If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

This is certainly the motto employed by the writers and director of Broken City starring Mark Wahlberg and Russell Crowe.

Wahlberg plays the part of Billy Taggart, ex Police Detective turned Private Eye, with Russell Crowe as Mayor Hostetler.

At the beginning of the movie we see Taggart up in court on a murder charge, having been involved in a shooting whilst trying to make an arrest.  Taggart has killed someone suspected of raping and murdering a 16 year old girl.  A technicality sees the suspect cleared of the charges, whilst everyone knows he was actually guilty.  The implication being that Taggart deliberately shot the man to see justice done.  Taggart himself is cleared of his charges, before being hauled into an office to meet with the Mayor and the Police Chief.  Here he is told that new evidence has come to light that will surely convict him.  The evidence can be made to disappear, but he has to resign.

After Taggart leaves the office we flash forward 7 years where he is now a Private Eye.  Struggling to make ends meet due to his good nature, he gets a call from the Mayor and is offered a large amount of money to follow the Mayor's Wife (played by Catherine Zeta Jones), as the Mayor suspects her of cheating.  As you can imagine, this is just a ploy for a far more sinister scheme that is being orchestrated by the Mayor against the backdrop of his re-election campaign.  The Mayor's Wife turns out not to be cheating, but trying to bring the Mayor down, with Taggart used as a pawn by the Mayor to prevent this from happening.

What ensues is some nice drama, suspense, with gunplay and scuffles.  In the end it boils down to a duel between Mark Wahlberg's and Russell Crowe's characters.  Both have hidden secrets and dirty hands, and when Crowe's Mayor tries using Taggart's skeleton in the closet against him, Taggart finds his shot at redemption by calling his bluff, sticking to his guns and taking the Mayor and himself down in the process.

It's pretty standard stuff as far as plot goes, complete with slow motion exit by a redeemed and triumphant Wahlberg at the end.  Good performances by the leads, and a good supporting turn by Zeta Jones make it above average and good entertainment.  If you're at a loss for what to go and see this week before the big blockbusters start to drop down, you won't go far wrong here.

Silver Lining and the Oscars...

With The Oscars done for 2013, I looked back on the winners and found no surprises, other than that of Best Actress. This year it went to Jennifer Lawrence, and up to that point my main knowledge of her came from The Hunger Games.  When initially offered the part of Katniss Everdeen, Jennifer Lawrence said she needed several days to think about it. Even though she was a fan of The Hunger Games novels, the scope of the part and the project could potentially go on to effect her future career.  As we know, she took the part, and I must say that it definitely seemed a part that didn't quite sit comfortably with her on screen. It will be interesting to see if that changes in the next instalment, now having one under her belt.  As a result of that performance, I couldn't imagine her sinking her teeth into a role that went on to land her the Best Actress Academy Award.

I missed the initial run of The Silver Linings Playbook at the cinema.  It was a time when I was still suffering the effects of an awkward and unintentional 'man date' situation.  Myself and a friend went to see Ruby Sparks together, not really knowing what it was all about.  As the credits began to roll, we looked across at each other knowing exactly what the other was thinking. What we had seen could only be described as a date movie.  Because of this, and an inkling that Playbook could be another potential 'man date' situation in the offing, Playbook passed me by.

Luckily, due to it's Oscar success, it was brought back for a select few showings.  So off I went, making sure I didn't miss another opportunity.  I had to get over my initial frustration at my local cinema not putting any trailers in before hand (something I've only experienced once before), which lead to me missing Bradley Cooper's opening monologue.  Once I had done this, I knew from the start I was watching something that I wouldn't find entirely comfortable.  In part due to the brilliant performances by Lawrence (Tiffany) and Cooper (Pat), and in part because they are so well supported by the likes of Robert De Niro (Pat Snr.), Chris Tucker (Danny) and Jacki Weaver (Dolores).

Pat and Tiffany are both Bi Polar sufferers.  Pat begins that film in a mental institution, where he has admitted himself to avoid jail time for beating his wife's lover to within an inch of his life.  Tiffany has lost her husband, and subsequently started sleeping with everybody she can.  The mental problems suffered by the main characters are so well executed, and between them Cooper, De Niro and Weaver create a home that is so exquisitely dysfunctional that you can see where Bradley Cooper's Pat has come to suffer from his own demons in the way that he does.  Pat's then dogged refusal to believe that his relationship with his wife is over, and his and Tiffany's using of each other to get what they want, is played out well enough to make you wonder why this would ever be considered a romance of any kind.  So that in the end, I was so convinced that their happy ending wasn't going to happen that I found myself fighting the urge to shout at the screen in frustration.

I enjoyed the film that much that it left me wondering not whether Jennifer Lawrence was good enough for her Oscar, but whether her own amazing performance was verging on being swallowed up by the strength of the supporting cast.  If you haven't seen this film already, get in there while you can for this limited post Oscar run.  You won't regret it.

And the Oscar for numbest bum goes to....

With the Oscars just around the corner, there are a lot of very good films hitting the cinemas.  Most of my free time has been spent watching these films, and I've found it difficult to find time to blog my thoughts on them.  There's little surprise why, here's the last four films that I've watched and their running times:

Lincoln - 2hrs 30mins (150 mins)

Django Unchained - 2hrs 45mins (165 mins)

Flight - 2hrs 18mins (138 mins)

Zero Dark Thirty - 2hrs 37mins (157 mins)












The average running time of the four films above is 152.5 minutes, so even if we generously don't round that up to 153, that's a 2 hour 32 minute average running time.  I can't imagine that cinemas vary greatly in the amount of advertisement they show before the start of the film.  At my local franchise, we are made to endure at least 30 minutes.  The only exception to this being when we went to see Total Recall in IMAX, when for some unbeknown reason the film started immediately with no advertisement before hand meaning we missed the first five minutes whilst enjoying a burger.  This means that my last 4 visits to the cinema have seen me spend on average over 3 hours in front of the screen.  As I'm sure any Father will be able to testify, that's a lot of time!

So, sat as I am, filtering through the swirling thoughts, emotions, and questions posed by the films above I thought 'does a films length, determine it's Oscar worthiness?'.

Rule 2 of the Oscars states that a film must me more than 40 minutes in length to qualify as a feature film, thereby qualify for the Oscar for Best Picture.

It would be amazing and hugely interesting if a 41 minute film had won Best Picture, however, the film with the shortest running time ever to have won is Marty (1955) at 94 minutes.  In a write up for the film during the time, it was said,
"Don't expect that record to be broken anytime soon, either.  Oscar winners are gettin' longer, not shorter."
After doing a little digging, I came across a great piece of work on collider.com (http://collider.com/oscar-best-picture-statistics/) which gives a breakdown of running times for the Best Picture winner.  The graph plotting the initial data makes it look as though the running time varies a lot, showing that a long running time doesn't always mean Best Picture winner.  Further study from this site shows that for the individual concerned, the average running time of films they have watched (which is a lot) is between 90 and 120 minutes.  It also shows that 80% of Best Picture winners after 1960 are longer than 2 hours.

So if you're planning on a trip to the cinema at the moment, beware of a numb bum.  There are a lot of potential Oscar winners out there at the moment, and as I've found, that means you'll be in for the long haul.

If you haven't bought a copy of Dredd...

The theatrical release of Dredd was met with a lukewarm reception at the box office.  It didn't recoup it's $45 million budget, making only $36.4 million.  Many who have seen it were left scratching their heads.  How could such a good film pull in such poor box office numbers?  Many speculated that it was the hard boiled, unyielding nature of it's action.  Gruesome, ultra violent, in an age where more and more films water down to achieve box office acceptance (Taken 2 is the most recent, and notable example of this), Dredd took off the gloves and swung away with knuckles bared.

Mistake?...

Most certainly not.  Doing anything but what they did would have been a disservice to the source material.  What Pete Travis and Alex Garland (with the help of many others) have created is, in my opinion, the most faithful, and downright best, comic adaptation of recent memory.  Although the film is greatly self contained, with no annoying 'wait until the next film' loose ends, I would dearly love to see more of this world and the characters within it, we know there are plenty more to introduce.  Little touches like the 'Chopper' graffiti tag, and an interview here with Alex Garland http://whatculture.com/film/alex-garland-interview-dredd-3d-slo-mo-sequel-ideas-more.php gave me hope that this would happen.

Then came the box office numbers...

Shortly followed by the reviews and articles saying that a sequel now would not happen.  Dredd had one more card to play, the DVD/Blu-Ray release.  We've come a long way since the days of Shawshank Redemption and VHS.  A film that also had a disappointing box office run, only to receive several Oscar nods and become the top rental film of 1995.  I can't see Dredd getting any Oscar nominations, and piracy is rife, but I've got everything crossed that home sales can elevate Dredd from box office disappointment to cult classic, and if the stars align a sequel.

So far so good?...

In the first week of sales, Dredd has shifted over 650,000 physical copies alone.  As well as topping the digital sales chart.  If this trend continues, and doesn't prove a flash in the pan, who knows?  So if you haven't bought a copy already, what are you waiting for?!

I'll even put the links here for you...

Physical:  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dredd-Blu-ray-3D-Karl-Urban/dp/B008OGHUFK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359059898&sr=8-1

Digital:  https://itunes.apple.com/gb/movie/dredd/id588738013

DO IT!!

Hold off on the Nolan box set....

If you, like me, think that Christopher Nolan has the midas touch when it comes to the big screen, then this could be good news.

In the void following the release of the last of the Dark Knight Trilogy, all eyes (ears, and digital equivalent) have been on what direction Nolan will take next.  And it looks like we might not have to wait long to find out.

Interstellar, a time travelling, sic-fi epic penned by his brother Jonathan may well be next on his list.  Originally tipped to have Spielberg at the helm, rumours are rife that the recent 'indefinite' postponement of Robopocalypse may have caused Nolan to make a move on this project before Spielberg officially put his name to it.

Let's hope there's more to follow on this soon.

Ringing in the New Year....

....the wrong way!

During the latter part of 2012, I had the opportunity to watch a reasonable amount of good films including Seven Psychopaths, The Hobbit, Argo, and even Jack Reacher.  Overall, 2012 was a great year for film in my opinion, so towards the end I got a little frustrated that I didn't have more chance to blog about the films I was watching.  It was during time spent reviewing the films that I had been to see most recently, that the picture above becomes relevant.  I was idly scanning the movies listings to see if there was anything on worth watching.  Now you might argue that Underworld: Awakening (don't forget the colon), is not worth watching, but I have to admit a soft spot for the first two films of the franchise.  I'm also entertained by the way Len Wiseman parades his wife Kate Beckinsale around in his films, and fair play to the guy, who wouldn't?

So last night, I found myself watching this fourth instalment to the franchise, and I was disappointed.  With the return of Beckinsale, and the potential for Charles Dance to add a Bill Nighy style gravitas to proceedings, I was hoping for more.  I felt nothing for any of the characters, the story was throw away, and came to no real conclusion.  The final shot, panning out from the roof top where the characters are standing, with Kate spewing forth a monologue about the war not being over, was cringe worthy.  I'm sure that the intention was to leave the door open for future Underworld films, if they decide the horse hasn't been flogged enough later down the line.

Imagine my shock then, to find out that it was the most successful Underworld at the box office.  I appreciate that the first film was poorly received, and relied on a slow burning cult following to open the door for a second.  But for it to be pulling in bigger crowds 4 films down the line, I do find a surprise.  Even as an unlimited cinema card holder, this would be at the bottom of any potential watch list I might have.  It opened alongside Red Tails, Haywire, and Coriolanus, all of which I would have rather seen at the cinema, and it took more at the box office than the 3 of them combined!

I suppose the silver lining to this cloud is that there's always the chance that we'll see Kate don that infamous skin tight outfit once more.

Welcome home, James Bond...

Skyfall is currently breaking UK Box Office records left, right and centre, and after watching the latest release commemorating 50 years of Bond (starting with Dr. No in 1962), I think it's easy to see why.

Shortly after watching the film, I went around asking people, "Which James Bond did you grow up with?".  I was shocked at the realisation that I now found myself in an older generation who answered Roger Moore, or even Sean Connery.  The majority now answer Pierce Brosnan, some will noe even answer Daniel Craig.  I believe your answer to this question will have an effect on how you view and appreciate the film, unless you are a big Bond fan who has gone back to watch all the previous films.

Pierce Brosnan's Bond had the charm, the swagger, and the gadgets.  Everything from laser watches, to exploding pens.  The one thing he lacked was any sense of peril.  No matter what the situation, Pierce Brosnan's Bond never had us concerned, just impatient to get to the bit where he mounted his escape and stuff started to explode.  This was the end of a progression that saw Bond use his quick wit and whatever was to hand less (a strand of hair across a door in Dr. No), and flashy gadgets that seemed tailor made for a situation that he seemingly accidentally found himself in, more (think laser watch escape from train in GoldenEye).

Then in steps Daniel Craig as Bond in Casino Royale, and the cycle is broken.  Bond is the more physical and violent character that we read about in the books, complete with brutal fight scenes and, the then in vogue, free running.  But more importantly Craig's Bond is only human, we see him fall in love and have his heart broken, as well as tortured and hospitalised.  An on screen process that makes you feel that you're there for the creation of the ice cool veneer that is synonymous with James Bond.  The only element that was missing from Casino Royale was the bad guy.  Mads Mikkelsen plays an excellent part, but he isn't the classic Bond villain.  There's a bigger shadowy element moving behind the scenes, a corporation of evil that runs through both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.  A great idea given the economic and political landscape of the times, but not very Bond.

That brings us to Skyfall (and some SPOILERS).  Here we have a classic return of the Bond villain in Javier Bardem's Silva.  He gives a stand out performance, with a character who is camp but dangerous, tongue in cheek but can still be taken seriously.  Most importantly, he has the smarts to stand toe to toe with the good guys (and they don't give a white cat to cradle in his arms during his opening monologue).

The most important, and for me, best aspect of Skyfall is the breaking and rebuilding of Bond throughout the course of the film.  Those responsible for Die Another Day, watch carefully, and take note.  If Casino Royale exposed Bond's underbelly, Skyfall creates a genuine doubt as to whether Bond can recover fully.  This is helped throughout by references to Bond being an old school player in a new age where technology trumps fieldcraft.  Whether it's the direct question posed by Mallory, or the scene between Q and Bond in the gallery.  The rebuilding is successful however, due to Bond's successful capture of the more tech savvy Silva using nothing but a radio, and the later set piece in Skyfall house.  Here we see Bond fend of Silva and his goons using low tech booby traps using whatever is at hand.  Giving us a new take on the light bulb that you're unlikely to see on 60 Minute Makeover any time soon.

Whilst the ending sees the passing of Judi Dench's M, the credits roll with a new M in the shape of Mallory, the return of Q and Miss Moneypenny, and everything set for Bond to return in a completely new adventure (no sign of a Quantum of Solace-esque follow on.... phew).  It's only when the credits roll, however, that I understood the majesty of what had been achieved by Skyfall.  A 50 year old character, played by 8 different actors, has been successfully relaunched into a new age, with a band new generation as it's audience.

Bring on number 24....