Just Seen..... The Grey

Just Seen..... The Grey

       

Rubbish*  Ok** Good***  Great****  Unmissable***** 

Just Seen..... The Grey ****

  

  

 Don't judge a book by its cover seems to be the theme of the day when reviewing The Grey. 

    

               It’s always amused me that Liam Neeson having actively most of his life made it clear his hatred of violence has now, in the last decade, ironically become a middle aged action icon (Taken, Unknown, A-Team, Taken 2). 

             With The Grey's whole poster consisting of Neeson's angry face and with the tagline "Live or die on this day" it could be fairly obvious what type of Liam Neeson film were about to watch, however, upon viewing you soon discover this is not the case.

           The Neeson casting itself could have been more of a favour to A-Team Director Joe Carnahan (Narc), who originally had other A-Team star Bradley Cooper in mind for the lead. Neeson’s extra years certainly work better in the role, which lends more conviction to the film’s theme than I think younger but capable Cooper would have brought.   

             However ironically the presence of Neeson is also what has lead to the misconception of the film’s genre through its poster marketing. Presented as an action film (Based on its star’s current appeal) rather than the Thriller/Drama of which it truly is.  

            Neeson plays a Huntsman who protects oil drillers from attacks of wolves but begins the film a broken man hoping for death and attempting suicide.  

           The story revolves around a group of the oil drillers, who after finishing their last job are flying home only to crash down in Alaska. The survivors now lead by the huntsman (Neeson) have a new danger in the form of dangerous Grey Wolves whose territory they have accidentally invaded, who begin to pick the group off one by one.  

          The film follows alot of movie clichés that you would expect from Hollywood such as;

A)    Plane crash predicament leading to a survival mission.

B)     Each member of the group being picked off one by one in almost a slasher style layout.

C)    The protagonist happens to be an experienced huntsman, and they happen to be hunted by wolves.

            Where The Grey differs is the way in which the material is handled by Joe Carnahan who also co-wrote the script with Ian Mckenzie, who wrote the short story The Ghost Walker, which the film is based from. He takes the familiar scenes and alternates the way they are played out with dark undertones.

            The moment our first casualty is fatally injured, screaming in pain, confused colleagues trying to help to save him, Neeson’s character steps in to help… but not in the way you would expect. Instead of reassuring him and attempting to save him, he levels with him and explains that he his beyond help and will shortly die. He then tenderly explains the most peaceful way to embrace his passing, to think of his loved ones and stays with him, talking him through his body’s shut down as death takes him in front of stunned colleagues.     

            Helping the Director concentrate on the story telling aspect is the fact the budget is a modest (For Hollywood) $25 million which helps when propelling story not spectacle which is certainly the tone set here.

           The writers invested alot in character development, giving all the supporting cast personality and purpose. They all have different traits, extra details that make them valuable to watch. They bond together in one part of the film by exchanging personal stories. Neeson’s contribution is a story of his late father, who despite his toughened demeanor was a fan of poetry. He recites his Father one and only poem, which despite never grasping it’s meaning has never been forgotten by Neeson;

"Once more into the fray...

Into the last good fight I'll ever know.
Live and die on this day...Live and die on this day..."

           The writer’s invest in the all the supporting characters for a tactical purpose which becomes more apparent as the film goes on, in order to propel its final message. The tact involved is to slowly make you like and respect the survivors, then allow them to have a horrible grim demise. Perhaps one of the most haunting moments comes after one likable character has fallen to his near death, whilst laying there drifting in and out consciousness. He sees his young daughter come to him and affectionately console him, but in horrifying reality he is actually seen being eaten alive by wolves.   

          This is certainly not an overly jolly film, but then again plane crash survivors being hunted by wolves in arctic conditions never was going to be.
                                                                                                                      Outcome

          The outcome of the films very vibe is profound in itself when at the start Neeson’s character believes he has nothing to live for and wishes to die, but by the end when he actually has nothing to live for he then wishes to live and fight. That is a character transition worth the watch. This transition point is heightened by an abrupt fast cut ending, which leaves some audience members feeling ripped off, but if you got the filmmakers message then any other outcome would derive from the film's message... live and die on this day. The outcome makes no difference the message is there and Neeson’s character takes it firmly by the reigns.  

P.S

However if anyone is feeling curious, there is sneak clip at the end of the credits giving a teaser of the film’s conclusion.  

The Dark Knight Rises 2012

The Dark Knight Rises 2012

Rubbish* ok ** Good *** Great **** Unmissable*****

Key:

TDK: The Dark Knight

TDKR: The Dark Knight Rises

Just Seen.... The Dark Knight Rises***

             I actually saw this film on it’s opening 20^th July (No advanced screenings) but have left my review a little while as hopefully more people could watch before I publish my verdict so we could look at key points without spoiling.

            Well we always knew The Dark Knight would be a hard act to follow, I mean how could it not? The most successful superhero film of it's time grossing over a billion and also a Academy Award wining superhero film, how often does that happen? It pushed the boundaries of what can be achieved with the genre and left the audience wanting more.... then we got it.

SPOILER ALERT:

ANYONE NOT SEEN THE FILM STOP READING NOW

           As a stand alone film The Dark Knight Rises is great, its faults rise (No pun intended) because it’s part of trilogy. When I say faults I referring mainly to contradictions from the other two films, which is gob smacking when this is still Nolan’s baby. How could it go wrong?

           Let’s start small (Well city size actually) after two films set in Chicago as the back drop of Gotham now we’ve moved to New York? Mainly because it fits his story better, common sense no but “his” story yes. The New York setting works better for a siege movie (An example being err… The Siege 1998) which is basically the second half of the film. That’s one bonus but the downside i.e. continuity is out the window then. This tactic of connivance continues throughout the film where writing decisions were made that don’t honor the film’s past narrative in order to fit this new story.

            I mean look at great supporting cast sacrifices made to support the story. Commissioner Gorden spends a hour of the film in hospital just to allow the police to make bad decisions that Gordon wouldn’t have made i.e. Let Bane escape to go to chase Batman, walk into a trap that leaves the entire police force incapacitated whilst terrorists seize the entire city, you know little mistakes.

            Loyal Alfred abandons Bruce on moral grounds for, wait for it… continuing on as Batman even through this is something he has encouraged for two and half films. In fact if we cast our minds back to Batman Begins there is a tender moment where Bruce asks Alfred "Still havn't given up on me?" and Alfred replies firmly "Never." I guess he meant to say "Never....until The Dark Knight Rises then I'm off".  But hey at least it explains why he didn’t attempt to find Bruce when he was abducted and thrown in a prison for six months  especially when earlier films have shown he has the means to do so. In fact at the start of the film he even tells Bruce all about Bane's prison so he clearly even knows where it is!              
          
             Let’s move on to theme, the previous film concluded when that the heroes had won the battle but lost the war. They stopped the Joker and killed Two Face but before he died Two Face’s actions would mean all the criminals Harvey Dent has persecuted would be back on the streets. In order to prevail they leave the moral ground behind to make a victory out a lie and Batman takes the blame for the Two Face murders so the criminals stay behind bars. Here the lie which has secured Gotham’s safety kept hundreds of villains behind bars, finished off organized crime and left the hell hole which used to be Gotham now crime free for eight years! This is great surely? Apparently not, it’s become a lie which is tormenting Bruce and Gordon for years now, the results are taking their toll.

 "Batman has become a

 bearded, crippled recluse…

 now that’s the superhero

 I’ve been waiting four years to see"

             Gordon’s loyal wife and son left him and town. Which again fits “his” story better, but surely you could have achieved more with them in later moments of the story? Sympathy when Gordon is shot? Maybe even a reconciliation? Could have provided extra tension in the siege sequences? Frankly there are all sorts you could have done… but no… they’ve just gone and never speak to him again… Fair enough, but that’s nothing compared to Bruce Wayne.  

             Batman has become a bearded, crippled recluse… now that’s the superhero I’ve been waiting four years to see. But the point is, the new theme is that “lying is bad and the truth will set you free”. Fair enough, doesn’t really fit the nature of the previous films which shows lying has been for the greater good (Kept criminals behind bars, Hidden his identity to protect loved ones) but hey that’s the new direction they want to finish the franchise on and why not.

             Well that’s what I thought so I was surprised when another contradiction comes to the surface. At the end of the film Batman sacrifices himself and saves the whole city! A hero! Blake tells Gordon that the millions of people who Batman saved deserve to know that it was in fact Bruce Wayne who sacrificed himself and had been the one serving and protecting them all these years! Gordon decides it better to lie about it and not tell the truth…. Ok…. Right well lesson learnt then Commissioner.

                 Now let’s just cast our eyes over at some of the plot holes left in the open. For instance how the hell did Bruce Wayne get from a African prison to Gotham City with no money or resources or help within a day and penetrate an un penetrable fortress. But anyway don’t worry about that, why the hell are the terrorists trying to blow up Gotham anyway? Oh yeah because they want to finish Ra’s al Ghul’s mission that was to rid Gotham of crime and corruption because it was beyond saving. Right…. But wait Gotham has been Crime free for 8 years and in fact that only crimes being committed are by the ones who plan to rid Gotham of it?  Then they say they are giving Gotham “back to it’s people!” screams Bane, ahhh that’s nice… but wait… you actually murdering it’s people on a daily basis and giving power to the mental murdering prisoners of Gotham.   

                "She’s never actually

                           called or referred to

                                 (That I recall) as Catwoman?"

                Then there’s Catwoman.... ahhh yes Catwoman, but hold on she’s never actually called or referred to (That I recall) as Catwoman? But anyway forget that. As far as anti heroes or femme fatales go surely this has to be one of the most evil? Bruce Wayne doesn’t agree in fact when he confronts her upon his return from prison his almost charming with her. This may be down to the old sayings like; forgive and forget, life’s too short… yeah maybe… perhaps I’m just being too harsh. I mean all she did was steal his deceased mother’s necklace (That she was coincidentally murdered for), bankrupt his Multi-Million Dollar Global business, force him into a trap with Bane which results in him having his back broken then abducted, dumped in horrific prison for six months whilst he beloved Gotham is blown up and it’s people murdered on a daily basis. But even then good old Bruce tells her he sees “good in her”… really? Where the hell is he looking? Surely not into the eyes of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people that have been wiped out through Bane’s insane genocide because of her actions……? But hey she looks nice in her skin tight outfit so cares hey Bruce?     

             Look I could go on and on, the point being third films are always tricky. I suppose the tactic should be to make a rubbish sequel then your third film seems great? But they didn’t. The Dark Knight hit all the right notes possibly beyond their own expectations and The Dark Knight Rises had to follow. And how do you beat the predecessor? Well Jonathan Nolan said at the European Premiere at Leicester Square you got to make it “bigger and better”. That doesn’t guarantee that a film’s going to be successful. The story should, every time it should, because everything else is subsequently built upon it.

             Here they really worked on story and went over board for spectacle. The substance got a little lost and the factors that really worked in other films were absent in this. The prime example is Batman! I think he only makes three appearances in his suit, whilst the first half we have the bearded crippled recluse. However it’s with great irony the franchise got buried with the arrival of Batman and Robin and this one finishes with the introduction of the latter....   

                  Outcome

          All things said you might be thinking I’m laying into TDKR (Well frankly I am), but the fact is, had it been a stand alone film I think it would have worked a hell of a lot better. It’s solid enough, the action is fantastic (The end battle between the cops and criminals is epic), the acting is strong as ever from a great cast (New addition Tom Hardy takes on the bad guy duties from Ledger’s big Academy Award winning shadow and pulls it off) and it’s also an intelligent superhero film that fly’s above others (The Amazing Spiderman doesn’t have a patch on the maturity shown in TDKR). Unfortunately they lost the plot (literally) and tried to do too much, but then again what’s honestly wrong with that? I mean nothing ventured, nothing gained. It worked great in Batman Begins and in The Dark Knight. You really have to admire the intelligence and respect Nolan gives to his audience. He never attempts to short change the audience in terms of the reality he has succeeded implementing in making a believable super hero franchise which has engrossed audiences round the world. And the honest truth is there is still nothing out there like what Nolan has achieved with the Batman films.

Skyfall

Skyfall

*Rubbish ** Ok *** Good **** Excellent ***** Unmissable

Skyfall****

Not got time to read the review?

Then it's all in a nutshell below;

Verdict

Great cinematic entertainment, making up for some disappointing year of blockbusters this year!

Biggest Pros

Bond is back, winks and nods to the past films, plus two fantastic finales.

Biggest Cons

After a good opening, a slow first hour and a silly strange timeline of convience that makes absolutely no sense.

Oh yeah and massive weird man eating lizards?....Yes very Ian Fleming.

Outcome

Bond franchise has found his feet again and Skyfall is a great contribution to the fifty year history.

Skyfall

Review

Bond… James Bond t back in his 5oth year in the latest outing Skyfall! A lovely simplistic title after the horrendous Quantum of Solace (Title and film for that matter…)

We begin as Bond is trying to recover a missing hard drive that reveals the identity of Spys across the world. This does provide one of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in the film where M asks Bond if his sure the Hard drive isn't in the room. Bond then conducts a throuher search by simply lifting up the laptap looking underneath and repprting back Yes.

Well it’s fair to say the mission dosn't go well, the hard drive is lost in hands of terrorists with Bond is shot and left for dead by one of his own. 

 

The opening sequence is defiantly the best out Craig’s three films a real high stakes, high octane packed opening , plus Adele’s chart  topping Skyfall soundtrack works really well in Credit sequence visuals that drops the hint future Bond films might be in 3D (With Skyfall being the first IMAX outing).

  

The coming months aren’t brilliant for MI6 “M” reprimanded for her role in the missing hard drive is forced into oncoming retirement, the press are condemning MI6’s role in the modern world and Bond is still missing.

When MI6 comes under attack, a disgruntled Bond can longer sit on the bench and comes out of hiding to join in the fight.

After the opening Bond goes on the usual travels starting with London and moving to across the globe to find the mastermind behind the attacks.

However here’s when for the first hour we have the usual refinements Bond routine;

a)      Shags women,

b)      Dons the tux,

c)      Travels the globe,

d)      Battles huge man eating lizards… well maybe not the last one.

 I felt it kind of dragged out a little more than it should have done and I became a touch bored. The main reason for this is that we have no visible villain to occupy ourselves with and it takes good an hour for him to arrive. Having said that same trick applied itself in Dr. No and worked quite well, however it wasn’t pulled off here with same effect.

However when our mysterious grand villain finally arrives, the film now really gets going with pace… and once the pace starts it never lets up keeping, you going all the way to the end credits.

The villain in question is played by the excellent Javier Bardem who completely relishes his part in the film and Bond History giving a wonderfully theatrical yet very personal performance as bitter twisted terrorist. This makes up a hell of allot for the bland previous villain from Quantum of Solace “Dominic Greene”, a very plain villain that even the actor that played him (Talented French actor Mathieu Amalric) had concerns about. He asked the director whether he could have a scar or something to make him stand out. The director declined saying you only need your eyes… well it’s fair to say he was wrong.

But it’s equally fair to say with Skyfall they treat the villain to a surprise disfigurement that is one of the creepiest in Bond history but intelligently enough this hasn’t just been written in for spectacle it is very much emotionally linked to the plot showcasing a cruel reality.

The greatest success of this film was the opposite of the Bond’s last outing which simply was that it wasn’t a Bond film.

 It was too concerned with fitting into the modern market which consisted of becoming more Bourne than Bond and in return lost;

A)    It’s identity,

B)     It’s trademarks,

C)    It’s class.

In all fairness it was not a Bond Film and why be something your not, or try not to be something only your franchise can do? It was an absurd move frankly.

A)    No Q,

B)     No gadgets,

C)    No Moneypenny,

D)    No decent villain,

E)     No decent plot… Come on stealing water??

F)     No famous Bond introduction line.

When Daniel Craig was asked about the point Bond never introduced himself with that famous line in Quantum of Solace, he defended it and saying that the character has to earn the right to say it. It’s in fairness Daniel it’s not a degree it’s his name.      

Its obvious lessons have been learnt, because when I say Bond is back, Bond truly is and are so are Bond films. They bring back what was missing and reinforce their Bond legacy and become proud of it once more.

They do now also fit into the modern world more by making it also part of the plot and showcase the skills Bond and the franchise have. They do make changes, but everything is in per portion. For example they increase the plot/emotions making this at times a really character driven story, but don’t forgot it still a Bond film and match it with explosions and the usual refinements.   

The biggest weakness with the script and the “Bond World” is this very strange timeline they have installed within the franchise since Casino Royale (2006). This was when the producers acquired the rights to Bond’s first official adventure (Casino Royale) and they decided they would reboot the franchise from scratch matching the story. This meaning they would take Bond back to the start of career showing the transition from being a normal spy to the graduation to “00” status.

This however is achieved in a five minute pre title sequence then the rest is Bond as normal, so was it really a huge reboot? All the producers said this was the reason Pierce Brosnan was sacked as Bond as he would be too old and subsequently all other Bond cast where given the boot, John Cleese’s Q, Samantha Bond’s Moneypenny, etc…

However they retained Judi Dench as M.

When Martin Campbell was asked about this he said that made absolutely no sense in terms of the new “Timeline” but they just thought she best person for the job. That’s the problem with the brave move of introducing the timeline factor is that it isn’t an all or nothing transition or it’s a move of convenience.

They retain whatever is convenient and bin the rest. There’s no attempt to hide plot holes in fact they draw more in every second of running time that passes and in fact don’t seem bothered in the slightest.

For instance they now bring reference to past events that Bond has never meant to have had, such as the bomb pen from Goldeneye or the gadgets from Goldfinger’s DB5. It makes no senses. So help me out writers is this Bond’s 3rd mission or is his 23rd?

 

Or maybe I got it wrong and what they’re trying to say is Bond’s past is his future which is now his present unless he goes back to the future which will be his past set in the present…? Ahh of course now I get it, yes very clever touch.

Throughout Skyfall they deal with personal and public issues that to me put this Bond film ahead of others. They look at the way terrorism has evolved and where MI6 and the “00”s fit in to this new world of technological advancement.

An argument which is defended by M is a touching moment of poetry where she explains that today the enemy is born and lives in the shadows and that is where we must fight it, with people that know where and how.

The film in my opinion takes a change from the normal routine of the Bond writing (Most probably due to the assistance of a third new writer) as here things are shaken up and the last hour is just a joy. Containing not just one finale but two, with the second demonstrating a pivotal lesson that Blockbusters don’t always have to have a grand stranding spectacle if anything by the lowering the spectacle they raise the stakes and provide one of the most personal Bond Climaxes brought about in it’s fifty years.    

One thing is for sure what Goldfinger was to Connery, Skyfall will be to Craig. This is the peak of his Bond career. They end the film almost rebooted all over again with now going into the whole 1960’s MI6 Bond feel, not sure how they take on from there. 

That is the nature of the only concern at this point which is where do they go from here? Are we going to have another Casino Royale / Skyfall or are we now due another Quantum of Solace?

Wherever they are going they are heading there very confidently so good luck to them and I say this in all sincerity… keep up the good work!... Because we will all be disappointed if you don’t….

Taken 2 Review

Taken 2 Review

Taken 2 ***                   Taken down the same road…but at less speed

(Should have been ** really but unlike Brian Mills, I’m soft)

Intro

Taken came out of nowhere and became a cult hit. The cinema takings weren’t amazing but on DVD had a second lease of life which occurred through word of mouth which to this day is still the best form of advertising.

Taken 2 is expected to double the box office of the first but what is going to harm the film more than anything will ironically be word of mouth….

Plot

Taken 2 begins with the multiple funerals of the men, retired spy Brian Mills killed in the first film Taken whilst rescuing his daughter. Here the relatives, who appear equally as dodgy, swear revenge on the one man army that wiped out their loved ones. Cut to Mills whose now in a more comical role, stalking his daughter upon the discovery… she has a boyfriend! Obviously he doesn’t watch Jeremy Kyle as most people his daughter’s age are grandmother’s by now.

Mills other preoccupation is to get his daughter to pass her driving test presumably just in case she’s ever involved in car chase in Istanbul where murdering psychopathic Albanians are coming after her….  

At this point Mills invites his daughter and ex wife to join him for a nice peaceful holiday in Istanbul. But beware the bad guys are tracking him down and it won’t be long till Mills and his ex-wife are …Taken.     

Analysis

When we get excited over a sequel the biggest draw for the audience is seeing the characters return. That’s what we want to see the same characters not the same story. This is why so many fans where concerned with the idea of Taken 2.

The circumstances within Taken were so unique that the idea of a recycled plot wouldn’t cut it with fans. I mean how can you top his daughter being randomly abducted by the Albianian criminal underworld? Well I suppose it’s by having her Mum and Dad both abducted by the Albianian criminal underworld.…?

The original connection of the bad guys here to the first set of kidnappers, makes sense and kind of gives it a little bit of heart. Think about it even human trafficking evil psychotics must have parents and also the film begins slowly which allows tension to raise just the same as the first. These I might add are the films good points.   

However Taken 2 falls ill to that deadly sequel disease…. repeated pattern syndrome which Hangover part 2 needlessly had resorted to. We go through the same motions at the same points as the first film, such as the key scene: The repeat of the pre taken phone call that made the first film.

     

The justification behind why Taken 2 could have worked more is because of the character Brian Mills. That’s who the audience loved, his daughter came across as a whiney immature school girl, his wife was a stuck up cow. Who else, apart from lovely Holly Valance, did we really want to see agian?

It wasn’t a daunting task either, like everyone made out it was going to be. All you need to be is creative…. I think some producers in Hollywood just had a cold shudder when I typed that.

How do you beat Taken? Well for one boys and girls you don’t compete, you simply take another direction. Taken was a unique story, so for a sequel all you need is your main popular character and put him another unique story.

What’s the chances of that you say? Well what aren’t the chances of that considering his is retired spy. Look at TV’s 24 series they knew the popularity of their lead Jack Bauer, and due to nature of his terrorism job it was entirely likely he could be involved in other high risk stories. So in all honesty you can’t say it can’t be done, it has been done, just be creative.

 

The retired Spy element means you could have plot lines that could take him anywhere. Think back to his conversation with his daughter in Taken where he reminisces about his past spy days he was a “preventer”, let’s explore that in a sequel, in a whole new story, that dose sound exciting.

That won’t be happening this time has they have just upped the stakes by taking twice as many people this time… err two… and one of them is the lead character?

Taken 2 is a victim of commercialism. Taken had word of mouth advertising Taken 2’s PR campaign pulls out all the stops using modern social media resources like Facebook pages, Twitter campaigns, YouTube interviews, Even pre trailer clips of Neeson spoofing himself e.g. Watch this clip or else “…I will look for you, I will find you” Christ Liam don’t whore yourself.

That’s the point all the darkness is gone and it’s a much more a jolly ditty than the first… but the facts are these films aren’t meant to be.

There is no real risk here either, once abducted I think the worse Neeson gets is a slap and spit in the face. His wife gets abducted not once but twice and still seems relatively unscathed considering she’s hanging around murdering, rapist, human trafficking Albanian monsters.   

Conclusion

Its biggest fault, its biggest regret and its biggest down fall in one word is commercialism.

The sale was more important than the product. If you have an 18 certificate, then chances are you’re telling the story, the way you want to tell it, but to drop down to a 12A was a little concerning.

These fears where put into reality with at least three fight sequences were horridly edited down to keep the rating down. Especially when but the edit always come at the end of the sequence and it’s difficult to even ascertain how the bad guys were eventually killed.

In fact the last death was so badly done, it got a laugh from the audience, when we witness Neeson’s strange facial high five killed someone… somehow?

The action scenes are great and are what saves the film. You’re rooting for Neeson all the way through and it’s still a delight to see him do what he does best.

I just can’t help but the feel the DVD is going to be the real treasure with what I hope will contain an uncut version and maybe then I can see more of the film I had expected.

Including maybe an alternate ending that won’t be half as bloody soft as the closing scene I saw, which leaves the series feeling more like a daytime family soap.  

Taken 2

Quick Summary

In two lines or less what can I say….

Biggest Pro

The action in the film is great, it what saves the film and makes it worth seeing alone apart from the bits they crudely edited.

Biggest Con

The 18 cert to 12a says it all. We lose the edge and the grit of the first film, which they then replace with a commercially censored tame vibe.

Outcome

 It’s great seeing Neeson back in the role and as Mill’s put’s it “doing what I do best” if only the Filmmakers and writers had done the same.

Rating ***

(Should have been ** really but unlike Brian Mills, I’m soft)

Ironically

Basic Instinct 2 had another popular lead character with so much possibility and flunked out to create a dull lesser reworking of the original.