REVIEWS
The Star FM Film Review show hosted by tha Film Crew can be found every Thursday on Star FM, Zimbabwe's hottest radio station @ 2.05pm.
Also catch us on facebook: www.facebook.com/starfmfilmreviewshow
------
------
R.I.P.D Concept heavy, Entertainment lite
U.S Cert (16) Dir: Robert Schwentke
Stars: Jeff Bridges, Kevin Bacon, Ryan Reynolds,
R.I.P.D or the Rest in
Peace Department (get it?) is another film based on a comic book after last
week’s entertaining caper, 2 Guns. But
this ‘adventure’ starring Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds is rather limp in
comparison with the leads sharing none of the chemistry so lauded as exuding
from Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg.
The film’s action begins
with Reynolds as Nick Walker, one half of a corrupt police duo who has a change
of heart following a robbery. However he
is tricked by his partner in crime, Bobby Hayes (played by the normally
reliable Kevin Bacon)who prevents Walker from returning his share of the loot
by shooting him dead during a raid and framing one of the criminals they’re
after for the murder.
This is where the film resembles
any other television series where a principal character dies and has a brief
interview in the after-life before continuing with a new given mission in
life. In R.I.P.D, Walker is enlisted as
a partner to cranky veteran, Roy
Pulsipher played by Jeff Bridges. Pulsipher is also one of the undead, an
ex-U.S marshall who lived in the 1800’s and the two are tasked with taking down
‘Deados’ - spirits that have failed to
cross over to hell and return to Earth as monstrous ghosts. This is the main business of the Rest in
Peace Department you see.
Walker
agrees to join the R.I.P.D when he learns that he could prevent a potentially
negative Final Judgement of Earth for at least a century. Blasphemous, maybe, entertaining? Not really.RIPD is heavy on concept and light on
entertainment. The sequence with
Detective Nick Walker entering heaven and being informed of his new position is
so much like many other light entertainment U.S television shows with the same
premise. The most recent one I can think
of is Dead like Me (2009) but there have been numerous others.The film is also
a shameless and pointless rip off of Ghostbusters (1984) and Men in Black
(1996) with none of the comic entertainment found in those classics of
yesteryear.R.I.P.D’s title gimmick is the best thing about the whole
enterprise.
R.I.P.D reminds me of this
year’s Lone Ranger revival which also paired a rather bland actor nobody (or
few) had ever heard of with a charismatic, established Hollywood actor. So for Armie Hammer (who he?) in The Lone
Ranger read Ryan Reynolds (eh?) in R.I.P.D.
Versatile Hollywood veteran, Jeff Bridges is R.I.P.D’s poor man version
of Johnny Depp’s eccentric sidekick who overshadows the main man. Rather ironic that the former plays a U.S
wild west lawman and the latter, a Native American. In the (fake) deathmatch between the two,
Depp just about wins it but is like the fastest loser in athletics terminology as
both films are pretty dire.
Jeff Bridges overshadows
Ryan Reynolds here but that isn’t saying much as he doesn’t appear to have to
try. The script doesn’t give Bridges
much to do yet most of the film’s good moments are entirely due to his dead pan
witty-ish one liners, despite his character being little more than a Wild West
stereotype.
The
most humorous aspect of the film is the notion that humans perceive the undead
police officers of R.I.P.D as assigned avatars. There’s all too brief humor to
be had from the revelation that Roy’s avatar is an attractive Russian woman,
while Nick’s is an elderly Chinese man.
Unfortunately there’s little originality and the R.I.P.D central concept
is stretched thinly across a 90 plus minute film with nothing much else to add
other than uninspired rip-offs. These rip-offs,when
they appear are so clearly from elsewhere like the cops who get taken off a
case but continue to investigate anyway.
Where have we seen that before?
Practically every cop buddy movie but
R.I.P.D draws too much attention
to its unoriginality by being unforgiveably lacking in coherent direction and
genuine entertainment.
-------
Two Guns
Starring Denzil Washington, Mark Wahlberg
What happens when you put two undercover U.S officials
together on a bank robbery – both unsuspecting of each other, both as
streetwise and cocky as the other? Two
Guns is the result, a comic and violent version of a graphic/comic book novel
series of the same name, directed by Icelander,BaltasarKormákur.
Washington plays Bobby, an undercover D.E.A agent who
comes up with an ingenious plan to take down a Mexican drugs baron (Edward
Olmos). Steal his drugs millions from a
safety deposit box in a small town bank and the subsequent investigation will
lead the authorities to indict him for tax evasion when ownership of the money
is confirmed. So far so good plan but
Bobby is thwarted by his partner in crime Michael (Stig) Stigman, played by
Wahlberg. Unbeknownst to Bobby, Stig is also operating undercover, for the U.S
Navy with his own mission to recover millions of dollars on behalf of his shady
boss (James Marsden) so he can be reinstated as a Navy S.E.A.L. With the two clearly at cross purposes, the
plan goes awry and both find they can no longer rely on their bosses for
support and must team up to recover the money and clear their names.
I prefer seeing Washington in clean cut roles as I feel
his acting range better suits this. I’m
not totally convinced when he takes on morally ambiguous roles. Although who am I to judge – Hollywood gave
him an Oscar for his take on a corrupt cop in 2001’s Training Day? Conversely, ex-rapper and male model, Mark
Wahlberg is in his element. He seems
perfectly fitted as the leading man type yet not totally wholesome as we saw to
good effect earlier this year in No Pain, No Gain.
There are some genuinely funny moments in Two Guns with
Washington and Wahlberg displaying an interesting chemistry which could yet see
more cinematic adventures featuring the tow.
However, I must call out the film on some of its casual scenes of
nudity, female nudity of course.
Hollywood does this time and time again – usually it appears to cement a
film’s age rating. The most common
gratuitous nudity tends to feature characters in a strip club so of course
there must be shots of strippers shaking their money maker. These scenes are just about forgiveable when
you consider some of the seedy characters involved who would probably be
discussing business in a strip club.
However, Two Guns has none of this, just moments where Paula Patton’s
character is talking to Denzil Washington with most of her clothes off. I’m not being a puritan – the scenes add
nothing to the drama and are totally unnecessary.
 |
| She's clothed now........... |
Two Guns also doesn’t intend you to take any of its
violence seriously but this is countered by the appearance in the film of some
pretty complex real world issues – Mexican drug violence, Mexican immigration
and the complicity/dirty tricks of the C.I.A.
These themes are glossed over in the film, the main characters joke
about a murdered character’s head in a sports bag and the C.I.A boss, Earl
played by usual good guy – Bill Paxton is played as standard evil boss our
‘heroes’ must overcome. Earl comes
complete with his own style of torture and accompanying speeches which nudge
him into comic book territory.
However,
there are moments in the film where you suspect a more serious message was
itching to come out. For instance –
Washington and Wahlberg at one point must cross by river from Mexico into the
U.S and we see them briefly struggle along with some obviously illegal
immigrants. A haunting soundtrack is
played over the journey and the entire scene somehow contradicts the playful
tone which has gone on before. There’s
also a ‘tragedy’ towards the end which I wont reveal but the film had
throughout set itself up not to be taken seriously then there is a rather cold
hearted murder of a named character (oops!) which sits rather uncomfortably
with the knock-about nature of what has gone on before.
 |
| ahhhh memories....... |
It could also be said that the film’s blasé approach to
the consequences of real world issues is matched by the cockiness of Wahlberg’s
character and the world weariness of Washington’s character, perhaps. At one point the latter is challenged by his
D.E.A boss (Robert Burke) – ‘I don’t know who you are anymore’ – as clearly he
has become infected by the cynicism of the dark world he has infiltrated.
Two Guns is thus a
comedy for cynics but no less enjoyable for it.
I suspect though, there was a more serious, ‘worthier’ film lurking
within Blake Master’s script but this alternative – Denzil and Marky Mark
exchanging crowd pleasing quips is adequate and diverting enough.
---------
Red 2: More Gun Toting Geriatric Comedy
Details: 2013, USA, Cert:16 116 mins, Action / Comedy / Crime, Dir: Dean Parisot
Hollywood
does care about marginalised groups!
Last week it was the ladies turn with female buddy cop movie, The
Heat. This week the senior citizens get
their turn in Red 2, a sequel to Red which was released in 2010 to largely
positive reviews. So as the first outing
for Bruce Willis and other Hollywood veterans such as John Malkovich and Helen
Mirren was not critically panned and made decent box office returns, this
translates into another outing for the Retired and Extremely Dangerous (RED)
ex-CIA agents.
It’s
not essential to have seen the first Red film in order to understand events in its sequel but it helps to be
familiar with the knockabout nature of the violence and the motivations of some
of the characters. I’m thinking
primarily of John Malkovich’s character, Marvin Boggs whose paranoia towards
the U.S state and the reasons behind it and his eccentricity are more fully and
funnily explained in the first film.
However,
both films mostly work as stand-alone adventures. In Red 2, we again see Frank Moses (Bruce
Willis), retired and trying his utmost to live a normal life. Of course as the ex-CIA agents won the day in
the first film, we have the additional element of a love interest in girlfriend
Sarah Ross, played by Mary-Louise Parker.
The early scenes of the sequel have Frank and Sarah living out something
like domesticated bliss – shopping for home goods - except Sarah is clearly bored with the whole
set up. She doesn’t have long to wait
before Frank’s best friend and another ex-CIA agent (the previously mentioned
Marvin Boggs) warns them of impending danger.
 | |
| Sarah is bored until...... |
Before we know it, the pair are reunited with protagonists from the
first film, Victoria Winslow (Helen Mirren) and Ivan Simanov (Brian Cox) and
whisked into a multi faceted plot involving trips across continents, rescuing a
mentally ill/genius scientist and possibly saving the world from a new type of
lethal bomb.
A
new flavour is added to the burgeoning franchise in the form of the
‘best assassin in the world’, Han, played by extremely agile Byung-hun Lee whom we last saw in the recent GI Joe sequel. While his scenes are top notch, fight
entertainment-wise, you might catch yourself considering his introduction as a
rather cynical ploy by the film makers to broaden the audience of the franchise
as it moves forward. How far can they
take the joke about ageing assassins who still ‘have it’? This premise was fresh and entertaining in
Red (2010) but signs of wear and tear are apparent in Red 2. No wonder then the introduction of a martial
arts poster boy but I’m not complaining much.
The boy can move.
 |
| Although he's extremely dangerous, he's not retired or old. Cynical ploy hmmn? |
Another addition to the ensemble is British actress
Catherine Zeta-Jones who plays Katya, a Russian secret agent and ex love
interest of Frank who adds mystery to the proceedings. Can she be trusted or will she sell out the
Reds to the Russians? Yet another big name addition is another Brit,
Anthony Hopkins who must know as the evil yet charismatic Hannibal Lector
(Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal). He
pops up as Dr Edward Bailey, the genuis/mad scientist responsible for building
the deadly bomb mentioned earlier, whom the Reds must rescue him from a top
secret, extremely secure psychiatric facility.
His introduction adds a satisfying twist to a tale which was already
twisted, espionage and all. I don’t want
to add a spoiler but when you see Hopkins on the screen, somehow you already
know.......
 | |
| Hopkins adds a twist to an already twisted tale yet...... |
While all of this action is quite entertaining,
what really holds it all together (just about) is the characterization of the
ageing agents. As I mentioned earlier,
the age thing is a bit of a one trick pony but there is plenty of mileage and
fun to be had watching elderly people wielding high tech weaponry with
ease. Of particular note, a car chase
scene with Han driving and Helen Mirren blasting at the chasing ‘bad guys’, gun
in each hand, while the car executes dramatic 360 degree turns.
 | |
| As mentioned above.... |
Bruce Willis is adequate as a John
Mclaine-lite (Die Hard) action hero but
does seem almost bored in some scenes, particularly those with his girlfriend,
Sarah. The actor recently admitted in an
interview with a Spanish magazine that he is
"bored" of shooting action movies but likes the money they generate. Merely coincidental perhaps as the Frank
character, central to the action with an increasingly crazy, action craving
girlfriend probably calls for a wry, laid back approach. I’m not entirely convinced – he does look
bored. His best
friend, Marvin (Malkovich) keeps things fresh and funny with his eccentric
interpretation of events. The film
does well to keep returning to its glue, the central relationship between Frank
and Sarah but like Bruce, I found their mini-rows about him kissing Katya
(Zeta-Jones) or his over protectiveness, while not actually boring, less
interesting than the action on display.
 | |
| bored? |
Red 2 satisfies as an above average competent
action comedy but with rumours of a 3rd Red film in the works, it’s
a wonder how long the film makers can keep mining the seam of gun toting
geriatric based comedy. It’s a good idea
to catch up with Red or Red 2 before the franchise resorts to zimmer frame and
viagra jokes. It will happen.
-------
The Heat
Fast,
Funny and lots of the other F word
Details:
2013,
USA, Cert: 16, 117 mins, Comedy / Crime, Dir: Paul Feig
The Heat is An American action comedy film directed by Paul Feig, who scored a big hit in 2011 with
Bridesmaids. Romantic comedy veteran,
Sandra Bullock stars with Melissa McCarthy, who also appeared in Bridesmaids
mostly as comic relief. She has a bigger
role here, equal billing as both play law enforcement agents. Bullock is FBI Special Agent, Sarah Ashburn
and McCarthy is Boston detective, Shannon Mullins. The film plays heavily on differences
between the two; Mullins is foul mouthed, rebellious and slobby, while Ashburn
is uptight and a stickler for detail. The plot sees them paired together (against
their will) to try to take down a sadistic drugs mobster.
The
film has been both a critical and commercial success and no wonder why. The script is riddled with funny lines. Practically every scene has at least one
laugh out loud gag and the script is complemented by exemplary, energetic
performances from both leads so the action never drags, the 2 hours whizzed by. I wont go into any more detail about the plot
because it’s rather incidental to the humour squeezed from the freshening up or
re-booting of the previously tired and clichéd cop buddy movie.
Unfortunately,
the butt of some of the jokes has caused some consternation. An albino character is repeatedly insulted by
the afore mentioned foul mouthed Mullins character. While I laughed out loud along with everyone
else in the cinema, afterwards I find myself wondering whether it was totally
necessary to use such an easy target, especially as the film’s writer, Katie
Dippold has obviously made an effort to avoid the temptation of other easy
sight gags, Melissa McCarthy’s plus size appearance for example. Some might think it’s a shame to see usually
marginalised groups (women, overweight people) going after other targets of
marginalisation.
Dan Bakkedahl plays albino DEA agent Craig
The
film’s director, Paul Feig has said the albino in The Heat is teased ''because we made him such an asshole'', and to send up ''the idea that
albinos are always portrayed as the bad guys''.
I have to side with Feig on this one.
Anyone remember the dreadlocked twins in The Matrix?
The
film is served well with an excellent supporting cast, which includes one of
the Wayans brothers (more on him later), Michael Rapaport as Mullin’s clueless
brother and comedian, actor and artist John Baker A.K.A Spoken Reasons is
repeatedly hilarious as a small time crook.
Although
the plot is predictable, the action is paced well and punctuated, well, with
gags throughout which complement the uniqueness of each character. One gets the impression that the main roles
were written specifically for Bullock and McCarthy and this is a genuine cop
buddy movie in that neither character plays second fiddle to the other. Another pleasing aspect of the film is the
refreshing attitude towards the sexuality of the Mullins character. Yes she is foul mouthed and ignorant about
albinos but there is a straightforwardness in how she relates to male characters. Hollywood often has an extremely bad habit of
de-sexualising, (depressed can’t get a man) or over-sexualising (comically
sex-hungry) larger ladies on screen and there’s none of that here.
Unfortunately,
the film’s marketing team eroded some of that kudos when they attracted a minor
controversy about how the film poster air brushed McCarthy to make her normally
chubby face, unnaturally slender.
Guess which picture was airbrushed....
Before
I conclude, I want to add my own controversy complaint, the criminal
underuse/misuse of fine brother Marlon Wayans who appears as a potential love
interest for Agent Ashburn but his scenes are so few and far between, anyone
could have played his role.
Disappointing after the potential Wayans consistently shows in his own
productions such as the Scary Movie franchise and more lately White Chicks
(2004).
Marlon Wayans - Criminal! Criminally underused in The Heat.
This
minor complaint cannot detract from what is just under two hours of solid
comedy entertainment. The Heat is one of
those rare, recent Hollywood comedies which actually does what it says on the
tin – it makes you laugh.
 |
|
 |
Dan Bakkedahl plays albino DEA agent Craig |
 | |
| Guess which picture was airbrushed.... |
 | |
| Marlon Wayans - Criminal! Criminally underused in The Heat. |
-----
Elysium - Bold idea tamely executed
Elysium is an American science fiction action thriller written,
co-produced and directed by Neil Blomkamp, the same man responsible for the
much praised “District 9” (2009). “Elysium” goes over many of the same themes
as “District 9” but differs in execution. The action switches between a
dystopian looking planet Earth and a luxurious space habitat called Elysium.
Blomkamp clearly wants the audience to sympathise with the impoverished
inhabitants of Earth who are ruthlessly policed by sadistic androids and
patronised by unfeeling robotic social workers.
Da Costa comes face to face with said unfeeling social worker
This is wonderfully contrasted in the films’ early scenes with the
tranquil serenity the inhabitants of Elysium enjoy; robots attending to every
need and med bays which detect and eradicate all ailments, even cancer.
But, of course, because this is Neil Blomkamp, there must be a sinister
edge to the Elysium calm. Therefore, we see Hollywood veteran Jodie Foster
channelling Christine Lagarde (IMF boss) as Elysium’s Defence Secretary,
Jessica Delacourt, calmly ordering the disposal of Earth citizens over tea.
IMF Boss Christine Lagarde and Hollywood veteran Jodie Foster or vice versa
This is clearly meant to satirise the attitudes of wealthy citizens everywhere,
those living in gated communities come to mind. However, the film is rather
weak in this area due to its lapse into a straightforward Hollywood style
action plot.
This plot sees Matt Damon as Max Da Costa, a former car thief who lives
in the ruins of Los Angeles and works on an assembly line of Armadyne Corp, a
company which ironically makes the police androids which oppress him and his
fellow humans.
Max suffers radiation poisoning in an accident and is sent home with a
few pills and the knowledge he will die in five days. This leads him to
resurrect a childhood dream he had to go to Elysium so he can be healed.
The film uses slightly corny, sepia tinted flashbacks showing Max’s
childhood with a fellow orphan, named Frey but you have to pay attention to
these scenes as they resonate throughout and especially at the end of the
movie. Max's dream of reaching Elysium is compromised by the machinations of defence secretary Delacourt as the film settles into standard action film mode.
While this is not a bad thing in itself, some fans of Blomkamp
(especially after “District 9”) may have wanted more of the satire and less of
the routine fight sequences which permeate the latter half of the film. I’m
among them.
better than District 9?
There simply were not enough scenes of the like were Max is struggling
to explain to a robot parole officer why he got into difficulties with a police
android and is reminded that sarcasm is abusive and that abusing a government
officer is a crime.
Despite the traditional action on display, the film’s visuals are top
notch with the Elysium scenes matching the best of science fiction projections
of the future.
The film looks good and the serviceable action scenes make for an
entertaining one hour and 50 minutes. Just try not to compare it to “District
9”, you may be disappointed!
-----
Pain and Gain:
Entertaining comedy thriller but last laugh is on real victims of true
story
Elysium is an American science fiction action thriller written,
co-produced and directed by Neil Blomkamp, the same man responsible for the
much praised “District 9” (2009). “Elysium” goes over many of the same themes
as “District 9” but differs in execution. The action switches between a
dystopian looking planet Earth and a luxurious space habitat called Elysium.
Blomkamp clearly wants the audience to sympathise with the impoverished
inhabitants of Earth who are ruthlessly policed by sadistic androids and
patronised by unfeeling robotic social workers.
 | |
| Da Costa comes face to face with said unfeeling social worker |
This is wonderfully contrasted in the films’ early scenes with the
tranquil serenity the inhabitants of Elysium enjoy; robots attending to every
need and med bays which detect and eradicate all ailments, even cancer.
But, of course, because this is Neil Blomkamp, there must be a sinister
edge to the Elysium calm. Therefore, we see Hollywood veteran Jodie Foster
channelling Christine Lagarde (IMF boss) as Elysium’s Defence Secretary,
Jessica Delacourt, calmly ordering the disposal of Earth citizens over tea.
 | |
| IMF Boss Christine Lagarde and Hollywood veteran Jodie Foster or vice versa |
This is clearly meant to satirise the attitudes of wealthy citizens everywhere,
those living in gated communities come to mind. However, the film is rather
weak in this area due to its lapse into a straightforward Hollywood style
action plot.
This plot sees Matt Damon as Max Da Costa, a former car thief who lives
in the ruins of Los Angeles and works on an assembly line of Armadyne Corp, a
company which ironically makes the police androids which oppress him and his
fellow humans.
Max suffers radiation poisoning in an accident and is sent home with a
few pills and the knowledge he will die in five days. This leads him to
resurrect a childhood dream he had to go to Elysium so he can be healed.
The film uses slightly corny, sepia tinted flashbacks showing Max’s
childhood with a fellow orphan, named Frey but you have to pay attention to
these scenes as they resonate throughout and especially at the end of the
movie. Max's dream of reaching Elysium is compromised by the machinations of defence secretary Delacourt as the film settles into standard action film mode.
While this is not a bad thing in itself, some fans of Blomkamp
(especially after “District 9”) may have wanted more of the satire and less of
the routine fight sequences which permeate the latter half of the film. I’m
among them.
 | |
| better than District 9? |
There simply were not enough scenes of the like were Max is struggling
to explain to a robot parole officer why he got into difficulties with a police
android and is reminded that sarcasm is abusive and that abusing a government
officer is a crime.
Despite the traditional action on display, the film’s visuals are top
notch with the Elysium scenes matching the best of science fiction projections
of the future.
The film looks good and the serviceable action scenes make for an
entertaining one hour and 50 minutes. Just try not to compare it to “District
9”, you may be disappointed!
-----
Pain and Gain: Entertaining comedy thriller but last laugh is on real victims of true story
Pain & Gain is an American crime-comedy film directed
by Michael Bay, the director famous for explosion heavy, plot light blockbuster
movies like Armageddon and the Transformers series. However, Bay’s latest effort is quite a
departure from his usual combination of explosions and special effects. Fans of his previous output need fear not,
there are action sequences throughout but surprisingly these serve the plot and
are less over the top than is to be expected from Bay. This may have something to do with the budget
which at $26 million is significantly less than, say, Armageddon (1998) or
Transformers (2007) which both had budgets of over $100 million. The film is based on a true story which has
caused some controversy but more on that later.
Get to the cinema on time for this one as Pain and Gain
starts immediately with Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) running away from what
looks like an entire squad of armed police.
His voiceover then takes us back a few months previously to him securing
a job at a gym and improving its fortunes after promising to triple its
membership. Events then take a turn
with Lugo expressing dissatisfaction with his lot in life and hiring fellow gym
employees, Paul (Dwayne Johnson) and
Adrian (Anthony Mackie) in a get rich quick scheme which involves kidnapping
one of his wealthy clients. The action
turns rather grisly as the plan goes comically or tragically wrong depending on
your appreciation of dark humour.
Whether
you appreciate the darker aspects of the movie or not, you will be entertained
by director, Michael Bay's absorbing approach to the drama which veers between
fast talking, wise cracking roller coaster ride to pathos car crash. There is never a dull moment in Pain and Gain
largely due to its pacy direction as well as engaging performances from the
actors involved. Dwayne Johnson, who
appears as a muscle bound, born again Christian combines unlikely sensitivity
with what he calls his 'God given' gift to knock a man unconscious. Anthony Mackie's interracial romance with
nurse Robin Peck (played by singer Rebel Wilson) is riddled with stereotype but
fits in with the knock-about nature of the action which encourages you not to
take anything too seriously. Although,
while ex-rapper/male model and now
serious actor, Mark Wahlberg gives a fine performance as the main criminal
mastermind, there are inconsistencies with his character. The Daniel Lugo we see at the beginning, smooth
talking his way into a senior job at a gym and making good on his promise to
triple the membership doesn’t strike me as someone who is disempowered enough
to go to a self-help seminar. However,
the resulting cameo by Ken Jeong (the mischevious Chan from The Hangover films)
as a self- help guru adds an intriguing layer to the film’s bizarre
universe.
 |
| see what he's cooking there? thats dark blood, dark humour? |
 |
| Ken Jeong makes a cameo as a self help guru |
Lugo's
character appears confident and more than capable in the beginning so the later
scenes where he is bemoaning his lot and suddenly motivated to commit the
serious crime of kidnap adds a discordant note to proceedings. This is the film's major flaw and brings me
to the controversy around its 'based on a true story' status. The serious crimes committed by the gang in
the film did occur in real life and for the film to work as comedy, alterations
had to be made to the protagonists to make them more likeable. For example, if you are going to show the
main character torturing his kidnap victim by burning his hand with a clothing
press as well as performing other heinous actions then his likeability becomes
a major factor in whether the film is a comedy or serious drama. Bay clearly wanted to make a comedy so a lot
of filmic brownie points are invested in Wahlberg's character. This has clearly been too much for the real
life victim of the kidnapping and others who suffered at the hands of the Sun
Gym Gang who have criticised the Hollywood-ization of the tragic, yet almost
unbelievable aspects of the case. Google
it, you’ll be amazed.
 |
| the true story is rather more tragic than portrayed on screen |
If
you can get past the moral issue of the film changing a nasty criminal into a
loveable rogue you may have difficulty with the treatment meted out to the
kidnap victim. Tony Shalhoub, (famous
for playing television detective Monk) gives as good as he gets as Victor
Kerhaw, an obnoxious businessman and target of the gang’s get rich scheme but this
is precisely the problem. The kidnap
victim is obnoxious and it's more than implied in the film that he 'had it
coming'. Without knowing the details of
the true story, some may have problems with a premise which so minimises the
crime of kidnap as well as the grisly nastiness which follows. I wont elaborate but it involves chainsaws
and a barbecue grill.
 |
| Real life kidnap victim of the Sun Gym, Marc Shiller is unhappy with his portrayal in the film. Tony Shalhoub plays him as a sleazy criminal who 'has it coming' |
Most
of the criticism towards this film has been aimed at its treatment of real life
victims but there's also been accusations of sexism towards director Michael
Bay for his portrayal of female characters, primarily Bar Paly who plays a stripper who is recruited to the
gang as 'the honey trap'. Bay has
previously countered this accusation as well as general disdain for his films
with the sarcastic response, ‘I make movies for teenage boys. Oh, dear, what a
crime?’
I
have sympathy for the sexism accusation but taking the film as a whole, have to
conclude that the stripper character does fit into the dysfunctional world
occupied by the main characters as well as their dysfunctional world view. I guess as the main criminals were
whitewashed and turned from vicious thugs into loveable, desperate crooks then
some critics wanted a similar transformation for the female characters.
It’s hard to consider this film without the fallout over
its comic treatment of real life events but reviewing it strictly as a film I
have to say it’s Michael Bay’s best yet.
----------
Pacific Rim: Mashup of Transformers, Avatar and Godzilla
 | |
| Pacific Rim Film Poster |
Pacific Rim is
a 3D science fiction film, written and directed by Guillermo del Toro. The Mexican director made his name with the
sensitive and extremely moving, Pan’s Labyrinth in 2006. Fans of that film
(myself included) may wish to avoid Pacific Rim (too late for me) which is a
less than subtle mash-up of Transformers (2007), Avatar (2009) and the
Hollywood remake of Godzilla (1998).
The film is
set in the future, the 2020’s to be precise and envisages Earth at war with
colossal monsters called Kaijus which have developed from the time of the
dinosaurs and emerged from an inter-dimensional portal on the floor of the
Pacific Ocean.
With
mankind’s very existence under threat, the world powers unite (for a change)
and create the ‘Jaegers’, gigantic humanoid machines which are controlled by
two pilots. These two pilots are joined
‘neurally’ so must be compatible with each other to avoid tripping over each
other’s memories. The real film begins
about 20 mins after this plodding exposition and focuses on the later days of
the war against the Kaijus with mankind clearly on the losing side. In an act of desperation, Commanding Officer Stacker
Pentecost (Idris Elba) gets washed up former Jaeger pilot, Raleigh Bucket
(Charlie Hunnam) out of retirement and teams him up with rookie pilot Mako Mori
(Rinko Kikuchi) in a last ditch attempt to defeat the Kaijus.
 | |
| 'washed up' and 'rookie' |
A strange
aspect of the film is its almost total bloodlessness considering the amount of
action on display and potential for human carnage when massive robots, for
example, use passenger ships to hit giant monsters. The director del Toro who is also a noted
pacifist, avoids what could be a total bloodfest by emphasising the evacuation
of areas before these big battles take place.
A cynic might conclude that as the monster attacks are, without fail
surprise attacks, evacuation procedures are surprisingly efficient. Although I’m not after more blood on screen
myself, del Toro’s anaemic approach does give the film an overwhelmingly
sanitised feel. While parents watching
with their children will appreciate this, it’s rather strange for a big
blockbuster film to have so much action without real consequence. I found myself thinking of 1980’s action
series, The A Team where characters routinely fired their guns into the ground
so no one got killed. Conversely, the
lack of blood is one of two areas where del Toro’s film leaves a lasting
impact. Less is more, specifically two
or three scenes showing character’s with nose bleeds (I won’t elaborate).
Another area
worthy of note is the film’s action set pieces. Pacific Rim draws heavily on
the Japanese genres of Kaiju (strange creature/monster) and ‘mecha’ (science
fiction fighting machines) and I suspect that fans of these genres will
probably enjoy Pacific Rim as it’s something of an improvement on kitschy
‘classics’ like Godzilla (1954) and Mechagodzilla (1974). Admittedly, there’s much to enjoy in the
fight sequences which are handled expertly well. Unfortunately these scenes are spoiled by
being almost exclusively set at night or in the middle of oceans which
undermines their visual effectiveness.
 |
| Godzilla 1954 |
The dramatic
action of Pacific Rim is adequately entertaining; with popular UK actor/rapper/producer,
Idris Elba always eminently watchable, but the storyline is ridiculously
predictable from start to finish. This
is further compounded by the few weak blockbuster film one-liners added to the
action. However the film, at times,
threatens to transcend its blockbuster-ness with its theme about our
connectivity to each other but this really needed a better script to be fully
realised.
 |
| Idris Elba: always watchable |
Pacific Rim
employs a strange addition to the plot, involving two stereotypically
mad/strange scientists, one of whom hooks his brain to a dead Jaeger’s brain
and livens up the film but these scenes are few and far between. The actors involved, (Charlie Day, Burn Gorman,
and Ron Perlman) are really nothing more than comic relief and almost steal the
film from the less interesting ‘romantic’ leads (Hunnam and Kikuchi) but are
let down as their dialogue is sometimes incomprehensible. The casting of Perlman, who some may remember
from television series Beauty and the Beast and more recently Hellboy (2004),
adds an entertainingly sleazy edge to the proceedings albeit briefly. He also appears in the now practically
obligatory post credits scene, (these are becoming annoyingly common) so don’t
leave the cinema too soon.
Another
recent trend, the 3D-ization of mainstream cinema continues in Pacific Rim but
does it add anything significant to the film?
Not really, I was underwhelmed as there was not enough visual variety on
display. There came a point, too early
on when the monsters and human fighting monster machines had exceeded the
scale/dimensions on the screen, then the plot required the introduction of a
Jaeger which was the biggest yet; a level 5. It was difficult to tell how this
Jaeger differed from all the others. Everything bar the humans looked level 5, a
case of rather bone-headed technological overkill.
Pacific Rim
has been more popular overseas than in the US which may have something to do
with its casting of a Japanese actress (Kikuchi) as one of the romantic leads
and black UK actor, Idris Elba featuring prominently and heroically throughout
or maybe I’m just being cynical. And despite
my influential misgivings, the film has earned more than $384 million worldwide
so someone obviously likes it. Perhaps
you will too.
------
The Lone Ranger: Valiant attempt to update the Western
 |
The Lone Ranger as
a film character was long forgotten but as is the way with Hollywood this also
means that a reboot/fresh outing/sequel was inevitable. The last film outing for the masked one was
in 1981. That was a critical and
commercial flop however so no one disturbed the legend of the man with no name
and his Native American buddy Tonto until now.
This latest adventure has already been declared as a critical and
commercial flop also (estimated budget $225 million, box office $196 million)
so it’s anyone’s guess as to when the Lone Ranger will grace our screens again.
This latest
incarnation sees relative unknown Armie Hammer take on the main role but all
the attention is of course on Johnny Depp who plays Tonto, his sidekick. Depp’s portrayal of Tonto has come in for
some criticism from the Native American community. I can see what their beef is because Depp
plays Tonto mostly for comic effect complete with the stereotype patterns of
Native American speech and you do get the feeling that Depp was cast mainly to
create the same kind of comic impact he made as Captain Jack Sparrow in The
Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.
Depp’s protestations that he ‘researched’ the role and he may have a
small fraction of Native American blood in him aside, it’s the same team
responsible for both films so I rest my case on that one.
The film begins in the fictional town of Colby, Texas with lawyer John Reid (Armie Hammer) returning home via the uncompleted Transcontinental Railroad, managed by railroad tycoon Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson). Unknown to Reid, the train is also carrying Tonto and outlaw Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), who is due for hanging after being captured by Dan Reid (James Badge Dale), John's Texas Ranger brother. However, Cavendish's gang rescue Butch. Reid goes after the outlaw and his gang with six other Texas rangers.
 |
| The painting 'I am Crow' was Depp's inspiration for Tonto's look |
The film begins in the fictional town of Colby, Texas with lawyer John Reid (Armie Hammer) returning home via the uncompleted Transcontinental Railroad, managed by railroad tycoon Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson). Unknown to Reid, the train is also carrying Tonto and outlaw Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), who is due for hanging after being captured by Dan Reid (James Badge Dale), John's Texas Ranger brother. However, Cavendish's gang rescue Butch. Reid goes after the outlaw and his gang with six other Texas rangers.
The lawmen are
ambushed and killed by Cavendish's men. For some reason Cavendish takes great
pleasure in cutting out and eating Dan's heart.
Tonto buries the dead men but a white spirit horse awakens John as a
"spirit walker", and Tonto explains John cannot be killed in
battle. As John is thought to be dead,
he wears a mask made from Dan's vest to protect his identity from enemies.
Tonto gives John a silver bullet made from the fallen Rangers' badges and tells
him to use it on Cavendish. Hence fulfillment of the silver bullet legend.
Tonto and the newly
named Lone Ranger must now thwart a plan of the tycoon, to take complete
control of the railroad company and use the mined silver to gain more power.
 |
| human heart eater, outlaw Butch Cavendish |
So far, so Hollywood western but The Lone Ranger is not completely satisfying in its attempt to update the genre. I found myself not caring overly much for the ‘hero’ and this is a fault of the casting which flips the script so to speak and turns the Lone Ranger into more of a sidekick to Tonto than vice versa. This may not bother some as there was always the revisionist viewing of the Lone Ranger legend which criticised the sidelining of the Native American character which most likely would’ve been historically inaccurate, similar to the updated disdain for Tarzan, a white man being billed as ‘king of the jungle’. However, I like my heroes to be a bit more heroic and Armie Hammer plays The Lone Ranger with a degree of humility and/or irony which I think is totally unnecessary for the role. The bad guys ripped out his brother’s heart for goodness sake. The ranger should be a bit more aggressive, a bit more blood and thunder etc.
The film’s set
pieces are very entertaining, however and the score by Hans Zimmer adds to the
excitement particularly with the combination of the ‘original’ Lone Ranger
music score at the beginning which is expertly blended in with an updated version. Of note are the two train scenes which I wont
spoil by elaborating on here.
I don’t often say
this about Hollywood films but the cinematography is at times excellent. I’m no Wild West expert but it appears the
period is evoked brilliantly with lovely shots which wouldn’t be out of place
in a tourism brochure.
 |
| tourism brochure/The Lone Ranger |
Where the film ultimately disappoints is in its length. It is at least 30 minutes too long. It’s as if the film makers were so keen to put everything in; the explosions, the set pieces, the dry humour, that they forget about the audience’s typical expectations for a Hollywood blockbuster. As the film almost criminally overstays its welcome I do have some sympathy for the critics who have universally panned it but there’s enough going on in the first hour and twenty minutes of The Lone Ranger to keep you more than entertained.
-------
The Internship: Internet Search Engine Given the Hollywood Treatment
The film is however billed as a comedy film so let’s consider the
evidence. It has a plot which sees the
above mentioned pairing of Vaughn and Wilson pit their wits against a bunch of
much younger and much smarter college kids, so it employs most of the usual
characteristics; a challenge for our main characters to overcome as well as
smaller issues bedevilling the minor characters which are of course resolved by
the end. There’s even some improbable
romance provided by the ubiquitous love interest, played by Australian actress,
Rose Byrne.
 | |
| ubiquitous something or other.... |
Unfortunately, despite all the familiar signposts directing you towards
viewing it as a genuine film, The Internship plays as little more than an
overlong advertisement for Google, one of the biggest companies in the world. Did they really need all this
advertising? Was the fallout from their recent
tax evasion scandal, which seems to involve all major western companies, that
bad?
 |
| The Internship |
Still on a negative tip, the timing of the film is totally off, coming some years too late to cash in on the popularity of Vaughn and Wilson’s 2005 hit, The Wedding Crashers, which while not being a classic at least provided some genuine comic entertainment. This is not something I can accurately say about The internship. The script relies heavily on supposedly funny interplay between the two main characters but results in being astoundingly dialogue heavy. The majority of the dialogue being self indulgent references to 1980’s pop culture which far from being amusing, turn the film into a guess the reference quiz.
Even
30 second commercials have plots and okay, The Internship does have one.
Billy
McMahon (Vaughn) and Nick Campbell (Wilson) are embarrassingly laid off from
their jobs as watch salesman when their employer goes out of business.
In
the most realistic scene in the film (which is not saying much), Billy is job
hunting on the internet and in a moment of despair or inspiration, rather than
typing an actual search term, he searches the word Google itself. Yes genius.
This leads to the main action of the film with Billy persuading best mate
Nick to join him at Google for an internship.
At
Google headquarters, Billy and Nick must compete for the prize of a guaranteed
job which Google is offering to the best team.
Of course as, Billy and Nick are so different to everyone else, older and
clearly not smarter, they end up getting shoe horned with a bunch of other
misfits, whom the other high achiever kids have discarded; Stuart the nerdy
unfriendly type, Neha, the nerdy, over-sexualised type and Yo Yo, the nerdy, kept
in check by an over bearing Mother type.
 |
| Wilson & Vaughn (centre) with the misfits |
The younger members of the team are of course initially hostile to Billy and Nick’s lack of ability as well as their ridiculous continuous references to 1980’s popular culture but eventually warm to the pair and work together combining youthful exuberance with jaded worldliness.
Where Google or The
Internship gets it wrong is in the film’s total lack of irony. Google is throughout presented as the
pinnacle of workplace ambition. Their modern
campus looking location with its driverless cars and primary coloured bicycles
is repeatedly referred to as the best place to work in the world with no room
for dissenting voices or any sense of ironic cool which you’d have thought was
more in keeping with the hip image Google presents to the world. That the film shamelessly presents what is
nothing more than a real world opinion as film world fact is more than uncool. And while this is a film, Google has a
problem because surely it can’t be all sweetness and light. Where’s the conflict? So having set itself up as the greatest
workplace on the planet it must then at least chip a little at this lofty
reputation by having characters who work for Google who are not totally
sweetness and light.
For this we have, Aasif
Mandvi who plays Mr Chetty, the head of the internship program who clearly
doubts the chances of the main characters from the start and seems to delight
in saying so. There’s also the
previously mentioned love interest who starts out by having a totally warped
work-life balance and being somewhat haughty towards Wilson’s character, Nick
who is after her. However these two
antagonists provide only temporary dissent and by the end (wont give it away)
serve as nothing more than cheerleaders for the awesomeness of Google, particularly
the Mr Chetty character.
 |
| Temporary dissent from Mr Chetty |
I came to the film knowing all about the accusations of it being an advert for Google, which it is but I was expecting some compensation to come in the form of laughter and entertainment from the usually trusty hands of Vaughn and Wilson. I was sadly disappointed. The best thing I can say about The Internship is that you may learn something about the headquarters and work culture of Google. Also, its’ not in 3D.
------
The Wolverine: Hugh Jackman serves up another slice of Wolverine Action
 |
| The Wolverine. Who else? |
However,
I have to say that I’m not the biggest fan of Wolverine or the X-Men. For a start, there’s too many of them and when
they all pop up in one film, X-Men (2000) or X2 in 2003, the bad guys really
don’t stand much of a chance because each of them has a special power which
seems to fit every crisis. They’re the
Swiss army knife of the superhero genre, a tool for every situation but
something of a recipe for inevitability.
 |
| fan of XPeeps? Me, not so much. |
The best thing I can say about the whole enterprise is how it examines the treatment of outsiders in society. The X-Men are called mutants by the rest of the world and attitudes towards them vary from tolerance to a desire to wipe them out. However, generally most if not all superhero stories go over the outsider theme to some degree.
As
for Wolverine, the star of this latest (sixth) instalment in the X-Men series,
he’s the biggest party pooper of them all.
Apart from being part man, part wolf and being able to release metallic
claws from his knuckles at will, he is practically immortal with a skeleton
made out of the fictional metal adamantium.
This means that most of the time there‘s absolutely no point in picking
a fight with him as any wounds inflicted on him heal in seconds. Also, this the second stand alone X Men film
which focuses on him, following X Men Origins: Wolverine in 2009 and while
we’ve also had an origin film about Professor Xavier and bad guy, Magneto
(X-Men:First Class 2011) there’s not even been one true origin film yet about
other equally compelling X-Men characters such as Storm (Halle Berry), Rogue (Anna
Paquin) or even (male character) whose back stories could also benefit from the
big screen treatment. The answer
probably lies in Wolverine being the fan’s favourite and may have something to
do with the production company of the actor who plays him, Hugh Jackman, being largely responsible for both Wolverine
films.
 |
| Storm: Where's my origin film then? Wolf got two. |
Grumbles aside, in this latest X-Men instalment, Hugh Jackman takes on the title role and while as I’ve said I’m not overly enamoured with the wolf man, I can appreciate the Oscar nominated, serious actor talents of Mr Jackman who in this darker than expected comic book tale seems to be channelling the angst of his character in Les Miserables and combining it with genuine charisma. It’s a good performance and the strongest element of the movie.
The
action in The Wolverine takes place following the traumatic events in X-Men:
The Last Stand (2006) where we saw Wolverine left with no choice but to take
the
life
of the love of his life, Jean Grey because she’d turned a bit bad. We see quite a lot of Jean (Famke Janssen) in
this movie despite her being dead but she’s clearly a device for our hero,
Wolverine to analyse his actions and motives.
I don’t think this is necessary as Jackman is good at communicating his
angst and torment without it having to be spelt out for the audience time and
time again. The scenes with Jean Grey
and Wolverine, while looking sufficiently other worldly add nothing to the
drama except to provide small recaps for anyone who missed the previous film.
The action initially moves between 1945 in a Japanese POW camp near Nagasaki to the present day to show Wolverine’s connection to a Japanese officer named Yashida. Wolverine saves the life of Yashida who, dying of cancer years later seeks out the super hero to repay his life debt. However, Yashida and the rest of his family, including an ambitious politician are not all they seem. The situation is further complicated by Wolverine starting to have feelings for Yashida’s granddaughter, Mariko leading to much angst in the form of visions of his previous love, Jean Grey.
 |
| recap |
The action initially moves between 1945 in a Japanese POW camp near Nagasaki to the present day to show Wolverine’s connection to a Japanese officer named Yashida. Wolverine saves the life of Yashida who, dying of cancer years later seeks out the super hero to repay his life debt. However, Yashida and the rest of his family, including an ambitious politician are not all they seem. The situation is further complicated by Wolverine starting to have feelings for Yashida’s granddaughter, Mariko leading to much angst in the form of visions of his previous love, Jean Grey.
Apart from a superb action packed scene on top of a
bullet train (over 400 kph folks) the ‘no under 12’ rating does tend to
sanitise a lot of the action. So fans of
the martial arts, high kick genre may feel a little short changed by a lot of
the fight sequences where the camera often cuts away from the impact of kicks
and punches. Wolverine is not billed as
a martial arts specialist but as the storyline takes him to Japan it’s an
inevitably martial arts laden film which unfortunately suffers from the reduced
levels of violence its rating allows.
Every Hollywood film seems to be in 3D these days but The Wolverine is actually the first 3D release for one of Twentieth Century Fox’s films based on a Marvel comic. The Wolverine holds its own as a stand-alone X-Men film but I couldn’t help feeling a little under-changed by the end but it had nothing to do with 3D as, I chose to watch the 2D version, following previous disappointments with the technology.
 |
| good scene on top of the train that. |
Every Hollywood film seems to be in 3D these days but The Wolverine is actually the first 3D release for one of Twentieth Century Fox’s films based on a Marvel comic. The Wolverine holds its own as a stand-alone X-Men film but I couldn’t help feeling a little under-changed by the end but it had nothing to do with 3D as, I chose to watch the 2D version, following previous disappointments with the technology.
Despite the film’s solid performance from
Hugh Jackman, I would’ve preferred more action scenes and special effects in
place of the numerous character study scenes of a man who, let’s face it, is
part wolf and immortal by default. No
offence but Wolverine is one of the sillier super hero ideas. There’s only so much of his inner torment I’m
inclined to relate to. More action
please. Jackman reportedly really
prepared for this role, bulking up by eating 6000 calories a day. I would’ve liked to have seen more of the
results of his endeavour.
-----
World War Z: Brad Pitt breathes life into Zombie Genre
 |
| Brad Pitt in World War Z |
Actor Brad Pitt and his production company, Plan B outbid fellow U.S actor Leondardo Di Caprio’s production team for the rights to World War Z, an apocalyptic horror novel by Max Brooks. Little surprise then that Pitt takes the lead role in the film version, playing Gerry Lane, a former United Nations investigator who gets caught up in a global infestation of zombies.
Don’t
arrive late for this movie as the action begins almost immediately. Gerry’s family sit in their car in an inexplicably
heavy traffic jam in Philadelphia which suddenly descends into absolute mayhem
as it’s revealed to them and the audience that zombies are the cause of the
gridlock. The family escape to a UN
sanctuary but at a price, Gerry must leave his family behind as he’s given the
daunting task of finding out what is turning people into zombies. Gerry’s investigation and search for a cure
takes him across several continents and is impeded throughout by the zombies
who not only are prepared to head butt their way through car window glass to
reach their prey, they also move considerably faster than the stereotypical
zombies of, say, George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978), or Michael Jackson’s
Thriller from 1983.
World War Z is a more mainstream and accessible zombie adventure because of this and its distinct lack of flesh eating gore. However this has also drawn criticism from zombie traditionalists. While I’m no fan of what often (to me) seems like gratuitous and prolonged shots of half eaten body parts in these films, the zombie freaks may have a small point. In the absence of flesh eating, what we have here are zombies who are motivated enough to growl like wild animals, leap great heights and smash their heads through glass, all in the name of.......biting you. Fair enough the bite will turn you also into a zombie but it does seem like a lot of trouble to go to, just to bite someone. The whole endeavour could be said to resemble a rather more violent version of tag or ‘it’ but that’s only if you dwell on the idea for too long, which I think some zombie ‘purists’ have, also complaining that the zombies are not real zombies because they’re not ‘undead’ but infected.
 |
| The zombies in World War Z are much faster than these guys. |
World War Z is a more mainstream and accessible zombie adventure because of this and its distinct lack of flesh eating gore. However this has also drawn criticism from zombie traditionalists. While I’m no fan of what often (to me) seems like gratuitous and prolonged shots of half eaten body parts in these films, the zombie freaks may have a small point. In the absence of flesh eating, what we have here are zombies who are motivated enough to growl like wild animals, leap great heights and smash their heads through glass, all in the name of.......biting you. Fair enough the bite will turn you also into a zombie but it does seem like a lot of trouble to go to, just to bite someone. The whole endeavour could be said to resemble a rather more violent version of tag or ‘it’ but that’s only if you dwell on the idea for too long, which I think some zombie ‘purists’ have, also complaining that the zombies are not real zombies because they’re not ‘undead’ but infected.
I
think the fanboys have conveniently forgotten the West African origins of the
entire subject if internet traffic is anything to go by. All film genres change
over time and zombies should be no exception.
Also, some might prefer a pseudo scientific reason for the lack of flesh
eating – they want to spread the disease so mustn’t kill a potential host.
 |
| old skool zombie |
I was pleasantly
surprised by this film because I’ve always been mostly indifferent to the zombie
as film characters because of their ridiculously slow movement and unvarying facial
expression. However, World War Z seems
to be on a mission to revitalize the genre for mainstream audiences. The script clearly aims to emphasise the more
human aspects of the tale with Brad Pitt less out and out zombie slasher and
more intelligent, emotional family man unwittingly thrust into the role of
mankind’s saviour, which he does well but this brings me to my main grievance
with the film.
World
War Z starts out very ambitiously with the idea that the whole of mankind is
under threat from a global zombie pandemic but before long it seems only Brad
Pitt’s character, who isn’t even a doctor or scientist, is the only man capable
of finding a vaccine. Yes, this is
typical of most horror/action type films, no matter how big the initial idea
they do tend to scale down from the universal to the specific eventually. But as
World War Z started with a dramatically impressive and real looking depiction
of the world in danger and the script initially promises something closer to
the real world which includes giant drug companies and corruption, I would’ve
appreciated even a slight variation on the one man as saviour theme.
 |
| Brad Pitt/Saviour |
And while the relatively restrained
violence is refreshing, this results in World War Z being yet another recent
film for which the use of 3D is mostly an afterthought. I would go so far as to argue that 3D is
unnecessary for the realist vision of the apocalyptic fantasy which is
presented throughout and seems to want to stimulate our intellect more than it
wants to scare us.
In
conclusion, despite upsetting many fans of the zombie genre who wanted to see the
eating of human flesh, World War Z is an enjoyable evening’s entertainment. It’s doing well at the box office so of
course the usual talk about a sequel has already begun but as they’ve already
used the last letter of the alphabet in the title of this film, smart money on a prequel entitled World War Y?
------
Despicable Me 2: Extremely Silly but delivers laughs for all the family
Popular
US comedy actor, Steve Carell returns as the lead, reformed mastermind
criminal, Gru with UK comedian Russell Brand and Miranda Cosgrove also
reprising their roles from the first film.
New cast members include Benjamin
Bratt (Miss Congeniality) as villain, Eduardo and UK comic actor, Steve Coogan
as Silas Ramsbottom, the head of the Anti-Villain League.
 |
| Steve Carrell provides the voice for criminal mastermind, Gru |
As
some of the names and cast roles suggest, Despicable Me 2 is far from being a
gritty crime drama rooted in reality.
The plot sees Gru, balancing the demands of parenting three ‘adorable’
young children with saving the world.
Gru is called into action by the Anti-Villain league after the theft of
a mutating chemical compound which transforms living things into indestructible
monsters. This compound is later used on
Gru’s minions to extreme comic effect by villain Eduardo.
A word about these minions for anyone unfamiliar with the world of Despicable Me. Think yellow smurfs with ridiculous French accents crossed with munchkins from the Wizard of Oz but much funnier. So funny in fact that a spin off prequel movie is already planned for December 2014 about how these characters came to be. The film, set in the 1960s, will focus on the Minions before they met Gru, where they compete for the right to become henchmen of an ambitious villain, Scarlet Overkill, voiced by Sandra Bullock (Crash). The minions bring much of the comedy to the film but by the end perhaps the endless striving for laughs may grate on older, more cynical members of the audience (not me). The minion prequel film may prove to be too much of a good thing (looking forward to it nonetheless).
 |
| WTF |
A word about these minions for anyone unfamiliar with the world of Despicable Me. Think yellow smurfs with ridiculous French accents crossed with munchkins from the Wizard of Oz but much funnier. So funny in fact that a spin off prequel movie is already planned for December 2014 about how these characters came to be. The film, set in the 1960s, will focus on the Minions before they met Gru, where they compete for the right to become henchmen of an ambitious villain, Scarlet Overkill, voiced by Sandra Bullock (Crash). The minions bring much of the comedy to the film but by the end perhaps the endless striving for laughs may grate on older, more cynical members of the audience (not me). The minion prequel film may prove to be too much of a good thing (looking forward to it nonetheless).
 |
| What's this about a spin off? |
Anyway,
back to Despicable Me 2, Gru is aided in his attempt to save the world and
thwart Eduardo by special agent Lucy Wilde, voiced by Kristen Wiig. Fans may recognise her voice from the first
film where she played Miss Hattie. Agent
Wilde is clearly introduced as a love interest and the subsequent romance,
although far from original is played out with great charm.
Despicable Me 2
may lack some of the ‘edge’ of the first film due to the reformation of the
main character, Gru. In this film we’re
not being asked to root for an out and out criminal, something which perhaps
some parents watching the first film may have objected to. However both films are so firmly based in
comic fantasy. In Despicable Me, Gru’s
masterplan was an attempt to steal the moon to rival another super villain who
had stolen the Great Pyramid of Giza.
The sequel makes up for any deficiencies in this area with its sustained
comic silliness; Gru’s desire to retire from crime fighting to concentrate on
producing bottled jellies, Gru’s assistant, Dr Nefario confessing that he
misses being ‘evil’ and has been offered employment elsewhere, the ridiculously
silly fake death of the villain and the repeated antics of the minions are just
a few examples.
Despicable
Me 2 goes against the recent trend of unimaginative use of 3D but I suspect
this is more to do with 3D technology being better suited to animation than
live action so I’m not sure how much to praise French directors Pierre Coffin
and Chris Renaud for this. The film is
also boosted by an effective soundtrack which is a mixture of the usual
cinematic pieces to punctuate the action and some hip songs by producer Pharrell
Williams (Drop it like it’s hot, Blurred lines).
All
in all, Despicable Me 2 more than holds its own against other recent animation
films such as Wreck it Ralph and the lukewarm, Epic. I would also go so far as to say that for
originality and comic appeal, it matches previous animation classics such as The
Incredibles and Ratatouille.
I wont give away
the ending but anyone watching this type of film knows it could not be anything
other than ‘upbeat’. I would advise
cinema goers to stick around beyond the credits as the laughs continue courtesy
of musical numbers by the minions who continue to more than justify their
inclusion in the world of Despicable Me. |
| Pharrell Williams provides some of the tunes in Despicable Me2 |
 |
| The minions sing 'I swear' |
White House Down: Best of the recent Die Hard rip-offs
It’s
a shame that White House Down may
lose potential audience due to understandable viewer ‘fatigue’ after another
film has already gone over much the same ground because it’s a considerably
superior rip off of Die Hard than Olympus Has Fallen ever was. Timing is the only main disadvantage White House Down suffers. The film is energetic benefiting from an
above average cast and the action scenes are competently handled, far from the
unending grim and joyless carnage of Olympus
Has Fallen.
The pairing of Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx works remarkably well and both utilise snappy one liners which help to raise the entertainment bar throughout. Less crucially, White House Down suffers from having a less believable president (Foxx) than Olympus Has Fallen (Aaron Eckhart) as the action and afore mentioned chemistry between the leads more than make up for the lack of credibility of the U.S commander in chief.
 |
| Spot the difference? |
The pairing of Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx works remarkably well and both utilise snappy one liners which help to raise the entertainment bar throughout. Less crucially, White House Down suffers from having a less believable president (Foxx) than Olympus Has Fallen (Aaron Eckhart) as the action and afore mentioned chemistry between the leads more than make up for the lack of credibility of the U.S commander in chief.
Before
anyone shouts racism, let me state that black actor Jamie Foxx is a less credible
U.S President than white Aaron Eckhart not because he sounds a bit too
streetwise but because of a ridiculous plot line which involves him wanting to
remove the U.S military from the Middle East as part of a peace plan which he
wants as his legacy and all that. Both
films take the office of President seriously with what look like realistic
portrayals of the paraphernalia of the U.S political and military systems but White House Down has placed its
president slap bang in fantasy land.
Peace plan with the Arabs? Take
on the billion dollar U.S defence industry?
I think all of this is to make the president a likeable politician
although I believe this plot strand was laughably unnecessary. Olympus
Has Fallen managed to make the president a likeable character with a few
family scenes at the beginning.
 |
| fantasy vs reality |
Despite
the film being over two hours along, this is hardly noticeable as the action
rattles along at a frenetic pace and is filled with crowd pleasing one liners
and action set pieces. However there is
a rather over indulgent, over the top scene at the end which I wont spoil. Let’s just say it had something to do with a
flag and a young girl. Objectively I
think the scene is completely ridiculous but caught up in the action with other
cinema goers I felt a little like cheering.
The film has a solid supporting cast, Maggie Gyllenhaal who tends to pop up outside of mainstream Hollywood cinema (The Dark Knight excepted), is sympathetic as the senior secret service official trying to manage the action outside of the action. Joey King excels as the eleven year old daughter of Cale who knows everything about the white house and idolises the president. Despite her good performance I couldn’t help thinking her idolisation of the president was slightly odd. Surely someone her age would be drooling over Justin Bieber or someone else of his ilk. Nicholas Wright is also memorable as the White House tour guide who unwittingly gets called into the action and provides some of the film’s lighter moments.
The
scripted action benefits from witty one liners but ultimately the fight
sequences themselves and the explosions are all much of a muchness in that
there’s nothing here we haven’t seen before.
German director Roland Emmerich is not breaking any new ground in the
special effects department as he again shows us his fetish for destroying the
White House (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow). This might sound a little jaded but surely by
now the shock of seeing the White House in flames or in some other structural
jeopardy is fading fast.
The film has a solid supporting cast, Maggie Gyllenhaal who tends to pop up outside of mainstream Hollywood cinema (The Dark Knight excepted), is sympathetic as the senior secret service official trying to manage the action outside of the action. Joey King excels as the eleven year old daughter of Cale who knows everything about the white house and idolises the president. Despite her good performance I couldn’t help thinking her idolisation of the president was slightly odd. Surely someone her age would be drooling over Justin Bieber or someone else of his ilk. Nicholas Wright is also memorable as the White House tour guide who unwittingly gets called into the action and provides some of the film’s lighter moments.
 |
| comic relief or Nicholas Wright |
The
action in White House Down follows
the usual action movie clichés save for one scene with the President in
trainers which I wont spoil by elaborating on.
That scene and many others are lifted above the mundane by the charisma
of Foxx and Tatum and this is what ultimately makes this film a superior rip
off of Die Hard than Olympus has Fallen. And finally in the interests of fairness, there
is a scene with the president of the U.S.A wielding a rocket launcher and you
don’t see that every day I suppose.
 |
| possible military options in Syria.... |
------
Man of Steel suffers Identity Crisis
 |
| old school superman |
Man of Steel goes over similar ground as 1978’s Superman but this time Daily Planet reporter, Lois Lane is aware of the true identity of the super hero. This dispenses of the need (ridiculous or otherwise) for Clark Kent to keep explaining his sudden disappearances every time Superman is needed in an emergency. Also, there’s no appearance of Superman’s arch nemesis, Lex Luthor, unless you count a tanker with the logo, ‘LexCorp’ on it. This appears near the end of the movie and hints that if the evil billionaire does have a place in the world of the new Superman, perhaps it’ll be in the sequel.
The
absence of Luthor removes a familiar dramatic element of the franchise. Luthor was often portrayed as the classic
opposite to Superman. The villain we
have in his place is General Zod. Older
types may recall a superlative performance by Terence Stamp in Superman II. The updated General Zod
(Michael Shannon) is bent on restoring the glory of his and Superman’s dead
home planet, Krypton which sounds rather like a noble aim but he wants to do
this at the expense of planet Earth. While
I have a nostalgic preference for Terence Stamp over Michael Shannon, the Zod
of 2013 is less comic book villain and more sympathetic as we understand his
clear motives about saving the Kryptonian race rather than just wanting to rule
the world. Zod’s line about being
haunted every day by an early action he does in the film (I wont give it away)
rounds this off nicely.
 |
| a better General Zod? |
Another change to the franchise which die hard Superman fans may or may not appreciate is the new suit. Which brings me to part two of this review which is for the rest us who care/know little about a man who flies around with bright red underpants over blue tights with matching red boots. In all honesty, a makeover of the suit was long overdue.
The
suit is the one real area where the film makers have really made their mark on
the franchise because much of the film suffers from an acute identity crisis. Early scenes on planet Krypton resemble dark
fantasy worlds such as those seen in Lord of the Rings, with characters riding
around on pseudo pre-historic beasts.
Then there’s later scenes which resemble television episodes of Star Trek and see Lois Lane in outer
space helping Superman escape from General Zod’s space ship. Don’t get me started on the final battle
scenes which could have been lifted straight out of Transformers or Independence
Day. These scenes in particular
expose a lack of creative restraint from the guys in the special effects
department. I believe Superman always
worked better when given ample time to focus on the anxieties of the man and
not on all the building crushing and pavement cracking – the ‘super’ part of
him can do. I’m also sad to report that
Man of Steel is yet another film which suffers from the annoying recent
Hollywood trend of extremely mundane and unimaginative use of 3D.
With
further regard to the film’s lack of identity, Henry Cavill is a very muscular
Superman and while I’m of course not complaining about that, in some early
scenes where he attends to an oil rig explosion with bared chest and ripped
trousers I briefly wondered if I was watching The Incredible Hulk.
However,
although I feel the lack of any romantic or dramatic tension between Lois and
Clark Kent is a weakness, Man of Steel
trumps previous Superman films with a more emotionally engaging portrayal of
the young Clark Kent. His early
childhood scenes are more effecting and have more impact as we’re asked to
imagine what it would be like for a young boy to experience super senses
without knowing what they are. Kevin
Costner is cast well as Clark’s Dad on Earth, helping the boy become a man.
 |
| ...no wonder they needed another reboot..... |
 |
| before mashup with batman, superman creators try out Incredible Hulk combo |
I
suspect Russell Crowe was cast as Superman’s biological Father, Jor-El for
similar reasons – to add some much needed gravitas to the dizzying haze of CGI
(computer generated imagery) on display.
However, having seen Marlon Brandon superbly setting the scene in his
brief outing as Jor-El in the first Superman film, Crowe fails to live up to
this high standard. This is not entirely
his fault. While the script is adequate,
Man of Steel suffers from Hans
Zimmer’s bland and unmemorable soundtrack which is an accusation you could
never level at the earlier films which were scored by John Williams (Star Wars,
Jaws, E.T).
As
for the superhero himself, Henry Cavill is attractively muscular but lacks the
attending sense of ironic charisma which anyone going by the name of ‘Superman’
ought to have. Christopher Reeve was
perfect at this. This may be because of
an attempt to make Superman less of a comic book hero and given him a wider
range of angst which modern audiences may appreciate more. I don’t believe this totally works. However, it’s early days. Perhaps if given another chance unlike
Brandon Routh (Superman Returns),
Cavill will grow more into the role – emotionally, not physically of course.
 |
| there's only one Jor-El, Marlon Brando |
Overall,
Man of Steel is diverting enough and
even entertaining in patches. While not
totally living up to all its hype (part of its promotion was a mock alien
broadcast signal during the MTV awards for goodness sake), enough groundwork
has been laid for a better sequel. Enter
Lex Luthor perhaps......
----
Star Trek: Into Darkness:Illuminating yet Underwhelming
In this latest
instalment, Chris Pine reprises his role as Captain Kirk, with Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana and Leonard Nimoy also returning from the previous film. British
actor, Benedict Cumberbatch is introduced as the villainous
Khan. This latter casting caused some
disquiet among the Sikh community who complained that a white British actor in
the role was a white washing of Khan. In
the 1980’s film, Star trek, The Wrath of
Khan, the villain was played by the late popular Mexican actor, Ricardo
Montablan. Some may remember Montablan
from t.v soap, Dynasty where he
played suave tycoon, Zachary Powers (those were the days).
The name
‘Khan’ does suggest a non-white heritage and so perhaps the film makers succumbed
to political correctness especially with one of the producers, Bob Orci saying
they did not want to ‘demonize anyone of colour.’ If in
doubt, cast a white guy as the villain.
I have sympathy with the film makers as there’s a clear theme in this
film - ‘the enemy is closer to home’ idea which is a popular alternative to the
villain being any nationality other than American.
 |
| the original Khan |
Ironically,
Benedict Cumberbatch is the best thing about the film, with an understated yet
chilling turn as the villain. Cumberbatch, who some may know as Dr Who, casually acts everyone off the
screen in every scene he appears in. It also helps that he has a voice straight out
of the stuff of nightmares. Another
critic, Jonathan Romney describing it as 'Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart and Alan Rickman holding an elocution contest down a well.’
The plot follows thus. Captain Kirk is demoted after he covers up his actions in an official report of an incident where he saves the life of his friend and first officer, Mr Spock but in doing so, fails to follow a prime directive of Starfleet regulations. However, after a Starfleet archive in London is bombed, Kirk is reinstated as the Enterprise's captain and receives orders to hunt down Harrison. But is Harrison really the enemy or does the threat lie closer to home?
 |
| Patrick Stewart+ Alan Rickman +Ian Mckellen = Benedict Cumberbatch,voice-wise |
The plot follows thus. Captain Kirk is demoted after he covers up his actions in an official report of an incident where he saves the life of his friend and first officer, Mr Spock but in doing so, fails to follow a prime directive of Starfleet regulations. However, after a Starfleet archive in London is bombed, Kirk is reinstated as the Enterprise's captain and receives orders to hunt down Harrison. But is Harrison really the enemy or does the threat lie closer to home?
On the film review show,
the crew were unanimous in agreeing that Star trek Into Darkness is
entertaining and can hold its head up with previous Star Trek incarnations but
there are a few sticking points. The
extremely one-sided romance between Uhura and Mr Spock feels a little contrived
and is also a departure from the ‘heat’ between Uhura and Captain Kirk in the past. The kiss between Uhura and Captain Kirk in
the original television series was shocking for a 1960s American audience, also
in the thick of the civil rights movement.
So for modern day film makers to use her character as a device to bring
out Mr Spock’s more human side feels disappointing. Especially as the tv show and some of the
films, including this one, gave Mr Spock many opportunities to show that he’s
not the cold, pure logic lovin’ Vulcan he appears to be. He cries in this film, for goodness
sake!
Glad I got that off my
chest, on to other matters. For a big
budget ($190 million) movie, the action scenes are somewhat predictable and underwhelming
with too many scenes showing the crew in fake jeopardy where of course only the
unnamed extras get killed. This
phenomena of which Star Trek is not the only Hollywood franchise to be guilty
of, inspired the film crew to create Chitundu Museresere Chidhuura and we’ll be following their
adventures on the radio film review show from time to time. We had no choice really, many aspects of the
Star Trek franchise are ripe for parody.
Somebody even asked if we’d speeded up the 1960’s theme tune music which
we used in the short clip but of course we hadn’t. It really was that fast and ridiculous
sounding.
 |
| Uhura and Cpt Kirk, shocking for 60's tv audience |
Star Trek was always
really about the ‘bro-mance’ between Kirk and Spock and Into Darkness
doesn’t disappoint in this regard. There
are some genuinely touching scenes between the two as Spock continues his never
ending struggle between pure logic and gut feeling, although as I said earlier
this is a little overdone. We know he’s
all human at heart. Chris Pine does well
as Captain Kirk, with a better performance here than in his first outing,
2009’s Star Trek. Although I
believe that was a better film, Pine appeared to be finding his feet. In his second attempt as the Captain his
character appears more concrete, more consistent.
Ultimately, Into
Darkness lacks genuine surprise – there’s nothing here we haven’t seen
before, both visually and script-wise. The
‘shocking’ revelation of an additional villain in the film (whom I wont reveal
here) is not so shocking as it’s signposted quite blatantly about thirty
minutes in. The sacrifice Kirk makes
near the end, Spock did the same in The Wrath of Khan and with the exact same
outcome!
Finally, while
entertaining and diverting enough, Star Trek Into Darkness feels more
like the further adventures of Kirk and Spock rather than bringing anything new
to the franchise.
------
 |
| Kirk's sacrifice |
------
After Earth: Father and Son battle metaphorical enemy
After Earth stars the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, better known as Will Smith and Jaden Smith, better known as Will Smith’s son. After Earth is a science fiction adventure drama directed by M. Night Shyamalan, well known for classic films like Unbreakable and Sixth Sense.
After Earth is about a military Father and Son
duo crash landing on Earth, one thousand years after cataclysmic events forced humanity to abandon
it for a new home planet. The teenage son must save his dying father by
trekking alone across the hostile terrain, encountering highly evolved
creatures and a ruthless alien beast along the way, to recover their rescue
beacon and also prove that he can live up to his father's reputation as a
legendary soldier.
Will
Smith, the Father in real life and on the screen plays a character completely
stoic, free from humour or the usual everyman charm which Smith has brought to
previous role. While Smith is perfectly competent acting as a rigid, blank
slate of a man, I do not believe he is the best actor for such a role. During the film I had moments, wishing an
older, more statesman–like actor such as Denzil Washington had taken the
reins. But then as Tinashe Kusema
pointed out on the film review show, After
Earth has an additional sub plot of Father handing the baton on to his son
both in real life and on screen.
However, this neat equation doesn’t entirely work and not only for the
reason I stated earlier with the elder Smith.
Jaden Smith, the younger doesn’t totally live up to the billing of lead
hero which is a shame because he provides the film with all of its action
scenes. Here the Star FM film crew
differed in opinion, slightly. Kudzi and
Tinashe cruelly suggesting that Jaden Smith would be better in the light
entertainment world of the Disney Club.
I can see their point, I just think maybe this isn’t the right role for
him, but then neither was the Karate Kid.
The film has had mostly negative reviews from critics who compare its plot to Scientology-related flop, Battlefield Earth. While that John Travolta monstrosity was patently designed as a promo for the L.Ron.Hubbard cult, representatives of Scientology have so far distanced themselves from After Earth with The Church of Scientology International branding the Scientology claims as "silly nonsense". The church's director of public affairs also said "The film and its story line contain themes common to many of the world's philosophies, not unique to Scientology."
As
mentioned before, this film is mostly a vehicle for Smith and son, so
unfortunately the supporting characters do not get much of a look in. Sophie Okonedo, whom some may remember from
2004’s Hotel Rwanda, doesn’t have
much to do other than briefly look and sound like a caring, concerned
Mother. She even has a rather clichéd ‘
the boy needs his Father’ speech.
Alongside her, Zoe Kravitz (daughter of musician Lenny Kravitz) features only in flashback scenes as the
brutally slain daughter. For a very
short while, the film can’t decide whether to maintain the mystery about the
absent daughter, then suddenly it’s revealed in what I think is an
unnecessarily graphic way. The mystery
was fine – it was fairly obvious the daughter had died.
 |
| Jaden Smith responds to suggestions he should stick to Disney Club |
The film has had mostly negative reviews from critics who compare its plot to Scientology-related flop, Battlefield Earth. While that John Travolta monstrosity was patently designed as a promo for the L.Ron.Hubbard cult, representatives of Scientology have so far distanced themselves from After Earth with The Church of Scientology International branding the Scientology claims as "silly nonsense". The church's director of public affairs also said "The film and its story line contain themes common to many of the world's philosophies, not unique to Scientology."
 |
| Battlefield Earth similar to After Earth? Well they both have the word Earth in the title so...... |
Once
the film settles into a plot where the stricken Father is guiding his son through
the rough terrain, the audience is somewhat short changed by the main monster
which had been bigged up throughout. The
human drama between Father and Son reaches a climatic point where I would argue
we don’t actually even need to see the alien as the suspense around its
‘arrival’ is handled in a rather mundane, matter of fact way. When we do see it, unfortunately it’s not a
patch on the monster in the Alien franchise
which was last seen over fifteen years ago.
Some
Hollywood reports have suggested that this is an additional nail in the coffin
of director M.Night Shyamalan’s career. He’s followed up the critical and commercial
success of Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense with disappointing films
like Signs and The Happening. Hmnn, I
don’t know. Mr Shyamalan is still young
and I think Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense are extremely tough to
repeat. Most directors would be happy to
have even one of those films on their CV.
Ultimately,
After Earth works well as a human
drama about a Father and Son bonding whilst in jeopardy. There are two especially moving scenes in the
film which I wont give away here; but briefly to say, one involves an eagle and
the other is linked to an amputee. The
film short changes us in the science fiction and action department. You hear elder Smith say a line like
‘Everything here has evolved to destroy humans...’ but the action on screen
doesn’t follow through on that pronouncement.
 |
| After Unbreakable, director M.Night Shyamalan can be forgiven anything |
The
visuals are rather underwhelming despite the announcement that the film was the
first to be shot and presented in 4K
(whatever that is – Kudzi will explain on next week’s show). Despite this and the science fiction bypass, some
younger audience members may like to find out whether it’s possible to get a
colour changing jumpsuit like the one Jaden Smith wears in the film.
Something
tells me there was an original better film on paper before perhaps a studio
exec said ‘It needs more action’.
------
Gringo Troublemaker: First Winner of Tinashe’s Local Film Challenge
A few months ago, new
Star FM film crew member (as he was then), Tinashe Kusema challenged me to find
a local film worthy of review on his Sunday Mail film review column. I believe Gringo
Troublemaker is such a film.
But first you may ask,
why such a challenge? Why no similar
treatment for Hollywood or films from other countries? The answer is simple but
not a little sad really. Our local
industry continually struggles to give us output worthy of the title,
‘industry’. Sometimes when you sit down
in front of your DVD player or computer and insert your newly purchased $1
‘blockbuster’ you wonder exactly where the future of Zimbabwe film making
lies.
Our industry needs less half baked productions and more fully realised feature films.
Which brings me to Gringo Troublemaker, a feature film
based on the popular television series of yesteryear.
 |
| Gringo, classic Zim comedy of yesteryear |
The plot sees John, a young go-getter enlisting the services of a traditional healer in a bid to get rich, against the wishes of his girlfriend Mary. John’s life is changed dramatically when he accidently crosses paths with Gringo. In a slapstick comedy of errors, John somehow ends up in possession of a large amount of money which belongs to Gringo’s boss. With all this unexpected ‘miracle money’ John’s faith in the traditional healer grows tenfold but Mary causes problems when she accidentally destroys the juju/medicine. The two protagonists, Gringo and John spend the rest of the film trying to right these misfortunes to humorous effect.
Our censors have given Gringo Troublemaker a ‘no under 16 certificate’ and yet there is
much in this film for a family to enjoy.
The ‘famous’ scene where Gringo puts a mobile phone in the pants of his
sleeping boss (which according to the director may have got the film its
contentious rating) is to my mind more silly than inappropriate for
youngsters. And this brings me to the
main problem I had with the film. The
tone is sometimes uneven, not always hitting the right note between comedy and
drama.
The style of editing
didn’t help in this regard. The film is
shot like a drama which lets down the comic scenes; more character close ups
would’ve helped induce more laughter. I
also don’t believe the film needed to be close to two hours long. The cinematography is adequate although
largely unimaginative; while there are no distracting poor lighting issues in
the outdoor scenes, the interior scenes particularly Gringo’s bedroom suffer
from an un-engaging set design.
The soundtrack came as a
pleasant surprise as I had steeled myself for inaudible dialogue or
inexplicable contrasts in sound levels from scene to scene. Gringo
Troublemaker suffers no such defects and in addition, the attention the
film makers have given to this often neglected area is apparent with songs
written for the film.
The contrast between
Gringo’s fate and that of the male lead, John is unsatisfactory although I
admire the film’s point about the folly of get rich quick schemes. Also, I’m not sure an older Gringo works as
an out and out mischief maker character and there seems to be more fun to be
had from watching the misfortunes of the ‘straight’ character, John, rather
than the endlessly irresponsible Gringo chasing laughs. For those unfamiliar with the television
series, there is not enough set up of Gringo’s domestic situation, particularly
his boss, Gweshegweshe. Why on earth
would Gringo be entrusted with so much money if he has a reputation for such
mischief making? Scenes with Gweshegweshe awaiting a debtor and insisting
Gringo ‘is coming’ with the money stretched credibility a little too far. Usually these type of films have more back
story or character development which enable an audience to ‘understand’ the
stupidity or gullibility of ‘long suffering’ characters.
Having said that,
Blessing Chimhowa is excellent as Gringo’s dim witted sidekick, Mbudziyadhura stealing many of the film’s funny
moments. There is also an excellent
performance from Tapiwa Mavindidze, who commands the screen as the young
materialistic John. I would’ve liked to
have seen more of the housemaid, Chipo,
because as a blank slate type of character, completely sober in the face
of Gringo and Mbudziyadhura’s antics,
I’m sure more humour could’ve come from this source.
Gringo Troublemaker has a
coherent, fully realised storyline with no distracting, poor sound quality
issues to pull you out of the drama.
This, combined with several laugh out loud moments and strong
performances from the main characters make it more than adequate for an
evening’s entertainment.
No comments:
Post a Comment