Wrath of the Titans (2012) ***

                       

      

Some time ago, Sam Worthington came out apologising for Clash of the Titans (prequel to Wrath).  He doesn’t need to apologise too much for this though.  It was a pretty decent mythical epic.  In fact, what he really needs to apologise for is that atrocious mop of hair on his head!  Au natural does not suit everyone Mr Worthington… Get a hair cut!  The rest will do.

So, since our hero – Perseus’ last escapade, he’s still as sulky, doomy and gloomy as ever.  I guess he has a reason to be.  He is now a widower (Io’s Gemma Arterton was too busy playing Gretel) and single father to young Helius.  Helius is bored of his father’s fishing trade, something Perseus is quite content with.  He’d rather see the heroic version of his father he’s heard so much about.  Needless to say, he gets his chance.  Chronos (father of Zeus and therefore Grandfather of
Perseus) the Titan is about to break free from his prison – Tartarus.

Perseus being a demi-god, seems to be the only one who can apparently put a stop to this.  You see, the world has stopped believing in the gods, so they can’t help (as explained by Liam Neeson’s Zeus) as their power dwindles.

But stubborn Perseus isn’t interested, until all hell starts breaking loose (literally) and daddy Zeus is captured by ne’er do wells Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Ares (Edgar Ramirez).  Perseus has his work cut out for him.  He needs to rescue Zeus, kill Chronos and save the world… again.

Enter cousin Agenor (Toby Kebbel, part saviour of the film with his antics).  He’s Poseidon’s son – the self proclaimed Navigator.  Because half a god + half a god = a full god. Right? Err…

Any who, we get an upgrade in eye-candy and acting talent!  Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day, Doom) is now playing Andromeda (previously played by Alexa Davalos). Beauty, talent and I don’t want to throw anything at her when she makes a speech!  A rare triple threat in a woman…

Oh and we have Bill Nighy as a lunatic god Hephaestus (glad he’s on the good side).

Sam Worthington is still as wooden as a tree, however he kills (in a good way) the emotional scenes, in the latter half.  He’s actually better when he’s bouncing off some of the better actors such as Kebbel and especially Neeson.

Neeson and Fiennes are just in leagues of their own… especially Fiennes.  The man can make you go from hating him to cheering him on in the blink of an eye!  I of course cheered him on throughout! 

The themes of father/son and brother relationships is what really made me connect to this Titans flick.  It’s too bad the swoon-worthy Edgar Ramirez wasn’t given more to do other than throw jealous tantrums, albeit it pretty powerful tantrums – he is the god of war after all. And he made a pretty damn good Ares, even with what little he was given.  I actually wish he’d hogged the screen a bit more. 

Actually, if Perseus had taken the time to at least wipe his face, he could have also scrubbed up quite well.  How hard can it be?!  He lives next to an ocean!  Take a dip, and then ride off on Pegasus!  Even Andromeda took the time out of her busy war schedule to wipe her mud-splattered face!

I was about to say this film is a great place to stop in the franchise, but I’ve just discovered they’re making another one.  I’d suggest just concentrating on another Immortals film – a far superior mythical epic, and just find a way to incorporate Ramirez and Fiennes. 

So if you’re into your epics… go see!  Just don’t expect to be blown away. 

We Bought a Zoo ***

          

We Bought a Zoo is a feel good family flick that’s definitely worth watching with the family… or on your lonesome if you want to indulge your inner child (like me).

I’m not going to say it’s brilliant, but it’s different, possibly because it’s actually based on a true story.

The title pretty much sums up the premise of the film.  Matt Damon’s widower, Benjamin Mee decides to uproot his children, Rosie (the extremely adorable Maggie Elizabeth Jones) and troubled teen Dylan (Colin Ford), moving them to a zoo – helpfully encouraged by little Rosie. 

Buying the zoo was the easy part, the hard work comes in bringing it up to scratch and dealing with his children.  He faces all forms of opposition from his laid back, almost hippy-like brother (the very funny Thomas Haden Church) to the various members of the zoo-keeping staff that come with his new ‘adventure.’

Head of this eccentric bunch is Scarlett Johansson, someone who normally irritates me to the point where I want to gouge my own eyes out, but she was oddly cute and quirky in this.  Equally as odd is her little sister – played by Elle Fanning, also quite sweet in an weird way.

 

But it’s little Rosie that’s the scene stealer.  You look forward to her showing up throughout – usually to lift both the characters and audience’s spirits as this odd bunch try to make a success of a potential disaster.

The film did take some time in establishing a rapport with me.  It almost seemed as if the characters i.e. the family members were just getting to know each other.  The only relationship that seemed believable from the beginning was Benjamin and Rosie’s… and incidentally, Matt Damon was at his least wooden around little Maggie.  Scarlett Johansson’s delivery was occasionally equally as wooden, though this may have been due to her character’s quirkiness.

It was Angus McFadyen’s lunatic that I felt was sorely lacking in scenes.  If he had been given more screen time… with Thomas Haden Church, we could have had comedic gold. 

Nevertheless, it is still a great family movie, and the kids won’t care about anything critical I’ve just said.  So, no problems there.

Drive (2011) ****

                             

Drive – a one word title that could either put you off or have you intrigued.  I love my one-word titled films – especially if they relate to cars.  I know nothing about them, just that some look cool and drive (pun intended) fast.

And yes, this was a very intriguing film.  One which has a very late 70s/80s feel to it.  The retro themed soundtrack also helps in that department (retro themed because they weren’t written at that time).

Drive tells the story of The Driver (Ryan Gosling) – a man so mysterious that we never actually find out his name, or for that matter his history.  He is even billed as The Driver in the credits to add to the mysterious atmosphere that surrounds him.  

The Driver is a part time Hollywood stuntman.  The rest of his time is spent either being a mechanic or a very effective getaway driver – freelance.

The latter is what gets him into trouble when he befriends his very cute neighbour – Carey Mulligan’s (Never Let Me Go, Shame) Irene and her even cuter son Benecio (Kaden Leos).

Technically, it’s actually after her husband returns along with his troubled past.  What The Driver does to keep his new friends safe is what defines part of his character i.e. the fact that he has morals and that is all we truly know about him.  That and the prominent symbolism of the scorpion on the back of his jacket – something he refers to when things come to a head.  A warning, if you will to the bad guys.

Drive is packed full of supporting actors you’ve seen somewhere, many of whom you may be unable to place.  One of my favourites is Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Sons of Anarchy).  He plays a Jewish thug wishing to be an Italian Gangster.

I love Perlman, especially when he’s playing some form of a psychopath.  His partner Bernie (Albert Brooks) also stood out as the more level-headed bad guy.  Someone whom you spend most of the film trying to like – something I actually did.

What I felt (and this is just a personal note) is ashamed at not recognising a living legend of the silver screen – Russ Tamblyn (see Tom Thumb, West Side Story).  The man is just too cool.

Drive has a very Michael Mann-ish vibe to it.  Pink lettering and all, you almost expect Crockett and Tubbs to jump out at some point (Miami Vice reference to those too young or uneducated in 80s cool). 

Added to this is Ryan Gosling’s outstanding performance in which one stops to think… Who does he remind me of?

For me, it was a young Robert De Niro, circa Taxi Driver i.e. that cool, softly spoken (when spoken) strength, ambiguity and menace.  It is my strong belief that the most softly spoken are also the most dangerous.

I believe Ryan Gosling is an amazing actor.  And the chemistry between him and Carey Mulligan is something that really helps the film.  Though it’s a subtle chemistry rather than an explosive one.  But it’s there… how else could they get away with so little dialogue?

The film seems to be aimed towards people that enjoyed the flashy 80s styled thrillers… so if you’re one of them, this is a definite must for you.  That or if you just like excellent acting.

Don’t watch if you want definitive answers.  You won’t get any.

This Means War (2012) **

Oh dear… where should I begin?  This means War is quite a bit of a mess, which is sad, as I was really looking forward to a good Action Comedy.  I’m not going to say it was all bad.  The man candy was obviously going to be the main draw – and one in which they succeeded in.  But overall – very messy.

The film is about two very appealing CIA agents – Chris Pine’s FDR and Tom Hardy’s Tuck – who decide to wage war against each other for the affections of Reese Witherspoon’s Lauren… after realising that they are both dating her.

Somewhere in there, FDR and Tuck are also trying to thwart Til Schweiger’s bad guy.  I honestly can’t remember what sort of a baddie he was.  He turns up at the beginning, disappears – only to reappear somewhere in the middle to look a little menacing - disappears again, only to once again return for an action packed finale.  I do believe this plot (subplot?) was relegated to the background.  Which again is sad – Til Schweiger is quite man candy-ish too!

Maybe the film would have been better if there had been an iota of chemistry between Witherspoon and either one of the leads.  As it turns out, the only chemistry seemed to have been between Pine and Hardy. 

I’m sure this film would have been absolutely brilliant if the focus had been on FDR and Tuck’s ‘Brolationship,’ rather than trying to force Witherspoon’s cuteness when her character actually came off as irritating, hypocritical and quite frankly – slutty, instead.

Conversely, Chelsea Handler, as  Lauren’s loud mouthed and obnoxious friend was quite likable.  Well… she had me smirking and sniggering throughout - and a little grossed out in one scene.

The best scenes without a doubt though, were those between Pine and Hardy.  And as the film went on, they just seemed to get better and funnier.  Hardy was the one that surprised me the most.  We all knew Pine could do comedy (see Just my Luck, Star Trek), but I’m used to seeing Hardy in serious roles such as Bronson or Wuthering Heights.  I never knew he had the ability to make me descend in to hysterical laughter.  One scene where Tuck and FDR jump up and down like excited girly-girls had me in stitches!

The little reference to Star Trek – everyone would have got that, what with Chris Pine’s role as Kirk.  I sniggered not just because I got that reference, but also because Hardy is also part of the Trekkie franchise!

However, and this is more of a pondering than a complaint.  When our two hunks fight, I can’t help but think that if this was real, Hardy would probably rip off Pine’s head with the greatest of ease… which is probably why I wasn’t too excited in this face-off.  It’s not Hardy’s fault - he just has a naturally powerful presence that he can’t help.  But they are both still adorable… in a ‘I could kill you in a 100 different ways’ kind of sweet.

And what was with the camera shaking?!  Enough already... If a fight ensues – you do not need to have the camera shake!  Especially not for this sort of movie!  Sheesh!

So, in a nutshell, if Withspoon’s scenes had been shortened - or better still her character replaced by an unknown and then her scenes shortened in combination with the emphasis on FDR and Tuck’s relationship… oh and some more focus on the thwarting of the baddie, we would have had the makings of a potentially perfect film. 

Which, basically means – wait until this is released on DVD… then you can fast forward the useless rubbish and enjoy the fun bits.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

I suggest you have a stack of tissues at the ready before you start watching this.  Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close for the most part will leave you in humble silence which will eventually lead to uncontrollable bouts of incessant weeping.  The fact that it is set in and around the events of September 11^th is enough to reduce anyone to tears.  The “worst day” as referred to by Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn), who’s perspective narrates the film will reduce you to a blubbering wreck.

Oskar is a highly sensitive (and possibly, on some level autistic) nine year-old “amateur inventor, Francophile and pacifist” to name but a few.  After loosing his father (Tom Hanks) to whom he was extremely close to, he searches for the lock to a mysterious key he finds… obsessively.

In order to accomplish this, he needs to find a person named Black.  Unfortunately there are over 400 people listed with that name, and so he decides to visit each and every single one.  He even deduces that it will take him 3 years to do so and as a result allocates 6 minutes to be spent with each person. 

This is an emotional journey of discovery and self discovery as he meets a variety of people and finds that reality is far removed from the calculations he lives by.  And indeed you cannot spend just 6 minutes with everyone person as each has a story that needs to be told. 

Unfortunately, as he searches for this lock and to be closer to his father, he seems to grow further apart from his mother (Sandra Bullock).

It’s clear that the death of his father has left Oskar in turmoil, more so than others as his father seemed to be everything to him.  Luckily for him, on his voyage of discovery, he meets and connects with his long lost Grandfather - played beautifully by Max von Sydow.

Between Oskar’s possible Asperger’s and his Grandfather’s inability to speak, you can see that you don’t need verbal communication to form a very strong bond.

Thomas Horn’s Oskar is the character that the film focus’ on, so essentially big names such as Bullock, Hanks, etc may feature but they’re really just supporting him.  And for his first feature film, Young Horn did quite well.  He elicited a range of emotions (at least from me) from sympathy and joy, to anger and irritation.  The latter may not be his fault.  Sometimes reality just does not always translate well on screen.  

However, Horn did shine and he shone best when in the company of the likes of Hanks and especially von Sydow.  Horn and Sydow had such beautiful chemistry that when the latter was not shown, I began to feel a little bored.

In fact von Sydow on his own was a revelation.  He does not utter a word, but everything is clearly communicated through his facial expressions and body language.  The scene where he hears his son’s voice for the first time reduced me to a sobbing wreck.

I believe the only thing I truly disliked about the film and you’ll have to forgive me for this, is Oskar’s rambling rants.  I understand that there are people in the world who are like this, I deal with them on a daily basis, however being truly authentic does not always work on the big screen.  Maybe if his rambling had been shortened and a few scenes trimmed, it would have made for an outstanding film.  It’ll just have to settle for excellent. 

So, to conclude I’ll remind you to take your hankies; please be mindful of your neighbours whilst blubbering and enjoy an excellently emotive drama.

The Woman in Black (2012) ****

The Woman in Black is the latest and most faithful offering from the Hammer Film Productions (think Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee).  That in combination with the likes of Ciaran Hinds (Rome, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) and Daniel Radcliffe means you’re in for a good old fashion Horror treat. 

The Woman in Black tells the tale of a young lawyer (Radcliffe) who is sent by his employer to deal with the estate of a mysterious old lady who has recently died.  Upon his arrival, he discovers that the village he has been sent to is being terrorised by said woman - a very vengeful and very deceased woman (Liz White).  The villagers fear for what is most precious to them… their children – for every time she is seen, a child dies.  And it all links back to the old lady’s estate.

Radcliffe is supported by Ciaran Hinds’ Daily, who lost his own child to this supernatural being, but doesn’t believe in her… or so he says.  That, however, does not stop him from supporting Kipps.  Maybe Daily saw his own son in Kipps, which is why he blindly supports him. 

Daniel Radcliffe I thought was superb.  And his role as Kipps, hammers (please excuse the pun) home the fact that Harry Potter is no more. 

What drives it home is that Radcliffe is given a family of his very own, including an adorable son played by Misha Handley, Radcliffe’s real Godson, a very clever decision as you can see the love between the two.  It helps that little Misha can act.  Who knows, maybe he’ll follow in his famous Godfather’s footsteps.

The film really does aim to shock, but it’s all in context and unlike most horror flicks these days, does not rely on gore.  The opening scene itself with the three little girls is quite harrowing.  The fact that you don’t see what literally happens to them is more than enough to disturb you.  This is a suspenseful film that will give you quite a few heart attacks and make some scream… a lot if you happen to have a similar audience to the one I had.

The symbolism says everything.  The woman in black, though wronged clearly represents darkness.  The woman in white (Kipp’s wife), frequently seen in her wedding dress represents purity.

The production set also gave credence to the authentic feel of the film.  From the isolated haunted mansion to the authentic nursery toys – actual toys from the 19^th -20^th century.

If you’ve seen the vintage Hammer Horror movies, you’ll know Daniel Radcliffe brings an added talent to an excellent Horror genre of a bygone era.  Jane Goldman (wife of Jonathan Ross) really does know what she’s doing when it comes to screen plays.    

To summarise, The Woman in Black is a triumphant return to the atmospheric chillers – the return of the Hammer Horror!

Jack and Jill (2012) ***

I love Adam Sandler films… They never disappoint.  What you see, is literally what you get.  And I knew when I saw the poster for Jack and Jill, it would be a no frills, straightforward but entertaining comedy.  Which it was.

Jack and Jill Sadelstein are twins, which means that they’re both played by Adam Sandler. 

Jack is the ‘normal one.’  He is also the popular, spoiled and slightly snobby one. 

Jill, well, she’s lovely but has the tendency to leave “sweat shadows” on her bed sheets.  She loves her brother… very, very much… and she’s coming to visit for Thanksgiving.  But will she leave?

Jack lives with his family – wife Erin (Katie Holmes) and children Sofia (Elodie Tougne) and Gary (Rohan Chand).  If you’re wondering why Gary is played by a little Indian boy, it’s explained hilariously (and in a totally un-politically correct way) by Jill… at a family dinner.  And yet somehow everyone still loves her, especially Gary.

Everyone except Jack… or so it seems.

Not that Jack doesn’t love her… he just can’t seem to or does not want to show it.  That is, until he needs her help in securing Al Pacino for his Dunkacino advert – don’t ask, just watch. 

Yes- Al Pacino is playing himself.  Or rather a deranged, almost psychopathic, stalker-ish version of himself.  One that only has eyes for Jill. 

Unfortunately for Jack, his sister doesn’t really care for the Pacino and Pacino could care less for Jack.  On top of that, Jill seems to have a blossoming relationship with Felipe, the gardener (Eugenio Derbez – who also plays Felipe’s hysterical, chilli munching Grandmother). 

So who will Jill choose?  The Pacino or the kindly, totally un-pc Felipe?

Will Jack get his Dunkacino advert?  Will he stop being so mean to his sister and show her that he really does love her?  His impersonating her during a particularly amusing date with Pacino cannot be helpful.

I really don’t think I could say anything bad about Jack and Jill.  It could be bias… it could be that there was nothing wrong with it.  One thing’s for sure, I loved it because it wasn’t crude.  It’s generally hard to find a movie that appeals to adults who don’t want unmentionables hurled in their faces every five minutes.

I also loved the intro and extro of twins describing their relationships... very very funny!  And shows you a glimpse into the magical world of what being a twin is.

And if that doesn’t win you over, how about the fantastic supporting cast and cameos?  The likes of which include David Spade (8 Simple Rules) – there seems to be a theme of men dressing up as women in this fim – and the fabulous Dana Carvey (Wayne’s World) and Johnny Depp too!

We’ve already discussed Al Pacino, and if you still haven’t been swayed, be assured he becomes increasingly more psychotically obsessed with Jill as the film progresses.

How about young Rohan Chand?  If Sandler hadn’t had already stolen the movie as Jill, Chand would have!

In short, Jack and Jill is a perfect watch for some plain old relaxing fun.  It’ll also appeal to the family… and by family I don’t mean children under the age of 8.  Then again, I’m a prude.