Review: The Next Three Days

Year: 2010
Director: Paul Haggis
Screenplay: Paul Haggis
Starring: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks

Synopsis is here

I have not seen Anything for her (French original of this U.S Remake), however a glimpse of it's running time and the two reviews I quickly read from two national papers reveal more than they suspect. The 96 minute feature is considered by Phillip French (Observer) to be:

"The movie invites the audience to empathise with a decent man driven by despair into dangerous criminal activities and we're on his side from start to finish."

Tim Robey of The Telegraph states:

"The dangers of being out of your depth in criminal dealings give Fred Cavayé's film plenty of pulse and urgency"

So with this knowledge in mind I find it difficult to figure out what was so necessary in the extra 26 minutes that reside within this movie. However, with the films intricate plotting being so incredibly neat (far too neat), I'm guessing the added plotting is to ensure that everything is covered and no questions can be asked. In a thriller like this, such hand holding is a weakness. We know so much that risk is taken from us. Everything is perfect, too perfect. We're wrapped the situation up and have already got our coats on for the car. I may be very wrong, but at no point throughout the The Next Three Days did I find myself feel the stake rise above boiling point. It's all far too controlled.

But of course I could feel that. From what I've seen, Paul Haggis as a director doesn't seem to be one to rock the boat. Crash did as much as possible to open and shut cans before a worm even saw a light of day. In casting Russell Crowe, Haggis makes what could be considered quite a large error to some. Not because Crowe is a bad actor (I'm a fan) but because he's safe hands. At what point do you feel any trouble when your wrapped up tight in the hands of Maximus Decimus Meridius?

Crowe is a great actor to show a determined man. From Gladiator to Proof of Life, to L.A Confidential and even in this; Crowe is brilliant at showing a man whose willing to do anything for his cause. The problem however is this performance is lopsided. We're treated by lots of Maximus from a character who is supposed be a vulnerable English teacher. Crowe channels much of his strongest roles into this character but forgets that we are meant to be watching someone who is a reluctant hero. Once that steely purpose begins to burn in his eyes, we know that everything is going to be fine. Trouble is that fire was started far too early on.

Knowing that Crowe isn't going let that burden bother any of us also hinders Elizabeth Banks role (it doesn't help that she still looks too good to be in prison) as all her performance is shoved to the latter half of the movie. This is also is a plot issue, however once Crowe's John has become an Internet Macgyver (thanks youtube) there isn't too much for her to do. This is a shame as one pivotal revelation (or red herring) shows her ability to switch emotions naturally with ease.

Lack of conviction aside, there's some well directed moments within the movie that hold interest. Haggis' latter third runs at such a frantic pace that a bravura car sequence leaves one a little breathless and makes you wonder why Haggis felt the need to puncture the scene with such an unfortunate broad moment of humor. Not that The Next Three Days has to be that somber as Haggis' dialogue has enough wit early on to provide an above average lead in during the films earlier stages.

The Next Three Days is competent in it's creation and will be a passable diversion to many. However there may be other people looking for a thriller for a little more bite. This may not be the feature for them.

Review: Unstoppable

Year: 2010
Director: Tony Scott
Screenplay: Mark Bomback
Starring: Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson

Synopsis is here 

I know that when you write reviews you should be totally unbiased (impossible* but as much as you can be) but after catching the trailer for Unstoppable I felt that straight away I was heading for a bad time. I was unimpressed with Tony Scott's uneven remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 and this not only looked like more of the same, but with a runaway train no doubt. Of course with a podcast to record and a co-host whose wish for us to sit through nonsense is far too strong I braved the British chill and headed to the cinema to brave Scott action overkill.

Or so I thought. It turns out that despite Unstoppable having one of those silly titles that has nearly all reviewers claiming false advertising (see also some cases of The Never Ending Story), the film itself is a good fun watch. I feel this is mostly because Scott; who's seemingly been on a quest to melt peoples eyeballs since 2004's Man on fire, tones down some of the visual tics (minus crash zooms and slow motion) to focus on the films premise. The outcome of this moderation is a tightly wound genre piece. The threat is set up quickly and efficiently, the set pieces seem sparse but they have more than enough punch and this is all combined with a likable and enjoyable cast that have fun with their quite generic character molds.

It's pretty safe to say that there's no surprises within the film. I won't lie to you and say there's something within the film that pulls the rug from you. But when you buy a ticket for a film like Unstoppable what do you want? Yes, so much of the movie has been done to death and yet Scott's direction of the material and the charm of the whole cast, keeps everything ticking over nicely.

While Unstoppable clearly shows signs of Scott "chilling out" a bit in terms of visual glitz, for some reason, the veteran director has decided to channel this extra energy into unnecessary exposition as told by countless news reporters reiterating story points in more layman terms as if your didn't understand that the train needs to stop. The theme of media coverage has poked it's head in his work before (Domino) but here it merely appears on screen as padding to help the film reach the 90 minute mark.

This is not to say that the film outstays it's welcome, as the pace is what you expect, racing to it's anticipated but fun finish. By the time this movie reaches it's destination it was hard not to throw a punch of pleasure to it's two heroes. But that's what I wanted from a film which has two leads bouncing off each other with as much ease as the two here. Denzel Washington makes sure that his experienced pro driver is seasoned as opposed to surly while Chris Pine is frustrated as opposed to cocky. This may not seem like much but it certainly helps us get on the side of these guys as typical as their backgrounds are. Their chemistry plays out well, as does Rosario Dawson's determined Connie who once again reminds us that Dawson should really have more lead roles. The rest of the cast is played by a handful of character actors you've liked (but may not have remembered their name) in a bunch of other movies (Please stand up Kevin Corrigan, Ethan Suplee, Kevin Dunn). Like I mentioned before, it's a fine mix and I could find anything to dislike in any of them. 


If you've had a problem with the U.K tubes/trains as of late, it may be wise to check out Unstoppable and see the large amount of issues the U.S have with their railroads. It's best not to think this film inspired by true events is sparked so easily by an hilarious comedy of errors. I do hope that the art didn't immediate life and that this almost tragic event is down to an extremely lazy gentleman who was more interesting in his gut than his job. But like me watching this films naff trailer and ending up enjoying this ride, stranger things have happened. 


*Impossible is the sense that as a viewer you never go into any film completely clean. Your past viewings, experiences, peers et all will always shape your viewings of course. 

Review: London Boulevard

Year: 2010
Director: William Monahan
Screenplay: William Monahan
Starring: Colin Farrell, Keira Knightley, Ray Winstone, David Thewlis, Anna Friel,

Synopsis is here

The reviews I've found for William Monahan's directional debut have not been kind at all. In fact it's obtained some particularly bad ones. It's understandable, the film has a few problems that do frustrate. Even I found myself questioning certain aspects of the movie due to the very disjointed feel to the whole thing. This shouldn't be a bad thing, as many great films want you to ask more questions then you answer. The issue seems to be that at times London Boulevard doesn't ask the right questions, and when it does, it doesn't truly care about the answers. Many characters are lumbered within scenes with almost no real point at all, scenes don't truly build and accumulate the way they should or how we think they should. The whole thing doesn't "blend" right.

However, with all this said the films flaws didn't distract me from the pulpy vibe I gained from it. While there's a certain amount of disconnect, individual scenes and moments bring a certain amount of interest to proceedings. This may not be enough for a proper recommendation, but it's safe to say that there was enough elements of this off-kilter piece for me not to hate it.

For me one of the things that stood out for me was brought up from one of the favorable reviews I found from Mark Kermode (this weeks Radio 5 Live), who brought up the fact that elements of the story (and it's title) is a riff on Billy Wilders Sunset Boulevard, with both films having a centralized relationship with an a closed off, disturbed celebrity.What I found appealing is not only how the film flips this aspect (Norma Desmond craves the attention, Charlotte is doing everything to deflect it) but how film comments on the negative aspect of the showbiz lifestyle. There's a few scenes with Keria Knightly as the distressed, strung out star, that bring out a nasty claustrophobic feel to proceedings. It is a shame that this isn't placed through enough of the film. London Boulevard would work better if Farrell's Mitchell shared the same feelings of entrapment as it would make their curiously flat relationship stronger. It would certainly help bring about those parallels between this and Nicolas Roeg's Performance. 

I also didn't mind the performances (save Farrell's Cock-er-ney accent) which I found had a varying amount of weight behind them. Standout's include David Thewlis and Ben Chaplin who chew away at the Ealing scenery with glee. Ray Winstone is sleepwalking though his part, but you wouldn't really want anyone else to give off that big bad moody gangster that only he can give. There's also loads of little parts for some good British character actors (Stephan Graham, Eddie Marsden, Anna Friel) but while they do fine with so little, there's a feeling that these people are cast because Monahan (An American) is familiar with them more than anything else. There's nothing particularly wrong with Knightly and Farrell either other than you just don't truly believe in the romance but for me this is due to the screenplay and it's dubious dialogue (some of it sounds very scripted) over anything else.
 
Despite it's flaws, I didn't find myself bored, which could be easy in a film such as this one. The theme of gangster as celebrity (when the film focus' on it), the performances and Monahan clean, matter of fact visual direction of it all sparked more than enough time investment for me. The thing is about London Boulevard is that it clearly has that sense that it's made by an American and what he feels LAN-DEN gangsters are all about and that does become an issue here an there (the film also feels a tad too long). However, as a fan of Danny Cannon's The Young Americans (1993), John Mackenzie's The Long Good Friday (1980) and Matt Vaughn's Layer Cake (2004) I found the film to have the right amount of rough edges to be a enjoyable slice of British thug life.

Review; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Year: 2010
Director: David Yates
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and every other British actor working today it seems.

Synopsis is here

Close friends know I'm not the biggest Potter fan. I tried to read the first book three times and really couldn't get on with it. The book was thrown across the room and I went on and continued wit my "grown up" books. The films came out and I still couldn't get a great handle on this phenomenon. I've watched the films frustrated by the one-note flatness of the lead character, the wooden acting by the main actors, the boarding school class elitism and the bland storytelling. Fans of course will tell me I'm very VERY wrong, but there only so many of the same approach to the hero's journey I can take.

It took the sixth film however, to finally bring forth something I connected with*. A change in the arc of the character that gave me reason to invest time into these people and franchise. It wasn't perfect but it was something to hold on to. Deathly Hallows also realizes this; and while this film has it's issues, there is something about the film that makes watching it worthwhile.

While I feel I had to trudge through so much crap in order to get to the good stuff, it is quite rewarding to see how all these aspects from the other films come together. The return of characters like Dobby for instance is an interesting one, particularly due to the part he plays within the film. This doesn't excuse how mediocre I feel some of the other films have been, but it has placed the story as a whole into a more appealing light.

This isn't to say that there isn't problems with the piece. I can't say I know exactly whats going at any point and the film (kinda rightly) doesn't sit down to feed you the information. However, not being a fan leaves me at a disadvantage. Why are they going here? What's that? They're doing that why? These questions ran through my head often throughout the films noticeably long run time. I say noticeably because despite the fact that the previous film was longer, time really does seem to drag here. Deathly Hallow suffers from the same inflictions as Watchmen in that if you don't know the source well, then you may feel that for lengthy periods of time not only you don't know what's going on but also you may also feel indifferent about it. The Potter films like many book to film adaptations have had to tread that horrible tightrope of garnering new interest and maintaining fan base finickiness and this one clearly owes to those who have spent cold midnights waiting for the books to open on the impending launch day.

But who am I to argue, really? I mean now that narrative has finally raised the stakes and have these characters truly looking at their own mortality, the series has finally becoming an entertaining one. The impending sense of dread and dark times ahead flow throughout and ramp up the involvement. You know feel that anything could happen to these characters and everyone is expendable. Also from a spectacle point of view; the set pieces are some of the strongest, mostly because they're not quidditch games. The visuals are impressive with one of the most entertaining moments being delightfully Owellian. The scenes within the Ministry of Magic are not only inspired by Terry Gilliams Brazil (which of course alludes to 1984) but also perked up my interest with their subtext; mainly the fear interracial relationships. Suddenly all that elitism and class divides that I had detested before, morphs into something far more interesting: that this world of wizards has become allegory for our very own changing Britain. It's daring stuff for a family film but well worth it.  To cap it off there's even a moment which invokes Romero's Dawn of the dead. Great Stuff.

With all the doom and gloom that lies within the film, Deathly Hallows keeps us entertained with sweet moments of humor and the fact that while these characters have always been flat, they've always been likable. Another one of the films strongest moments comes from a quietly moving dance sequence between Harry and Hermione that subtly reminding us that even with the weight of the world on top of them, these characters remember that it's their closeness that has got them through so much.

Deathly Hallows: Part 1 doesn't have what one would call a true climax, but it is an effective build up to what could be an entertaining and satisfying conclusion to what some would feel is now a British institution (lets not talk about all that Warner Brothers money hey?). It's taken a long time to get to where we are and it's still not done yet, but even this cynical blogger is waiting patiently to see how this all plays out.

*Do note that my open paragraphs for Half Blood prince states pretty much that same shtick as here. Sorry for the rehash.

Review: Skyline

Year: 2010
Director: The Strause Brothers
Screenplay: Liam O'Donnell, Joshua Cordes
Starring: Donald Faison, Eric Balfour, David Zayas, Scottie Thompson, Brittany Daniel

Synopsis is here

Skyline in my eyes is either one of the funniest movies of the year or one of the worst. Take your pick. This expensive Sy-Fi channel piece of trash had me laughing almost as much as some this years comedies I sat through this year. The problem is the po-faced acting and the (admittedly) grand-standing effects; suggest that it actually wants to be taken quite seriously.

Unfortunately, when your film is ridden with trite horror film cliches, poor logic and naff homages nabbed from other films by better film makers (stand up War of the worlds, District 9, Cloverfield) I'm not going join you on your plight. This is a film in which poorly developed lead characters are quick to dismiss the choices of their significant others before turning tail and having the same characters stating a moment later "I'LL NEVER LEAVE YOU BEHIND!" Seriously? As if your 20 minutes of bitching didn't happen? Ok then.

The Strause Brothers (also behind tonally imbalanced AvP2) have once again brought about a film that relies on belief over a half baked premise over anything that comes near decent storytelling. It's great that they can create effects like that for so little money, but their lack of giving us anything that approaches interesting characters or entertaining set pieces reminded me where a cluster of modern mainstream Hollywood films are going. Skyline is all premise first, little else second with almost nothing to keep someone like myself interested in apart from it's patchy narrative turns had me cackling in the screen louder than one of the Macbeth witches. By the time L.A is nuked in a bid to destroy the aliens with their fishing line lights and their reaver like features, I was past giving a damn.

It also seems that these FX masters don't give a damn about directing their T.V actors. Now there's nothing wrong with T.V actors but when you are in a film where you really mean nothing compared to the effects on show then you in trouble. It doesn't help when your state of the art of effects don't even compare to the likes of Cloverfield or District 9. Hell even the back to basic feel of Splice works better, mostly because Vincenzo Natali wishes to make a movie based on well...you know; interesting themes, story and stuff. But like I said, there's plenty to laugh about with the biggest giggles coming with the nuke set piece and the ending of the film which despite what it involves comes across as very brainless.

It's very obvious that Independence Day is a clear influence on this film, and as a fan of that movie (even with it's overt patriotism and cheese) I can see what it wishes to do. The problem is quite simple is there is no feeling of fun with this movie. Watching ID4 I always sense that I'm laughing WITH Roland Emmerich. I spent far too much time laughing AT Skyline and there lies the difference.