Public Enemies

Finally. I get to review my most anticipated film of Summer '09. After worrying that I'd missed my chance to see it (fuck you, Cwmbran Vue) I got to see the latest Michael Mann flick the other frabjous day. Callooh! Callay!

Public Enemies (2009)

Ah, summer blockbusters. Don't you just love 'em? They're pretty much the cinematic equivalent of junk food- satisfying, but ultimately bad for you. Partake in too much and your brain will rot. But still, it's fun isn't it? All those action films with massive explosions and all those high budget comedies where you are literally paying some idiot man-children to run about on the screen. Wait a minute- what's this? Michael Mann has slapped that greasy burger from our hands and presented us with a fantastically presented, lavish meal! God bless you Mr. Mann!

"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars... and you. What else you need to know?"

Public Enemies is the story of John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), the notorious bank robber who was active in Great Depression 1930's America. The film portrays the criminal life and loves of Dillinger in parallel to the life of Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) and the birth of the F.B.I. The film constantly cuts between Dillinger's life on the lam with his girlfriend, Billie (Marion Cotillard) and J. Edgar Hoover's (Billy Crudup) "war on crime". The story was excellent, proving that some of the richest tales can be garnered from real life. Having said that, the film took several liberties with the truth, which as someone who is fascinated by the Dillinger story, took me out of the film a bit. Johnny Depp was great as Dillinger, although I got the feeling he was trying hard to supress the urge to ham it up and do something wacky at times. Christian Bale was surprisingly good as Purvis, finally dropping that ridiculous throat-grating voice for a generic American accent. Marion Cotillard was fantastic, although I could have done with seeing more of her.

Nearly every review I've read/ heard has drawn attention to the way the film was shot, bitching about the fact that a film set in the 1930's is shot on spage age, super-shiny HD cameras. I really had no problem with this. It genuinely annoys me when films are intentionally degraded to give them a period feel. The actual past wasn't all grainy and scratched, nor did it have all the colour bleached out of it. I'm not saying films shouldn't be in black and white or anything, it's just that it wouldn't have suited this film. The details are as meticulously period as you can get anyway, so why complain?

There are so many great scenes in this film it's hard to know where to begin. The opening jailbreak is really well done, as are the robberies themselves. The stand out scene for me has got to be the lodge scene which has got to be the most realistic gunfight I've seen in a long time (I am aware realistic gunplay is sort of Mann's trademark). There's also an honestly shocking scene featuring the torture of Billie that will be burned onto my brain for a long time. It's a genuine thrill to see a skilled filmmaker tell a story like this rather than some glorified music video director randomly hitting buttons, hoping that some meaning can be found amongst all the death, titties and explosions big enough to take out Jeremy Clarkson's sense of self-importance.

My one real problem with Public Enemies is that it seemed more concerned with what Dillinger did, rather than who he actually was. Anyone can read the history books to find out what Dillinger got up to, but it's harder to find out what he was actually like. I mean, at the time Dillinger was a legend (and I use the proper sense of the word "legend", not "Aw- you should 'ave seen my mate Baz last night- 'e drank 15 Carlsbergs before puking all over himself and fucking some fat slag- what a legend!) and whilst the film alluded to this, I personally didn't think the film went far enough into finding out what made the man tick. I also figured we'd see the poverty that was rife in 1930's America, given the fact that the film was trying to be as historically accurate as it could in other places and also the fact the it would explained why Dillinger was cheered in the street and so on. Picture it, you're so damn poor you have to shop at Lidl, wallowing in your own despair when you hear of some enigmatic man just like you, robbing the banks in daring heists and leaving the police scratching their heads. Sexy, no? Well, that's just what it was like and I wish I could have seen some of that.

"They ain't tough enough, smart enough or fast enough. I can hit any bank I want, any time. They got to be at every bank, all the time."

Despite these problems, Public Enemies manages to be an amazing film. I thoroughly enjoyed it and it is now battling it out for the best film of the year with Star Trek. It's just that damn good.

Yes Man

So, it's from one film adaptation of a book I've read and liked to another, as I recently sat down to watch Yes Man, a film based on the best-selling book of the same name by Danny Wallace.Is it any good? Scroll to the bottom and find out! Read my review thoroughly and find out!

Yes Man (2008)

It must be hard adapting a book into a film. I mean, is the film meant to put everything that's on the page up there on the big screen? If so, what's the point in doing it then? Mind you, if a film takes too many liberties with the source material, you'll have the rabid fanboys and girls tearing down your door, ready to point out all the inaccuracies. My opinion is that you have to strike a balance between what made the book good in the first place and add some cinematic magic. Anyway, reading back my Half-Blood Prince review, I realised I kept banging on about the book, so I decided I would judge Yes Man purely on its own merit, rather than comparing it to the source material.

"The world's a playground. You know that when you are a kid, but somewhere along the way everyone forgets it."

Carl Allen (Jim Carrey) is getting nowhere in life. He ignores his friends' calls and is spending night after night slumped in front of his T.V. However, that all changes when Carl visits a self-help seminar headed by Terrence Bundley (Terence Stamp), where he discovers the power of "Yes" and vows to answer yes to everything, no matter how ludicrous. As plots go, it's a neat twist on the tired rom-com formula (yes, it's one of those). Whilst Jim Carrey and Zooey Deschanel are fine, I do think that the decision to cast Carrey was a mistake. One, because the premise is way too similar to 1997 Carrey film Liar Liar and two, because Carrey only has two main modes these days: zany and serious. Trouble is, he's getting a bit old for zany and his serious mode wouldn't suit the film. What we're left with is like someone doing a bad, half-hearted Ace Ventura impression for their gran and her friends, all of who have no idea who the character is, but all been assured that it's "a real hoot".

The film can be painfully unfunny at times with most of it being the fault of the usually brilliant Rhys "Flight of the Conchords" Darby playing a nerdy boss. I was fucking tempted to fashion the DVD case into a shiv and jam it into my jugular when he answer the door in full Leonidas (from 300) gear, shouting "We are Sparta!". If I may go off on a rant for a bit- and there's not much you can do if you do mind, what is it with this lazy movie referencing culture recently? It seems that all you have to do is say the name of a film and the dopey public will guffaw and slap their fins together for more of the same. It's pathetic and mostly the fault of Family Guy, which has become as funny as finding half a kitten on your porch in the morning. Go and watch early episodes of The Simpsons, certain episodes of South Park and all of Spaced, you pop culture obsessed fuckwagons...

Now I've vented my spleen, I can soberly tell you that Yes Man isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. It's alright, but the concept deserves much more attention. There are very few things Carl doesn't want to do, which surely is the better opportunity for comedic moments? Anyway, the film has enough charming moments to not make you feel like you've wasted your time watching it. It's just that I wanted it to be so much more. I knew it was only taking the concept from the book and I was fine with that. I like Jim Carrey and wanted him to put in a Truman Show-like performance, but it was not to be.

"Why don't you take a late night stroll through the hills and get killed by the Manson family? Don't mind if I do!"

Yes Man is an odd film. It's fun, charming and occasionally funny, but doesn't do anything new. Still, there are worse ways to kill 2 or so hours...

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

With the entire World and their mums having seen the new Harry Potter film, I thought I'd better weigh in, lest I become defunct or something...

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Jesus Christ, are we really six films into the series? God, I feel so old. I remember seeing Philosopher's Stone back in 2001 and being blown away by the special effects and the scale of it all. 8 years later, I'm pleased to say that it happened all over again.

"I can make things move without touching them. I can make bad things happen to people who are mean to me. I can speak to snakes too. They find me... whisper things."

There is so much plot carried over from Order of the Phoenix I felt that this film would collapse under the weight of it all, but it didn't. However, this film doesn't make allowances for Muggles not up to speed with all things Potter, so my advice is to watch Order of the Phoenix before driving to your local cinematorium. So, here's the rundown for Half-Blood Prince- Death Eaters are on the rampage, Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) has a task for Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) has a secret mission for Voldemort, adolescent hormones are raging, Harry inherits an old school text with notes in the margins from the mysterious Half-Blood Prince and Hogwarts gains a new professor in the form of Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent). Also Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are there too. Half-Blood Prince is a leviathan of a film, keeping so many different threads going at any one time. The main cast are solid, with the three leads building on their Order of the Phoenix successes. I was really impressed with Felton's Draco Malfoy who still acts rings around the Three Stooges, even if he does seem to be going through a bit of a Gerard Way phase. Gambon is especially great as Dumbledore this time round and Broadbent is brilliant as Slughorn. Special mention to the two actors playing Tom Riddle. Hero Fiennes-Tiffin (yes, nephew of Ralph "Voldemort" Fiennes) and Frank Dillane. They're both incredibly creepy performances.

I enjoyed Half-Blood Prince a lot more that I thought I would. Since it's been a while since I read the book, I didn't have a problem with the majority of the things they changed. After all, the book itself is thick enough to knock out a toddler and trying to cram all that information into 150 minutes would have been a stupid idea. A good example of all this is the Death Eater attack on The Burrow. In the book, there are numerous attacks reported but none actually happen to Harry. The decision to have one happen to him was a sound one in my book.

A lot of reviews I've read and people I've spoken to remark on the film being a lot funnier than previous installments. Whilst this is true, I felt it jarred with some of the darker themes being explored. Yes, the joke count has been upped to counteract the darkness of it all, but why? I am certain that every kid in the screening I went to see had already read the book, probably multiple times. Kids can handle the darkest shit out there, always have been able to and always will.

In terms of favourite scenes, I had quite a few. I loved the fact that Quidditch made a roaring comeback for one. I liked the lower-key scenes with Draco skulking around and the fight between him and Harry in the bathroom. Any scene with Snape is a joy to watch, but that's always been the case. I really, really liked the scene where Harry and Dumbledore are in a cave and some great role-reversal takes place, with Harry feeding some bastardly potion to Dumbledore. It's genuinely moving and a credit to the two actors. I also loved the cinematography in general, with its use of close-ups and sweeping views of Hogwarts.

The one thing I didn't buy about Half-Blood Prince was all the teen romance. It seemed to me to be played as comedic, rather than anything serious, which I found to be patronising- especially when the film is so desperate to convey that Harry, Ron and Hermione have grown up. I felt they could have done more with Hermione's love for Ron and played it on the subtle side of things instead of mallet-in-the-face obvious. I can't remember how it was done in the book, but I'm sure it was done better.

Oh- and THAT moment. Christ. (Invisotexted for spoilers) Dumbledore's death is changed considerably from the book and I'm not sure why. In the book, Harry is paralysed and forced to watch his mentor die, whereas here, he's in hiding and watches the whole thing. There's even a line later on where Harry laments that he just stood there. Why change it? Maybe they wanted to add more guilt for Harry to feel, but it just doesn't work. Whilst this change doesn't spoil the film, it's a glaring dent on the classic Jag that is this film.

"Times like these, dark times, they do funny things to people. They can tear them apart."

So, Half-Blood Prince is very good indeed. Probably on par with my personal favourite, Prisoner of Azkaban. Recommended.

Marley & Me

I'm only doing this review so I don't feel guilty about posting up my review of the new Harry Potter flick later on. But, it does add to the still miniscule list of films I've reviewed that don't have people getting shot in the face and/or full frontal nudity.

Marley & Me (2008)

Now, I don't usually do this, but check out the trailer for the film here and then gaze at the poster above. Unless you have shrapnel lodged in your frontal lobe, I'm pretty sure you can hazard a guess what Marley & Me is all about. It's your standard rom-com affair featuring the misadventures of a ickle puppy-wuppy, right? Wrong. It's actually a film based on the memoirs of John Grogan, a columnist who wrote regularly about "the World's worst dog", which was often moving and true to life. Basically, the poster and trailer are lying to us and we should be very, very annoyed.

"Tell your dog not to worry, sooner or later we all lose our balls"

Newlywed journalists John and Jenny Grogan (Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston) plan to have babies. To delay that day, John gives Jenny a puppy instead. Cue canine capers and "fun". What annoyed me about the film was that it really had no heart. It's as shallow as a swimming pool in a special school. When the two leads weren't trying to out-blonde each other, the film expected me to go all mushy at the puppy chewing things. Handled correctly this could have been a genuinely moving tale, a place I thought it was going to after it transpired that Grogan only got the dog to delay his wife's want for children. Acting-wise, Aniston is pretty much on autopilot throughout, leaving Wilson to pick up the pieces. Thankfully, he is good and I think that Marley & Me contains his best straight performance to date (although that isn't saying much). Some of his "chats" with Marley are genuinely touching and believable.

We are a nation of animal lovers, and dear God doesn't Marley & Me know it. It tries to substitute expansion of plot with scenes of a dog misbehaving. The tone is all over the place. It almost felt that the semi-serious film I was watching, which was dealing with family issues and miscarriages, was being interrupted every now and then by a cheap knock-off (if you can get any cheaper) of The Planet's Funniest Animals. What irritates me more than anything is I know people will eat all this mawkish shit up and ignore this bizarre mix with simpering grins on their stupid faces.

Ah- the ending (Invisotexted). Now, obviously the dog dies. It wasn't really going to have a happy ending now, was it? Whilst I did get a bit choked up when Marley was lying on the vet's table, all of that emotion was taken away with Owen Wilson saying the most mawkish crap you could imagine. When will people realise that less is more? If he had said a few words and spent the rest of the time hugging the animal and sobbing, I probably would have cried too. However, Wilson goes on a grandiose spiel about how great Marley was, which sucks what little emotion there was to be found out of the moment completely.

"A dog doesn't care if you're rich or poor, educated or illiterate, clever or dull. Give him your heart and he will give you his."

I really didn't enjoy Marley & Me. I could have enjoyed it if it made up its mind on what it wanted to be (serious film with realistic, comedic elements or sugar sweet rom-com featuring a dog) but it tries to have its cake and eat it too. Which is never a good idea.

Brüno

With the landmark 100 reviews out of the way, it's time to settle back into the swing of things and plod towards the next meaningless milestone. Woohoo!

Brüno (2009)

After the phenomenal success of Borat (no, I'm not going to type the entire title...), it was clear that Sacha Baron Cohen was going to raid the archives of Da Ali G Show to try and make another truckload of cash. That sentence may read as scathing, but it's not intentional. I loved Da Ali G Show and found Borat to be very, very funny. However, I was a bit apprehensive going in to Brüno (fnarr, fnarr) because I didn't think that the character of Brüno was strong enough to carry a whole feature length movie in the same way that Borat did. I needn't have worried, they're pretty much the same film.

"How do you defend yourself against a man with a dildo?"

Gay fashionista Brüno (Sacha Baron Cohen) is fired from his presenting job on Funkyzeit mit Brüno- Austria's hit fashion show, after a catwalk blunder involving an ill-advised velcro suit. Brüno decides that the fashion world is too shallow and with massive irony blinkers on, tries to become a celebrity in the U.S. It's pretty much a more showbiz-related spin on the plot of Borat. In the basic details, it's exactly the same. Foreign man travels to the USA to find himself, makes people feel uncomfortable and has a sidekick assistant. Assistant leaves during course of film only to be reunited later. To be honest, I expected more from the plot, rather than just a slight rehash of what we've seen before. It worked well enough, mind you. Just irked me a little. The film is shot in the same mockumentary style and will have you questioning what is real and what is staged throughout the runtime, instead of actually paying attention to the film.

Apart from Borat, there was one other film that Brüno kept reminding me of- Crank 2. Whilst Brüno didn't have the Stath arsing about saying incredibly racist one-liners, it did lurch from one offensive scene to other, desperately trying to cause outrage. You can't blame it for trying, but all the talking penises (honestly) in the World couldn't have offended me. Whilst trying to be massively avant-garde, Brüno also seems very tame sometimes- especially when celebrities are involved.

I normally say that a film should be funnier with its premise, but I didn't think that Brüno was going to be funny. It was. Sure, there's the same problem we always get with imported comedies- the U.S. centric humour etc, but there were enough gags to keep me chuckling. Whilst I didn't find the fake German words schtick funny, some of the things Cohen was prepared to do had me in stitches. Cohen's humour has always been letting people hang themselves with their own noose and a lot of this is present in Brüno. It was genuinely disturbing to watch what parents were prepared to subject their babies to for a photoshoot. Some of the scenes really had me laughing from beginning to end. I especially loved the hunting scene where Brüno compares himself and his three redneck hunting buddies to the Sex and the City girls. The swingers party is also not to be missed.

My main question throughout Brüno was what was Sacha Baron Cohen trying to prove with it? In Borat, it was all about xenophobia and showing up supposedly regular Americans for ignorant fools. In Brüno he seems to be tackling homophobia, xenophobia, the shallow nature of fashion, the shallow nature of celebrity and nearly everything inbetween. This may seem like over-analysis but I believe that as an intelligent man, Cohen has thought about this in great detail.

"I'm committing carbicide."

All in all, Brüno is a funny film. In comparison to Borat, they're on about the same level in terms of humour. If you liked the misadventures of Borat, you'll love Brüno. Oh, and see the 18 rated version, not the crappy cut-down 15. What happened to artistic vision, eh?

The Godfather

Wow. 100 reviews. That number proves two things to me. 1) I have more perserverance that I thought I did and 2) I watch way too many films.

So, to "celebrate"- I have done a video review to shake things up a bit. It's a bit rough and ready and the audio's a bit quiet, but hopefully you enjoy it despite these glaring flaws.


Click to play


So, thank you for taking the time to read my reviews and I hope you continue to do so. Here's to the next hundred!

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

With the ever closer landmark 100 reviews nearly here, I was in a quandry what to review for my 99th review. American Gangster? Pitch Black? Debbie Does Dallas?- the list of candidates was seemingly endless. Then my decision was made for me. Let the Ice Age begin!...er...continue.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)

Ice Age was a nice surprise when it came out. It had no expectations to meet,no toys to sell and did everything its own way. It became a sleeper hit and grossed $328 million worldwide. With a box office take of about 6 times its budget, there was inevitably going to be a sequel. Sure enough in 2006- Ice Age: The Meltdown was released and grossed $651 million worldwide. Not content with nearly every child on the planet seeing the film, studio execs wanted more and so Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs was hastily put into production- in 3D no less, just to squeeze that extra bit of cash out of the long-suffering parents of little Johnny C. McFucksquit.

"Guys don't talk to guys about guy problems. They just... punch each other on the shoulder."

Sid the sloth (John Leguizamo) finds three eggs and adopts them as his own. All is well until their mother comes back to claim them. Oh, and the mother is a gigantic T-Rex. Mummy T-Rex abducts Sid and it's up to the regular Ice Age gang to rescue him. It's nothing that hasn't been seen a thousand times before. My main problem was the inclusion of dinosaurs. Why oh why did they have to include dinosaurs?! Historically, it makes no sense. I realise discussing sense in a film which centres around talking animals is a bit rich, but I can only suspend my disbelief for so much. My guess is that some twat studio exec suggested they put dinosaurs in it so they could have an excuse for chase sequences and so on. Since no-one wanted to lose their job, they didn't question the exec and bent over like the good little bitches they are.

Ice Age has always been about the kids. It's a childrens' film and all that should be expected from it is some cartoon characters falling down and some bum jokes. Both are very present here. However, Dawn of the Dinosaurs decided it wanted to appeal to the dragged along parents and so the film is packed with innuendo. Some of the best animated films appeal to adult and children alike and many films have done the same thing (remember the "laser envy" gag in Toy Story?) but all the no-so-subtle smuttiness in this film takes off the appealing innocence and charm the series had when it started.

Nearly every joke in Dawn of the Dinosaurs has been done before and better. My eyes nearly rolled out of their sockets and onto the sticky cinema floor when Sid made a remark about being handsome and gazing at his reflection in the ice before it predictably cracks. Many could argue that to a child's inexperienced eyes, this may be a fresh gag, but I don't know a child who hasn't seen Shrek, which does exactly the same bit in the opening credits. Even the Scrat non-sequiturs have lost their humour and we're left with unfunny bits not good enough to be in the first two.

"After we rescue Sid, I'm going to kill him."

Dawn of the Dinosaurs is just a shameless cash-in. It only exists because of the embarrassing amounts of cash the first two gleaned. It's bereft of any ideas and retreads the same ground, hoping that you won't figure out it's nothing more than a wallet-raping. My advice? Shove the kids into the cinema to see it, spare yourself the boredom and go and spend some quality "you time" in your own company. Picking them up again afterwards is optional.

Lord of War

Another hot day, another struggle to type my thoughts down without sounding like Crazy McSpazzy Pants from Mentaltown, Arizona. Still, anything to scrub the memory of The Clone Wars from my poor brain...

Lord of War (2005)

I'm not entirely sure what Nicolas Cage's game is. I'm guessing he picks his projects by scrawling the film title on a Post-It, sticking it to a wall with about 50 others, closing his eyes, spinning around and throwing a dart in the general vacinity of said wall. I mean, how else can one explain his decision to do films like Bangkok Dangerous and Knowing? Due to this random dart technique, said projectile can sometimes land on good films. Films like Lord of War.

"You don't have to worry. I'm not gonna tell you a pack of lies to make me look good. I'm just gonna tell you what happened."

Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage) is a weapons dealer who lives by the mantra "where there's a will, there's a weapon". Orlov tells us his story including his rise from penniless pistol salesman to international arms dealer. During the narrative we are introduced to Yuri's brother, Vitaly (Jared Leto) and wife (Bridget Moynahan). The film is written and directed by Andrew Niccol, the writer of Gattaca and The Truman Show. Much like those films, Lord of War seems to have a warning of things to come hidden under proceedings. It's no wonder I get the Manic Street Preachers' song If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next stuck in my head everytime I watch The Truman Show... The story itself is a strong one, with enough character development and twists to keep you entertained. Nic Cage is very good as Orlov, somehow making a despicable character likeable. I really liked Jared Leto's turn as Vitaly too, with Leto surprising me with his ability to act. Although, to be fair, the only thing I've really seen him in is Fight Club where all his has to do is face (literally) the fury of Ed Norton. I liked Ian Holm too, although I could have done with seeing more of him.

Lord of War is a film packed with ideas. It's just a shame that it sometimes gets bogged down in delivering The Very Serious Message to let some of them breathe. The opening is genuinely jaw-dropping as we follow the path of a bullet from a factory production line into a young African boy's head. It's an incredibly powerful opening and sets the tone for the rest of the film perfectly.

As an audience we've become desensitised to guns. It's a cold, hard fact. We are so used to seeing characters whip out a pistol at the slightest provocation that it just doesn't faze us. Because of this, films have to work hard to get us to be scared of guns again and thankfully Lord of War does that. It even outlines the this whole issue with one soldier asking for the "gun of Rambo" and laughing as he randomly shoots it out of the window of a moving vehicle.

"They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."

Lord of War is a good film, but I get the feeling it could have been brilliant if it wasn't so heavy-handed with its message. Whilst I agree with the message, I couldn't help but feel the film was lecturing me, rather than entertaining me.