Review: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

Year: 2013

Director: Tommy Wirkola

Screenplay: Tommy Wirkola

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Peter Stromare, Famke Janssen

Synopsis is here:

Hansel and Gretel clearly wishes to be a cult comedy. The names Adam McKay and Will Farrell flitter up on the screen during the film’s opening credits, which play on an idea of fairy tale land newspapers. There’s a riff of Shrek in the air as you watch. This doesn't leave easily. Later on when Hansel narrowly avoids an oncoming arrow, we get a moment of bullet time. Shrek played with Matrix effects in what seems to be quite an age. Hansel and Gretel makes it feel like 2001 all over again.

That comes off a little harsh, considering the vast amount of films which have borrowed from the popular effect that The Matrix series help make popular. That said Hansel and Gretel wants to join in with some of the popularity made with po-faced fairy tale revamps such as Snow White and the Huntsman (2012), while trying to make sure that everyone’s forgotten that Terry Gilliam toyed with Grimm tales with mixed results in the tortured Miramax project The Brothers Grimm (2005).

Hansel and Gretel lacks the spiritedness that a director like Gilliam embraces wholeheartedly. His film may not work fully to certain viewers but many can take solace in the offbeat humour he tries to install within his piece as while of the ambition of a few of the ideas.  Tommy Wirkola’s H&G:WH is more about sexing everything up, as is the way with this cycle of fairy tales. See the aforementioned Snow White and the Huntsman.

The off pace Hansel and Gretel has no Monty Python gene and it shows, establishing itself with violence and swearing to try and endear itself to the dream audience of teenagers but perhaps lacking in the askew view that would give it a true cult feel. Yes this faux old timey period has makeshift tasers and defibrillators but these aren't felt has fun gags, more mediocre asides. Meanwhile the conceit of Hansel having diabetes feels more like a forced plot device than anything substantial. Then again that’s no more uncomfortable than Renner’s performance, with his Hansel feeling less like a womaniser, and more like a tepid, reconditioned version of his Hawkeye. Arteron also struggles with her Gretel despite having a lovely corset but little brassiness in her actual character. Although the screenplay is wise enough to make sure that she not just a sex pot with a crossbow that falls in love, but does little to truly highlight the attentiveness that makes her more emotionally in tune to her surroundings. No matter what Hansel mentions, I just didn't get the feeling.

But Hansel and Gretel isn’t about feelings, it’s about heads a popping. And the claret spills in a frustratingly messy style, doing little to show of the impressive monster design of the villains. The film holds a lot of practical effects, but still feels more like a retread of the early 2000’s. Watching this after a kinetic and pulpy found footage feature like Frankenstein’s Army (2013) is a shame, as this film pales in comparison. Then again the same goes for the films modern trappings that lack a decent subversive quality. The f-bombs and lame quips that litter the film can’t hold up to even the weakest parts of Hanna (2011) with revels in mucking around in the same ballpark with better effect.  But Hansel and Gretel is never completely sure of itself, as a fairy tale throwback, or a twisted genre jolly.  Peter Stromare stars in both this and The Brothers Grimm. He seems to be having more fun in 2005. 

Review: Welcome to the Punch

Year: 2013
Director: Eran Creevy
Screenplay: Eran Creevy
Starring: James McAvoy, Mark Strong, Peter Mullan, Andrea Risborough

Synopsis is here

Welcome to the Punch is by no means perfect. The film lacks theintensity of Heat, although the blue tinted hues and murky cop and criminalbonds suggest Micheal Mann as an influence. While other elements such as JamesMcAvoy and his cock-a-ney accent also take a while to warm to. Yet despitethis, there is something tangible and provocative within its subjectmatter that provides interest. There's a clear ambition in its scope andvisuals that land it a cut above the usual Laandaan crime capers we are sooften used to.

The scale of thevisuals and well executed set pieces are needed to elevate admittedlyworkman like plotting. Fans of this type of genre will know from the off why soand so is doing such and such, before the characters themselves evenhave time to comprehend. The element of surprise is not a strongpoint in the storyline mechanics. Yet the film does contain bold strokes.The antagonists of the enterprise and their reasoning may not shock,but they do leave the right kind of nasty taste in the mouth. Creevy's filmmanages to shoe horn small topical moments (displaced soldiers shadyPR) that may have been explored before, yet are well presented andfor the most part, are solidly entertaining.

While the path iswell trodden and yet again I'm watching another film that feels the need tohang out at a cargo bay (Batman Begins, Hanna, The A Team, The Losers, Redand the rest), I felt the enthusiasm from from Creevy's set pieces and the wellknown group of character actors (including yet another thumbs up for MarkStrong and Andrea Riseborough) pulled this out of the lurches. There's enoughin Welcome to the Punch to the casual crime fan going.

Review: Stoker

Year: 2013
Director: Chan-wook Park
Screenplay: Wentworth Miller
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, Nicole Kidman, Jacki Weaver 

Synopsis is here

In my opinion, Stoker makes Kim Jee-woon's mediocre actioner, The Last Stand even more of a bust than I had previously considered. The bullish and assured direction that is shown scene after scene in Stoker, tells me that nothing was lost in translation with this piece of work. Everything that needed to be placed on screen is there for all to see. No transgression is diluted, no scratch left to itch, just a grubby psychosexual thriller that seeps under the skin.

For me, a lot of the unease I felt comes from the heady brew of vulnerability, hormones and identity crisis I felt for the lead character of India; a young girl who loses her father (and best friend) in a tragic turn of events (on her 18th birthday). Her closest male bond broken, we see her fragile nature come to the fore. Symbolised with a simple egg cracking scene, we quickly see the damage take it's toll. There's no help from the mothers side (an on form Kidman), she's too far gone. It seems a void needs to filled.

Once again, we're thrown back into the Southern Gothic (see also Beautiful Creatures, Killer Joe, Beasts of the Southern Wild) where the landscape is melodramatic and senses and emotions are heightened. The humid haze of the south appears to be the perfect sandbox for the likes of Park, whose production is drenched with rich, scrumptious detail and a near unbearable foreboding tone.

The fashion in which Charlie trickles into the lives of both mother and daughter is intoxicating. Manipulating with an emotional wrought mother with drives and cooking is one thing. But the intellectual seduction of India is laced with such terse sense of danger. To have such incestuous intimacy is taboo enough, however, the grave stench of necrosis that Charlie brings with him only ramps up the tension. Particularly as India, a girl now becoming aware of her own sexuality seems she may have a penchant for the dark. A piano sequence delights in it's deviousness.  

Some have detailed how much of Stoker feels derivative, particularly as it's writer Wentworth Miller (Prison Break) borrowed liberally from sources such as Dracula (see the title) and Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt for the screenplay. Clearly I see their point, and yet there's something so forceful about the how the images are display that I bypassed such things. Elsewhere; Mia Wasikowska hits the right balance of angst, while Matthew Goode brings the similar sense of menace that Robert Mitchum held in The Night of the Hunter (1955). Kidman's portrayal of damaged goods is a sly reminder of how good she can be with the right material. Watching the mind games unravel may not be surprising to some, but I found them consistently engaging.  

With the so called summer films begin to seek out other months to grab hold of the all mighty dollar, I thank goodness for the likes of Stoker still being allowed to be made and brought to theatres. With so much cinema focused on the pockets of teenage boys (things that go boom), I am still fascinated in the many movies that invest in adolescent girls even when they are not the audience. They have been recently the focal point of the likes of Winter's Bone (2010), Whip It (2011), Hanna (2011) and Excision (2012). Please don't mistake my shock as debasement in anyway. I just find a certain depiction of the teenage girl to be an exceptionally defining image within the movies I watch. The brew of vulnerability, sense of identity, guts and hormones nearly always bring involving and entertaining stories. I add Stoker to the pile. 

Review: A Good Day to Die Hard

Year: 2013
Director: John Moore
Screenplay: Skip Woods
Starring: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney 


Synopsis is Pointless

Certain friends of mine will know of my abnormal anger towards The Omen 666 (2006), in which I labelled at the time: "the worst film I've ever seen". I was so incensed that I launched into a torrid tirade of abuse about the film, it's sleepwalking characters, subpar scares and lack of any drama before storming out of the cinema fit of rage. Looking back, I overreacted for dramatic effect and looked like a bellend. If I had acted now as I did then, I reckon some clever dick would have filmed it on their phone, and I could have gone viral.   

Seven years have passed, and I've become older, wiser and slightly mellower (Although my podcast co-host may say otherwise). Over these years of further film viewing and reflection, I released that while John Moore's version of The Omen may not be the worst film in the entirety of cinema, that screening marked a point in where Hollywood's crass, cynical view on us as "consumers of product" hit a peak within me. I had seen through the looking glass and found a film with absolutely no heart behind it's conception. This was my Alien 3. A film only made because of a date (released on the 6th of June 2006), rather out of any shed of artistic value or integrity. There are many that will not agree with my opinion on the film, while there are others that will be quick to inform me of other such contemptuous cinematic products before or since. That's fine, but I'm sure every film viewer has their "moments" and this was one of mine. 

Such an act of competent yet soulless filmmaking has forever marred my view of the movies director. I have avoided John Moore movies for the simple fact that much like how many see the Len Wiseman's and Brett Ratners of the world, I see Moore as simply a "jobber" director. A man who can handle a crew, set and cast well enough to bring in whatever script is shoved in front of him. So what you get is an action film with Bruce Willis as lead and Die Hard in the title, but not a Die Hard film. 

You see, time is of the essence and the studio need something with Die Hard in the title to make money over the Valentine's Day weekend. Valentines Day? For Die Hard? Yes, for you see it looks clear to me that one or two people didn't have as much faith in this fifth entry as the original, which was of course a summer blockbuster. Like The Last Stand and Bullet to the Head, it seems that the golden oldies may not rake in what they used to when compared to the superhero kings of the present box office. If I'm correct, then it's very easy to see why this Die Hard film has been release in the cold harsh dead zone of February as opposed to challenging for the title of king of summer.

A Good Day to Die Hard is a mess of an action movie. A barrage of near pointless, unintelligible set-pieces melded together with little more of a dental floss thin amount of plot holding it together. Skip Wood's mangled screenplay has little to no care as to what makes it's lead character so appealing in the first place. We remember not only the action beats of the original film, but the affability of John McClane himself. A workaday cop in the wrong place at the wrong time, his intimate chats with fellow cop Al, and his strained but affectionate relationship with his wife displayed his vulnerability. The original film further highlighted this with its simple moment of having McClane walk barefooted on cracked glass. Much like Spielberg and Lucas' Indy, this man was just like us, we wanted him to get through this. That wasn't just "80's sensibilities" or the like; it was just decent building of character.

Now we have a John McClane who is more like a high street bank than your average Joe. This guy is simply too big fail. Watching Willis going through the motions, with no emotion, surviving everything like a bald Terminator is heartbreaking. There's little risk and the stakes are incredibly low this time round as the screenplay pathetically tries to tie everything together in a gabbled plot that cares just as much about it's ludicrous (and blatantly obvious) double crosses and dullard villains than making John McClane the unfortunate hero his once was.

So we come back to Moore, a hired gun who directs to do a job. In football terms he is a utility player of film maker. Here he works with the sketchy template give to him and does little to inject the same verve found in other action films let alone Die Hard movies. We are quickly shoved into a incomprehensible car chase sequence and the film never lets up. The crashes and bangs rapidly begin to bore because neither the film’s director nor screenplay care about any nuance towards its story or character, it merely wants us to see Willis survive near death experiences repeatedly while referencing unearned homage’s to not only Die Hard films, but other films in Willis body of work. 

But this is the issue with film-makers who don't seem to regard history with any importance. Standing on the shoulders of giants with disregard to the foundation, frequent hark backs to wittier films is one thing, but it's annoyingly inane handing of Russia also shows that Americas old enemy deserves more than this, even in films. This even lacks the camp get up found in the likes of Salt and Hanna. Then again despite how one may feel of those films, Directors Phillip Noyce and Joe Wright respect us enough to try and tell a story. John Moore's Die Hard has been created merely to show up on time. It's Alien 3 and The Omen 666 all over again.  

I decided to watch this instead of watching my football team (Arsenal) lose yet again against formidable opponents (Bayern Munich). This could be consider sacrilege, but as a fan, you know when your beat. You also know when you need a utility player, an ugly piece of work to is only there to fill a hold and do a job. They don't belong in this franchise. Die Hard started off as a star striker. Relegation may beckon.

End of 2011 Videocast - Part 1

As some may know, I do a audio podcast named Cinematic Dramatic, which can be found on Geek Planet Online and Itunes. This year myself and co-host Iain Boulton have decided to bring out a Videocast of what we liked and disliked of the last year. This is Part One, which is of our individual picks from our respective top tens. Part two will feature the picks that appear on both of our lists.  Forgive our faces, they are clearly much more acceptable on an audio podcast.

Cinematic Dramatic 3x08 - Attack The Block

Cinematic Dramatic 3x08 - Attack The Block

Released: 20/05/11
Hosts: Iain Boulton & Byron Pitt

Click here to listen to the Cinematic Dramatic podcast. This episode we talk about Thor, Hanna and Attack the block.

Review: Hanna

Year: 2011
Director: Joe Wright
Screenplay: Seth Lochhead, David Farr
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, Tom Hollander

Where do I start? Where do I begin?* With my opinions on films like Knight and Day, Battle L.A, Sucker Punch, The Expendables...I wouldn't be surprised if people felt I'm adverse to most action films as a whole. I'm sure some of my regular visitors to my web site garble (yes, I'm surprised too) expect a certain amount of negativity from the guy who really enjoyed Archipelago....

However, after emerging from the darkness of my now new regular cinema (which I may add is very old) I do  think it will be safe to say that for me that Joe Wright's Hanna may very well be one of the films I'll still be yammering on about at the end of the year.

I describe Hanna as a teenage female Bourne flick with a fairytale structure. I do not use the Bourne similarity lightly, as the films main story and Euro/Africa destination jumping give that same feel to the proceedings as the spy trilogy. The fairytale aspect is also a large part of the film, borrowing heavily from Snow White (hell even the first landscape is in white snow.). So much so that the characters that we see aren't so much symbols of the grim fairy tale...they are those people. Implanting fairy tale elements into modern day "real" (I use that term very loosely) features isn't anything new. However, for me it's the innocence that is infused into it's lead character that separates this from some of the other modern fairy tale imaginings. Yes she is carefully taught to be a killer, but when Hanna is removed from her closed off world and shoved into our one, she becomes a blank slate.

The way she is taken and once again remoulded is a profoundly liberating. The film's focus never wavers from this fact and constructs it's appeal from this. Yes, the film is fuelled with grandiose sequences (an amazing ship cargo bay scene I found particularly arresting) but the connection to Hanna, her coming of age, and her having to try and understand and navigate this alien world is the allure. The down time with Hanna meeting a family with a girl her own age is a telling one, highlighting that teenage disconnect that many feel while also adding to that the confusing nature of what she has been told by her father. The strikingly choreographed action almost happens to be an added bonus. Wright however doesn't skimp however with the all the action not only having a sense of place but coming off off the films more quiet moments. The set pieces pop off like springs and is extremely satisfying.

Wright's ace in the hole however, is the dazzlingly mature performance from Saoirse Ronan. It's true that I wasn't armoured with Ronan in The Lovely Bones but her display in this reminds me that that may have greatly due to the character and material rather than Ronan. She is magnificent here, balancing the strength and force of her character with the emotional fragility it deserves. Reviews have stated the similarities being Hanna and Kick-Ass' hit girl and it is true. However the affecting aspect of Ronan's performance tips the bar carrying a movie that is actually quite scant on plot details (it tells you enough to keep you enticed) and based more on her characters feelings. Wright has stated that he was inspired by David Lynch on the movie and constructing the movie this way really shows it, as does the brilliant sound design.

Which begins me to the thumping score given to us by the Chemical Brothers. Wright, The Brothers and the various sound designers build a stylish sonic landscape that ebbs and flows beautifully with the image (Alwin H. Kuchler's cinematography is so wonderfully crisp). This is a score that manages to do what Daft Punks Tron score: get me involved. The music of the film (often accompanied by in film sounds by items and character merging with with the music) does't distract, it excites, becoming an integral part of the films DNA.

This is why I enjoyed Hanna so much, because while the film isn't fresh or original from a story or thematic standpoint, the combination of Wrights clean, swift direction of the piece, the thumping techno sound scape and absorbing lead performance come off almost effortless. I haven't even got around to the efficiently creepy turns from Cate Blanchett and Tom Hollander who are both wonderfully sinister (loved how the well the two work in sometimes ghoulish visages in combination with Wright's well placed camera. There's also a neat stoic role for Eric Bana.**

Hanna was almost perfect for a movie goer like myself. It slips from action to drama without difficulty, it shrugs off it's unoriginality and sketchy plot with well drawn out themes, strong character and visual flair. The music is immediate and kept me in the moment and I adored the films quiet loud quiet rhythm. Hanna doesn't say much different, but it has the ability to be more articulate when it's shouting it's message from the hills.

*Yes it's a reference.
**Much as been said about the odd accents but considering the film is based within a fairytale world and structure...I really wouldn't worry about it.