Black Rain (1989)

By

-

2014-10-24

This could only be a more 80s-looking picture if Boy George was in the background.

Twitter Plot Summary: Michael Douglas is a maverick cop sent to Japan to take on some bad guys. Everything looks neon.

Big haired Michael Douglas (as Nick Conklin) takes on the Japanese underworld in Ridley Scott’s Black Rain. Accompanied by the less extravagantly coiffured Andy Garcia, they head to the Far East to escort a Yakuza criminal back to Japan to be tried on home soil. Thanks to some shenanigans he escapes and they then have to make amends, all the while adjusting to the Japanese method of police enforcement.

Ignoring the most inconsistent ever to apply to a police force commander – namely that loose cannon and currently under investigation Michael Douglas is sent on such an important mission in the first place – is also the fact that Conklin is a completely unsympathetic character, one that it is hard for the audience to root for. Garcia as his long-suffering partner Charlie is the more likeable of the two, however you can telegraph exactly where things will go for him simply because he’s so nice. What can be said about Conklin other than he’s unpleasant, a bit of a maverick and is a competent motorbike rider? Not much, let’s be honest.

The visual style owes a lot to Scott’s earlier work on Blade Runner, filled with glowing neon lights and dim, rainswept streets. Beyond this however it has little else to say beyond its broad and cliche stranger in a strange land story, one where the hero from the Western world shows his foreign counterpart(s) what it means to be an officer of the law abroad, while the hero learns something about teamwork and working within certain boundaries in return. In its favour is that Black Rain is deferential to Japanese culture, which is always a pleasure to experience. Matsumoto, the Japanese officer assigned to work with Conklin is great for introducing the audience to Japanese life, even if he again is little more than a Japanese equivalent to Charlie. It’s interesting to note that the two actors playing Matsumoto and Sato were known in Japan for playing opposite to their roles here, a nice nod from Scott to their film heritage in Japan by inverting their roles.

Something tells me that this isn't considered legal behaviour in Japan. Or indeed, most places. — Something tells me that this isn’t considered legal behaviour in Japan. Or indeed, most places.

The finale is big and explosive, following the expected plot pattern to the letter, although it isn’t afraid to bring things down to a personal battle of wills in a bid to show just how far Conklin has developed since our first encounter with him. Let’s not go into any detail about Kate Capshaw, however – the character is needlessly American for a start, and her appearance in the film seems to be solely to include a speaking female role. There are no excuses, but that’s just the way it was back in the 1980s. Much like Michael Douglas’ hair, actually.

In the end it’s a solid action film, even if it’s one that relies heavily on established cliches, an oh-so 80s soundtrack and casual racism in order to make its point. It may be more style than substance, but in the hands of Ridley Scott it still manages to push forward and be more than the sum of its parts regardless.

Score: 3/5

March of the Penguins (2005)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-10-23

0

Twitter Plot Summary: Morgan Freeman narrates a documentary about a group of Emperor Penguins in the Antarctic.

What better combination is there than shots of amazing natural landscapes and animals being narrated by Morgan Freeman? Very little in human existence is likely to come close, and that is reason enough for March of the Penguins being a hugely entertaining (and award winning) nature documentary. It’s not just Morgan Freeman of course – there’s some solid nature film work going on here, but he must at least be a contributing factor.

Focusing purely on Emperor Penguins and their efforts to survive in the harsh environment of the Antarctic, the documentary is designed to provide solid family entertainment whilst using the natural world to tell a story that all viewers young and old can understand and appreciate. As expected, an obligatory light orchestral theme accompanies the penguins on their journey, following a group of Emperor Penguins as they make their annual trip to their breeding grounds and to usher in a new generation of penguins.

Much like the sterling work from David Attenborough, March of the Penguins doesn’t hide from the realities of the natural world – it’s inevitable that some of them will die on their journey or as a result of the extreme cold, but that’s okay. If nothing else it prepares the young audience for the way the world works without shielding them from its darker moments. On the other hand, besides the basic “love story” angle which the makers have used, it’s a very dry presentation of the existence of Emperor Penguins. Morgan Freeman does elevate this beyond what could have easily been a very humdrum analysis.

The queue for the fish and chip shop was horrendous.

With that said, a lot of information is passed on to the audience in a simple yet effective manner, advising on the rituals the penguins follow, how they survive for months on end without food, and the perils they face besides the weather – predators of all sizes and descriptions. It’s a compelling story even if there is little in terms of the audience’s investment in the penguins – none are given a name or personality and they are, it seems, to be considered as a group rather than as creatures with their distinct foibles and personalities. Whilst anthropomorphising is totally out of the question, they could at least have been given something to distinguish them. Instead we have a general mass of penguins and watch events unfold with an unattached, almost unfeeling eye.

The natural world will always remain a fascinating subject, and dedicating an entire movie to this one animal is a great idea. At the same time, it feels like it pales in comparison to the work from David Attenborough which still manages to tell a gripping story using the natural world as its canvas. Still, to compare anything against Attenborough’s work will always result in a negative comparison, so let’s judge March Of The Penguins on its own merits. The natural world as presented is shown in all its glory, as are the penguins and their journey. Just a touch more effort in terms of characterising the penguins, or picking some out specifically for this purpose, would have gone a long way to resolve the conflicting desire to experience a narrative.

Score: 4/5

Anacondas: The Hunt For The Blood Orchid (2004)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-10-22

0

Only one of these weapons would be truly effective against a snake.

Twitter Plot Summary: More people head out into the jungle looking for a rare orchid that can extend human lifespans.

The movie business has never been one for letting things lie, more than happy to churn out unnecessary sequels to once-popular (or deemed popular) films, often many years after the original and after all of the publicity has faded. Whilst Anacondas: The Hunt For The Blood Orchid isn’t too badly timed coming seven years after the original (and no doubt titled to cash in on the Alien/Aliens naming convention), it proves to be a much less entertaining experience than the mostly bonkers original.

Bill Johnson is the obligatory Han Solo-type character who hires out his boat to group of scientists and business bigwigs who are searching for a rare orchid that could extend people’s lives. Unbeknownst to them, their journey will be assaulted by not just one but a number of large anaconda snakes. More importantly, their journey will be affected by human greed and desire for money. In other words, just like the first movie.

Where does Anacondas fail when Anaconda (kind of) succeeded? It has all of the same story beats as the first film – group of explorers out in the jungle, human characters intent on making sure the others don’t make it out alive, and some impressive snake-related violence. Tonally it’s uncertain of itself, one moment embracing the insanity of Jon Voight, the next attempting to be deadly serious. When done correctly this can lead to quite an entertaining film, but in this case it never manages to find the right balance which results in it flip-flopping between the two with reckless abandon. The villain too, in the form of Matthew Marsden, former soap star and latterly action movie regular, is much more down to earth, less outwardly evil and, dare it be said, a more realistic prospect than Jon Voight. This doesn’t necessarily mean he’s much fun to watch though, content with staring moodily into the middle distance instead of glaring menacingly at people. Still, he stands out a little more than most of the cast – some spirited performances from Salli Richardson-Whitfield and Morris Chestnut, the other bigger names in a cast of relative unknowns, go some way to alleviate the rehashed story.

The snake was surprised to find he'd won the hide and seek competition. — The snake was surprised to find he’d won the hide and seek competition.

It seems that just having some large snakes killing people isn’t enough, as attempts are made to explain why the snakes are so large – it’s all down to that blood orchid the expedition are searching for. As explanations go it’s hardly necessary yet almost seems an obligatory move at the sequel stage. Still, at least the group’s reason for being in the jungle in the first place is more clearly defined than Eric Stoltz and Jennifer Lopez’s group, that’s one good aspect in its favour.

Is Anacondas worth watching? If you liked the first one then possibly. Much of it depends on if you want to see the same story played out slightly differently, with different actors and seven years worth of improvements in CGI technology. If these circumstances tick the right boxes for you then fill your boots, but it can’t be said to be a good film, merely a competent one.

Score: 2.5/5

Anaconda (1997)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-10-21

0

Voight's new snakeskin neck warmer was a little on the tight side. — Voight’s new snakeskin neck warmer was a little on the tight side.

Twitter Plot Summary: Jon Voight does crazy as a giant snake targets a group of documentary filmmakers.

More often than not, you can’t go wrong with any film that features a giant snake. It guarantees that somebody will be eaten, that somebody else will probably be squeezed to death, and that at least one woman will have the snake slither past her and make her scream – because snakes are sexist. In one sense it’s a spiritual companion piece to Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which portrayed an existential journey up river in search of company man Kurtz. That is to say, Anaconda would be a companion piece to Heart of Darkness if the novella included a gurning Jon Voight and a giant snake picking off the crew one by one. Just imagine Apocalypse Now with added Jon Voight… scary thought.

Voight is in total pantomime villain mode as a Paraguayan snake hunter, pulling faces and drooling over Jennifer Lopez during his insane quest to capture a massive anaconda. You know, the snake of the title. The snake comes a close second to Voight in the extravagant overacting stakes, snarling and shrieking like a creature possessed and desperate to make the most of its limited screen time – because in reality snakes don’t make that type of noise. The mixture of CGI and animatronic are similar to the balance found in fellow creature feature Lake Placid, in that they are used very effectively. Whilst to the modern eye it’s easy to tell the difference between whether or not the snake was created in a computer or is an advanced puppet, it adds to the charm of the experience rather than detracting from it. Best to think of it along similar lines to Deep Blue Sea. That’s probably a fair number of people who will automatically decide to give this a miss – your loss.

Eric Stoltz clearly didn't read the script all the way through before accepting the part. — Eric Stoltz clearly didn’t read the script all the way through before accepting the part.

Eric Stoltz is the nearly man again as he at first seems to be the main character, but is soon sidelined and barely makes an appearance for the rest of the film. Apparently he learned nothing after his almost-starring role in the Back To The Future franchise. Still, at least he made an appearance in this one. It’s up to the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube and a much younger than expected Owen Wilson instead to carry the film, although as you may expect they are frequently outperformed by Jon Voight. In all cases, with the exception of Ice Cube, it’s hard to tell if they’re aware of how bad the film is or if are fully aware but are just going along with it. Ice Cube on the other hand gives the impression that he’s along for the ride and enjoying himself.

Moments of delicious gruesomeness join forces with the suspect performances, waterfalls run backwards because they clearly forgot to shoot the boat heading the other way up the river, and scientific inaccuracies abound. It’s not a film that will win any awards outside of the Razzies, but that doesn’t stop it from being ridiculously entertaining. Most of the plot is nonsense but it’s pure popcorn entertainment at its finest.

Score: 3/5

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-10-20

0

Just hitchin' a ride, you know... — Just hitchin’ a ride, you know…

Twitter Plot Summary: The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are back and more mediocre than ever before! Huzzah! Or not.

Five Point Summary:

1. She’s April O’Neil, because she’s wearing a yellow coat.
2. This is truly diabolical. At least Mikey has some amusing dialogue.
3. So… this Sacks guy. Any point to having him in this?
4. Showdown with Shredder. He looks very sharp.
5. It’s finished. At last.

Near the start of this reboot of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise, erstwhile cameraman Vernon Fenwick (Will Arnett) advises reporter April O’Neil (Megan Fox) that people often just want froth and foam from their news and media because it helps them forget about their everyday problems. It’s a line that feels like it was dropped in deliberately, almost as an apology or even a statement of intent for this interpretation of the Ninja Turtles. After all the recent efforts to turn comic book and fantasy films towards the darker side, Ninja Turtles revels in its light approach to storytelling. Whilst a light and frothy film is all well and good, in this case it’s as if they forgot to make a film actually about the Turtles. They’re in there, of course, but all the soul of their world has been sucked out and replaced with really bad CGI.

For all intents and purposes this is a soulless reboot. The Turtles occasionally have the spark of what made them interesting in the first place – Michelangelo in particular – but otherwise their story is sanitised and exactly what you would expect from the Michael Bay stable – moribund and lifeless, bordering on the awful. There are a few amusing moments, sure, but they are few and far between and not sufficiently spaced out. Furthermore Leonardo and Donatello are relegated to supporting characters behind Mikey’s jokes and Raphael’s inner turmoil, and Splinter is peculiar looking yet competent martial artist, but that’s it. Megan Fox, having made amends with Michael Bay after their falling out after Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, does nothing interesting with April O’Neil, the character reduced to being a pretty face and not much more.

They have no idea how bad this will end up being. No idea.

Will Arnett proves to be the most entertaining of the human characters, even if his best moment comes from Vernon playing “Careless Whisper” whilst making a sandwich at home rather than anything he actually says or does – most of his performance is muted and sadly lacking, which is a shame given how funny he has been in almost every other project he’s been involved in. Whoopi Goldberg has a cameo as Vernon and April’s news room boss, but you question why she bothered taking the role given how little she contributes to the story.

On the bad guy front, Shredder is an imposing force and the efforts to update his outfit are impressive, but as a character he is nothing more than a plot point and a CGI suit of armour for most of his screen time. In a more physical, “actually on set” role is William Fichtner as Eric Sacks, a scientist in cahoots with Shredder, who plans to kill a load of people and then release a cure generated from the Turtles’ blood, all so he can make a lot of money. The cad.

Looking back at the early speculation that the Turtles would have an alien origin, and given the film that we received, perhaps a retool of the Turtles’ origins may have helped after all. Then again, perhaps not. Ninja Turtles is as Vernon suggests at the very start – merely froth and foam, but without the possibility of a tasty beverage underneath. It’s a peculiar thing to imagine, but the original film in 1990 at least had characters to root for. This CGI-dominated monstrosity may have done well at the box office in the US, but from a critical perspective it’s thrown the turtles out along with the mutagenic ooze that created them. Ho hum.

Score: 1.5/5

Film and the Law of Diminishing Returns

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-10-19

0

I’m not alone in noting that many film franchises suffer from the law of diminishing returns. It’s no wonder that many such franchises finish after establishing a trilogy, as anything after that is likely to throw away most of the lessons learned and dispose of much of what made the characters as appealing as they were to begin with. There are some series that manage to buck this trend by calling things to a close before there is a noticeable dip in quality, but others such as the Friday The 13th franchise kept churning out sequel after unnecessary sequel and often missing the target by such a margin that it ended up hitting another studio’s building.

Much like the generally abysmal Friday The 13th series, it’s usually the horror genre that gets the most stick for this sort of thing, churning out sequel after unnecessary sequel and either doing nothing all that new or original with the concept that set the whole thing off in the first place. It does happen across other genres though. For every poor Friday The 13th or A Nightmare On Elm Street sequel there is an Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, a Jaws 2 or a Robocop 2/Robocop 3 (delete one or both or neither depending on your opinion about these films) lurking in the wings like some unwelcome film equivalent of the Phantom of the Opera.

Besides killing teenagers, Jason's other hobbies included ice hockey and standing in rivers. — Besides killing teenagers, Jason’s other hobbies included ice hockey and standing in rivers.

The prevailing opinion is that most film series should be closed up after two or three films, potentially four at the most. That’s from a creative perspective at least. The film itself may be awful but as long as people are going to see it and the studio makes a tidy profit then they’ll gladly churn out more and more completely inferior sequels until the river of incoming money stops flowing. The answer to bad sequels should be obvious – stop going to see those films so studios will concentrate on the good stuff. The problem there is twofold.

First, Joe Public is notoriously resilient to being told what to like, so they will like whatever he or she damn well pleases. Who cares if it’s badly scripted, badly acted or badly directed? If Joe Public likes it, it will make money no matter what you say against it. Then there is the second point. Some people, myself included, do actually enjoy watching bad films. This is technically an offshoot of point 1, but it’s worth saying that in some cases a bad film will be supported by people who enjoy such things. Such examples of terribly bad films are, however, often limited to a DVD/Blu-Ray only release, so the argument around cinema distribution for those films is a moot one.

What do we take away from this? My perspective has always been the same about these things – you don’t have to watch them. And if you do happen to watch a bad film, there’s no reason why it should spoil your enjoyment of your favourite films. Just quietly put it to one side and get on with your life. There’s far more important things to worry about, trust me.

The Maze Runner (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-10-18

0

The maze walls were so big, they couldn't help but be impressed. — The maze walls were so big, they couldn’t help but be impressed.

Twitter Plot Summary: A group of teens are imprisoned in the middle of a giant maze. Stuff happens, they have to get out. You know the drill.

Using the phrase “the next Hunger Games” to describe any new movie adaptation of a young adult novel is fast becoming a tiresome cliché, and The Maze Runner is the latest in a long line of YA adaptations bequeathed with this honour. The thing is, from a tonal perspective and it’s YA origins then they are of similar ilk, but that is where the similarities should end. The Maze Runner features a similar dystopia setting and covers themes of isolation from the established order, as all good stories aimed at the teen market do, but to link the two in any other way is lazy and almost not worth the effort.

In the world of The Maze Runner a group of teenage boys are isolated in The Glade, an open expanse of trees and fields set inside some massive walls. Every day a small group of Runners explore the maze and try and find a way out. They have been doing this for three years without success when Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) enters The Glade, having no memory of his previous life. He emerges from a pit that once a month brings a new “Greenbean” and supplies into the teen society. His arrival instantly causes tension amongst the long-term residents, and before long things soon start to come apart at the seams, more so when the first girl in the glade, Theresa (Kaya Scodelario) shows up earlier than the usual schedule and appears to have links and memories of Thomas from before their time in The Glade.

You can tell it's a YA dystopia because they all wear drab costumes. — You can tell it’s a YA dystopia because they all wear drab costumes.

The differences between the movie and the source novel are appropriate and benefit the structure expected of film, although in some cases the changes aren’t always beneficial for fan expectations. The design of the Grievers are a more horrific prospect in the novel than the part animal, part machine spider things seen in the film. These, whilst sufficiently unpleasant, aren’t as gruesome as the slug-like creatures of the book. In what is perhaps a wise move, the movie also excises the telepathy angle that played a minor role in the first book.

This is a film that isn’t afraid to jump into darker territory – it was a 15 rated film before cuts were made to bring it down to a 12A. Strong performances from Will Poulter (he of the impressive eyebrows) as Gally and Thomas Brodie-Sangster as Newt go some way to making up for the lack of depth given to many of the characters involved. Whilst O’Brien is solid as Thomas, there isn’t much more to his character than as a catalyst for change. As for Theresa, there’s almost no point in her being there.

The finale may be a little heavy handed with its excessive exposition – almost everything is explained in unnecessary detail regarding the reason for the maze’s existence and why they are all there – but until then everything ticks along at a nice pace and the action is nicely balanced, if a little dark at times for a younger audience.

Score: 3.5/5

’71 (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-10-17

0

71-1 — That’s no way to hold a weapon, lad!

Twitter Plot Summary: A young soldier finds himself on the run in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

Five Point Summary:

1. So they’re not off to Germany then. Ho hum.
2. Machinations and differences of opinion abound.
3. He’s not Superman – look, he got caught in the blast!
4. Sneaking around on a cold, wet night like that?
5. Hmm, morally ambiguous to say the least. All of them. Except Gary. He’s lovely.

First and foremost, whilst it may be set during the Troubles in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, it is not a film about said Troubles. Instead it uses that background as its setting and presents a chase movie with young army recruit Gary (Jack O’Connell) escaping from a group of extreme IRA members who, after a riot leaves him separated from his unit, are intent on hunting him down and killing him before he can get to safety. The situation is clearly marked out in a briefing to the new recruits and, incidentally, for the audience, about the Catholic/Protestant divide and that Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom and not some far-flung corner of the dwindling empire.

O’Connell is a fantastic presence, not specifically for his delivery of dialogue (although that is entirely appropriate for the character), but because of his ability to present a range of emotions without having to say a word. His is also a character who frequently feels the full force of the attacks on his person and has to cope with the resulting physical effect this has on him. This refusal to show him as some superhero soldier aids in seeing him in a compassionate light and wanting him to make it through to safety. Special mention must also go to Sean Harris for his slimy Captain Browning, a man who is as complicated as his well managed sideburns and moustache combo. He has an unknown agenda in all of this, and whilst substantially on the same side as Gary, there’s still an element to him that remains suspect.

The Troubles, or 28 Days Later? Or both?

The situation already offers its own fair share of tension, but this is magnified and complicated by the various power struggles that are taking place all around Gary. Other than his perspective, on his side of the fence there are his fellow army companions and a small group of plain clothes officers manipulating the situation to their own end. On the other side are the IRA, an extreme group of the IRA, and the local residents living in the affected area. Each have their own ideals and opinions and, as history has indicated, make it absolutely clear that the situation wasn’t as black and white as you may have been led to believe.

The style chosen by director Yann Demange is one full of energy and kinetic movement, frequently handheld and not afraid to get in the faces of the actors. Each and every moment has a gritty realism to it, at times as if we’re watching a documentary of events rather than a film. This technique works well for bringing the audience into the drama and, other than the occasional moment of quiet, creates a sense that things could explode at any moment. And they do, quite frequently. With all the political machinations taking place amidst what would otherwise be a quiet domestic setting, Demange and everyone else involved, performers and cast included, have crafted a well balanced action thriller that will leave you gripped until the end.

Score: 4.5/5

Videodrome (1983)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-10-16

0

VHS tapes - built to last. — VHS tapes – built to last.

Twitter Plot Summary: James Woods goes a bit mad after encountering Videodrome. He has a gaping hole in his stomach too.

Five Point Summary:

1. It couldn’t be any more 80s if it tried – VHS tapes and CRT televisions are just the tip of the iceberg.
2. Ear piercing with a dirty needle? She’ll get an ear infection.
3. An interesting place to hide a weapon, at least.
4. I may be wrong, but I think there’s something wrong with that VHS tape.
5. It’s become a part of him. Gnarly.

In Videodrome James Woods plays Max, a sleazy television executive who is interested in acquiring some gnarly snuff tapes for his own enjoyment. That is, when he’s not using a gun to rape his own stomach through the vagina shaped hole that appears there. But that’s getting ahead of the plot a little, so like a VHS cassette tape let’s rewind a little bit. Max is a perverted chap, but then it also seems that most of the other people in this world are too. His paramour, Nicki Brand (a mostly wooden Deborah Harry), is equally as twisted and perverse, and proves to be Max’s downfall and descent into the world of Videodrome.

Cronenberg is renowned for his obsession with body horror, and Videodrome is a worthy addition to his canon. In most of his films the lead character is either afraid of the changes that they are almost powerless to prevent (see the likes of Shivers or Scanners), or in this case afraid of what they themselves will end up doing. Whilst much of his work lacks polish and, usually, a budget, Cronenberg succeeds as an ideas man, taking notable aspects of modern existence and putting his own twist on them. The infiltration of media into everyday existence, television in particular, is parodied and satirised. In Max we have a representation of our own indoctrination into this world, depicting a growing reliance on technology that foreshadowed the rise of the internet and the world we find ourselves living in today.

Is Max going insane, or is his VHS collection and television actually talking to him? The concept of mind control and indoctrination to a cause wasn’t a new one in 1983, but then few other films of a similar ilk would make a gun become a physical part of the lead character’s hand. Woods is suitably disturbed as Max, his bewilderment on par with the audience’s.

Whilst the body horror element is often the main focus – for good reason too – Videodrome also boasts some powerful and innovative special effects which are even more impressive given the relatively low budget Cronenberg was working with and the time at which it was made. The white noise from the television spreading out from the screen is one scene in particular that is markedly impressive and has a tangible quality to it, as if you could just as easily reach through your own television and touch objects within the world of Videodrome. Obviously you can’t do that, but it’s testament to the effects department on this film that it may just be possible.

Looking at it with a modern eye Videodrome is terribly dated, afflicted by references to VHS tapes and typical 80s fashion. Despite this, it remains one of Cronenberg’s best works and perhaps his most confusing – the reality of the situation is that despite finishing on quite a definitive note it’s still not entirely clear what has actually happened. This ambiguity leaves the audience to make up its own mind, and given the head trip that has preceded it, is perhaps the only way to end the film. Long live the new flesh!

Score: 4/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6AXQeCE9Rw

Deadfall (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-10-15

0

Staring off-camera in a slightly heroic pose, version 47.

Twitter Plot Summary: Eric Bana has horrible things happen to him, whilst Olivia Wilde hangs out with Charlie Hunnam.

Five Point Summary:

1. Addison won’t be happy until he’s killed everybody.
2. Jay has the boxing equivalent of Bruce Lee’s one inch punch.
3. Liza only seems to exist to sleep with Jay.
4. Addison: still trying to kill everybody.
5. This is supposed to be a tense thanksgiving meal. It’s not.

It’s a common piece of scriptwriting advice that you should always start your film with the action already in motion, and thus it is that we meet Eric Bana’ Addisom and Olivia Wilde’s Liza, siblings who have a bag full of cash on the back seat of their car and the possibility that there may be a somewhat unsavoury element to their relationship. After they escape from a car crash, he decides that they should split up and meet again after they have crossed over into Canada.

Meanwhile Charlie Hunnam’s Jay has just got out of prison and goes on the lam after an altercation with his former boxing trainer goes awry, and Kate Mara’s police officer Hannah has to contend with her father’s inherent protectiveness/sexism as the sheriff. There’s also the gruff presence of Kris Kristofferson making things gruffer than is absolutely necessary in this bleak winter landscape, but sadly for him he doesn’t have much presence beyond this, and the less said about Sissy Spacek’s involvement the better – she’s given very little to work with beyond one scene demonstrating her character’s own inner strength.

"You want me to do what with all of this money?" — “You want me to do what with all of this money?”

This is a land permanently covered in snow, as if we’ve travelled through the wardrobe into Narnia and found the alumni of House, Sons of Anarchy, House of Cards and that Ang Lee Hulk film taking part in their own version of CS Lewis’ Christian allegory. It seems that the only reason for there being so much snow is because blood looks really good when splattered against it. Beyond that, it’s just another dramatic thriller that appears to be missing half of its plot.

Deadfall has a frankly ludicrous setup that brings all of these characters together, leading up to a Thanksgiving meal that is supposed to be a tense event but instead ends far too quickly and lacks the dramatic kick that it was aiming for. Therein lies Deadfall’s main concern – the script isn’t nearly tight enough in its plotting and thriller narrative, over-egging the kitchen sink drama and emotional strife without ever progressing beyond portraying it at a deeper level.

There are at least spirited performances from all involved. Bana carries much of the story, a conflicted character who has a moral code that makes adults fair game for his homicidal tendencies, yet will go out of his way to protect children. He also happens to be the character who legitimately has the most to complain about given the unfortunate set of circumstances that he encounters after he leaves his sister.

Olivia Wilde’s accent seems to wobble throughout, but this may be something to do with her character’s uncertain history rather than a bad performance. Hunnam meanwhile convinces as a man who has a boxing past but is keen to control his anger issues. Unfortunately, he deserves to be in a much better film, and his charater’s story would have benefitted from being considered in isolation to Addison and Liza’s own issues.

Strong performances and some attractive cinematography (and yet more blood splattered on snow) aren’t enough to redeem Deadfall, it’s yet another case of a thriller with a number of big name actors but forever destined to end up in the direct to DVD bargain bucket. An actual ending wouldn’t have hurt either.

Score: 2.5/5

SIMONPRIOR.COM