Hancock (2008) July 29, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , 2 commentsDirected by: Peter Berg
Will Smith stands strong in his desire to hold sway over the lucrative 4th July weekend with this, his fifth big budget opener to strike dominance on the holiday. With Independence Day, Men In Black, Men In Black II, and Wild Wild West all taking the #1 spot in previous years, Hancock stands not to prove that one of Hollywood’s most profitable screen actors has audience pulling power - we already know that he does. But rather, to see if we can still like him when he’s deeply dislikeable.
Which leads to the film’s plot, and basic concept: what if there was a superhero with all the powers, but none of the compassion? Meet John Hancock, a lazy, near-homeless alcoholic, blessed with super powers that he cannot remember obtaining. He takes his hero responsibilities only semi-seriously and causes untold amounts of damage while undertaking his unique brand of crime fighting. It’s not until he saves the life of a PR agent that Hancock is persuaded to change his image and become more public-friendly. Or, at least, that’s the plan.
It’s true that all superhero movies come with some form of ‘concept’ attached, but this one rather admirably manages to present a truly original and interesting idea. We’ve had darker anti-heroes before (see: The Punisher, Constantine) but the idea of someone so begrudging of his gift comes as a welcome change to the relentless self-sacrifice and chiseled smiles that outline the superhero archetype. In truth, it’s a concept with flaws, and it’s those flaws that ultimately let the film down. But let’s concentrate on the good first.
The script, by Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan, makes appropriate light of the contradiction inherent to the main character’s dilemma. There are plenty of humorous moments and, at least in the first half, the film stays firmly on the side of the comic - there’s even a running gag that mirrors the recurring “nobody calls me chicken” line from Back to the Future. Most of these whimsical asides go to Will Smith, who gets plenty of screen time and enjoys both positive and negative aspects of the character. Backing him up is Jason Bateman, once again playing into the sarcastic but downtrodden good-guy role he fulfilled in Arrested Development, while there’s also a rather strange part for Charlize Theron as his duplicitous wife.
The Kingdom director Peter Berg takes the reigns here, and seems to have great fun with an increased budget - almost too much fun, actually. His suitably overblown effects sequences provide spectacle, but come at the expense of holding onto a consistent plotline. Which brings us to Hancock’s greatest problem: the all too simple method of character resolution. Once Hancock decides to change his attitude and become a more traditional hero, the film is forced to do exactly the same. Gone are the things that make him different and so goes any interest in him as a cynical take on the superhero blueprint. Simultaneously, the film also realises it has no other plotlines or a proper villain of any sort, and proceeds to bumble to a disappointing conclusion by way of some empty action sequences and a very convoluted piece of back-story.
Rather like Smith’s last big billing in I Am Legend [review], Hancock is a game of two halves, with the second half severely letting down the first. Such inadequate filler material is aided by the likeability of Will Smith as a lead actor, but maybe that’s part of the problem. He always comes off as quite a nice guy, so even his short-lived stint as an angry drunk only stands to be as believable as the fact he can fly. You expect him to snap out of it at any minute, so it comes as little surprise when he does. It might be a film that shows the power of PR management, but Smith himself surely needs none - people will evidently see his movies whatever he plays, and, despite superstitious belief to the contrary, whatever time of year they are released.
Baby Mama (2008) July 25, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Michael McCullers
During the past twelve months we have witnessed the rise of a subject that is rife with comic intent, but has not historically been well handled by Hollywood. The conception comedy, as it is not yet known, gained much ground after being the subject of two extremely well received films: Judd Apatow’s box office storming Knocked Up [review], and Jason Reitman’s indie-spirited Juno [review]. Probably by complete coincidence, we’re now faced by yet another duet of pregnancy-themed stories; one, a rather dire looking Heather Graham vehicle called Miss Conception; the other, Baby Mama, a light-hearted take on the difficulties of expecting from a writer and select cast members of Saturday Night Live.
Its story is one of modern concerns. Kate Holbrook (Tina Fey) has put so much effort into forwarding her career that she has ended up 37, single, and wanting a baby. Unfortunately, Kate isn’t biologically-inclined to do so, giving her a one-in-a-million shot of becoming pregnant herself. So she turns to a surrogacy service who set her up with Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler), to be her rented womb. Of course, the two have little in common, and Angie’s wilder attributes along with her trashy workless boyfriend give Kate cause for concern. Their odd relationship is put to the test when Angie is forced to move in with Kate, where it transpires that one of them may not have been completely honest about their intentions.
As incidental as it might first appear, the fact that writer and director Michael McCullers, as well as the film’s female leads, all come from a Saturday Night Live background, actually has a bearing on how the film is perceived. In the past, sketch TV-graduate movies have been wildly inconsistent. There have been both massive successes and terrible failures, so each new movie now arrives with a deserved mix of both anticipation and scepticism. On this occasion though, the SNL mark is less evident, something that actually helps the film achieve a well pitched comic balance.
If you look back over the catalogue of such films, they have a tendency to rely on their most comfortable medium: that of short, sharp gags and sketch comedy. It’s not always a bad thing: just take a look at Mike Myers’ feature endeavours like Austin Powers [review] and Wayne’s World, or some of the early Will Ferrell stuff. One of the biggest triumphs of Baby Mama however, is that it doesn’t lean on sketch-like interludes to fill out the story. It exists, rather nicely, as an even-handed attempt to tell the story of its two lead characters, without turning to a forced high concept, or needless overacting.
The cast is, as you would imagine, very comically proficient, and work hard to get the most out of McCullers script. Headliners Tina Fey and Amy Poehler take their natural roles as upstanding business woman and trashy wild child, respectively. As both friends and enemies they evoke a natural rapport that adds significantly to the film’s overall feel. Backing them up are some well cast supporting parts including Romany Malco as the wisecracking doorman, Sigourney Weaver playing a surrogate councillor with an ageless womb, Steve Martin as the hippy boss of a health food corporation (and proving that he can still be great in small doses), and the always likeable Greg Kinnear as a love interest for Fey. Only Dax Shephard gets a bum deal, playing yet another witless loser and squeezing very little out of him.
Despite the good performances, if there’s an area where the film starts to fall down it’s through the rather stereotypical characterisation. Kate is uptight and difficult because she values her career, while Angie is wild and a little bit kooky (she makes her own clothes, that’s how you know). Kate finds a guy who is the seemingly insurmountable essence of a ‘nice guy’, 
while Angie’s boyfriend is a scheming meathead. The health food director at Kate’s work is a new-age enthusiast who speaks in spiritual terms and rewards people with “5 minutes of uninterrupted eye contact”. Even though the odd couple narrative might not be a new concept, all the formulaic side characters do is to remind you how unoriginal it all is.
Putting that aside, Baby Mama is a decent feel-good comedy, with more than enough witty one-liners to see it through. Sure, it could have done with a few more big laughs, and you’ll see the end coming a mile off, but maybe that’s not completely a bad thing, as it lets you sit back and enjoy the journey. Both Fey and Poehler establish themselves as effective comic leads, which will no doubt lead to future Hollywood work - a fact not hurt by this film’s week at the US box office number one spot. But let’s just hope that they, and everyone else in Hollywood, gives the conception comedy a bit of a rest now. Or else it’s only a matter of time before we end up with another Junior.
Baby Mama is on UK general release from today.
Donkey Punch (2008) July 21, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Oliver Blackburn
A recent Guardian article presented Donkey Punch as a film brought about by, and created for, the ‘Skins generation’ - a reference to the popular television programme that typifies a new wave of youth (sometimes phonetically truncated to ‘yoof’) programming. This set a number of expectations in my mind, not least a copious emphasis on sex and drugs as the prominent components of any teenage existence. It was little surprise then, to discover a story that based its teenage narrative dilemma around both sex and drugs, all while managing to squeeze in a side-order of bloody violence.
The plot centres on a group of three girls, who venture from their hometown of Leeds out to the rather more temperate climes of Spain, to enjoy a holiday filled with drinking, dancing and decapitation. Well, that last one isn’t strictly on the to-do list, but once the girls take the ill-advised decision to go aboard a luxury yacht with a group of similar fun-loving boys, it quickly becomes par for the course. After an evening of offshore drug taking, an impromptu sex romp turns nasty when one of the lads attempts the infamous titular technique (Urban Dictionary will elucidate the curious). With one dead girl on their hands, the group disseminates into a panicking mess, from which their murderous intentions appear.
Taking the unbelievable predictability of it all aside, there are still faults that undermine any intentions the film has as an original piece of horror fiction. For all intents and purposes, this is a slasher movie for a generation who has grown out of slasher movies, and are left wanting after something that reflects ‘real life’ for 21st century teens. Or at least the real life they wish they were living. The problem with all these youth culture infected endeavours (see also: Skins, Kidulthood and Adulthood) is that they are dramatisations of lives that don’t align with a majority of people. Not a big deal on paper, but it does serve to hinder any kind of attachment to characters whose reckless antics turn them into two-dimensional propaganda for an impressionable audience.
The range of actors taking those roles is hardly a draw either, mostly consisting of casual UK television performers alongside one surname you might recognise. Jamie Winstone is the daughter of British acting veteran Ray Winstone, yet of all the girls, it is Nichola Burley who takes lead and wears her ‘most compassionate’ character badge pretty well. Other obvious character labels present in the film include ‘party animal girl’ (Winstone), ‘reckless party slut’ (Sian Breckin), and ‘the lads’, who consist of a variety of standard personalities from innocent onlooker to bullish alpha-male.
The actors and actresses involved make a decent attempt at bringing life to the shouting and chasing around, but there’s probably not enough content here for anyone to particularly stand out. Maybe this is where writers David Bloom and Oliver Blackburn (who also directs) show their inexperience - neither yet holds an impressive credit list. 
Meanwhile, Blackburn’s direction favours the handheld style, which allows for plenty of camera movement and full-frame close-ups. When he’s not lingering on sun-soaked bodies in the first half hour, the cinematography does a good job of showing off the beautiful Mediterranean locales and confined intimacy of the yacht.
Where Donkey Punch does manage to provide entertainment is through its smart use of accentuated violence, which makes up the later half of the film. It is notably visceral and worthy of the squirm-inducing reaction it is likely to provoke. Unfortunately, this same violence-with-the-gloves-off attitude also pushes the film into an 18 certificate, which is going to limit availability to the youngest of its enthusiastic demographic.
It’s hard to recommend such a flimsy excuse to watch teenagers go wild and then knock each other off, but in the wake of a slew of similar movies, this one is probably no better or worse. In the middle of all the summer blockbusters it’s going to have limited appeal, but I can see it finding an audience on DVD in a few months time, and it will no doubt entertain those who choose to actively seek it out. If you’re not into the new youth media revolution though, stay well away - Donkey Punch offers little beyond its intentionally rebellious subject matter.
Donkey Punch is currently on UK general release.
Wall-E (2008) July 17, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , 3 commentsDirected by: Andrew Stanton
It wasn’t too long ago that I was praising Pixar’s Ratatouille for breaking new ground in the CG animation world with its strong focus on narrative over comedy – a rarity in animated family fare. In doing so, the traditional joke-a-minute comic interludes were curtailed, as was some of the warm-hearted emotion present in previous films. A brave step forward indeed, especially as it came at the experience of excluding its youngest audience. Maybe, though, I jumped the gun a little, as Wall-E is about to prove that you can indeed have your cake, and compress it into a tiny cube too.
From a script and story by Finding Nemo director Andrew Stanton and Monsters, Inc. director Pete Docter, Wall-E is the story of one tiny waste compacting robot, left to clean up the mess on earth when humankind leaves for a temporary life of luxury out in space. Even though the humans never return, Wall-E keeps doing his job while collecting interesting artefacts from a world left to rot. One particular item, a copy of the musical film Hello Dolly!, gives the robot an insight into human love - something that his lonely existence is without. But that all changes when a spaceship brings the mysterious scouting robot Eve into his life, and the two become entangled in an adventure that takes them beyond the stars, to discover the fate of Earth’s remaining population.
Starting with the stuff that should be classed as a given by this point: the quality of the CG animation is top notch. Pixar, as the true pioneering force in this industry, have always paid great attention to their frames, which are as captivating in still form as they are in motion. Wall-E contains plenty of just such shots; from the opening cityscape that’s not all it first appears, to the space-age technology aboard the Axiom space station; you can be sure that the discerning eyes at Pixar settle for nothing less than perfection. If you’re fishing for a particular visual highlight, look no further than our hero’s first glide through space - a beautifully captured moment that lets you experience Wall-E’s wide-eyed glimpse of the world beyond his sky.
Speaking of cinematography, this movie also features a rather inventive use of ‘the camera’ as a visual determiner. One of last year’s many CG offerings was a surfing flick by the name of Surf’s Up, most notable for its ability to mimic a handheld documentary style through the use of camera effects that were, of course, entirely falsified by its animators. Wall-E is never this blatantly stylistic, and it’s notable how few even notice the subtle focus pulls and movements that help give the feel of a live-action movie. In fact, acclaimed cinematographer Roger Deakins (see: No Country for Old Men [review], The Assassination of Jesse James and The Shawshank Redemption, to name but a few) was consulted on visual aspects of the movie, so no wonder that the cumulative effect of the best CG animators in the business, and one of the best visual storytellers, means that for the first half at least, you’ll probably end up forgetting it isn’t all real.
It’s this near wordless opening half hour where Pixar really shows their muscle. Such an audacious Kubric-esque technique might not fit the family feature genre at first glance, but this is exactly what Pixar do: make the impossible, impossibly brilliant. It should also be noted that Kubric’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is clearly a favourite amongst the creators, made obvious through the numerous character and design nods. With boundaries suitably shattered, the wistful opening makes way for a more standard, action-packed second half, albeit with an acute grasp on its character development that never feels forced. Those who know Andrew Stanton from Finding Nemo will be only too aware that he can play your heartstrings like Vanessa Mae, and he does so again, almost revelling in it here, creating a deeply compassionate central character whose playful innocence and unhindered desire for company in a lonely world will tap your emotions dry.
So important is the conveyance of these feelings, and so limited is Wall-E’s vocabulary, that it brings forward the challenge of character design as a sole method for conveying emotion. In Wall-E himself, the design team have excelled themselves, creating an expressive character whose features add weight to his robotic warbling; warbling that is provided by sound designer Ben Burtt, who also plays many of the other robotic characters and is part of the smallest Pixar feature film cast list ever. Elissa Knight voices the iPod-styled Eve, while Jeff Garlin and Sigourney Weaver take voices aboard the Axiom space station. Also, look out for Fred Willard appearing in live action - a first for Pixar.
Finally, there’s a social significance behind the film that comes into clearer focus once the story leaves earth, and even though Stanton himself denies any political agenda, it is undeniably applicable to present day concerns. Unintentional or not, the inconvenient truth of it all never feels preachy, and so takes on the role of themed love story rather than ‘message movie’. Even with these background implications, there comes a point about half way through when you start to wonder where the film has left to go. Lucky, any fears are quickly put to rest when the plot takes a neat turn, leading to quite a tense final act.
Garnering almost unanimous critical praise on its US release, the simplicity of Wall-E hides all kinds of achievements. It dares to take a wordless approach to a medium that relies so heavily on vocal performance, while infusing a fantastic piece of sci-fi storytelling, and the most emotionally rich characterisation we’re likely to see this year. Once again, those tireless rogues at Pixar have poured their hearts into this project; a feat that becomes even more impressive when you realise that you’ve just become intensely attached to 97 minutes of robotic staccato vocalisations and beeps. But that’s Pixar’s magic: the ability to make you believe in whatever situation they present; and moreover, to make you care. On this occasion especially, you’d have to be made of metal not to.
Wall-E is on UK general release from July 18th.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008) July 13, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , 1 comment so farDirected by: Andrew Adamson
A second big screen outing for the Chronicles of Narnia series comes as no surprise, yet the cinematic landscape to which it returns now differs slightly from its debut back in 2005. The family fantasy genre was back-footed for the first time recently, when The Golden Compass proved that not every popular novel adaptation would guarantee a solid audience. Narnia has a rather more widespread fan base, but it still relies on the strength of each individual story. Prince Caspian, on its own, is a rather empty instalment.
The story picks up once again with the Pevensie children: Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy, as they are whisked away to their old home of Narnia, only to discover that 1000 years have passed. The once peaceful land is now overcast by a reign of tyranny, while the armies of the evil King Miraz keep traditional Narnian dwellers in hiding. Prince Caspian, a noble fugitive of the King’s army and potential heir to the throne, enlists himself to help the children as they re-establish their role as protectors of Narnia, and battle King Miraz out of the land.
If the plotline sounds familiar then you won’t be shocked to learn that Prince Caspian follows its first movie by presenting a very similar situation and following it through to the natural battle-sequence conclusion. This would be less of a problem, however, if there was actually anything more going on behind the scenes. This particular story is surprisingly bereft of content, which calls into question the need for 144 minutes to tell it. It’s not always that the film feels slow, but, as the hours pass, you quickly realise that very little of any importance is happening.
In fact, the film is padded to the hilt, no doubt to try and create some sense of ‘epic’ status. The worst offender of these styrofoam plot points involves the resurrection of a familiar face to those who saw the first movie, for what amounts to no reason whatsoever. It’s badly handled and under most circumstances would be doomed to the DVD deleted scenes graveyard. But in this case it still features, along with a whole host of other superfluous scenes, in a story that should have been wrapped up in well under two hours.
The child actors have all aged significantly, though none have come on as much as Georgie Henley, playing Lucy. She displays the most proficient acting ability in her increased role as the graceful innocent; meanwhile, everyone else has had their corners rounded off. For all his anger and foolhardiness, Peter (played by William Moseley) has very little edge to make him truly dangerous. Anna Popplewell’s Susan has the most feeble of romantic ties with the titular Prince, although quite why is anyone’s guess since she spend most of the film looking at him as if he is a plank of wood. Edmund (Skandar Keynes), on the other hand, has lost all his moody temperament and as a result, barely gets a significant event in the whole film.
Award for ‘Actively pointing out your flaws’ goes to Lucy for her conversation with Aslan where she asks: “why didn’t you come roaring in to save us like last time?”; “Things never happen the same way twice”, comes the unconvincing reply. We are, of course, denied any further explanation because by this point Aslan is too busy roaring in to save the children. Again. In truth, the whole series is hindered by this single character who is way too powerful and must be hidden away so as not to prematurely tip the balance.
On its US release, the film was pulled up for taking a much darker approach to violence than its kid-friendly original, although there’s some argument for the fact that most of the truly sinister elements have actually been removed from Prince Caspian. No longer are we treated to themes of guilt and betrayal such is the case with Edmond’s storyline in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, nor is the villain truly as intimidating or powerful. So yes, the battle quota is up, as are the undetailed slayings, but any true darkness – like that of the human soul – is undeniably absent.
As the neglected middle child in a trilogy of stories about the Pevensie family, Prince Caspian is not a terrible film. It’s perfectly entertaining in parts, with fairly proficient shot handling and a decent use of score to bolster the action. But the overall effect is badly let down by poor characterisation and a story that, on this occasion, just doesn’t do enough to warrant a return trip to Narnia.
Prince Caspian is currently on UK general release.