Jaume Collet-Serra | 113 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | Canada, France, Germany, Japan, UK & USA / English | 12 / PG-13
Following the surprise success of Taken, Liam Neeson again finds himself in action man mode as an American caught up in a Europe-set thriller. This time he’s some kind of scientist travelling to a conference with his wife, when he’s caught in a car accident. Managing to return to the hotel, he finds his wife doesn’t know him and there’s someone else who says they are him…
As premises go it’s an intriguing one; the kind of thing that gets you on board and you have no idea how they might satisfactorily resolve. That makes a change when most films, especially thriller and action movies, play out a string of interchangeable but familiar beats. In the film’s special features, producer Leonard Goldberg talks about how, having made thrillers his whole life, when he starts reading or watching them he can usually figure it all out early on, but the novel on which Unknown is based managed to surprise him. Thinking if it could surprise him it might surprise others too, he snapped up the rights, and I must say I think he was right. Additional kudos to the distributors for keeping any hint of those twists out of the marketing — a rare feat these days. (Well, if they were there, I didn’t pick up on them.)
That said, it’s all a bit implausible, but I suppose no worse than many other entries in the action-thriller genre. It’s only the fairly realistic setup that throws you off the scent — if you were aware of developments from the post-twist third act, and therefore the tone that pitches, the whole thing would be more acceptable from the outset. I’ve seen other reviews and viewer comments criticise this ending, but personally I thought that was when it got good, kicking into a higher gear and retrospectively making the iffy earlier bits make a lot more sense. Plus it’s where you’ll find some of what the film does best: Frank Langella turning up briefly for one great scene with YouTube’s 
Hitler (aka Bruno Ganz) and a cool exit; a really good car chase; and a couple of solid punch-ups, including a particularly good one at the climax.
This variability left me torn as to rating — and, more importantly, what that rating is used as a signifier for: an overall impression of the film. I was thinking 3 for most of it — a passable if occasionally plodding identity thriller with a mite too much coincidence and believability-stretching. But the impressively and pleasurably unforeseen twist casts the entire movie in a new light, and for the enjoyment that gave I’m tempted up towards a 4. In the end, maybe the answer lies in your view of how to judge a movie’s quality: is it how you felt towards it as it played out, or is it looking back at the totality of the experience afterwards? Both are valid approaches, and in the majority of films would probably result in the same opinion. But some films have a changes-everything-you’ve-seen twist, and by changing everything you’ve seen it might change your opinion; it would certainly change your experience on any subsequent viewings. Unknown certainly has one of those twists.
The other way, the way that makes all criticism an art rather than a science, is in how you feel. While I was unconvinced for much of the running time, the surprises turned Unknown into a flawed but enjoyable film that has appeal to any fan of a good thriller. That might merit an extra star; stick with it and you might even agree; but thinking back on it a while later, the earlier parts overshadow things. Maybe a second viewing would change my opinion, but for now it feels like 3.
The Other Guys sounded like a great concept; so great I overlooked the fact it’s from the director of the massively over-rated 
Everyone loves The Rock and Jackson; no one likes Ferrell and Wahlberg; and they’re not assigned the case, they stumble upon it. Wouldn’t it have been more fun if everyone actually hated The Big Damn Heroes who make it hard for the regular guys to do their job? If a pair of normal detectives were assigned The Big Case and had to prove themselves worthy? Maybe even put the Super Pair in the shade, rather than killing them off in the first act?
A venture into the increasingly-popular CG family film market from Universal, Despicable Me is about a supervillain who comes to question his evil ways. It was released the same year as the similarly-themed 
The film’s country is officially listed as USA because it’s made with American money, but it feels more like a French production (albeit dubbed with US voices). Look at those directors’ names (though only Coffin is French — Renaud is actually American); it was made entirely in a French studio (Mac Guff in Paris); and it has a kind of feel that doesn’t seem like it came from a US studio. So while technically, yes, it’s American, I don’t think the French side should be wholly ignored. I’m not saying it makes it bad, but perhaps it lessens the apparent superhero feel — that’s a very American genre, after all.
From the co-director of 
There’s a starry voice cast behind the characters, and fortunately they never overwhelm their roles. Which is good, because I’m not really a fan of Will Ferrell and he’s the lead. There’s also the likes of Brad Pitt, Tina Fey, Jonah Hill and Ben Stiller rounding out proceedings — not that it matters because, as I say, the voices fit their roles seamlessly.
Despite that aim, these aren’t glaring holes that desperately need a fix. Rather they’re join-the-dots enterprises; the thing most people won’t have noticed at all, that fans may have wondered about, that it’s more fun to connect up than strictly necessary. It makes this piece resolutely fan-only — while it’s quite good, it’s more admin than a story in its own right, showing how various films connect together in the lead-up to 
It’s a standalone piece, and though it’s brief (under three minutes before the credits role), it still manages to add quite a lot to the character of Agent Coulson, who in the main films to this point has been a minor (albeit increasingly major) supporting role. I suppose it’s fitting that Clark Gregg has been the star of these connecting shorts, as he’s one of the main links across the films (he appears in 
Prequels are far from a new concept (there are examples in ancient Greek literature; the OED dates the first use in print to 1958, though I swear I’ve heard mention of it being used even earlier), but in the past ten years or so they really seem to have come to prevalence in the movies. Perhaps we can trace this phenomenon back to 
The screenwriters in question, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver (also producers), are due a lot of thanks for the quality of the final product. The story — about the son of a lab-tested chimpanzee, raised at home by a US scientist, who ultimately turns on humanity — was inspired by news stories of pet chimps attacking their owners, plus research into genetic modification. By taking these themes and issues and running with them, Jaffa and Silver have crafted a blockbuster that is both plausible and intelligent — a rare thing these days.
As with many prequels, the story itself may seem needless: we know where it ends up, and as various balls are put in play we can see their ultimate destination. But the important thing is that you can’t always see their trajectory, and as someone famous once said, sometimes the pleasure’s in the journey not the destination. Here we become invested in the characters, so we care about what will happen to them in the broader sweep of the Apes story, not to mention the intricacies of how things go from the opening status quo to the conclusion. Plus, with a prequel set so far before the original as this one is, one can always ponder the question of just how far they’ll go in this story (it doesn’t connect up to the start of Planet of the Apes, for instance).
The rest of the cast are adequate but hardly register. James Franco is a solid lead but rarely called on to do much — Caesar is the protagonist, Franco’s human scientist just facilitates that. Frieda Pinto’s role is underwritten. Considering the film barely hits 100 minutes in an era when many blockbusters bloat to 140+, there’s room for her character to get a subplot objecting to the lab treatment of the apes. She’s awfully accepting of Franco’s line of work. As I noted though, perhaps they were trying to avoid being heavy-handed. Overall, John Lithgow is served best, his character slipping in and out of Alzheimer’s as Franco tries to develop a cure. It’s another in a line of recent fine supporting performances from him.
but there’s unquestionably still more that could come. There’s the newly intelligent apes, not yet ruling the planet; but also a mid-credit sequence that continues a significant subplot that’s clearly left hanging, closing the movie with a slight Part One-y tang. Still, I believe that if there wasn’t a sequel coming it would function satisfyingly as a standalone film.
As seems to be the case fairly often these days (I feel like I’m noting it in more and more reviews, anyway) there’s a host of famous cameos and recognisable faces. This time I won’t ruin it by listing them, but there’s a regular stream to look out for.
Tony Scott teams up with Denzel Washington for the fifth time to tell the (kinda) true story of a runaway train with the potential to cause massive destruction.
are as stock as they come. Also look out for Kevin Dunn playing the kind of role (condescending middle-management ‘bad guy’) he always plays.
Pixar have always attached original short films to their feature releases. As part of what seems to be their increasing franchisation, however, they’re not always wholly original now: Hawaiian Vacation was the short attached to 
Hawaiian Vacation doesn’t exactly allay these fears — its very existence is proof of that — but at least it’s an entertaining piece in its own right. It succeeds partly by not overreaching itself — this isn’t Toy Story 4 and it doesn’t try to be. It reminds us of the characters and gives them each a story beat, while remaining funny, entertaining and sweet, all in under six minutes. Cars 2 can’t manage that in 106.
100Films.co.uk 