Hercules (3D)
Cert: 12A / 98 mins / Dir. Brett Ratner
So as readers of the WoB Facebook Page will probably know, I wasn't expecting great things of Hercules, and dear old Brett Ratner has still managed to slightly disappoint me. Not massively; that's not his style. He just takes it to the line where you think "Oh, Brett. Was this really your vision for the project? Really, though?"
I don't have any real problem with undemanding entertainment in the cinema as long as there's a healthy dose of fun to go along with it. Sadly, the screenplay of Ratner's latest flick seems to have been written as part of a GCSE project and is a completely subtext-free zone, with characters explaining the plot at every turn; to the point where they even explain the emotions that Dwayne Johnson can't emote properly*1.
By the time you add on Herc's super-team of allies; the mystical sage one (McShane), the wisecracking mercenary one (Sewell), the troubled beserker one (Hennie), the girl one (Berdal) and the young funny upstart one (Ritchie); you've basically got a live-action 1980's Filmation cartoon (but with the notable addition of a couple of 'Bastard's and one 'Fuck-Word', to get that 'edgy' 12A certificate).
Chronicling the last of the labours of Hercules (well, so it says - Ritchie's godawful narration mentions the twelve tasks in the opening scene, then only goes on to show/describe three of them*2), the screenplay lurches between mechanical and full-on laughable. At least the cast have the decency to look and sound embarrassed with some of the lines they have to deliver (John Hurt is an exception, see below). The fact that it's "based on" a a graphic novel strengthens the poor reputation that ink-to-screen adaptations already have, and the film betrays its 300-wannabe roots with an animated credit sequence which is marginally more interesting than the film which preceded it.
By no means the most poorly received film to bear the name this year, Hercules is nonetheless an unconvincing effort, made more prominent by the scattering of renowned names in its cast list.
Although the plot-nods to Star Wars and Seven Samurai could be described at best as "borrowing", Hercules saves its most profound cinematic homage to reference The Wizard Of Oz; in that the film displays remarkable courage, but no heart and no brain.
Oh, pretty much.
I laughed more than I was supposed to; that's about it, I'm afraid.
I'd be worried if it does.
Netflix, tops.
I doubt I'd expend the effort to vehemently disagree with you, no.
Can't see that happening, but who knows?
I think I heard one buried in the final battle scene where Everything Is On Fire. Although I was hoping there was going to be one earlier when people were getting shot off horses, as that would be the purest use of the effect. Alas, not.
John. John Hurt. What were you thinking? You're cheapening your own brand with this shit, really.
The others? They're made for this b-list stuff, and I know we've all got bills to pay, but I expect more from you.
*1 I'm not trying to be unfair to Johnson, I've seen him be more than adequate on many occasions; but this really isn't the film for him, muscles or not. His character needs to portray grief and regret, neither of which are straightforward at the best of times.
*2 And how come right, how come, we see Herc fighting a massive lion with his bare hands, then later we see him wearing a sort of feline-Davy-Crockett-hat fashioned from a lion which was clearly a third of the size of the one he apparently killed? Did he kill its kittens, too?What an absolute bastard.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Hey, I enjoy a musical from time to time. I can't claim I like all musicals, in much the same way as I can't claim to like all sci-fi or all horror. And that, my friends, is the crux of my problem with Sunshine on Leith. I just don't think it's that good at what it's doing.
To be fair, I only had two real gripes with the film, but as those were a) the story and b) the music, that was enough to de-rail the entire thing for me. I don't think the plot itself is stong enough to warrant building an entire 100 minutes around, or that it's particularly well told for what it is. When we're introduced to Ally and Davy at the start, it's in that way which suggests we'll be spending the entire film with these characters, not that one of them (the one who's slightly more interesting) will be essentially written off before the third act. Not killed off; nothing that interesting, he just says in one scene that he's going to re-join the army, and then he does. No inner turmoil, no insight; just a scared young man with PTSD deciding to go back to a life-threatening situation, mistaking familiarity for safety. But let's not spend time exploring that, there's A Scottish Man here who's been told he might have to go into England one day, and
now he's throwing his toys out of the pram over it (and it is a shame, because there's a great chemistry between George MacKay and Antonia Thomas, and between George and Kevin Guthrie, which is wasted in this).
A similar situation exists with Freya Mavor's character Liz, whose ultimate purpose in the script seems to be moving to America, facilitating the sending of letters, and a song based solely around that act. There's no tearful airport scene, by the way. One moment she's humming and haahing about emigrating to Florida, and 15 minutes later she's there (albeit for one solitary shot). We know she's in America because it's sunny and there are fat people in the background. I love visual storytelling, me.
By the time you've tacked on Jean (Jane Horrocks) and Rab (Peter Mullan) having an extended domestic over what is suggested for the first half of the film to be Mullan's previous relationship, and in the second half as a one-night-stand (and the addition of Jason Flemyng's half-written character apparently stepping in from some other musical entirely), the whole thing's a bit of a mess, frankly. There's a faint whiff of the anti-English rhetoric which seems to have found its way in by default rather than design; but as the resolution of the plotlines between Davy/Yvonne and Rab/Jean is essentially a patronising 'I'm glad you've come round to seeing things my way, woman', I think the film has larger issues than defiant Saltire-waving.
But hey, Sunshine On Leith is a musical, and it'd be remiss of me to treat it like the socially conscious drama it isn't. I like The Proclaimers. I can't go so far as calling myself 'a fan', but I do enjoy them on an unironic level. Great song structure, great harmonies, what's not to love? Well, the problem is that a large number of their songs only work when they're performed by The Proclaimers, which they're not in this. Some of the arrangements work well (despite the clunkiness of its presence, Letter From America sounds great), but for the most part it feels like karaoke. It's also worth pointing out that while getting English actors to speak in a consistently convincing Scottish accent is no doubt a challenge, getting them to sing in one seems almost impossible. That said, Peter Mullan's droning singing manages to distract from the worst offenders, here.
So obviously there are The Hits in here, as well as songs which the average punter will be less familiar, which is all fair enough. But in addition to the patchy arrangements, the songs don't tell the story as such, they only seem to be there because the script has cued them up ('Hey, The Proclaimers have a song called 'Oh Jean'. If we call one of our characters Jean we can put that in there and it'll be seamless, I tell you. Seamless.'). I'm aware that this is generally how jukebox-musicals work, but in all honesty Mamma Mia! has a more effective song/story symbiosis than Sunshine on Leith. Yeah, I went there.
You sort of get the feeling that this was either a cheap cash-in, or the outcome of a bet that Stephen Greenhorn couldn't write a musical around The Proclaimers' songs. Either way, the end result seems to have been more important than the craft. I didn't expect to like Sunshine on Leith, but I was hoping I'd at least be able to respect it more.
It kind of is.
Rarely.
I genuinely have no idea.
Give it a year and it'll be on rotation on ITV2.
Erm, yeah.
Not likely.
There is not.
When Craig Proclaimer and Charlie Proclaimer did their walk-on cameo three minutes into the film, did anyone else's toes curl so hard that they tore their shoes? That shit would make Stan Lee blush...
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So I received an e-mail the other week, from the lovely people at Vue, informing me of a special screening they were holding of a new film called 'Trainspotting'. I have to say that the quirky poster they attached was quite different from the staid, sober mood the title would suggest. With that, I was intrigued, and decided to pop along for a look.
Well, firstly, I should point out that this must have been a very exclusive screening, as Vue showed the film in the bijou Screen 10, and only eleven people had been invited to attend! There was an absolute minimum of fuss, and I wasn't asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I'm guessing Channel 4 Films are hoping that influential bloggers and social-networking types will spread word of mouth, ahead of general release. Obviously, I'll be only too happy to oblige.
Secondly, as it transpired, the film isn't about trainspotting at all (although I did catch a train to the cinema to see this, and there were some trainspotters on the platform. Viral marketing performance art?), but is actually about some Scotch heroin addicts! I did see two trains in the film, but the characters seemed to make no attempt to record either their model nor registration numbers. I'll assume they have those down in their books already. Although with all that skag coursing through their veins, who knows what their handwriting looks like?!?
The story follows Ewan McGregor's 'Mark' and his pasty chums as they get into an escalating series of scrapes around money, women and you've guessed it... heroin! I've seen Ewan before in a Star Wars film, but don't worry - his Scotch accent is almost impeccable. He is quite convincing. A rather nice touch, I thought, is that this is a period piece, set in the 1990's, and the fashion, music and branches of John Menzies add a layer of realism that really draws you in.
Although bleak at times (don't worry, the baby comes back later!), 'Trainspotting' is a real Boy's-Own romp that will keep audiences entertained and adrenalised from start to finish. Mark my words, publicity may be low-key now, but this is a cult-hit waiting to happen, and by the end of the summer I suspect you'll be hard pressed to find any serious film fan who hasn't at least heard of it.
Warning: features Keith Allen, albeit briefly, and two scenes of people with poo on their hands. I'll let you decide which is worse.
It makes the film look like a lot more fun than it often is, but yes.
Yes.
Yes. Which is to say it's more cohesive than the book.
Well, if you get the chance to revisit this at the cinema, it's well worth it, but the DVD/BRD should see you right.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
If / when the gang get back together to make a sequel, would you want it to incorporate (if not neccessarily follow) Welsh's sequel book, Porno?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The Liability Cert: 15 / 86 mins / Dir. Craig Viveiros
From an intriguing trailer comes a mixed bag of a film about a good-for-nothing layabout (Jack O'Connell's Adam) who gets mixed up with a hitman (Tim Roth's Roy), and unwittingly becomes his apprentice. The scene above is a perfect snapshot of the chemistry between O'Connell and Roth, and they make the film a pleasure to watch. That said, it's odd that O'Connell plays essentially the same persona as he did in Tower Block, and yet I couldn't stand that character. Ah, well.
While Peter Mullan puts in an effortlessly great turn as Adam's stepfather, the rest of the cast feel like they're capable of more but aren't getting the chance to have their turn. There's the core of a great thriller here, but it feels neglected as the relationship between Adam and Roy is carefully dissected. By the time it's all wrapped up, it's happened a little too quickly, leaving too many loose ends as the credits roll. As interesting and well-shot as it is (the grey skies of the North East of England set a beautiful muted tone for the film), it feels like a missed opportunity.
The film about a killer wanting to retire, and a hapless kid wanting to succeed him is a good one. The film about regret, revenge and human-trafficking is barely hinted at, and gets lost behind extended scenes of dark-humour.
Still, at least it's not Kill List.
It sums up the relationship between O'Connell and Roth's characters. So, yes.
Mostly.
I think so.
There's no rush, you can wait for this to be on the free channels.
No.
Probably.
No.
Is Peter Mullan as quietly-terrifying in real life as I imagine he is? Y'know, I think he'd be friendly and that, it's just that you wouldn't be able to relax when he was in the room.
Comments box. Let me know? Cheers.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
A selectively shot London of chrome and glass serves as the backdrop for an efficient, minimalistic thriller which focuses on a surprisingly linear*1 plot rather than character development*2. It works in this instance, but you wouldn't want all your films to be like it. Eran Creevy does a decent job of ramping up the tension, and an even better one of sustaining it; in the final twenty minutes, there really are no guarantees as to who'll walk away.
I could actually envision this film taking place in the same universe as last year's Sweeney (which I still stand by. What?). As with that film, …Punch isn't Guy Ritchie territory, and works all the better for it. James McAvoy and Mark Strong do the majority of the heavy lifting, albeit with very solid supporting roles from all around them. The script is as free from extraneous banter as it is from tertiary characters, and this leads to quite a claustrophobic atmosphere at times (the best example being a four-man shootout in a nightclub which has no punters and no music playing).
I can see why the film isn't for everyone (and even I wasn't convinced by the trailer), but it's great to be pleasantly surprised. Not as raucous as Rocknrolla, but not as downbeat as Harry Brown, Welcome To The Punch has an intensity that's not easily matched these days.
Largely.
Yes.
Yes.
…Cinema ideally, but DVD will still work.
No.
Yes.
YES!*3
*1 Which is to say that there is a structure to the events, but it doesn't waste the viewer's time with twists, turns and red herrings. The unfolding plot is revealed in one neat scene. This would never happen in the Hollywood version.
*2 Seriously, this is not a character-piece. The characters are fine, but you find out very little about them, and it doesn't really matter anyway.
*3 During the shootout at the container-yard. Get in!
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
