Rev Stan's film blog

The Descendants - as good as the poster makes out?

Must confess that the trailer for The Descendants did nothing for me so I was curious as to why a) George Clooney has been shortlisted for an Oscar and b) the poster was full of superlatives and high praise.

So it's the story of Matt King (Clooney) who lives in Hawaii with his wife and two daughters who tells us from the outset that there is a misconception that it is paradise. Cue bad things happening. 

The bad things are his wife is in a coma after a speed boat accident leaving him parenting his daughters - something his not used to doing. The second bad thing (it's all in the trailer so I'm not spoiling it) is that he finds out that his wife is having an affair.

There is also a parallel storyline about the sale of some family land he's involved with hence the title.

So did Clooney give an Oscar worthy performance? Well he gave a very good performance in something that isn't his usual fare and he made me cry a few times but I've seen more interesting performances with more depth elsewhere and from people that haven't been short-listed (coughs: Michael Fassbender).

The land sale plot line feels a little extraneous. It's obviously there to show the journey that Matt goes on as a person - he learns to appreciate the importance of family and his heritage - but otherwise just gets in the way.

Its strength lies in the dynamics of the close family and how the mother's absence exposes its strengths and weaknesses, the resentments and failings. But is it enough?

Again it's one of those films that is nicely done, well constructed with a nice balance of lighter moments and emotional moments but will it stand out from the crowd in a few months time? The answer to that is probably 'no'.

It's getting a Stan rating of 60% from me. On IMDb it has a rating of 77% with a Metacritic score of 84% while on Rotten Tomatoes it has 90% with 82% of audience members giving it 3.5 stars or more. So what do I know. Perhaps I'm just getting a hard person to please?

 

The questionable Haywire

If you asked me to explain the plot of Haywire I could tell you that it's about a woman who is a private security contractor working for a company that is employed by the US government but she's been double crossed and is being persued. More than that ie who is goodie, who is baddie, who is working for who and why she is betrayed etc. I couldn't tell you. 

Such plots can be fine if the action, thrills and spills are engaging enough that you are happy to enjoy the ride. Mission Impossible IV was like this. The problem with Haywire is that it didn't quite provide enough thrills and spills to make the journey go quickly. Yes there was a lot of fighting (which I find dull after a while even if it is a woman for a change kicking butt) and a bit of jumping around on rooves but little else. In fact it felt a little pedestrian and thriller by numbers.  

It's a shame because what I did really like about Haywire is the fact that it does have a female protagonist - Mallory, played by Gina Carano - who not only looks like she really could kick ass but also has a Hollywood defying feminine physique. No scrawny arms, tiny bum and stick thighs on our Gina and it was so refreshing to see. It made her character far more believable compared to say Angelina Jolie who in her last spy-thriller was so stick like you knew something would break if someone really hit her.  

Wanted to like it more, particularly with the likes of Michael Fassbender in the cast but instead it was just a bit 'meh'. I'm going to give it 54%. Over on IMDb it's got 66% with a Metacritic score of 67%. On Rotten Tomatoes it has 83% from critics and 43% of audience members gave it 3.5 stars or more.

 

Madonna's vanity project: W.E. (or don't waste your money)

Another film that makes me feel like I've lost two hours of my life. The best I can say about this Madonna directorial/co-writing effort is that the actors did the best they could with a jumbled and contrived plot and naive and amateurish script.

I get the impression that Madonna wanted to focus on the sacrifices Wallis made in order to marry Edward as everyone concentrates on his sacrifices. Fine but why then dilute the whole thing with a ridiculous parallel storyline about a modern day Wallis-obsessed New Yorker who's in a troubled marriage?

That whole storyline just got in the way and I left me just wanting to see more of Wallis - perhaps Madonna just couldn't manufacture enough about her and her sacrifices to make it the central story line.

And don't even get me started on the Mohammad Al Fayad scene (I'm not kidding) or the mish-mash of shooting styles or the...nope I'm going to stop there.

Dreadful on so many levels I felt embarrassed for the actors particularly Andrea Riseborough who did a marvellous job considering.

It's get a big fat raspberry 19%/one star from me. On IMDb it's got 44% with a Metacritic score of 39% while on Rotten Tomatoes it's got a critics score of 23% and inexplicable 63% of audience members have given it 3.5 stars or more.

And as it's on the Guardian 50 film list albeit this one is recommended for it's idiocy here's what it's reviewer had to say about it. Well Peter Bradshaw and I seem to agree, he's given it 1 star also commenting: "Madonna delivers a tale of two wallies." Enough said really. 

Oh and if you still want to see it after watching the trailer, just take a tenner and burn it, you'll get more pleasure.

 

Oh Steven Spielberg what did you do to War Horse?

Have to confess that my initial thought about seeing the film was 'it won't be as good as the play' then my second thought was 'you don't want it to be as good at the play' and then my third thought was 'I'll bet you'll cry like a baby and love it'.

Well only one of those proved true and it wasn't the latter - although I did cry a couple of times.

My main problem with the film is that it is just too big and too Hollywood. There are rather too many scenes of sweeping landscapes and actors staring off into the sunset for my liking. It feels unnecessarily glossed at the expense of the heart of the story.

The film is longer than the play and I don't know whether they have added in stuff that was originally in the book or of the writers own devising but it diminishes the impact of the central Albert/Joey story. 

How Albert gets into the army when he is turned away for being too young isn't explained and scenes have been added to create dramatic tension that really don't seem necessary. The French grandfather coming back to bid for Joey at the end, for example.

The play had charm, primarily because of the puppet horses, but you also got a real sense of the danger and destruction of war. War Horse the film didn't have the charm. It feels like Spielberg was trying to make another big war epic rather than a film of a children's book and failed at both.

I'm giving it 48% (3 stars) only because I'm a sucker for an animal sob story and I cried twice in it and having subsequently seen J Edgar this weekend, I know which I'd rather sit through a second time if I had to.

It's on the Guardian 50 films for 2012 list and Peter Bradshaw has given it 2 stars: 

"Spielberg's version of the equine first world war yarn is an unconvincing attempt at summoning up the spirit of the time"

Maybe the Guardian and I are wrong because over on IMDb its got 74% with a Metacritic rating of 72% while on Rotten Tomatoes critics have given it 77% while 76% of audience members have given it 3.5 stars or more.

 

The very short J Edgar film review

Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. And indulgent. Stop putting actors on awards shortlists because they got made up to look old.

Wasted two hours and 17 minutes of my life on that film and don't want to waste much more. It's getting (2 stars) 30% from me only because the acting was good, I liked what Naomi Watt's wore and Armie Hammer has nice eyes.

I'm blaming the Guardian 50 film list challenge for putting me through this one and they didn't like it either with Peter Bradshaw also giving it 2 stars and commenting:

Clint Eastwood's biopic of J Edgar Hoover never gets to grips with the FBI founder's sexuality, or his impact on American life

Over on IMDb its got a surprising 71% with a Metacritic score of 59% while on Rotten Tomatoes it's got 44% from critics while 52% of audience members give it 3.5 stars or more.

 

The last two reviews of 2011: Another Earth and Moneyball

Slight cheat, two reviews in one but I'm eager to get my 2011 best of/worst of compiled as well as decide on my StOscars which I can't do until these are written, so here goes.

Another Earth

Low budget sci-fi movie about a high school student Rhoda (Brit Marling) who in a tragic car accident kills composer John Burrough's wife and child (William Mapother). On the same night a duplicate earth is discovered. When Rhoda comes out of prison, haunted by the consequences of her actions she sets about trying make amends while wondering if the other her, on the second earth, has made the same mistakes - something she might soon find out.

Like the low budget sci-fi movies I've enjoyed over the last 18 months it is more of a character piece than about the science and as such it works really well although I do wonder if the film wouldn't work just as well without the second earth.

Rhoda doesn't say much leaving the audience to fill the gaps which I like. She is at time a difficult character to like and I also liked that ambiguity, the humanness of her. 

It doesn't have a conclusive ending and raises a lot of questions that are unanswerable which some might find unsatisfying but I didn't. It's certainly a film that stays with you afterwards.

A nicely gentle, thought provoking film I'm going to give it 63%. On IMDb it's got 70% with a Metacritic scores of 66%. On Rotten Tomatoes there is no consensus from critics but 71% of visitors to have rated it 3.5 stars or higher.

Moneyball

Only the fact that Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay got me in front of this baseball movie that and the fact that critic Mark Kermode said it wasn't really about baseball but about statistics.

I know nothing and care nothing for baseball and yes it is more about statistics, money and the politics behind the game. And there is nothing wrong with it but I just can't muster much enthusiasm for it. The script, as you can imagine, is excellent, it was well acted and engaging enough for the duration but ultimately I didn't really care enough. 

I'm going to give it 55%, on IMDb it's got 78% and a Metacritic score of 87%. On Rotten Tomatoes it's got a critics rating of 95% and 88% of visitors gave it 3.5 stars or more. Just not one for me then.

 

And so that concludes my film reviews for 2011, now for the best and worst of's....

 

The Mission Impossible IV review

Now I don't know if I've actually seen all the preceding Mission Impossible films and I'm not sure why I decided to go and see this today, but I'm glad I did because I really quite enjoyed it.

I don't think it matters there are gaps in your knowledge of the series, you just need to know that Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is a US covert agent working for and organisation called the IMF, which isn't the International Monetary Fund apparently ;0). After that it's a buckle up and enjoy the ride film. 

This one is about a nasty man trying to start a nuclear war and Hunt and his team trying to stop him. More than that it's best not to think about too much as you will start to see the plot holes and this is definitely a film that is more about action and thrills. And the action and thrills are very well done. 

There are plenty of tense, nail-biting moments and, for someone like me who is terrified of heights, a sweaty palms, hyper-ventilating moments. (Cruise does a lot of the stunts including the tall building stuff which I think adds to the thrill).

The fights are highly dramatic and noisy, in a crunch and thud kind of way, which actually had me wincing and a few (intentional) laugh out loud moments, mainly courtesy of Simon Pegg as the techie guy in the field for the first time.

All of which means it had me hooked, in fact I haven't actually commented at the screen that much in a movie for a while* albeit mainly expletives around scenes of jumping off tall buildings.

It's a longish film at over two hours but only my bladder noticed but there are obvious in between-action interludes during which you can slip out for a comfort break and return without having missed anything vital or too exciting.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, to give it its official title (and punctuation), is a great popcorn movie and definitely worth popping out to see on a big screen over the festive season. It had me humming the theme tune all the way home and it's getting a Stan rating of 80%. On IMDb it's got 79% with a Metacritic score of 74%. On Rotten Tomatoes it's got 93% with 84% of audiences rating it three and a half stars or more.

*It's OK there was no one sitting anywhere near me that I could disturb.

 

Fifteen minute review: Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows

Loved the first Sherlock Holmes movie for its cheeky fun and stylish action. There were gadgets galore and plenty of suspense. And it was an engaging and fun story.

On the posters for Game of Shadows it claims to be more fun, bigger and better, or words along those lines but it isn't. 

Firstly the plot is a little meandering and I'm not sure I cared enough, partly because I don't think the relationship between Holmes and Watson, which is central, is sufficiently re-established.

Robert Downey Jnr is doing the cheeky Holmes with bells on but the chimes just don't ring as joyfully as the first film. I suppose it is the Captain Jack Sparrow-syndrome. More of the same starts to wear a little thin after a while.

That isn't to say Game of Shadows isn't enjoyable. It's great to see Stephen Fry as Mycroft (and there is a lot of him to see). Jared Harris is also superb as the calmly evil Moriaty (he makes Holmes look like a bit of a buffoon at times).

It is quite fun, there is some nice tying up of plot points at the end, there are gadgets and fights and and the slow-mo action sequences but because it's all been done before it doesn't quite have the same wow-factor as the first film. (And we've since been spoilt with the BBC's rather superb Sherlock TV series.)

A pleasant enough couple of hours but I didn't walk out with a grin on my face like I did with the first film. Its going to just scrape into four star category with 60% from me. 

On IMDb it's got 78% with a Metacritic score of 49% and on Rotten Tomatoes it has a critic score of 59% and 85% of visitors gave it three and a half stars or higher.

 

The beautiful but slow Hugo

Controversial, I'm sure, but I got a little bit bored during Martin Scorsese kid-flick Hugo. Don't get me wrong, in many ways it's a lovely story and it is beautifully produced, stunningly produced in fact but I kept waiting for something to happen that never did.

It is at it's heart an emotional story. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is orphaned and 'adopted' by nasty uncle who puts him to work, doing his job of winding all the clocks in a busy Paris station then absents himself. 

Left to his own devices Hugo, when he isn't winding the clocks, works on a project he started with his Dad to mend an automaton. This involves trying to steal bits of clockwork from a toy stall in the station and avoid being picked up by the station manager and his ferocious doberman.

Along the way he befriends Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), the goddaughter of the toy stall owner, who decides to help him.

And there are some real bottom lip trembling moments (and yes I did cry once) and there are a plethora of great performances - some barely more than cameos from some of the British acting elite (Ben Kingsley, Richard Griffiths, Frances de la Tour, Helen McCrory, Christopher Lee...) but ultimately the whole film lacked pace and was a little long.

A lot of work obviously went into creating the station world and it is beautiful, intriguing and exciting but felt underused. But then what do I know? Everyone else seems to think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm going to give it 65%. On IMDb it's got 83% with the same Metacritic score. On Rotten Tomatoes it's got 94% from critics and 84% of site visitors have given it three and a half stars out of five or higher.

The cheat post of three reviews in one: Wuthering Heights, Twiglet 4a & Snowtown

I've virtually run out of time to write these before I head off on holiday so I'm going to combine three short reviews into one post for brevity (if I wait until I get back, it'll never happen)

Wuthering Heights

This is stripped back version of the classic novel, devoid of cliched fancy costumes and violin heavy soundtrack instead you get an almost sensuous approach. The sounds of the landscape, the weather and creatures form the music and the backdrop. There is mud and rain and rough clothes of those who live from the land. 

It is a brutal portrayal with dialogue pared back to a minimum. Cathy and Heathcliff's is a visceral connection established in looks and touches but it is all the more powerful for it. 

Breathtaking in its beauty and brutality, its a refreshing take on what is actually quite an odd novel, my only reservations is that the long lingering shots of nature and constant use of pull focus gets a bit tiring in the end and I'd like to have seen 10 minutes or so trimmed from it's running time just to tightening it up a little.

Stan rating 74%, IMDb 67%, Rotten Tomatoes 81% from critics and 68% from audiences.

Twilight Breaking Dawn part 1

Never should have been split into two films, the result is indulgent and I haven't rolled my eyes so much in a Twilight movie yet. But I'm a sucker for a wedding and so the first half had me smiling. 

As a consequence when the plot moves into the wolves story line it feels like a different film. The scene when Jacob challenges the pack shouldn't have been done as wolves but as humans as it just felt like a kiddies film.

Think I'm over Twilight, there are far better and far more interesting Vampire stories being told elsewhere (True Blood, Vampire Diaries for example) but I've come this far with the films I feel as if I have to see it out.

Stan rating 56%, IMDb 47% and 45% from Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes 28% from critics and 92% from audiences (it's going to take loads of money regardless because of its fan base)

Snowtown

Certainly the most disturbing film I've seen in a long long time. Based on a true story of Australian serial killer John Bunting but told from the viewpoint of a 16-year old boy Jamie whom he takes under his wing. John becomes a father figure to Jamie but his vigilante morals against paedophiles and then homosexuals disguise the fact that he is a brutal sadist who takes pleasure inflicting pain and fear on his victims before murdering them. 

Jamie is at first flattered, John is charming and pays him attention but slowly he manipulates the teen introducing him into his world bit by bit until he is terrified and reluctantly does all that John asks.

There is one particularly gruesome scene but it is the growing threat from John, all smiles and charm on one hand and a torturer and murderer on the other.  

It's a gritty and simply shot film with little by way of dramatic embellishment. Jamie says little but emotes a great deal and I was squirming in my seat for him. Fantastically naturalist performances all around.

Its haunted me for days. I'm glad I saw it but I don't think I could ever watch it again.

Stan rating 80%, IMDb 68%, Rotten Tomatoes 93% from critics and 73% from audiences