Whole Lotta Sole (2012)

This is a guest review by my brother Sam. 

To say I wasn’t quite blown away by Whole Lotta Sole does the term ‘blown away’ something of an injustice. It’s not entirely joyless, but this action comedy was severely lacking in the elements of either genre. It’s hard to believe this came from the same man who gave us Hotel Rwanda and In the Name of the Father.

The title made me a little hesitant to begin with. ‘Whole Lotta Sole’ just rung a bit too heavily of cheap late-90s Not-Quite-Curtis Brit flicks for a film released in 2012. It comes from the name of the fish market which is robbed in the film, and although the robbery is central to the plot, the market is not. It’s almost as if Terry George came up with the name first, and then the storyline, which would explain a lot. It is, of course, a pun on ‘Whole Lot of Soul’, which ironically is an area in which the film is really lacking. It does try. I know you’re meant to feel for central character Joe Maguire, played by a puffy-looking Brendan Fraser, as he gets caught up in the botched robbery around which the main plot is based, and even more so for young Jimbo (Martin McCann) who committed it. But McCann’s attempt as a desperate and vulnerable young father driven far out his depth into crime is screechy, irritating and far too bumbling to be truly believable. Fraser is simply lethargic.

My main quandary with this film is that it doesn’t really seem to have been given the attention it could’ve done with, or more importantly the attention I would expect from a director like George. The premise of the story is basically good, but the execution comes across as lazy. For instance, naming David O’Hara’s gravel-voiced gangster, and the film’s chief villain, ‘Mad Dog’ Flynn, must’ve took all of the 10 seconds it took to flick through a Beano. The continuously clunky script is something of a reality bungee cord, that just as you manage to let yourself get drawn in, pulls you back out with a thoughtless line that doesn’t quite wash. And there are far too many unnecessary sub-plots and supporting characters that are not given enough time or detail to provide any significant value. The character of Detective Weller’s (Colm Meaney) son Randy in particular feels like it was written purely because poor Michael Legge was promised a decent amount of lines. These sub-plots then take away from precious time that really could be used to give the main plotline a bit of much needed texture.

Whole Lotta Sole is a half-arsed delivery of what, with a bit of work, really could have been a decent light-hearted comedy. The result is an awkward and sometimes tiresome film that delivers a few good laughs, almost entirely involving the ever brilliant Colm Meaney’s exasperated detective, but little else, and comes across as far lower budget than it actually is. For a British film, it’s not what you’d call low budget, costing around double that of Filth, Alpha Papa or Starred Up for instance. Yet at times the production values seem very ‘Doctor Who’. It makes you wonder how much Brendan Fraser cost to look so dour, and whether Gordon Brown in his, what I’m pretty certain was a slightly gingered up wig, could’ve done the same for cheaper. There’s no denying Terry George’s genius, but based on Whole Lotta Sole I really think he prefers to write and direct slightly more serious films. Films with a little more…let’s say intensity, it’s kinder.

Rating: 

Certificate: 15
Director: Terry George
Starring: Brendan Fraser, Colm Meaney and Martin McCann
Running Time: 89 mins

2 Guns (2013)

When I first saw the trailer for 2 Guns, particularly the clip of the scene in the above poster, I instantly thought that this would be a Michael Bay film. Mainly because of the explosions, slow-mo and love-hate cop relationship, but also because of the inclusion of Mark Walhberg, who has recently appeared in Bay’s Pain and Gain, and will soon appear in the next Transformers instalment. It isn’t Bay though. This is a film by Baltasar Kormákur, an Icelandic director whose work I have not come across before, but who has clearly taken some tips from the ‘Baysplosion’ style of film making.

The plot follows Bobby (Denzel Washington), a DEA agent, and Stig (Wahlberg), a naval intelligence officer, who are both working undercover in an attempt to infiltrate a drug cartel. However, their plan runs into trouble when it becomes clear that the two agents are unaware of each other’s identities. Meanwhile, sinister orders from higher up label the men as fugitives from their own agencies, and force them to team up to stay alive. The plot is by far the weakest aspect of a film that is otherwise surprisingly entertaining and fun. It is convoluted enough to baffle some viewers, whilst lacking enough substance to get you fully immersed. Particularly as one character, whose fate hangs in the balance of the duo’s success, is easily the most annoying and one-dimensional person in the film. Frankly, I didn’t care if they lived or died.

Despite the poor plot, the dialogue is snappy and the adventure is explosive and exciting enough to earn the status of a passable action flick. However, there is one major detail that pushes this film beyond the mediocre and sometimes even threatens to make it brilliant, and that is the electrifying partnership of Washington and Wahlberg. The two leads are so much fun to watch that the film seems to fizzle to a standstill when they are off-screen. They bounce back and forth with zest, both offering attitude and charisma in huge quantities, whilst the delivery of their dialogue zips around like a pinball; hitting the right notes every time with pinpoint accuracy. These two have the kind of dynamic relationship that is reminiscent of much better known cult duos through cinema history – combining the brotherly zing of Bad Boys and the mismatched anarchy of Lethal Weapon. If only they were given a better platform.

In summary, the basic structure is okay, but Wahlberg and Washington are fantastic – resulting in an entertaining and exciting film that is great fun to watch. I sincerely hope we see the stars team up again in the future.

Rating: 

Certificate: 15
Director: Baltasar Kormákur
Starring: Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg
Running Time: 109 mins

The Wolf of Wall Street (2014)

When I was in my early teens I was sometimes allowed to watch certain 18-rated films. This is no indictment against my parents, far from it – they did not just let me watch anything I wanted – but there were certain 18-rated films that were deemed suitable for my young eyes, and I completely understand why. Films like Die Hard and Predator were violent, occasionally gory and laced with foul language, but my brother and I were mentally mature enough to understand that just because something happens on TV it does not mean it is acceptable to repeat in real life. We may have sometimes repeated the odd swear word to friends in hushed tones, but neither of us ever spent our recreational hours dropping German terrorists from skyscrapers, or tearing down jungles with large calibre machine gun fire. I have just this minute coined a term for these 18-rated films: ‘accessible 18s’. These are 18-rated films that contain bad language, violence that may be bloody but never sadistic or sexual, and no material that may cause undue emotional distress. Examples of two of my earliest ‘accessible 18s’ that I remember seeing are Terminator 2: Judgement Day and a copy of Die Hard with a Vengeance that my dad recorded off the TV (gentle explanation of John McClane’s “I hate n*****s” sign may be necessary). So when I entered the cinema to watch The Wolf of Wall Street, I wondered whether this too would be suitable for younger viewers; whether it would be an ‘accessible 18’. Well, as the morally bankrupt protaganist, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio), so bluntly states after querying whether his business is legal: “absolutely not”. This film is bursting at the scenes with foul-mouthed tirades, very explicit sex and nudity, and so much drug abuse that Charlie Sheen would think it’s a bit over-the-top. As  DiCaprio put it in a recent interview with BBC Radio 5 Live’s Simon Mayo, “this is [Martin Scorsese’s] most hedonistic and debaucherous film to date”.

The Wolf of Wall Street is based, apparently very closely, on the biographical book of Stockbroker Jordan Belfort. The plot spans across a few years of his life, from learning the basics of stockbroking with Matthew McConaughey’s brief yet hilarious turn as Mark Hanna, to becoming incredibly, disgustingly rich through increasingly illegal  and immoral means. Belfort is “a kind of twisted Robin Hood, who takes from the rich and gives to himself”, as a journalist so rightfully says, and his journey to enormous wealth takes him through drug abuse, sex addiction, extra-marital affairs, countless insane parties, and right into the unforgiving scope of the FBI. This story is so ridiculously unbelievable that I was certain it was all fabricated, but shockingly it appears that it isn’t. This is a man who tosses hundred dollar bills in the rubbish like they’re sweet wrappers, swallows super-strength sedative pills like they’re Tic Tacs, and plays darts with dwarves in jump suits. It makes Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas look like Driving Miss Daisy.

The entire cast is strong and believable, with even former stoner-comedy familiar Jonah Hill giving a star performance. However, despite this all-round quality, the true focus here is on DiCaprio. Leo DiCaprio has been nominated for an Oscar four times, including three for the coveted ‘Best Actor’ prize, yet he has never managed to take home the trophy. He is one of the few actors in Hollywood who is consistently brilliant, and I maintain that he has not failed to impress since Titanic in 1997, which in my opinion is the one low point in a long and successful career. Whatever you think of DiCaprio, and however big a fan you consider yourself, I guarantee you have never seen him like this. He is absolutely bloody phenomenal, and undoubtedly delivers his best performance yet in scene after scene after breathtaking scene. When he’s on screen you simultaneously love him for his charisma and despise him for his callousness, whilst not being able to look away for a single moment. If you can stomach the debauchery, then you really must watch this film, even if it’s just for DiCaprio.

It is easy to see why DiCaprio is a regular favourite of Scorsese’s, and this film seems a well suited venture for the director who is so well acquainted with criminals and gangsters. Scorsese has never been considered a tame director, which is hardly a surprise from the man who created Taxi Driver and Casino, but there was a part of me that wondered if he had gone soft when he made the beautiful family-friendly Hugo two years ago. Well, he definitely has not. Hugo was just a short break from portraying the darker side of humanity, during which he showed us the wonder and love behind the history of cinema, before coming back at us with both barrels and a flamethrower. The Wolf of Wall Street is Scorsese on top form, and it is quite possibly his best film in almost twenty years. The visuals are bright, colourful and alluring, with stylish shots, fast cuts and lingering pauses in all the right places. The tone is so electric that you come away feeling as if you’ve been swept along through an incredible party, being led by a host whose charm and humour never wavers for a second. Despite the monumental running time the pace never slows, and the film is genuinely funny. Much funnier than I expected, in fact.

The running time, incidentally, is the one fault that bothered me. At 180 minutes, it is a very long film, even by Scorsese’s standards, and, as a result, you can’t help but draw to mind scenes that could have been cut. I like to think that I have a longer attention span for films than most, but as we approached the three hour mark, I did find myself tiring and waning. The non-stop partying nature of the film does not come close to getting boring, but when watching something so lively for so long your eyes tire, and for me that became noticeable and pulled me out of the film a bit. Terence Winter, who wrote the screenplay, is probably best known for his work on revolutionary TV series The Sopranos and Scorsese’s small-screen hit Boardwalk Empire, which is rather fitting, as The Wolf of Wall Street feels like you’re watching an entire boxset in one sitting.

If it were two and a half hours, I would not hesitate to give a five star rating for this film, but, petty as it may seem, the extra half hour does make a difference. I struggled to decide upon a rating for this; something which I generally grasp within minutes of finishing the closing credits. It is easily worth at least four stars, and possesses many qualities of a five star film – a rating that I do not give lightly – yet the length really was a big issue. I have spoken to several people about the movie, and every single one has mentioned the running time. One even said they thought the film was “okay, but not great”, only to then describe the huge extent to which they enjoyed it. When I asked why they said it was just “okay”, they said, “it was just far too long”. At the end of the day, The Wolf of Wall Street is an excellent film, and the brilliance of the script along with DiCaprio’s outstanding flair more than make up for the titanic running time. It’s not one for the prudish, but a must-see for everyone else.

Rating: 

Certificate: 18
Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill and Margot Robbie
Running Time: 180 mins

After Earth (2013)

Danger is real. Fear is a choice.

There is no doubt that Will Smith is one of the most well-known and marketable names in the world. I believe that the key to his success – aside from his charm, affability, good looks and effortless style – is the astounding range of versatility he possesses as an actor. There are very few names in the Hollywood who have such perfect comedic timing and delivery, whilst also having the ability to deliver powerful emotional performances that would challenge the best of them. You could watch the likes of Men in Black and be laughing riotously, then switch over the channel to The Pursuit of Happyness and spend the next couple of hours pretending to have something in your eye (and don’t even get me started on that scene in I Am Legend). Or, if you’d like a middle ground, then Bad Boys and Hancock are just a couple of options that will supply you with laughter, suspense and emotion all in one sitting. It’s clear that Smith’s performances have been refined since early leads in the likes of Independence Day, but this versatility is by no means a new development, as anybody who was a fan of ’90s sitcoms can attest. It’s no secret that Will Smith shot to acting fame after a long stretch on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and it’s also no secret that he was hysterically funny in that role as the cool teenager from the West Philadelphia hood who was uprooted to his wealthy uncle’s stuffy mansion in Los Angeles. However, the moments that truly stood out from the long-running show were the tear-jerking serious story-lines that cropped up occasionally. Prime examples being the episode where his estranged father returns briefly before departing again once his son has begun to bond with him, and the one where Will gets shot protecting his socially inept cousin Carlton from a mugger. Even as a child I remember being shocked by the actor’s ability to turn from cracking witty lines to suddenly delivering gripping and heartfelt emotional scenes, although I always coincidentally got dust in my eyes at these exact moments and had to turn and wipe the offending particles out. Will Smith was in The Fresh Prince for six years – a decent amount of time that clearly allowed him to develop his craft to the point where he could successfully hold a leading role in a film. Which, after a long and rambling aside, leads me to my key point: Jaden Smith is a weak and under-developed actor, floundering in a very lonely role that is much too big for him.

Acting is not a genetic trait. Some people will be more suited to the craft than others, but nobody is born a fantastic actor. Yet Jaden Smith seems to believe that he is the chosen one, that he may be some kind of prodigious singularity that can roll out of his racing car bed and make Daniel Day-Lewis weep at his own comparable ineptitude. Unfortunately, this is not the case. His father, Will Smith,  is charismatic and naturally charming, but if he had attempted to hold a lead role at 15 years old, then he would have been just as terrible as his son is in After Earth. He earned his talent through hard work and by gaining years’ worth of experience, whereas Jaden Smith has apparently honed his craft through a handful of episodes in a sub-par children’s TV series, two small supporting roles where his only requirement was to be a young child, and a lead role in The Karate Kid, which was aimed at a much younger audience than the superior original, and did not involve much genuine acting. He seems to have potential, but I think it’s a downright shame that he’s been fast-tracked into a confidence-crushing lead role in a flopped blockbuster such as After Earth, and I’m disappointed that his father didn’t have more sense to wait until he had more experience under his belt.

If you have somehow not already guessed from the tone thus far, I did not enjoy After Earth. Jaden Smith struggled with a role that saw him have the screen to himself for the majority of the film. This would be a daunting task for any actor, so needless to say his performance was weak. This was made worse by the addition of an accent that had been developed specifically for the futuristic setting of the film. It was an odd mixture of received pronunciation English, American and Australian, which sounded peculiar from most of the cast, and bounced all over the place for Jaden. Frankly, the only purpose it served was to distract from the awful dialogue. Some of the lines just seemed to be there to create dramatic soundclips, with a prime example being the tagline on the above poster. Other lines were just generally clunky and cheesy, such as, “he doesn’t need a commanding officer, he needs a father”. This, coupled with a messy and quite dull plot, combined to ensure Jaden didn’t really stand a chance in his first proper lead role. A key point of the plot involved the teen clambering up a hill to try and find a signal on his futuristic Nokia, while being pursued by a distant cousin of the Predator.

Whilst this film does continue M. Night Shyamalan’s recent run of unimpressive flops, it is not entirely devoid of quality. Will Smith has a limited role as a legendary soldier who can remain utterly fearless in the presence of giant murderous aliens, thus becoming invisible to their pheromone-detecting senses. It is a sturdy performance though, and he’s often the most exciting thing on screen, which you’d expect with a laughable action-hero name like Cypher Raige. The concept of Earth having evolved so that the flora and fauna is lethal to humans is an interesting one, and one that I would have liked to see more done with. The CGI scenery is impressive throughout, with the overgrown planet looking like a cross between Tarzan’s home and Pandora from Avatar, rather than the dilapidated concrete jungle that you might expect. However, the few evolved creatures that we do see are not as impressive, and tend to look outdated and artificial.

I would be intrigued to see what could have been done with a different director, a stronger lead and a rewritten script. But as it stands, After Earth is rather forgettable. I probably wouldn’t even recommend this as a mindless action flick, because despite there being a couple of exciting fight scenes, the general pacing is too slow to hold your interest. By all means see it for yourself and draw your own opinion, because I do know people who enjoyed it, but it seems to me that the film was simply a vehicle for Will Smith to play a supporting role to his own son, in a less than subtle attempt to boost the youngster to super-stardom. I wouldn’t write Jaden Smith off as a future star, but he needs to take some smaller roles and mature for a few years.

Rating: 

Certificate: 12A
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: Jaden Smith, Will Smith
Running Time: 100 mins

World War Z (2013)

As recently as ten years ago it would have been completely unheard of to make a mega-budget zombie blockbuster starring a Hollywood A-lister, and I’d wager that no studio would even have considered it if presented with a script. Zombie films used to be a bit of a niche category within the horror genre, albeit one with a ravenous cult following of fans, but it could never have been called mainstream. The point in which I believe we started to see a change was with the introduction of 28 Days Later, and the brilliant ‘ZomRomCom’ Shaun of the Dead, which both gained extraordinary popularity with budgets as low as £8m and £4m respectively. This new-found love for zombies was highlighted by the later successes of Zombieland and the hit TV series The Walking Dead. This brings us to 2013, where zombies had become the new vampires, and where a $190m undead blockbuster has been greenlit and unleashed in the form of World War Z. To put that massive figure into perspective, it is the joint 32nd most expensive film ever made, placing higher than The Dark Knight, and costing approximately 1,650 times more than Night of the Living Dead.

World War Z is loosely based (and I mean very loosely) on the book of the same name by Max Brooks. However, after rewrites that completely changed the script, Brooks has claimed that the only thing the two entities have in common is the title, and he has a point. The film plot bears no resemblance to that of the book, and the zombies do not follow many of the traits set out in the canon of the novel. This is not to say that it is a bad film. It is just not the film that the author envisioned when he sold the rights to Paramount.

The film focuses on former UN investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), who is tasked with the daunting challenge of travelling the world to find a possible weakness that could be exploited to prevent the undead plague from wiping out the remains of humanity. The globetrotting nature of the plot may actually be one of the strongest attributes of the film. This is because it lends a tremendous feeling of scale to the story; showing the devastation that has been caused across the world. It is a fresh change of pace from the standard zombie movie outline of ‘find a secure building; try to hold out in secure building; secure building inevitably gets overrun’, and the fact that there is a selfless ultimate goal other than survival allows for a greater presence of tension, thanks to the potential impact of the protagonist’s failure.

The aspect of the film that stood out most for me, as a contrast to the majority of zombie films, was the speed of the afflicted undead. In the world of horror film fandom there are many ‘zombie purists’ who believe that the living dead should always walk, amble or lurch along on their decomposing limbs, and never run; these purists would froth at the mouth at the agility of the creatures in World War Z. The reanimated corpses are definitely not ‘walkers’, or even ‘runners’ … they are the sprinting dead: a direct cross between the ‘infected’ from 28 Days Later and the velociraptors from Jurassic Park. They can clear one hundred metres in ten seconds flat, hurdle a car and then pounce 15 feet through the air to execute a precision tackle that would elicit a “clever girl” from even the most experienced hunter. While some may argue that faster predators equals a higher threat, therefore a scarier threat – I have to disagree. There is something innately unnerving about the jolting lurch of a traditional zombie that loses its effect when they sprint like athletes. In World War Z, the “Zekes”, as they are referred to by the military, are at their most frightening when they are standing dormant with nothing to chase. It is only then that you can appreciate the grotesque twitching and spasming that the infection causes, and it is during one of these moments that the film delivers one of its only genuinely scary scenes.

Rating: 

Certificate: 15
Director: Marc Forster
Starring: Brad Pitt
Running Time: 116 mins