Review: Jack Reacher (dir. Christopher McQuarrie)

Story: The mysterious ex-soldier Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) is hired by a lawyer (Rosumand Pike) to investigate a shooting of which her client is suspected. Local law enforcement (personified by David Oyelowo and Richard Jenkins) as well as a mysterious third party are not too happy with Reacher’s presence.

Lee Child has by now written over a dozen novels about Jack Reacher – a mysterious and invincible ex-soldier who fights for justice wherever he turns up. These are typical airport novels: you pick them up if you’re waiting for a plane, or to kill time on a long flight. But you’d never buy them when you are shopping for a ‘proper’ book.

It comes as no surprise then that Jack Reacher, the film adaptation of the novel One Shot, feels exactly like a movie you would watch on an airplane. It is good enough. It does what it needs to do – entertain you as long as it lasts – but it does nothing more than that.

The character Jack Reacher reminds one of Clint Eastwood’s man with no name, in Sergio Leone’s dollar trilogy. Or of these typical hard boiled detectives from Raymond Chandler novels. Tough men, living on the borders of the law, but always fighting the good fight. The film Jack Reacher also invokes these sterotypes: it is set in a nameless city in the middle of the USA, with no apparent connections to the outside world – save a busline or two. There the two stereotypical women in this drama: an expendable whore and an angelic, blonde saint. And the bad guy is really, really bad.

Actually, he is perhaps the most enjoyable element of Jack Reacher. German renegade filmmaker Werner Herzog turns up with one glass eye, some chomped off fingers and a hell of story to tell. Unfortunately he feels like he did not just wander in from a different film, but from a different universe. For the other actors are awfully bland. Oyewolo, Jenkins and even the usually likable Pike turn in mediocre and uninspired performances. And in this film, Tom Cruise is a problem.

Fans of the Lee Child novels have complained about the casting off miniature actor Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher, who is described in the books as being enormously tall. My problem is not that Cruise is not Child’s Reacher. My problem is that Cruise is Cruise. I keep seeing Mission: Impossible’s Ethan Hunt, but the things that Reacher does do not comply with the image of Hunt. It pulls me out of the film more than it should. And I do not think that this is necessary, because in contrast to public perception: Cruise can act. And he can do not-so-nice guys. Just look at Magnolia or Collateral.

On the plus side: there is one good gag about hookers and there is a nice practical joke involving a baseball cap. Robert Duvall makes a nice, short appearance. Furthermore the film has a terrifying opening scene, a more-than-decent car chase in the middle and an exciting shoot-out in the end.

Final Verdict: With a little more effort this could have been very exciting and entertaining stuff. In its current state, it’s only just above the genre average.

Trailer Tuesday: The Shadow of Prometheus’ Huntsman Diaries

Dark Shadows

Dir. Tim Burton. Starring: Johnny Depp, Eva Green, Chloe Moretz, Michelle Pfeiffer, Jackie Earle Haley, Helena Bonham Carter & Christopher Lee.

Dutch release date: May 10, 2012

 

Prometheus

Dir. Ridley Scott. Starring: Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Michael Fassbender & Guy Pearce

Dutch release date: May 31, 2012

 

Snow White and the Huntsman

Dir. Rupert Sanders. Starring:  Charlize Theron (again), Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Sam Claflin and a bunch of British guys as the seven dwarves.

Dutch release date: June 7, 2012

 

Chernobyl Diaries

Dir. Bradley Parker. Starring: Jesse McCartney, Jonathan Sadowski & Olivia Dudley

Dutch release date: TBA

Catch-up Reviews: The Rite and The Mechanic

These two films were released in cinemas earlier this year, but I’ve only now gotten around to seeing them. Also, neither of them merits a full scale review, so I’ll be taking together an exorcism thriller starring Anthony Hopkins and a shoot-em-up Jason Statham vehicle.

The Rite

Perhaps it would just be better if people stopped making films about sharks and exorcisms. In the same way that Jaws has never been surpassed, The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973) was the first and ultimately the ultimate, best exorcism film ever. Also because the two sequels and the prequel are the stuff of really, really bad legends.

The Rite does not venture that deeply into the cesspool constituted by the wide corpus of films about demonic possession and unorthodox catholic priests. It actually is quite suspenseful most of the time. Director Mikael Hafstrom takes his time setting up the plot and introducing the characters of experienced exorcist Lucas (Hopkins) and young-priest-with-a-crisis-of-faith Colin O’Donoghue. And I must say it feels nice to see a Welshman and an Irishman starring in an American film directed by a Swede.

Unfortunately The Rite goes the same way as lesser fare in the genre in its last half hour. Have the possession scenes been relatively restricted, to great effect, until then, in the last act Hafstrom squishes in the ‘evil stuff’ that the studio probably wanted, and he letsHopkins go all the way. As a result the film, which opened so nicely, ends in a mess.

The Mechanic

This is a bloke’s film. The bloke is the kind of (young) man whose main interests are beer, tits, football, and Jason Statham stabbing people in the head. Very few men are full-time blokes, but almost all of us are a bit blokey, sometimes. So films like this, which have Jason Statham, and beautiful women, and strong violence, which can be understood even under influence, will always find an audience.

They are not ridiculously expensive, and they will always brake even. So why not, for a change, write it properly? The Mechanic (dir. Simon West), about a hit man (Statham) and his relation to his old mentor’s troubled son (Ben Foster), is unfortunately not written properly. There is no mystery and no tension, although the characters and their relation surely have the potential for it. Instead, there are just plenty of excessive killings.

Oh, and why would Jason Statham, the bloke’s ideal of action hero and girl magnet, have to pay for sex with a prostitute? Surely Jason Statham would get it for free?

Nolanography

No comment ont his gorgeous little work of love.

Autumn preview…

Films I look forward to the coming months. No words now, just trailers.

Machete (Rodriguez)

Black Swan (Aronofsky)

127 Hours (Boyle)

The American (Corbijn)

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (Stone)

The Town (Affleck)

Ridiculous Entertainment – The Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time review

Video game adaptations have, until now, never worked out well as films. There are plenty of examples of film makers ‘getting it wrong’. Hitman (Xavier Gens, 2007) is one, as well as Max Payne (John Moore, 2008) is another, and the absolute low must be (although I’ve never seen it) Uwe Boll’s 2007 adaptation of Dungeon Siege: In the Name of the King.

If turning a video game into a film has proven difficult, the very idea of turning a theme park ride into a blockbuster movie seemed bordering on the insane, but producer Jerry Bruckheimer believed in the idea of Pirates of the Carribean. And it proved a commercial success. So if anyone would be able to produce the first successful video game adaptation, it should be Bruckheimer.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is based on the hugely popular platform game from the 1980s and 1990s, in which the player controls a hero whose main task is to climb steep walls and jump booby trapped pits. And it must be said: such scenes feature extensively in the film and are engaging and at times even sensational.

Also good are the central performances of Jake Gyllenhaal (ridiculously beefed up) as the titular prince and Gemma Arterton, whose role is similar to that in Clash of the Titans, but much better written. Comic relief is provided by Alfred Molina, as a black market organizer of ostrich races. Ben Kingsley does the typical Ben Kingsley thing on routine and there are very creepy assassins in the form of historically misplaced Hassansins. Mike Newell is a surprising choice as a director, but a good one: as he manages to get the characters work out.

The plot is completely bonkers. There is a mythical dagger that contains the Sands of Time, which, when released, turn back time a few seconds or minutes. But there is also a huge stack of time-sand that can turn history even further back, but with the risk of starting an apocalypse. Arterton’s character is a princess-priestess who guides Gyllenhaal’s prince on a quest to safeguard the dagger and the sand, while he is also seeking to uncover the frame-up in which he got blamed for the murder of his adoption father, the King.

The bonkers plot is complicated by references to the war in Iraq and the search for secret weapons. This is completely misplaced and unnecessary. The climax in the third act produces an awful conclusion that completely plays against the logic of the quest that filled the preceding hour. The reaction to this contrived solution is: “No, they did not just do that. They can’t have, it’s a cheat.” And as, we all know, cheating ruins gameplay.

Another video game element that is very prominent is exposition. Basically, this film has two types of scenes: action sequences, and scenes in which one character (mostly Arterton’s) tells another character (mostly Gyllenhaal) what they must do in order to achieve or prevent something, so that subsequently this or that may or may not happen. These scenes really get on your nerve halfway through the film.

Still, as summer entertainment, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time succeeds. It has got exotic locations, beautiful leads, comic relief, threatening bad guys, convincing and sometimes impressive action sequences and a noisy climax.

The film will be a commercial success, and the first video game adaptation that worked out. Despite the cheating. Bruckheimer and Newell can credit themselves with that.

By the way: I previously predicted that the film would be rubbish because video game adaptations always are. I am not quite certain whether I was right or not.

Scott and Crowe Save the Historical Epic – The Robin Hood Review

The expectations were immediately abnormally high for Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, when they set about making Robin Hood. The success pair had made Gladiator in 2000, thereby reanimating a genre pretty much brain-dead since the 1960s. Gladiator was fierce, intense, overwhelming and, despite its historical incongruities, convincing. It was emotionally effective in having as its protagonist not a warrior-king, but a warrior-farmer.

Gladiator was followed by a number of less effective and sometimes outright awful sand-swords-and-sandals epics, the last one (and the most awful one) being Louis Leterrier’s Clash of the Titans. Others include Wolfgang Petersen’s Troy, Oliver Stone’s failed masterpiece Alexander, comic book adaptation 300 and Ridley Scott’s own Kingdom of Heaven, which had the crusades as its subject.

So when Robin Hood was announced, years ago already, expectations were immediately abnormally high. If anyone could save the genre, which already experienced a second chance in the mainstream, than it would surely be Ridley Scott. And where Kingdom of Heaven was flawed by its boyish and dramatically-challenged protagonist Orlando Bloom, Robin Hood would see Crowe return to his Maximus character, the biological bulldozer, as one Dutch critic named him.

Originally, Crowe was set to play the Sheriff of Nottingham: a decent man caught between a corrupt regime he is bound to serve and the popular outlaw who challenges his authority. However, as the script evolved over time, this version gave way to a more typical setting of the story, be it one in which ‘common archer’ Robin Longstride returns from the crusades to become the outlaw Robin Hood.

Although the original idea seemed fresh and interesting, the changes have probably been for the better. As it is, Robin Hood already suffers from the weight of too much politicking, in the second act. After a breathtaking first act, which sees the English army plundering its way through France on the way home to Britain and shows Robin Longstride to fall out favour with king Richard Lionheart (who for once is not portrayed as a hero), the second act is a bit dull. Robin has to go to Nottingham to deliver the sword of deceased knight Robert of Loxley, and for the sake of convenience takes in the place of Loxley at his estate. This involves faking a marriage to Cate Blanchett’s emancipated Maid Marion and reviving a poverty-struck village. Meanwhile, in London, Richard’s successor John (Aaron Isaacs) is misguided by his treacherous advisor Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong, again as a villain), who secretly conspires with the King of France, planning an invasion of England. The second act feels strangely ambiguous, combining feel good comedy (the Nottingham sequences) and political thriller. It is saved only by the strength and charisma of the cast, which also includes Scott Grimes (the red bearded doctor from ER) as Will Scarlet, Eileen Atkins as the queen-mother and Matthew McFadyen (Tom Quinn in Spooks) as a slightly comedic Sherif of Nottingham, who should receive more attention in a possible sequel.

Ridley Scott leaves the character work to his actors, who manage the job, and is as usual at his best in the visual department. As in Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator his achievement lies in the creation of the world of the story. Medieval London looks very impressive, and in the big action set-pieces, including the raiding of a French castle and a battle at the beach which reminds one of Saving Private Ryan. It is in these scenes, in the first and the action packed third act that the film gains and keeps its momentum, which it somewhat loses in the second act. Looking backward in comparison, Gladiator’s big strength was the way in which action sequences, in an ever increasing intensity, were equally distributed over the time-line of the plot. Robin Hood lacks this convenience.

Nonetheless the film delivers. Of the big tent pole pictures that we have been offered this summer it is by far the best, beating the likes of Green Zone, Clash of the Titans and Iron Man 2. It is not flawless, but this only feels as a problem in the comparison with Gladiator, which is just unfair. It does not set a new standard, but it shows that, if properly done, the historical action epic has a place in current cinema. It makes one looking forward to more, but hopefully we will not have to rely on Scott and Crowe alone to deliver in the future…

Not so lubricated entertainment – The In The Loop Review

In The Loop was released in the United Kingdom last year, and received an Oscar nomination for best original screenplay. It was partly based on, and used characters from, the television series The Thick Of It. Whereas The Thick Of It was a brilliant satire of British politics under New Labour, In The Loop explores the ‘special friendship’ between the British and the Americans just before the Iraq invasion.

Plot: Nitwit minister Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) for international development accidentally says on prime time television that ‘war in the Middle East is unforeseeable’, whatever that is supposed to mean. In his efforts to clean up this PR mess he consequently says that ‘in order to walk the road of peace you have to occasionally climb the mountain of conflict’. Needless to say that the PM’s director of communication, Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) is not amused. He sends Foster and his hapless aid Toby (Chris Addison) to Washington, on a diplomatic mission, but also to have him out of the way. In Washington Foster and Toby manage to get involved in the struggle between Pentagon hawks and doves, thereby only increasing the problems to be solved by Tucker.

More plot exposition would be unnecessary, and spoiling all the fun. That is, if you can enjoy the incessant swearing – better labeled ‘vernacular shock and awe’ – professed by Tucker and his assistant, nicknamed ‘the crossest man in Scotland’. You should be able to enjoy it though. For it is not just trash talking, it is often pure poetry. An absolute highlight is when McDonald (the assistant) dismisses Toby’s Oxbridge politeness: “Shut it, Love Actually”.

The acting is wonderful. Capaldi is comedy brilliance, and so are Tom Hollander and, surprisingly, James Gandolfini as an American general not too intent on war. Director Armando Ianucci (who also created the TV series) uses a handheld camera which is often just out of focus, thus providing a ‘The Office’ semi-documentary feel. This adds to the already impressive political realism. Malcolm Tucker is often compared in the British press to Tony Blair’s spin doctor Alastair Campbell. The fact that Campbell, in an interview with Mark Kermode, said that the film is not realistic at all of course does nothing to change this.

Unfortunately, the last half hour of the film feels a bit stretched. It is not as funny as the first two acts, and the film loses not so much credibility as empathy with any of the characters. Supposed nice-guy-to-identify-with Toby appears not to be such a nice guy after all, and also shows an annoying lack of spine or principle, something necessary for a sympathetic protagonist. He is not an innocent young man thrown into a world of cynicism and opportunism, he is already part of that world, and spoiled by it.

Therefore, although In The Loop is great fun, wonderfully original entertainment, it is not spotless. It’s definitely not as lubricated as the horse’s genitalia that Malcolm Tucker would like to see inserted in Foster’s secretary in one of his devastating rants. Still, it is a real shame that this never got a Dutch release, and that I had to review it from an internet stream.

Delicious nostalgia – the Wickie und die starke Männer review

Wicky the Viking was a 1970s cartoon series that lighted up many a kid’s Saturday morning when it was shown on television. So did its reruns in the 1990s. Now the Germans (dir. Michael Bully Herbig), of all people, have made a live action feature film out of it. And if there is one thing this film proves, than it is that Germans do have a sense of humour.

If there is two things this film proves, than it is that they also know how to effectively copy and paste from recent popular culture without destroying the special vibe that the cartoon series possessed. The film is filled with references to The 13th Warrior, The Matrix, Pirates of the Carribean and many more recent and less recent films. The most hilarious one is one of the Vikings’ remark, upon seeing the great treasure everything is about, that they ‘need a bigger boat’. If you do not get it I won’t explain it. Just catch up on your early Spielberg.

The plot of the film is effectively a combination of plots and scenes from various old episodes. Wicky, a young Viking kid, is a disappointment to his father because he is not strong, but smart. His mother and his young girlfriend do believe in him however. Having discovered how to fly Wicky gets stuck in a tree, and has to helplessly watch his village getting plundered and his fellow Viking kids kidnapped by supposed demons. When his father and the other warriors set out to free them, Wicky hides on the ship to join them, and eventually it is his intellect, rather than his father’s strength, that saves the day.

Although this may sound rather serious, the film is hilarious. All the cartoon characters are in the film, and they are beautiful, two-dimensional copies of the one-dimensional cartoon characters. There are some succesful and less succesful additions. Succesful is the Spanish reporter, who is a funny tongue-in-cheek reference to Antonio Banderas’ role in The 13th Warrior. Less succesful is the Chinese circus girl brought in to provide a comic, but unnecessary love interest for most of the Viking warriors. The voice-over, by the Spanish reporter, is hilarious and dry, and full of references to 95% income texas. The bad guy, Horrible Sven, is a spot-on copy of the one in the cartoon, and is given some comic moments as well, unlike in the series.

Wicky and the Stron Men, as the title translates, is a delight. It provides suspense and simple humor for the little children of its target group, recognition for the now grown up fans of the television cartoon series, and plenty of laugh out loud moments for everyone – even those who did not know the series. Having seen this film directly after the painstakingly boring and sadistic Liam Neeson thriller Taken, this lightened up my evening, and probably my week.

Does Fine Without Direction – The Iron Man 2 review

Iron Man was the surprise hit of the summer of 2008. With all the attention directed towards The Dark Knight and The Incredible Hulk, this less known character from the Marvel comic book stable came in under the radar to surprise critics and audiences. Which does not mean that it was a small film: it had famous actors and lots of explosions and special effects to bring the budget over a 100 million dollar. The film was exciting, light-hearted and filled with action and comedy. Perfect summer fare.

The success of Iron Man inevitably lead to a sequel, also directed by Jon Favreau, and starring Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow. New in the cast are Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Don Cheadle (who replaces Terrence Howard), Samuel L. Jackson AND Scarlett Johansson. I previously predicted that this would be too much, and unfortunately my prediction came true.

Iron Man 2 is in many ways just more of the same. Much more. More men in metal suits banging each other on the head. Which is just not that entertaining. Also more witty dialogue and innuendos, mostly depending on Downey Jr.s charismatic Tony Stark, which is very entertaining.

Of course the action and special effects look and sound good. There is a bit too much AC/DC on the soundtrack, but that is still better than the obligatory horns and strings of other franchises.

But plot wise the film derails halfway. A fantastic first act brings together mad Russian scientist Ivan Vanko (Rourke, with a hilarious accent) and competing arms dealer Justin Hammer (Rockwell on top form) as opponents to Tony Stark, who has to learn to depend on and work together with others. But the second act takes another direction, involving Stark’s personal and medical problems, and his deteriorating friendship with army colonel James Rhodes (Cheadle), who wants Stark to give up his iron man suit to the government. The third act just manages to bring these two plot threads together, but at the expense of a satisfying end for the maniacal Vanko, who was so beautifully introduced.

The feeling I’m left with is that this should have been two films. One about Iron Man vs. Hammer and Vanko, and the other about Iron Man vs. Rhodes, with a sideline involving the not-even-yet-mentioned-in-this-review SHIELD organization of Jackson’s Nick Fury. Disappointingly, and the ending of Iron Man 2 gives this away, there is not going to be a Iron Man 3, only a SHIELD centered ‘Avengers’ project also involving The Hulk, Captain America and Thor. Which sounds like uninteresting overkill to me.

The lack of balance and plot thrust is not just a failure of the script (or the concept, or the marketing plan for that matter) but also of director Jon Favreau, who did such a disciplined and clean job on the first film. Perhaps he was too busy playing comic relief character ‘Happy’ (Stark’s redundant driver). Or, he noticed there was so little directing to do that he could easily take on the role. For movies like these defy direction. They satisfy the big crowds – and therefore the studio managers – with famous stars and impressing visual effects. This redundancy of not only the ‘Happy’ character but of Favreau-the-director as well is best symbolized in the scene in which he and Johansson’s Natasha Romanoff take on a bunch of security guards. When Happy is finally done beating his opponent in a fist fight, Johansson has already gone off, having disposed of seven thugs with martial arts in the mean time.

Plot wise, Scarlett Johansson is absolutely not necessary in this film, and thank God she does not have to talk and act too much. She is there to look hot getting in and out of her leather suit, and thereby please the 12 to 30 year old (40 perhaps?) male demographic of the audience, because, as one studio suit must have said to another: Gwyneth Paltrow does not do that trick anymore. And that is such a depressing thought, as Paltrow is such a better actress and an actually human looking beautiful woman.

There is still much to enjoy about Iron Man 2, but I had set my hopes up much higher for a film with such a nice, quirky and entertaining predecessor.