Man on a Ledge (2012)

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

2013 #43
Asger Leth | 102 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Man on a LedgeA man books into a swish hotel, has a nice meal, then climbs out the window. Onlookers and police gather. Will he jump? Or is he just a distraction?

What follows is pretty generic ‘single location thriller’ material, with a thoroughly daft ending… but when the whole film strains plausibility (it’s not trying to be The Wire), do we buy it?

It is mostly enjoyable, especially as I like this kind of thriller (see: Phone Booth, Inside Man). It isn’t as accomplished as those, but it’s not bad — at worst, it’s average. Genre fans should be entertained while it lasts.

3 out of 5

The Debt (2011)

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

2013 #37
John Madden | 109 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA, UK & Hungary / English, German & Russian | 15 / R

The DebtScreenwriting partnership Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn vacate their usual milieu (see Stardust, Kick-Ass, etc.) for this Israeli spy thriller remake.

In a dual-pronged narrative, a team of Mossad agents are hailed as heroes following a high-value mission, only to face serious repercussions decades later. A cast led by Oscar winner Helen Mirren and nominees Jessica Chastain and Tom Wilkinson help affirm this as serious-minded Cold War drama, miles away from the Bondian world Goldman & Vaughn will next enter for Mark Millar adaptation The Secret Service.

Perhaps a little stodgy in places, it’s nonetheless an engrossingly plausible espionage drama.

4 out of 5

The Debt is the latest in an ever-growing number of films where the internet can’t agree on its ‘year’: IMDb go with 2010, but sites like Wikipedia and Rotten Tomatoes go with 2011. On the old methodology of Google searches, “The Debt 2010 film” produces 107 million results, while “The Debt 2011 film” gives 146 million.

Safe House (2012)

2013 #20
Daniel Espinosa | 110 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA & South Africa / English | 15 / R

Safe HouseDenzel Washington is a fugitive, Ryan Reynolds is the CIA rookie who ends up looking after him — and later, chasing him — after Something Goes Wrong at the titular abode in this workmanlike thriller.

Washington can deliver a quality anti-hero in his sleep now, and the same can be said of the actors lined up as villains and questionable-types in the supporting cast: Brendan Gleeson, Sam Shepard, Robert Patrick, Liam Cunningham. Reynolds makes for a likeable if bland leading man, while the storyline and action sequences offer sub-Bourne thrills.

Nothing new, then, but those after a straightforward action-thriller could do worse.

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

The Dinosaur Project (2012)

2013 #41
Sid Bennett | 83 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | UK & South Africa / English | 12 / PG-13

The Dinosaur ProjectFound footage movies, eh? You either love them or hate them. Well, plenty of people hate them. I don’t mind them — it’s fast becoming an unoriginal idea (“existing genre + found footage = exciting new idea” is a sum that stopped working a couple of years ago), but if it’s done well, of course it still works.

The Dinosaur Project is a low-budget entry in a genre which you’d think would be awash with low-budget entries, and perhaps it is, but I’ve not encountered many of them. That said, it was shot in South Africa and has some impressive CGI, so it actually looks the part of a pricier endeavour. OK, you’re not going to confuse it with a Cloverfield-level experience, but nor does it look like something a few YouTubers knocked up down the park on a Sunday afternoon.

The story concerns a group of present-day explorers heading into the jungle to find dinosaurs. Lead explorer-man’s son tags along for various contrived reasons, and because he is Young and Hip he brings a bunch of cameras that he’s constantly recording from, hence the found footage thing. And the footage is “found” rather than “returned” because, of course, Things Go Wrong. What things I won’t say, but it will surprise no one that they do indeed uncover some dinosaurs.

AwwwwEssentially, then, it’s a cut-price Jurassic Park, offering the same kind of “run away from the monsters!” thrills in a Modern way. And I don’t think it does it badly at all. If you hate the found footage phenomenon then this is going to do nothing to convert you, but if you don’t mind it, I think there’s a solid piece of entertainment in here. And if you actively like it then perhaps this is one of the better entries. It certainly has plenty of incident, which is more than can be said for some of them.

Plus, if you want to marvel at technical wizardy, the CGI and how it interacts with the real world is actually quite well done, especially bearing in mind the budget. I suppose we don’t notice such things in big-budget movies any more, because we know they can do it, but it does stand out in these low budget efforts. Which it shouldn’t. And doesn’t, unless you’re looking. Anyway.

The Dinosaur Project isn’t going to blow anyone’s mind, but as an adventure/horror-with-dinosaurs movie it’s a solid little thriller. It only runs for a brisk 83 minutes, too.

3 out of 5

Anonymous (2011)

2013 #24
Roland Emmerich | 125 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | UK, USA & Germany / English | 12 / PG-13

Was Shakespeare a fraud? No.The director of Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and other films which don’t imply a specific timeframe in their title, helms a film about Shakespeare? Oh yeah, that sounds like a good idea…

And it is indeed dreadful.

In fact, it’s one of those films that’s hard to criticise because I just thought it was so consistently weak. There’s a lot of middling to couched-positive reviews of it floating about, but I practically despised it. For a start, there’s the faintly ludicrous premise that Shakespeare didn’t write the works of Shakespeare. It’s a conspiracy theory that’s been around for decades, at least, and some people do believe it… but not anyone who’s serious about Shakespeare. I think the film takes it seriously, though, and that sets me against it from the off. I know there are plenty of films that tell silly stories in a silly way, but no one’s trying to convince you Avengers Assemble or 2012 actually happened.

Then there’s the confusing storytelling, which occasionally jumps around in time; the attempts at a court intrigue storyline (because the “it’s not by Shakespeare!” thing doesn’t sustain a whole plot), the kind of thing which has been done better even in something as simplistic as The Tudors; the too-dark cinematography (with occasional eye-catching images); the attempts at spicing up a period thriller with action scenes and other histrionics, This film by any other name would smell just as shitwhich is what you should expect from the director of all those films I listed above but quite blatantly doesn’t sit right. And it’s over two hours long too, so it keeps going… and going…

Unlike Emmerich’s other films, which are hardly the height of art but are largely entertaining on some base level, Anonymous is just bad. With a quality cast and the occasional scene-redeeming moment, it’s not an unmitigated disaster. Still, this film by any other name would smell just as shit.

2 out of 5

(If you think that one-liner was bad, try watching the film.)

(But, seriously, don’t.)

Anonymous featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2013, which can be read in full here.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

aka Iron Man Three

2013 #74
Shane Black | 131 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA & China / English | 12 / PG-13

Iron Man 3Some have described Iron Man 3 (or, as the onscreen title would have it, Iron Man Three) as “the best Iron Man yet”, even better than the exalted first movie. Others have described it as “at least better than Iron Man 2”, the derided first sequel. I thought the first one was a tad overrated and the second notably underrated, so where does this trilogy-forming instalment fall on my personal scale? Well, that depends what you want from an Iron Man film…

Following on from the events of Iron Man 2 and The Avengers, Tony Stark is a man with little purpose. The American government have a rebranded War Machine to do their bidding; Pepper is now running Stark Industries; who knows where S.H.I.E.L.D. are (dealing with the plot of Captain America 2, probably). Tony, meanwhile, is creating endless iterations of the Iron Man armour and suffering panic attacks from memories of when the suit failed him during the Battle of New York. For all his usual wisecracking, he’s a man who’s had his confidence undermined — and if there’s one thing Stark’s known for, it’s his self-confidence.

It’s not long before some events happen that push Stark, and his Iron Man alter ego (or is it an alter ego? But I’m getting ahead of myself), back into action. But those panic attacks remain, as does his overwhelming desire to protect his first stable relationship with Pepper. Here, then, is perhaps the film’s strongest element: the development of Tony Stark as a character. It’s not as if the first two films don’t have some degree of character development, but it wasn’t so fundamental. Tony starts Film 1 as a wisecracking show-off partying womanising arms manufacturer, Stuck in the middle with youand ends it as… a wisecracking show-off partying womanising superhero. Film 2 and even The Avengers don’t take him a great deal further, arguably, but here he’s pushed. He still behaves recklessly, because that’s what he’s used to doing, but then the consequences of that recklessness — when he has something he cares about — are brought home. Literally.

Despite outward appearances, the Iron Man movies have always been as much — or more — about the characters and the humour as they have been about action sequences. When you’ve got Robert Downey Jr being hilarious, you want to see more of that than a robot-like superhero punching things. With Shane Black on co-writing and directing duties here (a great choice that pays off), you want to see that as much as ever, and the film keeps it up. So while Stark struggles with the responsibilities of a relationship and with how he’s going to overcome his anxiety problems, he continues to be as snarky and fun to be around as ever. And the film continues to not feature that much in-suit action.

Indeed, for much of the film the suit is out of commission: after the all-out assault on the house you surely saw in the trailer and that I alluded to above, Tony is in hiding, relying more on his own wits and detective skills to piece together just what’s going on. I imagine some people found this to be slow and dull, wanting the punchy-punchy boomy-explodey stuff of every other action movie. But after the sheer scale of The Avengers, Marvel and co are right to find a different tack. You can’t out-do what The Avengers did, and if you try to it would become implausibleIron Man on his lonesome as to why S.H.I.E.L.D. and the super-friends aren’t sticking their noses in, so instead we have a problem on a grand scale, yes, but one for Stark/Iron Man to tackle on his lonesome.

That said, for the sake of the trailer and the adrenaline junkies, it just means the film is rear-loaded with action scenes — three climax-worthy sequences back to back, in fact. It’s a bit of a shame they’re so closely placed, because while each is well-executed individually, they’re also almost immediately overshadowed by what follows. You don’t have time to digest the Air Force One skydiving rescue before it’s off to the oil-rig for the Big Battle. The film takes a break from action by establishing where some characters are and shuffling pieces, sure, but it’s so much set up for the next sequence there’s no time to catch your breath. For me it’s a minor issue, one that will surely be less apparent on future viewings.

And future viewings are merited, because despite all the things that could be ever so depressing, the film has even more to commend it as entertainment. There’s Tony’s relationship with the small-town kid who helps him, for instance, which is suitably irreverent (“dads leave, no need to be a pussy about it”); there’s grace notes like the reluctant henchman (I’m not quoting his one line, it shouldn’t be spoiled); there’s the ’70s action series-style end credits (they brought a huge smile to my face, anyway); and there’s the film’s treatment of the Mandarin…

He's no GandhiAh, the Mandarin. He’s Iron Man’s big bad; the guy fans have been asking about since before the first film. I don’t know much about him, but I believe in the comics he’s some kind of magician — doesn’t sit well with the film series’ more sci-fi leanings, even after we’ve seen Iron Man meet the likes of Thor. Here, the Mandarin is reconfigured as a terrorist; a very powerful one, spreading his message by taking over US airwaves… and blowing things up as well, naturally. But there’s a twist to him, which I won’t discuss here; beyond to say that, even though I saw it coming (helped, I admit, by everyone saying “there’s a twist to the Mandarin!”), I thought it was quite brilliantly done. Ben Kingsley is magnificent.

It’ll also surprise no one when Stark’s business rival, Aldrich Killian, turns out to be a villain too. Bit of a rehash of the second film there, maybe, but — even though I liked that film — Iron Man 3 handles it better. Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer was perhaps a more memorable character, but Guy Pearce’s Killian fits the plot and themes nicely, and is more of a force to be reckoned with overall. My only disappointment came near the end (slight spoilers for the rest of the paragraph), when it’s revealed in a small aside of a scene that he can breathe fire. Come the big all-action climax and… he doesn’t do it again. Is it a little silly he can breathe fire? Maybe. But it does kinda work with the rest of the things we’ve learnt, and I presume it was a conscious reference to another Iron Man enemy, the giant dragon Fin Fang Foom, who Killian has tattooed on his chest. Even without that tattoo, they’ve established he has a special power, so why doesn’t he use it in the final battle? Surely that’s what it’s made for? Personally, I’d’ve deleted the earlier reference if I wasn’t going to use it at the climax.

Iron Man-lessIn the grand scheme of things, I still think that’s a minor complaint. Indeed, any issues I have with the film are minor complaints, including the slightly elongated first act and the Iron Man-less second one. I think it works for the style the film is aiming at — more of a military-ish spy-ish thriller than a bombastic beat-em-up superhero flick — and that works for me. And, not a complaint, but a minor point: the Actor’s Agent of the Week award goes to whoever represents Stephanie Szostak. I’ve never heard of her and her character’s only really in one sequence, but she’s billed right below the big-name lead cast and above henchman and 24 season three star James Badge Dale, amongst other recognisable names and faces. A Christmas bonus for that representative.

So, is Iron Man 3 the finest Iron Man film? Well, as ever, that’s a matter of perspective. I do think it completes the character’s personal arc, which has flown through not only the first two films but also The Avengers. I’m not the first to note the finalising tone of the film’s final minutes, and I believe the Bondian “Tony Stark will return” at the end is to reassure us he’ll be back in the Avengers sequel rather than imply we should look for an Iron Man 4. Despite marking out release dates through Summer 2017, Marvel have said they won’t be confirming any films of their 2016 or 2017 releases for at least another year. When the time comes, I don’t think an Iron Man sequel will be among them, keeping that particular big gun — and that particular big-name actor — for special occasions. I’m alright with that, because I think we’ve had three highly entertaining movies out of him, and even without an adaptation of the (in)famous Demon in a Bottle arc, I am Iron ManI don’t think there’s much left to do with the character right now. Plus, ending the film with the latest twist on the first movie’s renowned closing declaration is a nice way to round off a series… at least until the inevitable recasting one day.

So back to my question: is it the best Iron Man film? Well, that’s a matter of… oh, wait. Anyway, I refuse to commit. But it might be. It might well be.

4 out of 5

Iron Man 3 is out on DVD & Blu-ray in the UK today, and in the US on September 24th. Ha-ha.

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

2013 #11
Drew Goddard | 95 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

The Cabin in the WoodsCo-written by geek god Joss Whedon and former Buffy/Angel writer Drew Goddard, cabin-in-the-woods horror movie The Cabin in the Woods is as much a deconstruction, or even spoof, of the genre as an entry in it — just as you might expect from a pair with such a track record.

This means it’s one for the genre literate, proven by the reams of missed-the-point reviews on sites such as LOVEFiLM. Taken as intended, however, it’s actually very good. If you’re a fan of the horror genre, try to avoid spoilers (there are twists throughout) and just enjoy something made for you.

4 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

Depending on your point of view, The Cabin in the Woods hails from either 2009 (the year it was shot), 2011 (the year of its copyright), or 2012 (the year it was released). Various sites side with different options; when I first started writing this IMDb listed it as 2011, but have since changed to 2012. Wasn’t it just easier when films were released and everyone agreed that’s when it was from? In the end I turned to Google, where “Cabin in the Woods 2011” produces about 8.9 million results, and “Cabin in the Woods 2012” about 11.6 million. (Incidentally, when I first ran those searches, the numbers were closer to 6m and 16m respectively.)

Haywire (2011)

2013 #28
Steven Soderbergh | 89 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA & Ireland / English | 15 / R

HaywireLike ponderous arthouse fare, but also action-thrillers? Disappointed that these two passions must always be sated independently? Well recent retiree (we’ll see how long that lasts) Steven Soderbergh has come to your rescue.

Haywire gradually reveals itself to be about Mallory Kane, a field agent for a private company contracted by the US government to do… things. Things that presumably need deniability. After a mission goes oddly, her next job reveals a surprising connection, and suddenly Kane finds herself on the run from a lot of men who want to kill her.

It’s difficult to know exactly what kind of film Soderbergh thought he was making here — it really does fall between the two stools of arty-indie and action-thriller. His directorial style hews towards the former, with his choice of shots, cutting speed, the roughness of the cinematography, the intricacy and opaqueness of the story… It requires you to keep up and pay attention; to piece together plot points retrospectively; to decide what to process and what to ignore (a lengthy conversation about budget and payment seems to fall by the wayside in irrelevance).

Kicking assBut then the lead isn’t even an actress, but former MMA fighter Gina Carano, presumably cast because she can fight rather than for her acting ability. That’s not a criticism, however — she may not be on a footing to contest an Oscar any time soon, but Carano is more than fine to be an action movie lead. Her undoubted combat skills, meanwhile, lend the fights a bone-crunching realism that is likely to be welcomed by many. They’re very much a showcase for her ability too, because any sense of an equally-matched duel is hampered by pitting her against men who are actually just actors.

That supporting cast (all male, bar a couple of extras) again straddles the line between blockbuster and indie: Antonio Banderas, Michael Douglas, Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor, Bill Paxton, Channing Tatum. These are largely actors who know what they’re doing on both sides of the fence, which I imagine works to the story’s benefit, if not to the action sequences. I won’t tell you which of those men Carano comes to blows with (three out of the six), but at least one of them has to rely on a bit of choppy editing and silhouettes to sell the fact it’s even close to a plausible brawl.

I expect there’s an interesting feminist reading to be had out of the film. Soderbergh has cast someone who can genuinely handle herself against a variety of men who, at best, can only do so a bit. She runs rings around them, and sundry nameless police officers too; and, as noted, she’s the only female in the main cast. I’ll leave such analysis to more dedicated observers than I, but I expect Soderbergh had some commentary in mind.

Despite my assertion that this might appeal to two groups one might think are fundamentally opposed, it’s more likely Haywire will fail to please either. It’s too engrossed in a fiddly espionage plot to please indie fans looking for deep characterisation or worldly insight, but too fiddly and artily realised to please the broader sweep of thriller fans. BondianThat said, the latter withstood Paul Greengrass’ shakey-cam and jumpy cutting on the Bourne sequels, and this isn’t that extreme; indeed, Soderbergh’s use of wide angles and long takes for the fights is most pleasing.

Personally, I thought it was an interesting, leftfield, worthwhile addition to the genre. That genre being the action-thriller, which is where, in spite of everything, the film really resides.

4 out of 5

The Pearl of Death (1944)

2013 #15
Roy William Neill | 66 mins | DVD | 4:3 | USA / English | PG

The Pearl of DeathThe Pearl of Death is one of the better-regarded films of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes canon, but somehow it didn’t quite click for me. That doesn’t meant there isn’t a lot to enjoy, however.

The story this time is adapted from Conan Doyle’s The Six Napoleons, and the main mystery seems to be pretty faithful. It’s a rather good one too, involving the hunt for a stolen item — the titular Borgia Pearl — that has been hidden in one of six china busts — the multiple Napoleons of Doyle’s title. It’s dressed up here with some nice touches: Holmes first rescues the priceless Borgia Pearl, but then quite spectacularly loses it. The notion of Holmes being doubted, of having to prove himself to reassert his reputation, is a good one — one recently borrowed by avowed Rathbone fans Moffat & Gatiss for their modern-day Sherlock, in fact. The film attempts to build up villain Giles Conover as a Moriarty-level nemesis, including borrowing some text from The Final Problem to describe him. Unfortunately, Miles Mander doesn’t quite convey the menace to pull it off, but Conover is a fair match for Holmes in places.

Evelyn Ankers and some other chapsElsewhere, Nigel Bruce gets to indulge in a slapsticky scene that, as ever, people who dislike this interpretation of Watson would be happy to do without. Also worth noting is the female lead, British actress Evelyn Ankers: she was a regular fixture of Universal’s horror features, terrorised in no less than The Wolf Man, The Ghost of Frankenstein, Son of Dracula, The Mad Ghoul, Captive Wild Woman, Jungle Woman, Weird Woman, The Invisible Man’s Revenge, and The Frozen Ghost! (Plus a previous Holmes film, Voice of Terror, to boot.)

The series’ regular director, Roy William Neill, manages his usual atmospheric and exciting touch in places, but others are a slight let down — both involving characters kept in shadow and their eventual reveal. The opening sequence features a disguised Holmes; supposedly disguised to the audience too, though I imagine many will guess it’s him. He’s mostly kept in shadow, on the edge of frame, or with his back to the camera — it’s quite effective, in fact. Sadly, there’s no commensurate whip-the-disguise-off reveal.

Later in the film, the monstrous Hoxton Creeper is shown in silhouette most of the time, with everyone talking about how disgusting ‘it’ is. Unfortunately, when it comes to finally revealing his hideous visage in the final moments… he just sort of turns around to listen to a moderately interesting conversation. Considering all the points when the Creeper could have been revealed to good effect, The Borgia Pearl... OF DEATHNeill somehow managed to pick one of the least dramatic. Neither of these reveal fudges are ruinous, of course, and are outweighed by the handling of sequences like Holmes setting off the museum’s alarm, the ensuing robbery, the villains stalking round a potential victim’s house, and so on. Still, I was surprised to find them so wanting.

The Pearl of Death won’t find a place amongst my very favourites of the Rathbone Holmes series, but I feel I may have, for some reason, been expecting too much from it. Only niggles and incidental points let it down, rather than anything fundamental, and a future reappraisal may one day bump it up in my estimation. Nonetheless:

4 out of 5

Broken Arrow (1996)

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

2013 #35
John Woo | 104 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

Broken ArrowUS Air Force pilot Jon Travolta crashes a plane, steals a nuke, and former friend and colleague Christian Slater must stop his dastardly plan in this ever so ’90s actioner.

In his second Hollywood outing, Hong Kong action maestro John Woo (over-)directs his little heart out: there’s an endless array of slightly hilarious slow-mo, crash zooms, etc. Plus, it has the honour of featuring possibly the most gloriously OTT villain death in the history of cinema.

It all seems quite cheesy now, but still quite fun. Perhaps best suited to those nostalgic for a style of movie now gone by.

3 out of 5