Review: Project Nim (2011)

Tags

2011, Bern Cohen, Bob Angelini, James Marsh, Nim Chimpsky, Project Nim

Director: James Marsh
Stars: Bob Angelini, Nim Chimpsky, Bern Cohen
Plot: Documentary about a chimpanzee that was raised as a child by a family in the 1970s.

Humans tend to be rather arrogant when it comes to respecting other species. Our ever-advancing technologies, roads and cities encroach onto the habitats of wild animals, as they are forced to move or worse, driven towards extinction. We have zoos and animal testing research facilities which, although they may benefit us for many reasons in the long-run, don’t really consider that to maximise the health and well-being of their subjects, captivity isn’t always the answer. Project Nim took this one step further, by assessing the ability of a chimpanzee to learn sign language whilst living with a family in the middle of New York.

The subject of the film, Nim Chimpsky (loosely named after Noam Chomsky who believed that only humans could learn language as we know it), was a chimpanzee taken away from his mother shortly after birth and given to the family of Stephanie LaFarge to raise as a human baby. Alongside Nim’s unusual upbringing, he was taken to Columbia University where a team of scientists taught him American Sign Language as part of a study to see if apes can learn to develop language skills. At home, Nim wore clothes, was even breastfed by Stephanie and encouraged to use the sign language he had learnt to ask for food, drink, express the need to go to the toilet and even smoke marijuana. Concerns were raised however, when Nim started to display increasing characteristics of his kind, biting into the cheek of one of his teachers quite horrifically.

Nim was subsequently removed from the family home and eventually ended up at a medical research laboratory on the campus of the University of Oklahoma. This was the first time Nim had really any interaction with other chimps. Bob Ingersoll, a research graduate at the university, used sign language to comfort him in his new, alien surroundings. This particular facility was the kind we see at the beginning of ‘don’t mess with nature films’ which turns out to be an appropriate verdict on the whole enterprise, but here it marks more the beginning of the end of the project and Nim’s cushy life. He was rescued and taken to a quiet retirement ranch for small animals, where he lived out the rest of his days before dying of a heart attack at the age of 26.

Project Nim has to be reviewed on two counts. Is this an affecting subject matter for a documentary and do the filmmakers do this subject justice? This answer is yes and not really, in that order. Nim’s life story is deeply moving and it is difficult watching the film without being bewildered at how naive and reckless the people who conceived this idea must have been. It is easy to say that looking back, but even so, the way in which Nim was taken from his mother (who, by the way we are told, knew what was coming as her previous offspring had been whisked off just as cruelly), without a thought for either of them, is hard to take in. Despite there being a certain goal to the whole exercise, was there enough research done to ensure that Nim’s welfare was the top priority and not that it was to prove people wrong or gain publicity? There is a great deal of uncertainty as to whether this was the case – a vain project this looks to have been.

As a stand-alone documentary, Project Nim feels too cobbled together. What is essentially a mish-mash of home footage, diagrams and talking heads makes the whole experience feel like you’re watching one of those old educational films you’d see at school. The result is a detachment from a story which should really grip you from start to finish, but instead becomes strangely tedious – much like James Marsh’s overrated documentary of Philippe Petit’s daring World Trade Center stunt in Man on Wire (2008). However, while you root for Nim and those who care for him (not really that many as it turns out), Marsh does manage to let those who had first-hand access to the chimp to have their say and not let bias get in the way of a good story.

Project Nim has received too much praise, mainly based on sentimentality for Nim and his tragic fate. As first and foremost a documentary, this is certainly one that is worth watching but not for its structure or style, that’s for sure.

Rating:

Review: Edtv (1999)

Tags

1999, Edtv, Jenna Elfman, Matthew McConaughey, Ron Howard, Woody Harrelson

Director: Ron Howard
Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Jenna Elfman, Woody Harrelson
Plot: A man agrees to have a film crew follow his every move for a reality TV show.

In 1999, reality TV was in its infancy. Sure, Driving School, Airport and The Cruise made minor celebrities out of its stars (and resulted in too many unfortunate cover songs by Jane McDonald), but these programmes were edited to show the highlights, cutting out the boring bits in between. Then, in 2000, Big Brother hit our screens and showed us those mundane moments in all their glory which we had previously ‘missed’. But just before the advent of 24-hour surveillance of strangers came Edtv, a witty satirical rom-com from Ron Howard, which proved to be rather prophetic in assessing the negative effect on the vast majority of its participants.

Matthew McConaughey stars as Ed Pekurny, a video store clerk with no ambition and or any particular goals in life, for that matter. TV executive Cynthia Topping (Ellen DeGeneres) spots Ed alongside his brother Ray (Harrelson) who auditions for a brand new kind of reality TV show. Cynthia invites Ed to the studio for an interview and he is chosen to be the subject of Edtv, which consists of a TV crew following his every move round the clock. At first, the show is a failure as Ed’s life is not exciting enough to grab the attention of a big audience – there is nothing especially interesting or unusual of note. But despite her boss’ reservations, Cynthia manages to convince the execs to give it a chance.

Interest in the show suddenly increases when Ed goes to visit Ray and finds that he is cheating on his girlfriend Shari (Elfman). Ed then goes to visit Shari who saw the whole incident for herself on the telly – they begin to argue but as both of them reveal their feelings for each other, eventually the conversation mellows to the point where they begin kissing. This subsequently sends the ratings through the roof and makes national celebrities of Ed and his family. While he makes appearances on various talk shows, Ed’s deteriorating relationship with his brother is evident, especially when Ray publishes a book called My Brother Pissed On Me in retaliation for his betrayal. Ed decides that he must repair the damage done and make up with Ray, while discovering the shocking truth about his father – which of course makes for great television.

Edtv looks on paper to be a lazy concept, born out of an attempt to surpass the success of The Truman Show (1998). On the contrary Ron Howard, whose directorial career had already featured the comedy drama Parenthood (1989), gives us another winning examination of family dynamics albeit with more emphasis on laughs this time around. Howard’s direction is superb – his method of switching the action back and forth through the eyes of the conventional ‘fourth wall’ to the camera crew and back again is very effective. He also coaxes fine performances from his leads -  McConaughey plays Ed with the right amount of wit and charm, Harrelson’s Ray is suitably manic and Elfman’s Bridget Jones-style character Shari is easy to empathise with. Even Ellen DeGeneres, an acquired taste for some, fits into her role admirably.

The plot gets a little silly and over-the-top at times (memo to Liz Hurley), but it serves to highlight the point that the same, sudden fame that tends to disappear as fast as it arrives is rarely worth the hassle in the long-run. With great support from Sally Kirkland and Martin Landau, the minor characters are given time to develop and deliver their own one-liners with aplomb. Elsewhere. the soundtrack is memorable if rather predictable. Apparently, 1999 was the year that Gimme Some Lovin’ by The Spencer Davis Group was made the obligatory go-after-the-girl chase music, also accompanying Hugh Grant’s dash across London in Notting Hill. Listen out though for the superb Barenaked Ladies’ song Call and Answer which plays on the radio while Ed and Shari try to share a private ‘moment’ in a car.

EDtv is great fun and unexpectedly better than it would have been in a lesser director’s hands. With genuine laughs throughout, it is arguably more enjoyable watching the film now, as we have the benefit of hindsight to look at how reality TV has influenced our viewing habits.

Rating:

Review: The Guard (2011)

Tags

2011, Brendan Gleeson, Don Cheadle, Guard, John Michael McDonagh, Mark Strong

Director: John Michael McDonagh
Stars: Brendan Gleeson, Don Cheadle, Mark Strong
Plot: A straight-talking Irish policeman must team up with an FBI agent in an attempt to crack an international drug smuggling operation.

The genre of the Irish comedy western now has a second entry. In Bruges (2008), starring Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson showcased a different kind of character – one that could display quick, Irish wit while submerged in a potential life or death situation. Though set in Belgium and not the Emerald Isle itself, Martin McDonagh’s film revealed a brand new type of black comedy which appealed to a wide audience. The Guard, also featuring Gleeson, brings the genre back home, but with more of a cuddly Father Ted-style protagonist whose attitude to life is instantly likeable and ready-made for a film where chaos reigns.

So, what’s the craic? Sergeant Gerry Boyle (Gleeson) is a small-town policeman in County Galway, an idyllic area of Ireland where not much ever happens. That is, until a well-known criminal with links to an international drug-smuggling ring is found with a bullet through the head and a cryptic “5½” smeared in his blood on the wall behind him. After pondering over what this all means, Boyle and his comrades come to the conclusion that this could be a sinister nod to the film Se7en, the beginning to a gruesome serial killing spree. The murder prompts the arrival of the FBI in the shape of uncompromising agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle), who finds Boyle’s light-hearted approach to racism particularly irritating. Despite their initial mistrust of one another, they are reluctantly forced to work together in order to bring the remaining criminals to justice.

The unholy trio of ringleader Francis Sheehy (Liam Cunningham), cockney hard-man Clive Cornell (Strong) and token twit Liam O’Leary (David Wilmot) are seen in the area and have the police quickly on their tail. However, the heat is turned up when they conspire to shoot an unarmed policeman in the back and then bargain with some of his colleagues in an attempt to throw Boyle and Everett off their trail. Boyle meanwhile is easily distracted, paying visits to his ailing mother Eileen (Fionnula Flanagan) in a nursing home but more tellingly, having some ‘fun’ with a couple of lasses from Dublin (a running joke throughout the film is that anyone from the capital is either filthy or not to be associated with). These diversions aside, Boyle gets back to the task in hand and notices something on the local pub’s CCTV that could prove crucial in cracking the case.

The Guard shows a different side to the green, sleepy Ireland we’re used to seeing in films such as Waking Ned (1998) and TV portrayals of Ballykissangel and the like. There are elements of these in here, but combined with the gritty realism of Intermission (2003), the laugh count increases due to the fact that the film walks a fine line between comedy and violence. This is in no small part to Brendan Gleeson’s performance as Gerry Boyle – a man who, rather like Frank Drebin in Police Squad! and The Naked Gun (1988), has the uncanny knack of being in the right place at the right time without even realising it. Gleeson’s appearance and manner is a perfect fit for Boyle whose best scenes have him sparring with his new trans-Atlantic partner Everett, particularly in their first encounter which doesn’t go very well at all. Don Cheadle’s straight man role proves to be a terrific foil for Boyle to rub up the wrong way – the clash of cultures is an obvious subject for comedy but here it feels fresh and original.

Whether a comedy soars or bombs depends very heavily on the amount of convincing, sharp one-liners and sight gags – The Guard contains both of these in spades. John Michael McDonagh, both screenwriter and director is, on this evidence, better at the former. His direction does the job but there are some nice touches, especially when we follow the criminals or during the more touching moments between Boyle and his mother. McDonagh’s script draws on the usual Irish/rural stereotypes – a suspect is quizzed during an interview by Boyle who dredges up his murky past discrepancies of bestiality – but these are required to bring the characters and the setting to life. Whereas with many a recent film that have cranked up the quirkiness for the sake of it, McDonagh is restrained despite the hapless nature of Boyle’s policing methods, lifestyle and his ‘milkshake headaches’.

The Guard offers something different from the recent glut of American comedies that follow the same old lack-of-subtlety formula. This is The Brendan Gleeson Show – there’s quite a bit of brutal violence here, but it’s always got a smile on its face.

Rating:

Review: Kill List (2011)

Tags

2011, Ben Wheatley, Harry Simpson, Kill List, MyAnna Buring, Neil Maskell

Director: Ben Wheatley
Stars: Neil Maskell, MyAnna Buring, Harry Simpson
Plot: When a former British soldier-turned hitman haunted by the past takes on a job, his former transgressions begin to catch up with him.

The popular perception of a successful professional hitman is the ‘lone wolf’ – a man (or indeed woman) who lives in the shadows, has minimal human contact and takes no chances when it comes to a job. Leon (1994) The Day of the Jackal (1973) and The American (2010) all lived up to this stereotype with varying results at the box office. So, when a film comes along that features a protagonist who is unpredictable, on the edge and prone to outbursts of random violence (even before a hit), you know you’re in for something altogether different.

Kill List is divided into three acts – a suburban drama, then an ultraviolent kill-fest and finally a denouement which is both surreal and disturbing in its reveal. Jay (Maskell) and wife Shel (Buring) live in a quiet suburban neighbourhood with their son Sam (Simpson), but their constant arguments suggest their marriage is very much on the rocks, with a mention of a job gone wrong in Kiev which appears to have left Jay with post-traumatic stress. Jay’s wise-cracking friend Gal (Michael Smiley) arrives for a dinner party with his squeeze Fiona (Emma Fryer), but they have barely made it onto the main course when Jay slams his full plate onto the table and yet another screaming match ensues between him and Shel. Amidst the chaos, Gal puts Sam to bed and Fiona draws a sinister symbol on the back of the bathroom mirror (like you do). This act is the first hint at the strange events to come in the film’s home straight.

Gal ropes in Jay to take up the offer of a contract from a mysterious man known as The Client (Struan Rodger), to kill three people – a priest, a librarian and an MP. The money will obviously help Jay who hasn’t worked for the past eight months and will hopefully save his marriage. Jay, having had his hand sliced by The Client with a knife to seal the blood contract, sets off with Gal to take out their targets one by one, all the while staying in nondescript hotel chains. First up is the priest, who we see holding a service while Jay and Gal prepare his vestry for the forthcoming bloodbath. He then walks in, Jay shoots him in the head, but not before the cleric delivers a final “thankyou” to his killers. The librarian is the next one on the list – he’s been filming his acts of child abuse – both Jay and Gal are disgusted by the videos and are subsequently brutal in their dispatching of the perpetrator, using a hammer to do the deed. He is also strangely grateful to be killed. Jay then goes on a mini-crusade of his own, ridding the world of a couple more low-lifes who aren’t on the list, much to Gal’s bewilderment.

The Client then throws in a curve ball by make an addition to the list – they must also kill a hunchback, the details of which are not yet revealed. Jay’s hand meanwhile becomes infected so he pays a visit to his GP to get it looked at. Unfortunately his doctor is not there and his replacement instead gives him advice to just live in the moment, which is yet another weird clue to what’s coming. Jay and Gal settle down in the woods surrounding the MP’s house at dusk, but then see something among the trees which they feel compelled to follow. What happens next heralds the third and final chapter in the film which will remain unspoiled, but many (though not all) of the questions asked throughout the film about what exactly is the bigger picture here, are finally answered.

The first three-quarters of British low-budget film Kill List are strangely intriguing, but also punctuated quite literally by scenes of extreme violence and humour – it’s Eastenders meets Pulp Fiction but without the cutting wit of the latter. One particular stand-out scene takes place in a hotel. Jay and Gal sit eating dinner while musing over their mission, when a group of Christians begin a loud discussion followed by a sing-song. They consequently feel Jay’s irritation at having to share his mealtime with God botherers. Treading a fine line between the two works well, combined with the very unsettling score which is eerily similar to The Shining (1980). Beginning the story in suburbia lulls you into a false sense of security to convince you for the first twenty minutes or so that you are witnessing a family drama – that is until Fiona makes her mark.

There are however two major (and one minor) flaws with the film. The first is the fact that anti-heroes Jay and Gal are supposed to win our empathy, especially in the last reel, but this never really happens. A character who kills people for a living has to be someone we root for, even though we know what he or she is doing is completely wrong – the script seems to fail both Maskell and Smiley on this score despite their best efforts. The second major problem is the ending – it doesn’t satisfy as it should after such a build-up and feels like it was written first and tagged onto the end of almost another film entirely. The minor flaw mentioned deals with the answering of questions that have been raised throughout. While some are perhaps satisfied after some considerable thought afterwards, others are frustratingly left open to interpretation which grates as the end credits appear to roll all too early.

Kill List has received plaudits for its daring and originality, despite drawing comparisons in its finale with a certain well-known horror film and has oddly merited a number of five-star reviews. Sadly, there’s a real lack of substance in the script for the final payoff which may prevent many of the film’s audience to understand and connect with its message.

Rating:

Review: Colombiana (2011)

Tags

2011, Callum Blue, Colombiana, Michael Vartan, Olivier Megaton, Zoe Saldana

Director: Olivier Megaton
Stars: Zoe Saldana, Michael Vartan, Callum Blue
Plot: After witnessing the murder of her parents in Bogotá, a girl grows up to become an assassin determined to seek revenge.

National stereotypes are never more pronounced than in the most clichéd of films. English characters are either bumbling buffoons or plain evil, Germans are ruthless without emotion and the Irish are seemingly nice but dim. The most laughable of all is the Spanish-speaking hombre, who seems to be easily pigeon-holed into a pantomime villain role and can apparently sort you out with any illegal drug or type of gun you desire from the boot of their car.  The vast majority of characters in Colombiana are, yes, Colombian and must therefore meet the criteria for ridiculous, over the top bad guys.

Zoe Saldana stars as Cataleya, whose parents were murdered in Bogotá, Colombia on the orders of drug lord Don Luis (Beto Benites). She manages to escape through the back streets and into a sewer after being chased by Marco (Jordi Mollà) and his men as they try to retrieve a microchip given to her by her father. Cataleya hands in the chip to the Colombian Ambassador’s staff and in return is given an American passport and safe passage to the USA. She eventually arrives in Chicago to stay with her uncle Emilio (Cliff Curtis). Cataleya asks Emilio to train her to be a killer, but her uncle tells her to go to school in order to learn about the world around her and the way that people think, otherwise he believes that she will be dead in five years.

Years later, Cataleya is all grown up and works for Emilio as a hitwoman. She drives into a police car whilst appearing to be drunk and is placed in a cell overnight despite the fact she has no proper I.D. Later that night,  while gangster Genarro Rizzo (Affif Ben Badra) is being transferred to the prison, Cataleya pretends to be asleep when the guard checks on her – she then gets up and temporarily escapes from her cell to kill Rizzo (leaving a cataleya orchid on his chest to make her parents’ killers take notice) before getting back in via an air vent and the roof, before pretending to have slept through the entire commotion in the corridor as the guards raise the alarm. Cataleya’s intention to attract the attention of Don Luis and Marco, who are now living in America, works and she must now track them down and exact her revenge.

Colombiana offers absolutely nothing that you won’t have seen before. Olivier Megaton (whose name sounds like a French Transformer) delivers the standard fare you would expect from the very first scene. Gangsters living in palatial mansions, a sexy, physically flexible heroine who can squeeze through the tightest of air vents and particularly stupid police who are always ten steps behind the obvious plot, shows a distinct lack of originality or, more importantly, fun. Of course, a film about vengeance isn’t going to be a bundle of laughs but even in the more ‘lighter’ moments, the absence of chemistry between Saldana and her love interest played by Michael Vartan is mainly due to the poor script which flits over their relationship and places too much emphasis on ploughing on relentlessly and ferociously towards the predictable ending.

The film is a particular let-down when you consider that Luc Besson is involved as a producer and co-writer. For the man behind the brilliant Leon (1994) to have a hand in this is quite a surprise, considering the similarities in plot – you would have thought there would be much more substance to the characters, but alas, no. Previous form in Colombiana is therefore out of the window as Saldana herself who has shown flashes of talent, is relegated to playing what is a very contrived role despite the obvious emphasis on girl power. If you’ve seen the trailer, then you will have seen all the best action sequences – everything else in between is barely worth your time.

Colombiana has a few clever pieces of choreography in the fight scenes, but beyond that there is little to recommend to even the most enthusiastic of action film connoisseurs.

Rating:

Review: 300 (2007)

Tags

2006, 300, David Wenham, Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, Zack Snyder

Director: Zack Snyder
Stars: Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, David Wenham
Plot: King Leonidas and his army of 300 must do bloody battle with the Persians in 480 B.C.

If your idea of a good war film is a crackingly clever script, long pauses for reflection to reminisce about ‘the missus back home’ and profound character arcs that lead us to unbridled empathy and emotion at the end, look away now. 300 is no Gladiator and doesn’t pretend to be (well, except for one or two scenes) – Gerard Butler hasn’t got the vengeance factor of Russell Crowe’s Maximus Decimus Meridias, driven by the memory of his dead wife and son. But what he lacks on this score, he more than makes up in pure brute force and muscle which would put any male couch potato to shame.

300 begins by charting the life of Leonidas (Butler), his unforgiving journey from childhood to the throne. We learn how he was cast into the wilderness to learn to be a soldier, staring a giant wolf in the face before outwitting it in a fight to the death. We rejoin his story as a messenger arrives at his kingdom of Sparta, demanding that King Leonidas submits to Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) – instead he and his guards throw the messenger and his party into a well, knowing full well that this action will spark a war. Leonidas seeks counsel from ancient priests who in turn consult the Oracle, who tells them a war must not be fought during the religious festival of Carnea. The king decides to go ahead as planned, with the intention of channelling the opposing Persian army into a narrow passage where they will be bombarded from all sides and ultimately defeated.

King Leonidas sets out towards Thermopylae with 300 men who he calls his personal bodyguards instead of an army, to avoid the veto of the Spartan council under the suspicious, watchful eye of Theron (Dominic West). A fierce storm batters the Persian ships on the night before the battle is due to begin and kills many soldiers but these are only a small number of the vast army approaching. The Persians demand that Leonidas and his men lay down their weapons, but they refuse and manage to repel Xerxes’ armies’ repeated advances and increasingly intense bombardments. As both human casualties and treachery threaten to derail King Leonidas’ strategy, he must continue to fight Xerxes, not only in combat, but also diplomacy, as he has to come face to face with his proverbial wolf once again – Xerxes himself.

The first thing that strikes you (no pun intended) about 300, is its very unique cinematographic style. Zack Snyder shoots the film using similar colours to Frank Miller’s original comic strip of the same name. This creates a very atmospheric tone – at times beautiful scenery but always with black storm clouds seemingly lurking in the background. While Snyder puts you right in among the action, you may also feel detached from it, such is the nature of the film in that it doesn’t feel realistic enough but this is a very unusual characteristic that may take time to get used to. The fight scenes are unflinching in their brutality, with maimings, beheadings and skewerings that are the standard in sword-and-sandals epics, but are taken to a new level here.

Gerard Butler fills the screen quite literally – during his scenes the camera barely leaves him for a second. Despite there being a strong Greek mythological influence with its Oracles and mysticism, King Leonidas and his army are ultimately mortals and it is therefore easier to empathise with Butler’s character than if he were an invincible, infallible god. Where the film loses its way, is during the non-battle scenes, where we are transported back to Sparta for bouts of hammy dialogue from decidedly one-dimensional characters drawn from Gladiator. Lena Headley’s Queen Gorgo is just about tolerable, which is far more than can be said for Dominic West as token baddie Theron – taking his character out of the equation altogether and concentrating on Gorgo’s efforts to win over the council would have improved 300 considerably.

For its sheer scale and grand design, 300 is an entertaining war film that will most likely prompt a visit to a well-known online encyclopedia to find out a little more about ancient Mediterranean history and myth. Where it fails, is on the more subtle moments of convincing character backstory development and motive, which made Gladiator a far more rewarding experience.

Rating:

Review: Philadelphia (1993)

Tags

1993, Denzel Washington, Jonathan Demme, Philadelphia, Roberta Maxwell, Tom Hanks

Director: Jonathan Demme
Stars: Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Roberta Maxwell
Plot: After a man is fired from his job because he has AIDS, he aims to sue his former employers for wrongful dismissal with help from a homophobic lawyer.

How do you prove to cinema audiences and film critics alike that you belong among the Hollywood A-list? Starring in a series of light-hearted comedies is unlikely to make anyone really sit up and take notice, so why not take on a challenging role that is against type, yet is backed up by a plot that confronts our attitudes and prejudices? Tom Hanks’ career prior to 1993 was littered with fairly memorable performances, but there was little to suggest that he was particularly versatile. Then came his performance as wronged lawyer Andrew Beckett in Philadelphia.

We follow Hanks’ Beckett as he goes about his normal working life at a corporate law firm in Philadelphia. He keeps his homosexuality and the fact that he is HIV positive from his work colleagues, living with his partner Miguel Álvarez (Antonio Banderas). He is assigned a very important case but on the same day, one of the firm’s partners notices a lesion on Beckett’s forehead. He goes home for a few days, attempting to find a way to hide the lesion whilst finishing his work, handing in the documents in time. However, after being rushed to the ER after suffering from spasms, he receives a call from the office to say that the papers are missing and there is no trace on the firm’s computer system. The documents are found at the last-minute but Beckett, having seemingly been a rising star, is fired from his job for being unprofessional in light of this recent event.

Beckett believes that his dismissal was engineered by someone trying to remove him from the firm due to his AIDS diagnosis, by hiding the paperwork to make him look incompetent. He seeks representation from a number of lawyers, before arriving at the office of Joe Miller (Washington). Miller is homophobic and initially sceptical, visiting his doctor after their meeting to check if he has contracted the disease via a handshake. After spotting Beckett in a library, being asked to move into a private room away from other people, Miller steps in and decides to take on the case. As the lawsuit proceedings begin at court, the head of the firm, Charles Wheeler (Jason Robards) decides against settling out of court as he fears it would do more damage to his reputation. Beckett and Miller must now prove that Andrew’s former employers were complicit in wrongful dismissal, as his disease starts to get the better of him.

Philadelphia is not only Tom Hanks’ film, it also belongs to Denzel Washington. Hanks won an Academy Award for Best Actor, but Washington’s performance deserves as many plaudits for a difficult role which he fits into brilliantly. The whole film relies on the chemistry between the lead double-act being a success and it emphatically delivers on this score. The development of the relationship between Beckett and Miller begins rather frostily, but progresses to the point where they have a close friendship which is key in our empathy. Hanks lost a great deal of weight in preparation for the film and his increasingly gaunt appearance, though sanitising our exposure to the worst physical effects of AIDS, compliments his very affecting performance. We really see the storyline through the eyes of Washington’s Miller – the common prejudice that he initially shows and constantly surrounds him is shocking but such is Washington’s acting ability, our own attitudes which may have been sketchy to begin with, change as his change.

Jonathan Demme’s direction is typical of its time, not offering anything unusual in the way of cutting and editing apart from sweeping courtroom angles and the expected wonky camera to depict the progress of Beckett’s ailing health. The supporting cast features many well-known faces such as the usually superb Mary Steenburgen, who plays a rather one-dimensional defence lawyer and her Parenthood (1989) co-star Jason Robards as the seemingly callous but ultimately repentant Charles Wheeler. Where Philadelphia really hits the mark is in combining an affecting, personal story with a gripping courtroom drama – a difficult task pulled off very well indeed. If there is one minor quibble, it would be the lack of screen time given to Beckett’s and Álvarez’s relationship, which appears to be just a token subplot, but the main focus is rightly on developing Miller’s understanding of Beckett’s impossible predicament.

Philadelphia is not quite a masterpiece, but with Hanks and Washington as the two leads and a certain sensitivity given to the subject matter, this is both compelling and heartfelt in equal measure.

Rating:

Review: Bridesmaids (2011)

Tags

2011, Bridesmaids, Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Paul Feig, Rose Byrne

Director: Paul Feig
Stars: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne
Plot: A rivalry between a maid of honour and a bridesmaid threatens to overshadow preparations for their mutual friend’s big day.

Your wedding day is supposed to be the best day of your life, yet so many things can go wrong, not just the event itself but anything from, and including the, proposal. So it’s no wonder that nuptials are a popular subject for the cinema, mainly because so many stories can be so easily gleaned from real-life. Bridesmaids surprisingly features little wedding day action whatsoever – instead it focuses on a fierce competition between a maid of honour and a bridesmaid, as they vie for the much coveted approval of the bride-to-be.

Annie (Wiig) is a single thirty-something living a thoroughly unfulfilling life in Milwaukee. After her cake business went under, after which she also lost her boyfriend and life savings, Annie now lives in an apartment with annoying siblings Gil (Matt Lucas) and Brynn (Rebel Wilson). Meanwhile, she is in a degrading relationship with married, arrogant Ted (Jon Hamm) and can only seek comfort in her best friend Lillian (Rudolph). Lillian announces that she is getting married to Doug (Tim Heidecker) and asks Annie to be her maid of honour. At the engagement party, Annie meets the other bridesmaids – Lillian’s cousin Rita (Wendi McLendon-Covey), her friend Becca (Ellie Kemper), her future sister-in-law Megan (Melissa McCarthy) and Helen (Rose Byrne), the wife of Doug’s boss. Her impression of each of them is not particularly positive, especially Helen, with whom she has a ‘speech-off’ in a competition to prove who is Lillian’s ‘better’ friend.

On her way home, Annie is pulled over by Officer Nathan Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd) for having broken tail lights. He lets her off with a warning, but after an obvious attraction their paths inevitably cross later on. On the day of the wedding dress fittings, Annie books the group into a Brazilian steakhouse but all of them bar Helen get violent food poisoning which ends up causing quite a mess in the bridal shop. Meanwhile, Helen starts taking the lead over planning the lead-up to the wedding, rejecting Annie’s idea of throwing a Parisian bridal shower and ordering expensive dresses which Annie can’t afford. Helen books a trip to Las Vegas and gives Annie sedatives to keep her calm during the flight as she is afraid of flying. Annie becomes delirious and is thrown off the flight as well as the others – they are forced to go back home on a bus where Lillian nominates Helen to plan everything. Annie then develops her relationship with Nathan and has to find a way to win back the confidence of her best friend before the wedding.

Bridesmaids stands out from the usual wedding-themed romantic comedies, primarily because it has a central character who isn’t soppy, idealistic and thinks she’ll live happily ever after. Kristen Wiig’s Annie reflects the entire film, in that she is unpretentious, rather zany but her heart is ultimately in the right place – making this chick-flick appealing to both sexes, in the same way as the bloke-fest of The Hangover. Annie is not as always happy as you would expect – in many scenes she is often dismayed, humiliated and is desperate to fit in, despite her knack for failure. Many ensemble comedies tend to push the main character to the forefront of every scene, but here the supporting cast contribute to the plot and serve the entertainment factor well. Melissa McCarthy’s character Megan maybe the token vulgar friend that is required in American comedies these days (see Zach Galifianakis’ Alan), but she is a welcome addition to the cast and lightens the mood instantly, injecting comic relief when needed.

The plot moves back and forth between preparations for the wedding and Annie’s repeat encounters with Nathan. While the nuptial scenes are evidently well planned out – most notably the engagement party with its quick sight gags and the Las Vegas flight shenanigans, which get increasingly manic – it’s clear to see which parts of the script the writers had the most fun with. On the other hand,  Annie and Nathan’s gradually progressing love story is decidedly unoriginal and feels rather forced, as if it is a necessity for Annie to have a relationship despite her bad form in this area. Chris O’Dowd although charming, doesn’t really convince as a leading man and his odd accent appears to waver from his native Irish to a strange trans-Atlantic twang. Matt Lucas and Rebel Wilson’s characters, Bryn and Gil, feel rather unnecessary and the film really wouldn’t have missed them at all.

Bridesmaids is good fun, with its (mostly) charming characters and a storyline about women and weddings that actually doesn’t induce nausea or vomit (well, apart from one scene – literally). If there is to be a sequel, let’s hope there’s a tighter plot and no shoehorned romance next time round.

Rating:

Review: The Hangover Part II (2011)

Tags

2011, Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Hangover, Todd Phillips, Zach Galifianakis

Director: Todd Phillips
Stars: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms
Plot: Two years on from Las Vegas, Stu, Doug, Alan and Phil fly to Thailand for Stu’s wedding, but a few, quiet beach-side drinks somehow turn into another forgotten night of debauchery on the streets of Bangkok.

Ah yes, the sequel. In musical terms it’s the tricky second album, the next season for a newly promoted football team which has survived the drop. In other words, for a film franchise to truly work, the second film is absolutely crucial. Imagine you’re a screenwriter and your original idea has been turned into a resounding, global success but now that the dust has settled, the studio boss now wants a repeat performance at the box office. Bearing this in mind, the writers of The Hangover Part II have basically duplicated the action from the first film, but this time transplanted the action from Las Vegas to Bangkok.

The so-called ‘Wolf Pack’ – Phil (Cooper), Stu (Helms), Alan (Galifianakis), and Doug (Justin Bartha) – reunite for another trip, this time to Thailand, for Stu’s wedding to Lauren (Jamie Chung). After a particularly humiliating dinner during which the father of the bride voices his disapproval of the marriage and the apparent nice-but-dim personality of Stu, the guys intend to have a few beers on the beach with Lauren’s younger brother Teddy (Mason Lee) – but of course, it doesn’t quite end there. Cut to the morning, where Phil, Stu and Alan awake in a run-down Bangkok hotel to find that Stu has a rather fetching Mike Tyson-style face tattoo, Alan’s head is completely shaved, there’s a severed finger that seems to belong to Teddy who is missing, a chain-smoking Capuchin monkey is bounding around the room and to cap it all off, gangster Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) is for some reason there too.

As no-one but Mr. Chow can remember anything from the night before, they start to quiz him – but before he can reveal what happened, he snorts a line of cocaine and promptly keels over. This leaves the remaining ‘survivors’ to fill in the gaps, but most importantly find Teddy, fearing that he may have been kidnapped or worse – not the best way for Stu to make an impression on his in-laws. Having spoken to Doug on the phone who is back at the resort, he tells them Teddy has been found at a local police station. Unfortunately, a Buddhist monk has managed to acquire Teddy’s clothes and I.D and has rather inconveniently taken a vow of silence. They then find their way to a bar, outside which they had started a riot and end up at a Buddhist temple to find more answers. After Alan has a moment of clarity during meditation, they eventually find themselves embroiled in a rather dangerous mess involving ruthless businessman Kingsley (Paul Giamatti) – can Teddy be found before it’s too late?

The Hangover Part II is a decent effort, but falls short of being anywhere near as entertaining as its predecessor. The first film, though not outstanding, managed to deliver laughs through sheer randomness (finding a tiger in your Vegas hotel room and then encountering Mike Tyson has to be up there) as the hapless foursome attempted to retrace their steps following another heavy night on the tiles. However, this time around there aren’t enough set-pieces of real substance – in effect, the writers have tried too hard not to replicate anything from The Hangover and actually, Mr. Chow and severed finger aside, it isn’t too dissimilar from what you would expect from a normal AWOL night in the same city.

The star of the show once again is Zach Galifianakis as Alan who, despite the fact he’s now probably been typecast into this role (see the equally mildly amusing Due Date), raises a chuckle whenever he is on-screen. As for Cooper, Helms and Bartha, it is Helms who wins the slapstick award, while Cooper’s Phil tries to keep it together while surrounded by morons once again. Ken Jeong and Paul Giamatti provide the bad-guys-to-laugh-at moments but just as before Mr. Chow (who sounds freakishly similar to Team America’s Kim Jong-il), starts to annoy pretty quickly. There’s also the obligatory Mike Tyson cameo, as he ‘sings’ at the wedding in some kind of in-joke that falls totally flat – it’s far more cringe-worthy than funny. By the way – keep watching the end credits to find out how Teddy managed to part company with his finger.

The Hangover Part II is a case of diminishing returns and, with news of another sequel in the pipeline, there needs to be a radical overhaul of the franchise’s direction if there is to be an improvement. Let’s hope the next hangover reveals a much more hilarious trail of destruction than this one here.

Rating:

Review: Music and Lyrics (2007)

Tags

2007, Drew Barrymore, Hugh Grant, Lyrics, Marc Lawrence, Music, Scott Porter

Director: Marc Lawrence
Stars: Hugh Grant, Drew Barrymore, Scott Porter
Plot: A has-been singer is given the daunting task of writing a song for a teen star, but finds help in the most unusual place.

Hugh Grant is the go-to guy if you have a lead character who is a bumbling, fop-haired, quintessential Englishman. A career-defining performance as Charles in Four Wedding and a Funeral set Grant on the road to a host of similar castings – although he managed to (just about) step outside this typecast in films such as Extreme Measures and About a Boy. Drew Barrymore has thus far had a more varied career, but has cornered the market when it comes to cutesy, sensitive characters such as Lucy in 50 First Dates and Erin in Going the Distance. Yet here they are together, maximising their talents for playing an amalgamation of their most famous roles in Music and Lyrics.

The film opens with an outrageous 80s pop video (you know, the really awful ones with the odd ‘storyline’) by the imaginatively titled PoP! Alex Fletcher (Grant), who had enjoyed fame in the band – a hybrid of Wham! and Duran, Duran – is now reduced to performing random hits for his army of dwindling, middle-aged fans. Teen star Cora Corman (Haley Bennett) asks Fletcher to write a new song called Way Back Into Love, but without his old songwriting partner and lyricist Colin, he finds it difficult to do the words justice. After a failed attempt to come up with a decent verse or two, Alex realises that Sophie (Barrymore), who comes round to his apartment to (over)water his plants, has a knack for coming up with rhyming, emotive words.

Alex and Sophie set about writing the song, whilst growing ever closer as a result. Cora listens to the demo CD and likes what she hears, but at a later meeting, Sophie discovers to her dismay that Cora has completely re-worked it into a full-on, Indian-inspired R&B noise. Sophie protests to Alex but he, although agreeing it sounds terrible, insists that they let the new ‘interpretation’ stand and not complain in case the song is dropped – the pair then separate. Sophie intends to leave for Florida, but before she does, her sister asks if she would like to attend Cora’s concert, which features the song she wrote with Alex. Will Sophie go or avoid her heart being broken even further by seeing Alex perform their song with Cora?

Music and Lyrics is incredibly bland and poorly acted, but somewhere in there is a heartfelt film wanting to get out, but is stifled by the very awkward, badly thought-out plot. The main problem here can been seen immediately in the premise: a washed-up pop star is commissioned to write a hit song for the most famous star in the world (why him?) but can’t, so he asks some random girl who waters his plants (something you would only need doing if you were either going on holiday or incredibly lazy) and knows a decent rhyme or two, to help him. Right there – the word ‘contrived’ just doesn’t do it justice. It really beggars belief that with all the highly paid scriptwriters in the world, the best that anyone could muster is a damp squib of a storyline such as this.

Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore, despite their past acting history, should have given this a very wide berth. There’s no shame in starring in a predictable rom-com, but when the end product is so unsatisfying there’s even a question as to whether its target audience will find this even remotely interesting. All the blame rests solely at the feet of director and writer Marc Lawrence, who may have had dollar signs in his eyes when asked to write the script but came up with a half-arsed attempt – ironically much like his lead character Alex Fletcher.

Music and Lyrics isn’t terrible, but it’s not far off. Fans of Grant and Barrymore will no doubt enjoy drooling over their subjects, but for the rest of us, there’s very little to entertain.

Rating: