Three films to finish off the year…

First up, Sightseers is, like its characters, an oddity. It’s a dark comedy about finding love, breaking free of the things that hold you back, and murder. From the off, everything feels a little off, but not enough to be ridiculous. Things quickly descend, while staying true to the primary theme of love. It’s funny and slightly horrifying at times, in a way that really works for the move. Definitely worth seeing. (See my Sightseers Twitter review).

The Man With The Iron Fists, on the other hand (pardon the pun), is a very modern take on old martial arts films, with vague mysticism, clans, fighting, slightly camp villains, and general silliness. The fight sequences themselves are as over-the-top as you might expect and always fun to watch, even when some of the acting goes a little bit far for the B-movie joke. It’s as terrible and gaudy as intended. If you can appreciate the style, it’s a decent watch.   (See my The Man With The Iron Fists Twitter review).

Finally, Safety Not Guaranteed is about journalists investigating an advert requesting a partner to travel in time. Expecting a prank or a nutcase, one gets drawn into the world of the stranger who posted the advert, whilst another tries to reunite with a lost love. Gimmick aside, the film is an interesting look at missed opportunities, the things that we wonder “what if?” about. On that level, it’s a good film, but the execution can, at times, be a little indie-by-numbers. You’ll get a feel for how it’s going to play out pretty quickly. Decent. (See my Safety Not Guaranteed Twitter review).

The winner for December is Sightseers. Where the other two flounder at times, Sightseers stays on path, even when things get strange.

As with last month, there are three films in this month’s round-up.

First up, Skyfall is everything that I thought I wanted in a Bond film, but proves that it’s actually not what I wanted at all. It spends a great deal of time building out several of the characters, but does so in a way that only vaguely connects with the rest of the plot. I want to see Bond develop through his actions; not by being told he’s getting old and can’t handle it, but by showing it. The other major issue is that, despite a two and a half hour run-time, the film can’t muster a credible threat. Javier Bardem is an excellent actor and can certainly do threatening (see No Country for Old Men), but here he comes across as a little bit camp and extremely incompetent. His opening monologue is excellent, but throughout the rest of the movie he fails to live up to any of his supposedly terrifying build-up. It’s a far better film than many of the worst Bond films, like Die Another Day or Quantum of Solace, but it’s dull and flabby where the best Bond films focus on being lean and entertaining. Not worth the lengthy run-time. (See my Skyfall Twitter review).

After an excellent first few movies by Ben Affleck, Argo manages to disappoint. First, the good: it looks amazing. Even when it’s filling out with obvious Oscar-baiting establishing shots, it’s a visually impressive movie that feels just right. It also has an amazing cast who do the best they can. From Affleck himself, Bryan Cranston, Clea DuVall, Victor Garber et al, it’s absolutely crammed with fantastic actors. The problem is that it fails to build any interesting or original tension. Because you know that that the various phone calls or checks that might get the cast killed are going to work out at the last second, there’s never any doubt or real sense of threat. It doesn’t help that, Affleck’s character aside, none of the characters really get fleshed out, besides some whining: he could’ve been going to Iran to extract some cardboard boxes of important files, for all the difference it would’ve made to the plot. At no point was I concerned for their safety, and that’s deadly for this kind of film. Finally, the plot set in Hollywood was even worse: having someone point out the absurdity of their plan is one thing, doing it with every character is just dull. Don’t go out of your way to see this film. (See my Argo Twitter review).

Lastly, End of Watch feels exactly as it is edited: very uneven. There are times when the film is very dark and tense, there are moments that it feels genuinely funny, and there’s a hell of a lot of it where not much really happens. Maybe that’s what the film-maker was aiming for, to show that life is a cop in a dangerous areas has at least as much mundanity as it does excitement, but as a viewer it doesn’t make for the most interesting narrative. The whole thing has a conceit where it appears to have been filmed on hand-held cameras that the main cast have on them (explicitly shown in the film) but, oddly, it never sees this through, showing plenty of shots that are taken from no particular point of view. It might have worked a little better had they seen it through, or avoided it altogether. As a whole, it’s an okay movie, but could’ve been better.  (See my End of Watch Twitter review).

I can’t say I particularly enjoyed any of this month’s films, but I think End of Watch probably wins for some of the funnier moments.

Three films in this month’s round-up:

First up is Looper, a brilliantly structured narrative about inevitability, love and sacrifice, seen through the eyes of a killer tasked with the murder of his future self. While that sounds convoluted, it’s not in practice; the film focusses much more on its themes than on the sci-fi mechanics that allow the story to move forward. While having Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing a younger Bruce Willis is a big stretch, the acting through-out is solid. It’s a big and bold tale, often quite pretty, but fantastically paced. Very worthwhile. (See my Looper Twitter review).

The Campaign, meanwhile, manages to undersell what could’ve been a great comedy. The premise is solid enough (a sleazy, corrupt politician takes on a well-meaning, naive upstart), but it never really amounts to anything. In the final edit, it feels like there are a number of segments they wanted to show and they built a fairly flimsy plot around putting those pieces together. It is funny, but it’s just not cohesive enough to be great. Passable, though. (See my The Campaign Twitter review).

Finally, Taken 2 is a bit of a let-down on every level. While no-one would’ve expected a great, character-led plot, it fails to make much of its action sequences. There’s a decent car chase in there, a few little moments, but nothing that grabs you as much as the relentless and breathlessly executed sequences from its predecessor. While that was a well-executed action film, this sequel feels very much like a needless and ill-advised cash-in. Avoid. (See my Taken 2 Twitter review).

The winner for this month is Looper, for its brilliant take on time-loop movies.

Just two films in September:

First up, Lawless is a movie that follows a family of bootleggers in prohibition-era America. It captures the violent nature of the enterprise with style, and a little wit. The main cast put in great performances, with only Shia LaBeouf letting the side down with a fairly stock take on his character. Tom Hardy, however, delivers another excellent showing as the indestructable eldest brother. The whole thing looks fantastic, but the plot is very predictable, nothing will surprise you here. Probably the film’s biggest downfall is an entirely unnecessary and out-of-touch epilogue, that forces a happy ending in where none was needed. Very watchable. (See my Lawless Twitter review).

Finally, Dredd manages to bring the titular character to life in a way that his previous film can only dream of. Despite the obviously miniscule budget, the film deftly introduces the characters, setting and premise, before letting loose with some extremely gory scenes and full-on action set pieces. We’re left with no doubt as to why Judge Dredd is so uncompromising and harsh: he’s a product of a world where crime is so prevalent that almost none of it gets punished. It’s a fun movie and, while it won’t win any awards, it deserves to be seen. (See my Dredd Twitter review).

The winner is Dredd for showing what a well-written action film is capable of.

August’s Film Fight sees another 5 films up for review.

First up, Ted is exactly what every Family Guy fan probably expected: a film whose comedy is bizarre, gross, culturally-aware, nostalgic, and with occasional cut-aways. This is not the movie that will change anyone’s mind on Seth Macfarlane’s brand of humour. If you are a fan, it has some great ideas, some very funny moments, as well as some that don’t really hit as well (Ted’s girlfriend, for example). It’s a solid 100-odd minutes of laughter, but will likely be forgotten in a decade.(See my Ted Twitter review).

Pixar’s latest effort, Brave, seems strangely more like a Dreamwork’s movie, than a Pixar movie. The plot is very straightforward, everything is explained simply, but there is no weight to proceedings (like Up’s early montage) and no character development that feels particularly earned. A necessary but unsurprising sequence of events play out and the lead learns a lesson. That’s it. Simple, but nice enough, I suppose. (See my Brave Twitter review).

The Expendables 2, meanwhile, works because it’s exactly what you expect: a dumb action film full of explosions, fights, shoot-outs, ridiculous dialogue, without taking itself too seriously. The plot itself is nonsense, and is a very thin excuse to have the world’s biggest action stars do their thing once again. It’s not revelatory, nor does it have to be. A simple, fun, action film. (See my The Expendables 2 Twitter review).

Despite a satisfying arc of three movies that comes to a satisfying if slightly ambiguous conclusion, sometimes Hollywood can’t seem to stay away from something that is meaningfully complete. The Bourne Legacy is a result of that mentality. With the original trilogy’s protagonist having dealt with his past, the action here moves to a side-story following another agent. Instead of a story that is a grounded, tragedy-ridden, character-led piece (almost literally about the lead trying to find himself), we get a generic spy/action film. There is nothing particularly remarkable about the new lead, other than wasteful addition of pseudo-medical science to try to artificially raise the stakes in the plot without that being reflected in the action. Indeed, several key action sequences, particularly the rooftop chase, are so similar to scenes in the earlier movies that they only serve to show how unnecessary this movie is. It adds nothing to the franchise and, by moving away from its core, it only takes away. Avoid. (See my The Bourne Legacy Twitter review).

Finally, The Imposter is a documentary about a man, Frederic Bourdin, who posed as a missing Texan child. His family, despite the discrepancies that are shown, are unable to see the differences. The concept itself is interesting enough, and the New Yorker article from a few years ago that tells the same story is fascinating, but it’s let down somewhat by the execution. Each nugget of the story is spread a little too thin: having Bourdin explain each part of his plan, how it couldn’t work and must fall apart, and then how it inevitably does is laborious at best, and tedious at worst. This leads to an extremely uneven pacing, and a narrative that doesn’t do justice to the whole. A wasted opportunity. (See my The Imposter Twitter review).

The winner for August? There’s nothing particularly outstanding, to the point I’m struggling to choose between the options. I guess if I use my standard fall-back metric (“Which film would I enjoy watching again the most?”), it’d be Ted. Not exactly a strong winner, but a winner nonetheless.