REVIEW: One For The Money

A film title is probably one of the most important first impressions that an audience can get. It's key in getting the mood right but also being catchy enough for them to remember it.

I'll never forget the absolute shock and awe at how terrible the film title was for Horrible Bosses the first time I saw the trailer in the cinema. It's just one of the most redundant film titles I think I have ever come across... It just did nothing for me. It sounded awkward and so obvious in your face, that I was insulted that it didn't even try to be clever with a pun or maybe even a little rhyme in it's title.

No. The filmmakers just decided to make a film about bosses who were horrible called, Horrible Bosses.

I thought I would never come across such an awful title, until I saw One For The Money. Never have I ever seen a film with such an apt title. Katherine Heigl and the rest of the cast and crew involved in this film were definitely just in it for the money.

The film is based on the books of the same name by Janet Evanovich. The film follows Stephanie Plum (Katherine Heigl) who has recently split up from her partner, lost her apartment and has her car towed away (all within the first five minutes of the film!) So, with desperation she takes a job at her cousin's bail-bond business where she works alongside Ranger (Daniel Sunjata), a more experienced man who teaches her how to cuff a man and shoot her gun. Plum's first job assignment is to go after ex-policeman and ex-partner, Joe Morelli (Jason O'Mara) for the $50,000 reward and to get herself back on track. However, her old feelings for Morelli soon creep in and interfere with her chances of getting her money.

One of the first problems with the film yet again lies within the genre that it chooses. I'm starting to have big issues with genre - either the film follows the genre rules too rigidly or it doesn't seem to follow the "promises" of it's genre enough - the film falls into the latter.

Is it a romantic comedy? No, not really because Plum and Morelli never really share a proper intimate moment together. He tricks her into thinking he is, so he can cuff Plum to her own shower rail and later she tricks him, so she can trap him inside a truck. However, there is never really a key moment that shows Morelli and Plum are still attracted to each other.

So, is it an action film? No. Definitely not. Action is hinted at, especially when Plum starts hanging out with Ranger and is seen being trained using her gun, but the film never really delivers on fully action-packed sequences. It's almost like if we got the Rocky-esque training montage without the final boxing match, so to speak. It was just disappointing!

The second major flaw with the film was the casting of Katherine Heigl. I normally like her in the sweet and fluffy roles that she usually takes. But, this time Heigl was definitely just in it for the money and gave a very run-of-the-mill performance to boot. She never really sold it that her character was still attracted to Morelli. She never really sold the character arc that Plum went from bumbling bail-bond officer to gun-toting badass. She just never really went for anything. Her acting was so pedestrian that I was sitting there thinking that even I could have tried to do a better job and I think my acting is terrible.

Now I know we all have bad days at work. Believe me, I have plenty of them. It's just unfortunate that when actors and actresses have a bad day at work, it is recorded and then broadcast for thousands of people to see. I guess they get paid enough, so we shouldn't feel too sorry for them!

Finally, something that I did enjoy about the film was the inclusion of Lula (Sherrie Shephard) and Jackie (Ryan Michelle Bathe), the two hookers that Plum uses as informants to try and find Morelli. Some of their jokes were touching a little bit on the racist side (at one point I remember Bathe's character saying, "Why you telling that white lady everything?") Call me touchy for saying that's racist, but have it the other way around and I'm sure there would have been a few complaints. However, both Lula and Jackie provided some much needed laughs in this "comedy" film (was it a comedy?!) I found myself so invested in their small supporting roles, that when one of them was attacked and injured, I felt bad for them and wanted to make it through. Not really a good point to your film if your supporting actresses are actually more cared for than your main actress...

Overall, I wouldn't really bother with One For The Money again. It's a film that doesn't really know what it is, has a main actress who doesn't seem bothered to be in it and also a distinct lack of jokes. While there were a couple of laughs in there somewhere, it wasn't really enough to warrant you parting with a good eight pounds of your well-earned cash!

* 1/2 / *****

REVIEW: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Experiencing a loss within a family is heartbreaking. The sudden void that the person leaves behind, whether it's sudden or expected, is extremely hard to fill. Memories and happier thoughts usually creep in after a while, but that gut-wrenching feeling of when they have first gone is incredibly hard.

On September 11th 2001, the whole world watched as thousands of people left this world behind. I remember the day vividly myself. While I wasn't directly affected by what was happening in New York, I remember being glued to the television and not really wanting to believe what I was seeing. When I look back on it now, I just can't imagine how difficult it was for thousands of families to watch their loved ones last moments being broadcast across the globe.

The film, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is a film that uses the 9/11 attacks as the basis of it's storyline. The film itself follows the young Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) who looses his father, Thomas Schell (Tom Hanks) in the 9/11 attacks. The story is then picked up a year later, when enough time has passed to start looking back fondly at the life of someone who has passed away. However, Oskar suffers from Asperges syndrome, which means his ability to empathise with others is very limited and his relationship with his Mother, Linda Schell (Sandra Bullock) is strained.

Oskar finds a key, left in an envelope labelled "Black", and believes that his Father left it behind for him to solve a puzzle. What follows is Oskar's trip across New York looking for anyone with the surname Black to help him solve the mystery of the key and find out what it unlocks.

I must admit, I struggled with parts of this film. I wondered what was the massive emphasis on the key for because whatever the outcome of it, it was built up so much that I couldn't help feel it would be a disappointment when we found out what it did unlock. Unfortunately, I was correct in this assumption.

Without meaning to give anything away, when we were told what the key unlocked, I felt like I had wasted my time that I invested in the film and was dangerously close to being disappointed.

Looking back on it now though, the key was only a metaphor. It wasn't really the main issue of the film, but was a symbol for all the difficulties that Oskar had to 'unlock' after the death of his Father... (check me out with the deep meaning stuff!!) The only problem was, that the film spends a good hour of it's running time solely dedicated to Oskar finding out what the key was for. I was much more interested in the scenes between Oskar and his Mother (and Grandmother), as they were much more emotional than Oskar going on his journey across New York. I actually found myself waiting for Sandra Bullock to be back on the screen, as I felt more invested in the struggling relationship between Oskar and his Mother than some key.

I have read some complaints online that Oskar comes across as an unlikeable character (at one point he tells his Mother that he wishes it was her that was in the World Trade Centre rather than his Father). While I can understand why people thought this, I think my experience of looking after children with varying degrees of ASD and Asperges has helped me understand the character a bit more.

It usually means that they say exactly what's on their mind without thinking to hold it back. While one of us may of had this thought in the deep depths of our minds, we would have the common sense to hold it back. Oskar struggles with the noises of trains passing by, the car horns in New York City, the people talking and others shouting on the street around him, without having to also think what he has to say as well.

Like I said, I didn't found his character unlikeable, but confused and angry at the death of his Father. You may think otherwise.

A final point I wanted to make was that the film can be a bit predictable sometimes. I kind of guessed what part the character of "The Renter" (Max von Sydow) would play almost as soon as he was introduced. The point of the key was also a bit of a moot point, considering that any reason they could think of what it was for would render it a disappointment - so they went in the complete opposite direction with it. A final point is that some things just seemed to conveniently happen. The most obvious one of these is when Oskar decides to walk past his Father's favourite swing towards the end of the film and find a touching note that he has left behind...

Overall, I wasn't completely disappointed with the film. In fact, the scenes between Oskar and his Mother I found more emotional than the whole of the weepy film, The Vow. It's just a shame that the story was so devoted to the pointless activity of Oskar finding out the point of the key and so it missed the mark on some key emotional scenes between character's relationships.

*** / *****

REVIEW: The Vow

Relationships take time. No, let me rephrase that... good relationships take time to build trust, understand each other, and ultimately, to fall in love.

Awwww, how mushy of me! But it's true. Lust cannot turn into love without that time to truly understand each other. That's why the romance genre has made enough use of the absolute pickle when someone suffers amnesia, thus erasing their memories of their loved one and thus making them "fall out of love" (if that's possible?!)

Ah, that old chestnut! Just take a look at the ol' favourite, The Notebook and the, erm, not so favourite, 50 First Dates to see some true Hollywood versions of amnesia taking away that love.

I've basically just given away the plot of The Vow in that very short opening. If you do need me to clarify, then the film follows Paige (Rachel McAdams) and Leo (Channing Tatum), a couple who were "made for each other", suffer a terrible car accident. When Rachel wakes up from her medically induced coma, she has absolutely no recollection of her new life that she built with Leo in the big city to follow her dreams of making it as a successful sculptor and instead thinks that she still lives in the suburbs with her parents and has never met Leo at all...

It's a simple storyline that, quite frankly, has a "been there, done that" kind of feel to it. Not only that, but the film slides so comfortably into the romance genre, that it does hardly anything to even try and challenge it.

Let's see...

Characters living in the big city where "dreams come true"? Check.

Said characters trying to live out their dreams, however unrealistic or bohemian they may seem? Check.

A family unsupportive of the relationship? Check.

Said family living out in the leafy suburbs with a ridiculously huge mansion? Check.

Younger sibling who is getting married and in a seemingly perfect relationship? Check.

It's all there really. There's no denying that The Vow is definitely a romance film. Now, I normally wouldn't have a problem with a film sticking so rigidly to the conventions of it's genre, but when the story itself is so uninspired (and arguably just plagiarised from many other films), that's when a problem starts to occur.

Where the film does succeed though is with it's characters. While Channing Tatum is pretty wooden in his role, Rachel McAdams really does go for it (when she could have so easily just done this one for the money.)

Without meaning to get too 'film school' in this review, her character-arc is so obviously defined that it makes it really hard to not sympathise with her. She is introduced as this bohemian and care-free woman who loves her husband for all his little flaws (she even winds up the window so she can smell his fart... nice!) It is once she awakens from her coma that we start to understand that she was brought up by her family as a prim and proper preppy law-school student from the suburbs... and this is who she thinks she is again.

While Tatum starts to do stupidly insane things to get his wife back to the person who he loved, it is the drama in her struggle that shines through in McAdams performance (like organising a surprise party for his wife who has forgotten who all her friends are...?!) While these struggles are subtly built throughout the majority of the film, the main tension comes at the end when McAdams learns the truth about why she left her family in the first place. While it does open up some questions (the main one being, why she was so mad at everyone in her family) it was a surprising "twist" to the pretty standard story.

So, the film seems pretty mis-matched in places. While McAdams does a pretty good job of drawing us in to her struggles of a sufferer of amnesia who is scared of who she "really" is, the basic plot and cardboard cut-out performance from Tatum really does hinder the film in some major ways.

Just please, Hollywood. No more romance films involving amnesia. Please...

** 1/2 / *****

REVIEW: The Woman in Black

Getting a horror film right is like balancing a perfect comedy. The build-up needs to be spot on with a worthy punchline in order for the audience to feel satisfied. Whereas the punchline needs to be funny in comedy, the punchline in horror needs to be that exact moment when your heart feels like it's going to burst out of your mouth with fear.

But, what actually is scary? People's fears are widely different. Fear usually comes from a deep hidden origin, like a bad experience with something as a child or a deep belief you've just always seemed to have.

I am deathly scared of ghosts and would literally walk past open doors in the dark with my hand cupped around my eyes, incase something would jump out at me. I think the fear of ghosts used to come from living in an old stately home (that was converted into a pub) and hearing all of the "ghostly tales" that went on there (but I was at least 13/14 by the time we moved there - a bit too old to be scared of ghosts really!!) I'm not too sure what covering my eyes would do exactly and how I thought it would keep me safe. I think I had the mentality of, "If I can't see it, then it can't harm me."

It's films like The Woman in Black that I find the scariest of all horror films. Zombies don't bother me. Serial killers can go take a running jump. But, tell me a tale of a malevolent spirit determined to wreak havoc on the living world around it, then I will be hooked.

The Woman in Black cements Hammer Studios return to horror cinema. After the brilliant remake, Let Me In (if you haven't seen it yet, go see it) and the so-so, The Resident, The Woman in Black is a gloriously, creepy British period horror film about a ghostly woman... who wears black. The film follows Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) who is sent by his law firm to sort out the Last Will and Testament of one of their clients, Mrs Drablow (Alisa Khazanova). The local residents aren't so welcoming of his visit and while he is at her uber-creepy mansion, Eel Marsh House, Kipps starts to see visions of a ghostly spectre.

I'm not going to give much more of the plot away, because if you haven't read the book or seen the stage play, then what follows is a brilliant tale of ghostly revenge. For the stage play, the story was adapted to host the story in a theatre - the character of Kipps is acting out his story of the woman in black with another actor, because he wants to warn people of the ghost and exorcise her spirit.

The film also makes some changes. In all honesty, the film could have kept the exact same plot as the book and still have made a very good film. But, some of the changes that screenwriter Jane Goldman makes are actually pretty good. Some lovers of the book/stage play won't like this, but making the character of Kipps so desperate (he is at risk of loosing his job and his relationship with his son is strained) actually help make his decisions to stay overnight in the creepy Eel Marsh House a lot more understandable.

Goldman also changes the ending, which arguably helps wrap up the film a lot more neatly than the original book/stage play. It's not a perfect ending, but it just seems to make a bit more sense and without a lingering sense that the story just isn't finished yet. In the film, the story is definitely over...

Some changes aren't so welcome though. The main one is the inclusion of Mrs Daily (Janet McTeer), the quirky wife of Daily (Ciaran Hinds) who seems to have a psychic connection with the dead and the woman in black. By the time she is introduced into the film, it is well into spooky territory after Kipps has spent a day at Eel Marsh House and has seen the woman in black. Mrs Daily then provides some comic relief that we just don't really need. Her psychic drawings help drive the plot forward, but they just seem to come out of nowhere... she just seems to come out of nowhere. An establishing scene of her holding one of her seances would have been a nice way to introduce Mrs Daily and her psychic abilities (we see an advert in the newspaper for her seances early in the film, but we never see her hold one.)

A final issue with the film (that has been brought up by many people online) is the film's heavy reliance on "jump scares".

A crow squeaks loudly. A toy suddenly comes to life and starts moving. A character pops up out of nowhere. Those are just a few of the jump scares that the film relies on and those are the ones that don't even include the ghostly woman in black! The film does balance these jump scares out with well drawn out tension as Kipps wanders around the house and it's grounds, but the over reliance on jump scares sometimes sucks the spookiness out of the scene.

After a shock, an audience seems to feel the need to laugh it off (a natural reaction, I guess.) When you are trying to build a sense of dread, laughter is not something you want to hear all the time when watching a horror film that uses a lot of jump scares.

Overall, the film is really creepy and is a good showpiece for Radcliffe to show the world that he is not just a boy wizard. The film has caused some controversy, because after having about 6 seconds cut from the film it was awarded a 12A certificate, which means any child under 12 can see the film if accompanied by an adult. I don't really agree with this. While the film is not gory in the slightest, the continued sense of horror built up throughout the film really does not make this suitable for young children.

So, my question to you is this; for children, just how scary is too scary?

**** / *****

REVIEW: The Muppets

One thing that I can't really stand is other people's children. Especially when those children are doing things such as crying, shouting or running around like a lunatic.

This might seem a bit surprising to people who know me, because apparently I'm "good with children" and I work as a teacher...

The thing is, I can stand young children when I'm related to them (of course I can!) and when in the classroom, I'm in charge of said children, so if they mess around they have to answer to me. When I'm out in public, it's up to the parent to deal with the child and I guess I can be a bit impatient.

So... imagine the scene. 12:45pm on a Saturday afternoon. The first day of half term. I decide to see The Muppets at a packed cinema... full of children.

In all honesty, it could have been a lot worse. None of said children had a mobile phone out and playing on them all through the film (something of a pet peeve of mine) and the worst behaviour in the cinema all the way through the film was some children running around the stalls right at the front - but they weren't shouting/screaming/crying, which are the worst things children can do!

Back to the film at hand. The Muppets deals with Walter (voiced by Peter Linz), his brother Gary (Jason Segel) and Gary's girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams) trying to save the Muppets studio from falling into the hands of an evil oil tycoon, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper). And, that's about it really. It's a brilliantly simple storyline that allows the Muppets themselves to really be the central characters. After all, it is a children's film. The story cannot be too over-the-top or ridiculous, otherwise it will lose it's core audience.

Mix in some fart shoes, musical numbers and slapstick humour, and the children will be entertained throughout.

For the adults, the film mainly hits the right buttons during the campy musical numbers and when the characters break the fourth wall and talk directly to the audience. The "Muppet or a Man" song seemed to be a highlight for me, as well as the opening song "Life's a Happy Song" - both I'm sure will be played by myself again soon!

While the Muppets themselves are an american creation, I couldn't help but think that some americanisms in the film will be lost on most people. Some of the celebrity cameos were questionable - I didn't recognise some of them and had to be told who Justin Bieber's girlfriend was by who I went with*... is that all she is famous for?! Also, some celebrity cameos just seemed to be wasted. Dave Grohl was a part of the Muppets tribute band, 'The Moopits' but he spent nearly all of the scene in the background. I almost missed him!

Also, the whole notion of the Muppets saving their beloved studio through a telethon is rather lost in translation a little bit. While we have fund raising events on the TV in Britain for charities such as Children in Need and Red Nose Day, the telethon event in The Muppets just seemed a bit of a cop-out and anticlimax.

Having said all of that, the film does still manage to raise a smile and even a laugh in a few places. The songs were a welcome uplifting break from the simplistic storyline and the cheesy feel-good ending was just what the doctor ordered when I decided to purchase a ticket for a film called, The Muppets!

*** / *****

* I went with my friend, Nikki Mason. She was moaning at me because I didn't mention her before in the blogs, so here's the mention. Enjoy!

REVIEW: Chronicle

I like it when a film tries to mix things up a bit and use things we expect from different genres to make a new film. I like The Grey for doing it, I think Jeepers Creepers mixed the road movie and creature-feature well and From Dusk 'Till Dawn is one of my favourite films.

Chronicle also tries to do just that, but instead of trying to mix genres, it tries to mix a genre (the superhero genre) with a filming style (the "found footage" film.) What results is an interesting film that provides some shaky, hand-held intimate moments mixed with the origin story of some new superheroes on the block.

The film revolves around cousins Andrew (Dane DeHaan) and Matt (Alex Russell) and the school jock/student president, Steve (Michael B. Jordan). Andrew has decided to start documenting his life after showing us that his Mother is close to death and cannot afford the medication, his Father is abusive towards him and he is a general "loser" at school and is relentlessly picked on. At an after-school party, the three main protagonists find a mysterious hole in the ground that leads to some sort of glowing Kryptonite. After coming into contact with the glowing rock, the trio soon realise that they have powers and decide to see how they can develop them.

However, it soon becomes apparent that Andrew is growing "drunk" with power and sees himself slowly taking revenge on those who have always been aggressive towards him.

The film has a good build up to it's characters. As the audience, we are properly introduced to Andrew and just how pathetic his life has become. His Father is a drunk, idiotic douche who beats Andrew whenever he has the chance and his Mother's desperate situation where she lies suffering without medication is definitely a strong enough incentive for Andrew to use his powers (when he gets them) for his own selfish ways. While Matt and Steve are definitely the secondary supporting leads, they too are fleshed out enough and given enough screen time for us to care about them.

When the boys do get their powers, the build-up of what they can do with them is carefully well-handled - it starts with messing around in the garden with the boys trying to stop a baseball from hitting their head until they realise they can lift their own bodies and fly later on in the film.

Having said all this, the film does have a few glaring flaws. Found footage films are really hard to get the balance right. Just how far should a character realistically go before putting down the camera and getting on with what they need to do without distractions? (Why would a character film themselves thieving from a shop?) When should a character realistically be filming something? (In the film, Matt's love interest is an online blogger who "films everything", but why would she really film her front door when answering it?!) And found footage can sometimes take the audience out of the action (a lot of the final battle takes place through security cameras, police car cameras or crowd shots far away from the action.)

Also, this film is basically an origins story around our trio of new superheroes. Origin stories need explanations about things. We are never told where the glowing rock came from and we are never really told how they actually found the hole (Steve tells Andrew that he and Matt were out "partying" and found it - but the hole appears to be miles out in the middle of nowhere.)

The final flaw is that the end battle is completely over-the-top and quite ludicrous in places that I was dangerously close to becoming one of those annoying cinema audiences who laughs at the wrong moments... (rule #225.)

All the way through the beginning and middle, the film slowly builds up the character's powers and them finding out what they can do with them. Then, all of a sudden in the final battle, we have buildings being smashed through, cars and buses tossed through the air and public monuments being ripped apart. It was like the opening scene to Team America that takes the piss out of how much destruction it takes for the "hero" to win. I know this is the kind of destruction that we expect from the superhero genre, but most superhero films have this campy and over-the-top theme from the beginning, whereas this film didn't have this from the beginning at all. It was a complete 180 flip from what we had been built up to expect and it was kind of like the filmmakers pulled the rug out from underneath us. That's why it was a bit too hard to accept at the end.

It's a shame really, because as you can guess, I was loving the film from the beginning and through the middle. It was the end battle that kind of ruined all of what was built up from the beginning.

If the battle was toned down a little bit at the end, then this film could have been close to perfect. Actually, my final score for this film is pretty close to perfect... so if the final battle had toned it down a bit, then this film would have been perfect.

**** / *****