Knight and Day (2010)

Posted on October 17, 2012 by badblokebob

2010 #16
James Mangold | 105 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

James Mangold is one of those filmmakers with a thoroughly eclectic CV, taking in crime thriller Cop Land, psych-ward drama Girl, Interrupted, fantasy rom-com Kate & Leopold, killer thriller Identity, Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line, Western remake 3:10 to Yuma, and is currently calling the shots on superhero sequel/prequel The Wolverine. Here he does something different again: the comedic action movie; the ever-growing subgenre we seem to have seen a lot of lately, with films like Shoot ‘Em Up, The A-Team and RED.

That’s the kind of film Knight and Day was advertised as — spy-action-movie spoofery — and it should therefore come as no surprise that that’s the kind of film it is. There are no big surprises in the plot or characters, but because it’s a comedy it can push the action sequences in ways that are too silly for a regular Tom Cruise kinda film, and I think that also allows us to forgive the fairly standard plot. Plenty of reviews and online commenters have expressed disappointment with the film, perhaps expecting something else — sometimes it pays to listen to the advertising, eh?

As a quick note, I watched the theatrical version but there’s an extended one too (that’s what comes of taking something from Sky Movies instead of a rental Blu-ray). It offers a couple of extra character scenes for Cameron Diaz and a few more beats in the action scenes. Essential? I shouldn’t think so, but it looks like some fun stuff if you have the choice. The total difference is around seven minutes.

Knight and Day is nothing deep or revelatory or groundbreaking, but if you were expecting it to be then more fool you. If you can’t abide Cruise or Diaz (and I know some people really can’t) then it should certainly be avoided, but those caveats aside I thought it was good fun. No classic, and far from destined to be a standout on Mangold’s multi-Oscar-winning filmography, but an appropriately entertaining couple of hours.

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

Posted on October 12, 2012 by badblokebob

Gnomeo & Juliet is the latest British attempt to crack the lucrative CGI animated kids’ movie market, after the lack of success (or, alternatively, failure) from the likes of Flushed Away and that one about the carrier pigeon whose name escapes me (after a quick IMDBing, it’s Valiant). Finally, this one seems to have been more of a success… perhaps because it was backed by Elton John, released by Disney (under Touchstone), and helmed by the co-director of Shrek 2.

The obvious high-concept — Romeo and Juliet, with gnomes! — is the kind of thing that will tickle you or set you screaming with rage (or possibly just tutting with contempt). If the latter, your mileage will vary on how charming it is to win you over; if the former, “tickled” is about the level the film operates at. It pulls off a couple of nice jokes, mainly around the fact it stars garden gnomes, and it plays with your expectations towards the end, but it’s pretty forgettable — I know there were some bits that made me chuckle, but I can’t actually remember any of them now. It’s also stuffed with recognisable British voices, making it quite fun for anyone who (like me) likes to play Spot The Famous Voice.

My only other note is that it ends with a truly awful cover of Crocodile Rock by Nelly Furtado. A storyboarded “all’s well that ends well” ending (included on the BD, and the DVD for all I know) looks much better.

Gnomeo & Juliet is more amiable than its “oh, you didn’t” title might suggest, but that’s about all. Shakespeare certainly has nothing to worry about.

The Other Guys (2010)

Posted on September 30, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #26
Adam McKay | 103 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

The Other Guys sounded like a great concept; so great I overlooked the fact it’s from the director of the massively over-rated Anchorman (as well as Talladega Nights and Step Brothers, which I’ve avoided because they look at least as bad) and stars the similarly over-rated Will Ferrell and variable-but-often-bad Mark Wahlberg. Turns out I should’ve paid attention to form: The Other Guys is pretty rubbish.

I don’t really know that there’s much point criticising it, because if you like this kind of film I have no idea if this one is good or not (as noted, Anchorman is apparently the pinnacle of modern US film comedy and I didn’t enjoy it), and if you don’t then — as I said — this one doesn’t transcend that.

The only point I have to make is what a shame that is, because the concept’s a fun one. The Rock and Samuel L. Jackson play a pair of cops who are, essentially, action heroes: they have dramatic explosive car chases along the streets of NYC, catch all the bad guys, and so on and so forth. But this is about The Other Guys — the regular cops who have to go about their regular business around them. And when the action heroes are killed, a pair of those Other Guys have to step up to solve their last case.

Except that’s not quite how the film pans out. It doesn’t trade on the idea of the Amazing Cops vs the Regular Guys enough, and that’s where the humour lies for me. 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?

What we actually get is not entirely without merit. There are funny moments and occasions when it plays decently with the premise. It’s quite a chore to get through though, so it almost amazes me that there’s also a longer unrated version. More? Oh dear. It’s overlong as it is. One reason to stick with it is that the best bit is the end credits, which are loaded with fun-ly-presented facts about the financial crisis. On the one hand it’s all depressing and/or angering, on the other it’s good to inform people, and one suspects the regular audience for this kind of comedy are not the kind of people who stay abreast of financial news.

A disappointing waste of a concept, then, but I’m sure some people loved it.

Supervillain Showdown!

Posted on September 19, 2012 by badblokebob

vs.

2010 saw the release of two apparently-similar animated films, both dealing with the superhero genre from the perspective of the supervillain. As it turns out only one really does that (Despicable Me features a supervillain, but not in a world of superheroes), but still, it seems a reasonable point of comparison.

I watched them back-to-back back in March, which wasn’t necessarily a revealing exercise but certainly made for a direct comparison. I’ve made some points about that within the reviews themselves, so I shan’t say more here. As ever, click through to read my thoughts:

After that, it should be pretty clear who I think the winner is.

Despicable Me (2010)

Posted on September 19, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #34
Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud | 91 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | USA / English | U / PG

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 Megamind from Dreamworks. It cost nearly half as much ($69m vs $130m) but made nearly $100m more worldwide. It’s getting a sequel; Megamind isn’t. All of which is a shame, because I really don’t think it’s as good.

The thing is, Megamind embraces its genre: it’s a superhero movie, playing on familiar tropes and stories from that incredibly popular genre. Despicable Me is an animated comedy about family and responsibility and that kind of thing, which happens to feature a supervillain as its hero. It’s very cartoony, it’s kind of silly; that can work, and some of it does here, but it doesn’t pay off the concept in the way Megamind does, for me. It has good bits, rather than being a good whole.

And there are plenty of bits that flat-out don’t work. There are three little girls, all of them stereotypes, but the “cute littlest one” feels like a direct rip from Monsters, Inc.; there are scenes during the end credits which are blatant 3D exploitation, which makes them a tad irritating in 2D; the action-sequence climax somehow doesn’t feel earned, unlike it does in other comedies like Hot Fuzz, Super, or even Megamind.

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.

Despicable Me seems to have come out as a surprise hit. I imagine no one saw it coming because it wasn’t from Pixar or Dreamworks, and perhaps that sort of inverse-hype led to good word of mouth that led to good box office. Personally, I didn’t care for it.

Megamind (2010)

Posted on September 19, 2012 by badblokebob

From the co-director of Madagascar, Madagascar 2 and Madagascar 3 comes this superhero spoof that had the misfortune of arriving in cinemas two months after the broadly-similarly-themed and well-received Despicable Me, and suffered because of it: while Universal’s CG ‘toon foray earnt over $250m on a budget under $70m, Dreamworks’ Megamind could only rake in $164m, a smidgen (in movie terms) over its $130m cost. Which is a shame, because I found it to be the more entertaining film.

I’ve detailed my dis-love for Despicable Me separately so don’t want to get too far drawn into that again, but it’s a superhero movie in very broad terms only. Which is fine as it goes, but fails to deliver on what I felt was a selling point. Maybe that’s why a general audience bought it more. Megamind, conversely, is absolutely steeped in its genre. It is, essentially, Superman if Superman lost. I wouldn’t say an understanding of the Superman mythology is essential to getting Megamind (and even if it is, having seen one of the film or TV incarnations will have you covered), but it adds something.

Another inevitable point of comparison is Pixar’s The Incredibles, one of their best films, and it’s fair to say Dreamworks’ answer isn’t that good. On the bright side it does offer something different, riffing on a different area of the superhero universe (the sole protector rather than the team) and taking the villain’s side. It arguably plays as a companion piece rather than a rival.

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.

Megamind seems to have gotten lost in the never-ending roll of CG cartoons that fill multiplexes now, buried beneath the success of Megamind and Dreamworks’ own extra-sized franchises (they’re aiming for “at least” three How To Train Your Dragons, four Madagascars, and six Kung Fu Pandas, for crying out loud). While I wouldn’t argue it’s a classic, and perhaps it’s as well suited to superhero fans as it is to the ostensible kiddy audience (not that it’s not right for them too), it merits more attention than it got.

Marvel One-Shots

Posted on September 12, 2012 by badblokebob

With Marvel Avengers Assemble out on DVD and Blu-ray in the UK next Monday, and Marvel’s The Avengers* out on DVD and Blu-ray in the US a week later on Tuesday 25th**, now seemed as good a time as any to post reviews of the first two Marvel One-Shots.

For those who don’t know, these are short films included on the home ent releases of their big movies, which take place within the same interconnected movie universe. The longest and most significant to date is Item 47, which premiered at this year’s San Diego Comic-Con and is on the DVD/BD of The Avengers. These two come from Thor and Captain America respectively.

Taking their name from the term for a one-off issue of a comic book, Marvel One-Shots are a series of short films included on Blu-ray (and DVD?) releases of Marvel Studios features, helping bridge gaps in their shared cinematic universe. This first one is included on the BD for Thor, and probably occurs during that film’s timeline, but is really concerned with filling in other holes in the universe.

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 The Avengers. At least it does that neatly, stringing together new dialogue snippets starring fan-favourite Agent Coulson and another SHIELD agent (from Thor, as it happens) with clips from other Marvel Universe films, mainly The Incredible Hulk.

In short, The Consultant is a fun little diversion, but not an essential element in the construction of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe.

The second of Marvel’s two (to date) short films set in their shared Cinematic Universe. This one comes on the Captain America Blu-ray (and DVD?), despite that title. Indeed, it feels like they’re running one film behind with these things — maybe The Avengers will include one related to Cap?

Marvel’s first foray into short films (see above) was a fans-only affair; an exercise in filing that emphasised connections between the fairly disparate early films in their shared universe. This one, however, has more to offer to the casual viewer. Though it specifically mentions Thor in the title, it isn’t tied to that film in any way. In fact, the title just gives fans a spot to place it in the timeline — it could occur at any point.

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 Iron Man and has key roles in Iron Man 2 and Thor; Samuel L Jackson’s Nick Fury may appear in more films, but he only offers cameos in three of his four appearances (and two of those are post-credits)).

I won’t say what happens to Coulson here, because it’s too short to describe it without ruining all the film has to offer. It’s probably not worth hunting out for its own sake (unless it’s available free on YouTube or something, because what three-minute-film isn’t worth watching free online?), but if you’ve got a disc with it on, or rent one, then it’s worth a watch. It’s a brief blob of fun, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

As I mentioned, The Avengers assemble on UK BD soon, at which point I’ll have a review of Item 47. And Avengers Assemble, of course. And maybe Thor at last too.

* I’ve begun to take some kind of perverse pleasure in the title farrago. ^
** Suck on that, America! What do you mean you get a director’s commentary and an extra featurette? Damn you. ^

A Date with the Falcon (1942)

Posted on September 8, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #69
Irving Reis | 60 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / USA | PG*

The second Falcon film sees George Sanders’ gentlemen detective investigate the disappearance of a scientist.

Though there’s certainly a detective mystery there — involving gangsters, doubles, diamonds and more — A Date with the Falcon is more of a comedy than a thriller. It’s of a broadly slapstick variety too, rather than the Saint’s more subtle dialogue-based levity. The plot, though not a bad concoction, is fairly secondary to antics with the incompetent police or the Saint’s hounding fiancée — not the same one as last time, incidentally, but now Wendy Barrie, in the same role as last time. This almost sets up an interesting kind of girl-relay, where the engaged Falcon’s eye is distracted by a new girl, only to find him engaged to her in the next film, only to find his eye distracted by a new girl, only to find him engaged to her… etc. I don’t know if that was deliberate — I mention it because the method sort of resurfaces in a couple of films’ time, but other than that and this, it doesn’t seem to come off. Which is a shame, because I like it as an idea.

The best bit is a sequence at a hotel, where the Falcon has tracked a mysterious criminal lady. Here we find Hans Conried’s knowing hotel desk clerk. Conried, who has a larger but less entertaining part in the next Falcon film and was apparently in the first too, would go on to be the voice of Captain Hook in Disney’s Peter Pan. Which is neither here nor there, but still. Anyway, aside from him there’s a ‘suicide’ bid and the crowd below’s reaction to it. Again it’s mostly comedy, but unlike some of the series’ DOA running gags it’s actually funny.

Watching A Date with the Falcon, it feels like the series has found its own tone a bit more. It’s still vaguely Saint-ish, still aiming for an adventure-thriller-with-humour vibe, but the comedy is of a slightly different kind, and the Falcon himself isn’t the smooth operator that the Saint was. Rather than the Woman of the Week fall for him effortlessly, he gets incessant flack from his (always new) fiancée, and he’s not quite as adapt at wriggling his way out of things when it comes to a sticky situation. I prefer the (good) Saint films, but this is fun in places.

* As with many films of this era, apparently, A Date with the Falcon hasn’t been passed by the BBFC since its original release. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

Burke & Hare (2010)

Posted on August 24, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #20
John Landis | 88 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | UK / English | 15 / R

This is a true story
Except for the parts that are not

As an opening title card, you’d have to go some way to beat that. It’s also very apt: John Landis’ return to feature directing after a twelve-year break is based on real events (a pair of Irish grave robbers who operated in Edinburgh in the 1820s), but it takes massive liberties with what really happened, particularly the ending (but I won’t spoil that here). There’s no real surprise in that — it’s quite hard to make a comedy out of real-life serial killers, I should think.

And it is funny. Well, quite funny. It’s amiably light rather than laugh-out-loud hilarious. The titular characters are played by Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis, one who has a pedigree for comedy and one who doesn’t so much, but both are solid. Pegg’s role was originally to be played by David Tennant (he had to pull out due to commitments to an ultimately-cancelled US TV series). I like Tennant, but the replacement was probably for the best — Pegg plays up the comedy without overdoing it, and handles the slightly dramatic stuff well too, whereas I fear Tennant might have over-egged both for this film’s particular tone. Or maybe not, who knows.

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.

I sense there’s a serious movie to be made about the real Burke and Hare… though I believe there are several others, so maybe one of them does it well. This won’t serve anyone as a history lesson, but then that’s not its job. As a knockabout black comedy, it works well enough. I think I’ve given probably-lesser comedies higher scores before now, but in a renewed spirit of trying to be more accurate — and maybe less forgivingly generous — this gets

102 Dalmatians (2000)

Posted on August 17, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #18
Kevin Lima | 96 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | UK & USA / English | U / G

I imagine the live-action re-working of 101 Dalmatians was a surprise hit back in 1996 — of course the animated original is very popular, but I don’t remember the remake collating much critical acclaim and, with the talking animals and songs gone, was there much point? But clearly it went down pretty well because it earnt itself this sequel. While I quite like the first, it’s definitely an inferior rehash of the animated film; this one, striking out on its own, is for my money a better experience. It’s not a great film, but it’s resolutely dotty and barking — puns very much intended.

It’s at its best early on, with Cruella de Vil turned nice. It’s different and allows more room to be original and funny. Director Kevin Lima (who has since gone on to helm Enchanted to much wider acclaim) imbues it with a kind of craziness that transcends being a Silly Children’s Film and borders on silliness-as-art. A moment where London is completely dalmatian-coloured is particularly good, and a sequence aping Lady and the Tramp is quite neatly done.

More than Lima, though, this all shows off Glenn Close. She’s great at camping it up appropriately, laying on the Niceness with a trowel. She’s magnificent throughout… but, sadly, it’s an undemanding second half. The experience derails the further things go on, turning into merely a rehash of the first film but relocated to Paris for no particular reason. And aside from a race around the streets, ‘Paris’ is mostly a studio set anyway. Obviously they couldn’t keep Cruella in Nice Mode for the entire running time, but there’s call for a bit more originality in what happens after she goes bad.

Elsewhere, Alice Evans (for some reason I seem to remember there being a big fuss around when she was cast in this, but she doesn’t seem to have done a whole lot notable in the decade-and-a-bit since) and Ioan Gruffudd are fine (since this they’ve become a real-life couple, which is, y’know, something). Tim McInnerny provides able comic support as ever. Gerard Depardieu isn’t really trying as a French fashionista — a daft haircut and silly costumes do most of the work for him. Eric Idle is hit and miss as the voice of a bird. For one thing, why can it talk? A little incongruous when no other animals can. For another, he’s allowed to go off on one too often. When it works, it does; other times, it’s just too much. Then there’s an array of British-actors-in-small-roles for those that enjoy such face-spotting: look out for Ian Richardson, Timothy West, Ron Cook and Jim Carter here.

Plus there’s an awful lot of cute dogs. Always a bright side. And it’s a great answer for “name an Oscar-nominated film” trivia questions (it garnered one for, appropriately, costume design).

It’s a shame 102 Dalmatians degenerates into predictability, because early on it’s off-the-wall loony in a way they don’t dare to make any more. Silliness-as-art, indeed, but ruined by a nasty case of sequelitis.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Category Archives: Comedy

Knight and Day (2010)

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

The Other Guys (2010)

Supervillain Showdown!

Despicable Me (2010)

Megamind (2010)

Marvel One-Shots

A Date with the Falcon (1942)

Burke & Hare (2010)

102 Dalmatians (2000)