A Year In Review: Part Two

February

Chronicle was recommended to me by fellow Filmlead Contributor Nik Von Uexkull, and I’m very happy he did. This is a small film that has the ambition to think big, it’s a character study as we watch what happens when a bullied and troubled young man (Dane Dehaan) is given supreme power. Dehaan is backed up by two fantastic supporting characters and the trio’s entertaining friendship is developed as they begin to experiment with their new found telekinetic powers. The first comic book film of the year is a huge win, despite not actually being based on any comic.

Safe House was a solid little thriller that leaves little impact but is fun enough to watch. Ryan Reynolds is not as cocky as normal and Denzel Washington reduces the normal self-righteousness that has made his performances so predictable. The story is simple, action is clear, yet for me it was outshined just barley by the far more entertaining Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.  Journey 2 was a pleasant surprise and just as disposable as Safe House, but that film is missing a crucial ingredient – Dwayne the Rock Johnson. The Rock has a presence on film that no one at this time can emulate. Last year he took a simple action film that I would have normally ignored (Fast Five) and turned the movie into one of the most enjoyable action films of the year. The Rock has an unmatched ability to be both incredibly foreboding whilst goofy. I can’t recommend Journey 2 but if you enjoy The Rock something tells me you will have fun with it. Michael Cane and Luis Guzman also round out the cast.

Wanderlust was the first enjoyable comedy of the year but definitely not a great one. The film was again seen by very few, starring two normally bankable leads in Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd. They are the stuffy New York couple that find themselves stranded in a hippie commune way out in the woods. The usual hijinks ensue, it’s just a shame that nearly every scene feels like an extended cut one would normally find on a DVD.

Films I avoided: W.E., Star Wars Episode 1 3D, The Vow, This Means War, Act of Valor, Good Deeds and Gone.

Films I wish I had avoided: Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Films I wish I had seen: Kill List, The Woman in Black, Chico y Rita, In Darkness, and Undefeated

So that is a roundup of February, a month normally reserved for many people catching up with the Oscar nominated film they have missed.

Part three coming soon. 

A Year In Review: Part One

Whilst many bought in the New Year fearing the end of the world, an upcoming election, or another natural disaster, I simply remained firmly optimistic about the many cinematic treasures 2012 would bring.

After all, this was a year that boasted the epic culmination of a superhuman cinematic saga, the final chapter in an enthralling and fully realized comic book crime tale, another encounter with the world’s most famous spy, a prequel to a seminal film in science fiction history, two films from Soderbergh, one from PTA, a Cronenberg, and a Zemeckis. Even if the world were to end, looking at that slate, one would expect 2012 would go out with a bang.

Before I go through the rather laborious run-through, it would seem fitting to document what 2012 has taught me thus far. I have learnt that my high expectations will often disappoint me, that my low expectations will surprise me, and that I am to learn this lesson every damn year.

So far this year I have been to the cinema over 150 times, this does not count in many drunken midnight movies that occur after hours at the cinema I work at, or films I have watched in a screening atmosphere in class. 5 of these instances were screaming along with an audience at The Room, probably a good 25 were repertory screenings and I’m sure there are some repeat viewings along the way (I really enjoyed 21 Jump Street). This number tells me many things; one, I probably need to start going in the sun and dating more, and two, that very little of 2012’s cinematic offerings has had an impact on me. Due to the fact that I can barely remember half of what I have seen this year I will use the aid of film-releases.com to help me wander through my year at the movies so far.

Now I should state that working in a movie theatre has afforded me the privilege and curse, of almost never having to pay for a film. Half of the films I saw this year would not have been viewed were I purchasing a ticket. However, I see watching no film as a waste of time, even the worst most putrid, clichéd, badly acted work of dredge can still teach any aspiring film maker, or enthusiast what not to make or appreciate. Having said all that, I still haven’t seen the last few Twilight movies.

It is also important to note that for the most part I am rarely very cynical when it comes to film, I seldom walk out of a theatre feeling like I have absolutely wasted my time, and can often try and see some worth in whatever film I see. I also greatly admire ambition and understand that filmmaking is a very complicated process. The result is rarely a perfect gem and thus you have to try and look for a deeper appreciation, whether it is of the intended project that never reached its fullest potential, or a certain aspect of the film that struck a chord. Sometimes a few moments of brilliance can redeem an otherwise forgettable bomb.

January

The first month of the year is always the same; catching up on the great Christmas saturation of fine films that you could not take in during the busy holiday. Young Adult, The Adventures of Tin Tin, War Horse, Melencholia, Shame – these were films rushed to release for an Oscar qualifying run, won hardly any awards and settled on paltry box office returns. Spread out through the year they might have had great success, but I digress, this article is discussing films released in 2012.

The first film I saw this year was the Mark Wahlberg, Kate Beckinsale thing called Contraband. I remember almost nothing about this, only that I saw it and tried to forget about it. My few recollections involve Wahlberg racing against time to stop his dear Beckinsale from being buried alive with cement in a construction site. The film had so little aspiration and impact that for others falling into this category I will not go into description but merely state that they were viewed.  

We Need to Talk about Kevin was a dark challenging and engaging story seen by few. We follow Tilda Swinton rebuilding her life after her son sadistically and savagely murders his father, sister and classmates. The film is uncompromising in its efforts to highlight the signs of Kevin’s condition but also the unconditional, painful love that Swinton’s character still possess for her child. The films greatest strength and most controversial aspects are found in trying to make the audience understand Kevin. Director Lynne Ramsey never manipulates us into caring about Kevin, she does something much scarier and gives us a character who is has very negative human traits. In the end this is Swinton’s film and she is captivating.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Even after all of the contrivances blending with the heavy subject matter and ham fisted emotion I still came out of this film enjoying it. A full recommendation? By no means, but not as sappy and over reaching as it looks, there is some elegance to it, and in the end it is quite moving.

Miss Bala’s trailer had me ready for Die Hard meets the Miss America pageant, what I got instead was an insufferable 2 hour, grim and tragic tale about a Woman having her life torn apart around her. The film is not a commentary on the tragic world of a beauty contestant or model. It is simply a girl trapped in relentlessly violent world, this film punishes it’s audience, by the end there is no relevance for our main characters journey, it is simply a very possible day in the life for this woman in this country. People may really connect with this film, it’s not for everybody and certainly wasn’t for me.

Haywire was an expected treat; Soderbergh rarely lets me down, and made a wonderful, gritty little film to start the year off right. His best composer David Holmes sets the scene for this stylish, sexy, and slick action thriller. The visuals are always enthralling, the action is real and savage and his introduction of Gina Carano as a new action film star is more than deserved. Whilst her acting chops may not be the top of field she is backed up by Channing Tatum, Michael Fassbender, Ewen McGregor, Antonio Banderas, Michael Douglas, and Bill Paxton. Few people bothered watching it and many missed out.

The Grey rounds out a mixed bag in January, as I’ve said the month is really not about new releases but there were more hits then I was expecting. Joe Carnahan’s The Grey was not Liam Neeson fighting wolves like the trailer would have you believe but rather Neeson fighting nature, and it’s still just as thrilling. The film manages to find a nice emotional tone involving the need to survive or perish to the elements. Neeson is always entertaining, especially when he can be a no-nonsense, warrior.

Films I avoided: The Devil Inside, Joyful Noise, Red Tails, Underworld: Awakening, One For the Money, and Man on a Ledge.

Films I wish I had seen: Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Albatross, Coriolanus, and Flowers of War

Please check back soon for part two.

Looper - Is it just me or is it the most underwhelming movie of 2012?

On every underground station, motorway billboard and bus across London electric blue posters for Looper scream 'Magnificent', 'A Brilliant Masterpiece', 'The New Matrix'. Clusters of five stars surround Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as they glare out steely eyed. The two most popular film publications in the UK, Total Film and Empire magazine awarded Looper five stars showering praise on Rian Johnson's sci-fi time travel mind-bender. On top of this Looper received wildly enthusiastic reviews from the most cynical of critics including The Sunday Times' Cosmo Landesman (three stars is excellent for him) and The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw - whom I have great respect for - awarded the film with four stars calling it "dizzying and exciting". So naturally after loving Brick and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in anything he does I sat down in Cineworld Shaftesbury Avenue in central London with great excitement. I left the cinema flat, baffled by the adulation and plaudits and as the last few days have passed I have grown more bewildered. 

First of all lets dispel that Matrix comparison. It is not even in the same ballpark. This is not a groundbreaking film by any stretch of the imagination: Looper is a time travel caper with a kid who could be in The Omen. The Wachowski's staggered the world in 1999 and no matter how lacklustre Revolutions was it will never be forgotten how marvellous and ingenious The Matrix is. Looper has set its ambitions at a far lesser scale but in fairness it cost $30m and the Wachowski's set a pretty damn high benchmark. 

Rian Johnson has built a futuristic dystopia in 2044 Kansas that is populated with streets of destitute homeless scavengers pushing trollies, faces blackened with hardship. Although nothing particularly new Johnson creates a world of flashy cars and clubs for the 'Loopers' (people hired to take out hits for the mob - the twist being that the victims are sent from the future where time travel has been invented and immediately made illegal (2074 to be precise) so as to erase the existence of the victims altogether). Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of these Loopers tasked with the admittedly simple job of standing in a isolated location at an exact time and when the victim - sent back hogtied, hooded and helpless - pops out of thin air the Looper shoots, incinerates the body and collects the silver bricks tied to the victim's back. This is the currency of 2044 and is just one of the few ironic touches of satire in the movie. Bricks for money - antiquated. Some members of the population can levitate objects...but it's limited to floating quarters over their palms. There are space bikes that can fly but Paul Dano's doesn't work. In fact the city doesn't look vey different from 2012 Kansas apart from the mass poverty and desperation. Unsurprisingly the Loopers all take eyedrops that are some kind of hallucinogen and Levitt's Joe is seeing a hooker who works at the main club that is a gaudy red blot on the otherwise grey hopelessness of the city. Jeff Daniels plays Abe, the mob's man sent from the future to control operations in the past. It's a neat concept, improved by the fact that a Looper's life is fragile - the mob can close your loop at any time. And here is where the main plot comes in and perhaps the most ingenious part of Johnson's script: the said Looper is sent from the future for the young Looper to kill himself meaning that Looper knows they will die in thirty years. To soften the blow of killing yourself and living with the knowledge of when you will die. The mob kindly rewards you financially so you can live your life out in luxury wherever you want. Levitt's problem is he's let his older self escape but then that is somewhat understandable as that man is John McClane! So the plot actually isn't so complicated but it's engaging: what is Old Joe's mission? Oh the trailer has told us already sigh. Willis has returned to find the Rainmaker, some guy who is closing all the loops on Loopers in 2074. Willis's intention is to find the young boy who will become the Rainmaker and kill 'em. A messy slide to the future showing young Joe's transformation into Old Joe (Levitt to Willis) shows off a flashy Shanghai (the new 'In' location for action movies) and a bemusing romance between Willis and a Chinese woman played by Qing Xu. From this we understand Willis's intentions are not entirely selfless. 

The centrepiece scene and possibly the highlight of the movie is the conversation between Willis and Levitt at a rundown diner outside Kansas that provides witty repartee and allows Willis to flesh out his character. The idea of sitting face to face with yourself knowing them and yet not knowing them is a fascinating and deeply troubling one yet Johnson's film, from the moment the two Joe's escape the diner following an ambush, loses all momentum and intrigue. 

Levitt's young Joe finds refuge on Emily Blunt's fiery farm where she lives with her initially innocent looking nine year old boy. And this is where the film plays out its final third - amongst the corn fields of Kansas. Seemingly this would be an ideal landscape to create tension but Johnson never utilises it. Instead we cut back to Willis's Old Joe hiding out in the city pointlessly looking for the other two kids that could be the Rainmaker - pointless because it is obvious who the Rainmaker is through scenes that appear to be stolen from any number of demon child horror movies. Blunt is a tremendous actor as is Levitt but a scene in which she calls him up to her room to have sex rings hollow not to mention it feels tacked on and isn't even sexy - unforgivable considering the actors on show. 

It all ends in predictable fashion after an oddly jarring and dull shooting spree from John McClane kills basically everyone apart from Noah Segan's Kid Blue who takes on the mantle of the scorned idiot who wants revenge on Joe for humiliating him: rarely has there been a more tiresome character than this guy and the worst thing is when he comes to disrupt the final showdown between the two Joe's I just wanted the inevitable conclusion to happen so I could leave the cinema but this Kid Blue imbecile was slowing it down! 

It's hard to know what box to put Looper in because it starts in a depressing and violent fashion but the Kansas Johnson creates gets forgotten about halfway through the movie and the story isn't strong enough to allow for no visual flourishes or no surprises. When you go and see a horror movie you generally know where it's going and it's cool, you accept the genre's limitations but with Looper I wanted more than just a troubled kid with telekinesis in a field. Willis is on McClane mode only waking up to inject the diner scene with some much needed fire. Levitt does a typically good job in the main role but he's been more interesting in TDKR and Brick and far more fun in Premium Rush. Blunt devours the scenes she's given but the film drops off to such an extent when she arrives that it is hard to enjoy her performance. Jeff Daniels Abe drifts through the film whilst side characters like Paul Dano's Seth are mere plot fodder. 

Looper is a warm film in a way. Levitt carries that throughout and Blunt brings in the theme of nature versus nurture as she desperately tried to protect her boy. And yet I didn't truly care about either Joe. Levitt reveals little bits of backstory but not enough to flesh him out and as for Willis - well he's lived his life (rather unconvincingly ending up with a Chinese angel). The serious lack of humour doesn't help, apart from a running joke about young Joe learning French the script lacks bite. 

Looper is a solid film that has stolen from too many other films to feel remotely fresh. The question I always ask myself when I leave a theatre is 'Would I see this again?' and the answer to Looper is a definitive NO. Looper is a film without genuinely exciting action or inspiration: it feels like it has been sent through a loop of old films and come out the other end recycled, dull and derivative. 

Or is it just me?