Rev Stan's film blog

Chronicle - the other film I've liked recently

I've been through a run of 'meh' films recently (and I've also been very lax at writing up the reviews which I'm in the process of addressing) but this is one of two goodies - the other was the Woman in Black.

It's another low budget sci-fi about three high school kids, naturally one is the bullied outcast, who discover  they have special powers after an encounter with a mysterious power source.  They have to learn how to use their new powers and explore their different skills, moving large objects, making things float, flying, that sort of thing, having a bit of fun along the way. 

But soon mistakes are made and they begin to question what is right and what is wrong to use their new found skills for.

And I really liked it. It is very human in its approach. If you found out you could move a car just by thinking about it you so would move the car a woman had just parked at the supermarket and then wait for her reaction when she returned to find it was in a different bay.

Yes there is a message there about with great power comes great responsibility but it doesn't feel over-egged and is nicely handled. And OK the special effects aren't the best in the world but they are more than adequate creating some quite dramatic set pieces.

Chronicle is a good fun, 90 minute movie. Hurray for low budget, independent film I say.

It's getting 70% from me, over on IMDB it's got 75% and Metacritic score of 69%. While on Rotten Tomatoes it has 84% and 76% from audiences.

 

Woman in Black and why it works better as a film

I saw the stage version of The Woman in Black a few years ago, before I started going to the theatre again properly and couldn’t help thinking how much better it would work as a film.

There is something you can add to the whole horror/suspense genre on film with music, fleeting glimpse, sudden appearance and well, just the fear you see in the actors face and hear in their breathing when they are up on the big screen.

And this version starring Daniel Radcliffe and Ciaran Hinds proved me right. Radcliffe is not the best actor in the world but solid enough to pull off the young, bereaved and terrified Arthur Kipps contending with a vengeful ghost while trying to sort out the affairs of a bereaved client.

Director James Watkins employs every trick at his disposal to create a creepy and suspenseful drama that chills and even had me jumping out of my skin a few times. It is well done ghost story with a delicious twist to nicely round it off. 

Somethings work better on stage  - I just can’t bring myself to watch Carnage on the big screen having seen the stage version because even the trailer feels wrong but this is definitely a case of screen winning over stage.

I’m going to give it 75%, on IMDB it's got 71% and a Meta Critic score of 62%. While over on Rotten Tomatoes it has a critics score of 64% and 65% of site visitors gave it three and a half stars or more.

Oh and Mr Radcliffe himself was at the screening I went to, to introduce the film, here's a (not great) pic I snapped of him with James Watkins, there are a couple more over on my Flickr page:

Here's the UK trailer (the US one has a dreadful voice over)

 

Pics: Daniel Radcliffe introduces Woman in Black

Found out about this by chance last week and when it said screening 'introduced by Daniel Radcliffe' I thought perhaps it would just be a recorded video. But no it wasn't, he was there in person - very, very briefly with director James Watkins but still a treat nontheless.

He bounded into the spotlight from a side door said a few words about enjoying working on the film, it being scary and made a passing joke reference to Harry Potter being a small indy film series. And then he bounded off again to hysteria from a few fans.

In fact I'm curious as to why the cinema, Empire Leicester Square, wasn't busier - it was barely two thirds full. Harry Potter/Radcliffe fans are obviously losing their touch when it comes to stalking their idol.

More of my thoughts on the film itself to follow but in the meantime here are some pics that I hastily snapped - excuse quality, lighting wasn't great and the appearance was very brief.

 

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.