20th Century Burton - Another Mini-Marathon

20th Century Burton - Another Mini-Marathon

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Batman

Batman Returns

Mars Attacks!

and Sleepy Hollow

Plus a Bonus Review of Catwoman

Despite my disappointment at Big Fish not being as good as I remembered it, I quite enjoyed my last batch of Tim Burton reviews, so I decided to do another, focussing entirely on his earlier output that made me such a fan. A number of Burton's pre-2000 films were reviewed here, so here are the others… with one exception. When it comes to Full Educations, one rule I will have is that I don't have to have reviewed films that aren't freely available on UK DVD or Blu-Ray, though it won't categorically mean that I haven't seen them. Burton's debut feature film is one of those, as Pee-Wee's Big Adventure is quite hard to get hold of in this country. For the record, I have seen it, but not recently enough for me to feel that I can review it. From what I remember, it's OK… ish.

In 50 Words or Less: Regardless of how much of a Batman purist you are, there can be no denying that this film paved a huge portion of the way for comic book films to come. It's not perfect, but considering the period it came out in, it's still impressive.

In the review after this, I'm going to express an opinion that won't be popular. In preparation for it though, I will say right now that I am a big fan of Tim Burton's Batman films. I'm happy to accept that Christopher Nolan's films are the most faithful and also consider myself to be a big fan of those films, but Burton's films have become lumped in with the same period that produced the, shall we say, less good Joel Schumacher films. They really don't deserve to be. Though they may take liberties with the source material and even outright change some characters to be barely recognisable from their illustrated counterparts, they still stand as decent stories and excellent comic book films from a time when there were far less of those around. This one is the more simple of the two, as it's all about Batman (Michael Keaton) VS The Joker (Jack Nicholson). The film's priority is having fun and (surprisingly for a Burton film) while many of the scenes are naturally set at night, it doesn't feel like he's overly concerned with maintaining a darker tone. With a much larger focus on Nicholson than there is on Keaton, the sad past of Bruce Wayne is frequently pushed aside in favour of the more fun Joker, apparently equipped with his own collection of Prince music. Is that a correct decision? Not completely. The title of this film is Batman and yet that character gets sidelined at the first hurdle in favour of the noticeable obsession that Burton has with his villains. Keaton is a solid turn, but a real fleshing out of the character feels absent. Meanwhile, the Joker gets a huge fleshing out, giving us far more backstory than should ever be necessary for the character. Nicholson doesn't adapt into the role, but instead turns the character into more of a Jack Nicholson performance. That's not always a bad thing, but Heath Ledger's performance has really dated this one. That doesn't make it a terrible performance, as Nicholson is often what instils this film with life. I just feel like he should have tried a bit harder to do something different. For these reasons, if you're coming into Batman with fresh eyes, it won't seem as good as it did back at the time of it's release. The narrative will be familiar and the action set pieces won't entirely dazzle, but that's because this is a 26 year-old film and all those films that make it feel dated wouldn't exist without this one laying a lot of the ground work. Whether you like it or not, this film is an important one.

FOUR out of five

In 50 Words or Less: My absolute favourite Batman film... and I love a lot of the others.

Here's the unpopular opinion. This is the best Batman film ever made. Again, I acknowledge the fact that Burton's faithfulness to the canon (other than the name, the Penguin is a brand new character) is Berlusconi levels of lacking, but when it comes to simple enjoyment, this takes the top spot for me. It's got that rebellious streak that I wanted from the first film, with Burton taking full control of the vision that he wants. All of his trademarks are there: gothic architecture, playful Danny Elfman score, macabre sense of humour, yet the film still wants to do right by the characters that Burton so loves. With the feared Penguin (Danny DeVito) emerging from the sewers in an attempt to be accepted by society, he begins a crooked path towards the Mayor's office, backed by "so shady it's untrue" businessman Max Schreck (Christopher Walken). Naturally, Batman's keeping an eye on them, but also has to contend with a considerably less clean-cut vigilante in the emerging Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). The presence of three villains often sets off alarm bells in this day and age (see a number of Spider-Man films), but Batman Returns shows how it can work. By establishing firm links between all three of them, it helps in tying in their motives. However, Daniel Waters' script is proficient to properly develop their characters separately. Despite having slightly less focus than the other two, Catwoman probably fares best and this is down hugely to Pfeiffer's outstanding performance. Anne Hathaway was good, but Pfeiffer shows how it's really done. DeVito and Walken come close to matching her though. The different take on the Penguin will (and does) jar with purists, but DeVito brings out so many different facets of this character that I can't help but feel a fascination with it. Schreck, on the other hand, is a walking stereotype, but a Walken performance is rarely unworthy of checking out. This is no exception. With all these villains though, does this affect Batman? Yes, particularly in the opening, as he barely gets a show in for the first half hour, during which it's all about setting up the villains. This is fairly indicative of the film as a whole, as Keaton once again feels like he's playing second fiddle to the villains, but this time it works better for me. He still has a lot of fairly killer lines and the dynamic between Batman and Catwoman is outstanding here. Only half of that is down to Pfeiffer. I'm not saying that Batman Returns is the best thing that ever happened to Batman on the big screen, but there's only so many times I can watch the Nolan films before I have to put them away for a while. If I want a Batman fix, it's this film that I'm usually going to bust out. Purists be damned.

FIVE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: It's a big budget B-movie about Martians killing the human race. Whether or not that sounds like your kind of thing pretty much determines whether or not you will like this film. It is my kind of thing.

Perhaps I'm underestimating the power that a B-movie homage held in the mid-1990s (I was 9 when this film came out), but giving a 100 million dollar budget to Mars Attacks! has regularly struck me as one of the strangest financial decisions the American film industry has ever made. Like it was ever going to make that one back. This is the sort of film that seems destined for a cult following, which is not a bad thing, but that rarely equates to monetary greatness. That niggle aside, I like Mars Attacks!, but I'm happy to accept that many won't and don't. A cast of A-listers gather together (often in very small roles) to create a Hollywood blockbuster version of a cheap-ass Ed Wood style alien invasion film. That becomes the film's main joke and it works, rarely becoming wearing as it's always willing to bust out yet another huge star just to keep the madness flowing. It's not it's only trick though, as there's the stabs at social and political satire too. These hold about the same level of subtlety as killing an ant with a chainsaw, but again suit the film. Everything that is thrown in here creates the film that the filmmaker's wanted to make. What that means is that your enjoyment of it will all hinge on whether or not it sounds like something you would enjoy. If it doesn't, I doubt there is anything here to convince you otherwise. This isn't up there with the greatest sci-fi pastiches ever made and if you want one that I think may well strike a chord with just about anyone, then I personally direct you towards Galaxy Quest. Mars Attacks! is always a film I will be willing to watch and I will always enjoy it. I'm just not confident enough to guarantee that you will feel the same way.

THREE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: Another Burton film that's not as good as I remember it, treading that dangerous line between homage and rip-off, but straying a little close to the wrong side. It's always fun, but inconsistent when it comes to being anything more than that. Inconsistent also being the state of the acting.

I'm starting to get a little alarmed by revisiting these Burton films because first Big Fish became a victim of fonder memories than there perhaps should have been and now Sleepy Hollow has suffered a similar (if not quite as strong) fate. This time though, I can put my finger on exactly why it is. When I first watched Sleepy Hollow, I loved it, but also held a deep disregard for the idea of watching most things created before my own birth. Now that I've grown up (a little), I've discovered the likes of Hammer Horror. This means that I now realise that, though Sleepy Hollow is an intentional homage to those types of films, some of that homage does tread perilously close to rip-off territory. The film is, of course, an adaptation of the story of the headless horseman, as quirky police constable Ichabod Crane (Johnny Depp, somewhat staggeringly there are four Burton reviews, yet only one Deep performance in this post) is sent to investigate murders that have befallen the titular haven for fog. With his faith in science and his disdain for the resident's tales of the horseman, Crane is not there to make friends, but soon learns that he probably should have listened in the first place. Sleepy Hollow is good fun (a phrase that I'm apparently clinging to at the moment) and holds enough imagination and excitement to warrant a watch, but it is flawed. Depp is supposed to be annoying to the other characters, but this annoyance passes it's way to the viewer somewhat. Crane is a colossal wuss and this becomes tiresome. I'm pretty sure I'd be shitting myself every bit as much as he does, but I don't want to watch that on the screen. This also reveals the film's love of the human ability to faint, something that a number of characters (not just Crane) do often. It holds some amusement the first couple of times, but quickly becomes evident as the film's primary (and deeply lazy) method of transporting characters from scene to scene. The irritation of Depp's character isn't helped by the presence of Christina Ricci as the primary love interest because she is not good at all in the role. In fact, considering that she's often a solid hand, it's alarming just how stilted she is, as though she's far too focussed on mastering her accent and has forgotten to actually perform. No consolation prize then, because her accent isn't any good either. Maybe it's me becoming more of a film snob as the years progress, but Sleepy Hollow doesn't have the spark that it once held for me. I hate saying that because it riddles this review with negativity, but when a film you previously loved suddenly becomes nothing more than good, it can only feel disappointing.

THREE out of five

Bonus Review

In 50 Words or Less: I'm considering taking back the ZERO out of five I gave to The Counsellor. That will likely make this the worst film I've reviewed to date.

I'm not sure that anyone ever expected Catwoman to be good. It just seemed like a foregone conclusion that it would be awful. On the other hand, I'm not sure that anyone outside of the filmmaker's knew that it was going to be this bad and, if they did, they must be held accountable. Catwoman is not just a bad film. It's a film that's so inconceivably awful that if anyone involved thought they were producing something otherwise, they deserve a slow lowering into a pit of pissed off piranhas*. The film's director goes by the moniker of Pitof, instantly putting him on the same level as McG (he of Terminator Salvation fame). That's not a good start, but going on the basis of filmmaking skills, McG has the upper hand plus twelve more. It's like Pitof has bought in people who previously demonstrated some skill, then turned to them and said "You know what would be really funny? If we made a really bad film and people paid to see it, whilst we make lots of money!"

…DIDN'T DO A RIGHT FAT LOT FOR YOUR CAREER, DID IT PITOF? The awfulness of Catwoman can be summed up by a simple plot synopsis. Cosmetics company employee Patience (I had none) Phillips (Halle Berry) discovers the side effects caused by the latest product from her evil employees and is killed by a result. Resurrected by the a cat created from the worst CGI you've seen this century, she becomes Catwoman and seeks revenge against her employers, one of whom (Sharon Stone) literally has rock hard skin as a result of the use of her own product. Halle Berry famously declared the film "a piece of shit" when accepting her Razzie for Worst Actress. That's not a lie, but obviously attempts to divert from just how much she deserved that award. When Sharon Stone is delivering a better performance than you in anything other than Casino, you have to have screwed up somewhere. The film throws in characters and plot strands that are so under-developed that you almost feel like you're watching a sequel to The Room and the bizarre scenes between Berry and love interest cop Benjamin Bratt conjure up similar memories too. Finally, there's the fight scenes. Taken 2 and 3 got similar criticism last week, but when I say that they are heinous in Catwoman, I mean it in a far worse way than anything I ever threw at the Taken films. It's not that there is no justification for a Catwoman film, it's that there is simply no excuse for it to exist in the state that it does. Think Batman And Robin or Daredevil are the worst superhero films ever made? Catwoman will prove you wrong. I've said that a ZERO out of five will only go to films that I find harmful to film on a moral level. However, I want to stress that this is...

…perhaps the most emphatic ONE out of five I've given to date.

*I joke of course. No one deserves to die for making a bad film. Just suffer.

Next Time (14th May)

A Slight Delay

Just a quick note: Wednesday's review has been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances (no one died!). It will now be on 30th April.

I'd offer to make it up to you, but I can't be arsed and I'm pretty sure you'll live!

Bad Skills - Neither The Neeson We Need, Nor The Neeson We Love

Bad Skills

How Liam Neeson became an action poster boy… and why he needs to stop

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Taken

Unknown

The Grey

Taken 2

Non-Stop

A Walk Among The Tombstones

and Taken 3

After positive feedback to the new 50 words or less feature, I'm going to continue latching on to feedback with what is one of the most obvious "crowd pullers". I hereby guarantee that every week there will be at least one destruction of a terrible film. There will still be good reviews, as I never want to be that guy who throws out a constant barrage of negativity and nothing else, but even I have to admit that the bad reviews are a lot more fun.

I have temporarily resigned myself to the idea that Liam Neeson films aren't going to be getting any better any time soon. Somehow, someway, he's managed to become the one staple of the "old farts with guns" category that's survived, outlasting the box office clout of stalwarts such as Schwarzenegger and Stallone. I'd love to say that's because of his superior acting talent, but after watching these 7 films (I'm not parting with a tenner of my money for a cinema trip to Run All Night), I'm starting to question whether even The Expendables franchise might be too good for him.

Notes: I'm sticking to films entirely sold on the presence of Neeson (and Neeson alone) as an action star here, thus removing films such as The A-Team, Third Person and Battleship.

In 50 Words or Less: The film that started it all is neither the classic or disaster that different people would have you believe. It's a technically terrible, but trashily enjoyable, action film and nothing more. Still, enjoyable is enjoyable.

Badass Liam No. 1

In Detail: If the rest of the films here are like an extended lavatorial visit, then Taken is the vindaloo that put you there. You don't know why you're doing it, you know you probably shouldn't be doing it, but for a brief moment of absolute madness, you kind of enjoy it. See, it's not hard to understand why this whole craze started because I can remember watching Taken when it first came out. A confused combination of laughter and disbelief permeated the air, along with the ever-lasting question of REALLY!?, but there was still something fun about it. If Chuck Norris jokes ever died off, it was beginning to appear that Neeson may be the unlikely successor. Here's a challenge though for you. Assuming you have already seen this film (and potentially the other two), name his character. Without looking it up. I'm working on the basis that you can't. This is a character that has become so indelibly etched into modern day film that you could give every one of Neeson's characters the same name and people probably wouldn't notice because:

1. It may as well BE the same character.
2. No one pays the blindest bit of attention to what he's called anyway.

At the end of the day, Taken is a film about a father (he's called Brian Mills, by the way) hunting for the traffickers who have kidnapped his daughter (Maggie Grace). He will find them, he will kill them, but he won't surprise you in the slightest. It's an entirely throwaway piece of fun, in which the safest assumption to take with any characters is American: good (except for Neeson, who's supposed to be American, but still sounds Irish), Foreign: bad. The action scenes are fast and nasty and the dialogue is so laugh out loud awful that it becomes a highlight in it's own right. When it came out, there was perhaps a feeling that this wouldn't end in the standard predictable manner (after all, there had to be some artistic reason why Neeson would take this on). That actually helped with making this enjoyably, but with a knowledge of how much of the norm this became, that feeling will be dead (even if you are watching for the first time) to almost anyone now. However, without that awareness of the beast that this film would create, I'd be lying if I didn't say I enjoyed it.

THREE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: No one can remember who Liam Neeson is apart from some bloke trying to kill him. It's not quite the same brain-dead paint by numbers action film as a lot of his others, but instead a mentally handicapped action thriller, coupled with poor performances from anyone not named Diane Kruger.

Badass Liam No. 2

In Detail: I'm not lying though when I say that Unknown marked the point where I grew fed up of Neeson finding and killing. That's right, only two films in. With character name once again surplus to requirements, Neeson plays Dr Martin Harris (dum dum dum dum dum), who suffers a bout of reverse amnesia when he awakens from a taxi crash to find that no one (not even his wife), remembers who he is and another man (Aidan "How-Long-Is-It-Since-I-Was-In-A-Decent-Film" Quinn) appears to have taken his place. Neeson not happy, but Neeson now run because there is at least one person who seems to know what's going on and that person is trying to kill him. Unknown is going for the taut, exciting thriller feel and though the tone of the film is right for that, the plotting isn't. It just gets more and more ridiculous, meaning that where a lot of similar films wait until the 3rd act before they collapse, this one's halfway there in the first 10 minutes. Neeson is incredibly whiny in this film. His constant cries of "I'm Martin Harris! This man is an impostor!" rattle the eardrums until you're just begging for a vital character to get killed in the vain hope that it ends. Now, I'd be lying if I said this was entirely without merit because there are some OK action scenes (OK's as far as I'll take it) and a little bit of my inquisitive nature took hold at points, but everything's a little bland and the performances rarely help. Diane Kruger's a solid presence and Neeson's not terrible (just terribly bland). Some supporting performances absolutely stink though, most notably January Jones as Neeson's wife, who displays the emotional range of an unassembled box of flatpack. I have to say though that I do know a few people who do like Unknown, so sod it, go watch the damn thing for all I care. It's your 2 hours you're wasting.

TWO out of five

In 50 Words Or Less: A surprisingly great film, as Neeson action mixes with Neeson acting. Well developed characters give us something to actually care about and the battle of men versus wolves drips as much tension as it does testosterone. It's not a classic, but it's a damn sight better than the alternatives.

In Detail: The Grey doesn't look like it's going to be any different. It contains the trifecta of every generic Neeson film. Poster comprising of Neeson and not a whole lot else?

Badass Liam No. 3

Check. Said actor gruffing up his voice to the point where he may as well have just gargled a cup of cactus spikes? Check. Deeply unimaginative tagline? Live or die on this day. Yeah, I'd say that's the third strike. Be fooled not, because The Grey's really good. It helps that it's a little different. Neeson is still presented as the vision of manliness that we all should aspire to be, but he is doing no finding and little killing here. In fact, he's closer to hiding, as his group of oil workers find themselves stranded in Alaska after a pretty brutal plane crash. This time, Neeson's the foreigner, as said plane happened to invade the lair of some (every bit as hungry as they are nasty) wolves. There are two things that set this film aside from everything else here. The first is the director. I'm a huge fan of Joe Carnahan. He may not have a perfect record (Smokin' Aces), but he has always found some way to entertain me and often properly thrill me. He's also not short on testicular fortitude and is very willing to divert from the formula just that little bit that helps keep the audience engaged, but also separate his films from similar ones. This leads me on to the other area of real success: the script. Also written by Carnahan, along with Ian MacKenzie Jeffers, it's a script with a very simple objective. Focus on creating characters that we care about. That way, any peril (mild or otherwise) that they face will feel excruciatingly tense and my God, doesn't it just? It helps that every character feels expendable, but still important. Absolutely no one is safe here, with the obvious exception of the lead, but, by the end, even his survival is starting to feel less certain. It makes for a simple objective executed in an almost flawless way. I say almost because the film's constant cycle of man-talk, run from wolves, man-talk, run from wolves does get a little tired towards the end and the film's running time could have perhaps been a little bit tighter. This film may do for wolves what the Taken franchise has done for men of Eastern origin, but PETA have done all the protesting there. I was just happy that, for a brief second, Neeson was starting to look like he was moving on.

FOUR out of five

A very brief second…

In 50 Words or Less: The exact same film with roles reversed and Taken wasn't a film that was crying out for a remake. Almost everyone is phoning it in and the neutering of the action scenes makes them border on unwatchable. Just because people wanted it, it doesn't mean it should necessarily have happened.

Badass Liam No. 1 Part Deux

In Detail: I used to work with a guy who came in one day after just watching the original Taken. He disliked it a whole lot more than I did and said that he spent the whole film being so annoyed at Neeson's daughter that he was actually hoping she'd get killed. At the time, I thought this was a little harsh. In hindsight though, at least the sequels might not have happened. Taken 2 is more of the same, but with a twist that's far less imaginative than the filmmaker's seem to believe it is. This time around it's Neeson and his ex-wife who've been kidnapped with said daughter going into rescue mode. First off, the filmmaker's have latched on to that scene in the original where he threatens someone down the phone and decided that we want to see more of Neeson on the phone. Considerable portions of this film are spent with him spouting every facet of his plan down the line to his daughter. That by itself seems sensible enough, but during one moment he actually tells his daughter where to hide whilst her would-be kidnappers are within earshot, pointing a gun at him. They still don't find her. This moment (and so many more) add up to a monumentally stupid film that feels like it's been generated as a result of a conference call with Awesom-O. Add to that the fact that it's a poorly made stupid film and it's quite often unwatchable. The fight scenes in particular are poor, not so much toned down to appeal to a wider audience, but instead made unwatchable by deliberate attempts to mask the impacts that will move it into R-rated territory. The cuts are annoying quick and the camera so erratic that though you know what's going on, specifics of who just got punched where is anyone's guess. This is also the point where Neeson shows us that if we thought his earlier performances were phoned in, we were merely being warmed up. He will find you, he will kill you, but he'll have to make a stop off at the bank on his way. So, yeah, it's pretty bad, but there's one small positive here that may be grasping at straws, but still deserves a mention. Rade Šerbedžija takes on the chief villain role and there is that noticeable effort to develop the character beyond the first film's "if you're foreign and you're evil, clap your hands" protagonists. His motives are clear and though there's no shades of grey to his evil, you at least feel like they've tried that little bit more. Still not enough to take it anywhere close to good though.

TWO out of five (and that's born out of a bizarre generosity)

In 50 Words or Less: It's a role where the writers really haven't tried to come up with anything different, but Non-Stop is kind of enjoyable, mostly because (like the original Taken) it knows what it is and isn't pretending to be anything else. I'll be damned if I can remember much of it though.

In Detail: Neeson on a plane. Trying to stop people getting killed, but inadvertently killing people as a result. Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, also responsible for Unknown. It's not a good start really, but in the truest sense of trying to pay a film a complement, but likely damning with faint praise, Non-Stop is just about good enough. Neeson is Generic Name, an alcoholic Air Marshall who just got given the wrong flight, as someone has gotten his pager number and said someone is threatening to kill passengers unless…

Badass Liam No. 4

…(times 150) is transferred into a bank account that mysteriously happens to be in Generic Name's name. With suspicion falling heavily on Generic, he is forced to go against his superiors in order to track down the real culprit. Look, Non-Stop is banality defined. It's like a join-the-dots picture where you've already been told that it's a giraffe. Even if you don't guess who's responsible, you still know how it's all going to end and just because the giraffe's neck is slightly longer, you're not going to sit there thinking "F**k me! That's one hell of a neck!" It's still entertaining in it's own way though, allowing some fun to creep it's way in without feeling like the director's deluding himself into believing that this is a serious film for serious people. The presence of Julianne Moore is squandered something rotten because WE NEED MORE LIAM, PEOPLE and some other talented actors (a presumably pre-Oscar Lupita Nyong'o amongst them) get thrown into roles that even Keanu Reeves would find emotionally unengaging. This film doesn't care though. That's not going to sit right with some, but it somehow managed to make me stop giving a shit too.

THREE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: It's every bit as depressing as it is sleazy and it's REALLY sleazy. It's equally misguided too, going for that mature edge that still feels a little juvenile. In the end though, the worst bit is just how boring it all is.

Badass Liam No. 5

In Detail: Depression is a horrible state of mind to be in. I can gratefully say that I've never been there, but feel that I can advise of two things that you should never present to someone currently in a state of depression, lest they end it themselves. The entire discography of R Kelly and A Walk Among The Tombstones. It's become a more common occurrence for a film to arrive that won't rest until every character within it's grasp leaves dead or enclosed within the confines of inescapable misery. The inevitable result of this means that it's audience wind up the same way. Miserable that is. Based on the book that I now have absolutely zero desire to read, Neeson plays alcoholic (yep, again) detective Matthew Scudder (even his name's depressing). Hired by the drug dealing brother of his addict friend to track down the men who kidnapped, tortured and dismembered his wife, Scudder takes a journey down a road that only gets worse from there. The makers of A Walk Among The Tombstones both love and hate Neeson's newfound success. On the one hand, they can use his new hard man image to bring in the punters, but, on the other hand, everyone's expecting him to shoot everything that bleeds and most things that don't. …Tombstones isn't always that kind of film (though, by the end, we're in very familiar territory). It's trying to be a character piece that explores why Scudder has entered the state that he is in and why he's willing to delve into the horrors of what's around him. It likes those horrors a little too much though, persistently reminding us of what's happened and taking us to the scenes of these events. It doesn't quite go full on with what it shows (if it did, that 15 certificate would be a far cry away), but it has this sleazy feel about it, almost like it's trying to tantalise us into a grotesque desire to see more. Frankly, I wanted a hell of a lot less. Also, there's a time when no other word will work quite as well as boring. This is that time. Bar a slight intrigued raise of the eyebrow here and there, nothing is there to make this anywhere near interesting enough. I didn't outright hate the film and could kind of see what they were going for. There's nothing here to help recommend it though.

TWO out of five

In 50 Words or Less: "It ends here" read the tagline. I bloody well hope so.

Badass Liam No. 1 Part Trois

In Detail: I write this review some two days after watching Taken 3 (or Tak3n as the film's irritating marketing scheme went for). I'm still not feeling like I've got over just how much I hated this film. Cast your minds back (if you can) to The Hangover Part III. I haven't reviewed that film, but can actually say that I didn't hate it. I understood and joined in with the criticism aimed at the second film for just copying what went before and appreciated their attempts to make something different. Yes, there was no hangover, but that mattered little to me. In 2015, it also mattered little to me when it looked like no one would actually get taken in Taken 3. They knew the second film wasn't up to scratch and that repeating again time would be horrific, so they went for something different. I was good with that. I was actually quite interested to see the film. A fool was I. With Brian framed for the murder of a notable character to the series (oh sod it, it's in the trailer, it's his ex-wife), he must go on the run to clear his name. Apparently no one noticed that they were just remaking The Fugitive. In an effort to give the film some extra acting kudos, the leader of the team that's hunting him is played by Forest Whittaker, but he's playing that cop character that he often wheels out for the purposes of a cheque. Neeson isn't trying here either, but let's stop pretending that's anything new. The film starts promising, with the introduction of Sam Spruell's evil Russian villain and the initial setup looking like we may be in for Non-Stop style fun. This is all a false set-up though, as what we actually get is evidence that returning director Olivier Megaton, along with series writers Robert Mark Kamen and Luc "French-Michael-Bay" Besson have not just failed to learn from the mistakes of Taken 2, they've gotten worse. The same issues with the fight scenes in that film are present here, only shamefully more so. The script also has no idea how to get Neeson from situation to situation. I counted at least two occasions where Neeson is subject to a certain death experience, only to appear around the corner with zero explanation as to how he got there. Worse still, on the one occasion they do try to explain, they clarify absolutely nothing. He could have turned around and declared himself a demigod and it would have made a lot more sense than a lot of the stuff that happens here. As for Spruell's villain, that first appearance is the last we see of him until it's time for him to come face to face with Neeson. Right at the end. Instead, we get more conversations with his still annoying daughter (often on the phone), the presence of Dougray Scott (never a good thing for me) and constant reminders of what a wonderful woman the ex-wife was. Taken 3's tagline read "It Ends Here". Conveniently, so did my tolerance of these films. Neeson! For the love of the continued ascension of civilised humanity, I'm begging you to stop!

ONE out of five

Next Time

David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 2

Partial Education Presents

David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 2

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Zodiac

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

The Social Network

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

and Gone Girl

Just a quick note. Following feedback, all of my reviews will now feature shorter versions, in 50 words or less, before the in depth review. That way, if you're one of those people who only like reading my bad reviews, you can easily find out which they are.

In 50 words or less: It suffers slightly from similarities to earlier films inspired by the real life case, but a focus on those trying to catch the killer, as averse to the man himself, provides differences. With great performances and Fincher's sure-footed direction, Zodiac is a very good, though not quite excellent, film.

In Detail: It's a slightly curious occurrence when a film features great acting, writing and directing, yet you can't quite put your finger on why you still thought it was good, but not great. It's infuriating though when you can put your finger on why, but know that your reasons shouldn't be something that you hold against the film. See, when I first watched Zodiac, I struggled to get over what felt like an overly familiar narrative and the fact that it just didn't excite me as much as certain other crime thrillers that may or may not have been made by the same director. Yes, alright, Seven. The fact that thrillers like that probably wouldn't exist (and certainly not in the same form) if it weren't for the real life Zodiac killings means that it's a bit like criticising the tutor for sounding too much like the student. So, I kept quiet and agreed with everyone else who was saying how great it was. Some 8 years later and I return to the film, ready to admit to my previous lies and accept the consequences like a man. Hooray for martyrdom. Turns out I don't need to because I just re-watched Zodiac and can pussy out with actual honesty this time. It's really good. If you don't know the basics of the Zodiac story, look it up, or just watch the film. Suffice to say, he wasn't a nice man. This film isn't overly concerned with who the Zodiac was though and is far more concerned with those investigating. Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr. are a couple of newspaper workers (Downey Jr. a reporter, Gyllenhaal a cartoonist), while Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards are the two lead cops in the case. All are focussed on tracking down the killer, but that obsession affects their outside lives to varying degrees. Gyllenhaal suffers the greatest obsession as Robert Graysmith and, given that Graysmith is the author of the film's source material, also gets the best deal when it comes to screen time. All four characters are well-served though and all four actors deliver great performances. Their conversations invariably focus on the Zodiac, but Fincher's focus always remains on them, putting just as much attention on their own destabilising private lives. Perhaps this is where a flaw lies though because surrounding characters don't get much of a look-in. Wives are mentioned, but when seen may as well be plucked from The Big Book Of Female Stock Roles, while the effects of these crimes on the victims' families isn't just begrudged the time of day, it's brushed past like a tramp on the street corner. This doesn't stem out of bad intentions on the filmmaker's part, but does prevent Zodiac from feeling like the complete package. The enormous period of time that the film covers (1962 through to 1983) means that huge narrative jumps are also present that often make this feel more in the style of a docudrama than a cinematic offering, but it just manages to pull itself out of that with the odd glimpse of each character's life outside of their work and some truly epic cinematography. Fincher came into his own with Zodiac in a directorial style, managing to bring everything into a tight vision and finally master some of the areas where I felt he'd struggled before (the use of music is Scorsese levels of good here). It's just a shame that the film, while still very good, isn't quite the masterpiece that the efforts perhaps deserved.

FOUR out of five

In 50 words or less: Once again, strong performances push this film along, but there's an inferiority to similar films (most notably Edward Scissorhands). Throw in some suspect directorial choices and some not entirely successful ageing effects and …Benjamin Button stands as good enough, but no more.

In Detail: A month or two ago, I reviewed Edward Scissorhands and (unbearably?) gushed about one of my favourite films of all time. My love of that film is one of the main reasons why, though I still like The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, "like" is about as far as I will go. The idea of the afflicted soul going through life just brings about too many similarities and …Benjamin Button is definitely the inferior product. In this case, our character's hindrance is a reversed ageing process. Born with the body and poor health of a 70 year-old man, Button (Brad Pitt) is given days to live at best, but miraculously begins to show signs of getting better. With cries of a miracle going on around him, Button is more focussed on not allowing his unique situation to prevent him from living a normal life. Cue entry of love interest, Daisy (Cate Blanchett), who naturally sees Button for the person inside and not the characteristic that defines him (*cough*WinonaRyderInScissorhands*cough*). This is a film that is always enjoyable, mainly because of the strength of it's performances. Pitt manages to use that detached vacancy that's often present in his performances to the film's advantage, mainly because detached is exactly what Button is for half of the time. His only true experiences of humanity's emotions come when he is with Daisy and he's good enough here, but Blanchett is stealing the floor from under his feet. For most of this film, she is it's greatest asset, as she often is to a lot of her films. I say "most", because she plays the character through all stages of her life, bar childhood, and her "old person voice" is fairly horrid and irksomely distracting when she takes over narration (thankfully, this isn't often). Taraji P. Henson also needs mentioning because this is the role that got her an Oscar nomination. She deserved it without question because her performance is very strong here, even if the character feels a little like the stereotype "black mother" figure. The only real question is why is that she has categorically failed to create a memorable performance anywhere else. I've checked and I've seen quite a few of them, but just don't ask me to tell you anything about them because I can't. In a similar way to Zodiac, this is a film where Fincher knows that the strength of his performances is the best bit and he keeps the attention on them, but there is the odd glimpse of some suspect decisions. Some narrative sections jar, feeling a little out of place. That one of these comes right at the end of the film means that the ending just doesn't work. All the loose ends have been tied up, but it feels abrupt and lacks the emotional heft that you feel they were going for. Some of the effects don't work for me either, notably in the ageing process for Button. Though they do use other actors than Pitt for some periods of his life, they seem determined to use him for a little too much of and the make-up and effects can't quite do enough to stop him from looking like a carnival sideshow performer. These flaws don't stop …Benjamin Button from remaining a good film, but they do prevent it from becoming something more.

THREE out of five

In 50 words or less: It's treatment of Mark Zuckerberg is grossly imbalanced and almost unforgivably sensationalist. Outside of that, it's a blisteringly compelling example of the biopic that somehow falls into all of the pratfalls that often destroy these films, but makes them work in it's favour.

In Detail: In most conversations about Facebook, I will be the last to jump to it's defence, ranking it on my necessary evils list somewhere along the same level as fashion (t-shirt, jeans and trainers, nothing else is needed). Why is it then that I'm the only one who finds The Social Network a tad disingenuous? Mark Zuckerberg isn't a saint, but this film pretty much turns him into a comic book villain. People question whether Jesse Eisenberg can play Lex Luthor well, but here Zuckerberg is only a few steps shy of Luther in the pre-MPB days. This is a portrayal of a real-life man that gets the general story just about right, but plays to the public (and likely inaccurate) perception of how the real people act and behave. That is something that really sticks with me when it comes to the film and I know I'm in the minority there, but it's a shame because it puts a sour note on what is otherwise a fantastic film. Gratefully, we're spared all the childhood tales of Zuckerberg growing up and we arrive straight away at Harvard, where he takes a verbal caning from Rooney Mara in a brilliant, but sadly small, performance. This directly leads to him creating the Facemash app, presenting you with two girls (all fellow students) and a simple question: who is hotter? The hate flies, but so too does the admiration towards how much of a stir he caused and things take off from there. The story of Facebook's turbulent creation and growth has been fairly well documented and to tell it here would be to spoil almost the entire film. Suffice to say, the film doesn't hold a whole lot of revelation for people already well versed in the website's history. Once again though, this is a film in which Fincher is more concerned with his characters and he's come loaded with some brilliant performances from a handful of the best young actors out there. Though their careers have had varied levels of success, Eisenberg, Mara, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella and Justin Timberlake have all proven their charisma and skill as performers. This film contains all of them at their absolute finest and that is what allows this film to breeze by, even if you know everything that is going to happen. To be fair to the film, it knows that's it's strong point too. There's never a feeling that what it's just sprung on you is supposed to leave you aghast at what has occurred. It's purpose is purely to dramatise these events in a compelling manner. In that respect, it definitely succeeds. Aaron Sorkin's script is also nothing to sniff at when it comes to it's contribution to that success. Again, I stress how much I dislike the sensationalist view of it's lead character, but Sorkin's way with words is rarely rivalled in the industry. The fact that he can create an entire scene dedicated to Zuckerberg nonsensically babbling about his genius programming methods and turn that into a complete non-issue, as the scene's intentions becomes readily apparent, really demonstrates why he's one of the masters. The Social Network is a truly excellent film, but those issues I discussed at the start really stick for me. That's why I'm not willing to give it the perfect score.

FOUR out of five

In 50 words or less: A story that should be exactly my sort of thing is, instead, just OK because of an annoyingly slow place and a competent, but nondescript, performance from Daniel Craig. As the titular girl, Rooney Mara lights up this film, but that alone isn't quite enough to take this beyond acceptable.

In Detail: 16 years after Fincher's career was rejuvenated with Seven, it all came full circle with his adaptation of the first novel in Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy. There are so many parallels between the two films, with a slow, understated opening giving way to the holistic sounds of Trent Reznor over imagery designed to unsettle and alarm. The downward spiral then continues as the unrelentingly bleak atmosphere grows and grows until every character within it will never be able to erase the mental scars of what has occurred around them. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is not here to make you laugh and will likely leave you utterly depressed, but that's exactly what it wants to do. It's a shame then that it couldn't have been a little more interesting. Daniel Craig plays reporter Mikael Blomkvist (apparently Swedish, despite Craig's zero effort to adopt the accent), who has just found himself on the losing end of a libel case. With his professional integrity considerably damaged, he is hired by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to help him investigate the disappearance (and likely murder) of his grandniece that occurred many years ago. The exchange for this service being the proof needed to restore his career. The titular girl (Rooney Mara) with said tattoo is the girl who was responsible for the background checks on Blomkvist and to say more would probably give too much away, but Mara's presence is one that invigorates this film with life. Her character is the archetypal outcast, fleshed out and provided with much needed personality. Mara's oft understated performance contains a darkness that displays itself only when she needs it to. Some of her actions may be brutal (the film's physical and sexual violence makes Fight Club look tame), but, in context, it's hard not to justify them. Craig, on the other hand, isn't all that exciting and quite often seems to be straining to not ask someone for a martini. The character is fine and his performance isn't terrible, but it's merely existent: the necessary lead who will take us between far more interesting characters than he. The film's near two and a half hour running time is in serious need of a trimming, with far too much time spent without feeling like it's actually taking us anywhere. A slow pace suits this sort of film, but this is nearer static at times. Perhaps with that trimmed running time, this would have made for a really good film, but it's taken me multiple viewings before I can feel like I actually remember this film. Maybe it's just not the story for me, as I feel the same about the Swedish version, but it feels like it should be a story that I want to see and though I know I will watch the other films in this series at some point (currently only Swedish versions exist, but that should never be an issue), I'm just not overly enthused about the idea.

THREE out of five

In 50 words or less: For me, the best film David Fincher has ever made. Considering some of the other film's he's made, that alone should be enough of a recommendation.

In Detail: Unlike The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Gone Girl was a film that didn't intrigue me beyond the desire to see anything made by Fincher. I'd never read the novel (still haven't) and the trailer rang all the alarm bells for me: a deep risk of pretension, pacing that looked like it would make …Dragon Tattoo look like a Fast And Furious film by comparison and the underwhelming prospect of Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike in lead roles. Shut me the hell up though. I was wrong. This next statement is one that a lot won't agree with when it incorporates a number of the films I've reviewed over the last two posts and that's fair enough, but, for me, Gone Girl is the best film Fincher has made to date. On Nick And Amy Dunne's (Affleck and Pike) fifth wedding anniversary, Nick returns home to find that Amy has gone missing. That is everything to be said about this plot because this film's narrative is told in a way where it holds back things that you would ordinarily know from the beginning, starting at the disappearance itself and then flitting between the aftermath and the preceding events. What could have been an overly complicated disorientation of the film's timeline is it's greatest asset though, as the events unravel fluidly, dangling a tiny bit more information in front of you with each scene. It's confident enough that it wants you to guess, but doesn't think you'll suss out what is going on. For me (and anyone else I know who'd seen it without reading the book), it was right, packing one of those twists that makes you kick yourself for not getting it, but also providing the film with that necessary push into great storytelling. Are Affleck and Pike good leads though? Yes, but doubly so for Pike. Affleck is really good in the lead role, utilising the casual style that some hate him for, but making it suit the character. For a huge portion of this film, you don't know whether you're meant to like him or not and his performance leaves you open to decide for yourself. As for Pike, it's not just the strongest performance of her career, it's one of the strongest female performances I've seen from anyone in a very long time. I can't quite sum up how much it shocked me with how good she is in this, as I had previously considered her to be one of the most pedestrian supporting players working today. The part has so many layers to it and she brings every single one of them out, utilising what has to also be one of the best written female roles in a long time. With that in mind, credit must go to Gillian Flynn for her fantastic script. That said, so too must it go to anyone involved in cinematography, sound, lighting, music, direction and any other department that you care to name. I'm struggling to name a flaw in Gone Girl. Perhaps if I looked hard enough, I could find one, but I really don't want to.

FIVE out of five

Next Time (9th April)

David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 1

Partial Education Presents

David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 1

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Alien 3

Seven

The Game
Fight Club

and Panic Room

At the end of the my last post, I said that I'd be reviewing Gone Girl this week. I lied. That will actually be in Part 2 of this look at the films of David Fincher. Much like I did with Danny Boyle, I decided to have a Fincher marathon and then go ahead and review all of his films over a couple of posts. Why? Because I really like David Fincher.

This is a review of the Theatrical Cut. I have never seen the Assembly Cut, which Fincher had absolutely nothing to do with anyway.

Fincher's debut feature film is one that could have also been his last. So disillusioned was he with the frequent studio interference that he has point blank refused to have anything to do with the franchise since making this film. And those conflicts don't half show. Alien 3 is a confused mess that can't decide whether it wants to be more like the first or second instalment in the franchise. It's understandable, as both of those films are outstanding masterpieces, but they're so wildly different in tone that attempting to combine the claustrophobic corridors of the original with the explosive action of the sequel means that both lose their impact considerably. Following the events of Aliens, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) awakens on a prison ship, populated entirely by males with a history of violent or sexual crimes (frequently both). Unfortunately, she's also bought a visitor with her and it ain't Newt. Now, if you've heard the stories of how awful a film Alien 3 is, then you've probably got a bit of an advantage, because it isn't anywhere near as bad a film as it's made out to be. There are still enjoyable elements, some solid performances and an interesting angle on where the alien has chosen to plant it's eggs. Unfortunately though, most of the best stuff doesn't remotely involve the alien, who, despite it's place as the title creature, is heavily sidelined until quite far into the film. Instead, we get the relationship between Ripley and the prisoners, which has it's moments (Charles Dance and Charles S. Dutton are both decent), but isn't really why we're watching the film. The alien scenes themselves also lack the energy that they previously had, with a key reason being the use of music. In this department, it's pretty amateurish, peppering the tense scenes with an overly epic score which destroys any sense of fear. It might have been the studio interference, but I'm open to the idea that it could also be Fincher, as it's an issue that's also present in his next two films (though less so in Seven). The script is also fairly uneven, going long stretches without a whole lot happening, only to then rush some of the big events, including a scene with a "returning" character that feels about as tacked on as it gets. Much like Prometheus, Alien 3 is a film that it's hard to sound positive about, because while it may stand as a decent film on it's own, it simply isn't good enough for this franchise. If you go in expecting something terrible, you may be pleasantly surprised, because Alien VS Predator this is not. On the other hand, if you feel like blitzing through the whole franchise in one sitting, you'll be watching Aliens directly before this. That won't end well for you.

THREE out of five

However, a David Fincher marathon results in following Alien 3 with this and that will end well for you. I'm willing to wager that you could take a handful of people who have seen Seven and a high proportion of those will people will cite it as one of the best crime thrillers ever made. That's an accolade that you won't ever hear me arguing against. Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are two homicide detectives, whose individual cases cross paths when they discover they were committed by the same person, punishing people for their commitment of the seven deadly sins. From the opening credits, this film sets itself up as one imbued with creepiness and misery. Unsettling imagery flashes before our eyes, while a remixed version of Nine Inch Nails' Closer takes an already dark song and makes it sound even grimmer. This all leads us into a room with the bloated corpse of a man who has literally been forced to eat until he bursts internally. This already isn't a film that wants you to leave with feelings of warmth and happiness and it only gets worse as it goes along. The brilliance though, is in how it handles this. First off, it shows you nothing of these horrific acts being committed and leaves your imagination to do the work as you only see the aftermath. Those images are graphic enough and removing the actual scenes of the murders occurring prevent this from becoming too exploitative. Also, the film is willing to give you a bit of a break and let you get to know the two detectives. Though both are staunchly dedicated to tracking down the killer, they have personalities outside of their objective and we are shown just enough of these to add the vital third dimension to both characters. Seven, however, is a film that's mostly remembered for the performance of the film's killer. I assume you know who it is, but I'm still not going to spoil it because it always annoys me that I knew who played it before I watched it. Suffice to say, it's one of the most chilling performances you will ever see. I've seen the argument that the film borders on celebratory, with the way in which it treats the killer's actions and motives, but I don't see it that way. This is a person who is convinced of a higher purpose that fuels his horrible actions and the only celebration is the one he's bestowing upon himself. If you feel some relation to his motive, that's acceptable and the film allows you to do that, but not once does this film justify how he is carrying out his mission and if anyone feels any sense of justification, I'm questioning their own grasp on sanity. Everything in this film leads to one of the most bleak, gut-punch endings I have ever seen and it's one that can perhaps feel a bit abrupt at first, but it's genius becomes apparent with later thought. Seven is a film that I'm not quite sure has entered fully fledged classic territory yet, but I don't have a problem if people want to call it that.

FIVE out of five

I started this post under the impression that I had already seen every David Fincher film, but, so rarely talked about is The Game, that I had completely forgotten about it's existence. It didn't take long for me to work out why it is that no one talks about it. Michael Douglas plays Nicholas Van Orton, a successful banker, whose great riches have come as a result of his entirely non-existent life outside of his job. When his estranged brother (Sean Penn) comes to visit him on his birthday, he presents him with an unusual gift: the number for a company who will provide him with a life-changing game. All he has to do is call them. With curiosity flaying the cat before our very eyes, Douglas' intrigue gets the better of him and the mysterious game begins. This is a film that thinks it's far more intelligent than it actually is. It's numerous twists and turns are all there in attempts to dupe the audience, but these are utterly transparent. The only doubt you will have in your mind is whether or not it's actually going to bring this together coherently and your lack of faith in that possibility will be entirely justified by the lousy ending. A bad ending is never a good thing, but if the ride there is any good, you'll have some leniency towards it and that isn't the case here. First off, the character of Van Orton is the miserly business man personified. Quite honestly, you could have called him Ebenezer Van Orton and I'd have at least respected the fact that you weren't trying to hide the lack of originality. His path is supposed to be incredibly similar to that of Scrooge, but the handling of this is clumsy at best. All of a sudden, his character changes, or the perception towards him changes, but there's nothing there to give you the remotest idea why. That's not just down to the sloppy script, it's also down to Douglas' performance, as the development jerks from each stage to the next, as though he's decided his mood for each scene, but forgotten to show the path there. This makes him deeply unlikeable, which doesn't matter at the start. By the end though, the film wants you to at least understand him and it's failed there. The scenes within the game aren't particularly clever either, except for a promising start as the game begins in what is the film's sole scene that's memorable for the right reasons. From here though, it just descends into multiple chase scenes (all of which you've seen before), frequent talks of a conspiracy and the introduction of Deborah Kara Unger in the obligatory female part. Then, just when the film should be going for the big reveal, they completely lose their mind and send the film off to places where there can never be any coming back from. Even with the few films that were merely good, I always thought I could say that Fincher had never made a truly bad film. Watching this made me realise that it really is true: no director gets off with a clean sheet.

ONE out of five

What a comeback, though! I didn't really feel as though I would need to explain what a great film Fight Club is, or why it is that it's practically the definition of a cult classic. Then, someone I work with had never even heard of it. Once I'd dropped the "YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF FIGHT CLUB!" face, I attempted to explain to them why they needed to watch this film. They decided it wasn't for them. Their loss. Fight Club is a film that you may have preconceptions about. You may think you know what it is and what it's all about, but I guarantee (unless, of course, you've read the book) you don't have a clue what this film is. That's not my way of guaranteeing that you will love it as much as I do, because there are people out there that don't, but if you have the remotest interest in film, you owe it to yourself to give it a try. Edward Norton plays an insomniac office worker, who spends his time attending support groups for diseases that he doesn't have, in search of a release from his own condition. His path crosses with Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), the personification of the rebel that Norton wishes he could be. Through their own hatred of the consumerist that nation that surrounds them, fight club forms as their own two fingers to the society they despise. To say anymore would be to provide you with more information than I had the first time I watched this film and as the rule states: you don't talk about Fight Club. There is, however, one thing that you have to be ready for and that, simply, is controversial subject matter. In the wake of Fincher's more recent awards season pleasing efforts, it can be easy to forget the rebellious side within him, but he and writer Chuck Palahniuk did attract a bit of ire when this one came out. The actions of a lot of our supposed protagonists here make The Wolf Of Wall Street's Jordan Belfort look like a saint in comparison and if you're quick to fly the amoral flag, then stay away and get off your high horse. I draw you back to my comments about the way Seven deals with it's killer. It is entirely OK to feel a relation towards the character's cause, without condoning the actions they take. This film isn't here to hold your hand and tell you how you should be feeling. It's here to make you question yourself and your place in this world. Grand aspirations, maybe, but it achieves them fairly well. Fight Club is the best of both worlds. You can analyse it to death, or you can just go along for the ride. Either way, it's a film that you should discover without me telling you everything about it.

FIVE out of five

There's been a number of recent thrillers or horror films which place their character(s) into a claustrophobic situation and stay within that setting for the entirety. The absolute apex for me is Buried, which is one of the most draining films I've ever seen, but is also quite brilliant. There's been a natural progression though, as filmmakers see just how small or desolate a space they dare to limit themselves to. Panic Room comes nearer the start of this, as Fincher puts the focus of the action on that one particular room, but also gives himself a full (and considerably large) house to fall back on. Jodie Foster is recently divorced Meg, who buys said large house, in which she lives with her young daughter (Kristen Stewart, before everyone took against her). When three men break into the house, she heads straight for the panic room, only to find that what the men want is actually inside the room. With the action taking place entirely within the home, a lot hinges on the performances and they're mostly fine. Foster and Stewart are both brilliant and carve a brilliant mother-daughter relationship that's helps in creating that necessary empathy towards them. The three thieves are more of a mixed bag. Forest Whitaker is always good, but this feels like a role he's played a lot of times before. Though he plays the character's internal conflict pretty well, the script doesn't develop it enough to make it anything new. Then there's Jared Leto, who's also fairly solid, but just doesn't have that spark to take the performance anywhere beyond that. Finally, Dwight Yoakam is less good. Outside of his music, Yoakam has made his career playing psychopaths, but anything I've seen him is crying out for a bit of restraint. It's no different here. His non compos mentis performance is OK when it's tempered by the presence of Whitaker at the opposite end of the spectrum, but eventually even he can't stop Yoakam from overcoming things and it all gets too cartoonish for it's own good. Panic Room works best when it keeps itself focussed on that room, but loses it's way a bit as it drifts out of there. The film is shot brilliantly and Fincher's direction is tense, yet pacey, but this is squandered in an ending that just doesn't show that same level of control.

THREE out of five

Part 2 - 25th March