RocknRolla (2008)

Guy Ritchie’s first two films can arguably be called instant classics with his unique flair and (some what) originality earning him titles such as “the British Tarantino”. Though both Lock, Stock & Smoking Barrels and Snatch remain an acquired taste (and strictly “boys club” filmmaking), it’s hard to deny they gave a shot in the arm to mainstream cinema and made gangsters cool again. Unfortunately, Ritchie lost his way slightly after the success of these films; becoming a family man possibly changed his perspective slightly, but a woeful decision to make a film with his then-wife, the acting deprived Madonna, had him labelled as quickly as the “king of cool” to having lost it. Coming to his senses, Ritchie went back to the well and gave us (the hardly seen and critically paned) Revolver. However bad it may have been, that film seem to provide the director with renewed passion and he followed with RocknRolla before helming the entertaining blockbuster, Sherlock Holmes.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

IM2 proves to be a bit of a hard film to rate. For all its fairly obvious flaws, it’s still a better than average blockbuster, but without question, no match for its predecessor. Initially, I was very concerned. It wasn’t instantly engaging like the first film, and there seemed to be a lot of lazy script moments early on. It certainly picks up and gets better as it goes along, but the first half an hour was pretty weak indeed. The first proper action sequence, set in Monaco, was a joke compared to anything in Ironman, and just plain silly for the most part. Main baddie, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), is introduced straight away, but his motives are not really explained well and feel wafer thin. Eventually the script kicks into what the movie is really about though; the development of S.H.I.E.L.D and The Avengers project.

Film Review: Public Enemies (2009)

On paper Public Enemies looked like a dream come true for any genre film fan. An authentically re-created gangster flick about John Dillinger, directed by Michael Mann with Mr. Charisma himself, Johnny Depp, essaying the infamous bank robber. Couldn't possibly fail, right? The tricky part however, is that when you are doing a film about a real life person or event, you have two ways you can go about it - make it as accurate as possible, or let your “artistic license” guide the story over solid facts. Sometimes the latter is better, and certainly can make for a better piece of entertainment. Enemies is undeniably in the latter group. The historical accuracy of John Dillinger’s life is dubiously muddled and lacking depth here, but without doubt, it is also presented in a way that keeps you glued to the screen.

The film’s biggest downfall is clearly the screenplay. The director has not exactly let it soar despite still fluffing the facts to his advantage, making it an off kilter hybrid of biopic and blockbuster, ala the (more accomplished) Mann produced, Martin Scorsese directed, The Aviator. Granted the dialogue is smart, snappy and significant at the right moments, it still only serves to help cover up the overall clumsiness of the writing. The relationships are not explored enough to have significant meaning or emotional impact, the jail escapes feel far too easy for Dillinger and the robberies, well, they are too short to be overly compelling. The action however is well done; an exciting forest shoot out midway through is handled perfectly by the HD video Mann favours so much these days. There is no denying Public Enemies is very accomplished on a technical level. An award worthy production design recreates the era immaculately, the editing is sharp and the score rises at all the right emotional peaks. The substance of the story just fails to match it unfortunately.

The performances are fairly good and even though Christian Bale, as the complicated Melvin Pervis, is often labelled with the “wooden” tag of late, I saw enough in his wordless nuances for it to be a convincing portrayal for me. I think it was a nicely subtle effort from him. Of course, I lapped up Depp’s (or Dillinger’s?) charm for sure. Depp seems to have become a very effortless actor - making it a fine line telling if whether he is actually being very good or just average. I thought he was good here, but again, the uber-cool dialogue he drawls probably helped to convince me of the former. The support cast was excellent. So many familiar faces; from TV actors to some older, recognisable character performers, the standouts were easily Stephen Graham and Billy Crudup, as Baby Face Nelson and J. Edgar Hoover respectively.

If you like it, the next obvious question seems to be: is it in the same class as Heat? The short answer is not even close, despite several similarities to the 1995 film (including the line “We here for the bank’s money, not yours”). To be fair, it was always a lofty height to actually reach for a director who seemed to be losing his touch with his last couple of films. What cannot be denied though, is that at its core, Public Enemies is solid entertainment and for better or worse, Mann’s best effort in a while. Worth it for the escapism, not the history lesson.

Film Review: Bottle Shock (11-01-09)

Set in 1976, Alan Rickman is shop owner and wine connoisseur, Steven Spurrier, who looking to broaden the world’s palette and break the stranglehold French vinos had over the market at the time, heads to California in the perception that something ’big’ is happening amongst it’s vineyards. Not expecting major quality, he meets a variety of locals and decides their wine is actually good enough for a tasting competition he is holding back in France. The rest they say, is history.

For a film based on a seemingly important chapter in wine history, Bottle Shock’s major flaw is its almost forced elements of the relationships between its leads. It is not that padding such a distinctive story with dramatic liberties is bad, more that it is just not done that well here. A film like this does need something to keep the interest of non-wine aficionados in the audience, so the idea is acceptable, but the script fails to deliver a little more than a few solid moments of comedy and drama amongst a traditional Hollywood relationship arc. It is nothing you haven’t seen before, but its positives make it worth a watch (only once) with Rickman and wine fans certainly getting the most out of it.

Bill Pullman and Freddy Rodriquez add some convincing dramatic weight to their roles of stubborn father to Chris Pine’s Bo and Mexican cellar rat with wine making ambitions of his own respectively, but they’re never given really too much to work with. Pine is fine enough as our lead who needs to pull his attitude, but the surfer-hippy wig he dons was borderline overly distracting to be honest. Rachael Taylor’s character of Sam is performed well enough I suppose, but it would probably help if I felt she needed to be there at all. The love triangle between her, Bo and Rodriquez’s Gustavo is clearly the films weakest link. As expected, Rickman is playing to type, but he is so much fun, every scene he is in is the film’s highlights, particularly ones involving him and a slightly eccentric Dennis Farina.

Director Randall Miller follows suit with the standardized story by not really being overly inspiring, though the California scenery is on show in all its bright glory, which makes the experience easy on the eye, also dubiously allowing the script’s flaws to wash over a little easier. Comparisons to the superior Sideways (one of my favourite films of recent years) would be unfair to both films and even though Bottle Shock would have benefited expanding on the actual wine making process over the love triangle guff, as it stands it is predictable, enjoyable fare that you could do a lot worse than with your favourite chardonnay on a lazy afternoon.

Film Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (27-12-08)

I'd assume if one was to think about the technology and money that helped bring this affecting story to life, it would be almost intimidating. To have just about every other element of the film, technical or otherwise, bond so wonderfully that it makes you forget about how Brad Pitt’s face is on that old man’s body, and just see Pitt as an old man, is something that deserves praise. I hope Fincher didn’t have too many sleepless nights over it though, because from the opening oddity about a backwards clock and the man who invented it, we are transported into what resembles an intriguing modern fairy tale. It seems to have an aura that few films do or attempt to create anymore. Something that even if you did not enjoy it, it stays with you, but if you did, it is nothing short of utterly absorbing.

Themes of opportunity, love, growth, life and death are consistent as we follow the unambiguous linear storyline, constantly moving forward. Engaging and quirky characters interweave the film throughout, with roundly excellent performances from all involved. Beyond Pitt’s effortless essay of Benjamin, Blanchett again proving she is the best female actor working today, Taraji Henson’s Queenie and Jason Flemyng as Thomas Button, deserve to be mentioned. The narration used to tell and introduce is delivered as well as one could have hoped with Pitt’s New Orleans’s drawl finely convincing.

I recoiled initially from the chosen narrative, of the journal being read by Daisy’s daughter to her on her deathbed. Beside the fact that this device brings unwanted comparisons to the vastly inferior, Forest Gump (note the same screenwriter here), a cut back to Daisy’s hospital room in present day, too rue or explain her regret about a certain situation, started to grow slightly tedious and almost into muddy cliché. Luckily Fincher pulls back before it becomes a nuisance or overly sentimental. It’s a close call, and I perhaps would rather have just seen the story unfold without it.

The film’s sword - the one for which it lives and dies by, is that for all it’s tear jerking storyline and emotional performances, it’s sentimentality is trod around like on a razor but declines to tip over, despite constantly threatening to do so - especially during those hospital scenes. There is no denying it is a sentimental film, but not in a groaning or manipulative way like other Hollywood films can be so guilty of. It’s a delicate boundary to dwell in, but Fincher’s steady hand coupled with its uniquely mature and darkly funny script, lifts the film above any of its peers and raises the bar for anything wanting to be in its company.

If you find yourself a bit too cynical too endure the message it provides of simply enjoying life and it’s never too late, it would not be so surprising, but you would be missing a wonderful experience. One that proves Fincher is someone who won’t be pigeon holed and without doubt, one the most interesting directors working out of Hollywood today.