Author Archives: Owun Birkett

J. Edgar {Film Review}

Posted on by

There have been many portrayals of J. Edgar Hoover over the past few years in both TV and film. The last time I saw someone playing Hoover was Billy Crudup in Michael Mann’s Public Enemies in 2009. Now Clint Eastwood has decided to take a personal approach to the story (which resulted on the FBI claiming Eastwood making a bad representation of the man), with the help of Dustin Lance Black (from his Oscar-Winning screenplay and the heavily acclaimed, Milk) and Leonardo DiCaprio. You’d think on paper that these three particular individuals would produce something fascinating but it unfortunately doesn’t exceed on not being more than a moderately interesting biopic.

In case you don’t know what the story is from the movie’s title, it focus’s on the life of J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio). First seeing him in the 1960s when he was in his late 60s, he tells about how he came to work for the department of justice and worked his way up on being director of the FBI. Also encountering with Helen Gandy (Namoi Watts) and Hoover’s protege, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). It later focus’s on Hoover’s and Tolson’s personal relationship, first starting on being close friends to having something more.

The performances in this film is a bit mixed, but edging towards positive. DiCaprio reminds us why he’s the best at what he does and doesn’t show any signs of faltering. Hoover is presented to us on being authoritative but also conflicted on his social life. There’s various scenes where he spends time with his mother, played by Dame Judi Dench. Dench plays the character very well and shows where Hoover gets the commanding persona from. Though as much I love Dench (who doesn’t?), her accent is a bit hard to decipher (whether she’s from a different country or was trying but failing on putting an American accent). Naomi Watts kind of plays Hoover’s guardian angel type character, stands by Hoover no matter what situation he’s in and there’s not much else to her character. Hammer, from his brilliant performance as the Winklevoss twins from The Social Network, brings dramatic weight and nearly out-weighs DiCaprio. He’s someone that admires Hoover’s dedication and motivation but becomes conflicted when his feelings are not returned in the same way.

Dustin Lance Black’s script is very well written but the story structure felt a bit of a mess. Which is a huge shame because it could’ve been better on starting from the very beginning rather than going back and forth from the past to the present. Something of a misstep from Eastwood, as he’s done some great films in the past (Unforgiven, Mystic River and Changeling). Where the latter film was gripping on wanting to know if Christine Collins’ (played by Angelina Jolie) son will ever be found. Whilst in this movie, it was interesting to see J. Edgar on establishing the finer details on conducting proof and evidence from a crime to nail on a suspect but there wasn’t much to learn from him as a person. A scene involving with Hoover and Tolson in a hotel room was probably the most interesting scene from its entirety but outside of it there’s nothing much else. Something that writer Lance Black got right in Milk (where you could see the struggle from Harvey Milk at work and socially) and wished he could’ve worked more on Hoover’s personal story than essentially establishing the FBI.

Overall; a shame all this talent was put behind it and the result was just average. The performances is what keeps this movie going (especially from DiCaprio, that might earn him a nomination) but there’s nothing that makes it memorable compared to Eastwood’s previous work.

3 out of 5

The Rum Diary {Film Review}

Posted on by

The film has had a long developing process and delays that caused some concern whether this film will see the light of day (just like Thompson wrote the book in 1961 but never got published till 1998).

The first time Johnny Depp delved into the mind of Hunter S. Thompson was back in 1998 which he starred in a film called, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The film was directed by Terry Gilliam, known for his bizarre and surrealist work with Time Bandits, Twelve Monkeys and Brazil. It centered on two characters; Raoul Duke (Depp, impersonating the embodiment of Thompson) and his attorney, Dr. Gonzo (Benicio del Toro). They travel to Las Vegas to pursue the American dream but with some drug inducing results. It was a box-office failure, but slowly got a cult following. Thompson’s other autobiographical book, The Rum Diary, had been pursued by Hollywood since 2000. Going through different distributors, filmmakers and film stars (Thompson calling the whole long process a “waterhead fuckaround”). Eventually Thompson committed suicide in 2005 and Depp got financial backing along with Graham King (Oscar winning British producer of The Departed). Bruce Robinson joined in to adapt and direct the film. The film’s production lasted a year in Puerto Rico, Mexico and post-production took two years to complete. So the result is actually much better than one may expect but it isn’t entirely without faults.

Depp plays Paul Kemp, an American journalist who moves to Puerto Rico to work at The San Juan Star (comes in a day late for his interview). He then meets various interesting individuals; Bob Sala (Michael Rispoli), the news photographer. Moberg (Giovanni Ribisi), a political correspondent who likes to listen to Hitler’s speech and brings over 400% proof alcohol. Then there’s Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), a shady business man and his girlfriend, Chenault (Amber Heard). Depp gets involved on being part of Sanderson’s scheme on writing about his future development in Puerto Rico but also gets entangled with Chenault and things start to get bizarre.

The screenplay by Robinson is very witty and quite funny, the actors play their parts very well. Although Depp seems a bit miscast, as the character should be played by a younger actor (Thompson was 22 during the time he worked in Puerto Rico). though the story is where it falters. It starts off really well, introducing our character straight in from waking up an event that we only see the aftermath and then seeing the political stress of 1960s Mexico. Kemp then arriving for his interview, learning afterward he was the only applicant. Then the story at the second act goes a bit inconsistent, having a sub-plot between Kemp and Sanderson and a romance sub-plot that doesn’t feel developed. It all seems tacked on and out of place, though some argue that’s probably the point and all to do with Thompson’s unstructured psyche. Especially when he hangs out mostly with Bob, getting chased by locals and Kemp using Moberg’s alcohol as a flamethrower to defend themselves.

The cinematography is very nicely shot, seeing the different scenery of the setting and using high vibrant colours. The score is quite subtle, using jazz and orchestral music with the different tones and emotions going through the story.

Overall; not a complete waste of time but was unfortunately not up the league of comedy genius compared to Withnail & I. Thompson’s memory should’ve been blazing, but sadly only with a flicker.

3 out of 5

The Thing (2011) {Film Review}

Posted on by

*WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!*

As normal tradition with every year from the film industry, we’re treated to an unnecessary horror remake that didn’t need to be remade in the first place (I’m looking at you Michael Bay and your production company, Platinum Dunes!). So it would’ve been sooner or later that John Carpenter’s 1982 cult-classic, The Thing, would be up for grabs! The film was a remake to The Thing From Another World (1951), which itself was an adaptation of the 1938 short story, Who Goes There?. 2011’s The Thing, is a prequel set before the events of the 1982 film and shows us exactly what happened at the Norwegian base in Antarctica. Though the idea of seeing the events unfold isn’t something fans were desperately demanding to see and we can already establish what will happen without having to guess. So it comes to great shame that this version of The Thing is nothing more than a continuation of the unnecessary horror remake/prequel line.

The film starts out three members of the Norwegian team discovering the alien spaceship that was featured briefly in the first film. Then they recruit an American paleontologist, Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), ask her to come to the alien crash site in Antarctica and to study the specimen they also discovered. They bring back the frozen alien life form back to the base, though it eventually escapes. Causing chaos and destruction, whilst Kate finds out the creature can imitate other beings (in this case, other people) and therefore one of their team members could potentially be the alien.

The film obviously shows the filmmakers does not understand what made the original movie brilliant; it wasn’t about the monster but the horror was atmospheric. The pacing was slow but that’s what brought the suspense and tension, making you play detective on guessing who’s not human and who is. This film is more interested on killing each human character we barely got to know as quickly as possible, leaving our two heroes; Kate Lloyd, who is just a rip-off of Ellen Ripley from the Alien series. Braxton “Sam” Carter (played by Joel Edgerton) is a carbon copy of R.J. MacReady (played famously by Kurt Russell) but less charismatic and interesting. The characters in the first film had individual traits, which made them identifiable and somewhat likable that made you care what happens to them. The characters in this film get barely anything to work with and you could care less which one gets infected and dies.

The story is an exact copy of the original film, done maybe in different order but essentially a remake by the word. It also features quite a few plot-holes and stupid decisions from the filmmakers; if the ship worked all this time, why didn’t the alien just go and leave? If there was a Russian base mentioned at the end of the film, why didn’t the American base know about it in the original film? The film was written by Eric Heisserer, who also co-wrote the equally unnecessary horror remake, A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010). This is Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.’s feature film debut, as he only previously made a video and a short film (according to his IMDb page). He resorts to the horror clichés on having jump scares, mistaking it for creating scares when it doesn’t (and it gets really tiresome very quickly). The suspense and paranoia that was featured in the original is gone and it is just simply a generic monster film where it is survival for the fittest.

The visual effects in this film look terrible, and this is over reliance on CGI. The effects in the original film, done by legendary make-up maestro Rob Bottin, are much more affective because they’re practical and are more believable than seeing monsters done by computers. Though worst of all, seeing more of the creature is hard to suspend your disbelief and makes it less scary. The creature in the original was only shown with close-ups and viewed with other uses of lighting (flares, flash-lights etc.) It was more a creature to hide, never to attack full on. Another thing that this remake/prequel fails to attempt that the original succeeded.

Overall; as I keep mentioning through-out this review, John Carpenter’s 1982 masterpiece is, and will always be, the best! It is far more scary and is done with a lot more care. As Carpenter once said to Empire magazine in 1997; “You’ll never, ever, see anything like The Thing again.” Looks like it will be a long while till we do!

2 out of 5

The Avengers (2012) trailer

Posted on by

There hasn’t been a movie so massive in anticipation and scale since The Dark Knight back in 2008. Now Marvel has completed on introducing our main characters; Captain America, Iron Man and Thor, it’s time for the inevitable team-up that has been teasing us with each end-credits scene. On October 11th, we finally get an official teaser trailer of The Avengers.

The trailer shows us that Tom Hiddleston’s Loki will be the film’s main antagonist, but his motives are unclear (world domination or simply causing chaos?). We also get a glimpse of Captain America’s and Thor’s new costume change (not to mention Thor’s hair extension). Each giving witty comebacks, such as Steve Rogers saying;

Steve Rogers: Big man in a suit of armour. Take that away, what are you?
Tony Stark: Er a genius, billionaire playboy and philanthropist.

This is all to be expected from writer/director Joss Whedon, whose previous works are Angel, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly (we’ll just ignore he wrote Alien Resurrection).

From the look of this teaser, it really does show Loki to be more an intimidating villain than he was in Thor. Then we also get to see Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye in action and can’t not have shots of Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow doing what she knows best. Although we see both Captain America and Thor battling it out in a forest?

It gives a sigh of relief that Joss Whedon does know what he’s doing and does seem to deliver the spectacle but also great characterisation. Though he’s got some strong competition against Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros./DC Comics with The Dark Knight Rises. All will be revealed when the film is released on 4th May, 2012.

Official website; http://marvel.com/movies/movie/152/marvels_the_avengers?fullscreen=1

The Avengers teaser trailer on Apple iTunes; http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/marvel/avengers/

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011) trailer

Posted on by

I will talk about the trailer in a bit, but first some context for those who are diving straight in without knowing this particular film. As we all know, it is based on a Swedish novel (and first in the Millennium trilogy) by the late Stieg Larsson and has already been adapted as a TV-movie in 2009 (starring Michael Nyqvist as Mikael Blomkvist and Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth Salander). It received three BAFTA nominations (including Best Leading Actress – Noomi Rapace and Best Adapted Screenplay), though it left with one; Best Film not in the English Language.

It wouldn’t be long till Hollywood would decide to grab their hands on it and develop their own version. It cause some outcry and some saying that it should be left alone. I will admit, I was pretty adamant on the idea of a Hollywood version of the novel/TV-movie. Though the talent behind it started to make me have some sigh of hope; they recruited Steven Zaillian to adapt the novel (previous credits – Schindler’s List, Gangs of New York and American Gangster) and David Fincher was hired to direct the film (previous credits – Se7en, Fight Club and The Social Network) Who was going to play the leading players? Daniel Craig (Casino Royale) as troubled yet talented journalist and Rooney Mara (The Social Network) as the socially awkward goth/punk hacker. This is a team that no one could ask anymore better from them! Fincher, especially, is in familiar ground; a dark mystery thriller that practically runs in his veins.

Now our questions were what was the film going to look like? Would the actors attempt to pull a Swedish/English dialect? Well the look is very slick and top notch, Rooney Mara really becomes Salander but actually more like a punk/goth than Rapace did (sorry fans of the original movies but I quite like this new Salander). It features the Oscar winning composers, Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross, music in the trailer (Reznor even created a cover of ‘Immigrant Song’ by Led Zeppelin with Karen-O for the teaser trailer). Even the trailer runs at 3 minutes and 40 seconds (usually average running time for a theatrical trailer is 2 minutes 30 seconds) reveals only enough to not spoil anything for those who have not read the book or seen the previous films.

My reaction to the trailer? I cannot wait for it! It has moved from being number 2 to number 1 on my most anticipated list (http://frostmagazine.com/2011/03/top-most-anticipated-movies-of-2011/). Plus it’s directed by David Fincher! Do I need to explain why that’s a good thing? As you’ve seen from his credits, he has made a movie that everyone likes! What do you think? Are you excited for it as much as I am or do you think it should’ve been left alone from the very start?

Drive {Film Review}

Posted on by

There is nothing quite like a film by Nicolas Winding Refn to be compared with! The strange eerie blur of reality and surrealism, often combined together to make a bizarre and ever-lasting experience. Drive, which is based on the novel of the same name by James Sallis, was an experience like you take a scenic route in the calm areas and then get assaulted with its throttled engine when speeding up the highway. If there’s anything these type of movies that get it right, it’s from the writing and directing. I can also say it was a damn good experience to watch!

The story is about a nameless person, only goes by the name of ‘Driver’ (Ryan Gosling); during the day, he’s a part-time stunt performer and mechanic at an auto-repair shop (owned by Shannon, played by ‘Breaking Bad”s Bryan Cranston) but by night, he serves as a getaway driver for heists. Meanwhile, he slowly gets to know Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son Benicio. The ‘Driver’ gets involved into another job but it, unfortunately, goes horribly wrong.

Ryan Gosling delivers a subtle performance as the man with no name, you can sense there is something much deeper in him than you may think. He is motivated on the simple things in life, never regrets anything and keeps on going on living. The interactions between Gosling and Mulligan may have little to no dialogue but it is sweet and gentle. It doesn’t resort to conventional smutlzy romance we’re all accustomed to, it comes off something natural and Mulligan brings the heart to the film. Though the scene-stealer is from Albert Brooks, who plays the brutally honest Bernie Rose. He’s not the stereotypical mobster, he’s the type of man who’d kill someone if he had to but would do it as a last resort. The rest of the supporting cast are all superb in their own right, have little screen-time but all have their own importance to the story.

Newton Thomas Sigel’s cinematography is absolutely gorgeous to look at, from the various night shots of L.A. to the car chases (only two of them through-out the duration). There are moments where you are transfixed to its beauty and you are also tensed when it comes to the chases. The editing is very put together, not too fast paced so we get a clear idea on what’s going on within the scene. It all makes homages to the classic 60s/70s car chases of ‘Bullitt’ etc. It all just puts the ‘Fast and the Furious’ franchise into shame and Refn just shows how it’s all done. The soundtrack is equally as superb, capturing the essence of its pulpy story-line but also delivering this dreamy quality that maybe represents the ‘Driver’s’ psyche.

Overall; easily one of the best movies of 2011 and such a unique film that serves as both art-house and pulp cinema! Refn is one of the best living filmmakers to date and should get recognised for his direction in this film. It doesn’t rely on the spectacle, it relies on the craft of the writing and performances.

4 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Posted on by

*WARNING! MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!*

After ten years, the end of the Harry Potter saga has finally come to an end. It is one of the most anticipated summer blockbuster movies of 2011 and it is just as insanely popular when the book was released at our local bookstores. The result is just as exciting as you’d expect a movie finale.

The story continues as Harry, Ron, and Hermione continue to destroy Voldemort’s last remaining Horcruxes (each individual item Voldemort has put his soul to make himself immortal). Meanwhile, Hogwarts is under the control of Death-Eaters and Dementors. The story is just continues straight from Part 1 and you can really feel Harry’s struggle to destroy the last remaining Horcruxes. Even showing Voldemort slowly, and eventually, growing more vulnerable as the story progresses. For those who have read the books, it won’t come to any surprise with the few twists here and there (i.e. Ciarán Hinds as Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth Dumbledore). A lot is at stake and director David Yates really dwells on that very well! The only problem I have is the time duration; Part 1 was 2 hours and 26 minutes, this film is only 2 hours 10 minutes long. It feels a lot shorter than it says, when it honestly should have been a lot longer to really show the epic story and scale of the production.

The performances from the three main leads are nothing to write about but they have improved over the years during the film series run. The film features an amazing British ensemble cast; Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, Julie Walters and even David Yates collaborator Kelly Macdonald (State of Play mini-series and The Girl in the Café) gets an appearance as Helena Ravenclaw. As much it is fantastic to see such huge names in a film like Harry Potter, the time duration comes to affect and limits their screen-time. Fiennes, however, does show he is having a lot of fun playing Voldemort but also shows a twisted charismatic presence you don’t get a lot from villains nowadays.

The production value is top-notch, you can see a lot of effort and care has been put on this epic finale. The sets look fantastic, the visual effects look dazzling and the orchestral score (by Alexandre Desplat) really brings the emotional core to the story and overall film. The final battle between Harry and Voldemort is rather intense but it all feels rushed and quite lacking compared to other epics (The Lord of the Rings). Though Warner Bros. doesn’t pull any stops and really does deliver quite an event.

Overall; it is the film Harry Potter fans want from a finale and it is the best in the series. Not quite as the big bang it was anticipating but still has enough to keep you satisfied through-out. You can’t deny the Harry Potter film series will have Hollywood keep its eye on British filmmaking and finding talent overseas. An immensely well made production, strongly recommended.

4 out of 5

The Amazing Spider-Man teaser trailer hits the Web*

Posted on by

As the teaser trailer for the hotly anticipated, The Dark Knight Rises, was shown before Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 on Friday (then released online on Monday this week), Marvel has finally shown us a trailer their upcoming reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man (2 minutes and 30 seconds of it, if I may add).

It doesn’t reveal too much but you can really tell the difference in tone between Sam Raimi’s and Marc Webb’s superhero debut. What it does show is its ensemble cast, featuring Andrew Garfield (The Social Network), Emma Stone (Easy A), Rhys Ifans (Enduring Love), Martin Sheen (Apocalypse Now) and Sally Field (Forest Gump). This features the basic origin story, but Garfield’s Peter Parker falls for Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy (previously played by Bryce Dallas Howard in Spider-Man 3) rather than for Mary Jane Watson.

The standout scene from the trailer is the first-person view of Spider-Man leaping and free-running on top of buildings. Although, as many pointed out, it does look a bit like the video game, Mirror’s Edge. It still, however, gives us an idea what sort of direction we’re going to be given nonetheless.

So what are your thoughts on this particular reboot? Yay or nay?

Link to the trailer; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKGZtp–0R4

* I know I’m not the first to come up with that title but I couldn’t resist to be part of it!