Review: Anna Karenina

(Dir: Joe Wright, 2012)

I had the fortune of approaching Anna Karenina as a blank canvas, knowing nothing of the story having never read the book nor seen any previous film or tv adaptations of it. I’m not one for reading classic Russian literature and my experience of doing so simply extends to Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. I also entered the cinema believing I had never seen a Joe Wright film (it was only a few days after that I remembered he directed Hanna), but this meant at the time I didn’t really know what to expect from him, leaving only some vague preconceived notions about what might be delivered based on his history with period dramas.

So, for the uninitiated like I, the story is thus: the titular Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley) is wife of Russian councillor Alexei (Jude Law), but she falls for young soldier Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), leading to an affair that takes them down an inevitably disruptive path. Meanwhile young Kitty (Alicia Vikander) is struggling to find love, Levin (Domhnall Gleeson) is prepared to shut himself away from it, and Karenina’s brother-in-law Oblonsky (Matthew MacFadyen) is philandering. These are the strands covered by the film but I clearly can’t say whether this is a fair representation of the novel.

As a film Anna Karenina is very well put together. The costume design is sumptuous with a certain stateliness, there are some great visual moments and the music fits and works well. Acting wise all the players seem decent enough without there being any real stand-outs. Despite all this however, there are a couple of major issues that I really struggled to overcome:

Firstly the lead characters… Karenina starts out as a beautiful, elegant character, moving seemingly happily within the highest echelons of society. The way she struggles with her building feelings for Vronsky is intriguing as it clearly offers something she was lacking, leading to her internal battle of embracing this wild new thing versus the duty and honour to both her powerful husband, whom she doesn’t really love, and their son. But once her decision is made the whole thing falls flat, losing any excitement or intrigue as she realises the impact of her actions and becomes incredibly insufferable and irritating for the rest of the film. How much of that insufferableness is down to the original character rather than Knightley’s portrayal it'd be interesting to know. I wanted to see some genuine emotion from Law’s Alexei, rather than him being so impassively calm and controlled. Vronsky’s arrogance and relentless seducing of a married woman made him impossible to like so I really wanted to see him fail. If these are characters we’re supposed to like and root for then it really didn’t work, but then maybe that’s just my principles overriding objectiveness.

The other major issue at times seemed like it should've been a strength... a good portion of the film is staged like a play; or more specifically staged in an empty theatre, with certain scenes appearing to take place on stage, with other scenes taking place backstage (walking through the streets for example is actually walking backstage) and others out on the floor where the audience would be. There are moments when the camera spins round and we see sets/actors resetting to become something else. It’s clever and fascinating. It doesn’t totally work. Not every scene follows this style with some making no visual reference to the theatrical setting whatsoever, whilst there are a handful of scenes shot in the countryside which felt particularly jarring. This inconsistency becomes very frustrating once your eyes have had the chance to feast on some beautiful outdoor scenery and a sense of space, light and expanse, as it undermines setting other scenes, such as the horse race, in this dark indoor environment, no matter how cleverly assembled they are. It simply needed to be an all or nothing approach for this technique to work.

I actually quite enjoyed watching Anna Karenina, which was unexpected as period films of this nature generally do little for me. But aside from saying how beautiful it looked, the issues I had with it mean I'm going to struggle to say anything more positive. The filmmakers should be applauded for trying something different with their staging conceit, but by not running it through every scene it ultimately failed by being frustrating and jarring. The supporting cast all proved more interesting than the three main characters, especially the Kitty / Levin / Oblonsky storylines. A viewer of course can’t help but bring a bit of themselves into how they interpret what's happening on screen, so it’s fair to say many others wouldn’t have the same issues as I with Vronsky and the Karenina's. The question is, would I have these same character issues with the book too, or was it just the film? I honestly don’t think I’m prepared to find out.

Review: Dredd

(Dir: Pete Travis, 2012) 

Dredd feels like the sort of film I’ve been waiting all summer to watch. There’s been a lot of good films out but nothing that delivers in the way that Dredd does. At least nothing quite this fun or adult. Dredd may be another entry in the long line of comic book movies we've been offered lately, but it drinks from a very different well to the recent spate of Marvel or DC adaptations.

In my recent Total Recall review (see here) I debated the merits or otherwise of remaking films. To a degree what I was saying there is relevant here. The character of Judge Dredd comes from the rich source material of over 30 years of 2000 AD comics, and first made his way onto the screen in 1995 in the wildly derided Sylvester Stallone starring Judge Dredd. It may have been a very long time since I last saw it but I’m not left with the best of memories. And so this is the perfect scenario in which someone should have another go at this story/character with the genuine opportunity to improve things. 

Fortunately Dredd has nothing to do with the last film and instead benefits from a nice economical story, with no bullshit or extraneous padding. There have been three homicides in one of Mega City One’s 200 storey tower blocks and Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) heads to the scene with Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), the rookie Judge he is assessing. But this block is run by crime lord Ma-Ma (Lena Heady) who doesn’t want the Judges to leave alive, so shutters up the entire building and sets the many criminal residents on them. Thus it’s a simple fight to survive.

This is a film that doesn’t need anymore than this to work. To some the plot may sound very reminiscent of this years The Raid, and essentially it is pretty much the same, but the approach and style is very different. The Raid is more martial arts based and with a sense of gritty realism amidst the impressive choreography, but it does get a little tiresome. This on the other hand is firmly rooted in sci-fi and fantasy and is more concerned with firepower, and there’s a lot of that.

Urban is perfectly cast as Dredd. He sounds unequivocally tough whilst being physically imposing, and with the body amour factored in he looks like an immovable beast. There are some shots of him walking with intent down smokey corridors filmed from behind, and he just looks menacing. We’re given no back story on him whatsoever and know no more than he is something of a legend amongst the Judges and he enforces to the letter of the law. But best of all the helmet stays on for the whole film. This really heightens his mystique and keeps him every so slightly dehumanised, which means he has no flaws and is like a machine in his righteous drive to deliver judgement.

The rest of the cast work well. Thirlby never once wears a helmet so this balances things out by giving us some humanity to root for, whilst she also gets a bit of back story and the need to express some emotion. But it’s only enough to hook us in and not bore us. Heady makes for a good villain. Thanks to her time in the likes of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Game Of Thrones, she finds herself fitting into this sort of universe well and is always enjoyable to watch. Plus it's nice to see this sort of role given to a woman for a change.

The general aesthetics of Dredd successfully represent the gritty struggling dystopia of its universe, but more importantly it doesn’t pull any punches tonally. This is a film unafraid of brutality, with some graphic violence and bloodletting, which is something you want to see associated with this type of character as it only enhances his hardened nature. Entertainment, the distributors, should be applauded for embracing an 18 certificate here in the UK. The score is strong too, based around electronics, noise and deep bass, providing even more atmosphere and edge. At times the film does verge on being over-stylised but considering the genre it sits in it's not really an issue.

Dredd delivered on the promise of the character. It’s dark, it’s brutal and it’s got lots of good action, which combined with the perfect casting of Urban creates a wholly satisfying package. Thankfully it washes away memories of the limp nineties film and justifies this second attempt to make something based on this character, whilst not feeling remotely Hollywoodised. It’s a satisfying watch; I thoroughly enjoyed it and already look forward to watching again. Judgement has been passed.

Note: I watched the 2D version. Yet again here is a film that didn't seem like it would benefit from being watched in 3D, apart from the unnecessarily over-stylised scenes added solely for the 3D effect. Plus it's quite a dark film so the extra darkness added by the glasses likely won't help picture clarity. 

Review: Total Recall

(Dir: Len Wiseman, 2012)

Remakes. Is there anything else that can inspire such passionate ire and annoyance in film fans? They represent the potential dismay of a classic being butchered, when all the while there is a yearning for something original that could’ve benefitted from this money and distribution. But why does this attitude only seem accentuated in relation to film? Theatre has a long history of staging various versions of classics. Music has always embraced cover versions, and don't forget the importance of "standards" in jazz or how many versions of some classical pieces have been recorded. Why is art in these mediums not perceived as having a “definitive version” in the same way film does? Yes theatrical productions are usually temporal but music is recorded and thus permanent. Which leads to another debate… adaptations of books.

Some adaptations of books are seen as sacred, but surely there should be no issue with attempting another reinterpretation. Why is it ok to constantly recreate and reimagine Shakespeare and his ilk, but multiple attempts at something more modern get frowned upon? After all no-one sets out to make a worse film than what has come before. However the biggest question amidst all this must surely be, why remake something that’s already considered great, when the time, effort and money could go into making something fantastic out of something that previously didn’t work? From a business perspective the answer is of course money associated with something already perceived positively, but I struggle to imagine there’s much creative satisfaction from doing this.

All of this is entirely relevant to the new Total Recall, which when announced was seen as a remake no-one wanted. The original 1990 Paul Verhoeven film is perceived as something of classic of that era - it’s not a perfect film by any means, but is both of sufficient quality and in possession of that something special that makes any effort to try and improve on it somewhat futile. But lest we forget this was based on a Philip K. Dick short story, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, so the argument of trying to make a better adaptation of the source should still stand. Except here it doesn’t really – the original Total Recall was a loose adaptation of this story, taking the original concept and spinning it into a different direction. Whilst this new version is actually a reinterpretation of the original film, with further deviations from the path.

Entirely set on Earth at the end of the twenty-first century, it takes the familiar story of bored nightmare-suffering labourer Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell), who visits a company called Rekall in order to implant fantastical new memories in his head about being a spy. Except things take a turn for the confusing as he struggles with his identity, and his wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) turns out not to be who he thought she was. The core of the story is the same but the biggest difference is no-one goes to Mars here, or even has visions or thoughts of going there. There is the intriguing conceit of a gravity elevator linking the Colony in Australia to the United Federation of Britain which travels through the core of the Earth – at least in lieu of Mars we get something a little different and very sci-fi-ish in concept. 

Being Earth bound the story ends up seeming a little less exciting because it’s presenting a new dystopian vision of the future without the exotic curiosity that comes from alien landscapes. The story is essentially one long bog-standard chase sequence, punctuated by big overblown CGI set pieces. At times this gets a little tiresome but it moves along at a fast enough pace to keep attention from wandering too far. The shady political plans of Chancellor Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston) try to add a bit more depth but they are skated over a bit too quickly. Cranston is reliable as ever and since he started earning serious credibility from Breaking Bad, it’s always satisfying to see him pop up in films. 

Farrell is sufficient in the role of Quaid; or rather this version of Quaid. He’s played similar roles before and he always kind of fits them in a somewhat non-descript but semi-watchable way. That is to say he never wows and he never really offends. When making the inevitable comparison it’s clear he lacks the big personality that Arnold Schwarzenegger brought to the original, which was a key aspect that made that film work so well. Beckinsale is enjoyable to watch and actually plays a bigger role than expected. Jessica Biel also plays a key character but she doesn’t really stand out here.

Total Recall 2012 is competently made but it seems intent on just being a chase movie about a man running to/from his past, ending up feeling like a lighter version of the original. This also applies to this version of Quaid who is written in a pretty stock way, but this suits Farrell’s brand of “average action hero”. I liked the aesthetics of the Colony with its similarities to Blade Runner, but here is a film overwhelmed with the burden of CGI which reduces the enjoyment of a number of action scenes. Does it compare to the original Total Recall? No. The two feel like very different films that happen to have similar stories. The lack of Mars isn’t really a weakness as it’s positively replaced by something hitherto unseen on screen, but this was an element that didn’t need replacing. Total Recall proved an entertaining watch and I did enjoy it, but it’s difficult to enthuse about something when it feels like a weaker imitation of what’s come before without adding anything new. As remakes go this one was unnecessary.

Review: The Watch

(Dir: Akiva Schaffer, 2012)

Tired. That’s pretty much the best way to describe The Watch. Everything about it is tired - the plot, the comedy, the action, the sentiments. It is a complete mish-mash of genres as it strives to be an adult comedy / alien invasion / action / horror / male-bonding hybrid. Not original unfortunately but it probably worked better in this format than if it was just a comedy or an alien invasion movie. That is to say it worked at being mediocre.

The cast seem to be going through the motions. When a comedian is not that outstandingly funny to start with it doesn’t take many repeats of them doing “their thing” before they start to get boring, as their comedic strength turns into an annoyance. I feel this way about three of the four leads, particularly Ben Stiller. He has had his moments - Dodgeball, Zoolander, The Royal Tenenbaums, Meet the Parents - but usually he’s just playing mildly altered variations of the characters in these films, who generally irritate rather than amuse. Fortunately he’s playing the straight man here and he’s ok; a little more bearable than usual. But how different is this role to the characters he plays in Tower Heist or Night At the Museum really?

Vince Vaughn also feels like he’s continually playing the same arrogant Average Joe character which has never been overly funny, but for some reason I’ve never minded him as much. Jonah Hill also seems to be approaching this cusp of over repetition so I hope he can make something of the recognition he received for his dramatic turn in Moneyball before we get bored of seeing him. These three do have reasonable chemistry together and Hill is the funniest of them but only really because his character is the weirdest. Richard Ayoade doesn't fit into the above mentioned criteria for me as I've never seen him in anything (directing Submarine doesn't count), but he plays the outsider of the group and does an ok job with it, yet at times this character feels a little jarring compared to the rest of the group.

Ultimately the issue is that the script is not particularly good and so the film’s really not that funny. There are a few good one-liners and a couple of decent visual jokes, but they generally stem from random things or product placement references (well done to Costco for being featured so strongly and positively!). But most of the humour is of the stupid overly sexual nature, the sort of which I’ve started to become pretty damn bored of. I mean, how many dick jokes does one film really need? But then there was a lot of loud laughter in the cinema throughout so either I just didn’t get it or I was watching it with an audience who lap the dumb stuff up?

The aliens themselves are fairly interesting and pleasingly the film doesn’t shy away from showing us a bit of gore. We’re not given too many scenes with the aliens and the balance of this is about right, as it would otherwise be an easy way to ruin things since the film is trying to be a comedy at heart. Yeah there’s too much cgi and the action isn’t up to much but that's to be expected. The whole male bonding subtext felt like it was only there because these days everyone else is including it. Writers, it’s not always necessary!

The Watch is watchable and entertaining in a very average way. But that’s the problem as it doesn’t have a single new or original idea. The characters are bland facsimiles of what these actors normally do, most of the comedy is too dumb to even be funny and the plot is achingly unoriginal. The trailer makes this all pretty clear so my expectations were set appropriately low. Know this and you shouldn’t be disappointed.

Review: Shadow Dancer

(Dir: James Marsh, 2012)

Films about the Northern Irish “troubles” have never really appealed to me. The conflict was always something that existed in the background of my youth on television news, but I was too young and never really interested in politics to understand or want to pay attention. None of the films I have seen that cover this turbulent time have stuck with me and I never make any special effort to watch them. So it was unusual for Shadow Dancer's trailer to appeal to me, yet I still had my doubts about it.

Set in nineties Belfast, the film concerns IRA member Collette McVeigh (Andrea Riseborough) who reluctantly gets turned by Clive Owens’ British government agent, forcing her to become an informant on those closest to her, particularly her brothers Gerry (Aiden Gillen) and Connor (Domhnall Gleeson) who are both strongly committed to the cause. But suspicions start to arise from other members that something is not quite right somewhere within. Principally this is a pretty straight forward set-up, but there is something to this.

Shadow Dancer excels when Riseborough is on the screen. I hadn’t liked her in either of the previous films I’d seen her in (Never Let Me Go and Brighton Rock), but here she is the core and heart of the film and is excellent. Driven by a need to protect her immediate family she is torn by the dichotomy of having to betray some to do so, as well as grasping how this impacts on her political beliefs. She seems lost in this problem and it’s difficult to judge her decisions when any one could ultimately be worth her life. Riseborough is both thoroughly convincing and compelling and holds the film together. All the scenes set amongst the IRA members and the politics are where the film is at its best and most interesting.

On the flip side the film fails to sustain interest when it reverts to Owen and his governmental wranglings, as this side of the story is steeped in procedural cliché and feels flat. Owen is adequate in the role but doesn’t offer anything that he hasn’t done elsewhere - I honestly felt like I could’ve been watching something like The International, that’s how untransmutable he seemed here. However his first scenes are strong, as are the quietly thrilling first ten or fifteen minutes. The film does manage to pull from some slightly different genres with a lot of human drama, politics, some tension and good thriller elements. James Marsh directed the film well. The supporting cast is decent too and particularly of note is David Wilmot who plays Kevin, a more senior IRA member whom Collette appears to be accountable too. He is very successfully unnerving and you're never certain what he’s going to do exactly.

Shadow Dancer manages to tread the right line between politics, decent drama and thrills. For a film of this nature it would be too easy to make it a heavy political study or an over the top action film / thriller, but it works because it's intelligent and there’s real human drama ensconced within this. In fact the main reason it works is Riseborough. A lesser performance would’ve put more light on the weaker police procedural side of the film, but it’s easier to overlook that aspect because of what the rest of it delivers. I'm pleased to say Shadow Dancer left me pleasantly surprised.

Review: Brave

(Dir: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman & Steve Purcell)

The reputation that Pixar have built for themselves is something worthy of respect. The quality and consistency of work alone is impressive, producing thirteen feature films in eighteen years, with a now settled rhythm of one film a year that allows their work to be that much more considered and of a higher quality. To make the inevitable comparisons to Dreamworks Animation, the other major animation player in Hollywood, who over fifteen years have put out twenty four features but now average three a year, the effects of this greater output can be seen in the differing quality of what they release. Pixar have also been known to exude a braveness in their approach, which for a company making only one film a year is very gratifying. We’ve seen an animated film with a dialogue free first third / a cranky octogenarian as the lead / a rat becoming a chef in Parisian gastronomic heaven. These films are justly revered and make a lot of money, but who really is the audience for them?

As has oft been covered these films are aimed at adults too, which is part of the genius. Animation may appeal to kids as its core audience, but Pixar respects that a) adults need to accompany the young ones, and b) get it right and adults might actually want to go watch without them. Most other animated films try to pull this off with a few jokes that go over kids heads, usually about some older pop culture reference, but Pixar are cleverer than that. What appeals to adults is surely what exists at the core of each film - they have soul and something important to instill in the viewer. Watching Up for example; it's magnificently stirring from the start and the first half is so expertly pitched that I have to remind myself that this is a film aimed at kids when approaching the over-the-top and generally less satisfactory second half. It can be so easy to forget that sometimes and that's the point.

And so to Brave, this year's release. Following on from Cars 2 Pixar had something to prove for the very first time - after all it was the sequel that kids probably wanted most and adults wanted the least. It was their first feature to be critically drubbed and the first not to be nominated for a single Academy Award, but it wasn’t a bad film, it just played more to their core audience and ended up feeling mediocre compared to past glories. Brave doesn’t do enough to be redolent of these past glories either, but it is still good. What’s most surprising is that it takes on the old Disney princess trope, the first time Pixar have done this, however it’s typically not quite as straightforward as that sounds.

Set amongst the Scottish clans of old, fiery Merida (Kelly McDonald) is the daughter of clan leader Fergus (Billy Connelly) and Elinor (Emma Thompson), and is more interested in archery and adventure than being the princess her mother is grooming and expecting her to be. In order to break from this she makes an ill-advised wish that comes true and causes much chaos, ensuring she must rectify things before it’s too late. With this resolutely not being a film about finding her prince and with it set in the highlands of Scotland away from a common magical fairytale world, this is certainly a princess story with a twist.

As ever the animation is high quality and the voice cast do a solid job with Scottish accents abounding all round. The Scottish setting gives the film some personality but it doesn’t feel like a gimmick, it just grounds everything in a distinct world. The story itself is pretty perfunctory but the core message about a girl finding and re-engaging with something key that was missing in her life is a decent and important one. There’s plenty of drama and a few slightly darker scenes, but there’s also a nice line of comic relief from Merida’s young brothers and her father. A key plot point in the second half falls into the Up trap of being a bit overly childish and threatens to derail the good work from the first half, but fortunately it just about manages to stay on track.

Brave is a sweet film and it’s difficult by the end not to be won over by it all and the core message. But it still feels pretty generic and in all honesty isn't as good as a number of the other Pixar films. It still exudes their high standard but the irony is it’s not actually a very brave film; not like the aforementioned Wall-E, Up or Ratatouille. Brave is the most Dreamworks like film that Pixar have made, the result of a second half which felt like it could’ve existed in one of their films, a story that feels more by-the-numbers than usual and fairly conventional aesthetics. Except it has the usual Pixar soul which puts it into that rarefied league, which in itself is reason enough to watch.

Review: The Expendables 2

(Dir: Simon West, 2012)

Let’s get this out of the way from the outset. The best “eighties revival” action film of the last few years was Rambo. It was the sequel no-one wanted coming twenty years after Rambo III, with a character you didn’t care about seeing aged. But you know what? It was absolutely fucking insane, and that was the point – once it got going it was violent and bloody as hell, with a plethora of limbs and body parts blown everywhere. This was pure eighties action film nostalgia; far more effective than any recent examples such as The Raid.

And so The Expendables followed two years later, promising something even more interesting. This time we got an action film teaming up most of our favourite old action heroes with some newer blood, which worked although it wasn’t perfect by any means. The action was good (although not the aforementioned Rambo good mind), it was pretty funny and just all round a lot of fun. Job done. The Expendables 2 therefore does what any good action sequel should – amps everything the hell up!   

There’s no point doing a plot synopsis, you don’t need one. There’s a mission, there are a lot of guns / weapons / explosions, and there are more eighties action stars than at a 'roid convention. You know all this. Did you need anything else? Oh wait, yes, here’s a key thing that’s been added. Arnold Schwarzenegger. We get a lot more of the big man now that he’s politically free and quite frankly that’s something we all wanted. One solitary scene last time made for a fun cameo, but this time we really needed to see him handling automatic weapons and he looked back at home doing so, yet he is starting to look old so I hope that's just our readjusting to seeing him on screen and he looks better in his upcoming films.

Another positive addition is Jean-Claude Van Damme. He was something missing from the first film and actually makes a really good villain here; better than Eric Roberts and David Zayas from first time round. Thing is, you know he is capable of violence and this also fits with one of the two classic eighties villain stereotypes – they’re either European or Russian. However, because we know what he is really capable of from many of his past films, and lest we forget the characters are superfulous here because really we’re watching JCVD, Arnie, Sly, Bruce etc, in the final showdown he does seem to be holding back. In a straight fight without weapons JCVD would probably dominate them all, but this is a true good guys vs bad guys film so it can only go one way and it does feel restrained.

You also can’t argue with Chuck Norris popping up playing another gun-slinging hero. How synonymous has he become to today's audience as an internet legend rather than as an action star? It's good to see him being part of this. It was also pleasantly surprising to see that the film is a little more violent and bloodier than the first one. However things in The Expendables 2 get all a little too meta for my tastes – take Chuck’s characters name (another eighties throwback) or all the stupid throwing round of famous catchphrases. The “I’ll be back” joke is really tired and unfunny now so leave it alone, please. The more modern action stars hold their own well, but do start to feel sidelined as things go on. Still, Jason Statham's in the film being totally badass and The Stath makes everything better.

Honestly you don’t need to know anymore about the film so let’s just leave it with this: The Expendables 2 is a lot of fun and it delivers exactly what it promises. If its brand of nostalgia and violence is what you want to see, then you should enjoy it. I did. It does some things better than the first film, other things not so. Don't worry about that - switch your brain and have some fun with it.