Child44

 

I am becoming embarrassingly lazy when it comes to watching trailers.  I either watch a couple that are played to death in the cinema or I watch none.  Child44 was the latter. 

In keeping with tradition I didn’t bother to read the book by Tom Rob Smith before seeing the film although I did think about it.  I read The Farm instead and absolutely loved it which left me in no doubt that Child44 would be of the same high standard.

PLOT:  Set in Stalinist Russian a paradise supposedly free from murder, Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy) discovers that a serial killer is preying on young boys.   After being demoted from his high ranking position in the army for refusing to denounce his wife as a traitor Leo is sent to the country where he continues searching for the killer.  END PLOT

Despite never being boring Child44 ultimately fails as it doesn’t know what sort of film it wants to be – it isn’t thrilling enough to be a political thriller, it isn’t dramatic enough to be a crime drama and it doesn’t delve into the history of Stalinist Russia in any great depth.  It’s a series of scenes, each grimmer than the last, until a final and unsatisfying showdown in a muddy forest.   

I have always been on the fence about Tom Hardy but in Child44 he proves to be a more than capable lead in what is his most impressive performance to date.  Hardy and the talent of the supporting cast which includes Noomi Rapace, Gary Oldman, Joel Kinnaman and Fares Fares try to paper over the cracks in the script but unfortunately the range of commitment to the Russian accent was too wide and there were a few occasions when a crisp English accent stuck out like a sore thumb – Charles Dance’s scene appeared to have been filmed on the set of The Imitation Game the only difference being the Russian flag in the corner of the room rather than the British! 

The sets and costumes were appropriately grim and helped to capture the poverty and paranoia of the time but like everything else it just left me wanting to learn more about the history of Russia rather than emotionally invest in the film. 

Child44 was watchable but not memorable and given the cast involved it has to be considered a wasted opportunity.  It gets 5/10.  I suspect that a lot of the depth and detail from the book didn't make it onto the big screen but it hasn't put me off a film adaptation of The Farm..... there is a book with potential.

Lawless

The trailer for Lawless was enough to convince me that a film was worth a look.  This method of choosing films has a downside as it can lead to some major disappointments.  Lawless was one of those disappointments.

PLOT: Set during the Prohibition Act Forrest Bondurant (Tom Hardy) and his two brothers Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) set up a successful moonshine business. After Forrest is injured in an attack ordered by Deputy Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) it is up to Jack to oversee the family business. END PLOT

Lawless is based on the novel by Matt Bondurant, Jack’s grandson, but as I have not read the book I have no idea whether or not the film was an accurate portrayal of events.

The main story arc focused on Jack Bondurant however this was book-ended by opening and closing sections which focused on Forrest Bondurant.

The sudden disappearance of Forrest for large sections of the film went unexplained and was very noticeable. I will concede that Forrest was injured but he was recovered before he disappeared.  There was no reason for his absence or for Jack taking over the family business and both points went unexplained.

Clocking in at 116mins Lawless was already quite long but I can’t help but wonder how heavily edited the film was as at times it felt very uneven and disjointed.

Despite the promise of the trailer Lawless was nothing more than a coming of age story for Jack Bondurant.

I am not a fan of LaBeouf and in Lawless he proved that he has two methods of acting – whining weasel and obnoxious arse.

The casting of LaBeouf in the lead role was a serious miscast as the character of Jack Bondurant required a young actor who could pull off an easy charm. Unfortunately LaBeouf is naturally devoid of any charisma and made the Jack extremely dislikeable throughout the entirety of the film.

I still can’t form an opinion on Tom Hardy but in Lawless he didn’t look comfortable. Hardy came across as awkward and dealt with his limited dialogue by adopting a weird grunting purr and he didn’t suit Forrest’s wardrobe at all.  If it wasn't for Hardy's few moments with Jessica Chastain he would have been as miscast as LaBeouf.

Guy Pierce is always hit or miss and unfortunately he bordered extremely close to miss. I would have appreciated less screen time for Pierce in place of more for Gary Oldman.

Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska are two talented actresses but they were both relegated to the background. Despite hints of a back-story with Chastain’s Maggie it was never developed.

There were several violent scenes which were quite gruesome to watch however they almost felt like an after thought and the same could be said for the language.  I am not against violence or swearing in films but in Lawless they just felt forced.

Lawless was never going to be a classic but poor casting and dodgy editing helped to highlight its faults. It gets a 4/10. There was potential but it was squandered at every opportunity.

The Dark Knight Rises - spoiler free

The trailer for The Dark Knight is my all time favourite and the film wasn’t too shabby either. There was much anticipation for The Dark Knight Rises trailer but it fell short of my expectations by quite some margin. I couldn’t warm to the previews and excitement for The Dark Knight Rises took a while to build.

PLOT: Eight years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight - crime in Gotham is non-existent, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is a reclusive shut in and Batman is hated for (supposedly) killing Harvey Dent. After Bane (Tom Hardy) arrives in Gotham and threatens to destroy everything it is up to Batman to save the city which has lost faith in him. END PLOT.

If The Dark Knight Rises were in less capable hands it would become nothing more than a hero trying to disarm a terrorist threat but luckily Christopher Nolan did not let us down.

After the events of The Dark Knight Bruce Wayne has been left injured and broken.  The Dark Knight’s Rise to being Gotham’s true saviour is slow paced but always utterly compelling. A running time of two hours forty minutes is rare but TDKR didn't waste a second as there were no scenes that felt like filler.

There are many interweaving subplots which all came together in the final act. To say there is a lot going on in the film is an understatement but it didn’t feel bloated or needlessly complex. I respect Nolan for making an intelligent film which requires the audience to pay attention.

Despite a few clunky moments of exposition and a rather unsubtle recap of The Dark Knight the dialogue can’t be faulted.

The tone of the film is bleak and hopeless and doesn’t let up until the credits roll. The overwhelming sense of despair lasted for the entirety of the film which made it emotionally draining. Happy endings are ingrained in my cinematic mind and the reality that I may not be seeing one unfold was hard to accept.

Christian Bale was overshadowed by Health Ledger in The Dark Knight. In TDKR he got his moment to shine and put in a very strong performance but he needed to – with such a large cast he spent quite a bit of time off screen so it was essential that his presence be felt as both Bruce Wayne and Batman.

I don’t know anything about the Batman comics so the announcement that Bane would be the villain was met with no reaction whatsoever. The casting of Tom Hardy was more exciting than the character he would be playing.  This concerned me as with comic book adaptations it should always be the other way around.

Hardy had the physical presence required to play Bane but it was almost an anonymous performance. The much publicised vocal problems were noticeable, not because I couldn’t understand him, but because his voice was so clear and precise it was patently obvious he had been dubbed. It was not subtly done and there were occasions when the voice didn’t seem to match Banes eyes and movements. If there was a fault to be found in The Dark Knight Rises it would be this aspect of Bane.

There was always a big question mark over Anne Hathaway’s casting as Selina Kyle but she was much better than expected.

The supporting cast of Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard were all strong and provided solid grounded performances.

Despite the big names and much rumoured cameos it was Michael Caine who stole the show as Bruce Wayne’s loyal butler Alfred. Caine had the least amount of screen time but in the few scenes he had they were the most emotionally charged of the entire trilogy. I hope he is recognised with award nominations but I doubt he will be.

Aside from the football pitch explosion which was shown in the trailer the action felt real. A brutal fight between Batman and Bane was made all the more gritty as there was no music – it was scored by punches and pain.

I wasn’t overly keen on the score used in the trailer but it worked much better in the film. The familiar Batman theme and the “This is Gotham” chant blended very well together.

One of the best things about going to the cinema is the previews and there are some, now matter how often you see them, which will always give you goose-bumps.  It is rare to have goose-bump moments during an actual film but in The Dark Knight Rises there were several.

The Dark Knight Rises is probably the least enjoyable blog I have ever written as I don't want write a spoiler free review that no one will ever read - I want to talk about what an amazing piece of cinema I have just watched with my friends.

Is The Dark Knight Rises an absolutely perfect film? No.

Does The Dark Knight Rises bring the trilogy to an emotional and satisfying conclusion? Yes.

I think people simply have to ask themselves which is more important to them as film fans – for me it is without hesitation the latter.

Christopher Nolan has brought what will now be considered one of the modern greatest trilogies to an end and he made it look easy. The Dark Knight Rises can't must not be considered anything less than 10/10.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - spoiler free

Another week.  Another Blog. Another remake.  Another disclosure that I have not watched the original.

This week it is the turn of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

PLOT:  There is a mole at the top of the British Secret Service and George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is brought out of retirement in order to investigate the rat.  Smiley’s investigation interweaves with the stories of Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) and Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy).  There is corruption.  There is backstabbing.  There is an oddly tragic bromance. The mole is discovered. The rat symbolises obviousness.  END PLOT

The first half hour of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is deliberately slow and the film never really picks up speed – but it isn’t supposed to.  The tone of the film is steady and purposeful and the plot follows suit although that is not to say that the film drags in anyway as it doesn’t.

The clever aspect of the Tinker Tailor is that whilst we are told through flashbacks Jim and Ricki’s involvement we are never told just how Smiley ties everything together.  There is no “light bulb” moment as Smiley just quietly gets on with business – even the showdown between Smiley and the Spy is done in a dignified British manner without so much as a raised voice.

It is refreshing to see a spy film which doesn’t involve explosions, copious amounts of running around, gun fights in which no one ever gets shot and a big soundtrack.  Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has none of these traits and it is a testament to the plot and performances that a glimpse into the more bureaucratic world of Spies is so engrossing.

The cast are absolutely phenomenal – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy stars the top level of British acting talent lead by the more than capable Gary Oldman.

There are several moments in the film which you can easily see as being part of Oldman’s Best Actor film reel at the Oscars.  His performance is absolutely mesmerising and is definitely the best of the year so far – it will take something special from “Oscar Season” to top it.

The rest of the cast are just as strong; Benedict Cumberback, John Hurt, Colin Firth, Toby Jones and Tom Hardy are all fantastic but it is Mark Strong who stands out amongst them.  It is rare to see Strong strip back the hard-man that he plays so well in favour of a broken man but it suits him surprisingly well.

The film is dark, miserable and beige and captures the dirty look of London in the 1970’s very well.  There are no clever or jerky camera shots as the film is shot at a very wide angle with the camera rarely moving once each scene begins.  There is no trickery in the film making - it's 100% plot and performance.

On first viewing Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is an absolutely amazing film but it needs at least one more screening to just to appreciate both the film and the performances.  It gets a 10/10 – if this is a glimpse of what we can expect from Oscar Season 2011 is going to end on a major high.

People can argue the pros and cons of remakes until they are blue in the face but the fact is it is worth sitting through a summer of Conan the Barbarians in order to get one Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. 

Red Riding Hood

You may not believe it due to my complete inability to write a sentence shorter than a medium sized paragraph (a skill which annoys my employer to no end) - I am a reader but we will all just have to accept that writing a never ending sentence without even the implementation of basic punctuation - accepting of course the over usage of the dash - which serves no real function but rather allows the rambling to continue on its never ending journey until the full stop is finally deployed.

One of the best things about being a reader as an adult is the occasional foray back to childhood favourites - and I am not talking about the Harry Potters or dare I type it the Twilights of modern literature. I had a great love of fairy tales as a child but it is only as an adult that you realise just how deliciously dark they are - I think this is one of the reasons why I love Pans Labyrinth so much.

When I heard that there was to be a Red Riding Hood movie I was intrigued - that is until I discovered that Catherine Hardwicke, the director of Twilight was to be at the helm.

PLOT: Valerie (Amanda Seyfied) lives in a small forest village which is terrorised by a wolf. Valerie is in love with Peter (Shiloh Fernandez) but is being married off to Henry (Max Irons). This has no relevance whatsoever to the traditional Red Riding Hood plot but as it is now standard practise for all films to have a love triangle it had to be shoehorned in somewhere along the line.
In order to destroy the wolf the village priest sends for Father Solomon (Gary Oldman) who sets about cooking the village idiot, who is the double of Ron Weasley, in a large horse drawn stone elephant in what can only be described as a very failed interrogation attempt.
Henry loves Valerie. Valerie loves Peter. Peter loves to imply he is the wolf so that he can smoulder around all smouldery and misunderstood. The wolf attacks. Grandma gives Valerie a red clock. They all go off to grandmas house for a grand finale. The wolf is destroyed. Jacob finally gets Bella. END PLOT

Plot wise there is only so much you can do with a short fairy story although in fairness Disney did a more than adequate job with Tangled so it can be pulled off when in the right hands. The problem is Red Riding Hood was in the wrong hands.

The cast were fine if nothing remarkable - Amanda Seyfied is living on borrowed time playing a teenager but phoned in her performance with enough charm to scrape through. The two male leads watched Twilight as research for their roles and were essentially nothing more than attractive props.

Gary Oldman popped up in a brilliantly flamboyant entrance sequence and hammed it up quite nicely. He is clearly slumming it until the shooting of the next Batman begins but it is always fun to watch Gary enjoy himself.

The movie looked like an expensive shampoo commercial. I didn’t realise that people in winter during the 1300’s could look so radiant. Virginia Madsen was so glossy and made up she looked as though she was glowing. I guess winter during the time of the Black Plague may not be pleasant to look at but jeez….

The Brothers Grimm came out a few years ago and whilst watching it I couldn’t help but feel that a huge opportunity had been wasted as Terry Gilliam just didn’t have the skill to pull it off. I feel exactly the same way about Red Riding Hood.

Catherine Hardwicke just hasn’t got the imagination to bring a fairy tale to life and what we get is a complete rehash of the most boring love triangle in history. The comparisons to Twilight cannot be helped as these movies are practically the same right down to the cheap werewolf special effects.

I said it with The Brothers Grimm and I feel the same way about Red Riding Hood - an opportunity for a potentially magical film was wasted as the wrong director was at the helm. Guillermo del Toro should just be in charge of all fantasy based films.

When Del Toro’s Pinocchio finally gets made we will be shown properly how to take an well know story and turn it into a decent film.

Red Riding Hood has its faults but I will admit it did hook me in to the extent that I could see this becoming a very guilty pleasure. This also happened with The Brothers Grimm. The mixture of the bad love triangle, the smouldering attractive guy and Gary Oldman may not have been a totally disastrous collaboration after all.

I would give Red Riding Hood a 6/10. It is absolute nonsense but if I spy the dvd on a 3 for 2 offer I may just buy it.

If nothing else I should thank if for making me blow the dust of my Brothers Grimm collection which was due for a reread.