Review: Gone

Rating: 15

Duration: 94 mins

Director Heitor Dhalia follows suit with another unintelligible thriller that believes it's far cleverer than it actually is. Couple a fairly brainless, run-of-the-mill script with the teen appeal of Amanda Seyfried, and you've got the ingredients for a film aimed solely for the teenage demographic.

Jill (Seyfried) becomes paranoid when her sister Molly (Emily Wichersham), goes missing one night, that it's the same abductor who imprisoned her two years ago. She sets out to prove it, but is ignored by the dismissive police leading us to question whether her sanity is all as it seems.

We're presented with a Veronica Mars style detective, hell-bent on snooping around and asking questions, when in reality she'd no doubt be stopped in her tracks with her nosey disposition. What's even more unbelievable is how she manages to evade the authorities so nonchalantly throughout the film: including local detectives and a multiple police car chase.

Because it strives so hard for accessibility over intelligence, it therefore suffers in engaging on a maturer level: we see a slightly demented Seyfried scurry round, chasing clues and following leads as she manages to completely evade the detectives and police force that are after her. It almost feels like it's trying to replicate a Bourne style caper, albeit it an adolescent one.

Clearly aimed towards a younger, perhaps more susceptible viewer; the script unintelligently slots all the pieces of the puzzle together far too neatly: it feels like a mere paint-by-numbers rather than anything possessing any weight or depth to the mystery. In fact, the plot is so thinly laid out and divulged that any associations with the genre are quickly dispelled and replaced by an unengaging, dull and frequently laborious nothingness.

Yes, Amanda, we're just as baffled as you are

Exposition-wise, it is terribly vague in contextualising any of the featured characters: Seyfried's Jill comes across as slightly neurotic and potentially insane, but we're left to ponder over this. Other characters that should bare more significance are painfully underdeveloped to the point where you simply don't care what happens to them either way, as you're given nothing to work with in the first place.

VERDICT: Gone attempts to throw you off, but this join-the-dots thriller exudes zero intensity with its adolescent style. Seyfried does her best with a woefully dull script and silly dialogue, but can't save it from simply becoming another teen orientated, throwaway mess.

Review: Battleship

Rating: 12a

Duration: 131 mins

Much like Michael Bay, Peter Berg bastardises the Hasbro name for both filmic and monetary purposes, albeit to a lesser extent with his latest big budgeted film, Battleship. It may be early on in the year for said blockbuster types, but at around $200m someone must have been extremely confident that this would appeal to the masses, or simply didn't care once it had been green-lit.

So far, Battleship appears to have done its job; having strolled to the top of the UK box office with ease. However, the way one approaches this film can bare relevance, especially surrounding the 'willingness' factor.

What Berg dishes up is a cheesy, action packed and utterly brainless maritime romp, with the likes of Liam Neeson,  RiRi and John Carter (that's provocative pop princess Rihanna and Taylor Kitsch to you and I) to take us on an epically silly journey.

Whereas the likes of Robocop and Starship Troopers were presented with a whiff of satirical mockery, you'd be seriously tested whether Battleship in fact does the same. Indeed, if this is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek take on the sci-fi genre, then this oceanic farce really hits the spot: the goofy lines and character actions are, at times, hilarious as viewing it as self parody will generate a lot of laughter throughout.

However, the other (and probable) perception is that this is a genuine attempt to make a serious film, which is a somewhat disturbing notion indeed. Surely an entire cast and crew can't make such a laughably daft movie and not see right through its paper-thin nothingness, or can they?

There's a very basic plot in that a fleet of ships, headed by Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson), are out conducting naval training exercises when a series of objects fall from space and crash into the ocean. Navy wild man Alex (Kitsch), is heavily involved alongside Raikes (Rihanna) in taking down whatever hostilities come their way. Suffice to say that shit hits the fan once they boisterously begin to poke around.

RiRi screams constantly when holding a massive weapon

Using the term 'heavily involved' for these two characters is no understatement, either. Alex and Raikes are not only overtly placed as the film's heroes, but astonishingly they can do pretty much anything that needs to be done: from operating everything aboard the entire ship, to their impeccable hand-to-hand combat, to precise weapons training, to superior intelligence (debatable); the pair put past all-action champions like Arnie and Van Damme to utter shame. Again, this makes for some entertaining viewing as we see there's literally nothing these characters cannot do (besides act).

Another fantastic addition is the use of product placement. These completely random shots that separate some action sequences are priceless. Take for example a scene of destruction: we cut to a shot of a young girl holding a drink from Subway towards the camera, before we simply cut back to the action. Brilliant stuff.

Mr. Kitsch showing off the ship's additional gun

Regardless how you read Battleship, one thing is for sure: it's a bad film. But look beyond this and will yourself to believe it is meant to be like that, and you'll take something completely different from it. Surprisingly the 131 minute running time doesn't drag, which is a credit to the movie.

VERDICT: To summarise: Battleship is loud, dumb and utterly brainless. If you approach it thinking that it is intentionally mocking itself in the most subtle of pastiches, then you're likely to happily embrace and enjoy the experience.

N.B. If you're insistent on a serious, straight-up critique, then minus a star. However, look at it in the vein of Paul Verhoeven and you'll laugh your way through this comical farce with great pleasure; in which case, add one on.

Review: The Cabin in the Woods

Rating: 15

Duration: 95 mins

Buffy and Firefly creator Joss Whedon is the brain behind this modern horror that picks apart everything fans are accustomed with, and offers a very contemporary, yet playfully welcomed edge. As well as the reliable skills of Whedon, Drew Goddard co-writes the script and assumes control as director of what can only be described as a conventionally familiar, but original take on the genre.

With both having a reputable history in fantasy and science fiction, it's perhaps safe to assume that some of these elements are bound to weave their way into proceedings. The set-up is common and simple: a group of youngster go away to a cabin (in the woods) for a weekend of promiscuous frivolity. These conventions are palpable as it consciously acknowledges said clichés that have been tirelessly recycled over the years. It's this awareness and self ridicule that makes the first half of the film mightily fun and entertaining. Combined with a witty and often amusing script, the initial reveal offers an intriguing direction as to where the film will ultimately go. Yes, the film contains a reveal (very early on, in fact), and not a twist. It's this element that (even though shown in the trailer) makes a Cabin review hard to convey without succumbing to potential spoilers.

As far as constructing a typical horror movie goes, Goddard directs and includes exactly what's necessary with tongue firmly in cheek. Exposition is fine, as are the amount of scares, unease and gore you'd expect; it never offers too much, nor too little.

To say Cabin is a 'game changer' is a term devaluing such a meaning. Sure, Whedon and Goddard gift us something very different, ultimately original and never before seen in the horror genre, but to deem it revolutionary is an overstatement. In fact, it actually adheres as a social commentary on something else (and that 'something' shall remain unnamed); plausible in the sense that because it's not actually a typically scary film, drifts away from horror in terms of its focus. It's certainly one to take note of, but feels more like the beginning of a new breed of genre hybrid that'll no doubt become as saturated as the shaky-cam a few years down the line.

The second half of the film intentionally feels detached in the sense that the story progresses in a contrived nature, as the latter part of the film tends to underwhelm more than the strong first. However, the interesting development will keep audiences engaged in what is a uniquely satisfying movie that deserves  to be seen to be appreciated and contextualised.

Cabin is a rather funny and somewhat whimsical film that, with gruesome depictions of horror, proves experimental genre splices can work to one's advantage if executed correctly. The writing is spot on, as is the tone of the acting and narrative, all culminating in a piece that will reinvent, if not completely redefine.

VERDICT: It isn't quite as clever as it thinks it is, but The Cabin in the Woods pulls down its pants and takes a proverbial dump over the horror genre. It's a film worth exploring for its initiative and for capitalising on a think-outside-the-box strategy with its alternative intuition, as opposed to following every other formulaic clone out there.

Trailer Talk: Looper

Rian Johnson's Looper has just hit the Internet and as a sci-fi fan, it looks rather enticing to say the least. Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt, it appears to have all the mouthwatering elements you'd expect from the genre and the writer/director of Brick.

But don't just take my word, have a look yourself...

 

Review: Headhunters

Rating: 15
Duration: 100 mins

Unsurprisingly, Morten Tyldum's Norwegian thriller Headhunters has already been snapped up by the Hollywood machine to churn out what will no doubt be another soulless and take on a film that has no need for a remake. Indeed, it is the European aesthetic that gives this its charm as an art thief thriller movie: if it were set in the bright lights of Las Vegas or the grimy East End of London it wouldn't work.

Aksel Hennie plays Roger Brown; a successful headhunter living way beyond his means: a lavish home and lifestyle to accommodate his pretty gallery-owning wife Diana (Synnøve Macody Lund). Even with stealing expensive pieces of art on the side to subsidise the high-life, his finances continue to buckle; but when Roger discovers that new face in town Clas (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), has a priceless piece of artwork sitting in his home, the cliched 'one final job' turns out to be far more hassle than ever imagined.

A noble thriller, Headhunter mixes an enjoyable intenseness with some dark comic undertones. Surrealism plays a part as the twists and turns remain rawly believably, yet enjoyable enough to be swept along with the demands of the script. Not only does the story flow well, but it's often done without the use of dialogue or exposition: our protagonist's actions speak louder than words, often resulting in silent scenes that serve a much more powerful purpose.

Performances are solid - especially from Hennie - as the film builds momentum quickly, the intensity and desperation of the character resorts to some extremes that form some gripping moments and culminates in a Tarantino-inspired climax. Couple the stylistic influences with the scenarios and atmosphere it creates by itself, and you're left with an entertaining thriller that, whilst treading through the motions, does so in a well executed manner.

The conclusion plays out nicely and ties up well. In fact, we are given some endearing explanation to tie off loose ends, which is something a lot of films tend to leave to the imagination. However, here it works, leaving a pleasing and slightly whimsical taste to the whole affair. It certainly bodes a slickness that does its job well, even if it doesn't tread new ground.

VERDICT: Headhunters isn't the most original or greatest thriller you're likely to see, but in the context of the genre, it's a frantic, fast-paced and at times frenetic tale that satisfies with its reveals and succeeds to engage its audiences over an enthralling 100 minutes.

Review: The Pirates! In An Adventure with Scientists

Rating: U

Duration: 88 mins

Aardamn return with their second release in the past six months, after the wonderfully whimsical animation Arthur Christmas, and have since reverted back to their stop motion forte the studio are renowned for.

Peter Lord co-directs alongside Jeff Newitt, as the British animators package their first cinematic effort since 2005's Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, retaining the high quality synonymous with the likes of Chicken Run and indeed, the Wallace & Gromit franchise. 

The Pirates! In An Adventure with Scientists - or The Pirates! Band of Misfits as per the American title - is quintessentially British through-and-through; whether it's the subtle Blue Peter badge one of the pirates sports on his hat, or the custard creams the Captain dips in his tea, Aardman do a noble job of sticking to their dignified roots where they can.

Plot-wise, the film isn't massively ambitious. The story revolves around the Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant), who is blindly driven in his desire to win Pirate of the Year, having miserably failed the twenty or so attempts previously. However, with his trusty crew (including the voices of Ashley Jensen, Martin Freeman and Brendan Gleeson), he's determined to brush aside his competitors Black Bellamy (Jeremy Piven) and Cutlass Liz (Salma Hayek), in order to finally swipe the title. The gang's escapades take them to London where an indignant Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) resides, boasting a rather unfathomable hatred towards piracy, which in turn proves a catalyst for impending frivolity.

Cue a typical British adventure that oozes a delightful charm in what is an enjoyable and child-friendly movie. That said, whilst swift action and comical set-ups will appeal to the younger demographic, there's plenty of subtle nuances and nods for a mature audience, too. 

The ever-detailed sets will reward the more savvy observers who'll notice amusing background props, posters, and shop signs to warrant a giggle, yet ultimately the film's tone does tend to opt for a more plain-levelled approach in its entertainment: whilst completely accessible, it also feels rather quaint in terms of scale as it never really pushes for a more grandiose spectacle at any point. Therefore, on this basis, the experience as a whole tends to underwhelm. Never do we get a genuine sense that the film is trying to push itself, either. Whilst technically it's a marvel, the lack of thrills and narrative engagement unfortunately make the experience hollow at times.

A project that took two-and-a-half years in the making really shows in its pay-off; the painstaking effort that's gone into its meticulous production is visible in the wonderful animation: it's vibrant, lively, and - with a style recognisable around the globe - is hard not to fall in love with the mouthwatering sight. 

VERDICT: An enjoyable and amusing adventure is strengthened by a unique and beautiful aesthetic only Aardman can pull off, but its tame story and all too basic approach to engage a younger audience can leave the elders dissatisfied and feeling a little short changed.

Review: Wild Bill

Rating: 15

Duration: 98 mins

Dexter Fletcher helms his début feature, as he follows in the footsteps of compatriot Paddy Considine's recent success with Tyrannosaur, making the effortless transition from actor to writer/director.

Fletcher opts for a similar route as Peter Mullan and Shane Meadows, with social commentary of the grimy working-class endeavour that befalls some of the less privileged regions of the UK. Wild Bill takes us to East London with a visceral and fantastically raw -- if not previously explored -- look at the everyday struggle of abandoned brothers Dean (Will Poulter) and Jimmy (Sammy Williams). They're left to fend for themselves; their mother having absconded to Spain with a new boyfriend and estranged father Bill (Charles Creed-Miles) is left to pick up the pieces of their dysfunctional family after a recent release from prison.

Both Fletcher and Danny King co-write a script that might wander previously trodden ground, but it's a breath of fresh air with heart, emotional dexterity and approach. The story crams in a lot of bad blood early on: notably some resentfulness aimed at a hapless Bill from a disheartened Dean who cannot forgive him for 'leaving' to serve an eight year stretch. Bitter one-sided exchanges between the pair, and as well as supporting characters such as Roxy (Liz White) form fragile relationships that develop as the film progresses: as Bill begins to take responsibility for his actions and absence, the boys begin to warm to him, and realise how precious a family bond is.

Impressionable younger sibling Jimmy is the catalyst for the story that unfolds, as he becomes mixed up with low-life drug peddler Terry (Leo Gregory) and his band of cockney wide-boy wannabes. Neil Maskell plays a fitting role as tubby hard man Dicky, whereas Misfits actor Iwan Rheon offers an often comical performance as street-dealing, ethnically-confused, Pill.

The pacing satisfies and gradually builds with steady momentum culminating in a tensely climactic scene that could go either way. The fine line between success and failure -- from Bill's parental stance at least -- is as taut as it could be: it's hard not to commit your support in his plight to turn his life around and make up for lost time with his sons, but old habits tend to die hard.

The direction is clean and articulate; void of over-ambitiousness (bar one beautifully eloquent paper aeroplane scene), where a less-is-more approach has far greater impact in the context of the film. Lengthy tracking shots from high-rise corridors leading into their flat and through the individual rooms add a sense of voyeurism, which juxtaposes nicely with the more snappier, heated scenes.

Strong performances from Poulter and Creed-Miles really drive a film that, on the exterior, is a brutally serious drama with the underlying comparative themes of a western. It also provides several playful and amusing moments that maintain a comedic undertone throughout.

VERDICT: Wild Bill's poignant conclusion is uplifting as well as inspiring. Add this to the well chosen cast and excellent script, then what we're left with is a powerful, hard-hitting experience that'll evoke a mixture of feelings -- mainly a satisfying fulfilment with warm sentiment.

Review: The Hunger Games

Rating: 12a
Duration: 142 mins

Like John Carter, The Hunger Games is the second blockbuster-type to be released in March and bodes some similar traits: it's a healthy budgeted sci-fi adventure based on popular literature. However, the elements that unfortunately fall flat for the former are atoned here. By contrast, The Hunger Games is, by and large, a much more consistent and stronger film that emotionally touches, visually thrills and narratively engages.

Fortunately, this is not a film executed in the same fashion as teeny sensation Twilight either, and instead adheres to a maturer, more dignified stance, whilst still catering for its intended younger demographic. The 12a rating might appear restricting, but after a reported seven seconds of footage was removed in order to downgrade it from a 15, one can forgive such actions, as the impact is still there. 

The one element that stands out in a negative capacity is the excessive use of the 'shaky cam' effect, especially near the beginning. If used appropriately, this technique can deliver to devastating effect - take The Blair Witch Project for example - but here it isn't required, especially during non-action, uneventful sequences: the unnecessary disorientation will have audiences breathing a sigh of relief when, in stark contrast, it cuts to a wide, static shot. In the film's context it's slightly bizarre, yet somewhat forgivable.

The story is based in the future; set in a dystopian America where the country is split into twelve districts overruled by the Capitol. Each year two tributes are randomly selected from each district - one male and one female - and are trained and mentored before being thrown into a regulated forest where they must kill or be killed; rendering the remaining survivor the winner, culminating in a reality TV style satire. Think along the lines of Battle Royale meets The Running Man meets The Truman Show, and you get a sense of the concept. The juxtaposition of politics and reality television are interjected, as an effect on one can have direct impact on the other.

The setting, in an unspecified year, generates the strong sci-fi visual element: the weakest locations are the slum-like districts that, in truth, were not shown all that often. However, the Capitol, which is the thriving, luxurious city, is well conceived. What takes the shine off the interesting technology and pleasurable aesthetic of the surroundings are the costumes. Deemed 'futuristic', it's a little heavy-handedly conveyed, as the use of psychedelic hair, flamboyant outfits and, most notably, the inventive beard designs, which screams 'typical funky image of the future', rather than something more believable, as it detracts from the rest of the set up.

Jennifer Lawrence gives a solid performance as Katniss; a young woman who volunteers herself in place of her little sister that's unluckily chosen. Along her journey through the live televised Hunger Games, she involves herself in alliances, tragedy and some fight-to-the-death scenarios. Her character is layered, and gradually reveals itself throughout the story; complemented by a supporting role from Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), and what can only be described as a handful of appearances from Liam Hemsworth, as close friend Gale.

Katniss's journey is an engaging and thrilling experience, as she hunts and strives to stay alive with the pace constantly switching, bar the single saddest moment of the film, which feels too drawn out; forcefully attempting to pull at the heartstrings. Thankfully, the length of the film doesn't prove taxing as the flow of the story pulls you in, you will see the two-and-a-half hours as nothing less than an entertaining and thrilling piece of science fiction.

As previously touched upon, the use of the 'shaky cam' is exacerbated - specifically towards the end - in conjunction with claustrophobic, super quick cuts that go beyond the point of disorientation. Whether this is, at times, to disguise the violence is debatable. However, in some scenes it really is unclear as to what is happening when this unpleasant technique rears its ugly head.

The final ten minutes, of what is a long film, actually feels rushed; almost as if the director realises near the end of the shoot that they've ran over and need to jump from quick scene to quick scene  in order to bridge a resolution.

VERDICT: Creating a convincing and enjoyable sci-fi flick is one thing, but achieving consistency and quality throughout is another. Fortunately, The Hunger Games succeeds in both, keeping the story and action grounded, especially without overdoing it on the CGI front. Interesting political undertones provide an aftermath of speculation that nicely conclude the film as a single entry, but sets up further conflicts for its inevitable sequels.

NB: Amidst a rather tense forestry scene, prepare yourself for one of the most inappropriately hilarious moments that even the likes of Noel Fielding will be proud of.