Alex Cross

Based on James Patterson's novel "Cross", we see Matthew Fox (Vantage Point) and Tyler Perry (Diary of a Mad Black Woman) playing the psychopathic sadist Picassso and the psychological profiler Alex Cross, respectively. Picasso is a hired hand assassin taking out high level banking executive, and Cross is tasked with stopping him, but after foiling one of the killer's hits and hurting his pride - it becomes far more personal for everyone involved.

My major thoughts when watching this film? It probably was a good genre book. Everything about it seemed like it was so faithful to an original text, that in places that made it a bit creeky. What works in a book in the way of dialogue and plot device can look and sound a little silly when it's seen on the screen. The same problem comes up in casting, mainly in the form of Richard Brookwell, the head of the Police Unit played by the majestic John C. McGinley (Point Break). Basically, Brookwell seems to be a well meaning, if a little naive police inspector. John C. McGinley, may be well meaning in most cases, but he's also a bad-ass. He should always be the badass.

To be fair, these are my few criticisms of the film. After the tirade of cool-psychopathy in End of Watch, I was very pleased to see some dumb, and silly action with no over pushing of crazy, horrifying agendas. This was just telling a basic police chase story, and that, for me at least, is good fun. Might have made an interesting TV series along the same vain as 24 or Lie to Me, that way we could know the characters a little more.

Finally, is this film worth seeing?
If you want to have a bit of a laugh at chunky dialogue, and genuinely quite tense action sequences - go for it. There are problems, and it's no where near a great film, but it does exactly what it says on the tin. If you like the look of the trailer, you wont waste your time going to see it.

End of Watch

Never has a film been more aptly named. I was checking my watch and begging for it to end.

Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Donnie Darko) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena, My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done) are LAPD's finest thugs. They run riot, breaking the rules and, as they boast, killing loads of people! That's about as much plot as you need. If you watch the trailer, in fact, you'll see the entire film.

Frankly, I was disgusted by this film. This was a cynical piece of advertisement for police brutality. The message of the film seems to be, "We would just kill everyone who broke the law, if it weren't for the damn paper work!" And it portrayed two thugs in Taylor and Zavala, who are supposed to look "cool" while basically advocating psychopathy. There was even a scene where Zavala takes off his badge and gun to fist fight a gangster, while Taylor looks on, films the fight and laughs manically. And we're supposed to watch this and say "God, wouldn't it be cool if police were actually like that." No. No it wouldn't. So, that's the major message you're supposed to take away.

Awk well, at least it looks good, right? Well, no. I think there's a lot to be said for found footage films and for hand held cameras. This film wanted to use the motif, but clearly decided one or two cameras weren't enough and so went through the totally useless plot of Taylor needing to film everything, while occasionally just using auxiliary camera. It's totally pointless and ridiculous, and probably entirely for advertising purposes, as it features heavily in the trailer.

Then there was the dialogue. I've heard it praised, from the point of view of Taylor and Zavala, but did these people who spoke so highly of it hear the other characters. There was one gangster in the film who I'm sure must never have learned a single line of his script, and was told, no bother, if you can't think of what to say, just punctuate your language with any old swear word you please. CONSTANT swearing. I'm sorry, no one speaks like that. Not realistic at all. Some may say, hang on, the cops talk like people, right. Just talking about life and family and such, and that's realistic, isn't it? Yup, it was. I'll give you that. It made me hate the characters even more because they were racist, homophobic and sexist, and I wouldn't want to spend a second in any of their company, but I'm sure some people speak like that.

I'm sorry, but this film genuinely made me angry. It was horrible. I wont say this often, but do not go and see this film. You're just encouraging this type of disgusting, lazy and cynical film making. Normally I would want other people's opinions on films, and welcome people to tell me I'm wrong, but PLEASE, do not fund this horror of cinema by paying money to see it.

Gambit

A tale of three performances.

Harry Deane (Colin Firth, Love Actually) wants to get one over on his foul-mouthed, soul-destroying boss Lionel Shabandar (Alan Rickman, Die Hard) and to retire early - as the Coen Brothers write. Deane intends to con the billionaire using his love of fine art, a crafty forger and the grand-daughter of a historical figure (Cameron Diaz, There's Something About Mary). Turns out, it's not as simple as all that. Hilarity ensues.

And boy, do I mean it. One of the funniest new films I've seen a while. The film goes through phases of smiles and chuckles and then you end up almost on the sticky floors of the cinema, laughing like hell. Colin Firth's fantastic physical acting and Alan Rickman's fantastic voice just knocked me down. The two of them make a great pair, and the Coen's seem to have written the parts with them in mind.

If you want a good fun cinema going experience, this is for you. Not get many like this, very few and far between.

Argo

One film this year I've managed to go into without any prior knowledge. I had no idea what to expect, and the first ten minutes had me very interested.

Ben Affleck directs as we start off with a thirty second tour of the history of Iranian politics and then move on to 1979 where we see the beginning of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Sparking a revolution in Tehran the US Embassy is taken over and the 52 workers therein became hostages. But six escaped and as the action kicks off when they find themselves holed up in the house of the Canadian diplomat. Back in America, Tony Mendez (Affleck, Dogma) decides that the only way (the ONLY way) to get the hostages (well, six of them) out is to put together a fake film that will, at the height of the international tension, be shot in Iran.
Maybe you can tell, I'm not convinced.

As I say, Iranian politics of which I know less than nothing about, seems like an interesting premise for a film. I was looking forward to learning some new things, finding out the American perspective on these events, and maybe being given something to think about. I learned three important things; a) The writers of this film love the 70's and stressed even more is the fact that b) the writers of this film love movies and finally, and what impacted on me most about this film c) the writers of this film love films from the 70's. I mean, c'mon! Such a wide range of things that could be discussed and explored surrounding this event, but no. Nothing.

This would be acceptable, if and only if, the film was about something else. I think that may have been the intent of those involved, but god did it go down in flames. This "character" drama was filled with one dimensional people that even if you knew, you wouldn't care about. You have a main man who is difficult to care about at all, 'cause he's just pretty dull. The other six have no back stories and actually rarely feature except to occasionally remind you that they exist.

Basically, it was so promising that - even though it looked quite good, was occasionally humorous and the performances weren't awful - it ended as a crushing disappointment. It was dull, and with such a broad range of large themes, it seems almost impossible to have missed every single one so spectacularly.

Also, the joke around which they titled the film was funny the first time. To hear it then repeated over one hundred times just made me think that at one point the entire script was just funny situations where that joke could be made.

Ginger and Rosa

Sally Potter brings us the story of two girls. They were born together, and grew up together. Set in 1960's Britain, the film centers around the Cuban Missile Crisis and how these two inseparable girls became young woman. Ginger, (Elle Fanning, Super 8) the poet, wants to protest, wants to stop the war and Rosa, (Alice Englert, 8)  a romantic, wants to live life and find a man she can love. Ginger has to fight her fight while her family life crumbles around her and Rosa just falls for the wrong guy. The friendship starts to split while priorities change.

I really liked this film. It had something that you don't see often enough in films - the central concern of the main female character is not to meet a man. Ginger is our heroine. She's not totally disinterested in men, we see her with a couple at different times, but that wasn't in any way important to the plot. We have a young woman with thoughts, ideas, a future, and an incredible sense of autonomy.

One thing annoyed me about this film - it was a change. I don't feel comfortable having to make special mention of the fact that a film isn't subscribing to gender roles, but the truth is, a well-rounded female character is hard to find in modern movies. At this point, it's probably relevant to say I've found my tip for a nomination, if not a winner of this years BAFTA for Leading Actress. Elle Fanning was fantastic in her role, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a wee supporting nomination for her mother Christina Hendricks.

On a broader level, we have a strong plot, some great characters, and interesting writing. The directing is iffy, really. Nothing too wrong with it, it's just forgettable.

What I will say is, go see it. No doubt be in my top ten of the year.

Taken 2

Liam Neeson (a.k.a. Brian Mills) security officer, ex-husband, father, and giant is back on the scene again, not quite in real time. Not quite, in fact, in real... anything. Mr Luc Besson gives us another story of action, torture, running and car chases - but this time with a twist. This one is a 12A.

In Taken we have Mill's daughter (Maggie Grace, Lockout) stolen away by drug and human traffickers, and so it's up to him, in 72 hours, to search for her kidnappers, find them, and kill them. Also, rescue her. So, we're a couple years down the line at the start of the new film and for a nice break from his ex-wife's second divorce, her and Brian's daughter are taken to Istanbul for a holiday. As Brian and his ex-wife start to hit it off again, in come the fathers, brothers and uncles of EVERYONE killed in the first film. They want Mills, and they want him to suffer.

Now, the first one wasn't a classic. It was funny, silly and action-y. First problem for number two, lost the action. It definitely wasn't taken to any sort of new level. The fight sequences are cringing at the hits before you have the chance to - it's like a film laughing at its own jokes. I understand it was cut to get its low rating but it is no film for a twelve year old - never mind younger.

Then again, I am glad of one thing. This film, I like to think, understood the success of the original and then made a move to do the same thing again. The rating was a minor hiccup compared to the comedy gold of Liam Nesson hiding behind walls only to jump out (all 8ft. of himself) on top of the bad guys.

It is totally silly, it's lost the action appeal of the former, but if you're a fan of the first, go for it - no doubt you'll enjoy it.

In case you can't tell - I just love Liam Neeson.

Ruby Sparks

Stories with a single, solitary idea attached, trying to convey a message. Something almost childishly simple, something that looks childish but with a twist, with a dark edge. In the past we've had Greek Mythology, then Grimm's Fairy Tales and now we have Urban Legends. This is a very well played out Urban Legend indeed. Central concept - what would happen if you wrote your perfect woman into existence?

Brought to us by Jonothan Dayton and Valarie Faris, Ruby Sparks tells us the story of one-hit-wonder teen romance writer Calvin Weir-Fields (Paul Dano, There Will Be Blood) who is set a task by his therapist (Elliot Gould, Friends) to write about someone who likes him, despite his flaws. In a dream, inspiration strikes and in comes the idea of the quirky, fun painter Ruby (Zoey Kazan, Me and Orson Welles and writer of the film) - with whom, he promptly falls in love........ Then, he wakes up one day, and she's making him breakfast.

Here we have the set up, the problems it presents; do you have the right to change her, is there such a thing as perfection, will your perfect woman love you back, and what effect will that sort of power have on someone? We've got a good story-line, a great line to go down, and unfortunately only in parts, a good movie. I'll get to the flaws later. I think we have an interesting nod towards the idea of cloning ethics, which is fairly high-brow for what appears to be a silly rom-com, but that seems to be what is lurking in the background for the entirety of the film. And not just that, but the story does justice to such a topic, in an enjoyable way.

On the subject of enjoy-ability lies the problem. It is grasping at straws to find reasons to include certain plot points, when realistically, they could have been cut entirely and a shorter film made. I found myself checking how long I had been in the cinema a couple of times, purely due to the pointless nature of some of the middle scenes. So, as a story, it works totally and for that, if you have the patience, go and see it. As a movie, it falls short a little just plainly for dragging in the middle, because I did come out of it having heard a better story than I expected, but having seen an average film.

The one film I'd recommend if you liked this would be Limitless, which has the same basic idea and feel behind it - but all in all, probably a better film, if having a totally ridiculous premise.

Perks Of Being A Wallflower

I'm going to start by admitting an immediate bias - I'm a seventeen year old. I'm not going to be able to look objectively onto a film like this, and so despite its many, many flaws, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The film is written and directed by Stephen Chbosky - the writer of the novel from which it's based. I know nothing of the book, so I can't comment on the faithfulness of the film to it. The film shows freshman Charlie (Logan Lerman) starting his first day of High School after a spending time in a psychiatric hospital. Charlie is a writer (which I assume is in some way relevant to the plot of the book, but in the film, is almost irrelevant except for a lovely scene involving a "Secret Santa" gift,) who is taken under the wing of the close half-siblings Sam and Patrick (Emma Watson, Harry Potter and Ezra Miller, We Need To Talk About Kevin). The three, along with the rest of their "misfit" gang (I know, it is silly), go off to do strange things, listen to apparently unpopular music (now the songs that every teenager knows), have fun, and fall in love at the wrong times with the wrong people.

What did I like? Well, the cheesiness and the not-quite quirkiness. It toed the line perfectly between that amazingly young, crazy I-can-do-anything mood and "hmmm, you're pushing it." The majority of this genre of movies tends to set up camp in the latter for me. So for that, it needs to be congratulated. The cheesiness was warranted as well - it's so easy to scoff, but to look back, the taglines and pseudo metaphysical quotes are exactly the thoughts of angst-y, emotional teens. Easier for me to see than most, I guess.

Performances, no complaints, at all. Special mention to Ezra Miller - played his part fantastically.

There are problems - many of them. Not just plot holes, but pointless wastes of time and parts of sheer disbelief in generally believable characters. Do you know what? I don't think they matter, if you, like me, get drawn into everything Chbosky wanted you to be. I was engaged, so I ignored everything I didn't like - and that's the sign of a good movie.

All-in-all, I was not looking forward to it when I went in - came out very pleasantly surprised. I'd recommend anyone with one memory of one night of sheer youthfulness left in their head, go see this film.