Review: Looper

(Dir: Rian Johnson, 2012)

Rian Johnson has been making a solid name for himself within film geek circles. His feature debut Brick is a worthy cult classic and his follow up The Brothers Bloom was a fascinating film that made it onto my favourite films of 2010 list. Combined with his directing a couple of Breaking Bad episodes, the announcement that he’d be making a time travel movie starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis pretty much set geek hearts alight. His previous work proves that he is not only a writer/director that likes intelligent, clever stories, but one that also has a great creative and visual eye. Thus Looper has been the source of anticipation for quite some time now.

Like all good time travel movies it’s important to get the rules set from the start. The year is 2044. Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a looper. Somewhere in the future time travel has been invented but it’s judiciously controlled. A system is set up whereby loopers are employed to kill people who've been sent back to 2044; people who supposedly need to be disposed of. It’s a dirty business and probably not strictly legal. A confluence of events means Joe’s older self (Willis) is sent back for Joe to terminate. He doesn’t do it and Old Joe goes on the run. Joe needs to stop him as you don’t let these future people escape... especially your older self. That’s the basics in a nutshell.

So, to address the biggest factor in a time travel movie – does the filmmakers concept of it work? Principally, yes. Rather than being about the act of time travel and “science” behind it, more focus is given to the aftermath, meaning it serves more as a catalyst and nice framing for the events that occur, making for a more engaging story, mostly. It can be all too easy to tie your story into knots and confuse the audience when travelling through time. Not so here, with the story presented in a pretty logical manner that doesn’t require any head scratching if you just go with it.

But there is a problem with the story. The first half of Looper functions beautifully, fantastically setting the scene, showing us its fascinating future vision and allowing the introduction of the compelling concept of how far you’d go to stop your future self. Then the story arcs off into an unexpected direction that is somewhat akin to hitting a brick wall. This chosen route offers some even further challenging questions, which I thought were explored well conceptually, but in the actual context of the story and the flow of the film it did nothing more than slow it down to the point where interest was starting to wane. One of the elements that informed this aspect of the story, the more fantastical TK side, really felt like it didn’t need to be in this film.

The real strength of Looper is the talent involved. Gordon-Levitt has had a particularly strong year already with The Dark Knight Rises and Premium Rush, the latter of which probably wouldn’t have been as good without him in the lead. Joe is ultimately an antihero. We’re rooting from him and we would probably aspire to his life in the context of the future we’re shown, but he’s still a flawed character who is really nothing more than a glorified hitman. And so he successfully traverses that line of likeability, which is certainly aided by the make-up to heighten his likeness to his older self, helping to make him look a tad less JG-L like. Willis is his usual reliable self, somewhat playing to his archetype but always enjoyable to watch. Emily Blunt plays her character well too but she is ultimately superfluous to the story.

Looper looks great, as ever with anything Johnson directs, and I was intrigued by the vision of the future it presents. The whole package is interesting so it’s a shame that such a strong first half is let down by a dominating plot thread in the second half that should really have been jettisoned and considered for a separate film. It wasn’t the right direction for Looper but is something I would want to see explored elsewhere. Unsurprisingly its utilisation of the time travel concept is successful and helped by approaching it somewhat economically – it may not live up to the heights of Primer (that is the master of all time travel films after all), but it is more successful in this area than most. As much as I liked Looper, and don’t get me wrong I did like it a lot, I feel disappointed that it didn’t live up to it’s potential. I hope it continues to do well at the box office though as we need more bigger budget films with this type of intelligent approach.

Review: [REC]3: Génesis

(Dir: Paco Plaza, 2012)

It’s amazing how regularly a series of horror films becomes victim to the law of diminishing returns. Disappointingly the [REC] series has fallen very deeply into this trap, offering less and less as we progress. [REC] was one of the best horror films of the last decade, plain and simple. It’s effectiveness stemmed primarily from the first person perspective, the isolation, a genuine feeling of no escape and the intensity this built too. I discuss the film in a bit more detail somewhere amidst a lengthy exegesis on my recent feelings on horror – here. [REC]² tried to ape its predecessors success, utilising the same setting but with more frustrating plot points and a major misjudgement in giving the protagonists automatic weapons to go up against the infected. When the odds are stacked like that and with the extended rattle of gunfire, the efficacy of such potentially creepy environments quickly dissipates.

And so to [REC]³: Génesis, the third installment that genuinely offers something different to what got us to this point. We’re no longer in a quarantined city apartment block we’re at a wedding reception out in a slightly more rural area. It’s Clara (Leticia Dolera) and Koldo’s (Diego Martín) day; we watch them get married and move onto the reception where things inevitably turn into a fight for survival, as the events we’ve previously seen unfold in the city reach them.

I quite liked this as a setting for a zombie movie - a lot of people in one place and a big building with a number of rooms/settings can be interesting and gives plenty of scope for not knowing what’s around the corner. Both Dolera and Martín do a decent enough job as the leads and are both pretty likeable with a clear goal that extends beyond just survival. It’s impressive how beautiful Dolera manages to look covered in blood, make-up running and with her wedding dress ravaged. None of this is enough to create an effective horror film though.

The biggest problem ultimately stems from the direction. This is a horror film without any scares or jumps - the antithesis of the first film. Most of the horror comes from seeing people covered in blood and looking zombified, until the latter part when the film decides to get into the business of trying to be more graphic. Strange then that although this is welcomed it feels dissonant with how tame the rest of the film is. Then there’s the really clunky way in which religion is brought back in to explain events. It’s not new as it was very subtly there in the first film and more prevalent in the second, but here it just feels cheap and badly shoehorned in.

Camerawork is also something of a notable point. The first twenty minutes establish the film in the vein we’ve gotten used to with handheld footage cutting between three different camera perspectives. And then suddenly we’re watching a more traditional film for the duration, which immediately robs the story of any potency. The thing is it’s actually really well shot with some great looking scenes, but that’s pretty meaningless when it’s not actually aiding the story. This change to a traditional style also means there’s a score over the film, but it isn’t very good, regularly feeling out of place and jarring when all it should be doing is enhancing.

[REC] never needed a sequel and it certainly never needed a third of fourth film. It’s commendable that something different has been tried in [REC]³: Génesis, as the original idea had already given all it could during the first sequel, but we’re not presented with anything better here. Yes there are a couple of good ideas but they’re not enough to cover for what is essentially a pretty lacklustre horror film. Director Paco Plazo co-directed and co-wrote the first two films alongside Jaume Balagueró, and Balagueró is separately working on the fourth (and hopefully final) film, [REC] Apocalypse. It’ll be interesting to see how that compares and which one of the pair really is the better director. Either way I can’t see myself ever having a desire to watch these sequels again – the lack of any decent horror and law of diminishing returns is too great. 

Review: Holy Motors

(Dir: Leos Carax, 2012)

Is life really an act and if so, who’s watching our performances? This slightly abstract concept about reality really intrigues me. After having read it twice I came to the conclusion that Bret Easton Ellis’ Glamorama is one of my favourite books. There are a multitude of reasons this is so, and I know it’s a book that probably frustrates many, but there’s this one thing in particular that really fascinates me about it - the camera crew that lead character Victor has following him around. No matter the crazy shit that’s going on they’re always there documenting his life... but to what end are they doing this and do they even actually exist? Cultural milieu and narcissim aside, is there really an audience? And I don’t mean in The Truman Show "big brother" sense.

Holy Motors is fascinating because it’s lead character is seemingly stuck in this position. Or is he stuck?  What is real and what is fake blur because nothing that happens seems real, yet everything exists in the reality of Paris, sometimes mundane sometimes outlandish, so how can any of it be fake? I’ll provide a little context, but only a little because a lot will take away too much away – Monsieur Oscar (Denis Lavant) wakes up and leaves for work, getting into a stretch white limo where his driver / assistant Céline (Edith Scob) informs him he has nine appointments that day. And so he sets off on them. The word “appointments” may be somewhat misrepresentative.

Lavant is actually pretty incredible here, the range and ability he has to portray on screen in this single film is something that is possibly beyond most actors. This is what the phrase "chameleon like" means. It's one of the best performances I've seen the year. I was reminded of Cosmopolis, only partly because portions are set in a limo, but because that was a film driven by singular conversations and debates, which once completed moved the lead character onto another encounter. In Holy Motors there is a similar type of motion where once an appointment is completed it's done and it's time to prepare for the next.

And again I’m wondering who the “audience” is? Where are they? They must exist. Is anything here what it seems? Both Eva Mendes and Kylie Minogue appear in different segments, in some ways playing very much to type (Eva Mendes the beauty for example), but also in a way that feels outside of what might be expected from them. These are the most recognisable faces in Holy Motors, they're not the core. Their presence adds an extra sense of fascination to a film that seems to revel in it’s fair share of “what the fuck?” moments. 

And let's not forget the preoccupation with death. This pervades, particularly later on, but it's presented in such a range that it encompasses the savage, the heartbreaking, the inevitable. Perhaps this is the core of the film? It comes to us all; it comes in different ways. The world keeps turning. Is this Monsieur Oscar rehearsing for it? He seems tired. But you can't prepare.

The more I think about Holy Motors the more intrigued I am and the more I like it. It’s really well shot and it’s effectively brave filmmaking from Carax. It’s thoroughly confident too and follows through with conviction. I want to go into more detail but I should say less - I went in entirely cold, not knowing the plot nor having seen the trailer. I was just aware of high plaudits, the poster and that it might be a little "out there", which was enough to get me in. This is a film truly best experienced without foreknowledge.

I'm aware this "review" reads like a mess of half-formed thoughts, ideas and interpretations, but it's kind of what and how I've been thinking about Holy Motors since watching it. I left the cinema a little uncertain about what I'd witnessed on screen and it's all been sinking in since. Initial coherence perhaps isn't a priority. And I'm still preoccupied with this thought about the audience. Who do we inhabit these roles for and why? I don't know the answer. Holy Motors is highly recommended if you don't like having your hand held.

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.