – the men in the family have the ability to time travel.  Tim, a hopeless romantic, uses his gift to find love.  After several failed attempts Tim woos Mary (Rachel McAdams) and they fall in love.  Tim attempts to fix his families problems using his time travelling abilities however there are times when this does more harm than good.  END PLOT

The plot of About Time isn’t original.  It is essentially The Time Travellers Wife meets The Butterfly Effect meets Groundhog Day sprinkled with the Richard Curtis touch.  Take this how you will.

Despite everything feeling familiar (insert timewarp pun here) About Time is a much better film that it probably has any right to be.

About Time uses the time travel theme quite well and avoids getting bogged down in overcomplicated sci-fi logistics.  The time travel was kept fairly simple which was necessary.

There were plenty of laughs and quite a few giggles yet the tight family unit, which is the heart of the film, provides drama which caused tears to well up on several occasions.

The chemistry between Bill Nighy and Domhnall Gleeson is excellent and they are the perfect father/son combination.  The banter flows quickly yet in the more serious moments their relationship is naturally touching. 

Rachel McAdams seems like a fish out of water however when you look at her romantic drama filled résumé (one of which is a romantic time travelling tale) you wonder who else could have been cast.  McAdams is very understated and her American-Accented-British-Rose performance is very sweet.  Gleeson has proved to be a real find as his chemistry with McAdams was also excellent.

With the idyllic version of London, picturesque Cornwall and even the characters themselves About Time looked gorgeously quaint.  The over-the-top gag about British weather at a wedding summed up the almost caricature setting.

Under normal circumstances About Time is the sort of film I would avoid like a plague but it turned out to be surprisingly enjoyable. 

About Time gets 8/10.  It won’t be purchased on dvd but it will be watched every Christmas from now until the end of time.  This is a bigger compliment than it first appears. 

What Maisie Knew

My interest in What Maisie Knew came from a trailer that appeared rather unexpectedly in a summer almost destroyed by The Lone Ranger preview.

I knew I would see the film and I wanted to read the book by Henry James beforehand.  I did try I gave the book more than a fair chance but I didn’t enjoy it. My lack of enthusiasm for the novel didn’t hamper my interest in the film as I sensed that the content would transfer very well to a modern day setting.

PLOT:  After her parents Suzanna (Julianne Moore) and Beale (Steve Coogan) divorce seven year old Maisie (Onata Aprile) is caught in a bitter custody battle.  Suzanna and Beale both want custody but lack the ability to care for her properly.  When Suzanna and Beale quickly remarry it falls to Maisie’s stepparents Lincoln (Alexander Skarsgard) and Margo (Joanne Vanderham) to raise her.  END PLOT

The outline of the script does scream after-school-special but the sentiments are handled with a degree of subtlety.

As I expected the anger of Suzanna and Beale transfers very well and with the child being caught up in the bitterness it does make for riveting viewing.

Any film which focuses on a child is only as good as the child actor and Onata Aprile is absolutely fantastic as Maisie.  Aprile has some very real reactions while witnessing the volatile arguing of Suzanna and Beale yet positively glows with happiness during the scenes with her stepparents. 

Julianne Moore is as good as she has been in years and although he was perhaps an odd choice to play her husband Steve Coogan holds his own.  Moore and Coogan had brilliant chemistry which made their arguments very real.

I have never watched a single episode of True Blood and my only knowledge of Alexander Skarsgard stems from Battleship so I was pleasantly surprised by his performance.  Skarsgard wasn’t playing the leading man; he was very awkward, softly spoken and ridiculously sweet to Maisie.

The chemistry between Skarsgard and Vanderham was as sweet as the chemistry between Moore and Coogan was angry.  This was intentional but it felt natural.

The film clocks in at 99mins but despite the upheaval and fast moving relationships What Maisie Knew doesn’t feel rushed.

What Maisie Knew gets 8.5/10 and is a very good little film that deserves more attention than it will get.