When Harry Met Sally... (1989, Rob Reiner)

I am sure by now that everyone has heard of the passing of author, journalist, screenwriter and director, Nora Ephron; who passed away at the age of 71 from pneumonia. Her sharp, observant and witty screenplays have influenced many writers and directors since, and, with films like When Harry Met Sally... and Sleepless in Seattle, she has laid down the framework that most American romantic-comedies still use to this day. Today’s review, When Harry Met Sally..., is arguably the most influential film that Ephron has ever written, and often cited as the most  important romantic comedy since Woody Allen's Annie Hall. 

Our story begins in 1977, when Sally Albright (Meg Ryan) and Harry Burns (Billy Crystal), both of whom are graduates from the University of Chicago, agree to chaperone each other on an overnight car journey to New York. They have never met before today and only know of one another due to the fact that Harry is dating Sally's friend at the time, Amanda (Michelle Nicastro). During the journey, Harry, who is rather brash and obnoxious, announces that, "Men and women can never be friends because the sex part always gets in the way." After their journey, Harry and Sally part ways, and that is the last time either of them see each other for five years, when by happenstance, they run into each other at the airport. This time, Harry announces he is about to get married and Sally has begun a new relationship. Again, Harry rubs Sally the wrong way when he talks about gender roles, and that is the last they see of each other until, again, five years later they run into one another at a book store. Sally has broken up with her boyfriend and Harry is getting a divorce. Through their mutual heartbreak they become friends, and, perhaps, something deeper begins to grow.

What is most remarkable about this film, other than Ephron's sparkling, fast-paced dialogue, is the unity Ephron had with director Rob Reiner. Before making this film Reiner, like Harry, had recently been divorced, and after pitching the idea of the film to Ephron, he became the basis for Harry. Later, when Billy Crystal came on board, he made his own contribution to the script, by making Harry funnier. As it stands, there are few romantic comedies which understand both genders, as most scripts for romantic comedies lean towards the voice of their author. With input from Reiner and Crystal, both genders get equal play, have equal importance, and are able to be fully fleshed characters. Thus, Harry and Sally's feelings of loss over the ending of their respective relationships feel absolutely genuine because they were born out of something real.

One could argue that the characterisation of the two leads is a little broad. For example, Harry is pessimistic to the point where he will read the last page of a book first, just in case he dies before he finishes it, and Sally is highly strung to the point that she will only eat food in a cafe or a restaurant if it is to her exact specification. However, romantic-comedies have always been thus, and, after all, these people are meant to be slightly cartoonish, which makes the moments of pathos more poignant. However, nothing is quite as unsubtle as their discussion on Casablanca, with both characters making opposing arguments about why Ingrid Bergman did not stay with Humphrey Bogart. One feels like that particular piece of dialogue is unnatural and seems only to serve their opposing views, although that is only a minor quibble.

Of course, the notion that men and women cannot be friends is total bunkum, and even for a film that was released in 1989 these moments do not ring quite as true as they could have. Although, considering that this was not an area that had been talked about in film much before, they are allowed a free pass on the brick-to-the-face lack of subtlety of these scenes. However, while this is the framework of the picture, Crystal and Ryan's chemistry manages to pave the cracks of these scenes, and manages to make all of their dialogue seem true. Admittedly, whenever these scenes arrive, One wishes that Harry and Sally would go back to talking about their mutual heartbreak; which in all fairness is the majority of the movie.

Regrettably, there is an argument that When Harry Met Sally's debt to Woody Allen's Annie Hall is closer to derivativeness than mere inspiration. For example, the soundtrack is laden with lounge jazz, including George Gershwin that would not sound out of place in one of Allen's films.  Also, the opening credits use the same white font on black background that Allen uses in his films. While it never quite crosses over into the area of plagiarism, it certainly skirts close to the edge several times. Even the central relationship, arguably, would not exist without Annie Hall. Billy Crystal's motormouthed, insufferable Harry is essentially a bolder, younger Woody Allen type of character, and Ryan's Sally is quirky in all the ways that Diane Keaton was in the aforementioned Annie Hall. Luckily, this does not sink the movie, but it does seem blatant at times that they are trying too hard to replicate what made Allen's romantic-comedies so successful.

Regardless of these flaws, Rob Reiner's direction has a warmth to it, even if there is nothing here which is as nearly  dynamic as his work on This is Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride and Stand By Me. Clearly he is directing with an honesty that allows his actors to perform without bias, when it comes to acting  being in love. What his direction lacks in punch or excitement, it makes up for in emotional conviction and decent pacing. As a director of actors, throughout the 1980s, few directors surpassed Reiner.  Crystal and Ryan, despite not being the most obvious cinematic pairing, have excellent chemistry and manage to make their characters suitably vulnerable. Nice touches include a scene where the two have a phone conversation, played as a voiceover over footage of the two going about their daily business. There is a frankness and honesty to their delivery that could have faltered with weaker actors.

Other fine performers include Bruno Kirby and Carrie Fisher as Harry and Sally's respective best friends, Jess and Marie, who inject their characters with wit and charm. One wonders why Carrie Fisher never went on to become a bigger star throughout the 80s and 90s, especially considering that, apart from playing Princess Leia in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, she also had supporting roles in Joe Dante's The 'Burbs, Michael Hoffman's Soapdish and Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters. Alas, perhaps I should not concern myself with the career she could have had and instead be thankful for the career she does have.

In conclusion, is When Harry Met Sally... a fantastic movie? Well, no, it falls short of greatness and is unquestionably a little too slick for its own good. Is it, however, an excellent example of a romantic-comedy where all the right components in writing, direction and casting come together to make a mostly successful film? Absolutely, and that is why it is remembered so fondly to this day. Nora Ephron will be missed, and I hope her work will go on enlightening audiences for years to come.

8/10

Moonrise Kingdom (2012, Wes Anderson)

Wes Anderson, the Texas, Houston born writer/director, and king of cinematic quirks, has been a little lost for the last few years or so. In 1996, Anderson wrote and directed the film, Bottle Rocket, which, while not unanimously praised, has enjoyed success as a cult film on VHS and DVD throughout the late 90s and early 2000s. Within the next four years, he would go on to make Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums,  which were both highly praised as being quirky, aesthetically, but without losing focus on the story and characterisation. However, in the last few years his films have come across as a little too obtuse, self-knowingly hip and quirky to the point of being irksome. Nothing, it would seem, could bring Anderson back down to earth like directing and co-writing a story about nostalgia and young love; bringing us to 2012 and the release of Moonrise Kingdom, which deals with just those themes.

The year is 1965, and on the island of New Penzance, Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kaya Heyward), both twelve-years-old, have hatched a plan to run away together. Sam, is an orphaned child who is attending a "Khaki Scout" summer camp, led by Scout Master Randy Ward (Edward Norton). Suzy and her dysfunctional parents, Walt and Laura (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) are vacationing in a converted lighthouse and, despite their money, are both miserable. After both children run away, it is up to Scout Master Ward, his scouts, and the island's local law enforcement, Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) to bring them back.

Okay, so first things first. This is a Wes Anderson movie, and that means, aesthetically, the film is bound to be stylised, and its humour is guaranteed to be bone dry. In fact, the opening shot tells you all you need to know about the film’s stylisation. We open inside Suzy's vacation house and the camera pans and tracks its way through it as if we are looking inside a very impressive dolls house; which is typical for Wes Anderson, whose shots have always been very mechanical. As it is set in the 1960s, the colour palette attempts to replicate the look and feel of small town Americana, but in a childlike way, like one might find as the illustration in a storybook. By which I mean, the colours are deliberately broad, with brown and yellow being predominant in the first half, and blue and orange in the latter half. 

In terms of narrative, Anderson seems to be influenced by Francois Truffaut's The 400 Blows and John Cassavetes rambling, loose style of filmmaking. There is a warmth and delicacy to Moonrise Kingdom that has not been seen in any of Anderson’s film for quite a while and it is a welcome return to form. Of course, the children speak like no children on the planet and all the Khaki Scouts sound as if they have been possessed by hip, middle-aged, New York urbanites, but it still evokes a very childlike quality. I suppose that, once the two children run away into the woods, while the settings are still stylised, they are not nearly as precise. At several points it feels as if they could fall down a steep hill or drown, which means that Anderson has to work in a slightly different way to pull these scenes off. 

Nevertheless, perhaps what is most impressive is that when tackling the subject of young love, neither Anderson as director and co-writer, or Roman Coppola as Anderson’s co-writer, shies away from its unpredictability. For example, after Suzy and Sam find a beach to pitch their camp, they decide to go swimming. Of course, they are only in their underwear and it is then when they decide to share their first kiss. Had this been handled poorly, this could have come across as strange or even slightly paedophiliac, but in reality that would be how they are dressed in the situation, so it never comes across as strange or even unnecessary. Despite the fact that the dialogue the children speak is not realistic, Anderson seems to understand how to direct children, to the point where he clearly trusts them more than most other filmmakers would.

I believe what makes this work better than some other Wes Anderson films is that he uses nostalgia well, which allows the controlled, stylised filmmaking to work thematically. By which I mean, as one looks back at their childhood, things do become rose-tinted and seem a little bit more golden, which allows Anderson to dip his brush into his quirkier sensibilities. Thematically, I imagine the easiest comparison would be to Anderson's film, Rushmore, which followed the life of Max Fischer, an unpopular boy attending private school. However, somewhat understandably, this is going to be deliberately sweeter, as it is dealing with younger children. 

Something that Anderson has often been accused of throughout his career, is being someone who merely makes films around his compilation soundtracks, as if he is making an extended music video; often of classic rock songs from the 60s and 70s. Here, while there is a very eclectic soundtrack, it is all relevant to the film, whether that be thematically or because of the time period. For example, the church puts on an annual production of the opera, Noah's Fludde, which becomes relevant later when a storm threatens to flood the small island. Of course, they use the particular music in question, as it is relevant to the film and to that particular scene. There is also the fact that Suzy, who has stolen her brother's record player, is a fan of Francois Hardy, so when her song, Le Temps de l'Amour appears in the film, it is warranted.

In terms of performances, Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman excel as Suzy and Sam, and their performances feel natural, despite Anderson and Coppola's stylised dialogue. Although, as good as they are, the adult performers are just a little bit better. As Suzy's dysfunctional, overworked parents, Bill Murray and Frances MacDormand as Walt and Laura are excellent. What is best about their performances is, while they come across like clichés to begin with, further into the film we see what a burden it must be to be raising a problem child, love her though they must. Edward Norton is lovably clueless as the childlike, Scout Master Ward, and is given some of the dorkiest dialogue, such as: "Jiminy Cricket, he flew the coop!" Although, best of all, in my opinion, is Bruce Willis, showing a much gentler side to him that we do not often get to see.

In conclusion, this is a sweet, even delicate film, which finds Wes Anderson on his firmest foundations as a filmmaker in some time. A fine ensemble cast manage to sell the film's story of young love, while giving plenty of room to the two young leads. This is what happens when stylisation and a decent story with some depth combine. 

8/10

Whiskey Galore (1949, Alexander Mackendrick)

Whisky Galore is based on the book of the same name by Compton MacKenzie, which in turn is based on a true story of the theft of several thousand crates of whisky from a shipwrecked boat, just off the shore of Scotland. In 1941, the locals of a Scottish village, called Eriskay, looted the S.S. Politician of its cargo of whisky after the village's supply had run out, due to war time rationing. Eventually, many of the men accused of pilfering the cargo from the boats were put on trial, sentenced and given punishments of several weeks in jail. The film, however, is set later, in 1943 to be exact, and according to the disclaimer at the beginning, was only loosely inspired by the events of 1941, which I doubt anyone watching today would believe for a second, but still. 

To begin, I think what is most important to get across in this plot synopsis is that there is really not a plot as such, more a collection of sub-plots which are all connected with the looting of the boat. Captain Paul Waggett (Basil Radford), the closest thing to the lead, is a stuffy, English commander of the local Home Guard, and is determined to stop the pilfering Scots and make sure justice is upheld. Other notable subplots include English Sergeant Odd (Bruce Seton), who has come to the village to court shop girl, Peggy (Joan Greenwood), daughter of the shopkeeper Joseph Macroon (Wylie Watson). Meanwhile, Macroon's other daughter, Catriona (Gabrielle Blunt), has just become engaged to weak-willed George Campbell (Gordon Jackson), who lives under the thumb of his domineering mother (Jean Cadell).

That is more or less it, in terms of plot, but that honestly is not an issue considering just how sharp and breezy the humour is, which is to be expected since it was distributed by Ealing Studios. While Whisky Galore is far from the funniest of the comedy films released by Ealing during the 1940s and 50s, it is still an amusing film with several standout scenes. For me, if there are flaws with the film, they are flaws that are only seen in hindsight. To elaborate, while I can hardly blame the film for this, films such as Whisky Galore and Brigadoon can be partly blamed for the stereotypical view of Scottish people in the media that exists today. For example, this weekend in American cinemas, Pixar's Brave opens, which depicts the Scottish warriors with red hair and wearing kilts. Of course, this is not Whisky Galore's fault, but watching it today, I did notice how much films such as this have to answer for.

What did impress me the most is how competent the film is on a technical front, especially considering that practical effects were not as sophisticated in the late 1940s as they are today. For example, when the shipwrecked boat is being looted, the villagers travel to it by rowing boat. Eventually, the ship starts capsizing as one of the rowing boats, and its passenger, is still left attached to the cargo ship. I still have no idea how they accomplished this, which is commendable. Although, having said that, the film overuses a particular practical effect referred to as, "day-for-night", which is the cinematographic technique of using a darker lens filter, or turning down the camera exposure, to make daytime pass as night. Unfortunately, it never looks natural as they use this technique for pretty much every scene set at night. This is a hindrance when one considers that much of the story is set near or on the sea, meaning that no matter how much darker the shots look, the sun is always going to be reflected in the water’s surface.

I only mention these minor drawbacks because this really is a funny, sweet natured movie. Admittedly, it is a little inessential in Ealing’s cannon, and it certainly is not on the level of classics released by the same studio released later, such as The Ladykillers or The Lavender Hill mob. Also, while Ealing's films are usually fairly dark, in terms of humour, this has more of cheeky sense of humour, shall we say. Most of the jokes revolve around sneaking crates of whisky under the nose of the law, who in turn get snootier every time someone sneaks past them. It is lightweight, and fairly frothy, but it is fun.

A good example would be the character George Campbell, who becomes spineless whenever he confronts his mother, who in turn informs him not to marry Catriona, otherwise he will go to hell. Eventually, as George gets a taste for whisky, suddenly he is brave and plays bagpipes loudly in the house to annoy her, who announces the devil himself his got into poor George. Authority figures are punished, but punished lightly. This is the tone throughout most of the film, although there is a slight tonal shift about half way through the film. The film's director, Alexander Mackendrick, reportedly began sympathising with the stuffy, pompous Captain Waggett, claiming: "I began to realise that the most Scottish character in Whisky Galore! is Waggett the Englishman. He is the only Calvinist, puritan figure - and all the other characters aren't Scottish at all: they're Irish!"

The xenophobia of this statement aside, he has a point, at least in terms of characterisation. One has to remember that this was released only four years after the end of the Second World War, and men such as Waggett were defending Britain's last hope for survival, by organising and running The Home Guard, regardless of how pompous they were. Several times throughout the film, the Scots disrupt the Home Guard's training to get their whiskey, and while Waggett was pompous, he seemed to care about his duties. Comparatively speaking, this is similar to Michael Powell and Emmerich Pressburger's portrayal of General Clive Candy in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, who, again, was pompous, but cared for his country and believed in the work of The Home Guard. Although, it seems Mackendrick stumbled upon this revelation too late in the filmmaking process, as it is not until about two-thirds through the film that there seems to be a shift in how sympathetically he is portrayed. However, it does help that he is played by Basil Radford, a terrific actor, who was especially equipped at playing such characters.

In conclusion, one could do a lot worse than renting or buying this, as it is the perfect introduction to Ealing Studios’ comedy films. It is funny, smart, and at an hour-and-a-half it is fairly briskly paced.

7/10

Yellow Submarine (1968, George Dunning)

In the few months or so that I have been reviewing films, I do not think I have assessed a film quite as culturally significant as this. Yellow Submarine, is the fourth film to be associated with British rock band, The Beatles, but the first to have little involvement from The Fab Four themselves. Unlike A Hard Day's Night, Help! or The Magical Mystery Tour, the mop-topped musicians only input is a live action epilogue and the contribution of five songs. In 2009, Robert Zemeckis began pre-production on a 3D, computer animated, motion-capture remake; with plans to release the film just before the 2012 London Olympics. Fortunately, previous motion-capture films such as Mars Needs Moms and A Christmas Carol had performed awfully at the box-office, causing Disney to abandon the project. How lucky we are that instead, Apple Corps (The Beatles record company) decided to remaster the film on DVD and Blu-Ray and, to add insult to injury, release it roughly only a month prior to the planned release date of Zemeckis' failed remake.

The plot, unsurprisingly, concerns The Beatles - John, Paul, George and Ringo - as they are whisked away to Pepperland, which has been taken over by the evil, "Blue Meanies". They are recruited by an escapee, who narrowly evades the Meanies, to join him on his yellow submarine, to bring joy and music back to the oppressed people, and to scare off the baddies. To get there, they must travel from Liverpool to the aforementioned Pepperland. On the way they meet several colourful characters and get into all sorts of mischief, and, of course, they make sure to play a few songs along the way. What larks!

I think what is perhaps most remarkable about Yellow Submarine, is just how little it has aged. Of course, the high-definition transfer does help, but I believe that its eccentricity and childlike quality has kept it fresh after all these years. At no point does it feel like one is watching a film which is over forty years old. It is not a perfect film by any means, but it keeps itself going with a brisk pace, a light sense of humour and plenty of witty one liners. One could imagine it would still entertain children to this day, regardless of whether they were aware of The Beatles music or not. I think what is most commendable, is that the animators and, presumably, the director, George Dunning, saw the limitations of the animation style of the time, and overcame it by making their designs imaginative and their colours bright. To elaborate, in the late sixties and early seventies, cartoons were saddled with a cheap, scratchy style of animation that lacked depth or shading, which can be seen in anything from Tom and Jerry shorts to feature films released by Disney. While Yellow Submarine does not escape this, the animators tackle this by making their designs and colour palette so alluring and wonderful that it distracts from the flat, lifeless, robotic movements of the characters and the lack of depth.

Although, the fact that The Beatles music became as iconic as it did, and changed the face of music as we know it, helps the film stay as current as it does, only five of their songs are used in the film, and they are all far from what we would call "classic" Beatles songs (except perhaps George Harrison's All too Much, which is an underrated number), but the songs, predictably, deliver. I think it would be remiss of me not to mention the voice acting, performed by Paul Angelis, John Clive, Geoffrey Hughes and Peter Battan, playing Ringo, John, Paul and George, respectively. Their voice work is not perfect, but they get the Liverpudlian accents down and their line delivery is fairly amusing, especially when performing the film's many one liners.

Unfortunately, it is not all good. While the animation is imaginative, as I have already mentioned, is good, it is still rather flat, especially when it comes to the character animation. All the human characters have a fluidity which makes their skin look like it is made out of runny egg, which I suppose adds to the psychedelic charm, but it is fairly distracting. Also, the animation of the people of Pepperland, including the Blue Meanies, look a little one-dimensional. I felt that long sections of the film dragged, especially during The Beatles trip on the yellow submarine. I also imagine that some of the references in the film may go over many younger viewer's heads today. For example, when the four Beatles meet Jeremy Hillary Boob PhD, a "nowhere man" Ringo asks whether he is "one of the angry young men", which refers to a particular type of playwright who were popular throughout the 50s and 60s; which is a reference that would be lost on the youth of today.

Fortunately, these are only mild detractions, but there are enough of them that they begin to pile up. However, the film's qualities are enough to make this an enticing experience. It is also impossible not to mention just how influential this film has been to animation, especially in Britain. Some of the more psychedelic scenes have been parodied in everything from The Simpsons to Monkey Dust, and in the years since its release, British animation began to be taken more seriously. For example, after the release of Yellow Submarine, Disney opened a studio in London, and films such as Watership Down and The Snowman have left a lasting impression in the minds of cinema goers. There were also Terry Gilliam's animated sketches in Monty Python's Flying Circus, which were heavily influenced by the film's animation style. Regardless of one's opinions on the film, its influence is undeniable.

Personally, the greatest joy in watching this, like with A Hard Day's Night and Help!, is watching The Beatles pretend to like each other. Especially since, by the time this film was released, the bickering and squabbling had become quite public. In the live action epilogue, watching the four of them recite their lines with forced smiles is a throwback to a time when people in the public eye tried twice as hard to present a  united front. Perhaps that is a rather shallow thing to like about a film, but it adds some unintentional humour to the ending.

In conclusion, this is a bright, colourful, imaginatively animated film which looks surprising current, despite being almost half a century old. The music is, and will continue to be, timeless and the voice acting is excellent. There are flaws here, but they are easy to overlook, as there is so much here to appreciate.

7/10

Payback Season (2012, Danny Donnelly)

During the 2012 British Academy Film Awards, five actors were nominated for the "BAFTA Rising Star Award". Four of them are actors who, in the last few years or so, have risen to Hollywood success and critical acclaim. These included Thor and The Avengers stars, Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddlestone, Bridesmaids cutie and unlikely heartthrob, Chris O'Dowd and rising star in the indie movie scene, Eddie Redmayne. In all likelihood, any of them should have won over the eventual winner,  Adam Deacon. Although, under close inspection, the fact that he won over the Hollywood stars makes sense. Deacon, like 2009 BAFTA Rising Star Award winner, Noel Clarke, has a comparatively niche audience, but an extremely loyal one. The films he stars in, and occasionally directs, are by no means good, but they do not talk down to his audience and they set out to entertain his fans, and his fans only. He makes films about gangsters, football, London estates which feature a rap, grime and dustup score and dialogue which features lots of swear words. Deacon could be considered the personification of the phrase, "...setting the bar low".

Adam Deacon stars as Jerome, a successful footballer being hyped as the next David Beckham. When he goes home to the estate he grew up on, he comes across some childhood friends, lead by gangster, drug dealer and loan shark, Baron (David Ajala). During a night out, Baron manages to take advantage of Jerome's success and asks him for £10,000. Jerome accepts, except now Baron begins blackmailing him for another ten grand (this time under the false pretence that he will use the money to protect Jerome's little brother, Aaron). Eventually, Jerome finds himself in Baron's pocket, who demands £15,000 every couple of months, to fund his drug empire.

Believe me, the sound of the collective eye-rolling that I can hear from everyone reading this right now is not falling on deaf ears. I also appreciate, like yourselves, that British cinema has become plagued with this "guns, gangsters and geezers" nonsense. However, for its predictability, I just cannot bring myself to hate this piece of work. Do not get me wrong, it is a bad film. The script is predictable, the direction is poor, the acting is amateurish and it seems all but destined for a straight-to-DVD release. However, it is endearingly earnest and picking on it would feel like an act of cruelty. Unlike other British straight-to-DVD, ahem, "stars", like Danny Dyer or Noel Clark, Deacon seems to really believe in the tripe he is peddling. There is a refreshing lack of cynicism to his work, and if this sounds like empty praise, I do think that is fairly admirable. 

Having said all that, the film is still mind numbingly dull, and its sincerity is not a substitute for quality. In the first few seconds of the film, a grime-rap song plays over the opening credits, meaning the soundtrack is horribly cliched, and this is before a line of dialogue has yet to be uttered. Speaking of the dialogue, it too is cliched, with characters talking in gangster, estate slang, with every conversation revolving around football, sex and cars. To give you an example of how stale the dialogue is, I kid you not, several times throughout the film, someone makes a "your mum" gag. There is nothing here which is awful, but it is also inessential, uninteresting and bordering on self parody. No stone is left unturned, with every cliche which has permeated British gangster cinema appearing to rear its ugly head. For example, take the characterisation, which is so broad that every character can be summed up in less than one sentence. Jerome, for instance, is the good guy. We know he is a good guy because he is polite to his mum and buys his brother new shoes. I am sure this will resonate with certain audience members, who would consider family values to be a virtue that should be held up above all other morals, but to most people, this just comes off as hokey. 

In all honesty, there is little that is interesting about this picture. In terms of acting, the entire ensemble comes across as amateur and uninspired; especially Deacon, who is better known as a supporting player in other people's movies. I may be mistaken, but this a rare example of Deacon as a leading man, and while he does not bump into the furniture, he seems a little lost here. Perhaps the most heartbreaking piece of bad acting comes from Anna Popplewell as Izzy, a tabloid journalist. It is heartbreaking because, back in 2005 she played Susan Pevensie in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and later reprised the role inThe Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. I count myself among one of many people who hoped that she would break out into more starring roles, so it is fairly crushing to see her in this film, giving a performance this bad. An exception is David Ajala, as Baron; who is fairly menacing, even if he is just doing his best Idris Elba impression.

To be frank, there is just nothing to say about this film, other than that the devoted audience of Adam Deacon fans that will be sure to flock to it will most likely enjoy it. It is good to know that there is an actor who knows his limitations and sticks firmly to his comfort zone, as backhanded as that seems it is fairly refreshing. As long as there are performers like Deacon around, they are sure to be films being released like this which, despite being utterly dull, will sell very well to a crowd of devotees. Which leads me to conclude  by saying that, on the one hand, Payback Season is far from an awful movie, and it certainly does not deserve the 2.6 out of 10 score which it has on the Internet Movie Database. However, on the other hand, it is the cinematic equivalent of waiting for paint to dry or the kettle to boil. You will probably have more fun doing anything else with your time, but if you do find yourself watching it, I doubt you will have a terrible time.

4/10

The Grey (2012, Joe Carnahan)

There is a theory, in the realms of film criticism, that whenever a film is released that is reminiscent of cinema made in the 1970s, it will be praised far more than it actually deserves. Perhaps it is because collectively, as the filmgoing public, we miss the style of filmmaking from that era. Or, it may be because the advancement in computer technology means that any film which uses visual effects sparingly reminds us of a time when everything was shot on location. Whatever the reason, I have to wonder whether the critical praise heaped upon Joe Carnahan's The Grey was garnered through the fact that it is quite similar to survival horror movies of the 1970s and 80s, like Deliverance and Southern Comfort? It is not as if The Grey is a bad film, it is just that there is too much missing to make it truly interesting.

Liam Neeson stars as John Ottman, a man whose job it is to kill wolves that threaten an Alaskan oil drilling team. After completing the job, Ottman, and the team of drillers, head home on a plane which crashes midway through its flight due to a strong blizzard. When Ottman regains consciousness, he finds that the plane has crashed in the Alaskan wilderness in the middle of a wolves lair, and that only a handful of the drilling crew are left alive. The small group of survivors realise that their only chance for survival is to head south and to try and find civilisation before they are picked off, one by one, by the wild animals.

Unfortunately, just from the synopsis, the film encounters its first problem. Which is, that the set up is ridiculous under close scrutiny. All planes, even small, single-engined planes, are equipped with emergency beacons for these kind of situations. It is also fairly well established that they have some shelter at the crash site, which is imperative when staying alive under these circumstances. Had the film set up some sort of avalanche, or a plot device which made staying with the plane an impossibility, that would have at least been plausible. Although, nothing is quite as silly as believing that walking into the frozen wastes of Alaska, where the wolves have free rein, is the smartest idea. It stretches suspension of disbelief because it is set up that Ottman "knows wolves", and that he is an expert in reading wolvine behaviour. As a setup this is lazy to the point of insulting, and they should have thought of a more dramatic way of getting them out in the open.

This criticism of the lack of realism may seem like nitpicking, but I found it to be extremely manipulative at points, especially in the way the wolves are presented. Although, to be fair, at times they do attempt realism, but only with the humans. For example, after the plane crashes, the group of survivors discover one of the passengers bleeding to death; Ottman helps ease the man into a calm state of mind before he dies, even telling him that he should think of his loved ones. This scene is very well handled, so it is strange that the wolves are always presented as ravenous beasts, even when unthreatened. Given the fact that the American public, by and large, has an irrational fear of wolves, the use of realism in some scenes makes it seem as if this film sincerely represents how wild animals act, when it is does no such thing.

Regrettably, overall, this is a fairly flawed film, with narrative and character development issues appearing at every possible moment. For instance, despite the fact that there are several characters, only Ottman is developed. The rest of the characters, namely the drillers, are underdeveloped and given only a few minutes of character development between them. In those few minutes, they are fleshed out a little more, but it does little to change the fact that they are merely wolf bait, padding out the film's running time to feature length. We are never really given a reason to care about these men, and that is a shame, because otherwise they may as well have left Liam Neeson to be the only surviver.

However, having said all this, there is plenty right with it. For example, the visual effects, while rubbery, are used sparingly. For the majority of the film, until the final scene, the wolves are always out of focus or just out of view. So a lot of the terror of the Alaskan wilderness is kept to the imagination. Also, the harsh, winter setting is real, and reportedly, at times the temperature on the shoot was as low as minus 40 degrees centigrade;  giving the characters' circumstance, at least in regard to weather, a real authenticity. This is what gives the film an old fashioned feeling, as this is exactly how computer-generated effects, for the most part, should be handled. Computer effects were not introduced to filmmakers to recreate entire landscapes (except with films like Tron, where that is the point), but as a tool. Here they allow the on camera action do the work, and then complete the shot with a fuzzy, out-of-focus, computer generated wolf or two.

Other positives are the casting of Liam Neeson in the lead role and Joe Carnahan's direction. Both have spent the best part of the past  direction making dumb, loud, unintelligent action films, so it is good to see both doing something more organic and visceral. Of course, Neeson, before the year 2000, was known for making artistic dramas such as Schindler's List, yet he has reemerged as the unlikeliest of action stars, given his age and his art-house credibility. Carnahan, started making films such as Narc, which had a really bleak, nihilistic streak beneath it, yet in the past few years he started making films such as The A-Team remake. It is nice to see that both are back to making films which are reminiscent of the kind of films they were making earlier in their careers.

Unfortunately, no matter how good the effects, the direction or Neeson's performance is, there is an underlying condescending attitude that the film carries throughout. I am not just talking about the situation with the plane or the manipulative way they present the behaviour of wild animals, although they are both part of it. At times, during the quieter moments of the film, it attempts to be philosophical about religion, with characters talking about fate and miracles. However, there seems to be a lack of sincerity to these moments, and they are clunky handled. Like the way the film preys on America's irrational fear of wild animals, this seems to be playing to the cheap seats in the American Bible belt. It does not handle the religious sections intelligently, it simply seems to be sneering at the dumb audience members who will lap up any film that has even the briefest mention of God or religion.

In conclusion, while this is well constructed and is a fantastic example of how to use computer-generated effects on a budget, it is also deliberately dense, manipulative and insulting. There is fun to be had here, so long as one does not take any of the film's "deeper" moments at all seriously.

6/10

Prometheus (2012, Ridley Scott)

It is safe to say that Prometheus is one of the most anticipated movies of the summer, if not the year. After all, it is a movie which has its roots in the Alien franchise, and it is the first science-fiction film that Ridley Scott has directed in quite some time. With these gargantuan expectations, along with the fact that truly exceptional, adult science-fiction seems to become rarer with each passing year, could these expectations ever be met?

Well, yes, I suppose they could, had one avoided all the hype and marketing prior to the film's release. Unfortunately, for me, the film arrives a little half-baked, with what starts off as a promising film, devolving by around the midway point. Our story begins in 2089 when archaeologist couple Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) uncover a pattern scattered among numerous prehistoric artefacts all pointing to a particular cluster of stars (referred to as a star-map). Funded by Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), founder of the Weyland Corporation, the duo and a team of astronauts and scientists follow the map to the distant moon, LV-223; where they believe that the star-map could point to the answer of human creation. However, things do not go to plan when the crew find a cylindrical, alien structure on the moon's surface. As they start to explore, Elizabeth and the crew discover that what they are looking for may be a threat, not only to them, but to the entire human race.

Firstly, this is not a prequel to Alien. It is true that it exists in the same universe as the original film, but other than starting a few story threads which will be brought up in Alien, the two are not directly linked. If that were enough to make it a prequel, then by that same logic, The Wire and Homicide: Life on the Street are sequels to The X-Files, simply because a character from one shows up in the other two. Whether or not one has seen either Alien or Aliens should not hinder one's enjoyment of Prometheus. I only say that since most of what I have read about the movie, be it on internet message board posts or reviews, have tied themselves up in knots talking about the "prequel-continuation" debate.

I believe it is best to open this review with my reservations, of which I have a few.  I am afraid to say that the script is extremely clunky. While the concept of meeting the being, or beings, which are responsible for all human life is not a new one in science-fiction, it is still interesting and with the right execution it could have been handled very well. Although, where Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey handled this feat with overpowering, breathtaking imagery, Prometheus handles this with lots of characters giving speeches. Unfortunately, this means that there never feels like there is much weight behind this quest, as it merely becomes a debate. Characters argue, but the gnashing of teeth is never particularly interesting, especially since in reality people do not talk like this.

I hate to make comparisons to the Alien franchise, especially after my sermonising about how Prometheus' connection to Alien was loose, but there is a strong contrast, at least in terms of writing, between the two. Dan O'Bannon's screenplay for Alien did not need to have characters talk about the themes that the film conveyed for those themes to be apparent. In fact, the characters generally spoke about the smaller issues while the subtext worked to make the big picture so powerful. In stark contrast, Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof's script is unbelievably shallow, with people talking about the big picture, but little else. 

This also means that several of the characters are little more than ciphers and mouthpieces for the themes, and they are never really fleshed out. For example, nerdy botanist, Millburn (Rafe Spall) represents Darwinism, to contrast Elizabeth and Charlie's insistence on the search for a higher power, and that is all he is there for. Although, Millburn's thin characterisation is still a luxury compared to Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) or Janek (Idris Elba), who do little more than represent their roles on the ship (Weyland Corporation employee and the ship's captain, respectively). Only David (Michael Fassbender), the ship's android, escapes this, and seems to have been where the film concentrates all of its subtleties and nuances. I wish I could say some kinder things about the screenplay, but it is irredeemably stupid at times, and only shows flashes of excellence with the characterisation of David.

Ridley Scott's direction fares better, and most of what is effective is through his hard work. I do not think his direction is perfect, or anything approaching excellence; but it is solidly effective filmmaking from an experienced director. Firstly, the visuals are exceptionally imaginative, which I can credit to Scott and his crew of visual artists. Secondly, for a filmmaker who is considered by some to be past his prime, he delivers enough standout scenes which shall be remembered as some of the best scenes of any film of 2012; despite the mediocrity of the narrative around those scenes. Although, I do hope that his next foray into science-fiction is an improvement on this one, and that he is simply using this film to find his footing, as it were. Unfortunately, where his direction becomes dull and repetitive, is in the scenes which rely most on spectacle. Meaning, the films relies too heavily on computer-generated effects, which to me, always looks slightly rubbery when used for large scale set-pieces. For example, there is a scene towards the end of the film where two characters are running from a big, destructive force, and it never feels genuine; instead the green screen behind them is all too apparent.

Ultimately, apart from a few scenes, including a scene where Millburn and mow-hawk sporting geologist, Fifield (Sean Harris), are trapped within the alien structure, little of the film is tense or even scary. Although, there is one scene which is horrifyingly tense involving Elizabeth performing an emergency operation on herself, which I shall not spoil. However, these are also the scenes which require the least amount of computer-generated effects, and instead rely more on the performers' talent to convey fear. I am trying to imagine how the film would have looked had Scott decided to shave 30, or even 40 million dollars off his budget from the start, allowing his team of writers and his crew to come up with ideas that were not so grand or vast in scope. I would like to think that everything would be contained and things would feel much more claustrophobic and up-close, but that is mere speculation.

In regard to the performances, everyone does, at the very least, do an adequate job. In the leading role, we have Noomi Rapace playing Elizabeth Shaw, who does a fine job. Her attempt at an upper-class, British accent slips all over the place, but she does a fine enough job of anchoring the movie. One scene in particular, which I have already mentioned, but won't spoil, shows the brilliance she showed in her breakout role, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but is over all too briefly. Logan Marshall-Green as Holloway is a little flat, but he is not served well by the script, which calls for him to lurch from an idealist to a drunken cynic in a single scene. Rafe Spall and Sean Harris share a believable, easygoing chemistry together as Millburn and Fifield, and they anchor some of the film's tensest scenes. Idris Elba squeezes every last bit of charisma he can muster to pull off his underwritten role as a 'spit-and-sawdust' military type, Captain Janek. He even manages to seduce Vickers in one scene, which is made believable due to Elba's charisma and charm. Speaking of Vickers, she is played well by Charlize Theron, who manages to steal some scenes from the leading lady, due to Theron's steely determination to make the character work.

It is Michael Fassbender as David, the ship's android, which steals the show. It is a performance reminiscent to Rutger Hauer's performance as Roy Batty, the replicant robot from Blade Runner, in the sense that it hints at whether artificial intelligence can develop a soul. It is a wonderfully subtle piece of acting, and it is really the only point in the film that the writers, and Scott, get consistently right. 

In conclusion, Prometheus is a well meaning, if misguided science-fiction film from Ridley Scott. Little about it is spectacular, and the little that is, is over far too quickly. It is well directed and well designed, but it is let down by a shockingly dumb script, which is so poor that the talented cast cannot save it, apart, of course, from Michael Fassbender. In the end, it is a forgettable piece of work.

5/10