Considering the talent involved there was quite high expectations for this film. But perhaps because of a title change due to a real life incident involving a Neighbourhood Watch group, the film was a big flop.
When making a film you bring together all the elements in the hope that magic happens and a great film is made. In 'The Watch' you have some great elements coming together like the cast and a good premise for them to play with. Sadly it did not work out. I would be interested to know how much of this script was improvised. This seems to be the trend lately with comedies where scenes have the dialogue improvised. I'm getting the feeling that this technique does not always work. While there are a few funny moments, overall there are not enough to make the film hilarious. It sometimes looks like they are searching for a funny line to say. This can get a bit tedious. Perhaps the mixture of genres did not make a tasty meal either.
For me Ben Stiller is funnier when he is playing a wacky character. As an average guy he is less effective, like here. Vince Vaugh does his usual manic shtick. He has some very funny lines though. Jonah Hill is rather subdued and does not get many funny moments. The real star is Richard Ayoade. I've been a fan of his from the TV series 'The IT Crowd' and I'm glad he has finally made it to the big screen. His dry delivery makes for some of the funniest lines in the film considering the rest of the cast are playing it really crazy. Pity his performance is overshadowed by the rest of the film.
Not as terrible as you may have heard. But still very disappointing despite the who made it.
I'm not sure if it is by default or by design but Colin Farrell seems to be starring in lots of films that are remakes. This time he is replacing Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Hollywood is an environment that is filled with fear. No one is willing to take risks and make films which are unique and different. Instead we get an endless parade of remakes and sequels. I'm not opposed to remakes and/or sequels but it just gets a bit tiring when that is all studios seem to make. I also think that they need to be made more interesting and different to the original. Most of the films Len Wiseman has made has been part of the 'Underworld' series so I have not seen many of them. I did however enjoy the work he did on 'Live Free Or Die Hard'. That cannot be said of this film. I found this remake of 'Total Recall' to be incredibly boring and uninteresting. It is mostly a man being chased through a futuristic city but Len has not managed to film it in any dynamic way. I admit that the films production design is the best thing about it. The city looks quite spectacular and I thought the way it was designed was very impressive. But a great background does not help what is happening in the foreground.
Despite being in a very bland film I did quite like Colin Farrell's performance. He manages to convey an everyman quality which is what the role needs. Even though he is doing extraordinary stunts he still feels like an average guy. Len's wife Kate Beckinsale is very bitchy in her role as the villain's hench-person. The same cannot be said of Colin's sidekick Jessica Biel. She does not have much to do except tag a long with Colin. Bryan Cranston is not given a character that suits his talents. He gives a nice amount of menace but not in a very effective way that makes you fear him.
Another reason why remakes should not be done. Just another generic action film that does not try to be different. But it does look pretty.
Mark Duplass has been a very busy boy this year. He has acted in around five films as well as writing and directing one. This is one of his acting only films.
If there is one thing that films have taught us is that a man and a woman cannot be 'just friends'. It seems that in in almost every film where a couple start out as friends they end up together as lovers by the end. Unless one of the couple is gay. With this type of predictability, the film becomes more about the journey rather than how it ends. 'Your Sister's Sister' has an interesting journey because writer director Lynn Shelton has created some great characters who we become interested in. The film is mostly just three people in a cabin in the woods for a weekend so with very little plot you are mostly concentrated on characters. Jack is carrying a lot of baggage after the death of his brother. He makes an excellent speech at the beginning of the film which endeared me to him immediately. Iris is his best friend and a very nice girl who offers a quiet place for Jack to go. A spanner in placed in the works when Jack runs into Iris's sister Hannah and they sleep together. It is one of the more interesting complications to a relationship. One which provides many great hurdles to their ultimate happiness. Luckily Lynn also gives this threesome some great dialogue and interesting conversations. This is good for a film that is all about talking.
Many of you may not know Mark Duplass but I'm sure you'll hear about him soon. He plays the average guy so well. Jack is a nice guy who is just a bit confused about his relationships. Mark plays him with a great deal of wit and charm. Emily Blunt is delightful as always. Rosemarie DeWitt is fast becoming popular too. I really like her in this role and she is very funny.
If you like your romantic comedies a little bit more low key then this is the film for you. It has very little action so it is for those who like sparkling dialogue.
Director William Friedkin has been a little quite of late. Not making as many films as he used to back in the 1970's. But I don't think he has lost his talent.
There seems to be two schools of thought as regards being in debt. There are those who avoid it and run away from who ever they owe money to. Then there are those who try to come up with a way to get themselves out of the debt crisis. Most of the time the scheme is hair brained and complications arise.
People who live in trailers have not been well served by films. They are always being depicted as dumb. 'Killer Joe' does not break that stereotype. The Smith family are not exactly well furnished in the brains department and Chris is possibly the dumbest because of the crazy scheme he comes up with to pay off a drug debt. His father admits to being dumb but Chris is dumber because of the stupid scheme he comes up with. Writer Tracy Letts has taken these characters and this plot to craft a wonderfully trashy comedy. Friedkin has then gone and added some brutal violence to the mix and you get a really delightful piece of cinema. Tracy has created some wonderfully trashy characters that you just have to laugh at with their idiotic behaviour. there is however a real spanner in their works and that comes in the form of Joe Cooper. He is one of the most scarily creepy characters ever put onto film. He is definitely a man taking advantage of these dumb people and while he is very sadistic in his approach you can't help but be amused. That is the dark side in me.
This group of actors can play dumb really well. Emile Hirsch gives Chris some sense of believability that makes you think his crazy scheme might work. Thomas Hayden Church is excellent as always. His character admits to being dumb which he plays well. Gina Gershon has played some trashy women in her career and this one is no different. I have to respect her fro some of the things her character has to go through at the end of the film. Juno Temple treads a fine line with her character. Dottie is 'not quite there' mentally and so can be taken advantage of. Her family don't treat her all that well but do show her love. Juno is able to play that aloofness really well and still show flashes of intelligence like she does know what is going on. The real reason to see this film though is Matthew McConaughey. I don't know what has happened but Matthew has been making some brilliant choices with his roles lately. He just keeps getting better with each performance. I think this is the first time that Matthew has played a bad guy and I don't think you get get someone more evil than this. The way he treats this family and takes advantage of them is a thing of beauty. His encounter with Gina's character Sharla is amazing. It will change the way you think about KFC.
The violence is shocking and it may turn you off KFC or fried chicken in general but this still an excellent comedy/thriller. Matthew McConaughey's performance is worth the price of admission.
Thankfully classic film series that are running at cinemas are putting in a Hitchcock film as part of their program. Which means, thankfully, I get to experience these films on the big screen.
Something I've noticed about Alfred Hitchcock's films is that he likes to keep his audience off guard. It is a technique that I think many film makers these days have lost. 'Psycho' begins safely as a crime drama about a woman who stealing money from her boss before nicely segueing into a horror film about a serial killer. In 'The Birds' he uses much the same technique. The film begins rather innocently as a delightful romantic comedy then moves into a horror film. It is a little bit creepy how Melanie follows Mitch to his family home in order to deliver him a bird. But we learn that she is a rich woman who is prone to pulling pranks. This is obviously a woman who has far too much time on her hands. Perhaps what happens when she goes to the town of Bodega Bay is punishment for her crazy ways. If Melanie occupied her time with more worthy pursuits then she would not have gone there and get attacked by birds. Hitchcock also doesn't explain why the birds are behaving so aggressively. I'm a bit conflicted as to how I feel about this. On the one hand it is nice that everything is not explained but on the other it would have been good to get some indication as to why now and why there that the birds are behaving so badly. The one thing that Hitchcock does really well is scare you. The ending to the film is incredibly scary. The fear has been building up slowly over the film and so when our heroes must escape it is so tense. It is also one of the most referenced and parodied scenes in film so it is good to see how the original is done.
This is the debut of Tippi Hedren on film and she is excellent. Tippi plays the spoiled rich girl very well. Rod Taylor makes an wonderful partner for Tippi to play off. Their flirting is nicely played and while you know they will end up together there is a great deal of fun in their journey of falling in love. While the character is a bit of a cliche, Jessica Tandy plays the 'mother-in-law' role really well. This is also one of the first roles for Veronica Cartwright and she is excellent.
It may not be the greatest Hitchcock film but it is still much better than many films being made these days. I think a lot of directors need to study his methods as many modern films lack the tension these older films have.
The Three Stooges are a comedy group that are very highly respected in the comedy community. They are widely regarded as the epitome of slapstick comedy. Any attempt to recreate that was going to come under a great deal of scrutiny.
I have long been a fan of the Farrelly Brothers. I think they are excellent comedy directors. It seems their attempt to bring back The Three Stooges has been in development for ages. At various stages they had some very famous names attached. However it seems they ended up with some lesser known actors which is not a bad thing.
As far as comedy goes I am more of a verbal comedy fan than a visual comedy fan. That is not to say I hate visual comedy but I prefer the spoken word or clever line. So while this film is mostly visual comedy and slapstick I found myself enjoying it more than I expected. The Farrelly Brothers and their co-writer Mike Cerrone have come up with some excellent comedic set pieces that are really funny. Most of the time you know where they are going you don't mind as they are still funny. What I liked most was how respectful they are of the original Three Stooges especially in structure. The Farrelly Brothers have divided the film into three sections, so it plays like three shorter films. Much like the original Stooges films were played. The only element that seems a bit out of place was the inclusion of the 'Jersey Shore' TV series as a plot element. It felt a bit tacky.
Sean Hayes, Chris Diamantopoulos and Will Sasso not only look remarkably like their older counterparts but they work really well as a comedy team. You would think that they were the original Stooges come back to life. The Farrelly Brothers have also gotten some wonderful supporting actors. Jane Lynch and Jennifer Hudson mostly play straight to Stooges antics but they are very good. The best performance though is by Larry David. He is hilarious as one of the nuns at the orphanage. He is essentially playing the female version of himself but it is incredibly funny.
It may not come across as terribly sophisticated humour and is mostly aimed at kids, but this is still an excellent comedy.
With all the blockbusters we get in our cinemas, you often forget that film is an art form as well. I'm sure all film makers say they are making art but some films are more obviously arty than others.
I am often criticised (affectionately) by friends for the bizarre tastes I have in films. I wear this characterisation with pride. I like films that are unconventional and different to the norm. I also like films that are strange and unusual. However, there comes a point when things get too bizarre even for me. 'Holy Motors' is one such film. The film is about a guy who travels around Paris in a limousine performing in various scenarios. Some seem fairly normal or conventional but others are just plain weird. As I said I don't mind weird or bizarre films but I feel there must be some context for the behaviour. There could be some hidden meaning behind the film's weirdness but I just did not get it. I am usually able to understand what a film is about but this is one that just went over my head. I did not understand the context of what the 'performer' was doing what he was doing, why he was doing it and for who. At one point there is a hint that there could be cameras watching him, the implication being that he is performing 'for' someone, but for who? He does do some really strange things so there must be others in on the situation too. I have come to accept that people like to see and do bizarre things but I did not understand why someone would want to see what this man does. I'm sure the film is not set in our world but in one that exists in a parallel universe. But it is one I do not understand.
I must give credit to Denis Lavant for taking on this role. He must not only do some incredibly bizarre things but also undergoes many different make-up changes. Perhaps if I understood the film better I could appreciate what he was doing a bit more. I must also give respect to Eva Mendes for being part of this film. You would not expect a Hollywood actress like her to be a part of a film like this, especially considering she has to perform in the film's strangest scene. Kylie Minogue does a good job too but like the rest of the film I was not able to pick up on what her scene was trying to say.
If someone could go see this film and possibly explain it to me then it might help. Bizarre does not even begin to describe it.
Australia seems to be having a great run of excellent films this year. That continues with this feel good true story.
It is so great to see all these movies being made about indigenous Australians. The greatest thing though is that people are going to see them. Admittedly it is the feel good ones that do better but it is still great to see them. I don't think many people would know about this story of four Aboriginal girls going to entertain the troops during the Vietnam War. While the film does take the conventional path it is still an interesting story. Writers Tony Briggs and Keith Thompson have infused the film with some political subplots as well as giving each of the girls great character traits. The only problem I had was that there was little said about what the reaction was to the girls back home. Did anyone know they were over there? Also in there was no mention of the girls singing career after they got home. Did it continue or just stop?
All the girls in the film are brilliant in their roles. I think Deborah Mailman has replaced Bill Hunter as the actor required to appear in every Aussie film. She is excellent as the feisty member of the group. Miranda Tapsell is great as the sassy one who always wants to have fun. Poor Shari Sebbens gets lumbered with the thankless task of falling for an incredibly good looking American soldier. I was disappointed with Jessica Mauboy. Not so much with her performance as such but just with the fact that she has very little to do but sing. The other girls get more meaty parts to play where as Jessica seems to be there just to sing. The film is stolen by the phenomenal performance of Chris O'Dowd. I have long been a fan of his from the TV series 'The IT Crowd' and he has mostly done comedic work. This is the first time I've seen him do something more dramatic and he is brilliant at it. This film proves he can be more versatile and I hope to see him do more in the future.
Firm proof that this new resurgence of Aussie films just keeps on coming. Highly recommended for all those who think we can only make miserable dramas.
Most of the Hollywood studios these days are obsessed with franchises. Which leads to a reboot when the central talent of a series decides to leave.
I have not been much of a fan of the Bourne series. While I loved 'The Bourne Identity', I made the really dumb mistake of reading 'The Bourne Supremacy' before watching the movie. The only similarity between the book and the film was that they had the same title and a character called Jason Bourne. This was something I never quite understood. The plot of the book was far superior to the film. It was really clever and thrilling. Why would you go to all the trouble of buying a series of books and only use them for the title? In that film and 'The Bourne Ultimatum' I thought they were decent films and nothing more. They had good action scenes but the plot was very ordinary. It was then with very low expectations that I went to see 'The Bourne Legacy'.
Rebooting a series can be a tricky business. You need to come up with a sensible way to continue the story that has already reached a natural finish. Writer/ director Tony Gilroy has managed to come up with a really good way to keep the Treadstone story going. I found myself enjoying this film a lot more than I expected. The plot is more complex than previous films and is all the better for it. I was continually surprised by the many plot twists that Tony had come up with for Alex Cross to over come. I felt there was a great deal more intelligence in the plotting. The action scenes I enjoyed more too as they were less chaotic and more easy to follow. I am also a huge fan of motorcycle chases and this film features an excellent one.
Jeremy Renner has become the go-to-guy for action hero films these days. He seems to be everywhere. The character of Alex Cross is very serious minded so that suit Jeremy very well. He is not a cheery fellow. Alex is someone who has been genetically engineered too be a soldier and so comes across as very emotionless and that suits Jeremy. I was a little bit disappointed with Rachel Weisz. Her character does not have all that much to do except be Jeremy's side-kick and she does not do much to make her character unique. I was pleased with Edward Norton's performance. He does not play the role in a nasty way which is how it could have been done. Although he is the 'bad guy' of the film, Edward does not play the character that way and you come to like him.
It is good to see an intelligent action thriller these days. I perhaps enjoyed this more than I expected because of the low expectations.
It is very rare that a gay themed film is given a cinema release. It is also rare that we get a film from South Africa. So it is a pleasant surprise to see both in the one film.
Francois van Heerden comes from an older generation where it was harder to come out of the closet. He has to keep his true feelings suppressed. Francois has a seemingly normal life with a wife, children a successful business. He has managed to keep his true desires secret with the occasional visit to a men's group. This type of suppression is not necessarily healthy, which is why things reach a boil when Francois meets Christian. Christian is a very handsome young man and you can understand why Francois becomes fascinated with him. But because Francois is so incredibly deeply in the closet that there is no chance he will ever reveal his true feelings. This also means that there is a lot of pent up emotions here.
Director and co-writer Oliver Hermanus has made a brilliant thriller about one man's obsession. We have all fallen in love with a beautiful person so on some level we know where Francois obsession comes from. What this films shows us is how this obsession effects one man. Francois is very much like a dangerous animal stalking his prey. Many of the scenes are filmed from Francois' point of view and just linger on what ever he is seeing. This gives the film an incredibly creepy quality. Oliver also gives the film a nicely slow pace which lets us see Francois slowly simmer with his obsession. Naturally this means it leads to boiling point in a very disturbing scene. What happens after that is my only problem with the film. I felt the ending was unsatisfactory.
As Francois Dean Lotz gives an amazing brilliant performance. While he does come across as creepy and sleazy in some of his behaviour you learn to appreciate why he is the way he is. Dean is does not do a lot except look on longingly as his prey. But is is the way he looks which makes him so brilliant. Charlie Keegan is delightful as the object of desire. He plays it so well and you really feel for him when Francois' feelings are fully revealed.
There is some pretty shocking imagery but this is a truly brilliant character study of a man who is unable to reveal his true feelings. A good lesson in finding a way to be brave.
