Jack Reacher – Review

December 22, 2012 1 Comment

Jack reacher

Jack Reacher (2012) Rating 5.0

Written & Directed by Christopher McQuarrie. Cast: Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, Richard Jenkins, David Oyelowo, Werner Herzog, Jai Courtney.

Jack Reacher is a strange hybrid of film that tries (key word: tries) to combine comedy, violence, and that slightly cheesy sensibility to action from the 80s. Clearly it’s a film in search of a franchise, but , given the cold reaction from the audience I watched it with, I do wonder whether it’ll actually ever go beyond this rather average and lazy exercise.

The film is written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, the same man behind the script of The Usual Suspect: that was enough to set the bar of my expectations pretty high. Also, Tom Cruise‘s name attached to anything of this caliber, may not be a guarantee of a perfect product, but,  whether you like him or not, is usually a mark of at least high standards, and, in worse case scenario, it will at least be good fun and entertaining (see the various Mission Impossible). Unfortunately this time my expectations were about to be crashed.

The film starts off with what was probably the best scene in the whole movie: an incredibly tense and prolonged shot seen though a sniper’s viewfinder. Slowly and mercilessly the unseen killer starts shooting at his victims by picking what looks like  innocent people walking by in park. It’s a brutal, agonising and very effective opening, that had me on the edge of my seat from the word go. Sadly the film never reached those heights and eventually, nor McQuarrie or Cruise could save it from ending up being a rather forgettable affair: an average, pretty generic and ultimately pretty silly experience.

The film struggles to decide what it wants to be and looses its way several times before it reaches the rather predictable and underwhelming finale. Its biggest problem is that it never seems to get the tone right: the violence is sometimes disturbing, other times just feels like a parody of a Schwarzenegger film (which by itself wouldn’t be a bad thing, but here the film actually takes itself quite seriously). The most misjudged moment, in terms of its violence is a scene where a girl is beaten up, which sits very uncomfortably with the rest of the film.

As far as Cruise is concerned (and here I should probably confess, I usually like the guy), he seems to me totally miscast. Never mind the fact in the book the character of Jack Reacher is described as blonde, ugly, 6’5” and 250 lbs), but here in the film, he feels like he’s been written with somebody else in mind, possibly even one of those guys from Stallone’s “Expendables”. It almost feels as if Cruise was called in at the last moment and on the top of that, was even allowed to do what he usually does best. The result is a character that never quite rings true. Reacher is supposed to be this brutal, tough, rough, mysterious, cool, always on the run character… Cruise brings too much with his for this part, he’s too charismatic, if you like, too cocky, and ultimately I was never convinced about his character, I couldn’t really get into him, understand him and by the time the movie ended I was left knowing as little about him as when the film started… and most crucially I didn’t really care.

It wasn’t all Cruise’s fault. The script was pretty weak too. Generally speaking the dialogue was dreadful,  full of clichés and simply idiotic: lines like “You can’t protect me. No one can”, or “I had to eat my own fingers” are just at the extreme of the spectrum

The film also makes a crucial mistake right from the beginning when it shows the audience who the killer is a good hour before Reacher himself finds out. It is a Hitchcockian trick I suppose, the difference between suspense and mystery. It is supposed to be putting the audience ahead of the main character, thus adding an extra edge to the journey, except that in this case, it makes the whole first half of the film rather dull to watch and plays against it and makes it all a lot interesting.

Not even the arguably hilarious appearance of Werner Herzog as the ultimate baddie can save the film, in fact I actually thought it dragged it even further down into total ludicrousness. His character, may be quite enjoyable to watch, but he is so over the top that it undermines all that gritty and violent realism seen in the intro. Once again it’s another example of the film pulling in too many different directions and not being able to decide what it wants to be: a comedy or a hard-hitting violent crime movie? Trying to do both did not work for me at all.

Obviously, somebody may argue that we are not meant to be taking any of that too seriously… Well, if that was the case I’d go along with it, but then you get scenes like a weird melancholic montage sequence showing you the lives of the victims who have been killed in the beginning, and how their next-of-kins are reacting to their death. By itself that is quite a beautiful sequence (if rather manipulative), but again, does it really belong in a movie with so many borderline-absurd one-liners and Herzog playing the ultimate 007-type villain?

This is all just plain stupid, grass and rather ordinary: not even an apparent slick direction and an A-star cast can save it.

5/10

Filed under latest movies, Reviews Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Barney’s Version – Review

January 24, 2011 4 Comments

Barney’s Version 

Directed by Richard J. Lewis. Starring Paul Giamatti, Macha Grenon, Paul Gross, Dustin Hoffman, Minnie Driver.

This is a very unusual film which took me completely by surprise. About 1 hour into it I was actually ready to hate it. Then something must have happened about half way through because slowly (maybe too slowly) what was up until that point just an average comedy, turned into something quite different: a touching story, with a very powerful ending which I am sure will stay with me for quite a while.

Paul Giamatti is the real strength of “Barney’s Version”, a film which otherwise would have become a fairly forgettable ride. He somehow manages to turn the part of the obnoxious, hard-drinking, cigar-smoking, foul-mouthed, hypocrite and quite repellent television producer, Barney Panofsky, into a moving character right at the end, just when you’re ready to dismiss him. This is certainly one of the best performances of Giamatti’s career (and that says a lot, since he’s always been very good).

Having said this, 132 minutes spent in the company of someone like Barney who is so focused on himself, so smug would stretch anyone’s patience.

His actual character is virtually impossible to comprehend and in the end, despite being present for pretty much every single scene in the film,  he does remain a mystery (and i don’t mean it as a compliment). This is certainly not Giamatti’s fault but a combination of the script (adapted from a novel by the Canadian Mordecai Richler) and a bland direction (unsurprisingly Richard J. Lewis comes from TV from things like CSI, makes no attempt to bring any style or pace to the film).

The main problem, length aside, is that you never quite believe why so many attractive women could fall in love for the sweaty, drunken Barney. And yet, he does get married 3 times and has constant flings everywhere else too. At some point I even wondered whether Giamatti was really the best choice for this story (though he is so good that he almost gets away with it).

The whole first part of the film is probably the weakest. It is fairly episodic and tries too hard to be a comedy without being funny enough. There are too many subplots which feel too random and disjointed but also there are way too many supporting characters, most whom might have played better in the novel, but here they all feel too much like caricatures (the father in law, Minnie Driver and Dustin Hoffman among many), as the film barely scratches their surface.

Then, about 1 hour into the film, something quite big happens (I won’t tell you what it is, don’t worry) and from there onwards the film finally seemed to find its way and became more focused.

Rosamunda Pike enters the film  and the relationship between her and Giamatti takes the centre stage. I have  never been really crazy about Rosamunda Pyke, but in this film she’s really good and she definitely plays one of the her best part.

Slowly the film settles into what it really should have been from the beginning, a slightly more poignant and focused film about a guy feeling the weight of the guilt and regrets for the life he’s spent. The last act is heart-wrenching and probably the most original part of the film. Some people may find it a bit too heavy handled, especially since our emotional investment in the main character has been somewhat limited by his awful persona.

It really worked on me but I can see how somebody could argue it’s rather manipulative.

On a separate note, there some in-jokes cameo appearances by some of Canada’s most notable directors, for diehard movie geeks out there: these are mainly people who have worked for producer Robert Lantos (producer of Eastern Promises). Even David Cronenberg and Atom Egoyan also turn up as directors of Barney’s TV show.

6.5/10

Filed under latest movies, recently re-watched, Reviews Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Made in Dagenham – Review

December 3, 2010 Leave a comment

Made in Dagenham (2010) 

Directed by Nigel Cole. Starring Sally Hawkins, Bob Hoskins, Andrea Riseborough, Rosamund Pike

I’ve finally managed to catch up with this film after hearing only good reviews from esteemed journalists and friends. So let’s say my expectation were fairly high (which is always pretty dangerous). On the whole I was a bit disappointed by how average it all was.

To be fair, the story itself is the best thing: how a group of female workers at  the Ford Dagenham car plant decided to go on strike protesting against sexual discrimination and asking for equal pay. It’s not just interesting and quite gripping but it’s also unbelievably true… Even more unbelievable to think that all this was just 40 years ago. Unfortunately, the story itself, as you can see, can be told in about a sentence or two. So after a while the film actually drags a bit and plays out pretty much as expected, by numbers.

It is a typical British film in a way: its pace, its gritty locations, its gray colours, even weather itself is very British. Nothing wrong with that, of course, expect this is all really superficial. The direction is pretty nonexistent and misses all the right moments. So much so that the supposedly funny scenes are without laughter and the moments where you should feel something (maybe even cry) are so cold and contrived that you’ll end up feeling absolutely nothing.

The script pretty basic and actually quite weak in places. There are scenes in which characters reveal their true motives to each other, in the lamest and laziest way, with dialogue that  rings so annoyingly  untrue, even though it’s all supposed to be a real story: for example the scene where Bob Hoskins tells, out of the blue, that the reason why he wants to help out is because his difficult childhood, is really contrived! And then later on in the film, there’s a very similar moment in which Rosamund Pike (who at least is good with the little she’s been given) tells Sally Hawkins how she feels. My God, do people really talk like that?

It’s funny how they managed to make a true story seem to un-real!

Even Miranda Richardson‘s depiction as  the Secretary of State is so over the top that you almost wonder whether she’s even realized she’s not on a Harry Potter set anymore.

Almost every single character in this film is a two-dimensional caricature, purely functional to the story: they can all be described with one adjective each. Most of the men act as the baddies, as if they were performing to 5 years old children, in the most ludicrous way. Was that really the only way to make the women appear stronger in the film?

The only one who attempts to do something a little bit more interesting is Richard Schiff, but unfortunately there isn’t enough of him to make him an interesting character anyway.

Once again, the Bob Hoskins‘s character (A union shop steward) is a one-dimensional one too. The moment where he quotes Carl Marx, is just one of the several contrived moments in the script, aiming for an easy punch-line, but actually contributing to make it even more un-real . Are we really supposed to believe that a character like him, really knows Carl Marx by heart?

Not to mention all the silly subplot which, on paper should really make the characters more real, but in practice end up being “so what?” moments. For example, what’s all the business with that woman with the sick husband (and the suicide too!!)? How is that meant to fit into the story? Are we meant to feel something for her? Because if that’s the case, I didn’t really feel anything about it.

And what about all the stuff with the bullied son at the beginning? Why is that subplot even there at all?

But the most awkward element of them all is Sally Hawkins‘s performance as Rita O’Grady. She’s supposed to be the strong woman who says “enough is enough” (in fact you can even see the real person in some real footage used during the end credits) and yet for most first half of the film she’s constantly acting as an incredibly shy  woman. Her mannerism is just wrong for the type of person she’s supposed to be. How she lowers her eyes every time she needs to talk so someone, or her stuttering and feeble tone of voice whilst she should actually be the strong one. wasn’t Rita O’Grady the woman who managed to rally all the others and convince them to join her in a strike for the right of equal pay. Well, in this film I get no sense at all that she could be a leader…

It’s a real pity, because a story like that really deserved something a lot better than this film.

6/10

Filed under latest movies, Reviews Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: