In Cinemas: The Cabin in the Woods

The lambs have passed through the gate…they have come to the killing floor

I’ll start off with a disclaimer: I’m not a fan of horror. It’s a genre that’s mired in a bloody sludge of body parts, dim characters and few actual scares. If horror is a genre that terrifies and excites viewers simultaneously, then it’s a feeling I’ve rarely felt when watching it. With The Cabin in the Woods I rarely felt the former but I definitely experienced the latter.

Delayed after studio MGM encountered financial difficulties, The Cabin in the Woods is a wildly entertaining film that playfully makes a case for why the horror genre is an absolute necessity. Hollywood has recycled torture porn and nondescript ghost/exorcism stories so many times to spin its money making machine, that they’ve forgotten that the genre can be fun and strange; disorientating and hilarious.

But it will feel similar to most horror retreads, it’s part of its charm and why it works so well. Five friends go to a remote cabin for a weekend getaway and end up getting far more than they expected. That’s it. The rules of the game are simple: make it out alive. The Cabin in the Woods works better if you go in knowing relatively little about it other than there’s a cabin and it’s in the woods. Anything more and the surprises are spoiled.

The script by Drew Goddard and Josh Whedon is a slow drip of information, spooling the plot and dishing out information in token amounts leaving the viewer relatively confused as to how everything comes together. What ‘everything’ is, is again, better left to the experience of watching the film. Safe to say there are surprises; there are moments that are scarcely believable and they’re all sprinkled with moments of knowing comedy that takes the accumulated knowledge of horror films and spins it in a way that’s not entirely fresh, but something that’s consistently funny. Ever wanted to know why smoke appears from the ground? Or have you ever wanted to know why there’s always nudity in these films? The concept behind The Cabin in the Woods makes those answers all part of the fun.

Does the story make much sense when you start to untangle it? No. Scratch at the surface of it and there’s not much depth to it. The characters are shallow and the logic can be fuzzy but the inventiveness of the execution makes up for it. From scene to scene, moment to moment, you’re absolutely invested in seeing what happens next, if only to see what kind of tricks Goddard and Whedon have up their sleeves. The last half hour or so features some of the most inventive filmmaking I’ve seen this year.

A film that’s as bloody as it is funny, The Cabin in the Woods is a crowd pleaser. I’ve never been a huge fan of Whedon but this film puts me on the road of being a convert. The real star here is Goddard and how he assembles everything he has at his disposal, from the effective cinematography to David Julyan’s perfectly modulated score, The Cabin in the Woods is a lot like Sam Raimi’s horror films The Evil Dead and Drag Me To Hell: fun, gory and absolutely worth your time.

8/10

In Cinemas: The Hunger Games

May the odds be ever in your favor.

Opening to huge success in America, The Hunger Games is the type of film Hollywood loves to make, coffers swelling as box office receipts flood in. Adapting Suzanne Collin’s book, The Hunger Games is never as good as it could and really should be. Despite the hoopla over it, the end result of Gary Ross’ direction and co-writers Billy Ray and Collin’s script is a sanitised version of the book that lacks a satirical bite.

The Hunger Games (a name that’s never explained*) is a gladiatorial contest shown on television where each of the twelve districts ‘offers’ one male and female between the ages of 12 and 18. This acts as remembrance of the conflict that almost destroyed the nation of Panem and as a sign of The Capitol’s strength (think classically styled Rome). During the reaping of the 74^th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen’s sister, Prim, is called out to be the district’s tribute; in an act of sacrifice Katniss volunteers in her place. She and fellow tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcheson) will be up against 22 other competitors who will be vying to kill them.

I have bones to pick, so many that this could turn into a rant rather than a review. I’ll try to whittle down my grievances without spoilers but in short the film is a shadow of the book. It condenses and expands the games and roles of several characters but it simplifies the source, stripping it of its complexity and, perhaps in its worst move, de-emphasises the violence on screen throughout – violence shouldn’t be glamorised but it should go hand in hand with the point you’re trying to make. I’m not sure what Gary Ross’ point is.

The first hour is okay, wasting little time in setting up Katniss and the world of District 12. It’s when the games start that the changes become apparent and few of them enhance the story, again simplifying it and reducing the tension.

A prime example is Donald Sutherland’s President Snow, a presence felt but not really seen has been padded out to give the viewer a villain it can heckle. Its changes like this, attempts at making the film more accessible, that turns it into a more conventional and palatable one, softening its edges and distilling the viewers’ ire into one character instead of the Capitol and its people.

Its lack of complexity stretches to its characters, all of whom aren’t given the depth they deserve. The film opts for Katniss perspective but rarely questions her (a pacifist character who kills in self-defence). The other contestants feel thin, barely glimpsed and lucky to get a word in. The career districts (1 and 2, I think) are turned into villains, the kind that would end their sentences with a malevolent cackle or ‘nyuk, nyuk’ type of laugh. It’s a shallow treatment of their characters, stripping them of their base humanity, asking the audience to take sides and turning a moral grey area into an easier to digest black and white one.

I haven’t even started on the shaky cam aesthetic. The effect of the contestant deaths has (rightly or wrongly) been reduced so you can’t quite tell what’s going on. Imagine your older sibling holding their hands over your eyes when you were kid to shield from seeing stuff you shouldn’t be seeing and that’s the exact effect Tom Stern’s cinematography has here. Ross and Stern’s choice of handheld is annoying and it upsets the geography in favour of immediacy and a false sense of immersion. Confusion reigns.

What’s good about The Hunger Games? Jennifer Lawrence’s performance is good (not phenomenal, just good) guiding the viewer through a world that’s strange and, at times, threatening. However, while her version of Katniss may not have the annoying inner monologue/constant anxiety, paranoia and indecision her counterpart in the book has, she’s a less complicated character that’s (understandably) fighting to get back to her family but seems less annoyed at being used as a pawn with her anger shown once and dissipating pretty quickly.

Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinkett is spot on, her gaudy appearance and optimistic attitude a sign of just how far removed the Capitol is from reality, unwilling to acknowledge the barbarity of the games. The same applies for Stanley Tucci’s Caesar Flickerman. The rest of the cast fare a little less, Lenny Kravitz as Katniss’ stylist Cinna has a few moments; Harrelson’s Haymitch is not quite the boorish malcontent he is in the book, Gale (Liam Hemsworth) is on the periphery for the whole film and Josh Hutcheson’s Peeta is a character whose head you never really get into.  The same goes for the relationships in the film: the book pads them out, here the film races through, giving few reasons to be emotionally invested in the outcome of…well…anybody.

The Hunger Games is not a facsimile of the book, losing a lot of the complexities and overall Orwellian mood the book evoked. Judged on its own, its average, suggesting very little about our own culture and barely exploring its ideas/characters.  I’m genuinely surprised at the praise that’s been falling at the film’s feet, whether you’re an avid reader of the books or someone completely fresh to it, The Hunger Games never really suffices as an intelligent adaptation. Disappointing.

5/10

*The Hunger Games are called so because the winner gets extra food and money for their district, incentivising the games for each district.

In Cinemas: 21 Jump Street

Hey Korean Jesus.

Based on a tv show that never made its way to British shores, 21 Jump Street has a bit of an unknown factor about it. However, what uniqueness or novelty 21 Jump Street had in its premise of cops working undercover in high schools disappears under a wave of familiar 80s action tropes and a predictable script. If you’re looking for a good two hours at the cinema then 21 Jump Street fits the bill, but beyond the jokes there’s little here that’s fresh despite the film’s attempts at subverting expectations. Odd.

Tatum’s Jenko and Hill’s Schmidt first meet in high school where Jenko is a dim but popular jock who teases Eminem-but-fatter-looking Schmidt. When they reunite at the police academy they put their differences aside and become best friends. Believing their life as cops will be full of car chases and shoot-outs, they’re stationed to park duty and given bicycles instead of patrol cars. When a drug-related bust goes wrong they get their asses sent to 21 Jump Street, a program that recruits officers to solve crimes in schools. Their first case is to bust a drug ring that’s supplying synthetic drugs to teenagers.

The biggest problem with 21 Jump Street is its story. The performances, humour and action within are quite good but the script doesn’t deviate from the standard comedy textbook. 21 Jump Street is a case of cleaving to the tried-and-tested formula of comedy scripts, with directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) embroidering the situations with a wacky sense of humour and energy but Michael Bacall’s script has the characters go through terribly predictable arcs.

Even though it reverses the roles of Tatum and Hill once they go undercover, the direction of the story never surprises (I suppose there’s some sort of comfort in that) and characters react to the big emotional beats in a manner that’s similar to every other comedy for the last fifteen years. You’re absolutely sure of the outcome and the film never once tries to dispel that surety.

It has moments that work really well, especially when Jenko/Schmidt try to gain some cred with their retro humour. Even though it doesn’t seem as if they’ve been out of high school for long (they probably have, I just have no idea how the American school system works). Schmidt/Jenko’s sense of humour and worth in the social strata of high school are totally upended on the first day. They’re out of their elements and part of the film’s charm is seeing how they adapt and struggle to their new lives. Both characters get to see the other side of school life that they weren’t privy to before and, as you do in school, learn a few things they didn’t know before.

Tatum shows more of the comedic chops he displayed in The Dilemma; giving Jenko a dumb jock presence that’s affable (his meltdown at a music recital is sort of brilliant). Hill gets saddled with a role that inflates his character’s ego and as a result turns him into a bit of dick, with screenwriter Bacall looking to drive a wedge between Jenko and Schmidt that feels very contrived and unnecessary. The rest of the cast are good, special mentions should go to gym teacher Rob Riggle who knocks it out the park with his acerbic performance and Ice Cube as the belligerent Captain Dickson.

So while the gag rate is comfortably high (with more jokes hitting than missing), 21 Jump Street could have done with a better, less transparent story. It’s the off-kilter humour that saves the day, giving the film a tone that’s not bound to realistic expectations. (Who on earth can shake of a stab wound? Or not even refer to it in the rest of the film?) Surprises are few and far between but 21 Jump Street is just about crazy enough and enderaring to ensure that its jokes hit their intended mark.

6/10

In Cinemas: Safe House

Remember rule number one: you are responsible for your house guest. I’m your house guest.

Safe House exists as a copy and as a result it’s inferior to the films it imitates. Still, it’s enjoyable, even if it is hackneyed and derivative, coming across as a synthesis of 24 and The Bourne trilogy but nowhere near as innovative as those two productions. Safe House’s biggest flaw is that it doesn’t have an original bone in its body and that produces a film that offers few surprises to go along with its brutal fights and big explosions.

Ryan Reynolds is Matt Weston, an inexperienced agent who’s stuck twiddling his thumbs looking after a safe house in Cape Town. When a rogue CIA agent, in the form of Denzel Washington’s Tobin Frost, turns himself in to the US consulate and is subsequently transported to the safe house, all hell breaks loose when a hit team tries to kill him. Weston and Frost escape but the former’s allegiance to the CIA is tested when he’s marginalised by his superiors as he tries to keep Frost under control.

It’s not a hugely original plot, the twist and turns the story takes are all pretty conventional and the roles don’t really test or stretch the combined talents of Reynolds and Washington. Despite the David Guggenheim’s script featuring on the prestigious Black List in 2010, what it excels at is taking all the tropes from action films of the past five years and embedding them into one story. It probably read well on paper, on screen it lacks a certain inspiration of its own.

The lack of interesting ideas spreads to the cast who all perform amicably but are weighed down by clichés and stereotypes. Since there is no overt ‘baddie’ (unless you consider Frost to be one) then it’s no real secret as to where the villain emerges from. The real mystery is why they even bothered to keep it a secret. Washington is, as always, good. His natural charisma creating a character that’s always in charge even when he’s not; always one step ahead of everyone else. Reynolds is okay, holding his own against Washington in the scenes the two actors share but he’s saddled by a rather pointless romance subplot that every action film has to shoehorn in.

The real star of the film is Cape Town, the location lending the film a look and feel that doesn’t feel like it’s a simple copy and paste exercise. The action on the other hands is borrowed wholesale from the Bourne films and implemented in an almost dizzying array of quick cuts. The best thing to say about the action is that it’s not as bad as other films (I’m looking at you Colombiana) but it’s getting to the point where someone needs to get the director, cinematographer or editor to take a sedative and calm down. These frenzied sequences don’t have the effect of putting the viewer in the scene unless they’re having an almighty seizure.

Despite that, Safe House is entertaining, it’s just disappointing that it aims so low and is comfortable in doing so. Director Daniel Espinosa handles everything in the manner you’d expect of big Hollywood action film, a by-the-numbers action film that’ll be probably forgotten.

6/10

Belated Review: Shame

We’re not bad people. We just come from a bad place.

Shame feels like the forgotten child of the awards season and in general just a forgotten film. Receiving plenty of kudos for Michael Fassebender’s performance but losing traction as The Artist, Hugo and Harvey Weinstein took control in the lead-up to the Oscars. It’s a shame then (cough, cough) because Steve McQueen’s second film is an intelligent, emotional drama that pulls few punches in its exploration of sex addiction.

Fassebender’s Brandon (again with another strangely fluctuating accent) is a successful, outwardly confident worker who pretty much bangs (are we still using that word?) any lady that sidles up to him. When his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) comes over to stay it throws his carefully controlled private life into turmoil as he contemplates whether he wants her in his life while trying to keep his addiction under control.

The immediate problem of Shame is its content. How do you take a subject like sex addiction and explore it without being gratuitous? The film doesn’t downplay Brandon’s desire for shallow relationships or his preoccupation with meaningless pursuits. Brandon’s wants slowly cripple him and the appearance of his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) speeds up his descent into an immoral abyss. Fassbender is fearless in the role, portraying Brandon as the sort of person who is uneasy in his skin, his confidence in attracting women belying his hopelessness in having a relationship that isn’t predicated on sex.

Shame’s only failing (if it really is one), is that it’s not a film you’d want to revisit anytime soon. It may be artful and graceful in some aspects, but it’s a bit of a misery fest, one that’s introspective and thoughtful rather than mindlessly entertaining. A challenge to watch at times, but one that’s worthwhile.

8/10

Belated Review: The Artist

I won’t talk! I won’t say a word!

Best Picture winner at the BAFTAs and the Oscars, Michel Hazanavicius ‘silent film’ has won as many admirers as it has detractors. Unfortunately, in the wake of the awards season, the film seems destined to be known as the gimmicky black and white silent film that harked back to Hollywood’s golden age. It’s unfortunate as The Artist is film that provides simple pleasures and regardless of whether it has its own ‘legacy’, it’s an entertaining film that exists in the here and now.

That doesn’t mean that The Artist doesn’t have a few faults of its own and its main one in telling the story of a silent film actor (Jean Dujardin) as he rails against the change to sound in the 1930s, is that it never overcomes its artifice. The story; the beats and the drama created by Hazanavicius and his cast are rife in filmmaking making for a predictable film. Hubris, a fall from grace and the rise of a ‘star’ are themes cinema has been doing for decades. There’s little depth to be found beyond Dujardin’s performance and even then his performance isn’t particularly memorable, just a very good one in a role with possible pitfalls that Dujardin skilfully leaps over. Whatever difficulty the role brings is erased by the French actor’s charm.

And that’s what makes the film as entertaining as it is – its charm. It’s uncomplicated, effortless, visually it can be quite clever and the performances are all good. It’s an exercise in keeping the narrative simple but it could have done with a little more complexity and emotion. Rehashing a very familiar story means that it has to try harder to earn sympathy and it never quite manages it. You can argue until you’re blue in the face as to whether the use of black and white is a gimmick or whether it’s a modern film with old-fashioned values, the real problem is that it doesn’t give you a huge reason to care.

7/10

 

In Cinemas: This Means War

May the best man win

Critically pilloried upon its release in the US, This Means War should come with a note that says ‘I’m not as bad as you think’ because for the things (or thing, in this case, the director) it has going against it, it really isn’t as bad as its critical reception would imply. But it isn’t as good as it could have been either, and that’s down to the character inconsistencies and a pretty forgettable third act that deflates the film like a punctured tyre.

Coming across as a buddy comedy mixed with Mr and Mrs Smith, This Means War follows two best friends FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) as they both fall in love with the same girl, Lauren (Reese Witherspoon). They also happen to be working for the CIA and once they realise they’re going out with the same girl they go to war. May the best man win etc, etc.

There’s a villain in the form of arms dealer Henrich (Til Schweiger) but he’s a plot device the film is unconcerned with until it wants to project some tepidly done menace. It’s more interested in pratfalls, misunderstandings and ‘boys will be boys’ mentality, skewing logic and doing whatever it feels like. That approach works especially in the middle third as Pine and Hardy use agency assets and other methods of manipulation to try and best one another. It’s in this section where the film finds its feet, becoming more and more ludicrous, with a paintball scene that’s the strongest, funniest moment in the film as Tuck tries to prove his manliness.

It’s broad, loud and wacky (perhaps a little too much for some); the silly atmosphere working for it rather than against until its more clichéd parts hover into view. The film knows what it is and has no aspirations higher than giddy fun. It recognises the plot’s inherent cheesiness and goes for broke.

The facets that make up its core strengths are part of its problems. It wants to be a disposable, forgettable two-hour flick and succeeds in being just that. Pine and Hardy make for a decent combination but even they can’t sell these stock characters and make them entirely believable. The whole cast play hackneyed characters (Chelsea Handler is the abrasive sister to Witherspoon’s Lauren who offers shaky advice), and the ‘seen it done before’ haze starts to materialise before long.

And now we come to the film’s perceived fault, McG. While I’ve never been fond of his filmmaking (or why he thought McG* was better than his real Joseph McGinty Nichol), his films haven’t been eye-gougingly bad; just populist entertainment that borrows from better films and lacks an imagination of its own. While he keeps This Means War breezy and fun, he’s never as convincing in other areas as he is in being goofy. His copy-cat nature extends to action which is akin to taking the camera and kicking it about like most derivative ‘shaky cam’ films. The quick cuts and flurry of limbs is almost indecipherable and annoying in the extreme. It’s sloppy and in terms of characters he’s just as sloppy. His inattention to the narrative gives the film some baffling character moments with one scene late on just flat-out absurd, the one glaring moment where the writers/McG make a hash of things and go for movie logic instead of common sense.

It still retains a sense of fun and while it’s lacking in grand thrills (the last action sequence feels perfunctory) it gets by by not trying very hard (odd I know). It’s silly, undemanding fun and would make for a good date film but it’s dumb.

In a good way. Just.

6/10

*Sounds cooler though

At Home: Arrietty

Human beings are dangerous. If we’re seen, we have to leave. My parents said so.

Arrietty is the latest film from Japanese animation house Studio Ghibli and brings with it the distinction of not being directed by Hayao Miyazaki. Instead it’s directed by Hiromasa Yoneybashi who does a splendid job of adapting Mary Norton’s children’s book The Borrowers.

Arrietty tells the story of borrowers, or “little people”; a family that dwells beneath a house and fend for themselves by borrowing objects that humans won’t notice. Their existence is threatened when a young boy called Shô spots Arrietty not once but twice and over the course of the film they develop a relationship that brings out their best and most altruistic characteristics.

What’s impressive about Arrietty is the emotion generated throughout. The emotional beats are well done, with Shô gaining the trust of Arrietty and Arrietty learning that not all humans should be feared. Shô is just as vulnerable as Arrietty due to a heart defect that requires an operation. The friendship between the two is touching, creating a sense of wonder and curiosity between them that you wouldn’t expect from an animated feature.

It’s all handled in a very serene manner with a sprinkling of humour in the form of Shô’s caretaker, who threatens the existence of the borrowers when she attempts to capture them.

The sense of scale that’s established is also impressive. Yoneybashi takes advantage of the size difference with the borrowers dwarfed by their surroundings creating a palpable sense of danger whenever they step out into unknown territory.

The ending is bittersweet but also happy and hopeful. While it’s not as good as the best Ghibli has to offer (a very high bar) it’s a charming tale filled with some beautiful animation. With most, if not all of the multiplexes filled with 3D CG cartoons, Arrietty is a welcome break from the norm.

Arrietty is out on DVD in the UK

7/10

In Cinemas: Chronicle

There’s something wrong with Andrew.

Showing no signs of abating, the found-footage trend continues to find new ways to stay alive whether it’s ludicrously taking it the concept to the moon (Apollo 18), or dressing it up in a familiar guise (The Devil Inside). Chronicle looks to apply the same documentary/YouTube stylings – this time to the superhero genre – but the concept of found-footage in this film seems a little bogus.

That’s not to say that Chronicle doesn’t try to stretch the found-footage concept but it struggles to retain a sense of believability in its latter half. Chronicle starts off with social outcast Andrew (Dane Dehaan) buying a camcorder to record his life. Bullied at school and at home by his father (Michael Kelly), his home life is compounded by his mother’s severe illness. In an attempt to try and bring him out of his shell, Matt, his cousin and only friend (Alex Russell), takes him to a warehouse party where they run into popular high school student Steve (Michael B Jordan). They find a cave in the woods, come across a weird crystal object; vibrations shudder the walls, the cave starts collapse – fade to black.

They wake up realising they have superpowers, abilities that allow them manipulate their surroundings with their mind. Like most superhero origin stories they find out that their powers can be used for good as well as bad.

There’s a lot to like about Chronicle. While not strictly a found footage film (who edited this footage together?), the docu-like nature and low key setting helps to differentiate it from its more exuberant cousins. It feels real or at least as real as the concept allows it to be, and director Josh Trank does a good job meshing it with a recognisable reality. Thankfully he finds ways of avoiding the shaky cam aesthetic, opting for a camera suspended by Dehaan’s Andrew that glides gracefully across the room as if it’s in zero gravity.

The characters are well defined if a little clichéd: Andrew is emotionally stiff, pushing others away; Matt is the pretentious intellectual and Steve is the popular, charismatic type. Put them together and they make for an interesting combination, rubbing off on each other and forming a close bond. It’s when the shit hits the fan that Chronicle falters.

Chronicle’s faults stem from just how unsubtle and predictable its narrative and characters can be. It’s exemplified in Andrew’s dad: a dreadful father who has a go at his son at every opportunity; verbally and physically assaulting him on a consistent basis. Trank and screenwiter Max Landis are very unsubtle going big and broad (perhaps purposefully so). As a result it becomes rather obvious which direction the story and the characters are going in. Andrew’s brittle shoulders can’t support the misery inflicted upon him and he hits the self-destruct button, unleashing a tidal wave of anger.

Technically the film is both good and bad with some effects looking stunning (not bad for $12 million) and others looking shabby. The final confrontation has echoes of Akira but the staging of it is a little un-engaging; unless, that is, you like seeing characters being punched through a building repeatedly. It’s at this juncture where the found-footage novelty starts to fall apart with Trank struggling to find exciting angles and being able to retain the intimacy that was so necessary in the first half of the film.

Still Chronicle is a more than decent superhero film that’s a) original (ish); b) inventive and c) fresh enough until that third act. After Haywire and The Grey, the early months of the year keep rolling with surprisingly good films.

7/10

In Cinemas: Rampart

I don’t cheat on my taxes… you can’t cheat on something you never committed to.

Two years after their last collaboration, writer/director Oren Moverman and Woody Harrelson reteam for their fascinating crime-drama Rampart: a sombre, rough film that shows a police officer’s life unravel as he adopts a siege mentality when he finds himself under close scrutiny.

Harrelson is Dave Brown, nicknamed ‘Date rape Dave’ (referring to an old case) and he’s a thoroughly unpleasant and prickly character. He’s a contradiction: well spoken, charming and intelligent but also a man who indulges in his Neanderthal tendencies and is adrift from life, anchored in his own ghastly reality that provides justification for whatever actions he commits. When he’s seen beating a man after a car crash it creates a public scandal for the Rampart division of the LA Police force who subsequently leave him out to dry.

Harrelson and the script by James Ellroy and Moverman imbue Brown with some interesting tics: he drinks, he smokes but he never eats and on the one occasion he does, he throws up. Brown’s a sexist, racist, myopic misanthrope empowered by his uniform; an old-school cop out of sync with reality.

Much of the film is about Brown not realising (or accepting) that he’s in crisis: desperately hanging onto his job while staving off the impending implosion of his horror show of a family. Marrying two sisters in succession (Cynthia Nixon and Anne Heche), he has a kid with each one (Brie Larson and Sammy Boyarsky) and they all live under the same roof with Brown insistent that he’ll take care of them; pumping his ego full of false responsibility and adding to his alpha male persona. The real truth Moverman reveals is that his bravado hides the emptiness of his life, a vacuum that’s filled with an onrushing suite of booze, sex and drugs. It’s a deep and complex performance by Harrelson who commands the screen.

There are times when Rampart doesn’t make much sense; is a little ambiguous in its relationships and meaning. Brown’s relationship with Ned Beatty’s Hartshorn is a little confusing in conveying the reasons for Beatty’s actions. In one scene Moverman seems unsatisfied in keeping the camera still, having it pan dizzyingly across the screen to the point where you may well become cross-eyed. The setting (Los Angeles, 1999) feels arbitrary as the film doesn’t make much use of it and the actual Rampart scandal of the 90s will be lost on some. If you’ve seen Training Day, Dark Blue or any other gritty, bad-cop drama then Rampart will feel very familiar.

It’s down to Harrelson that you feel a tiny bit of sympathy for Brown as he self-destructs and disappears into an amoral abyss; mired in a pit of self-loathing from which he attempts to dig himself out of, threatening to bring everyone down with him. The last shot of the film emphasises a truth that Brown been resisiting throughout the film: Rampart is a searing portrait of a man who doesn’t seem to have a decent bone in his body.

In Cinemas: The Grey

Once more into the fray. Into the last good fight I’ll ever know. Live and die on this day. Live and die on this day.

Initially billed as Liam Neeson hobo-fightin’ against a pack of wolves, The Grey is in fact a character piece, an existential film about man vs. nature and a survival film.  If you go in expecting Taken in the frozen tundra, be prepared to be disappointed…

Haggard and depressed, Neeson’s Ottway finds work as a sniper for an oil drilling team in Alaska. Stranded after their plane crashes in the freezing plains, they find themselves at the mercy of a pack of wolves that see them as intruders in their hunting territory.

Carnahan’s The Grey is a grim but fascinating affair about the human spirit with the spectre of death ever present. What’s keeping these men going is the promise that salvation is just past the next tree line, the next ridge or round the river bend. Carnahan delves into what makes this group of people (and you assume, humanity as a whole) hopeful in unfortunate circumstances. There’s nary a bad performance in the cast featuring a few actors you’ll recognise and some you won’t. Neeson, (thankfully in an Irish accent instead of a full blown American one) leads the cast well, carrying the burden of keeping these men alive with his survival skills and knowledge of the wolves’ behaviour.

Carnahan’s script etches each character with a life that stretches beyond the frosty landscape, with regret and fear becoming the primary emotions once they realise the odds aren’t in their favour. Placing them in a harsh environment means we’re rooting for them to survive; the characterisation gives the viewer a clearer indication of why they’re so desperate to carry on.

There is one drawback to the film. The film’s budget feels a bit paltry. The plane crash is a little rough in terms of the CGI (the build-up to it is quite unnerving). The limitation of the budget is apparent any time the wolves appear on screen with Carnahan wisely not showing them in full but conveying their presence through sound design and some clever visual reveals. It suffices for the most part and the marketing certainly gives the wrong impression of the film.

Completely dissimilar to his recent spate of Euro-trash action films like Unknown and Taken, The Grey is an impressive survival drama that bucks the trend of late winter releases being disappointing (at least in the US).  A pinch of salt should be taken with regards to the type of action on display but Carnahan shows some directing nous in making a heartfelt and gutsy film about the will to survive (cue rendition of Eye of the Tiger). The ending is certain to polarise audiences but like the rest of the film, it’s tough and uncompromising.

8/10

In Cinemas: Haywire

You shouldn’t think of her as being a woman. That would be a mistake.

A fair amount of criticism has been laid at Haywire’s door, taking aim at Carano’s acting ability and Lem Dobbs’ screenplay. That criticism, whether fair or unjust, seems to be ever so slightly missing the point with the film being a bit of a contradiction, a classy B-movie.

The plot could be effectively summarised as thus: Gina Carano works her way through the male supporting cast pummelling them into submission or death, whichever comes first. The actual plot revolves around Carano’s Mallory Kane (cool name) seeking answers after she was left high and dry after a job in Barcelona. That line was as simple as my take but it doesn’t include Carano taking names and putting boots to asses.

Carano’s acting is appropriate and Soderberg looks to circumnavigate Carano’s shyness and lack of experience by reducing the dialogue (especially exposition), leaving Mallory a pissed off monosyllabic, monotone soldier of fortune. The action takes advantage of Carano’s expertise as an MMA fighter with Soderberg’s approach to it a reaction against the clumsy, claustrophobically tight composition and silly angles modelled after the excellent Bourne series (and I love the action in the Bourne films, less so its impersonators). The editing is easy to follow, the moves performed intelligible giving the impression that the action is not being cheated or faked. The performers go toe-to-toe: smashing hotel rooms, a diner or anything else that gets in their way.

In Soderberg’s hands Haywire is effortlessly classy production with David Holmes’ bouncy, jazzy score setting the mood when heads aren’t being cracked. Characteristically for Soderberg the film does come across as a touch cold, lacking the ebullience of trashy action movies. One criticism of the film I can agree with is Lem Dobbs’ script which purposefully courts the B-movie dialogue of Commando (“you better run!”) but also seems very reluctant in clearing up the main plot. Told in a non-linear fashion for a fair chunk of the film’s runtime, it’s too mysterious, withholding information that makes the film dense and unclear. The unravelling of the plot at the end does not carry with it the cachet of a revelation, more frustration as to why it was not relayed to the viewer earlier.

Still, while Haywire flirts between being fun and overly complicated it ends up being fun enough that its flaws can be overlooked. Carano oozes physicality, chewing her way through the cast and using their bones to sharpen her teeth. In a year where big budget female driven films are appearing left, right and centre in the next few months, they’re off to solid start.

7/10