The Sorcerer's Apprentice

A Partially Educated Review of The Sorcerer's Apprentice

In which the word 'better' may be used, but only in a relative sense

You've got to know your career's gone down the toilet when you release a film that hits all the checkmarks necessary to be viewed as acceptable, but nothing more, and this registers as one of the better films that you've made recently. Alas though, this is the situation that Nicolas Cage has found himself in. He doesn't have to make something extraordinarily groundbreaking. He doesn't even have to make something great, because whenever he finds himself involved in something that isn't terrible, it seems like a triumph, not just for him, but also for the audience. An audience who can breathe a sigh of relief that they are not about to sit through another "Cage dud". Another Next. Or another Knowing. Or another Ghost Rider. Or another Justice.

Or another Ghost Rider 2.

Whenever Cage works with director Jon Turteltaub, we seem to get perfect examples of this. Turteltaub is a serviceable commercially-orientated director, although he has a horrible habit of switching on directing autopilot. Previously, he and Cage made the National Treasure films together. Though I'm yet to see the second of those films, I remember quite enjoying the first one only to like it less upon a second viewing, something that I put down to repeated viewings lessening the relief of not having to sit through another of Cage's turgid excursions into ignominy. The Sorcerer's Apprentice is a bit of a different story. It begins fairly well, with the relief setting in that it's not going to be too awful. As time passes though, things start to unravel and the positives only lie in the absence of true negatives.

Using that bit from Fantasia, The Sorcerer's Apprentice puts the 'based' in based on. Cage plays Balthazar Blake, one of Merlin's three protégées. In the battle against Merlin's arch nemesis Morgana Le Fay (Alice Krige), Merlin and Blake are betrayed by their ally, Horvath (Alfred Molina). While Morgana manages to kill Merlin, the betrayal doesn't work out too well for Horvath as he finds himself locked inside a nesting doll. However, the only way to stop Morgana is for the other protégée, Veronica to absorb her into herself. With Morgana killing Veronica from inside, Balthazar is forced to place her in the doll with Horvath. He then embarks on a quest to find the Prime-Merlinian, a foretold individual who will take Merlin's place as the one man who can rid the world of Morgana. Cut to present day, where Jay Baruchel's path will cross with Balthazar's and his potential destiny as the Prime Merlinian is discovered. When he accidentally releases Horvath back into the world, this is a destiny that he must come to terms with fairly quickly. What, however, is this foretold saviour's name? Whom will the legends tell of as the successor to Merlin's name?

That would be Dave. I mean, really. They could have called him Mickey, won points from the "Based on" department and it would have still sounded a better wizard name than Dave. If only slightly better.

With that in mind, how, you may ask, does this tie in with the famous section from Fantasia? Well, there's a scene where various cleaning products come to life and Dave can't keep them in control. It lasts about five minutes. There's also a ten second shot of a blue wizard's hat with white stars on it, after the credits. I could go on, but I fear it may start to appear as though the filmmaker's were clutching at straws and, of course, this is not the case at all.

The film's biggest problem is that while it has it's concept and presents itself fairly confidently to begin with, it then realises that the ending is in sight and hasn't got much idea how to fill the time in between. Failing to realise this, it presents us with countless training scenes, interspersed with Dave getting into trouble, only for Balthazar to come and rescue him and a love story that practically defines trite. Instead of realising this and getting things over with quickly, it spreads out what should be a 90 minute film (at most) to nearer 2 hours. The jokes are few and will rarely conjure up (pun wasn't intended, but I'm sticking with it) little more than a wry chuckle and the big set pieces are either short and pointless or yawn-inducingly pedestrian fare.

The script also has a horrible habit of writing itself into a corner with no idea of how to get itself out of them. Horvath is set up as a true villain. His actions will result in the death of millions and he doesn't care, but the script presents situations where he has the upper hand and retreats with no real reason. He even abandons sure-fire opportunities to kill both Balthazar and Dave, abandoning these with just as little reason. There's no suggestions of a developing humanity in the character. It instead just feels like Lex Luthor trapping Superman in a Kryptonite mine-shaft, only to throw him some rope. Moments like these are what rewrites were designed for and they should have never passed the continuity tests. 

So far, so "Cage dud", but the film's real advantage lies in it's decent cast. A cast who are all capable of raising up the material. I'm including Cage in that. The common misconception is that he's a bad actor. He's not. He's a fantastic actor who has made some absolutely horrible choices and repeatedly fails to learn from those choices. He sees an electric fence, touches it and then decides to do it again a few times, just in case he imagined the consequences. That's not to say he's never delivered a bad performance because he has. It's just that a bad film doesn't require bad performances. It's like pre-2010 Matthew McConaughey. His films before that were torturous, but he was never, by any stretch, a terrible actor and he's proving that now. I'd love Cage to have a similar career resurgence and do think he's capable of it, but the doubt grows ever-increasing. At least here though, he's perfectly watchable and even enjoyable, adopting the Castor Troy mentality of overdoing it, but doing so in a fairly fun way.

Elsewhere, Baruchel is continuing with his intelligent outcast routine, but, unlike many of his fellow Apatow graduates, he's avoided over-exposure, meaning that he can still be enjoyable. On the feminine side of things, the Bechdel test's calling out in cries of anguish. Bellucci suffers most, as she's got bugger all to do. Criminal under-utilisation grows ever apparent as the story of Bellucci's Hollywood career. Teresa Palmer, on the other hand, is someone who I'm hoping will be propelled to greater things as a result of Warm Bodies. There is nothing in her character or the "geek-guy likes cool-girl" romance to help her in being anything other than the bland love interest, making her feel about as important as the background props. Palmer, however, is easy to warm to. Able to rise above just appearing for her natural attributes, she makes herself instantly likeable and her performance does it's best to make her feel human, while the script's just concerned about making men fancy her.

Then, we have Alfred Molina who flat-out steals the film as it's chief villain. There's a bit of Loki about him, in that he gets all the good lines and the film's at it's best when he's in it. However, regardless of the advantageous position, Molina just oozes menacing charm and is one of those actors who never appears to consider himself above the film that he's in. He always feels like he's trying to deliver his best performance, be that through pulling out the acting chops, or trying to keep things fun. While he's been in some terrible films (Prince Of Persia, Abduction), but I struggle to name a film in which he's ever been anything less than decent and, most of the time, he's exceptionally good. He's also more than capable of being the film's sole villain, begging the question of why they didn't let him be that. Instead, we get Toby Kebbell as Drake Stone, superstar magician and chief henchman to Horvath. There's nothing wrong with Kebbell in the role and it's not that the film doesn't try to provide the character with some point. It's that the way they instil that point is entirely perfunctory and it's an angle that also leads to the slightly pathetic addition of a well-known historical figure from witchcraft. The angle that justifies these characters' existence could have easily been removed, taking the characters with it, allowing us to simply sit back and bask in Molina's wonderfully fun villainy.

There's also the anticlimax of the ending, living up to the rest of the film by being everything you've seen before and nothing more. There's no tension, because nothing has made you believe that the norm will be strayed from. Worst of all, it completely sidelines Molina. Whilst it's essential to pull the focus away from him slightly, there's no call for the literal casting off that the character receives and their attempts to make up for this in the sequel-baiting post-credits sequence don't help, because as well as a sequel to this not being a particularly appealing prospect, the film (while not a complete financial disaster) made nowhere near enough money for us to ever think that sequels going to arrive.

It's my first film where I'm struggling to decide on the score, as it's the sort of film that the term "middle of the road" was invented for. It's a 2.5 out of 5, but I vowed to never resort to .5 scores as, let's be honest, how do you really distinguish between a 4 and a 4.5? The question, therefore, is which side of 2.5 I go. If you look at this as a Nicolas Cage film, it's a 3 on the basis of the aforementioned relief. That, however, would be to base the film on only one of it's many elements, a precedent that would open up a whole new dangerous world in which Two Weeks Notice gets a perfect 5, because it's not as bad a Hugh Grant film as Nine Months. In addition, I also feel that if the film deserved 3, I wouldn't be debating it, in the same way that I would never hand out a perfect 5 if I wasn't sure. The most positive thing I can say about The Sorcerer's Apprentice is that it's not entirely devoid of merit. At the same time, it is entirely devoid of true brilliance, no matter how close Alfred Molina comes.

TWO out of five

Contains infrequent examples of Cage's worst work, but equally infrequent examples of his best work.

P.S. Or another Windtalkers.

The Muppet Christmas Carol

A Partially Educated Review of The Muppet Christmas Carol

In which I come over all nostalgic. Consider yourselves warned.

Cast

Kermit The Frog – Bob Cratchit

Miss Piggy – Emily Cratchit

The Great Gonzo – Charles Dickens

Rizzo The Rat – Himself

Fozzie Bear – Fozziwig

Michael Caine – Scrooge

Dave Goelz – The Great Gonzo / Robert Marley / Bunsen Honeydew / Betina Cratchit

Steve Whitmire – Rizzo The Rat / Bean Bunny / Kermit The Frog / Beaker / Belinda Cratchit

Jerry Nelson – Tiny Tim Cratchit / Jacob Marley / Ma Bear

Frank Oz – Miss Piggy / Fozzie Bear / Sam Eagle / Animal

David Rudman – Peter Cratchit / Old Joe / Swedish Chef

From the novel by Charles Dickens

Screenplay by Jerry Juhl

Directed by Brian Henson

Let's not beat around the bush. I adore The Muppet Christmas Carol. Since my parents bought it for me on VHS back in 1993, it is the only Christmas film that I make a point of watching at least once every year. Taking one of the greatest stories ever written from one of the greatest writers of all time and making at least a half-decent film out of it shouldn't be too hard a task. Yet, there are films out there which have completely failed to make anything decent out of Dickens' story and some have even managed to somehow make it boring.

The biggest problem anyone faces with adapting A Christmas Carol is making it stand out from the other versions of it. To say there's an overabundance of adaptations is a radical understatement. On that basis, you'd think that one of the key ways to help your version stand out is by adopting a gimmick. There's so many failed examples of this though. The last high-profile adaptation was Robert Zemeckis' take on the story with Jim Carrey as Scrooge. The gimmick? Motion capture animation and 3D. Exactly what the story didn't need. Elsewhere, you've got modernizations, a potentially decent idea, but I can't name one that worked. I know some will stand up for Scrooged, but, for me, it was OK at best. Then there's A Christmas Carol 2000, in which ITV decided that a modernization with Ross Kemp playing Scrooge was a good idea.

It wasn't.

So, why does The Muppet Christmas Carol work? The main reason is it's refusal to resort to any level of pretentiousness, a real sticking point for some of the worst versions of the story. Here, there is no belief present that they can add anything to the story or make it better, because they know that they can't. Instead, they take the story and everything that's great about it. Then, most crucially of all, they make sure that The Muppets themselves are made to fit around the story, rather than the other way round. I'm not providing a synopsis. If you don't know the plot, where have you been? In addition, I'm also not going to worry too much about avoiding spoilers from this point on.

In this adaptation, Michael Caine plays Scrooge and, frankly, it's inspired casting. Scrooge is a character that demands an actor with credibility, but the presence of The Muppets would mean that a lot of actors out there would not have taken this role seriously and would have completely phoned in the performance. Caine's not doing that here. He's crafting what I honestly believe to be one of his best performances. The usual style of performance for Caine wouldn't have worked here and it's refreshing to see little to none of his usual mannerisms present here. He delivers a fantastic interpretation and one that feels human, rather than the overly animated cartoonish performances (hello again, Jim Carrey) that we often find ourselves subjected to. That's not to say he's relatable. He's every bit as reprehensible as he should be, but because he seems like a real person, it means that his development over the course of the film feels legitimate and, in no way, forced. As for his singing and dancing, you'll just have to learn to forgive him for that and realize that it could be worse, you could be watching him in Jaws IV.

The presence of Caine also helps in another matter, as he makes sure the story is respected, allowing a balance to form between that and the antics of The Muppets, who fill most of the other roles. Kermit takes the biggest role of Bob Cratchitt and is really the only instance of a Muppet playing it straight, with the exception of a Kermit Jr. playing Tiny Tim. Elsewhere, the Muppets are pretty much kept to the comedy characters, as they should be. Rizzo's playing the sidekick to Gonzo's narrative performance as Charles Dickens and while Fozziwig may seem an obvious joke, it's a necessary one.

To be honest, the only place where the presence of a Muppet is fumbled is in Miss Piggy playing Emily Cratchit, or rather Miss Piggy playing Miss Piggy, but going by the name of Emily Cratchit. The jokes work fine for her. Piggy's not exactly my favourite Muppet, but the traditional and necessary elements of her character worked here. The problem is when they expect us to take her seriously as the grieving mother. It just doesn't work and renders what should be one of the most poignant moments of the story feeling a little bit hokey. To be honest though, it probably won't bother you too much and, as my score will demonstrate, it's not something that gets held against the film. In the long run, it's a minor gripe.

Then, we have the Muppet-style comedy transitioning into the Dickensian world and there's only one word to describe how they've handled this. Masterful. First off, it;s actually funny. A requirement that shouldn't need stating about comedy, but I watched Disaster Movie last week and learnt that, apparently, it does. There's also the flawless way that each joke fits into the story without feeling like it's intruding. Each joke is fast and to the point and, crucially, they don't dwell on them. The joke happens, you laugh and they head straight back to the story, meaning that the focus is never lost. They also don't feel the need to saturate every scene with them. The 15 (or so) minutes assigned to The Ghost Of Christmas Yet To Come is pretty much devoid of jokes, relying almost entirely on the words of Dickens to bring out any humour, but, for the most part, keeping the necessarily morbid tone that the scenes require. As a result, that element of the story feels particularly powerful, as we're left to focus on Scrooge's despaired realization of where his actions will take him. If the earlier jokes weren't funny, this wouldn't have felt anywhere near as strong as it did and it also wouldn't provide the relief and joy of the final moments as we return to the jovial nature that dominates the rest of the film.

Finally, there are the songs. I'll say it now. Musicals are not my thing. I would much rather someone just tell me how they feel, rather than sing it to me. Yet, despite that, I love a lot of the songs from the film. I'm sure it helps that I first heard them when I was 6 and far less discerning than I am now, but regardless they are well written songs and my only issue comes from the deletion of one of them. Again, this is not something I will hold against the film as it is entirely down to studio interference, rather than creative choice. The song that's deleted is called When Love Is Gone. It's not the best song and it's almost overbearingly shmaltzy. Despite this, removing it causes far more issues than the quality of the song ever would. The most noticeable is a jarring edit, one of the worst I've ever seen in my life. Even if you haven't seen this film with the song included, you'll almost definitely still notice it and it won't sit right with you. Added to this are the facts that it almost makes the entire character of Belle border on pointless as she's gone faster than she arrives, as well as rendering the whole point of the film's final song effectively moot.

I found myself not sure how to end this review, because I kind of stated my conclusion in my introduction. I also would like to think that my love of this film has been summed up. So, I'll end with this. This review is my first perfect score that I've posted. This is probably more to do with the fact that it's Christmas time more than anything else. When I think about it though, The Muppet Christmas Carol is probably the first film I ever saw that I would have given a perfect score back then and still give a perfect score to now. On that basis, I think it's a fairly appropriate first.

FIVE out of five

Contains everything you would want from a Christmas film. Something that's an increasing rarity.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

 A Partially Educated Review of Paul Blart: Mall Cop

In which a film feels the need to provide constant reminders that Kevin James is overweight

Cast

Kevin James – Paul Blart

Jayma Mays - Amy

Keir O'Donnell - Veck

Bobby Cannavale – Commander Kent

Stephen Rannazzisi - Stuart

Shirley Knight - Mom

Adhir Kalyan - Pahud

Peter Gerety – Chief Brooks

Adam Ferrara – Sergeant Howard

Gary Valentine – Karaoke Singer

Raini Rodriguez - Maya

Jamal Mixon - Leon

Directed by Steve Carr

Written by Kevin James & Nick Bakay

 Picture the scene. The hero of a film is riding through a mall on some kind of weird electronic-scootery thing, having already been set up as a pathetic schlub. He spies the girl of his dreams and finds himself unable to stop staring at her. As she notices him and smiles, he finds himself even more entranced, due to the possibility that she may have just, in some way, positively received his affections. Will he:

a) Continue on his way, feeling a great sense of self-worth at the girls acknowledgement.

b) Gracefully glide over to her on the scooter, dismount and engage her in friendly conversation.

c) Ride by the girl and masterfully sweep her into his arms as the two ride off into the sunset while Up Where We Belong plays over the tannoy.

d) Fail to notice that he is headed straight for a kiosk and proceed to crash into it.

The answer will be revealed at the end of this review, so take your time. You never know, it may not be as obvious as you think. After all, this is a film produced by Adam Sandler and we all know how unpredictable he likes to keep things.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop stars Kevin James (in his first big solo starring role) as the titular Blart. Suffering from "hilarious" issues with hypoglycemia, Blart has failed to achieve his dreams of joining the police and has had to settle for running the aisles of his local mall on security detail. When the mall is taken over by a group of, what can only be described as, "extreme sports thieves", Blart finds himself as...

...Wait for it...

...THE ONLY MAN WHO CAN STOP THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure it will come as a surprise to no one that Paul Blart isn't good. To it's credit, it's not quite sitting amongst the true disasters of Sandler's career. I'd sooner sit through this again than the likes of Jack And Jill, You Don't Mess With The Zohan and Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, still very much his three most skin-crawlingly vile efforts. In the interests of full disclosure though, I should also note that I am open to the possibilities of Adam Sandler creating enjoyable films. Big Daddy, Click and (God help me) I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry all stand as films that I have quite enjoyed, but Paul Blart is sitting in a somewhat curious position. It's the only example of Sandler's productions I can think of where my feelings are of complete and total indifference.

I say this, despite the fact that there is so much to dislike about it. Chief of them all is Blart himself. He is the pathetic schlub mentioned earlier, but not in a way where you feel sorry for him because the script completely mishandles him. It seems perfectly understandable when other characters ensure they can avoid any and all association with him, even when those characters aren't particularly likeable themselves. Within the first few scenes of the film we see him bully a man in a wheelchair because he's been going too fast in it. This would maybe have worked, except the old man has blatantly not been going all that fast, meaning that your sympathies are going to lie with him, rather than Blart. As he drives off, dragging Blart behind him, you may find yourself remembering that Blart earlier committed the unforgivable act of running over a dog and start willing the old man to stick the gear into reverse and repay the favour. We then arrive at the "staring at the girl of his dreams" scene and this is just as badly handled. Instead of us feeling that he deserves her attention, it feels uncomfortable, edging Blart closer to stalker territory. While he longs for the commitment of a relationship, it slowly begins to look like commitment of the padded cell variety would be a better option.

It doesn't stop there. Blart's over-inflated sense of authority makes him intensely dislikeable. His ideas are so far above his station that he makes your average McDonald's manager look humble. The other issue with this is who it turns into the most likeable character. I'm going to try and avoid spoilers here, but there may be minor ones. If you care, don't read the rest of this paragraph. The trailer goes a long way towards not revealing who the bad guy is, which is commendable as it's revealed within the first half hour anyway and it's not uncommon for the final scene to appear in trailers nowadays. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge the effort by not stating the actor's name. Suffice to say, until the bad guy is revealed he is the character you're most likely to warm to, coming off as the only one who is vaguely human. This is a problem for two reasons: the first is that when he does turn bad, you're left with absolutely no one to sympathize with, as the film has done a terrible job of actually making you like anyone else. The second is that as far as villainous performances go, he's awful. It's like he's read Bad Guy Acting for Idiots and then decided that Gary Busey's a good template to adopt. He's even missed that mark by a distance. All sneer and no idea, his threats to shoot hostages seem idle for the duration and, even when he reaches his villainous peak, he's still coming off less like Alan Rickman and much more like Timothy Olyphant.

This film really is a Kevin James vehicle, but the supporting cast should at least get a mention. Jayma Mays comes off best. She plays the role to a perfectly acceptable standard and seems fairly happy to be there. When you consider that her career also contains Epic Movie and both of The Smurfs films, that probably explains why. Elsewhere, Allen Covert continues to mourn the fact that he's no longer Adam Sandler's favourite stooge and has been shunted off to the smaller films in favour of Nick "Comedic Antichrist" Swardsson and Jackie Sandler also makes an appearance, because Adam was too busy making Funny People and she's only allowed to appear in the bad films. Then there's Peter Gerety, providing a superb masterclass in awful comic timing.

Which leads us to the most important aspect of comedy: the jokes. To be fair to Paul Blart, there's a few decent ones, but I'm emphasizing the few. Out of the two best jokes, one of them's in the trailer and the other one I can't actually remember, I just know that I laughed twice. Elsewhere though, you have jokes that were done better elsewhere (comedy karaoke singer) and a grotesque overabundance of fat jokes. We get it. Kevin James is portly. The issue is that a single fat joke isn't funny. One a minute is even worse. Then, speaking of unnecessary devices, Paul Blart has a plot twist. It is probably the most inane plot twist going, although it wouldn't surprise me if there's a worse one in horror. Literally tacked on to the end, it attempts to justify the existence of a moderately pointless character and instead just makes him more pointless.

Here's the thing though, I was never actually bored during Paul Blart. I didn't sit there pleading for it to end. I just sat there thinking: this film merely exists. It never angered me, but it rarely entertained me. If that sounds like damning with faint praise, trust me, it's not. I have zero desire to praise this film. I'm just going to remember absolutely none of it.

Oh, and the answer to the earlier question is d). Bet you didn't see that one coming.

TWO out of five

Contains no evidence of Rob Schneider and Nick Swardsson, meaning that it is, at least in some respects, safe.

Year One

A Partially Educated Review of Year One

In which many talented people combine their mental aberrations and expect us to sit through it.

Cast

Jack Black – Zed

Michael Cera – Oh

Oliver Platt – High Priest

David Cross – Cain

Christopher Mintz-Plasse – Isaac

Vinnie Jones – Sargon

Hank Azaria – Abraham

Juno Temple – Eema

Olivia Wilde – Princess Inanna

June Diane Raphael – Maya

Xander Berkeley – King

Gia Carides – Queen

Horatio Sanz – Enmebaragesi

David Pasquesi – Prime Minister

Matthew J. Willig – Marlak

Story by Harold Ramis

Screenplay by Harold Ramis, Gene Stupnitsky & Lee Eisenberg

Directed by Harold Ramis

The main criticism that's often thrown at Judd Apatow's films is that they're far too long. It's not something that I'm going to try and deny as, quite often, it's a valid complaint. However, I would rather sit through a decent film that's a bit too long than one that's just bad from the start. It's with that in mind that I have my own rule. If a film involving Judd Apatow (in any capacity) runs nearer an hour and a half than two hours, it's probably awful. There's exceptions to that rule, with Walk Hard being the biggest. Most of the time, though, it's fairly accurate with Fun With Dick And Jane, Drillbit Taylor and Wanderlust all serving to back this up. Chief of them all though (and I'm sure you've all guessed where I'm going with this) stands Year One.

To say it's a disaster is to understate the point through the employment of an overused word, but it feels like a film that the word was invented for. Every single element of this film drops to it's knees in a spectacularly pathetic attempt to beg for your amused approval. I'd be remiss to say it all fails. It doesn't. Jokes involving the invention of the wheel elicited some laughs from me that made me think it was kicking into gear. A cart chase that follows soon after gave me even more hope that the film was going to be great, with a merely lackluster beginning. Unfortunately, those jokes are both done within the first half an hour and they really are the film's last laughs.

So, where does the blame lie? Everywhere really. We'll start from the top though. Harold Ramis' directorial career has pretty much lived off the fact that he made Groundhog Day. It's not his only decent film, but it stands out well above the rest. Deservedly so, it's a comedy classic. In addition, it's not a surprise he's capable of making a bad film because Bedazzled exists, but even that had some semblance of comic capability to it. Year One feels like a load of people coming together who are far too sure of their own comedic brilliance and have just been left to their own devices. A controlling hand should have been there to say the simple and necessary word: No. It's in this where Harold Ramis has failed far more than he he ever has before. Even more than when he accepted a part in Airheads.

What of these comedy geniuses though? Why is it they're failing so much when they've previously demonstrated commendable skill in the genre? It's simply because they don't blend well together. Both Michael Cera and Jack Black take on their well-known personas, standing as complete polar opposites. However, instead of this working to provide humour, they instead expose the irritating flaws in each other's characters. I used to think I liked Jack Black, but I honestly don't. He irritated me to the point that he nearly ruined Tropic Thunder. He bored me into a catatonic stupor with Nacho Libre and I'll save my grievances with Envy for a later date. He even grates on me in School Of Rock, leaving me somewhat baffled as to why I still like that film. Nonetheless, you can't watch Jack Black and get too annoyed when he plays a cocksure, slightly deluded and loud-mouthed character through which the comedy is pulled out of his own delusions, since that is, after all, the character he's made his career out of. Michael Cera plays the antithesis to this: shy, awkward and anything but confident. If comedy comes from conflict, then the pairing of these two should be a walk in the park, but instead of helping each other, it feels like they're trying to expose the worst aspects of each other. Cera becomes whiny and pitiful, kicking up a slight fuss every time Black tries to force him into something he doesn't want to do, before giving in and becoming Black's bitch. As for Black, he just comes off as an arrogant prick. Neither are fun to be in the company of, leaving you to side with the other cavemen who hate them. Every time Matthew J. Willig's Marlak threatens to "kill them where they stand", you wish he'd just gone ahead and done it a long time ago.

Elsewhere, the rest of the cast are comprised of either cameos or glorified cameos. Oliver Platt contributes to some of the film's many gross-out gags, but unfortunately these gags are being done better by The Farrelly Brothers even today, let alone when they were in their prime. Even Hank Azaria fails to be funny and that almost never happens. Christopher Mintz-Plasse wheels out McLovin AGAIN and David Cross remains under the illusion that he's funny. Then, just when you thought the film was torturous enough, Vinnie Jones arrives. As for female characters, forget it, none of them are given any real chance to try and get some laughs and they're there purely for the purpose of eye-candy. In this department, they succeed. Sadly, anyone who's seen Olivia Wilde and Juno Temple in other films will know that they're capable of so much more.

It's the obligatory outtakes sequence that proves where a lot of the film's problems really lie. First off, they're not funny, even for cheap laughs. If there's one place where it's easy to get a cheap laugh, it's the outtakes. There's no imagination or wit to them, it is literally people forgetting their lines, combined with Jack Black providing the bodily omissions and Bill Hader wheeling out his Al Pacino impression. A good impression? Yes. Funny the eighteenth time? Not really. Critically though, the outtakes expose that the cast and crew had fun making this film. Morecambe and Wise didn't enjoy making comedy. It drove them mad. Pull out any documentary on them and you'll see people backing this up. If you're having fun making a comedy, it's probably no fun for the audience because you need to be scrutinizing every joke and making sure that it's funny. The result is that over-analysis makes you sick of that joke, but it ensures that it's enjoyable for more people than just yourself. 

There isn't a single person involved in Year One who hasn't failed in some capacity, meaning that the blame is even and can be spread between all of them. To say that careers have suffered because of this film isn't a longshot. Ramis hasn't directed since, bar an episode of The Office. Black has only really had Kung Fu Panda to provide him with any success and that's not really sold off his name. As for Cera, he's faced an unprecedented swan-dive with the terrible Youth In Revolt and the, undeserved, commercial disaster that was Scott Pilgrim being the only two things of real note he's done since then. Year One is a film that has seriously hurt careers. The film itself is incapable of providing a silver lining to that fact.

ONE out of five

Contains possibly the worst comedy of modern times. And it's only possibly, because I haven't seen Movie 43 yet.

The Men Who Stare At Goats

A Partially Educated Review of The Men Who Stare At Goats

In which most of it is true... Honest.

Cast

George Clooney – Lyn Cassady

Jeff Bridges – Bill Django

Ewan McGregor – Bob Wilton

Kevin Spacey – Larry Hooper

Robert Patrick – Todd Nixon

Stephen Lang – Brigadier General Dean Hopgood

Stephen Root – Gus Lacey

Glenn Morshower – Major General Holtz

Waleed Zuaiter – Mahmud Daash

Inspired by the book by Jon Ronson

Screenplay by Peter Straughan

Directed by Grant Heslov

There's a problem with films that are based on a true story and that's that there's so many of them that it's far too easy to become cynical and disbelieving about how much emphasis is placed on the 'based'. I once had a conversation with someone about how their cat ran away. On the basis of the creative liberties taken in film today, I could take that story and say that the cat found itself in Libya and single-handedly (pawedly?) bought down Colonel Gadaffi. It would probably still get a 'based on a true story' credit too. While the liberties taken with The Men Who Stare At Goats aren't quite to that extreme (that's the horror genre's department), there's still an overbearing smell over the whole thing and it isn't coming from the goats.

Based on Jon Ronson's book of the same name, which stemmed from an investigation conducted by him and the uncredited John Sergeant, ...Goats stars McGregor as reporter Bob Wilton, who finds himself discovering stories of the U.S. Army training psychic soldiers. A meeting with Clooney's Lyn Cassady leads to the true (that word again) story being recounted over flashback, whilst they deal with various encounters with terrorists and U.S. security details in the present day.

As for the goat staring, it's actually a pretty small part of proceedings. Apparently the real-life research into whether psychic soldiers could kill goats just by staring at them took place over 25 years. During this time, they managed to kill a staggering total of one goat. Fantastic indisputable results of the programme's success, I'm sure you'll agree. There's no mention of this in the film, the way it's demonstrated in the trailer is entirely representative of the film's treatment of this real-life "phenomenon". Perhaps if the film were able to make a believer out of me, it would have worked, but skepticism becomes the prevailing attitude of the day. As it stands, I found myself struggling to believe far too much of it.

There's two main reasons for this. The first is a complete mishandling of Bob Wilton. McGregor should represent the necessary gateway for the audience into the world that Clooney represents. Everything's accepted far too easily though. Any doubts that McGregor has are dealt with in the first scene and it's not in an entirely believable way. He then spends the rest of the film as the Clegg to Clooney's Cameron, sitting back, blindly believing and accepting every word that comes out of his mouth, instead of asking the very questions that the audience is asking. All this serves to do is leave McGregor's character feeling a bit pointless, which is slightly bizarre as the character serves as an amalgamation of Ronson and Sergeant, the only two people that could ground the story in relatable reality. That's not to say that McGregor's putting in a bad performance. He's perfectly fine in the role. It's just not a great role.

The other issue is the film's outright failure to divide the line between the ordinary and the extraordinary. Clooney is like the frontier-man spinning a tall tale and that's fine because it becomes up to you to determine which parts you believe and which you don't. Sadly, they can't stop themselves from trying to bring elements of his tale into the world that McGregor inhabits with him. They're some fairly desperate attempts to make you believe in more of Clooney's story. Some of it works (predicted coin tossing), but some of it (cloud bursting) collapses.

Outside of McGregor, you have the psychics and it's in the smaller roles that you get the film's best performances. Spacey's Larry Hooper is a weasel, boiling with ambitious jealousy. A martyr in his own eyes, his inability to accept Cassady as the better man leads to some downright reprehensible acts over the course of the film and Spacey relishes in it, making him so easy to hate. Yet again, the script lets the character down by making his finale a bit of an anti-climax, but, for the most part, it's a well-done character. Likewise, Stephen Lang puts in a hilarious performance as General Hopgood, with his belief and faith in the cause perfectly juxtaposing his blindness to his own psychic ineptitude. Necessity dictates that the character is only in the first half of the film, but that isn't really something that could be prevented. The only real question the performance begs is why Lang is so bland in other films. (See: Barbarian, Conan) (or Avatar)

As for the other leads, Clooney and Bridges both seem to believe they're in a Coen brother's film. Bridges wheels out The Dude for the umpteenth time and, while The Dude is always fun to watch, you can't help but feel character retirement's calling. Clooney delivers a solid performance, but it doesn't quite delve into the character far enough. At first, he shows the calm, cool exterior that you'd expect from him, blended quite well with a quirkier, slightly deranged edge. This is brilliantly betrayed by an early exposure of the character's rampant paranoia, but that is swiftly forgotten and never really mentioned again. Clooney simply reverts back to the original character and an extra-dimension that could have really benefitted his performance is left hanging there.

Then we arrive at the ending. It's awful. Without giving anything away, it's attempt to tie in proceedings to something that people will remember is handled pathetically. The problem isn't in whether it's true or not, as, by all accounts, the link is definitely there. Instead, it lies in it's suggestion that the press latched on to the wrong story. They didn't. Did they leave out elements of the true story? Yes. Of course they did. It's what they always do and I'm not trying to justify that. From where I'm standing though, of the two angles they could have been reported, the more important one is the one that they did report as it raised a lot more necessary questions than the other angle would have. Add to this the very final scene (and, indeed, the final shot) which leaves the whole film feeling a lot more fiction than fact. If I could see what they were trying to do with the scene, I'd have been fine, but I really couldn't and it jarred with me.

The thing with The Men Who Stare At Goats is that it's not actually a terrible film in it's own right. It's decent, if unremarkable. However, looking into the real story and the proceedings around the film being made really does sour things, with the treatment and flat-out erasing of Sergeant's contributions being particularly miserable. Ordinarily, I would advise to not let the real story get in the way of the entertainment and to take the film on it's own merits. In this case though, a lot of the liberties taken just feel rotten and, for me, it's impossible to separate them. As a result, these hurt the film far more than any creative flaws ever could.

TWO out of five

Contains a decent film, that can't help but leave a sour taste in the mouth for all the wrong reasons.

Starter For 10

A Partially Educated Review of Starter For 10

In which a casting agent displays an alarming talent for predicting the future

Cast

James McAvoy - Brian Jackson

Alice Eve - Alice Harbinson

Rebecca Hall - Rebecca Epstein

Catherine Tate - Julie Jackson

Dominic Cooper - Spencer

Benedict Cumberbatch - Patrick Watts

James Corden - Tone

Mark Gatiss - Bamber Gascoigne

Guy Henry - Dr Morrison

John Henshaw - Des

Elaine Tan - Lucy Chang

Simon Woods - Josh

Charles Dance - Michael Harbinson

Lindsay Duncan - Rose Harbinson

Screenplay by David Nicholls based on his book

Directed by Tom Vaughan

Starter For 10 may seem like a weird choice for my first review, but there's two very good reasons for this.

1. I wanted to make it apparent from the start that I'm not just going to be posting up reviews of brand new films.
2. I watched it last night.

I was going to be pretentious and try and state my 2^nd reason as some patriotic desire to show my support for British film, but I decided go with honesty instead.

What fascinates me though is how within the space of a couple of years, pretty much all of Starter's (at the time) up-and-coming cast were well on their way to breaking out in a huge way. When Alice Eve and Dominic Cooper are your least established actors, you know that you've done something right. Let's be honest, the film's sub-10 million budget would very likely be unable to achieve this cast today unless they felt like being charitable.

Set in 1985, the film follows Brian Jackson, a walking hive of general knowledge. Starting his studies of English Literature at Bristol University, it's not long before Brian enrols on the University Challenge team, led by Patrick Walsh and also featuring the instant object of Brian's desire, Alice Harbinson. Elsewhere, Brian also develops a friendship with Rebecca "different protest every week" Epstein, whilst also coming to terms with his mother's new relationship with local ice-cream man Des, following the death of Brian's father.

After the obligatory character intro montage, we go straight to University with a Vicars and Tarts party in which the attendance is suitably sparse. Note to future British students: if you're expecting the parties to be like American films, stop deluding yourself. It's not the perfect set-up to be honest, every decent representation of University lifestyle is marred by stereotypes. The hippy guy claiming that toilet paper is harmful comes off as someone who you would never actually meet at a University. I'm happy to accept that I was at University 20 years after the time this film is set, but I still don't believe it. Likewise, Epstein's group of protesters stop short of literal bra-burning, but do pretty much everything else that you would expect from every movie protest group in the history of ever.

McAvoy's great though. Adopting the awkward "out of place Brit" template, he manages to avoid becoming Hugh Grant through the simple fact that he's capable of showing more than one emotion. He doesn't seek out the laughs, but lets the story and script produce them while he humanises the character, knowing that the best laughs are pulled from human flaws, rather than farcical ones. Elsewhere, he lets the more emotional side of the character show itself in equally natural ways. When he remembers his late father, he elicits genuine sympathies from you, showing a subtlety in his reflective sadness, rather than despaired histrionics. It isn't going to reduce you to tears, nor should it have tried to, but it will resonate with anyone capable of human emotion.

Scenes like this are helped by a brilliant script that never forgets that it's primary purpose is to amuse. Remaining consistently funny throughout, it's able to blend the more emotional or serious moments in a way that flows, rather than jerks, between styles. Keeping these moments to a minimum also helps in ensuring that they don't become too wearing and means that it strays from the Nicholas Sparks-esque manipulative side that writer David Nicholls demonstrated in his script for One Day.*

Elsewhere in the cast, everyone does their job to at least a decent standard. The stand-out though is Rebecca Hall. While the protest scenes have the clichés, Hall is given plenty of time to flesh out the character away from the scenes. Where the protester is often played for comedy value, Rebecca is there to be liked. It's obvious from the start that she's supposed to be the true object of Brian's desires, but it's not because the script can't help itself from telegraphing it at every point it gets. It's because Hall's performance makes you like her far more than Alice and makes you want her to be happy. Elsewhere, Cumberbatch brings out the pomposity and arrogance of Patrick well, but he's overdoing it ever so slightly and isn't given much of a chance to do anything else.

There's a couple of elephants in the room though and they go by the names of Tate and Corden. Don't be put off by their names in the cast list. I actually don't mind James Corden, but if you really can't stand him, don't worry, he's barely in it. As for Tate, I have to give her props. Loud, irritating and with a voice that's like sticking a screwdriver in your ears, Tate tones down her less likeable qualities and comes out with some of her best work. With only an 11-year age gap, she's blatantly far too young to be playing McAvoy's mother, but embodies all the motherly qualities necessary for that to become unimportant. Thankfully, her laugh only makes one appearance and does so in a scene that's otherwise funny. As for the handling of her new relationship, it's is executed pitch-perfect and that's entirely down to her ability to show her guiltless affection for Des, whilst retaining the love for her late husband.

Special mention must also go to the soundtrack. With Kate Bush, Buzzcocks, The Smiths, The Cure and many others, it's a veritable pantheon of British greats that feels and sounds like a student soundtrack from the 1980s. It doesn't matter that you've heard all of them before. It matters that it suits the film and it does that admirably. Although, Pictures Of You in 1985? I think not.

It's a shame then that box office results were hardly staggering. With a general release date that fell a couple of months before The Last King Of Scotland's, it would have perhaps fared better had it come after the growing interest in McAvoy that Last King provided. That wasn't the case and the box office didn't even break the 2 million mark globally (let alone an embarrassing domestic gross that failed to breach a quarter of a million). Bar my parents, I can't actually name anyone who's seen it either. I admit that British film has produced some dire stuff like Lesbian Vampire Killers, Sex Lives Of The Potato Men and Keith Lemon: The Film (or just him in general), but this ones more in line quality-wise with About A Boy. If you're a cynic, you'll hate it, but that's your problem.

If that's not enough then I go back to my original argument. LOOK AT THAT CAST!

FOUR out of five

Contains: a damn good advert for British film from the director of What Happens In Vegas... actually, ignore that last bit.

*Aimed at the film, not the book which I've never read.

Welcome To Partial Education

Welcome to Partial Education, a blog in which I will be posting up my own reviews of films and TV, both new and old, good and... not.

Rather than make some protracted and unnecessary introduction, this post is simply to present the concept of Partial Education. All the reviews will be listed as either a partial or full education. I don't believe in citing a film as an actor's greatest performance, unless you can actually say you have seen all of their performances. If I am listing a review as fully educated it means the following two criteria have been met.

1. I have reviewed all of the films or TV episodes that the director(s), writer(s) and main actors have been in that led up to this film. Things that came afterwards don't count.
2. If what I am reviewing is part of a series, I have reviewed all earlier parts in the series.

If either of these criteria aren't met, the review will be listed as partially educated.

There are some exceptions to this rule, on the basis of what counts. For example, if a director or actor has a history in music videos then that will not be counted in regards to whether my review is fully educated or not. The same applies if they have a history in porn. With apologies if you feel necessary, I am NOT about to start reviewing porn and also won't be reviewing music videos.

In addition, I may revisit films that I reviewed as a partial education, once I have become fully educated.

That's it. That's the concept. Only thing left to say is: feedback greatly appreciated. If you like, share.