SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR: SPOILER-FREE DVD-REVIEW

If it isn’t broke why fix it? That certainly was the thought going in when they created Die Hard 2: Die Harder, when they did The Hangover Part II and finally they’ve gone and done it again with Sin City: A Dame To Kill For, the only problem is that the first two didn’t wait nine f**king years to give us the same sh*t twice!

Writer, Director, Comic Creator Frank Miller brings us the second installment to the hyper-stylized, hyper-violent Film Noir series based on his original comic book run with the help of Trouble-Maker Robert Rodriguez, who shares directing duties once again. Like the first one, we have a series of interwoven stories that show us the seedy underbelly of a town called Sin City, a town filled with criminals, strippers, crooked politicians, hookers, hard-boiled civilians, more strippers, chronic gamblers, even more hookers, and evil women who betray men (who might be hookers or strippers). Essentially women do not fair well in the world of Frank Miller - they’re either whores or dead and maybe, he needs to seek some professional help if that’s the way he views the world.

The film itself is beautifully shot and crafted. Each frame of this film could easily be mounted on your wall as a piece of art. There have been some great casting choices, particularly when replacing cast members who unfortunately past away during the nine year hiatus. The true highlights are Josh Brolin and Eva Green’s inclusion in the series. Josh Brolin naturally has the weathered face and voice of a hard-nosed detective whilst Eva Green looks like the perfect amalgamation of all the best parts of a classic femme-fatale. She is beautiful, seductive and ruthless, she really feels like she was born for this world.

Unfortunately, time has not been kind to this film. Nine years later, this sequel highlights the blatant misogynistic approach that was undertaken in the first film and the comic book series. Time, and plastic surgery, has not been kind to poor Mickey Rourke. It looks like a fat person has put on a Mickey Rourke mask and then put on the Marv make-up and prosthetics over the top of that. His performance is quality as always but it’s very distracting when you look at him throughout this film, his face just looks too bloated. Nine years has lead to Bruce Willis sleepwalking through another role, whilst poor Jessica Alba brings one of the most comedically funny performances of her career to life, what a pity she was playing her role seriously.

One of the biggest issues with this film is that the stories literally go nowhere. Each narrative feels pointless and often this is because the stories have endings that have no real payoff and are filled with characters that you don’t care for. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s storyline is the cinematic definition of a wet-fish, despite Levitt’s best efforts the story is dull and uneven, but most importantly you can see that Miller either didn’t care or didn’t know how to end Levitt’s story so just puts a literal bullet to the head of narrative.

The other really big issue is that Frank Miller is a relic that refuses to evolve. After the first film, he followed it up with a carbon-copy called ‘The Spirit’ and this showed that he was a one-trick pony, who amazingly gave the world Samuel L. Jackson’s dullest performance ever. After nine years, nothing has changed; he’s still the same bitter, racist, misogynist who is still living stubbornly in the past. It is well known that Miller has been unwell for quite some time and, as a fan, I do hope he recovers to bring us a story that redeems him as one of our great storytellers, but... 

Unfortunately, this long-awaited sequel was not worth the wait.

One and a half stars, and that’s being generous.  









 

SELMA: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW:

Oscar-baiting... It sounds like a real dirty word, like the kind of thing you’d be panicked about your parents walking in on. In many cases for films released during Oscar season it is a dirty word. Yes Selma is Oscar-baiting, but not in a bad way.

Unfortunately though the film has been overlooked for the Oscars with several major snubs being part of a larger discussion. Of course with 93% of the Academy being white, 76% being male and the median age being 63 it’s understandable that they need to ensure that they make room for Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper especially considering they absolved their white guilt last year with ’12 Years a Slave.’ 

Based on the events of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s protests, demonstrations and speeches in the lead-up to securing equal voting rights, we find ourselves in Selma, Alabama, where even 50 years ago, people of colour were not allowed to vote. Documenting the political perspectives and approaches from both sides of the fence this film does really well at not rushing through or glossing over the important factors depicted in this film.

The cast and performances are all impressive, none more so than David Oyelowo whose depiction of Martin Luther King is pitch-perfect. From his mannerisms to the intonation in his voice to the sheer delivery of his lines you can close your eyes and hear Dr. King or simply mute the sound and believe you are watching the genuine article. Tim Roth brings the slime as Governor George Wallace so much so that you just want to punch him in his stupid, smarmy red-neck face whilst Tom Wilkinson plays President Johnson with both authority and layers. The rest of the cast is solid in every way shape and form with some surprise cameos from quality actors who you know said yes because Oprah picked up the phone to some great Wire alumni serving as Dr. King’s council.

There are some uncomfortable moments within the film due to the nature of the violence however it is the clever use of cinematography that often leaves a lot of the violence and disturbing thematic themes implied and left to our imagination. One of the other great aspects of the film’s cinematography is the use of framing, often choosing to give us very tight close-ups of character’s faces; this could be considered confronting at times but what it does so well is remind us as an audience that this is a human story.

And finally for once we have a Biopic that doesn’t begin at a pivotal moment in a person’s life and then flashes back to see how they got there. This is something that has almost become cliche in Biopics, this film begins with an important moment in the life of Dr. King and then tells the story chronologically. This is a very wise choice because the film focuses on the events in Selma; the discussions, debates, violence and repercussions of the struggle that occurred. Flashing back to Martin Luther King’s childhood serves no purpose in this story and it’s great to see the filmmakers not caving into the pressure to conform to the modern-day Biopic.

Beautifully shot, powerfully performed by everyone involved and delivering more detail and insight than last year’s ‘Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom‘ this is one of those films that has the right to claim that it was overlooked by the Academy.

Selma gets Four and a half out of Five impassioned speeches.

TAKEN 3: SPOILER-FREE REVIEW

 
You know how The Hangover Part III didn't actually feature a "hangover", well the third in the series of Taken movies also doesn't feature anyone being "taken". This is a little better than the last Hangover film however that's not really saying much.

Liam Neeson returns as the former CIA operative who still has an unnatural obsession with his daughter, a thing for his ex-wife and struggles with grasping an American accent and saying words like Bagel. This time he remains in America but still manages to punch some Europeans in the throat as he is framed for his wife's murder and has to go on the run from the police and protect the only thing he has left in his life: his daughter.

The original Taken revitalised Liam Neeson's career and moved him from Schindler's List to Liam's Fists and made him an action star for the new milenium, and as great Taken was it has lead to almost every film Neeson has done since feeling like a different version of Taken. The series introduces Forest Whitaker as a cop assigned to hunting Neeson down and he does his usual quirky performance which in some ways comes off like the parody he did of himself in American Dad complete with weird elastic band fetish and new found bagel obsession.

It's directed by Olivier Megaton, which sounds just like the name Michael Bay wishes he could change it to via the Department of Name Changes, he made third (and blandest) Transporter film and directed the last Taken movie. The action is good, but nothing we haven't seen before ! It's almost an action by numbers scenario, with the exception of one very inventive way of taking the elevator.

There's something really creepy about a father knowing all the movements of his daughter regardless of the fact she's a fully grown adult now. I mean seriously, does your Dad know the kind of yogurt you pick up on the way to College on some random Tuesday? If so, report him that sounds dangerous.

This film does get lazy in many respects often not bothering to explain how Neeson escapes some impossibly tight situations. And I'm not kidding you when I say that his car is pushed off a cliff whilst he is inside, rolls down the hill leaving a crumpled mess only to explode in spectacular fashion when it hits the ground, only to have him walk back up the hill in the next scene almost totally unscathed. It does go some way to explaining how he survived this but it still stretches your bullshit-meter. Another letdown is the villain in the film, who is unfortunately too obvious just based on the casting alone, the fact that the twist takes so long to reveal itself is frustrating enough but when it finally happens you're like "we know, everyone saw that coming just punch him in the throat and kill him already."

Fingers crossed this is the last in the series and it doesn’t have a Live Free or Die Taken and A Good Night to Take Hard still in the pipeline. Let Neeson go out with the dignity that Bruce Willis never could.

Taken 3 gets Two out of Five punches to a European’s throat.

BIRDMAN: SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEW:

Batman could win an Oscar, not Affleck, he's already won two - we're talking about the original, and some say the best, Batman: Michael Keaton.

The Golden Globe winning film Birdman has finally hit our shores and follows a washed up actor who once played a superhero named, funnily enough, Birdman. In an effort to revitalise his career and move on from being "the answer in a Trivial Pursuit question" he develops a stage play that he will write, direct and star in. Amidst all the pressure of the developing production Keaton's character battles depression and a grasp on reality.

Let's get this out of the way first: the unique selling point for this film is the fact that it is presented as one continuous shot. This has been done, almost seamlessly, thanks to motion controlled cameras, clever editing and detailed colour-correction to help match shots. Amazingly though, the film is not shot in real-time but rather uses the camera movements to create transitions between days, locations and time in an almost effortless fashion. It's great if you just go with it and don't spend all your time looking for where they cut the take.

Now Michael Keaton's casting in this film falls very much in line with Mickey Rourke playing Randy 'The Ram' Robinson in 'The Wrestler' or Ben Affleck playing Nick Dunn in 'Gone Girl'; the line between character and actor begins to blur. The similarities to Keaton's career, as an aging actor who once played an iconic superhero, make him the perfect choice for this 'art imitating life/imitating art' role and much like Rourke and Affleck, he revels in the character.

The performances are all stellar with some real career benders for some: Zach Galafanakis drops the bearded weirdo routine for an authentically stressed best friend/agent/lawyer, whilst Emma Stone brings a fragility to a role where she'd normally play the sassy confident female lead and Ed Norton brings a volatile, combustible performance to his ego-driven arty asshole actor role. But the real stars are Michael Keaton and Naomi Watts who bring the hurt and the pain of being actors of a certain age in an actors world.

Those expecting a comedy be warned, this is a dark tale with only elements of black comedy. It shows the darker cynical side of the acting and entertainment world. There's self-loathing, anxiety, delusions of grandeur, antagonism, sexual inadequacies and ego, lots and lots of ego.

Ultimately this film is a comment on theater and film and the art of acting. For the most part it covers all aspects of this world and raises some good questions, and points out some important factors about acting. Granted those points probably make you want to have a shower afterwards but that’s just part of the journey in this film.

Birdman gets Four and a half out Five fingers crossed for Batman’s Oscar acceptance speech.

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES: SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEW:

The problem with prequels, you’re always asking the same questions. Questions like, ‘why didn’t they use that weapon in the original trilogy?’ or ‘where were those creatures in the first three films?’ or ‘why build the tension with this character? Especially when you know they survive for the films set after these prequels?’ or most importantly, ‘why do these characters look older than they did in the first set of films when they are supposed to be younger here?’ These are just a few of the questions you’ll be asking when you watch The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. 

The final chapter of the 300-page novel that precedes The Lord of the Rings series has finally been released and the biggest question, why did it take three films to tell a 300-page story, is also the easiest to answer, money. The film tells the story of ‘five armies‘ battling it out for all the riches in a mountain and in the middle of all this, Bilbo Baggins - a ring-obsessed thief who claims not to be a thief yet seems so very good at it. It is a story of obsession, deception and redemption in varying forms.

Director Peter Jackson brings everything you’ve come to expect from these films: large sweeping camera movements, large-scale pixelated armies and long-stretching choreographed fight-sequences that often border on the absurd. All these elements have been mimicked by filmmakers ever since The Fellowship of the Ring but Jackson still does it the best, however, in this final installment it feels like some of this has been to his detriment.

The film does have some unintentionally funny moments such as the arrival of the ‘five armies’, before the big battle begins it feels like a bad Ron Burgundy TV news anchor battle sketch where you are half-expecting Ben Stiller and Will Ferrell to suddenly show up and enter the battle. The Orcs, who are born and bred for war, are about as effective as Stormtroopers, which makes you wonder why they are considered a threat in the first place. And let’s just quickly touch on the ‘five armies’, I only counted four at a push, I mean Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Orcs, not really sure who the other army is.... Do Eagles count as an army, because once again, when all else fails, Eagles solve everything.

Jackson has always been one to push the boundaries of technology and it is good to see that he sticks to his guns, unfortunately after three films, the High Frame Rate (HFR) has not shown these films in their best possible light. Yes, the picture quality is crystal clear but the CGI becomes increasingly more obvious, especially when paired up with live actors. Any sequences where characters are running or fighting have a ‘Benny Hill‘ quality to them and when a scene hasn’t been colour-corrected, it stands out painfully like you’ve gone from watching a David Fincher film to watching an episode of Doctor Who, with no disrespect to Doctor Who.    

From a narrative perspective, this is just a mess. The film begins immediately after the last one ended which drives home once again what a non-ending the last film was and the film revolves essentially around one long battle. Martin Freeman is good as always but completely underused as he is hardly featured in the film with the story often focusing on Thorin, or Legolas, who was never in the original book, or a Dwarf/Elf love-story, that yet again, was never in the original book. With the exception of Thorin, many of these stories and other characters never originally in the book could easily have been removed with no effect to the story. Thankfully, there are not seventeen endings to finish this trilogy but what we do have is some of the longest and most drawn out character deaths in cinematic history which, at times, will almost have you saying ‘just die already!’

So the Middle Earth Saga is finally over, well until the completely unnecessary Extended Edition with more Dwarfy/Elf love/tension scenes and more small-town politics discussions. Hopefully though we’ll also be treated to a condensed edition where they edit all three films down into one less bloated version of the book, you know, like they did with the original trilogy.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies gets three out of five prayers that Peter Jackson will just leave Middle Earth alone after all this.