Netflix And Chill: The Tourist (2010)

A remake of a French film from five years earlier, The Tourist is a film that somehow gained a notorious reputation for just how bad it was. And I'm here to say that it's not actually that bad. It's not very good either, but it's a relatively easy watch with a couple of photogenic stars trying to deliver star turns amidst a number of plot twists that feel increasingly ridiculous as we hurtle towards the welcome relief of the end credits.

Angelina Jolie is Elise, a woman being constantly surveilled by people who want to catch her communicating with her ex, Alexander Pearce. Inspector John Acheson (Paul Bettany) is heading up the surveillance team, and he answers to Chief Inspector Jones (Timothy Dalton). Pearce is responsible for stealing billions of dollars from a mobster, Reginald Shaw (Steven Berkoff), but he's wanted by the authorities because he owes hundreds of millions in back taxes. As a ploy to keep the police on their toes, Elise chooses a random stranger (Frank Tupelo, played by Johnny Depp) to befriend on her travels. That starts everyone thinking that Tupelo is actually Pearce, which puts him in a lot of hot water.

Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Julian Fellowes and one Christopher McQuarrie, The Tourist is arguably most hampered by the fact that it's not really any one thing. While it was nominated in the "musical or comedy" categories at the 2011 Golden Globes, it's not exactly a laugh-riot. It's also never too tense or thrilling, despite the director himself calling it a "travel romance with thriller elements" (according to Wikipedia, so feel free to take that with a pinch of salt). That's a real shame, especially when you have two stars who are more than capable of looking as if they can adequately deal with numerous onscreen death-defying escapades. It also makes it harder to be distracted as one coincidence piles upon another in each subsequent scene.

I didn't mind it though, and I'm used to watching films that I don't rush to place in any one category. There's something enjoyably old-fashioned about the structure, although it's harder for films to be sold as travelogues in an age when seeing the sights of the world is easier than it was back when every early Bond movie was the absolute height of the thrilling and the exotic.

Depp and Jolie are both decent enough choices for the lead roles. The former can do the slightly bumbling and befuddled act, the latter can seem graceful and beautiful and dangerous with seemingly very little effort. Bettany has to become more and more agitated as the film plays out, but it would have been better to see the mess around him increase exponentially with his irritation and anger. Dalton is used sparingly, but is an ever-welcome presence in movies, and Berkoff is unsurprisingly believable as a hard-hearted gangster out for vengeance. Rufus Sewell also has a couple of scenes, but his role could have easily been played by absolutely anyone, and the rest of the cast feels quite bland and anonymous (perhaps just to my unobservant mind, although it would seems like a decision was made to save money elsewhere to give the leads a bumper payday and pay for the scenic locations).

I'm never going to rewatch this, unless forced, and it's not one I'll ever recommend to others. I didn't find it a pain to watch though, and the 103-minute runtime passed by easily enough. It's light, daft, and completely implausible, but I could name you 100 other films that are similar, but with just enough minor improvements to help them avoid the reputation that this has. 

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Netflix And Chill: The Ninth Gate (1999)

While people have a number of different reasons for holding whatever opinions they have on director Roman Polanski, something that isn't mentioned enough is the simple fact that he has never equalled his cinematic output of the 1960s and 1970s. That's not to say that he hasn't made some very good films in more recent decades, but they're certainly not his best, and some are perhaps given a bit more leeway because of his name being attached to them. The Ninth Gate is one of those lesser films, and you can still find many people who champion it as a fine modern horror movie . . . which I think proves my point.

Johnny Depp plays Dean Corso, a rare book dealer who is hired by Boris Balkan (Frank Langella) to locate and check over copies of a book that supposedly gives the reader the chance to summon the devil. This job leads to Corso crossing paths with Liana Telfer (Lena Olin) and Baroness Kessler (Barbara Jefford), two women who may be in possession of the valuable texts. It also leads to him encountering a mysterious woman (Emmanuelle Seigner) who may want to help him, but could easily be seeking to frustrate his ongoing attempt to complete his task. The more that Corso investigates the book, the more he starts to see things that become harder to explain rationally.

Adapted from a novel, 'El Club Dumas', by Arturo Pérez-Reverte, The Ninth Gate has a screenplay by Polanski, John Brownjohn (who collaborated with the director on 4 or 5 movies), and Enrique Urbizu, that feels exactly in line with what Polanski wants to deliver. It's another one of his films that walks a tightrope in between horror and comedy, but that tightrope-walk is something that Polanski managed much more successfully in many of his earlier movies. Give me the inspired madness of The Tenant or Cul-de-sac. Please don't give me something else that reminds me of the ridiculous Bitter Moon.

Depp is fine in the main role, although he plays a character so unflappable that the third act fails to provide any real tension, but there are a few treats to be had in the supporting cast. Langella is his usual formidable presence, and plays his part with an admirably straight face. Olin does well, up to a point, but the screenplay sets out to make her character very silly by the time she is given a more active role in the second half of the film. Jefford is excellent, helped by the fact that she seems to be more savvy to what is really going on, and she doesn't seem to be as easily manipulated as other people in the movie. Seigner does what is asked of her, and I won't waste time being too rude about her appalling inability to give anything close to a decent performance. There's a good reason that her biggest movie roles seem to have been in movie directed by Polanski AKA her husband.

There's a decent score from Wojciech Kilar, some shots look nice enough (I guess), but there aren’t many more compliments I can give it. I will begrudgingly admit that one or two moments of humour work, especially one moment in which a character essentially berates a group of satanic cult members as nothing more than ignorant cosplayers, but that’s a rare moment that works in a movie that runs for just over two hours. If this wasn’t directed by Polanski, it would have been series and dismissed immediately, and completely forgotten by now.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Astronaut's Wife (1999)

Part Quatermass movie, part Rosemary's Baby, The Astronaut's Wife could easily be titled Rosemary's Space Baby and nobody would complain.

Charlize Theron plays Jillian Armacost, the wife of an astronaut named Spencer (Johnny Depp). While up in space on a mission, contact was lost with Spencer and his flight partner, Alex (Nick Cassavetes). All seems fine when they get back to Earth, although Spencer and Alex are put through a number of tests. Sherman Reese (Joe Morton) thinks differently, however, and ends up trying to warn people who don't want to hear his "paranoia".

The only feature both written and directed by Rand Ravich, and it soon becomes clear why that is, The Astronaut's Wife is a plodding melodrama with no tension, no originality, and one or two scenes that use some ill-advised CGI to create some kind of set-piece highlight.

It also wastes what could have been a great cast. Theron has to watch her husband while looking tense and worried, obviously. Depp isn't in his self-parody stage yet, but it's not a great central turn from him (I think  he's always struggled to play anyone who seems . . . "normal"). Cassavetes makes no impression, while Donna Murphy, playing his wife, is disappointingly underused. Morton is good, as is Clea DuVall (playing the sister of Theron's character), and there are decent little supporting turns from Blair Brown, Tom Noonan, and Samantha Eggar, but Ravich clearly does nothing to help any of them.

At no point does Ravich do enough to make his movie more than a full waiting game between points A to B, to C and beyond, which is a real shame. Not only that, he refuses to then take the other approach that could have been more entertaining, a simple lean in to the potential horror and craziness of the concept. So you get a restrained horror that wants to be a mystery, but has no sense of mystery. The score by George S. Clinton is underwhelming, and there's not even any aspect of the film that is accidentally impressive (from the production design to the cinematography, it's all just . . . there).

Probably forgotten by everyone involved as soon as get settled into the 21st century, The Astronaut’s Wife is best also forgotten by anyone who might think about watching it. It is a big waste of time. Maybe not as terrible as some glossy movies, it’s still criminally dull for almost the entirety of the runtime. 

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Ani-MAY-tion: Sherlock Gnomes (2018)

I am going to start this review with a confession that probably won't shock many of you. I quite enjoyed Gnomeo & Juliet. I know, I know, the bright visuals, the puns, the Shakespeare references, the puns, the voice cast, the Elton John songs, and the puns. It was a strange mix that worked for me. So when they decided to bring out a sequel, utilising the influence of Sherlock Holmes, I figured that it would probably amuse and entertain me. That was not the case.

The plot is, at the heart of it, very simple. A load of gnomes are going missing throughout London, leaving the mystery to be solved by Sherlock Gnomes (Johnny Depp) and Watson (Chiwetel Ejiofor). This coincides with some tension between Gnomeo (James McAvoy) and Juliet (Emily Blunt) as the pair settle in to their new London home, alongside the other garden residents. When Gnomeo is also snatched away, Juliet has to team up with Sherlock, who is insufferably dismissive of those who help him. This crime must be the work of Moriarty (Jamie Demetriou), surely, despite the fact that he seemed to be squished/smashed in the opening sequence.

Sherlock Gnomes is bright and colourful, just like its predecessor, and it has some Elton John tunes here and there. That's where the similarity ends. The merging of the various elements just doesn't work well at all, leaving a bit of a mess that will satisfy none but the youngest viewers, who can at least be kept entertained by the main characters.

Director John Stevenson fails to wrestle the script, by Ben Zazove, into anything close to a decent adventure. The few set-pieces fail to impress, the humour falls flat, and, perhaps worst of all, the character of Sherlock is made into something almost unrecognisable. Okay, he LOOKS familiar, but that is it. I MIGHT have missed some references, but this also felt very lazy in the plotting and script, missing out on any opportunity to reference the great selection of cases that Sherlock Holmes fans would be aware of. It smacks of something put together without any enthusiasm or care.

Depp isn't actually bad in his voice role, although I am sure Holmes purists will balk at the very idea, and Ejiofor is equally good alongside him (although his Watson is even further removed from the character that we know and love, all for the sake of a lazy and obvious plot turn in the third act). Demetriou is fine as a non-menacing Moriarty, but you do get a couple of decent villains in the shape of a pair of gargoyles (voiced by Dexter Fletcher and Javone Prince) and Mary J. Blige as a female character named Irene. Blunt and McAvoy are good, once again, in the lead roles, and the supporting cast includes Ashley Jensen, Matt Lucas, Stephen Merchant, and Ozzy Osbourne.

And I almost forgot to mention the Elton John songs, but that's because the film feels as if it almost forgot to include any. You get snippets here and there, and musical motifs interspersed throughout the score, but this is done in a way that is much more jarring than it was in the first gnome-filled tale. That had two main focal points, the Shakespeare-inspired love story and the songs. This has the tale of two garden-dwelling lovers, the central mystery to be solved by Sherlock, and the songs. That may not seem like too many plates to spin but it's obviously one too many, leading to all three becoming more and more wobbly until they fall and smash on the ground.

While it didn't actually pain me to watch it, Sherlock Gnomes was a massive disappointment. And it could have easily been on a par with the first film, if anyone had cared about what they were making.

4/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy it here.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald (2018)

LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPENT!

That's the main thing I took away from Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald, a film that proves, in no small measure, that the Wizarding World movie universe, once a consistent stream of brilliant blockbuster entertainment, has now turned into a turgid trickle of diminishing returns. Remember the uproar about the casting of Johnny Depp in this movie? He's the least of its problems.

LOOK AT EVERYTHING WE THREW INTO THIS SCENE!

Starting as it means to go on, there's an action sequence that shows Grindelwald escaping from his imprisonment. I think, given the title of the movie and the advertising, it's not a spoiler to reveal that. This could have been a good action sequence. It's lively, imaginative, and sets up the villain perfectly. It's also far too busy, messily edited, dark, and hard to find engaging. I must warn you now that every main action sequence in the rest of the film follows this pattern (well, okay, most of them are lighter so at least you can see more of what you can't really see, if you know what I mean). The plot sees Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) trying to get hold of a young man (Ezra Miller) who may hold the key to his plans regarding the uprising of the magical folk. Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law, ill-advisedly attempting some accent that I guess is meant to remind you that Richard Harris played the first elder incarnation) wants Newt Sacamander (Eddie Redmayne) to get to the young man first. Dumbledore cannot battle Grindelwald himself, for reasons that become apparent as the plot unfolds. Newt doesn't want to pick sides in whatever trouble is brewing, but it eventually becomes apparent that he won't have a choice.

LOOK AT THE BUDGET ALL OVER THIS SEQUENCE!

Sometimes I make myself sandwiches to eat for lunch at work. And sometimes I make them the night before, to save me being cold and bleary-eyed and miserable in the morning while I butter bread and throw stuff together. A tuna mayonnaise sandwich is a tasty treat. But if you make it the night before, and if you like as much mayo in there as I do, then it's a cold, soggy, squishy mess by the time you try to eat it for your lunch. Sadly, that sandwich still holds more warmth and appeal than most performances from Eddie Redmayne. It's not that he's a bad actor, and he seems like a lovely person when I have seen him interviewed, but he seems unable to exude any real charm or sweetness in his roles, including this one, where those traits are pretty vital. The problem may not lie with the cast, however, as very few people make a good impression here. Depp is excellent in his role, Law does a decent job, and Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol are once again very enjoyable in the roles of Jacob and Queenie, but Miller isn't allowed to feel like anything other than a plot device, Katherine Waterston maintains her record of putting in a performance that barely registers, Zoe Kravitz is stifled, Callum Turner is bad enough to make a suitable brother to Redmayne's character, and the less said about the casting of one or two other characters we have seen in the Harry Potter movies the better. Claudia Kim and Poppy Corby-Tuech both do better than most of the bigger names, a pleasant surprise considering their characters are really just cohorts of the main characters being pursued by our gang of "heroes". 

LOOK AT WHAT WE DID JUST BECAUSE WE COULD DO IT!

J. K. Rowling wrote the script for this and, while I wouldn't deign to pretend I know my way around a page of words better than one of the best-selling authors in the world, she seems to have lost her way. I'm not sure if it's down to this tale being stretced out beyond breaking point or if she just enjoyed losing herself in her own world so much that she forgot to edit, or think of how certain changes to her world for the sake of this series would change what fans already know (and if you ever think you have a good head for trivia then just try to outwit a Harry Potter fan and see how long you last). There are so many diversions here that are completely unnecessary, fan service that will only irritate who know what should and shouldn't be possible, and adding to a 2+ hour runtime in a film that should really be looking to pare down anything that doesn't keep the kids enthralled enough to forget about how they need the loo every 30 minutes.

LOOK AT ALL OF THE STUFF! WE DID THAT! WE PAID FOR THAT! LOVE US!

If Rowling is being rather self-indulgent and careless, director David Yates is enabling her every step of the way. There's not one scene here that doesn't feel ridiculously overstuffed with . . . things, be they CGI creatures, effects-filled environments, too many small characters who didn't need to be in shot, and sauce and garnish on things that would be arguably more effective served up without them. This is a hat that has a band placed around the brim. And that brim is given a pinned flower in the front. Then the rest of the hat has a full bouquet placed on the top. That bouquet has fake bees attached by wires, to look like they're buzzing around. And birds are placed higher up. There's still a hat in there somewhere, but nobody can tell whether or not it's a well-made model underneath all of the artistic additions.

IT'S ALL POINTLESS BUT LOOKS GREAT, RIGHT?

Ultimately, there's a basic level of competency here, and spectacle, that still merits giving the film some plus points. But it's very difficult to imagine anyone coming out of this with a sense of complete satisfaction. Younger viewers will get a bit bored, I suspect. Older viewers may also get a bit bored, and find some bits just too childish. Dedicated fans will find details that annoy them. Casual fans will wonder why the film is full of so many diversions that they may not appreciate. And film fans will be generally displeased that they sat through a magical fantasy film that a) didn't feel as magical as it should have, and b) ultimately ended up being fairly pointless filler, considering how things end compared to how they started.

You'll go and see it anyway, and it will make loads of money, but I don't recommend it. I still want a niffler though.

4/10

You will also be able to buy the movie here.
Americans will be able to get it here.

Mubi Monday: Cry-Baby (1990)

Johnny Depp plays Wade "Cry-Baby" Walker, a young, rocking rebel who tries to do something that will make him shed one tear a day in memory of his dead parents. He's the leader of a gang of delinquent youths, although they aren't really too bad once you get to know them, and things get all shook up when he falls in live with a "square" named Allison (Amy Locane). This sets in motion a chain of events that will lead to fights, character smears, and even prison. All set to a fantastic soundtrack of classic songs and new toe-tappers in the style of the era it is set (1950s).

Coming along immediately after Hairspray, Cry-Baby has a similar formula, but perhaps didn't work so well with audiences because of the much less significant subject matter. Whereas the former movie lightheartedly depicted teens helping to fight against racism in their world, this film just shows that being a square isn't the best way to live your life.

Waters unsurprisingly sides with those that society views with wariness, and often disdain, and he provides the usual entertaining selection. Alongside Depp you get Rikki Lake as a horny teen (two kids already, one on the way), Traci Lords, Darren E. Burrows, and Kim McGuire as "Hatchet-Face".

What is more surprising, although it shouldn't be to those familiar with Hairspray, is the absolutely perfect way in which the song and dance numbers feel authentic to the period. I already enjoyed the tunes that I was familiar with ("SH-Boom" and "Mr. Sandman") but also immediately loved all of the new songs, even with their added cheese and over the top outpouring of emotions.

Depp is superb in his role, playing it just in the sweet spot between melodrama and ridiculous. The script is as hilarious as you would expect, made all the better by Depp and co. playing it all quite straight. Locane also does well as the lady who captures his heart, and as a wild spirit trapped in the form of a square. Lake, Lords, Burrows, and McGuire are all a lot of fun, especially the first and the last, and you get more fun turns from Susan Tyrrell and Iggy Pop (as the family of Depp and Lake's character), Polly Bergen is the protective relative of Locane's character, and Stephen Mailer is hilarious as the main square, also in love with the leading lady (of course).

Perhaps not quite as funny as his best work, and perhaps just hewing so close to the form that he's emulating that it's only an inch away from being a straightforward '50s drama transplanted to the cinema screens of the 1990s, Cry-Baby holds up as well today as almost every other film that Waters has bestowed upon us over the past few decades. It's not quite up there with Hairspray and Serial Mom but few films are.

8/10

You can see some tears being shed here.
Americans can cry over the movie here.

Murder On The Orient Express (2017)

There's nothing inherently wrong with this all-star version of Murder On The Orient Express, the classic whodunnit from Agatha Christie that has an ending already known to most people even if they haven't read the book yet (a large group that includes myself). It's rather fun, polished, and certainly throws enough stars into the mix to help things along.

Kenneth Branagh directs, and he also lets himself take on the lead role of Poirot, the greatest detective in the world (who isn't named Sherlock Holmes, I guess). Poirot ends up on the titular train, there's a murder, and he tries to figure out who did it. Everyone has a motive, it seems, and Poirot wants to discover the culprit before the train moves on to the next station. Because the train has also been derailed by a small avalanche, ensuring that the characters are unable to flee while the detective gets his little grey cells working on the case.

Working from a script by Michael Green, Murder On The Orient Express is a film both helped and hampered by how familiar and comfortable it all feels. It's easy to enjoy but not so easy to get properly drawn into. The snowy setting, the familiar faces, the family-friendly nature of most of the main scenes, this is something that feels more like a lavish BBC production scheduled for the Christmas holidays than a cinematic experience.

My other main complaint about the film is how the resolution comes about. It all makes sense, from what I can tell, but it would have been better to see a few more links being placed in the chain by Poirot as he started to formulate his main theory. This may be a case of elements from the book that were harder to put on film, or it may be a case of Poirot simply being a character who holds all of his cards close to his chest until he is ready to set them down. My limited knowledge of the character is gathering dust in a small recess of my memory banks, sadly. Either way, and I know it would have been difficult to balance the reveals with the attempt to keep the mystery intact until the end, one or two more pieces of information would have been appreciated as viewers watched Poirot put everything together.

I'm not going to pick apart every performance by the cast. I'll just say that all of them have fun at various points. Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Michelle Pfeiffer, Leslie Odom Jr, Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, Josh Gad, Penelope Cruz, Olivia Colman, Derek Jacobi, and Tom Bateman are the main players, but they all have to work under the long shadow of Branagh, clearly having a ball as Poirot.

If you're unfamiliar with the resolution to the story then be sure to see this before you have it spoiled for you. Also give it a watch if you like most of the main players (and why wouldn't you?). But it's surprisingly disposable and forgettable, especially considering the talent involved. I'll still end up watching the next adventure, however, teased at the end, and I'd even be tempted to watch some less famous mysteries featuring Branagh's take on the main character.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Tusk (2014)

Tusk is a strange beast, no pun intended (considering the content of the film). A highly flawed, uneven film that many will find impossible to like, it shows writer-director Kevin Smith continuing to develop and highlight his darker side. Many of his comedies had black humour in them, of course, but it was Red State that really let him dip his toes into something approaching horror. Tusk, at least on the surface, does the same. But the fact that it's actually a comedy makes it a tough one to easily recommend.

Let's get the basic storyline out of the way. Justin Long plays a podcaster named Wallace Bryton. Wallace and his friend,Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), use their airtime to look at clips on the internet of people who have gone viral, mainly through stupidity but sometimes because of certain strange characteristics. Wallace is always after the next big thing with which to shock and impress his audience, which takes him to the home of an old man (Michael Parks) who assures him that he has a story or two to tell. He does indeed have some stories. But his most interesting one hasn't been completed yet, and it may well involve Wallace.

Based on an idea that came about during Smith's own podcast (SModcast), and featuring a number of ideas and even lines of dialogue pre-approved by his fanbase, you'd be forgiven for wondering if Tusk was a franken-film. It certainly feels, at times, like a number of disconnected scenes thrown together with little thought given to the central storyline. Yet it also has a pretty obvious message underlying most of the content, so writing it off as nothing more than an easy fan-pleaser is probably doing it a bit of a disservice. It's also worth noting that every moment that doesn't quite work, every comedic beat that feels too weird, every wild image pushing the film further into dark absurdity, it all shows a confident (or brave . . . . . or foolish) director in the hot seat.

Long isn't at his best here, but he's not too bad. His characters is supposed to be mildly irritating, at best, and he is. Parks is the star turn, reeling off tales that range from the sublime to the ridiculous with equal ease and aplomb. Osment and Genesis Rodriguez both do well in supporting roles, with the latter playing the girlfriend of Long's character, and there's a performance from Johnny Depp to add to another list of his kooky performances. It's that performance, if anything, that should clue viewers in to the fact that this is a pitch black comedy. Although if you don't get it by that point then you've just not been paying attention.

Anyone expecting another piece of nastiness like The Human Centipede (First Sequence) should content themselves by instead renting The Human Centipede: Full Sequence. This is a film aimed more at people who start to grunt and mutter as soon as they hear of yet another internet "celebrity" with no obvious talent. It's not one I'd rush to revisit, but it's certainly an interesting curio.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/Tusk-Blu-ray-Michael-Parks/dp/B00NX8RUZE/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1418819387&sr=1-2&keywords=tusk

Sci-Fi September: Transcendence (2014)

Most people will tell you that Transcendence stinks like a sweaty gym bag that has been dumped in a closet and not cleaned out for months. It's drawn comparisons to The Lawnmower Man (okay, I made that comparison, but I think others also did it) and Max Headroom, and most of those comparisons haven't been too kind. But I enjoyed it. I didn't love it, but it was certainly better than I was expecting.

The plot is pretty simple. Johnny Depp plays master computer egghead Will Caster. When Will is hospitalised, and diagnosed to be dying, he decides that the time has come to overcome the problem of developing computers with self-awareness by inputting himself into the system. When his body dies, he will live on. His wife (Evelyn, played by Rebecca Hall) is very happy with this, but a couple of colleagues (Morgan Freeman and Paul Bettany) are highly disturbed. And perhaps they should be. Because Will in computer form may not actually be Will, but rather a facsimile of him to cover for a computer that can take over the world.

A first time in the director's seat for Wally Pfister (probably best known for his cinematography in the movies of Christopher Nolan) and a first time getting script to screen for Jack Paglen, it would be easy to put the failings of Transcendence down to the fact that the two men didn't have the right experience in their relevant fields. Yet, that just doesn't seem to be the case. The script is far from the best, but it tries to keep things on point while weaving through the plot developments. This is not a film about cool sci-fi stuff and supercomputers. Well, it IS that, but it's more concerned with the moral responsibility that comes with that potential ability to access anywhere, and anything, in the entire world. Pfister may let down anyone who comes looking for a decent set-piece of two, although he doesn't do too badly at all in the big chair.

Depp is okay in the main role, I guess, even if he seems to be phoning it in (no pun intended). It's the rest of the cast who carry the film, which is probably as it should be. Hall is very good as a loving wife adjusting to a new way of life, Freeman does the same kind of thing that he's been doing for a good few years now, and Bettany is able to remind viewers that he's always worth watching, even when not voicing robo-butlers in Marvel movies. Clifton Collins Jr. does well in a relatively small role, Kate Mara is alright as a main player in a group opposed to the growth of modern technology, Cillian Murphy is sadly underused as a cop, and Cole Hauser pops in during the final third to be his usual bundle of awesomeness.

More a mix of Eagle Eye and Lucy than either of the two films mentioned in the opening paragraph, Transcendence may not be to everyone's liking but it at least sticks to its main remit for the duration - which is about two hours. It's serious fare handled with a lightness of touch, although it's also a pretty humour-free experience, and should find one or two extra fans now that it's away from the cinemas and in the home entertainment market.

Never a film for those seeking big thrills or explosions, this focuses on one or two big ideas. Not anything new or perfect, by any means, but I'd tentatively recommend it as something worth watching once. You may hate it. You may end up liking it more than I did.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Here's an anecdote that will make sense to nobody outwith Scotland. When I was quite young I wrote in to the letters/joke page of the Oor Wullie section of The Sunday Post. I sent in a joke and received, if I remember correctly, a £5 gift token, and my name in print. The joke wasn't great, but I still kinda like it. See what you think.

Tonto is riding through the countryside one day and sees The Lone Ranger coming towards him, with a bin bag over his shoulder.
"Where are you going?" asks Tonto.
"To the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump. To the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump."

I admit, it may not work quite as well when written down. Anyway, let's move on.

There are some movies that just don't stand much chance with the critics. That can happen for a variety of reasons. The subject matter. The budget. Bad casting choices. And much more besides. The Lone Ranger was one of those movies. And I can think of two main reasons for the knives being drawn. One, the budget, which apparently went just over $200M. Two, the casting of Johnny Depp in the role of Tonto, the Native American sidekick to the main character. I don't care about the budget for blockbuster movies, personally. Once you're over $100M then everything tends to blur into one big, fat wad of cash anyway. I do agree with everyone who thought that casting Johnny Depp as Tonto was ridiculous, however, but realise that he's the only BIG name in the cast. That means that the decision is still dubious, but a bit more understandable. Yet it's still not a good enough reason to completely drub a film that actually has some moments of rollicking entertainment.

The story is, as if you couldn't guess, all about how a man (Armie Hammer) assumed the role of The Lone Ranger. With Tonto by his side, for better or worse, he eventually comes to realise that his idealistic approach to the law may not be beneficial to his health, especially if the criminals that he wants to capture are just working for more powerful, but hidden, villains.

Directed by Gore Verbinski, there's no denying that the film has a certain Pirates Of The Caribbean vibe to it. There are issues with the pacing, there are some big, entertainingly complicated, action sequences, and there's Johnny Depp being a bit kooky. The script, by Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, packs in much more than it needs to. The Lone Ranger doesn't have to be a complex character. He's a good guy, plain and simple. Yet the writers here decide to focus on his steep learning curve, as he grows into the mask, and then amuse themselves with a framing device that allows them more room to play around with the narrative. It does make for a few good moments, admittedly, but could easily have been trimmed to save the movie a good 10-15 minutes, in my estimation.

Hammer is good as the hero. I like him a lot, thanks to his ability to temper the stoic heroic qualities required with some solid comedic talent. Depp - well, we've already covered his performance. He's not terrible, although many will disagree. Ruth Wilson is a tough woman who finds herself in danger, and she's okay, but given short shrift by the script. William Fichtner fares much better, playing the dangerous criminal known as Butch Cavendish, and Tom Wilkinson repeats the kind of decent performance that is often required of British actors in American blockbusters. Barry Pepper proves to be a highlight, once again. As he does in almost every movie that he appears in. And there are also small roles for James Badge Dale, Helena Bonham Carter, Harry Treadaway and Stephen Root, among others.

There are a number of scenes that feel a bit dull and lifeless, yet the movie really shows how great it could have been in a few extended set-pieces that raise up the energy levels and mix CGI, fantastic stunt work, and a healthy dollop of humour to provide the kind of exuberant fun that I wish more blockbusters would strive for. And the finale, accompanied by that rousing theme music (well, it's the final section of the "William Tell Overture" but many grew up with it as "the theme tune from The Lone Ranger"), is a surprisingly great piece of cinema, marred by some excessive FX work and both helped and hindered by a sense of ridiculousness.

I wouldn't be brave enough to say that this is a movie that you may be pleasantly surprised by. Okay, what the hell, I will. Give The Lone Ranger a try some time, and you might be pleasantly surprised. I certainly was.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Ranger-Blu-ray-Digital-Copy/dp/B00DJYJWVW/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1409322376&sr=1-2&keywords=the+lone+ranger