Dallas Buyers Club

A Partially Educated Review of Dallas Buyers Club

In which the McConaissance is proven to be more than just a flash in the pan

If, three years ago, you had presented me with a film that stars Matthew McConaughey, Jared Leto and Jennifer Garner, you'd have probably witnessed my sanity consciously uncouple from the rest of me. To be honest, I still balk at anything which involves the walking God complex that is Mr Leto. It's an issue that can be traced all the way back to a traumatic event in my life that occurred at Manchester Central on the 4th of December, 2010: the day I saw 30 Seconds To Mars live.

All jokes and mental scars aside, I can, in all honesty, say that I went into Dallas Buyers Club with an open mind. Of course, the hype helped, but so too did the facts that I both wanted to see the film and that McConaughey already won me over a few years ago with The Lincoln Lawyer. Also, bar Garner's two turns as Electric Nachos, I can't think of anything she's done of particular disgrace. Leto was the hardest one to clear my mind on, but that was just something I needed to get over. It didn't take long though, because he is every bit as good as the multitude of awards that he was won would suggest. In fact, all three of them are and there's a reason why the performances have been the primary focus of any and all reviews. It's because they are, by far, the film's strongest asset.

As far as McConaughey is concerned, I struggled to see how anyone could have warranted Best Actor awards over Chiwetel Ejiofor in 12 Years A Slave, but reserved judgment until seeing Dallas Buyers Club. While I don't necessarily think McConaughey's performance is better than Ejiofor's, I have no desire to start comparing them in an attempt to prove whose was better. It just seems a bit pointless when they're both as good as this. Throughout the course of the film, Ron Woodroof goes through a much bigger character change than any of the others. He's the main character, so that's to be expected, but McConaughey is able to seamlessly transition from bravado one moment to breaking point the next, nailing every stage and fluctuation between them.

For Leto, there's a subtlety that he creates within his performance that only runs at odds with the appearance of his character because it needs to. Without it, the performance would have become more about Leto portraying a transsexual, but instead he has (rightfully) focussed on portraying a human being. Rayon is the film's voice of reason, instilling the bits of humanity in McConaughey that the contraction of HIV hasn't managed to. In addition, any pathos that the film provides comes mostly as a result of Leto's character, but this is not done in an overly manipulative way. Instead, it's achieved through the very human way in which the film is laid out. There's no sweeping score here to tell you how to feel because it isn't required.

Finally though, we have Jennifer Garner, someone who I've made particular note of mentioning because the quality of her two co-stars' performances has left her to be a bit of a side note when it comes to praise. This is the best role I have ever seen her in. You may snort and point out that the competition for her performances isn't exactly strong, but I don't mean this praise in a "most improved" kind of way. I mean it in a "bloody good job" kind of way. Her character isn't as fleshed out as the other two, but this doesn't stop her and, for the first time in (I think) ever, she completely held my attention beyond simple competency.

The only problem with the performances is that they are better than the film they are in. I don't mean that as if to say that Dallas Buyers Club is a bad film. It isn't. It is a very good film; at times, excellent. It has two problems though. The first is that it's never surprising. I'm not suggesting they should have taken liberties with the story, but there is nothing within this that will leap out at you or surprise you. The second issue is that it seems to think it's message is a lot more revolutionary than it actually is. The transgressions committed and ignorance shown towards people with HIV and AIDS was awful and not something that I am going to pretend to even have half of the knowledge about that others will. That said, it doesn't take an extensive knowledge to know that treatment of the disease has improved greatly and we are now leaps and bounds beyond the level that we were at 30 years ago. In condemning past errors, any comment on where we are at with the disease today seems missing and, as a result, the film feels more like an historical document than anything else. Certainly, the film's portrayal of homosexuality and the intolerance around it ring truer to today, but it's comments on HIV feel firmly rooted in the 80's and 90's.

Despite this, Dallas Buyer Club is still a great film, just one that is designed for performances. In pushing these to the front and keeping them as the focus, it's putting his strongest hand out there for everyone to see. McConaughey's past has been forgiven a long time ago. I'm also interested to see if Jennifer Garner can capitalise on her successes here. Finally though, while I may not be quite able to forget the 4th of December, 2010, I might be warming to Jared Leto.

Emphasis on the MIGHT!

FOUR out of five

This Is The End

A Partially Educated Review of This Is The End

In which the prospect of Seth Rogen and friends dying is apparently enough to make them funny again

To say that things have been going a bit stale for Seth Rogen and his friends as of late isn't too far off the mark. Though it didn't take long for the cracks to start showing, it seems like The Green Hornet signalled the true downward slide for Rogen and, while there's been the odd highlight (50/50), it's all started to get a little bit annoying. So, on that basis, a film which mostly comprises of Seth Rogen and his friends playing themselves whilst trapped inside a house could very well have ended up unbearable. It isn't.

While the end of the world plot device does provide a number of the film's gags, the focus instead is on sending themselves up as characters, taking the perceived notions of how they would be based on their career paths and using this to provide the laughs. While Jay Baruchel serves as the hipster loner that hasn't had as much success as the others, Danny McBride is selfish, irritating and slightly evil, managing the incredibly difficult task of being annoying, but using that to create humour rather than just irritation. This, of course, begs the question of why McBride can't do that in all of his other films. 

The best comedy, however, comes from the triumvirate that is James Franco, Jonah Hill and Craig Robinson. Franco and Hill both latch on to their successes outside of comedy with Franco falling head-long into pretension. Hill, meanwhile, is trying to avoid this, but failing miserably. As he takes a moment to pray, he makes sure that God realises he is "Jonah Hill from Moneyball". Robinson, on the other hand, plays the same character he plays in everything else, but, much like McBride, has somehow found a way to make it funny. He comes out as the most likeable by far, serving as the biggest peacekeeper in the house, but avoiding the whininess this could cause. While many of the film's highlights come from the actor's video testimonials, Robinson's is of particular note.

Strange then that Seth Rogen doesn't achieve the same quality, despite the fact that he's one of the writers. It could have gone far better than it does, as an early send-up of the "Seth Rogen laugh" suggests that he's going to try something a bit different, but he really hasn't. Instead, he falls back into the same character that Rogen always plays. It may be that the character is how he is in real life, but bar one notable moment (also on a video testimonial), I can't remember any of the other points where he actually made me laugh. I'm fairly certain that's because he didn't.

He does, however, fare better in his other role as co-director with Evan Goldberg. The end of the world plot could leave this open for set-piece after set-piece, going for the easy laughs with the character's reactions. While there are some of these and, to be fair, they mostly work, the film is at it's best and funniest when the characters are allowed to just be themselves within the confines of the house. As a result, (and without giving anything away) the ending marks a slight drop in the laugh count with the very last scenes lacking the final laughs that the film deserved. In addition, the ending hosts a notable cameo that's good for nostalgia, but still feels a little cheap. This is a shame as the abundance of cameos throughout the rest of the film are all handled really well and provide genuine laughs, with top prizes going to Michael Cera and Danny McBride's, shall we say, "companion".

There was always the risk that this was going to be a vanity project. To be fair, it is a vanity project, but it's one that has the decency to be funny with it. It's not just some well-established comedy actors laughing at how funny they are, but instead them lamenting about how annoying they've all got and leaving us to do the laughing on their behalf. When you take into account that last year's other source of multiple comic actors coming together in the name of film was Grown Ups 2, This Is The End feels like a masterpiece.

FOUR out of five

Pain & Gain

A Partially Educated Review of Pain & Gain

In which Michael Bay manages to make me feel more uncomfortable than I did whilst watching Pearl Harbo(u)r

Before I begin, I feel it is necessary for me to state my stance on the films of Michael Bay. In general, I don't like them, but for me to claim that he is incapable of making a decent film would be a lie as there are a couple of instances where he was successful, namely The Rock (which many agree with me on) and The Island (which no one agrees with me on). Now that's said and I have clarified that I am perfectly open to the possibility of Michael Bay creating a decent film, let's move on to Pain & Gain.

There are some out there who have really been rubbed up the wrong way by this film, to the point where Mark Kermode even called it "a vile, loathsome, nasty, stupid and, let's be honest about this, slightly evil movie". While this may say a hell of a lot about my own sense of morbid curiosity, all that anger just made me want to watch it more, mainly to see whether or not this film actually is as horrific as some say it is. For me, it's certainly uncomfortable viewing. On that note, it's also fairly boring, relying on the same sort of shock tactics you'd expect from the Saw or Human Centipede films (although not quite to the level of gore) in order to create the sort of reactionary responses that they would class as success. My main criticism though isn't that I'm convinced the film is evil. It's that I'm positive it's deluded. Everything that this film does wrong is something it's convinced it's done right.

A mentality is stated early on when an opening voiceover states that the film is a true story, unfortunately. While this would serve as preparation for the fact that what you are about to watch isn't going to be easy viewing, you wouldn't necessarily suspect that they're going to take the true story of these deeply horrible and unsettling crimes and turn them into a black comedy. Worse still, you wouldn't expect a lot of the comedy to come at the expense of one of the victims, but it does, namely Tony Shalhoub as Victor Kershaw. He's not the nicest of characters and, at times, he's downright odious. That, in itself, isn't an issue. Crimes don't only happen to nice people. However, once he becomes the victim of kidnap, blackmail and eventually torture, it still feels like he's designed to be ridiculed not just by the members of the gang, but also by the audience. This is where the real problems start.

Black comedy is a dangerous territory. Get it right and you can carve out some real satirical bite. Get it wrong and you become Frankie Boyle, pushing all the wrong buttons, but failing to justify why. Pain & Gain falls into the latter camp. The three members of the gang are meatheads, pure and simple. They're not portrayed as though you should be admiring them, but the way in which they are played feels more like a Three Stooges sketch than it does a real portrayal of the contemptuous wastes of human flesh that they are. If you've seen the Three Murderers sketch in South Park, you won't be hard pushed to see the similarities here. The difference is that South Park's funny and Pain & Gain isn't. Why? Because, once again, you sit there realising that this all actually happened and any uncomfortable feelings in your stomach will stem from revulsion.

In the end, blame is spread moderately evenly. Writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely are responsible for the bad jokes and the dodgy tone. Michael Bay is responsible for taking that tone from dodgy to worrying, littering the most horrific scenes with music designed to lighten the mood. He also continues his war against the remotest signs of female character development. While all the female roles are underwritten, Bay frames them as little more than supple breasts and nice arses. Misogyny, thy name is Bay!

Mark Wahlberg also holds some of the blame, his performance taking on the sort of unhinged lack of restraint that gives you a headache. Someone needed to tell him that less is more, but that's probably a big ask considering the director. To be fair to the other actors, he's the worst by a distance. Most are competent and Dwayne Johnson is actually pretty good. It's not a performance that you'll take much pleasure in watching, but it does at least feel like an accurate one.

All in all, Pain & Gain isn't good and while I wouldn't go as far as to join the Evil Parade, it's still not exactly pleasant. What saves it from complete drudgery is some decent performances and one very important element that I would be remiss to ignore: I wanted to see how it ended, less because I was enjoying it, but more because I was interested in seeing the real-life fates of these characters. If it's not quite all pain and no gain, it is still mostly the former.

TWO out of five

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

A Partially Educated Review of G.I. Joe: Retaliation

In which the original few asked for, gets a sequel that even less people asked for.

When Sienna Miller declines to appear in your film, alarms bells must surely start ringing, but when the majority of the people who willingly signed up for G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra decline to reprise their roles, you would have to be an idiot to realise that continuing to make that film is a good idea. It would appear then that Jon M. Chu is an idiot.

To be fair, there's a smattering of unambitious sense in making a sequel to The Rise Of Cobra, as you're following a bona fide hack job that it would be incredibly hard to make anything worse than. …Cobra was legitimately devoid of anything approaching decency and also managed to look far cheaper than a $175 million budget should ever allow a film to look. While G.I. Joe: Retaliation is better than it's predecessor, it's in the exact same way that diarrhoea is better than dysentery.

Low intelligence isn't something you can throw as an insult at Retaliation. It's like criticising porn for lacking subtlety. The thing is, switching your brain off only works if the film is actually any fun and Retaliation is just one long infliction of narcoleptic drudgery upon the viewer. Any scenes with the remotest (emphasised) element to fun in them are done within the first 10 minutes, awkwardly and blatantly placed in to try and give the characters some humanity. The problem with this is that as soon as the proverbial hits the fan, they instantly go back into "dull hero" mode. Dwayne Johnson (or The Rock if you would prefer, and I do!) has seemingly forgotten how to act. You may scoff at the notion that he ever learnt, but that would be a little unfair. Johnson has got better as time has gone along, but in Retaliation, he's Scorpion-King-bad.

Fortunately for him, he's far from the worst thing about it. I know you're expecting Bruce Willis' name to appear here, but the guy's engaging in his favourite pastime of cashing a cheque and nothing more. For once, it appears he knows how awful he is. Honourable mention must also go to Ray Stevenson, who comes close to taking the crown with his turn as Firefly. Setting his face to mean, Stevenson adopts an accent that has never existed in the existence of ever. An accent so bad it's almost enough to serve as a recommendation of the film.

Almost.

The champion though is RZA in his brief, but laughably memorable turn as the mysterious figure known only as Blind Master. We know he's mysterious, because RZA puts on his mysterious voice, but he's making Byung-hun Lee look phenomenal and Byung-hun Lee is every bit as wooden as he was in the first one.

Speaking of which, I know we shouldn't be embracing reality and sense too much with the G.I. Joe series, but am I wrong, or do I distinctly remember Lee's Storm Shadow dying at the end of the first one? Instead of coming up with some ridiculous reason that would negate that death, the script seems to ignore it in the hope that we've forgotten. Sadly, the mental scars that film inflicted upon me appear permanent. It's not the only problem with the script. The whole thing feels so resoundingly lazy. The assumed identity villain role gives Jonathan Pryce far more to do than he had in the first, but it doesn't really add any sense of intrigue or unpredictability because you'll know where it's all headed and there's an expected, but still worrying, abundance of box-ticking going on.

The worst of it's problems though is simple. It very often seems as though the makers of this film had no idea what they were doing. One of the biggest action set-pieces involves some of the most inept ninjas you have ever seen. It's funny, but I'm not convinced they intended it to be so. It also marks the return of the first film's predilection for dodgy CGI. Elsewhere, proceedings are predictable in the extreme and, besides Stevenson's accent, there is nothing that you won't have seen before. In being better than The Rise Of Cobra, G.I. Joe: Retaliation shows just how bad that film really was.

ONE out of five