All The President’s Men (1976)

2014-10-14

"Look, I know you have a luxurious head of hair, but I'm Robert Goddamn Redford!" — “Look, I know you have a luxurious head of hair, but I’m Robert Goddamn Redford!”

Twitter Plot Summary: The Watergate scandal as told from the perspective of the journalists who uncovered it.

The Watergate scandal marked one of the most notable moments of the 19th and thoroughly shook up the world of politics in the United States. It is therefore of great interest to see a film dramatising those events and exploring the work of the journalists who investigated the matter and were eventually able to blow the whole thing wide open. The film spins out from the book by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward which documented the Watergate scandal shortly after the event.

It’s worth keeping in mind that at the time of release this film was still topical, yet even after 40 years it’s still a story that packs a punch. This is in no small thanks to the power of the story itself, a political thriller in which the most powerful man in the country is taken down. Alan J Pakula’s direction allows the actors room to use the material to its full potential, not cutting away too quickly. In one instance he even keeps Robert Redford on screen for several minutes as he makes a telephone call. It’s testament to Pakula’s belief in Redford’s ability to carry a scene especially given that we don’t hear the other side of the conversation, and despite Redford’s minor flub at the end of the call.

"We're sat right next to each other, is this telephone call really necessary?" — “We’re sat right next to each other, is this telephone call really necessary?”

The story is carried with ease by Redford and Dustin Hoffman, initially at loggerheads with one another before joining forces on what at first appears to be just another standard story of no real interest. Redford plays Woodward, a new reporter at the Washington Post, and Dustin Hoffman – epic 70s hairstyle and all – plays Bernstein, another reporter at the Post. Together, they investigate the information given to them, in particular from anonymous government source Deep Throat, so-named because of the pornographic film of that name released around the time of the scandal – you’ll understand the connotations when watching the film.

The paranoia facing both characters is well realised, in particular a noticeably tense sequence featuring Redford walking alone late at night, entirely certain that somebody is following him in the shadows. The depiction of journalistic enterprise, the dead ends that sometimes occur and the unwillingness of named sources from providing any concrete information.

Suffice to say it’s a thoroughly engaging film from start to finish, the political machinations running deep, more and more so as the layers unravel and Bernstein and Woodward discover how far down the rabbit hole goes. You’d be hard pressed these days to find a film as engaging as this, in particular one where there are no action sequences, no direct threat to the reporters other than perhaps the one they create themselves, no unique selling point beyond the performers and the unravelling of the complex machinations of Watergate. You may need your brain engaged in order to understand everything that takes place, but this can’t be considered a bad thing. Indeed, it’s a rare beast for not throwing in explosions and literal action beats for the sake of it rather than the well thought out, cerebral thriller it turned out to be.

Score: 5/5

12 Rounds 2: Reloaded (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-10-13

"Hello? Are you the writer of this? May I be the first to say that this is vaguely awful, sir." — “Hello? Are you the writer of this? May I be the first to say that this is vaguely awful, sir.”

Twitter Plot Summary:
Randy Orton plays an EMT who has to complete 12 dangerous rounds or else his wife will be killed.

Five Point Summary:

1. Put your cleavage away, woman. Now isn’t the time.
2. Is he going to have to pay for that ambulance?
3. They’re moving through the rounds far too quickly.
4. This evil plot of his… it’s not very good, is it?
5. So the plot thickens… into custard. And then it ends.

Outta Nowhere!

The original 12 Rounds was an entertaining film, led by a somewhat competent turn from John Cena. It would have been ridiculous to play out the same events with Cena’s character a second time. Instead, this sequel takes that plot and hands it to Randy Orton’s EMT Nick Malloy. He is a man who, 12 months ago, is almost hit by a car, an accident that results in the death of a woman. A year later, he’s then called out on a job to assist a man who has a (badly) hidden device inserted into him. Once that goes kaboom, Nick has to take part in 12 challenges. Challenges set up by a mysterious man who has direct access to all the CCTV cameras in the city. If Nick fails any one challenge, his wife will die.

Randy Orton isn’t in the same league as John Cena. But he’s leagues ahead of many other WWE alumni who over the years have been thrust into the movie world. Hulk Hogan, we’re looking at you. Orton is at least capable of handling the dialogue, such as it is. There’s no question of him managing with the more physical moments. He bashes skulls and threatens everyone who gets in his way with reckless abandon. Quite a physical chap given that he’s a medic.

In its favour, 12 Rounds 2 is stylish and well directed. The night time city setting adding a veneer of polish, but this is surface level detail. If you were to look at it any closer you’d see gaps a mile wide. The entertaining action aside, this is nothing more than a cheap knock-off of the original. Suffice to say, the budget is much lower this time round, and it shows. The night time setting goes a little way in hiding the lack of money, but only to a point. The big action set pieces of 12 Rounds are reduced to an ambulance exploding and a fight in a warehouse.

"I'M VERY ANGRY! GRRRR!" — “I’M VERY ANGRY! GRRRR!”

Randy Ortin… slithering!

The film is worse for its bad acting. That and a script that is intent on rushing through the 12 rounds with even less subtlety than the first. It also suffers from a completely ridiculous villain. His motivations for putting Malloy through those 12 rounds are understandable, but daft. Brian Markinson decided to ignore the occasional moment of pathos his dialogue permits,. Instead he approaches everything as if he’s attempting to win the award for Angriest Acting 2013. He only saw his pay cheque after agreeing to be in the film, it seems.

WWE Films have carved out a niche for themselves in the market. Yet they insist on rehashing ideas with generic scripts and characters. It’s clear that they use a cookie cutter template for each lead character’s story arc. This means they push out material that is sub-par even by direct to DVD/Blu-Ray standards. 12 Rounds 2: Reloaded is entertaining enough in itself and Randy Orton is solid. Yet it deserves an RKO for not doing anything interesting with the format.

Score: 2/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aEoFLcttes

Suffering From Too Much Content

Simon Prior

2014-10-12

I suffer from a problem that gets worse with each passing month, each passing year: it pains me to say it, but there are too many films out there. I am cursed with a mind that is constantly seeking out new films, new stories, new ideas, so despite having a collection of around 800 films on DVD and Blu-Ray I am always looking for new content to absorb and write about. As time has gone on this has become much easier with the expansion of streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. I have been a user of both services in the past, with Netflix winning the fight in the early days and retaining my subscription since the service launched back in 2012. I had previously been subscribed to the Lovefilm service and made occasional use of their streaming service, but Netflix had a couple of advantages over their established rival – it was very easy to cancel my subscription (just log onto my account and hit a button), and the quality of their streaming service was far, far better. Since being re-branded under the Amazon Prime banner the Lovefilm streaming service has improved, however much of their content, whilst being newer than much of that on Netflix, are films that I’ve already seen at the cinema. Suffice to say, despite testing the service out earlier this year with a free trial of Amazon Prime, I have not resubscribed as besides the works of Ingmar Bergman there is little else on the service to tempt me in. At the moment, at least.

And that brings me onto my next point – in the last couple of years I have become a voracious devourer of new films at the cinema. Whilst I do not get opportunity to see absolutely everything that I would like to (thanks, obligatory working week and the need to pay the bills), I often end up at the cinema twice a week, sometimes three depending on what has just been released and what I deem to be a “must-see”. Whilst I am more than happy to watch films at home on my rather lovely television, I do still enjoy the cinema experience despite the occasional disruption from other members of the audience. There’s something about the setting – even in the big multiplexes which I frequent – that sets it apart from anything else. The only reason I can afford to do this is because of the Unlimited card offered by Cineworld – I fear that if I were to pay the standard ticket price every week it would cost me upwards of £100 a month. If it wasn’t for my Unlimited card, I would definitely not be at the cinema as frequently as I am, no matter how many cheap Tuesdays and Orange/EE Wednesdays they throw at us.

Finally, in terms of streaming services, there is Sky Movies, which not only has a full schedule of films every day, but also lets me download films directly to my Sky+ box as part of my subscription. Just having the service for a few weeks has led to 15 films taking up space on the box, and not much room left for anything else. I’ll certainly be kept busy for the next few weeks. It’s either that or I start deleting films – heresy in my book. I’ll watch all of them, I’m sure, although again due to the amount of money they have to throw around, Sky frequently get exclusives on films I’ve already watched at the cinema. Despite this, I still currently have a shortlist on Sky Movies of around 100 films. This is in addition to the 200+ that I currently have sat waiting for me on Netflix.

That doesn’t even cover the films I have on DVD, most of which I have yet to re-watch and review for this website. Then there are the brand new DVDs and Blu-Rays which I have bought in the last 18 months and are still yet to watch. Much to my own disgust, I have not yet finished watching my Coen Brothers Blu-Ray set despite owning it for nearly 2 years. I have already seen two of the films in that set, but regardless – it needs to be watched. As of this post I have 25 films on DVD and Blu-Ray which I have either not yet watched or not even opened from the cellophane wrapper. This is another issue with my life over the last 2 years – I went out of my way to make myself busy, and now I find myself almost too busy to do everything I wanted. I shouldn’t complain, but the thought of losing one of my hobbies is a painful one. More effective time management is clearly something I need to work on.

In many ways it’s my own fault – I should know when to draw the line and not get preoccupied with the sheer amount of material that’s out there for me to endure or enjoy. Rather, I should see it as a good thing. Instead of obsessing over the fact I’ll likely never get round to watching absolutely everything on my list (at this time I still have to watch both Bad Boys films – one day, I’m sure), I should instead focus on the fact I will never be bored or lacking film related entertainment to keep me occupied. Of course, that’s only fine if I don’t get otherwise preoccupied with the huge pile of books, video games and TV series box sets I also need to catch up on, but that is another matter entirely. It’s a nice thing to know that I will never be stuck for something to do, even if I occasionally let the “backlogs’ as I call them get the better of me. Either way, with all of this content out there to be absorbed, and generally at reasonable prices, I’ll be kept busy for a very long time to come. This is actually a very good thing. Honest.

Gone Girl (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-10-11

Now would not be a good time to start singing "Tragedy" by The Bee Gees. — Now would not be a good time to start singing “Tragedy” by The Bee Gees.

Twitter Plot Summary: On the morning of his 5th wedding anniversary, Nick returns home to find his wife is missing – he soon becomes the key suspect.

Five Point Summary:

1. A smashed table. This looks suspicious.
2. And the suspicion falls on Nick.
3. Neil Patrick Harris! Shame he’s miscast.
4. All becomes clear – you’ll see why.
5. Well, this is awkward…

Trying to review Gone Girl without lapsing into spoiler territory is incredibly difficult. Even expanding on the merest detail or plot point could potentially spoil matters for a lot of people interested in seeing it. So whilst avoiding plot discussion has its own problems, singing its praises is, however, very easy indeed. Fincher has, with the assistance of Gillian Flynn’s adaptation of her own novel, crafted an engaging story that for the first half keeps you guessing as to which perspective you should believe, and in the second half allowing the story to play out at its own pace. Despite being a full 2.5 hours long it never slackens and boredom is unlikely to be a concern. Unless you’re here for a rip roaring action film, in which case you’re better off going and watching Commando.

The plot, in its most basic form, begins with Ben Affleck’s Nick heading out early one morning to the bar he co-owns with his twin sister, the morning of his fifth wedding anniversary. After having a quick round of The Game of Life, he returns home to find his wife – Amy (Rosamund Pike) – has gone missing under suspicious circumstances. After he calls in the police he quickly becomes the main suspect in Amy’s disappearance and before long is vilified by the media as possibly being the killer, having the hallmarks of a sociopath, and so on.

Aside from some possibly questionable gender politics – which is no doubt a deliberate move – there is little to fault. The performances are pitched at exactly the right level, although Neil Patrick Harris is perhaps miscast as a former boyfriend of Amy’s who shows up to assist in the search for her. To say more would again be lurking into spoiler territory, but he has an edge of Barney Stinson to him and never quite manages to shake that image off.

Knowing that Ben Affleck stalked the corridors made it difficult to enjoy a bath.

Gone Girl, for all its various twists and turns, is really a film about perception and how this can be twisted by the media, and even by your friends and family, into making you something you may or may not be. There is also a discussion to be had about playing a role in a relationship, making something of yourself that you are not simply to appear at your best to the other person.

Many have been negative about Ben Affleck’s acting abilities in the past, but he’s perfectly cast as Nick, a man who has to deal with the full glare of the media in all its glory. Rosamund Pike meanwhile puts in a career defining performance as Amy that should be Oscar-baiting territory. On face value (as in, the trailer) it might appear that Amy doesn’t have a huge amount to do – those expecting a minimal performance will be pleasantly surprised.

All in all it is a film that deserves discussion, for its complex narrative, the gusto given to the performances, and for not being afraid to tackle some meaty subject matter whilst also providing a darkly humorous edge. The comedy is there, but it is so pitch black you may not even notice it on the first viewing. Some have argued that this is a perfect date movie, and in many respects it is, more so if you want to have a solid discussion about the film’s themes and content. It’s certainly one that requires repeat viewing, although it has the potential to either strengthen or weaken a marriage or partnership. It’s your call if you decide to risk seeing it with your other half.

Score: 4.5/5

Easy Rider (1969)

Simon Prior

2014-10-10

Twitter Plot Summary: A road journey across America, filled with drugs, prejudice and more drugs.

Easy Rider should not be criticised for its apparent lack of story – as a piece of counter-culture cinema to criticise it for not having a narrative is short-sighted and completely missing the point. it’s a bit like criticising Jodorowsky’s El Topo for its incoherent story and frequent use of allegorical imagery and surrealism. Whilst Easy Rider lacks much in terms of dialogue and established storytelling structure, it more than makes up for it in its thematic overview and snapshot of 1960s life.

Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda play two hippies, Billy and Wyatt (self-proclaimed Captain America) respectively, as they ride their motorbikes across America in search of that which makes America great, drugs, more drugs and like-minded individuals. On their journey they witness both the highs and lows of American culture – the amazing scenery, the freedom to do as you please, balanced with the petty small-mindedness of a select, violent few. The locations selected really do push the American way of life in more ways than one, although this is counterbalanced by those aforementioned small-minded folk. It’s telling that the “normal” folks are scared of the likes of Billy and Captain America, yet they want nothing more than to be left alone and to get on with their way of doing things – a classic case of fearing that which you do not understand.

It is arguably lots of hippie, free-loving nonsense, but again this is something that was prevalent in that era. The bias is completely in favour of the counter-culture, as “The Man’ is portrayed in all his violent glory. This may be somewhat one-sided perspective but it makes its point well, especially given the pressures of the Vietnam War and the attitudes people had towards drug use at that time. Either way, you can’t help but feel that those hippies had a point.

More riding bikes. With added Nicholson.

Jack Nicholson makes a brief appearance as a jailed lawyer who falls in with Billy and Captain America for a short time. Later the pair encounter a couple of prostitutes and they all get off their heads on LSD – this sequence here is a stylistic link to the aforementioned El Topo and no doubt what your brain actually looks like whilst on drugs. The whole film has a sort of ramshackle, cobbled together feel to it, and yet it works.

The soundtrack perfectly encapsulates both the era and the lifestyle, with tracks from The Band, Steppenwolf, The Birds, The Jimi Hendrix Experience and Roger McGuinn, amongst others, really cementing it in time and place. It’s a genuinely rocking soundtrack, one that works on its own as well as within the context of the film. If the counter culture was always this cool then it’s amazing it didn’t convert everybody to it. Then again, not everybody appreciates Steppenwolf.

And if you’re still not sold after all of that, Dennis Hopper with an epic moustache should be reason enough to give this a whirl. Go on, you know you want to.

Score: 4/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjlxqANj68U

Moshi Monsters: The Movie (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-10-09

Twitter Plot Summary: The Moshi Monsters have to save the Great Moshling Egg from the nefarious Dr Strangeglove.

Five Point Summary:

1. It’s… so… colourful… *head explodes*
2. Terrible songs do not a child-friendly movie make.
3. The evil Dr Strangegloves strikes!
4. In the mountains for no apparent reason.
5. Gladiator reference.

Moshi Monsters The Movie has three things working in its favour. The first is the animation style which is crisp, colourful and vibrant, albeit the kind of animation style that would be most unwelcome the morning after a heavy night of drinking or, indeed, pretty much any other time of the day. You certainly have to pay attention to it – it won’t allow for any alternative. The second is the gentle humour, which doesn’t go as far as it should to keep the grown-ups entertained, but does enough now and again to raise a smirk. You’re not going to get any belly laughs out of this one, unless you’re one of those “child” things you hear so much about. Finally there are the songs that are interspersed throughout, clearly padding the story out beyond what would otherwise be a very, very short film. They’re not brilliant and nowhere near the quality of those that frequently show up in big name animated features, but they’re sufficient to offer brief moments of distraction.

The story is nice and simple, and perfect for its target audience. The evil Dr Strangeglove is intent on stealing the recently discovered Great Moshling Egg, while simultaneously Katsuma and Poppet must tolerate each other’s company as they make a film about Moshi Monsters and the residents of Monstro City. Naturally the two plots intertwine very quickly, leading them all off on a colourful adventure that will, of course, result in everyone living happily ever after – you don’t want your young audience feeling too jaded with the world by throwing in a bleak ending. Not just yet, anyway.

On the other hand, the tone is likely to feel condescending to an adult or, indeed, anyone older than the age of five (which still might be pushing it). There are a couple of fun nods for the no doubt captive adult audience – the villainous Dr Strangeglove and his dialogue being the most obvious and the most entertaining – but everyone else’s real purpose for appearing is either a thinly veiled attempt at selling toys, or very, very slowly pushing the story onwards.

Best thing in the movie by a long distance.

There happen to be a lot of characters in Monstro City, which given its online origins and expansion into toys, lunch boxes and other branded products, should come as no surprise. There will no doubt have been a number of parents who have found themselves well out of pocket thanks to products like this. Yet again it’s clear that the Moshi Monsters movie is designed to entertain its audience whilst at the same time dropping less than subtle hints that they would be better off with all of the various tie-in products. It would be more palatable if the film had more going for it. But it doesn’t.

Essentially, what we have in Moshi Monsters is an 85 minute toy advert for the A.D.D. generation, a constant bombardment of colour and noise no doubt cleverly designed by committee to provide moderate entertainment and increased chance of making money. Whilst that is to be expected, it doesn’t need to be as brazen about it as Moshi Monsters The Movie.

Score: 1/5

Battle of the Damned (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-10-08

"It's okay, by dying now you don't have to watch the rest of the film." — “It’s okay, by dying now you don’t have to watch the rest of the film.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Dolph Lundgren has to find a girl and avoid being eaten by zombies. All in a day’s work.

Five Point Summary:

1. They’re terrible military guys – they last five minutes in combat.
2. Has she been crying or is the mascara down her face a fashion choice?
3. He’s wearing spectacles!
4. Dolph Lundgren, tied to a lamp post.
5. Robots killing zombies. It’s clear why nobody has done this before.

Ahh, a modern era zombie film. Let’s face it, there have arguably been no decent zombie features since Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead reboot in 2004. So does Battle of the Damned, a starring feature for the very tall action movie legend Dolph Lundgren, come close to being zombie goodness? You’ve surely answered your own question already. There is no chance of Lundgren’s action movies being anything more than idle time killers, and Battle of the Damned only just about earns that distinction.

Lundgren plays the rather superbly named Max Gatling, a mercenary type who is paid a large amount of money by a rich criminal chap to head into a quarantined city to rescue criminal chap’s daughter. There are thousands of zombies threatening their escape plans, which are also put on emergency footing due to the imminent carpet bombing that the city is due to receive any day. Luckily for us, there is still sufficient time to engage in unnecessary melodrama

You would expect this to be an action packed affair, a cavalcade of zombies being slaughtered primarily at the hands of Dolph Lundgren. Except it really isn’t. There are brief moments where good ideas threaten to break through the surface, such as Gatling having to fend off a bunch of zombies whilst chained to a lamppost – although admittedly it suffers from being filmed on such a low budget you can barely see anything. There’s also the hint of a director who vaguely knows what he’s doing, a shot of silhouetted zombies running down a corridor towards the camera, or their assault on one character seen only in the shadows on a wall behind them aren’t that bad at all, but those moments are outshadowed by tens of other shots that just don’t cut it.

"Excuse me Mr Lundgren, are you aware of our lord and saviour, HAL?" — “Excuse me Mr Lundgren, are you aware of our lord and saviour, HAL?”

And yet again, to call them zombies is the greatest offence of them all. They’re technically undead and have a craving for living flesh, but they look awful and can be dispatched with a slice of their throat rather than the traditional destroying of the brain motif.

Rather hilariously, a small army of robots are introduced – realised in very bad CGI, of course – with the intention of wiping out the zombie hordes. Put it this way, by the time Gatling and the ragtag group of survivors start making their way to the rescue point, it’s pretty clear most of them will probably die. If Gatling’s former team of hardened military men can’t survive, then what hope do they have? Just one of a number of logical inconsistencies that plague Battle of the Damned.

There are Dutch angles aplenty and a bleached colour palette, often used to hide the lack of effects budget – both practical and computer generated. There’s no hiding from the acting, which is generally woeful. Lundgren would be best served playing his role along a similar line to his character Gunnar Jensen from The Expendables, but instead gets to display almost no emotion and stare at things. A lot.

If nothing else, Battle of the Damned does at least feature an aging action star who has to, on occasion, wear reading spectacles. This angle is sadly underused, limited to a single scene that is all the better for the fact nobody draws attention to Gatling’s declining visual acuity. Instead we get to watch a lot of people running around abandoned warehouses and disused buildings. Hardly what you would call riveting entertainment.

Score: 1.5/5

Sphere (1998)

Simon Prior

2014-10-07

Mr Jackson was clearly planning mischief.

Twitter Plot Summary: A cast of big-name actors descend to the bottom of the ocean, only to find James Cameron did it first, and did it better.

Five Point Summary:

1. Big names, all at the bottom of the ocean. What could go wrong?
2. Something is amiss with the ship they find… Standard.
3. An argument with a computer (sort of). Mildly compelling.
4. Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea x infinity.
5. So this finale… yeah, it needs more work.

If there’s one area of mostly untapped potential in the world of science fiction, it’s the “something peculiar at the bottom of the ocean” sub-genre. James Cameron’s The Abyss, whilst an incredibly long film, had a narrative that made sense, characters you cared for and a mystery at its core that engaged its audience. Sphere doesn’t tick any of those boxes, and is instead a jumbled, confused mess that is the film equivalent of a person who gets confused when trying to comprehend the simplest of situations.

We begin with Dustin Hoffman, a psychologist drafted in by the US Navy to investigate what is believed to be an alien ship lying on the seabed in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He’s joined by an all-star cast including Sharon Stone, Samuel L Jackson, Liev Schrieber and Peter Cayote, all of whom portray fellow scientific and academic types and, in Coyote’s case, a Navy captain. They’re a motley bunch who we follow down into the depths, all unsure as to why they have been invited onto this mission and all with their own nuances and personality issues that will play a role later on.

Unfortunately Sphere suffers from apparently missing chunks of story, which is peculiar given that it’s 2.5 hours long. There’s an argument for saying that’s a deliberate move given the particulars of the story, but that would be too easy a get-out clause – it’s a missed opportunity for certain. It never makes good its promise to be an intelligent psychological thriller set at the bottom of the ocean, and in many instances – Samuel L Jackson reading 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, for example – it borders on becoming a parody. Its troubled production schedule did it no favours, clearly. It’s also battling against the tropes of the science fiction genre, never progressing beyond tired old cliches and the fatigue of having seen it all before.

"I know we're all about to die, but could you let me finish my coffee first?" — “I know we’re all about to die, but could you let me finish my coffee first?”

There is at least some semblance of reverence to scientific fact, with the effects of depressurisation and the psychological effects of being isolated on the sea bed being the most prominent matters of discussion. Lucky for everyone that Dustin Hoffman was there to explain all of this. Other than the performances, which are all as you might expect given the list of names in the cast, this is the only solid positive that Sphere retains. For a movie audience, deference to scientific theory isn’t going to be enough to pull in the punters, and its box office return is a clear indication of that.

In hindsight Sphere would have been far improved by being adapted into a TV mini series rather than a film. Not only would the story have had time to breathe, but the characters would have had more time in which to develop and make their mark on the narrative. Instead we have a long film that still doesn’t have enough time to adequately explore its setting and its story, and borrows from a pantheon of other, better, science fiction features.

Score: 2/5

What We Did On Our Holiday (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-10-06

Twitter Plot Summary: Doug and Abi are separated but have to pretend to still be a couple when taking their three children to Scotland for his dad’s birthday. And breathe.

Five Point Summary:

1. Stuck on the M25.
2. Scotland, looks very nice.
3. Miller or Bullmore, one or both of them are the best thing in the film.
4. Oh, that wasn’t unexpected, but even so…
5. Media circus, questions over parenthood skills.

One of the best aspects of What We Did On Our Holiday, the latest directorial effort of Andy Hamilton and Guy Jenkin (they of BBC’s Outnumbered fame) is the car journey that parents Doug (David Tennant) and Abi (Rosamund Pike) take from their London home to the Scottish residence of Doug’s father Gordy (Billy Connolly). The sequence is clearly culled from a real situation, and is one that the audience will no doubt have experienced themselves at one point or another – the father who insists they can do the journey in one day; the inevitable traffic jams; the bickering and arguing. We’ve all been there.

This isn’t a typical family trip, however, as Doug and Abi are separated but putting on a front to protect Gordy, which inevitably leads to amusing dialogue and observations from their three children. It stands to reason that the facade will only last for so long, but this is only a starting point for the other gentle twists in the tale that go on to have a greater impact, before a bow is tied nicely around that plot point in the finale.

Connolly is nicely understated as the doting, laid back grandfather, espousing the mantra that the minor details of life aren’t important, even the little characteristics about our family that drive you up the wall – because that’s just who they are. It ties in nicely with the notion of not sweating the small stuff, because in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter. This is forced home by the kids’ observation that all the adults do, for the most part, is argue.

The three kids – Lottie, Jess and Mickey – are portrayed in a semi-realistic style which is similar to the technique Hamilton and Jenkin used to great effect on Outnumbered. Thus, it is clear that some elements of their dialogue weren’t scripted per se, and it works in their favour that this is the case.

Despite the focus on Tennant and Pike, who happen to be perfectly suitable as the arguing couple but otherwise, surprisingly, aren’t given much to do, the award for subtly stealing every scene they’re in goes to Ben Miller and Amelia Bullmore as Doug’s brother Gavin and sister-in-law Margaret respectively. Their interactions with each other and the rest of the family are a delight, swaying from hard-nosed pompousness to crazy shenanigans at the drop of a hat. A CCTV sequence and a discussion about where to seat bulimic guests (which is sadly spoiled in the trailer), both involving Bullmore, are genuine laugh out loud moments.

Leading into the final act the tone takes a slight but significant shift away from the one established in the opening two thirds as the household becomes surrounded by a media circus. It’s here that new questions arise, relating to the media’s interpretation of the facts and, apparently, how they swarm around a story with no concept of how that may negatively affect those they are targeting. Whilst perhaps not to the same calibre as the rest of the script it does at least make its point well, and wraps up what is a very gentle, very fluffy yet highly enjoyable comedy drama.

Score: 3/5

Michael Bay Is Ruining Transformers

Simon Prior

2014-10-05

Michael Bay is ruining Transformers. There’s no beating around the bush on that point, he’s tarnishing my childhood and doing a great disservice to some wonderful, if slightly cliche characters. True, you could argue that they were never all that well developed in the first place, that the stories were simply 20 minute toy commercials, that they were never intended to be high art. I agree with all of that, but at the same time how difficult can it be to get a film adaptation of a toy line so horribly wrong? Perhaps the clue there is in the question…

Back in 2005-2006, I was as excited as anyone when I discovered that a live action Transformers movie was on its way. During my university years I took on something of a minor obsession with collecting the Robots in Disguise, absorbing the comics, the DVD box sets, the new cartoon series on TV, even collecting the toys. Admittedly this last area of my Transformers obsession was mostly limited to the Armada toy line and buying reissues of classic G1 (fandom’s name for the very first series from 1984, Generation One) toys such as Starscream, Optimus Prime, Ultra Magnus and, my personal favourite, Sixshot, who still retains pride of place on my bookcase.

But then with each passing film – reaching a nadir with Transformers: Age of Extinction – Bay has taken all that is wonderful about the characters and stripped it away. In the case of the Dinobots he didn’t even bother to put it there in the first place. Those characters are fan favourites, yet they get no dialogue and are just near-mindless creatures in the film universe? No. Just… no. The closest any of the films got to being moderately close to the spirit of the characters was the very first film in 2007, and even then the Decepticons were poorly served (and badly designed), the camera was set too close to the action, and the focus on the human characters made the Transformers themselves almost irrelevant.

My obsession with the franchise still exists, but nowadays it’s been tucked away into a recess of my mind – case in point, I’m yet to see much of the last four cartoon series. I don’t like to think that my interest has waned as a result of Michael Bay’s films, but there appears to be a direct correlation between the two that upsets me. I can put it down mostly to the fact I have a lot going on in my every day life, so inevitably something has to give way. Right now it’s video games and a few older hobbies like Transformers. I have the comics backed up and ready to go, and the TV series lined up so I can binge on them eventually, but at the same time I have grown weary of Michael Bay’s cinematic efforts to the point where I would almost – only almost – consider giving the inevitable Transformers 5 a miss. Michael Bay, for the sake of my sanity and for the sake of the characters I have loved since I was but a child – please go away and do something that is as good as The Rock.

Meanwhile, I’ll go back and re-watch Beast Wars. There is a perfect example of balancing action, characterisation and respect to the fan base. None of this nonsense about Shia LeBeouf (generally), Megan Fox’s body/posterior, terrible storytelling and dangling construction balls, thank you very much.

1...383940...90 Page 39 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM

Twitter Plot Summary: Randy Orton plays an EMT who has to complete 12 dangerous rounds or else his wife will be killed.

Five Point Summary:

Outta Nowhere!

Randy Ortin… slithering!

Twitter Plot Summary:
Randy Orton plays an EMT who has to complete 12 dangerous rounds or else his wife will be killed.