Partial Education at Grimmfest 2014

Partial Education at Grimmfest 2014

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Life After Beth

The Woman

WolfCop

and The Canal

So I attended my first ever film festival at the weekend, namely Manchester's horror film showcase, Grimmfest. Now, I'd love to sit here and brag about how I got in on a critic's pass, following the organisers of the festival begging me to stand as a beacon of filmic expertise and deliver my valued opinion on their output, but that would be a lie because I paid to go and no one had the faintest idea of who I was (not that I asked). First off, there needs to be a couple of explanations. Anyone who looks at the line-up will realise that I attended on the Sunday and that two films are missing from this review. I missed Dead Snow 2 due to having to having to travel from Milton Keynes and not being able to get there in time. Let's be honest. It's a Nazi zombie film. You know what you're going to be getting. Also, the screening of The Samurai had to be delayed till a later time due to technical issues and I was regrettably unable to stick around for this later screening. Nonetheless, I did manage to catch four films there and here are my opinions.

I was originally going to do these reviews in the order they were screened, but that caused a problem. My day at Grimmfest was brilliant and I wanted to make sure this was reflected by not ending the review on a sour note. Unfortunately, the last film of the festival was that sour note. The Canal is a British ghost story, in which married couple David and Alice (played by Rupert Evans and Hannah Hoekstra) move into a house, only to discover that a murder had previously taken place there many years ago. Stop me if you've heard that one before. When Alice goes missing, amidst her husband's doubts of her fidelity, suspicion falls on David and his claims that ghostly forces are at work aren't helping his case. To put it plain and bluntly, The Canal's biggest problem is that it's monumentally boring and there really is zero intrigue going on here. It's attempting to create that intrigue, but the twist is so blindingly obvious that, for a moment, I was convinced it wasn't a twist and the film had already told us what was going on. The film adopts a similar mentality to the likes of The Conjuring and Insidious when it comes to the scares, going for the jumps that do elicit the desired reaction, but then serve to highlight how uninteresting and lacking in scares everything else around it is. The closest the film gets to a lasting impact is a really nasty image at the end that sort of works, but does feel a little gratuitous and betrays the general tone in a slightly desperate effort to leave at least one image implanted into your mind. The thing that really needs mentioning though is the sound, because The Canal gets it's theatrical release on November 14th and I can only hope that they intend to fix it in the time they have left. In fairness, there's some pretty good sound design during the supernatural elements of the film, but this is lost amongst one of the worst mixes I think I've ever heard in a film. Dialogue levels range from acceptable to eardrum piercing, skipping all over the place even within the same scene. Also, when the closing of a car door sounds like a bullet, it means that the thuds that accompany jump scares compensate for this by going to uncomfortably high levels of volume. As I'm sure you can tell, The Canal was a disappointing end to the night for me, but it wasn't that it seemed bad in comparison to some of the good to great work that had preceded it. It seemed bad in comparison to anything.

ONE out of five

After WolfCop had finished, I could overhear someone near the back of the screening commenting on flaws in the editing of the last scene. Something tells me they missed the point. This is a film about a cop that becomes a werewolf and that's all you need to know. They ain't going for the Palme d'Or here. It's intentionally awful and that's mostly a good thing because it has the wit and knowing to carry this through. The worst thing films like this can do is mistakenly hope that an abundance of gore will mask the filmmaker's painful lack of wit. To find a way of making a bad film enjoyable is an art form within itself and if you can elicit the laughs from the audience, then that can only be a good thing. It must be said that WolfCop initially looks as though it's going to fail in that respect. The first half hour or so is painfully unfunny, with the filmmaker's delaying the revelation of WolfCop in favour a massively unwanted period of getting to know the characters. I feel safe in saying that as a general consensus because the lack of real laughter from the sizeable audience (there were maybe a couple of chuckles, but nothing much) really was noticeable. Once the hairy guy arrives though, things take a huge upturn, with the jokes feeling focussed, tight and brilliantly dumb. The aforementioned gore is there, but it's used well, building on the ridiculous nature of the rest of the film to play it for some genuine laughs (the guy without a face is a particular highlight). By the end, steam is lost and comedy falls aside in favour of some not as good action, but it doesn't outstay it's welcome too much. At the end of the day, WolfCop is a bit like when someone brings their friend from out of town to a house party. It begins quiet and awkward and you'll do anything to avoid being that person that gets stuck with them when the mate that bought them pisses off to talk to someone else. As the night rolls on though, things get a little looser, everyone's had a few drinks and you realise that there's much worse ways to spend your time.

THREE out of five

I remember my Dad used to have this worry that people who make these really nasty films must have some issues. He may still feel that way. I haven't asked him recently, but The Woman is the first time where I've started to think he might be right. It's nasty, grimy and thoroughly depressing, with an incredibly sadistic streak to it. It's also pretty damn good. Sean Bridgers plays Chris Cleek, a family man who discovers a woman (Pollyanna McIntosh) living feral in the nearby woods. Cleek kidnaps the woman, locks her in his outbuilding and unveils the mother of all superiority complexes, promising to "civilise her" and integrate her into society. Convinced of his plan's grand purpose, he also brings along his entire family, declaring this to be their new family project. What follows is a mixture of endurance test "how much brutality can you take?" tactics and a far more unsettling scenario in which Cleek tries to turn his family into his own microcosmic cult of personality. The script is mostly solid (though occasionally clumsy) and there's some decent to great acting here, with Bridgers in particular being terrifyingly believable. Lauren Ashley Carter, as the eldest daughter, also seems a promising talent. Most of the other performances are fine too, though Carlee Baker is an exception as Carter's teacher (not helped by a role that isn't fully justified) and McIntosh also gets little to do other than snarl and hiss. Director Lucky McKee demonstrates skill, particular when it comes to the treatment of the titular woman. Many of the scenes present us with Cleek's perspective as we peer into his own view of this woman, but the desired reaction is clearly and correctly nothing more than repulsion towards him. Most of the time, this is done without feeling too exploitative, with only a couple of very dodgy music choices veering us into leery territory. Also, if you think things couldn't get any more bats**t crazy, the ending will see to that. Honestly, it's not a fully justified ending, slightly betraying itself in the way that it has made us feel about a number of these characters. It's fine to subvert expectations, but it's not fully justified here. Most of all though, The Woman is solid to great filmmaking and stands as the biggest surprise of the festival, not just because it wasn't meant to be shown (it replaced The Samurai), but also in terms of quality.

FOUR out of five

I came for Life After Beth. I left loving LIfe After Beth. Aubrey Plaza stars as the recently deceased Beth, who inexplicably comes back from the dead to the delight of her parents and trepidation of her boyfriend, Zach (Dane DeHaan); the looming question standing as: is she, or isn't she, a zombie? With the rom-zom-com having now become it's own (slightly overused) sub-genre, the quirkiness and novelty has worn thin, so you've really got to make sure everything is working in your favour. Plaza and DeHaan are both exceptional, bringing their absolute best in careers that have already had their ups and downs, despite their tender years. John C. Reilly and Molly Shannon are also great as the parents, wisely playing it straight, instead of their oft annoying caricature styles. The rest of the supporting cast are fairly surplus to requirements (with the exception of the brilliant Matthew Gray Gubler as Zach's brothers), but this isn't a problem when it's so much fun being with the four main characters. Laughs are frequent and plenty, with the script regularly pulling out some grade-A material. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's a real rarity to see a full audience laughing quite as much as they did at this screening. Though things maybe dry out a little to the end (and the very last scene is spectacularly misjudged), Life After Beth is one of the best comedies of the past few years for me and it's a shame that it appears to be getting a relatively small release. It's not hard to find a screening near you, but they are few and far between. If you get a chance, I strongly recommend catching this one and if you don't, rent it.

FOUR out of five

Next Time (16th October)

Washington VS Mills

Post Avengers Syndrome

Post Avengers Syndrome

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

The Avengers

Iron Man 3

Thor: The Dark World

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

and Guardians Of The Galaxy

Before we get on with the reviews, I wanted to highlight a decision that I'm in the process of making, namely which film will be my first Full Education. I'm not going to reveal what it is because it's still not fully decided and I'd like it to be a surprise. However, you may start to notice similarities in the reviews, be that the same directors, actors, writers or genre of film making regular appearances. This is all in the name of focus and though it may risk alienating some people if the types of films that they like aren't being covered, I feel it's essential if I ever want to get to a Full Education. On with the reviews…

Since 2012, there's been a problem for me when it comes to Marvel films, namely that most of them feel like the unimportant siblings of The Avengers. Though a lot of them have focussed on members of that group, it all feels slightly less epic when they're not together. The question is: could any of them move beyond this? Naturally, we need to start at the beginning.

This may be coming from a fan of just about anything Joss Whedon decides to do (The Cabin In The Woods notwithstanding), but whoever decided upon Whedon as the choice to helm The Avengers really does deserve some sort of medal, commemorative plate or general acknowledgment. The biggest hurdle was bringing together all of these characters and not pushing any into the shadows. Naturally, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk would be taking on the bulk of the duties, but if the likes of Black Widow and Hawkeye were to appear credible hanging with these guys, then they not only needed similar screen time, they actually needed more development. Whedon is a master at this, having previously dealt with huge casts and always giving each character space to grow. Therefore, The Avengers is familiar territory for the director, but he still shows some development as a writer. It's been a previous criticism that you can tell a Joss Whedon character from a mile off, because they all sound the same and he dispels that. Each character had it's own identity establish going into the film and instead of turning them into something resembling his vision, he simply adapts his style to suit what's already there. Robert Downey Jr. excels as he always does when playing Iron Man, while Chris Hemsworth as Thor and Chris Evans as Captain America gain ground and become more interesting as a result of a better script. His biggest success though is with The Hulk, as some much needed humour makes it's way into the character. Bruce Banner has now now accepted his fate, resulting in some accrued sardonicism that removes him from the overly serious nature of previous performance. These all combine with some fantastically choreographed action scenes and near-perfect pacing that masters that balance between action and conversation. The film isn't perfect though, notably letting itself down a bit when it comes to antagonism. Though Tom Hiddleston remains excellent as Loki and steals the scenes he is in, there is the necessity for more villains as a 6-on-1 fight between Loki and The Avengers wouldn't really work. Though Whedon wisely doesn't try and develop any more villains than he can handle, he does up the ante in the final act, unfortunately presenting us with some fairly soulless and characterless "Evils". They may look the part (one in particular is a real beast), but they never feel like a real threat and serve to overshadow Loki a bit too much. This isn't anywhere near enough to completely destroy the enjoyment, but it is redolent of Marvel's trademark explosive finale that feels lacking on the heart front. Still, as an event movie, The Avengers was a massive success beyond it's dominating box office.

FOUR out of five

Trevor Slattery. It's a name I can say that will mean nothing to anyone who hasn't seen Iron Man 3. It's also a name that I can't go into further detail about without resorting to spoilers. Suffice to say, once you've seen Iron Man 3, there's a strong chance that you won't forget the name and an even stronger chance that you'll wish you could. With the events of The Avengers having taken their toll on Tony Stark, he finds himself suffering from anxiety attacks, whilst a new villain emerges in the form of terrorist leader The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley straying even further into caricature). When things get personal (when doesn't it?), Stark puts himself firmly into the Mandarin's sights and, though there are no bodily fluids hitting fans, there are plenty of missiles making their way through windows. Iron Man 3 had to overcome the dreaded change of director that has befallen previous third instalments (Brett Ratner taking over the X-Men franchise is a notable example), but Shane Black is a much more reliable hand. Black's scripts for the good films in the Lethal Weapon franchise showed that he had a grasp on blending action and comedy and he also had history with Downey Jr. after directing him in the excellent Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. As a result, he proves himself a solid fit for the franchise and is neither better nor worse than previous helmsman Jon Favreau. The script is also fairly solid, with Stark's brilliant wit getting plenty of chances to show itself, but there are some really severe third act problems, with Slattery being chief amongst them. The final showdown is also a bit flat. It's all well and good for spectacle, but lacks that personal edge that made the likes of the first Iron Man's fight between Stark and Obadiah Stane so much easier to get invested in. Iron Man 3 is mostly good, at times great, with the missing Avengers being offset by the fact that Tony Stark really is the lifeblood of it all. However, as someone who liked Iron Man 2 more than a lot of others did, I have to hold this one up as the weakest of the three films.

THREE out of five

Thor: The Dark World doesn't have Shane Black on writing duties. Instead, Thor: The Dark World has Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (along with relative newcomer Christopher Yost), a pairing who previously demonstrated their deficiencies in the comedic department with the misjudged Pain & Gain. Here, it feels like they're trying to emulate Joss Whedon's style of writing and, though an effort to continue with the style of The Avengers is admirable, attempting to write like Whedon rarely works out unless you're the man himself. They occasionally hit a solid note of humour, but often this is down to the likes of Chris Hemsworth and, in particular, Tom Hiddleston's ability to sell the joke well. Their style also jars a bit with director Alan Taylor, who seems to be going for a darker edge, or rather is blatantly going for a darker edge through the persistent use of the word in both the title and the villains being called Dark Elves. An incredibly generic plot dogs this sequel from the beginning, revolving around chief villain Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) and his plot to destroy the universe, apparently forgetting to realise the state of homelessness this would leave him in. This all becomes a vehicle for as much interaction between Hemsworth and Hiddleston as possible, as they're forced to set aside their differences and join forces. It's a welcome pairing up in the sense of it distracting from the painful lack of chemistry between Hemsworth and Natalie Portman, but offers little more than an overused "can I trust my former enemy?" dynamic. The question here is whether these heroes can work outside of The Avengers and Thor doesn't really feel as though he can to me. His ignorance to the way in which people exist and behave on Earth has lost it's comedic bite and his grandiose speeches feel more than a little clichéd. All these issues could possibly be salvaged if it built towards a satisfying ending, but the explosiveness returns and Thor and Malekith's showdown gives Man Of Steel a run for it's money when it comes to men throwing each other through walls, albeit portals instead of walls. Thor: The Dark World isn't terrible and has it's defenders out there, but it lacks anything that's going to help it stick in the mind.

TWO out of five

It's curious to note that despite The Winter Soldier remaining far more entrenched within the world of The Avengers than either Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World, it still manages to feel the least consequential of any of them. The harshest, but most appropriate, criticism of it is that it's been castrated of any balls, guts or other asset that can be used as a metaphor for stating this film's notable aversion to risk. The film harkens back to the old style of shady government films, as it becomes apparent that not all is rosy within S.H.I.E.L.D. Their dealings and possible connections to a dangerous assassin know as (name check) the Winter Soldier suggest that their good guy status may not be quite so etched in stone. There's twists and turns aplenty in a way that suits the genre that it harkens back to, but most of these are either too neatly sewn up into a little package or get retconned as time progresses. By the end, things have changed, yet nothing feels particularly impactful or important to the grander narrative. There is one really notable positive here though and he goes by the name of Mr Robert Redford. As one of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s senior officials, Alexander Pierce, Redford is brilliant. With the whole plot being based around the potential corruption of S.H.I.E.L.D., much of the intrigue falls upon Pierce and his loyalties and he has you believing every word he says, despite the fact that there's no guarantee of any of it's truth. When you do find his loyalties, it only gets better. Unfortunately, brilliant cannot be said of the Winter Soldier. A lot of it hinges on the twist of the character's identity being revealed and this is hurt by the fact that Westlife lyrics are less predictable. The problems don't stop there, as when the identity does get revealed, he feels far more of an afterthought than he should. His story is one that is designed to create intrigue for future instalments, but in being the least interesting part of it, it fails. Some solid fight scenes, Chris Evans' great performance and Markus and McFeely producing a much better script than The Dark World can't quite stop this from feeling a little bland and (here we go again) the explosive finale returns, but in a much bigger and much less involving way than any of the other films here. My score's going to seem harsh to a lot of people here, but this film bored me more than the first Captain America film and I wasn't the biggest fan of that to begin with.

TWO out of five

It's now 10 years since Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 was in cinemas and if you don't really remember it, the hype was huge. In 2014 though, the hype felt dead and Marc Webb's second attempt at what was once Marvel's biggest filmic commodity managed to become the lowest grossing Spider-Man film ever. That doesn't mean it tanked, as the film still turned a healthy enough profit, but it still wasn't enough to avoid being seen as a disappointment. The reasons are not hard to find because there's loads of them. The biggest one though is that it just felt unimportant in contrast to the other films. The fact that it's distributed by Sony, instead of Disney, meant that the chances of it integrating into The Avengers were slim to bugger all and the notion of Green Goblin as the villain didn't feel that special because we'd already seen it. This isn't enough to make the film bad and, in all fairness, it isn't bad. There's some nice moments: the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey remains as well-handled as it was in the first film and it has far more gutsiness when it comes to taking risks. It's all dogged down though by a notable failure to learn from past mistakes. The problems with Spider-Man 3 were many, but the biggest was an overabundance of characters, particularly villains, which led to Venom getting treated like an absolute afterthought. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 also suffers from this in a way that's pretty unforgivable. The first half introduces Jamie Foxx as Max Dillon well and his transformation into Electro brings about a motive that actually feels kind of fresh. Pathos is something we're used to from the villains of Spider-Man, but Electro's is a different one, fuelled by no sort of professional ambition, but instead just the desire to be noticed. Foxx's usual place in confident characters is stripped away in a manner that some might find a little cartoonish, but is certainly leaps and bounds above Rhys Ifans turn as villain in the previous film. Halfway through though, they remove any real sense of threat to the character and rather than building him back up over time, he appears sporadically and takes second place to Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborne. DeHaan is a mixed bag. As Osborne, he's pretty good, but his take on the Green Goblin is more than a little hammy. In fact, I appear to disagree with almost everyone on this, as I was unimpressed with DeHaan, but actually quite liked Jamie Foxx. By the time we get to the final fight, there is too much focus on a now unimportant feeling Electro and Goblin no longer feels an appealing prospect. These focus shifts dog the film throughout and leave a sour note on what is otherwise a fairly enjoyable entry. It is very easy to see why The Amazing Spider-Man 2 didn't do as well as hoped, but it ranks for me at the same level as The Amazing Spider-Man. Given that loads seemed to hate that too, it must just be me being anomalous.

THREE out of five

On the flip side of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 going lower than expectations, it's fairly safe to say that Guardians Of The Galaxy might have just exceeded them… slightly. It's also made me look foolish since I was fairly adamant it was going to be rubbish. How's this for a complete 180: I genuinely believe that Guardians Of The Galaxy is better than The Avengers. In much the same way as The Avengers, it's highest priority is a focus on the heroes. The none-more rebellious grouping of Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket and the now legendary Groot represent a breath of fresh air in their rebellion which isn't necessarily tempered by a good soul. These guys are in it for the money, their own personal gain or both, caring little for the bigger picture or the others around them and that's what makes them so damn cool. Chris Pratt proves himself (and then some) as a leading man, as his past in comedy combines with a believable frame to make him a hero, while Zoe Saldana plays it fairly straight, but pulls off some skilful deadpanning. In the voice roles, Bradley Cooper is hilarious as Rocket and you can make all the jokes you like about Vin Diesel voicing a monosyllabic chunk of wood, but the man manages to elicit far more emotion and complexity from the three simple words 'I Am Groot' than should be humanly possible. What I can't believe I'm about to say though is that the real star is Dave Bautista. This isn't some snobbish belief that wrestlers can't act (I'm an unashamed wrestling fan), but if you told me that Big Dave would prove himself with quite as much comic brilliance as he does here, I would have laughed in your face. I'm fairly certain that the Kickboxer remake will knock him down a peg or two, but if it means more Drax, I'm all for it. As director/co-writer, James Gunn also proves himself to be a much bigger asset that I thought he would be (of his previous films, I've only seen Slither and I hated it). Establishing his own sense of humour which permeates as a sort of intelligent daftness helps give the Guardians a unique edge and while there's still some similarities that help define this as a Marvel film (precede finale with the word explosive), most of the time this is it's own beast. There are, however, some flaws. The villains are one. Lee Pace's chief antagonist, Ronan The Accuser is every bit as bland as he is a legitimate badass and Karen Gillan's Nebula is a solid take that gets a little too short-changed. It also seems rather pointless to bring in acting legends such as Glenn Close, only to give them next to nothing to do, but these are gripes that are pretty much offset by just how much fun it is being with the heroes of the piece. Here's something you don't hear me say often: when I said Guardians Of The Galaxy was going to be crap, I was wrong.

FOUR out of five

Next Time (9th October)

It's Grimm up North

The Man Killed Burgundy - The Films Of Will Ferrell & Adam McKay

Partial Education Presents

The Man Killed Burgundy - The Films of Will Ferrell & Adam McKay

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy

Talladega Nights: The Ballad Of Ricky Bobby

Step Brothers

The Other Guys

and Anchorman 2: The Legend Just Went And Died!

It's very rare that you find a truly great actor-director partnership that works and then spreads it's greatness across a number of films. 

Adam McKay and Will Ferrell stand as prove of that.

Now of course, this is one of those films where there seems little point reviewing it other than the whole achieving full education malarkey. Most of you will have seen Anchorman and thus know whether you love it or hate it (there really does seem to be zero middle ground). There is one point that I do want to make though, as to me, Anchorman is something that's a real rarity: a comedy that benefits from repeat viewings. Truth be told, the first time I watched Anchorman, I was underwhelmed. It wasn't that I hated it, more that I came to it after the reactionary "Best. Film. Ever." had perpetuated itself into sixth form lounges all over the country. Let's be clear. As good as it is, this is far from the best film ever. It wasn't that I didn't like it, instead more that I thought it was simply solid. It had moments that made me laugh and moments that didn't. Then time passed and I found myself quoting things that I hadn't previously laughed at and went back to watch it again, only to find that actually, I do love it. Anchorman is not intelligent (though satire is present, it's in it's most basic form), but where it succeeds is in knowing that and going for the dumb fun angle. Having now seen Anchorman more times than I care to count, the fresh laughs have gone, but I can't find a joke that hasn't at some point made me at least giggle school-girlishly. If you are one of the few people who hasn't seen Anchorman, don't start it with expectations as high as mine were (I call it Zoolander syndrome), or you may be disappointed. As far as I'm concerned though, Anchorman isn't the best film ever, but it is an exceptional comedy.

FIVE out of five

In the same way that Anchorman isn't the best comedy ever made, Talladega Nights isn't the worst comedy ever made. It isn't even the worst comedy here. It is still pretty poor though. It's biggest problem is Ferrell, playing the titular Nascar driver, taking on his father's mantra of "if you're not first, you're last". In a similar way to Ron Burgundy, Bobby is successful in what he does, but lacks any form of notable intelligence. He's also not the nicest of characters. Again, neither was Burgundy, but the biggest difference between the two is that Ferrell isn't remotely funny when playing Ricky Bobby, coming off as obnoxiously loud and irritating. His idea of comedy here degenerates into little more than nonsensical babbling and screaming. Picture this. 

The difference is that video runs just over 3 minutes and Talladega Nights runs over 2 hours. Not only does it not have anywhere near the amount of successful laughs as Anchorman, it's also confident that it does, making it painful to sit through at times. That's not to say the jokes are all terrible, because there are a few that work, but these are either surrounded by gags that die on their arse, or ignores the law of repetition in the same way that you'd expect of an attention-starved 8 year-old. The plot is identikit to Anchorman's which shouldn't matter because, let's face it, plot is fairly surplus to requirements. When you're not laughing though, you'll start looking for anything to enjoy and the story doesn't provide that. Adding the likes of John C. Reilly and Sacha Baron Cohen to the mix does nothing because Reilly demonstrates some fairly painful improvisational skills (an oddity when you consider that he's shown how good he is at this elsewhere). Cohen, meanwhile, goes for the French stereotype (his words sound funny) and also plays the character's homosexuality for laughs, despite the fact that the better (and actually funny) jokes lie in the other racer's ignorant reactions to this. I get that Cohen's job is to be funny, but this character was screaming out for someone to play it straight and they blew it. The few decent jokes save Talladega Nights a little bit, but the partnership of Ferrell and McKay wasn't too fresh the second time around. Don't worry though: there's still more 3 more team-ups to go.

TWO out of five

There'll always be a startling irony to me when it comes to films like Step Brothers, as they represent something of a celebration of the slacker mentality, despite the fact that they're coming from an industry in which, if you want to be successful, you can be anything but a slacker. The re-pairing of Ferrell and Reilly sets off alarm bells, but fortunately this is a much better effort. Both play middle-aged men who still live with their parents (Mary Steenburgen and Richard Jenkins). Wouldn't you know it? The two parents meet, fall in love and get married, meaning the consequent bringing together of houses brings about a sibling rivalry somewhere along the scale of two dogs fighting for a manky pig's ear. The film has a habit of flitting between Reilly and Ferrell being at odds and being best of mates. It works much better in the former, as their hilariously inept battle of wits (mum jokes aplenty) escalates into pure slapstick violence, something that becomes lacking when the two are allies. That's not to say that things are awful in these instances, as there are still some moments (the bunk beds and job interviews are a highlight), but the laughs do fall short on a number of occasions, often when it involves Adam Scott as Ferrell's brother and his, shall we say, promiscuously wandering wife (Kathryn Hahn). Admirably, Step Brothers is going for a really high hit rate when it comes to laughs and every line feels like it wants to inflict you with convulsions. Many of them do and it never starts to fail completely, but by the end of it, the well is dry and they're still throwing the bucket down there. It also really does not benefit from repeat viewings, so if you haven't seen it, I recommend it, but if you're considering a second view, maybe don't bother.

THREE out of five

Whenever Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson are on screen during The Other Guys, it stays funny. Anyone who's seen it can testify to the fact that that's not a complement. There's only one way to properly go about making a buddy cop film and that's by having enjoyable interplay between the two cops in question. Sure, a solid villain helps, but if it's enough fun being with the two leads, then some generic villains can be overcome. The Other Guys does not have an enjoyable partnership though. As the titular pairing, Mark Wahlberg and Ferrell play pen-pushing police officers, whose big calling comes when they stumble upon a dodgy businessman doing dodgy business (Steve Coogan getting zero chance to exercise his comic chops). Wahlberg and Ferrell have some chemistry, but their constant bickering isn't helped by the fact that neither are likeable, nor relatable. This is the only film reviewed here in which Ferrell did not participate in writing the script and the major difference this provides us with is a plot, or rather an attempt at one. Twists and turns are provided fairly regularly when it comes to the main case, but these aren't interesting and manage to feel unimportant. The end credit sequence would indicate that McKay and co-writer Chris Henchy think they're delivering some proper satirical bite, but they really aren't. Instead, we get a fairly basic "Corporate America is evil" spiel in which nothing new is being said. Jokes-wise, this is falling somewhere between Talladega Nights and Step Brothers. As I said, Jackson and Johnson provide some genuine laughs, but they're not in it all that much. The running joke between Wahlberg and Ferrell lies in Ferrell being the object of every woman's desires, but that's just an extended version of a joke that was done in the first two films here. Pitching the film as an action comedy doesn't help either, because the action is fairly thin and what's there is mostly pedestrian and always forgettable. In the end, The Other Guys becomes a few decent jokes surrounded by an average film. What helps is that most of those good jokes are in the first ten minutes, so save yourself from the other hour and a half.

TWO out of five

Later this year, Dumb And Dumber To will hit cinemas and I really don't want it to. It's not just because it's the sequel to one of my favourite comedies of all time (I'm immature, get over it). It's also because having now seen the trailer which contained less laughs than Schindler's List, I'm pretty sure it's going to be this year's Anchorman 2. Set a few years after the events of the first film, the sequel looks to tackle the emergence of 24 hour news and the numerous ways in which they manage to successfully fill all this (read: padding). There's a lot of recycled gags from the first film and the only way they see to justify these is by doing them in a bigger way. This just results in them being less funny. There are new jokes that appear, but most of these aren't very good and the jokes about Burgundy's reactions to his African American female boss feel dated and slightly pathetic. The saddest part though is that some previously great characters become anything but. With all four of the news team back, they've managed to become wholly irritating. The drought of laughs turns them all into wholly annoying screen presences and Ron feels less like Burgundy and more like Bobby. He's not the biggest let-down though, as that falls on Steve Carell as Brick Tamland. His first appearance may create a sigh of relief, as it is genuinely funny and harks back to what made him a real highlight of the first film. It's also the last reminder of how great he was. Instead of the loveably dim presence that he was before, here he becomes a cacophony of "LOUD NOISES!", but not good ones. His laugh will cut right through you and his tantrums appear to suggest that the character has suddenly become Rain Man. In the end though, the most damning thing with Anchorman 2 is the 2. Though this is obviously there to signify that this is the second film, it's also the amount of times that it actually caused me to laugh. Coincidentally, it's also an indication of how long it is, giving us a grand total of one laugh per hour. The Blu-Ray (and possibly DVD) release contains an extended cut that runs it to nearly two and a half hours. I haven't watched it because, frankly, a holiday in Guantanamo Bay sounds more humane.

ONE out of five

Next Time (2nd October)

Robin Williams: 1951-2014

Partial Education Presents

Robin Williams: 1951-2014

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Good Morning, Vietnam

Aladdin

Mrs Doubtfire

Good Will Hunting

One Hour Photo

and World's Greatest Dad

I don't want to set a precedent here. Since I started this blog, there have been a number of notable people (not just actors and directors) from the film industry that have died and could have warranted a dedicated post to themselves. Even looking at the last two weeks, you have Lauren Bacall and Richard Attenborough, both of who would deserve one just as much as Robin Williams. I'm not going to start doing dedicated posts every time someone dies, but felt it essential to do one on Williams, because I don't know if this blog would exist without him. I appreciate that sounds dramatic, but in 1992 I went to watch Aladdin at the cinema and from there I wanted to see more of the man who voiced the Genie. At a time when all I watched was animation, Williams led me into live action films such as Mrs Doubtfire and as I began to seek out more independent films I was drawn to the likes of One Hour Photo. It does seem to me that for every point where I started watching new types of film, there's a Robin Williams film that played a part in that. As a result, I felt it right to look back at some of those films.

You'd expect an 80's comedy drama about a DJ trying to break free from the heinous censorship befalling his broadcast during the Vietnam conflict to be heavy-handed and by now a little bit dated. To be fair, Good Morning, Vietnam is both of those things and yet still remains an entertaining and important film. Much of the positives come as a result of Williams. Although I don't actually find his radio schtick particularly funny in this film, it's admirable to note that all of it was improvised by the man himself. For me, his style is fairly exhausting and a lot of the jokes I don't find particularly funny (though, I confess, some of them I don't get due to me not knowing nearly enough about the times that were occurring). However, whether or not you find Williams' jokes as Adrian Cronauer particularly funny doesn't prevent you from engaging with the story being told, as Cronauer's rebellion against the radio's selection of the news that can and can't be broadcast (taking out all the nasty bits) serves as both a document of what occurred at the time, but also works as a direct parallel that could comment on the not as bad, but still present censorship in today's world. This could also be said for the way the film explores people's reaction to entertainment that they can't stomach. For me, the fact that I don't like Williams' comedy in this film does hold it back a little bit, as there's a little too much time spent in the studio with him. Outside of the studio, the film makes up for this, as Cronauer's pursuit of a Vietnamese lady leads him to form a bond with her younger brother and also results in him teaching English to the Vietnamese. This is where the film does work for me when it comes to laughs and also allows Williams to show that he is far from a one-trick pony. Without giving anything away, the role necessitates that Williams can't just have a laugh all the time and this will remain one of the films that will always allow Williams to be respected in areas other than just comedy. If you're not blown away by Good Morning, Vietnam, don't be surprised, as neither was I the first time I watched. However, as an exploration of important issues that extend far beyond the immediate time and setting of the film, it deserves it's place in history.

FOUR out of five

I'd be hard pushed to do these reviews without mentioning Williams' only Oscar win, so here it is. Though it's a rarity for someone's best performance to be the one that gets them the Oscar, his win for Good Will Hunting really does mark out one of his finest performances. Though there are funny moments (and plenty of them), the key purpose of psychiatrist Sean Maguire is not as comic relief. The passing of his wife sets the scene for much of Maguire's struggles, but instead of being the victim, Williams presents us with a kindly soul. Maguire is the film's main voice of reason (a guardian angel of sorts), fighting against everyone's expectations of misguided genius Will Hunting (Matt Damon), but also searching to give Will a much needed kick up the arse when it comes to finding his true purpose in life. In the lead role, Damon excels. His boyish looks don't necessarily translate to the "bought up on the streets" type character, but he soon makes you forget this with a convincing performance. The attitude of Will is admirable, but arrogant. When he's out-smarting people that arrogantly underestimate him, you root with him and when he's trying to wind up Williams about how much he pleased his wife, you hate him and this all works because of Damon. In the director's chair, this marks Gus Van Sant's first foray out of the indie scene that he made his name in. For the most part, he does it well, though he occasionally falls back on his indie ideology in a way that betrays the film, particularly when his attempts to be artistic jar with the overall feeling. Thankfully, these are rare and the most notable one (a really badly done fight scene in a basketball court) is out of the way quickly. There's nothing original about Good Will Hunting and the ending is so obvious, there may as well be signposts to it. The performances though are what make the film more than worth a watch.

FOUR out of five

The obvious expectation for a horror film is that it's scary, but sometimes the most effective ones aren't going to cause you a sleepless night, but instead creep you out because of just how close to a potential reality they lie. Williams plays Sy Parrish, working behind the counter of a photo development department and harbouring a dangerous obsession with the Yorkin family, due to their seemingly perfect family life. As his obsession with them grows further and further, he begins to see the cracks in their life that their photos failed to show him. As Parrish becomes unable to deal with the flaws in his vision of the perfect life, his own mental stability worsens and his actions become more desperate and more sinister. This is one of the finest examples of Williams acting, with next to no comedic elements. Rather than being entirely unrecognisable, Williams channels some of his more friendly characteristics (notably his smile and laugh) to show us how people could warm to him, but then also incorporates these into his darker side. Parrish obviously isn't a likeable character, but he is oddly sympathetic, no matter how far into madness he descends, or how immoral his actions become. It's not glamourising him (if you feel influenced by him, get yourself checked out), but instead works as a character study and an exploration of what would lead someone to similar actions. The rest of the cast are fine and all perform their roles well, but this really is a vehicle for Williams and director Mark Romanek. Romanek's history in music videos is obvious, but he channels this well, leaving the natural scenes to do the work themselves and then channeling his artistic urges in various fantasy and nightmare sequences that range from creepy to outright unsettling. One Hour Photo is a film that benefits from multiple viewings, not necessarily because you miss things the first time around, but because you find more to explore and more ways to look into the psyche of an essentially broken man. As a result, it stands as one of my absolute favourite horror films.

FIVE out of five

In the time immediately following a celebrity's death, it is usually easier and right to remember the great work they did. Though there is plenty of that to look at with Williams (there's a lot of films I've missed from these reviews), the sad fact is that his later career provided much less work of quality. I've selected World's Greatest Dad though, not because it's an excellent film, but because it is evidence that Williams was still capable of great performances. High-school teacher Lance Clayton (Williams) is going through a bad patch, as his poetry course is under-subscribed and his son Kyle (Daryl Sabara) is the rebellious self-entitled type. As a man who wants to do right by everyone, when few people want to listen to him, Williams holds the film together and then some. There is no question who's side you should be on in this film and though Bobcat Goldthwait's script gives the best lines to all the other characters, these simply wouldn't work if there wasn't a likeable presence to begin with. To be fair to the film, it begins really well. There's some genuinely funny jokes and a real grasp on dark humour that most filmmakers could only dream of having. Unfortunately, there's a midway shift linked to a major event that I won't spoil here. Though it's a nice idea, it's handled fairly ineptly. The supporting characters that were previously annoying remain annoying and the one's who were previously OK become annoying. This isn't true of Williams who stays likeable, but when everyone around him is so irritating, it simply leads the film to become just as irritating. Goldthwait also lets himself down in the director's role with some really badly played moments and one really notable extended sequence to music, in which the point is made a long time before he decides it's time to move on. World's Greatest Dad is a good film and it never completely runs dry of jokes, but it would have been so much worse without Williams and doesn't manage to hold on to it's early momentum.

THREE out of five

There are two roles though which, for me, will always remain synonymous with the man himself. So let's end on them.

Though there are many films in which Williams starred that would have been essential additions if this were to be a full look at his career, one that I simply couldn't miss out was Aladdin. Despite the major falling out between Williams and Disney that occurred in relation to the marketing of the film, he has still noted this role as a lot of fun. For me, as far as cinematic events go, I don't imagine anything ever feeling bigger for me than this did. Aladdin was my 2nd ever trip to the cinema and the 1st that didn't leave me traumatised (in my three year-old eyes, the Beast in Beauty & The Beast was the scariest thing ever). What was it that made it so great? A number of things, but Robin Williams as the Genie was a big reason. The sheer madcap, frantic fun that he provides in the role is so well done that you fail to notice just how bland the likes of Aladdin and Jasmine really are. Other reasons for the film's success are many. As far as evil duos go, it's hard to beat Jafar and Iago, with Jonathan Freeman particularly excelling as the odious, entirely despicable Jafar. In the pantheon of great Disney villains, I would always make a case for Jafar to stand at the top. Aladdin also marks the high-point (along with The Lion King) of one of Disney's true golden eras. When it comes to crafting a complete package that can be enjoyed just as much by adults, as by children, it rarely gets better than it did here. The truest compliment though lies in a phrase that Disney (the company, not the person) like to use a lot: timeless classic. You'll often them wheel it out whenever they reissue one of their older films, but I often find it to be misused. Far be it for me to criticise some of their undeniable classics, but a lot of them do feel dated, be it through pop culture references that lose effect with time or through an overly twee feeling that doesn't translate into the modern world. The ones that don't fall into these areas as much are the ones that truly stand the test of time. By this, I'm meaning films like Peter Pan and The Jungle Book. Despite it's younger years, Aladdin will be one of those films and I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise.

FIVE out of five

Simply put: if you don't like Mrs Doubtfire, you need to lighten up. Yes, the film is a tailor made Hollywood vehicle in which every necessary box is ticked and the ending arrives with the sole mission to at least moisten your eyeballs, if not send you into paroxysms of uncontrollable weeping at the joyous *SPOILER* happiness of it all. Who cares though when the film remains to this day as funny as it ever was. If you're that person who's never watched it: Robin Williams plays recently divorced Daniel Hillard, whose circumstances prevent him from being able to have regular custody of his children. The natural solution: dress up as a elderly Scottish lady and take on the job of Nanny. It's a natural fit for Williams as he gets to adopt the comic antics that befit him so greatly, whilst also exercising his acting chops in the beautifully played conversations between Mrs Doubtfire and ex-wife Miranda. These scenes also work to avoid Miranda from becoming the typical shrew and the fact that she's played by the ever-magnificent Sally Field also helps here. There's no point going on about Mrs Doubtfire, because you probably know if you like it or not. I'm not saying it's perfect (Mara Wilson's is paid to be cute, but will cloy with anyone who doesn't like things too sweet and the film's attempts to be fair to Pierce Brosnan's character fail entirely), but it ain't half one of the best family films out there.

FOUR out of five

That's it. I'm not going to eulogise, as the best way to remember someone like Williams is to revisit the great entertainment they provided us with. However, I found the Academy's tweet on Williams to be one of the most appropriate and touching tributes imaginable, so I've decided to end on that.

The Ridley Scott Issue

Partial Education Presents

The Ridley Scott Issue

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

American Gangster

Body Of Lies

Robin Hood

Prometheus

and

The Counsellor

On Boxing Day, Ridley Scott's latest film Exodus: Gods And Kings will arrive into cinemas and for the first time since I became aware of who Ridley Scott is (that would be the day my Dad took me to see Gladiator), I'm finding it really hard to get excited about it. Looking at Scott's most recent five films, this is why:

In it's first 30 or so seconds, American Gangster pulls a bit of a masterstroke, but does so in a way that dogs the rest of the film with expectation. The opening scene is a short, brilliant stab of brutal violence that provides a backdrop for any subsequent action undertaken or word spoken by Harlem gangster Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington). No matter how many nice things he does for his family or how committed he appears to them, the scene will stay with you as a constant reminder that Frank Lucas is, first and foremost, a dangerous man. Sadly though, those few seconds work in the same way that the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan did for the rest of that. American Gangster is not in a rush and the first hour stretches out a portion of story that a lot of films would tell in 10 minutes. Though this does lead to some nice moments, a lot of it feels like filler. This is particularly evident when it involves Russell Crowe's character, Richie Roberts. As a detective whose staunch honesty hasn't exactly endeared him to the rest of the force, Crowe manages to shrink away from the usual hero persona, to feel like an everyman type and he does this very well. The problem is that it takes far too long for Roberts to catch the scent of Lucas. The events that lead to this are fairly predictable and feel far too familiar a story to warrant the time that is spent on them. Thankfully, the second hour does pick up and develop some tension and excitement. This isn't a film that is concerned with action though and, to some, the lack of a final explosive confrontation will disappoint. There's a solid shootout, but it's certainly not groundbreaking. The build towards Washington and Crowe finally meeting feels awfully similar to that of the wait for De Niro and Pacino's eventual meeting in Heat, but when we arrive at that point, it lacks that magic spark that Heat had. Also, the supporting characters do get a bit short changed and feel rather clichéd, a shame when you consider that there's some brilliant actors here, including Josh Brolin and Chiwetel Ejiofor. American Gangster is a good film and could never be accused of being boring. It coasts though, relying a bit too much on it's two fantastic lead performances and this leaves it feeling like a decent story, rather than an immersive look into an interesting and complex world.

THREE out of five

Though Body Of Lies gives us another collaboration between Scott and Russell Crowe, the selling point is not the moderately reliable director-actor pairing, but instead the potential new one between Scott and Leonardo DiCaprio. In this respect, it delivers as DiCaprio is fantastic. With The Departed and Blood Diamond helping to shed the boyish image from DiCaprio that had hung over him for perhaps a little too long, Body Of Lies served as the first film in which that issue was now completely gone. His beautifully layered performance means that despite the grim surroundings and events that he is mired within (an ongoing hunt for terrorist Al-Saleem), he always provides some ray of hope through his ultimate search for happiness that cares little for how the world perceives him. In fact, performance-wise, Body Of Lies packs in a load of great ones. Crowe is good fun as DiCaprio's boss, with his sporadic appearances meaning that the dry, slightly sardonic wit displayed by his character is kept fairly fresh. Mark Strong also delivers a phenomenal performance and it should be mentioned that this film came before Strong had fully established himself as the reliable screen presence that he now is. What helps is that it's a brilliant character, a Jordanian informant to DiCaprio's character that, while retaining the necessary shades of darkness and mystery, feels human, as averse to the usual shady foreign informant. If it weren't for DiCaprio's equally fantastic performance, Strong would have stolen this one. Unfortunately, the story lets it down, not because it's awful, but because it doesn't feel particularly new. Relevant it may be, but it follows a fairly standard narrative and though it may lead to an impressively gruelling final act, there's not quite enough here to justify the 2 hours and 10 minutes running time, though a nicely played unrequited romance between DiCaprio and Golshifteh Farahani (as a nurse that treats DiCaprio) does go some way to helping with this. Body Of Lies is worth a watch, but it's far from a game changer.

THREE out of five

As great as Gladiator was, it hasn't half cast a shadow over both Scott and Crowe's careers ever since (out of all the films they've done since, that's usually the one that they go back to for promotion purposes). This has never been more evident than it was with Robin Hood. The plot and character similarities are obvious, with Crowe's dispute with the current monarch, following his place in the previous monarch's army, being practically identical to the superior plight of Maximus Decimus Meridius. There is still plenty to like though. The cast are, without exception, solid to excellent, including Crowe in the title role despite his much maligned accent, which goes for Northern, but somehow covers the entire United Kingdom throughout the course of the film. Special mention must go to Oscar Isaac, as the arrogant, yet perennially jealous King John. Though the role may be slightly inferior to the Joaquin Phoenix counterpart, he's still thoroughly detestable and Isaac seizes your attention whenever he appears. There's also a much, much better array of characters than is often present in Scott's films. Of the five reviewed here, this has by far the biggest array of characters that don't just appear when it's necessary for them to serve the main characters. The pace is also fairly well measured, marking the only one of the three films here that breaches two hours, but doesn't particularly feel overlong. What doesn't help Robin Hood at all though is that it consistently feels like an introduction to a better sequel and this is now made worse by the fact that there's no guarantees of that sequel ever coming. Though the chance to take the legend of Robin Hood and explore the possibility of that legend's true origins is a cracking concept, it does feel as though this loses something by steering away from the more fantastical elements that legend would allow. Some slightly more over the top moments appear, but the tone of the film makes them feel out of place (the excellent marksmanship of Crowe feels overly cartoonish by the end of it all). This is the point where a trend becomes established, because Robin Hood is merely good.

THREE out of five

(I apologise for the rhyme. I didn't realise until I'd written it and couldn't be bothered to come up with something else.)

When I first came out of watching Prometheus, in the ancient old year of 2012, I was maybe a little dramatic about it. In fact, a friend even remembers my, shall we say, liquid induced self declaring it to be the worst film ever made. For the record, it isn't that. I probably didn't even think it was at the time and was instead just reacting to the disappointment in that most petulant of fanboy ways. Nonetheless, the necessary re-watch of Prometheus beckoned for this review and I really didn't want to do it. Turns out to be a good thing, as Prometheus continues the trend of this review. It's alright, I guess. In fact, on it's own merits, it's a perfectly serviceable sci-fi film. A lot of the acting is excellent, with Charlize Theron being a particular stand-out, in full on bitch mode without the headache inducing melodrama of her Snow White And The Huntsman performance. Some dodgy old fart make-up ruins one performance (which I can't really give away) and Noomi Rapace's OK, but is far off the mark when it comes to Scott's obvious intention of making her the new Ripley. Other than that though, no complaints on the acting. It also looks pretty good. Scott has smartly steered away from trying to replicate the dark claustrophobic corridors of Alien and gone for the more open surroundings of an entire planet. A lot of the horror actually takes place in full visibility, still managing to retain some feel of danger and menace. Alien, however, is the problem. As I said about Robin Hood, it feels like an introduction to a better film that may never come. Prometheus, on the other hand, IS an introduction to a better film that already exists. Furthermore, though I would have welcomed an addition to the franchise with open arms, the last thing I ever wanted was the whole thing explaining because it didn't really need it. Hell, I'd have sooner welcomed a 2 hour collection of different ways to destroy copies of the Alien VS Predator films and wouldn't half have loved it. Prometheus feels like a gift that you thought you wanted, but soon realise you should have never asked for. There are things to recommend, but when you consider the legacy that it follows, it can only be seen as a disappointment

THREE out of five

And so we end with The Counsellor and, let's get this stated, we also end the three out of fives. I had to watch The Counsellor in two parts, which I normally hate, but I didn't have time to watch it all in one go and get this review written by today. After watching the first hour on Tuesday, the last thing I wanted to do was watch the second hour on Wednesday. Alas, I'm not about to review a film I've only watched half of, so watch the rest of it I did and here is my honest opinion on it. The Counsellor is a seedy, misogynistic pile of filmic bile. Feeling like a tribute to the mainstream bridges into erotica that Michael Douglas kept making in back in the 90's, The Counsellor isn't even clever or sophisticated enough to be compared to those films. If anyone's had the unfortunate experience of watching Douglas and Demi Moore in Disclosure, allow me to be clear: that's better than The Counsellor. Michael Fassbender (just the tip of the talented cast that's wasted) stars as the titular counsellor, who is getting himself involved with Javier Bardem's dodgy businessman in a nightclub business, whilst also getting himself involved in the world of drug dealing. The twisty and, frankly, depressing plot is a tricky one to follow, which isn't always a bad thing, but when it's down to bad pacing and a lack of clarity it very much is. Written by the exceptionally talented novelist Cormac McCarthy, the script is a dud through and through. Every line feels like it's designed to be quotable, but most of them are either inept, poorly delivered or (most of the time) both. Not everything fails, as the odd glimpse of McCarthy's decent writing shows through, but these rare appearances of his skill are not enough to make up for the rest of it. There's also his shoehorning in of mature subjects which feels trivialising and occasionally pathetic (await the arrival of snuff films at your peril). Some of the acting is dreadful as well, with Brad Pitt on particularly wooden form as a stereotypical shady businessman and Cameron Diaz's femme fatale aiming for sultry and alluring, but landing nearer repellent. Fassbender, Bardem and Penelope Cruz (as Fassbender's fiancé) all do well enough, though Cruz deserves a far better character than she has here. As for Scott, he appears to have developed a horribly leery eye, particularly with his female characters who appear only as victims or for the purposes of titillation. The only one who gets some real characterisation is Diaz and that serves to make her become more and more hateable as the film progresses. When your most notable moment is having sex with a car windscreen, something's gone horribly wrong.

Here comes the explanation bit. Until now, the lowest score I would give is a one out of five, but I've always said that I would be willing to give out a zero out of five. This is something that I'm saving for the gratefully rare occasion that I think a film goes beyond bad, to being harmful for cinema. To me, The Counsellor represents a horrifically seedy regression for cinema in which a nasty, grimy world is explored not by simply taking a look at that world, but by becoming a nasty, grimy film in the process. In short (and with apologies to my mother for the language), The Counsellor pissed me off.

ZERO out of five

The Issue

So there we have it with regards to Scott's recent output. The only thing left is a brief final bit on Exodus. It's not that I don't want to see it, merely that I'm not all that excited. It's not even because of The Counsellor, which I see as a VERY unfortunate blip, as I can't imagine Exodus ever being that bad. The thing is that Ridley Scott is a director known for the undeniably great films he has created, but I'm starting to wonder if he's still capable of making something that goes beyond just being good. If he does achieve that with Exodus, I will be delighted, but I await finding that out with trepidation.

Next Time (27th August)