Category Archives: Film

The Hunt | Film Review

Posted on by

Watching a film about a kindergarden teacher who is falsely accused of child abuse may not be seen as the most enjoyable way to spend your time, but this film by Thomas Vinterberg is an absolutely stunning piece of cinema. I was emotionally involved all the way through the film.

Working from a brilliant script – which he co-wrote- Thomas Vinterberg has created a riveting film. They say a lie can get all the way around the world by the time the truth has put its shoes on, and this film proves the point. It is a film of consequence and lies. Mads Mikkelsen – the Bond villain in Casino Royale- shows his full range as an actor, in a performance that deserves an Oscar nomination. In fact, the entire film has “Oscar’ written all over it. This film might signify the start of a wave of Danish films.

Mikkelsen plays Lucas, a kindergarden teacher who is falsely accused of child abuse after rejecting a little girl’s advances. Mass hysteria ensues even though there is no evidence. Lucas losses everything, but will the truth will out?

This film is called The Hunt for two reasons: one, it has hunting in it. The hunting and gun use is shown responsibly (or so my companion, who knows about guns, told me) and two, the witchhunt that ruins an innocent man’s life.

Beautifully shot with a film that has laughs in it despite the subject matter, The Hunt is one of the best foreign film I have ever seen.

Director:

Thomas Vinterberg
Writers:
Thomas Vinterberg, Tobias Lindholm

Stars:
Mads Mikkelsen, Thomas Bo Larsen and Annika Wedderkopp

 

What Happened to Kerouac? | Film Review

Posted on by

WHAT HAPPENED TO KEROUAC?

A unique insight into the King of the Beat Generation

Out Now.

 

I read On The Road years ago and a biography on Jack Kerouac. He was definitely a talented writer and I have found it depressing lately that some people don’t know who Kerouac was. That should all change soon when the ‘unfilmable’ On The Road hits our screens this month.
This documentary has access to all of the main people who surrounded Kerouac and were themselves part of the Beat movement. In fact,, one of the reasons this documentary is a success is the amount of access the filmmaker got to the people in Kerouac’s life, including his daughter and ex-wife. It paint a full, comprehensive and entertaining insight in Jack Kerouac’s life.
There is also home movie footage and Kerouac’s appearances on the Steve Allen show. This documentary is a brilliant insight into the historical and artistic time of the beat generation. A great snapshot of history and a must-see.
Jack Kerouac is a cultural icon whose influence is still felt around the world 42 years after his death, not least
with the upcoming film adaptation of his most famous book, ‘On The Road’ starring Sam Riley and Kristen
Stewart. The key protagonists of the Beat Generation are also the subject ‘Kill Your Darlings’, due for release
in 2013, in which Kerouac is played by Jack Huston and Daniel Radcliffe stars as Allen Ginsberg.
Those wishing to know more about this iconic writer need look no further than What Happened To Kerouac?,
an illuminating tribute to the King of the Beat Generation as told by the writer’s contemporaries, friends and
family and by Kerouac himself. This new double disc DVD edition offers a re-mastered version of the original
film and also contains over two hours of additional material including never before seen interviews. What
Happened to Kerouac? is released by 3DD Productions.

 

With contributions from fellow Beat writers including Allen Ginsberg, Gregory Corso and William Burroughs
and family members including Kerouac’s ex-wife Edie and his daughter Jan, What Happened To Kerouac?
offers an honest and engaging portrayal of an extraordinary talent through a series of vivid vignettes and
anecdotes that reveal what happened when fame and notoriety were thrust upon an essentially reticent man.
The new 2-disc edition of What Happened to Kerouac? also features ‘The Beat Goes On’, a collection of
interviews that delve deeper into Kerouac’s character including previously unreleased full length interviews
with Abbie Hoffman, Timothy Leary, Michael McClure and Paul Krassner.
Home movie footage and excerpts from Kerouac’s unforgettable appearances on the Steve Allen (1959) and
William Buckley (1968) TV shows are intermingled with captivating recordings of Kerouac reading from some
of his best loved works including On The Road, Mexico City Blues and Doctor Sax. The result is an enlightening
appreciation of Kerouac’s character and of his contribution to modern literature.
“99% pure genius
Kerouac”
Allen Ginsberg
“It brings us closer
to Kerouac than any
other film”
Los Angeles Times
“Abounds in insights
about a writer who
laboured a decade to
attain success and
then spent a decade
being ruined by it”
New York Times

 

Killing Them Softly | Film Review

Posted on by

Five years have passed since Australian filmmaker Andrew Dominik and Brad Pitt united for the magnificent Western drama The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford; a lyrical, revisionist take on what by all accounts had become an American legend. It was gorgeous, poetic and fell flat on it’s on its face at the box-office. The studio simply had no idea how to go about pitching it and it was left to die, the genius gone unsung. Now Dominik has picked himself up, teamed up with Mr Pitt once again and returned to a far more recent moment of American history; the economic downturn viewed through the prism of organised crime. Whilst not hitting the heights of their previous collaboration they have crafted a stark, powerful take on a genre that we think we know inside out and give it an astonishingly contemporary sheen.

It’s 2008. The economy is crumbling, Obama and McCain are gathering their supporters and two clueless street hoods (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn) are roped into a raid on a mob protected card game. It’s run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta) who has already escaped punishment from criminal overlords for organising a heist on his own games. The plan is for Markie to take the fall for the raid second time round but due to the duo’s own incompetence they are soon pursued by Jackie Cogan (Pitt), a hitman sent to exact justice and restore order.  He has a very specific work ethic; he likes to keep his distance from his targets in order to avoid emotions getting in the way. He refers to this as ‘killing them softly.’ He decides to hire old colleague Mickey Finn (James Gandolfini) to help him adhere to this method, yet this proves to prove more challenging than he can imagine.

Dominik is working from a 1974 novel entitled Cogan’s Trade penned by George V. Higgins. The film retains a stark, minimalist visual tone that recalls the high watermark crime films of the seventies such as The French Connection and Scorpio. It’s a story that takes place in vacant lots, motel rooms and car parks bathed in grey, cold light. It is an environment that feels left behind by the modern world and that we don’t often see in mainstream American cinema. In certain shots, the desolate wasteland resembles something out of a sci-fi apocalyptic vision. Dominik keeps his directorial flourishes to a minimum favouring stationary camera angles and carefully choreographed tracking shots to balletic displays of violence though he does concede to one hauntingly beautiful shootout in the rainfall. Not that any of it is pretty; this is a film where death and violence is an ugly, horrific spectacle. Dominik contrasts such moments perfectly with an uncanny feel for the timing and pitch of each individual scene. His prowess as a writer is the primary one on display though. The action is driven by lengthy, dialogue heavy scenes where in the characters confront the unpleasantness and banal mundanity of their profession. The major factor of the adaptation is the running references to the economic meltdown of the time and the then optimistic promises of the Obama administration. Speeches and news broadcasts that have barely had time to pass into history seep through radio and television broadcasts in the background of crucial scenes.  This does come close to becoming repetitive and forceful yet it instils the narrative with a moral backbone that many of its characters lack and forms a crucial part of what elevates the film from being a run of the mill gangster drama to a scathing critique of capitalist greed. The will of the powerful is broken, and it is left for the people on street level to pick up the pieces and clear up the mess.

Gangsters and hitmen tend to be the sort of characters that are romanticized in the majority of crime cinema that we are exposed to so it’s tremendously fresh to see them presented as repellent, incompetent bringers of their own fates. Pitt is a performer who seems to be getting better and better with age and here Dominik has coaxed another career best from him.  His Jackie Cogan may appear more suave and charming than his counterparts; he strolls onto screen with slicked back hair, a leather jacket and shades to die for and to the sounds of Johnny Cash yet he is thoroughly amoral and brutal.  Scenes where he quietly threatens a local hood at a bar whilst contemplating the hypocrisy of America’s founding fathers positively throb with underlying menace.  He is simply an electrifying presence. McNairy and Mendelsohn excel at making two seemingly irredeemable screw-ups sympathetic for the majority of the running time. If there’s one performance that steals the film however, it’s Gandolfini. Shuffling onto screen with a hangdog expression, immovable sunglasses and the weight of the world on his shoulders, the onetime Tony Soprano gives a tour de force presenting a onetime respected New York mobster as a shambling, train wreck of a man drowning in a sea of alcohol and prostitutes. Scenes where he rails against the younger generation whilst exhibiting the excess and degradation that a life of crime has inflicted upon him echo with grim, comic tragedy that relish in the destruction of typically macho, masculine persona. As with past films of Dominik’s there are virtually no female characters to speak of and when they are spoken of it’s in the most deplorable ways imaginable. I don’t think it’s a fault on his part but rather an apt reflection of a thuggishly brutal world were desperate men struggle to climb over one another to stay afloat.

Killing Them Softly may come on quite strong at moments but it ultimately emerges as refreshingly cynical, relevant thriller that sticks to its guns right through to its brutally honest final line. Hopefully on the basis of this, we will not have to wait so long for Dominik’s next effort.

 

Interview with Homeland Actor David Harewood

Posted on by

David Harewood is the British actor who plays David Estes, the director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Centre, the the brilliant Channel 4 drama Homeland. A graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, Harewood has been a fixture on the London stage for many years, earning praise for his work in such plays as Sam Mendes’ Othello at the National Theatre, which later went to Broadway.

Harewood appeared in Separate Lies, written and directed by Julian Fellowes; the 2004 screen version of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, starring Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons; and Blood Diamond, alongside Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly.

On British television, Harewood was a regular on such series as The Vice, Robin Hood and Babyfather. He was also seen as Mandela in the television movie Mrs. Mandela. Harewood also guest stars in a number of series including Doctor Who, Strikeback and Criminal Justice.

 

A surprising number of fans of Homeland don’t realise that you’re a Brit. Explain where you’re from…

I’m from Small Heath in Birmingham. It’s hilarious to me. I’ve been acting for 26 years, in everything from Casualty to The Bill to The Vice, I’ve played Othello at The National Theatre – it’s taken me 26 years to be an overnight success, as the old gag goes, and it’s hilarious that all these Brits think that I’m American. And here in America, whenever I turn up on the red carpet, they’re all stunned to find out that I’m British.

 

That’s particularly impressive that the Americans themselves are stunned. That clearly shows that you’re doing something right.

Well, yeah. It’s always something I try to do. I’ve always tried to put character ahead of personality. I’m really glad that, even today, people kind of recognise me, they kind of know where I’m from, but no-one’s able to place me. I think that’s because I’ve done so much stuff, and hopefully it’s a testament to my ability to act.

 

Growing up in Birmingham, you were a very useful goalkeeper, weren’t you?

Very useful – The Cat, I was once known as. [Laughs] I used to play a lot as a kid, and I had trials as an All England Schoolboy. But I was never going to do it too seriously. Whenever it rained, on a wet, windy Saturday morning, I’d stand there thinking “What on earth am I doing here?” My heart was never really in it. But I played with some fantastic footballers, and it was a huge part of my life.

 

You went to RADA at the age of 18. Did that open up a whole new world for you?

Completely! I’d never really paid much attention at school – I was always a bit of a clown, really – that’s why I started acting. I wasn’t particularly attractive, and I wasn’t particularly academic, so the only way I could really get any attention was to mess about and be a bit of an idiot. At the time it was fantastic, but I suppose it was to the detriment of my education. Then I turned up at RADA, and went in on my first day, and they’re all talking about Brecht and Moliere and Dostoyevsky, and I’m thinking “Who the hell are they?” It was a real eye-opener. I really started to appreciate literature, and it was a wonderful journey. I was very lucky, I had a wonderful few years there.

 

Did you struggle to find work after you left?

I was very lucky, I came straight out and got a job. I played Romeo for Temba Theatre Company, which was the biggest black theatre company at the time. I’ve always been really, really busy, I’ve been very lucky. I think I spent the first five or six years just not stopping. I didn’t have any difficulty – the difficulty came much later on, when I got older and started to play roles with more authority on stage, that there were fewer and fewer roles for me on screen to do. That’s when I started to struggle, because of the frustration of playing really authoritative, strong roles at The National, but really struggling to match that on screen. I’ve been really, really fortunate to fall into this role [in Homeland].

 

Landing the role must have been a great thrill – acting opposite actors of the calibre of Claire Danes, Damian Lewis and Mandy Patinkin.

I hadn’t worked for a year when I got the gig – partly for personal reasons, and partly because I just couldn’t get a gig, and then suddenly to find that I was sharing a screen with them was just extraordinary. I’ve just had a wonderful year. I suppose it’s like football – you play with better footballers, you get better. I’ve really found that just by watching them and working closely with them, seeing how they prepare and how they execute, has been a real joy, and I can only hope that there are more roles for me of this calibre, working with this calibre of actor. It’s been an absolute pleasure, it really has.

 

When you’re filming something like Homeland, do you get a real sense that you’re making something that’s going to be really, really good, or can you never tell?

A bit of both. I think everybody was very surprised by the immediacy of the success of the show – we were still filming the show when it became a massive hit in America. It’s kind of a goldfish bowl filming here in Charlotte, North Carolina – I think people do watch it here, but I was really surprised when I went to New York how many people were coming up to me and saying they enjoyed the show. I think in LA it’s such a huge show – it’s on posters and billboards everywhere, and this isn’t that kind of town, where there are billboards for TV shows.

 

David Estes is a fairly ambitious character, intent on climbing the greasy pole. What are your feelings towards him?

To be honest with you, I really struggled with him during the first season – I just didn’t know who he was. I told that to the writers at the end of the season, and they’ve done a fantastic job of really filling him out this year and giving him much more of a personality. Last year he was just the authority figure in the background who was always anti-Carrie. That was difficult, because I didn’t know why he had such antagonism towards her, and I didn’t know who he was. I only really discovered that when I played a scene right at the end of the season, when I played a scene with Mandy Patinkin, when you realise that actually he is implicated, and inextricably linked to this whole bomb attack on Abu Nazir, and how much he’d buried all of that information, and how much he was linked to the Vice President. I didn’t know any of that until the very last couple of episodes. It was a huge revelation to me that the reason why I’d been so antagonistic about Carrie finding out about Abu Nazir was because I’d been responsible for this drone strike. It was a huge piece of the jigsaw for me, when I read those scenes, and it’s been like taking a cork out of a bottle. This season has been fantastic for me, because now I know who he is, I understand him, I like him. Yes, okay, he may have sold his soul to a certain extent to get where he wants to, but who wouldn’t? A lot of us, to get where we want to be, would do what we can. It’s fascinating being out here in the world of American politics during an election. You see the real dirty side of politics, with the ads they’re running. If you want to get where you want to get to, you might have to do things that are seemingly unpalatable.

 

Why do you think they went for two Brits in key roles in the series?

That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? It’s what everybody’s been asking. And we’ve got a third Brit – we’ve got Rupert Friend joining in this series. The director just says that they were the most interesting tapes that he saw.

 

When you’re on set, between scenes, or when you break for lunch, do you keep talking in an American accent, or do you revert back?

It’s quite extraordinary – all three of the British actors have almost an unspoken rule that nobody’s ever mentioned – we nearly always stay in our American accents when we’re at work. Damian’ll come to work and I’ll be like [puts on American accent] “Hey, man, how’s it goin’?” And he doesn’t look at me and say “What the f*** are you talking like that for?” It’s just unspoken. Every now and again one might drop out of accent and talk about the Olympics, or about something political that happens in the country, like the riots last year, when you have to get out of the accent. But most of the time you just forget, it becomes second nature.

 

You’ve mentioned that it’s election year in America. I hear that Homeland is Barack Obama’s favourite show. Is that a great thrill?

Oh it is. He’s metnioned it several times in interviews – it’s a fantastic thrill. It’s unfortunate that we were on hiatus when he was here for the Democratic convention. I’m sure he knows that we film the show here in Charlotte. Apparently, because his big speech was moved from the stadium to indoors because of the weather, he might be coming back to the state just to do something for the volunteers. Wouldn’t it be amazing to get a visit from the President?

 

Dare I say that it probably wouldn’t be as much of a thrill to have Mitt Romney visit?

Not really! I am astonished it’s so close, to be honest with you. It’s just beyond me that people are even considering him. But there are a lot of people who aren’t convinced by Obama. A lot of people are saying they’re not even going to bother voting this time. That’s bad, that people feel that politics doesn’t mean anything to them. That’s the scary part, that he’s going to lose because the people who voted for him last time just can’t be bothered this time.

 

Season 2 is about to Premiere in the US. Are you excited?

I’m really genuinely excited. From a personal point of view, it’s great because Estes has been given a lot more to do in this series. But it’s just such a fantastic show, I think people are going to be really, really excited to see it. I’ve read so many tweets and blogs where people have said it’s just a one season show which they can’t take any further, but these writers are fantastic. They’ve managed not only to recreate the same amount if tension, but to ratchet it up again. I think fans of the show are going to be very, very pleased.

 

Are you allowed to give us any hints about what we can expect from the series?

I can tell you that the second season begins in Israel. And I can tell you that Carrie will be back in the CIA in some capacity, and that, from what I hear, though I still don’t know, the mole will be revealed. You’re all going to be very surprised.

 

You were awarded an MBE at the beginning of the year. How did that feel?

Absolutely tremendous. It remains, and always will be, one of the proudest days of my life. To have gone there and got that pinned on, and had my daughter and mum be at the palace watching me get that award, it’s one of the proudest things that ever happened to me. I’m really, really chuffed about it.

 

Series 2 of Homeland will be on Channel 4 in October.

Meeting Place Director Jason Croot Tells All

Posted on by

Frost caught up with super talented visionary director/actor/producer Jason Croot. [disclaimer: I play Grace Holloway in this film]

 

What was the idea behind Meeting Place?

Hello frost readers, We wanted to create something original and after having several ideas we kept it simple [by] not have any back story and filming actors who create there own scenes I love improvisation and Meeting Place is 100% improv.
Tell us about the film.

The film is a montage of conversations edited together a day in a London Cafe the twist is 80% of the conversations are between 2 actors who are the same person which gives the film a certain unique edge
How did you cast?

I like to work with actors I’ve worked with before also new actors fresh out of drama school we have a real mix in the film and some fab acting displays
What was the hardest part of the process?

Dare I say it the now getting people to watch the film I don’t have the funds to market like the big boys since giving my first feature away for free which as notched up 10,000 views in 8 months, I hope people will enjoy Meeting Place it’s a entertaining film
You act, write and direct. What is your least favourite thing to do when making a film? How hard is it to juggle everything?

I love directing and the process of filmmaking it is time consuming but rewarding when you receive good feedback and reviews, the acting is with me and I strive to keep learning and improving
Do you have any favourite characters in it?

I was blown away by some of the improvisation and have so many scenes I like I can’t really narrow it down
What did you shoot on?

We shot on a Sony HDV
What was your main inspiration for the film?

Jim Jarmusch’s Coffee and Cigarettes we did not try to copy it, but it is a great film and very simple but watchable
Where can people see the film?

I have had a few enquiries of distribution but I’ve decided the best method for this film is stay in control and I stumbled on a few good online mediums we will anounce the sites on our facebook page http://www.facebook.com/#!/MeetingPlaceFeatureFilm

What’s next for you?

I have few irons in the fire on acting and the directing front but always looking for new productions to work on

 

Judge Dredd 3D Review

Posted on by

*Warning May Contain Some Spoilers

America is an irradiated wasteland. All that’s left is one giant sprawling metropolis which extends from Boston to Washington DC filled with 800 million people. In this nightmarish take on the future crime is out of control. Only one thing stands against the chaos, ‘Judges’, who possess the combined power of being judge, jury and executioner.

The plot is simple but effective Judge Dredd takes Rookie, Anderson out on her first patrol which will be her final assessment. If she passes she will become a Judge. But a routine call out becomes a nightmare battle for survival as the judges become trapped in a tower block. Their only way out, fight their way to the top of the block and kill the criminal leader Ma Ma.

Being new to the series I went into this not really knowing what to expect. It sounded like an excuse for a lot of mindless violence, and it is. There is a lot of blood and gore in this film hence the 18 rating. But the film is more than just the violence and there is very tight script (Alex Garland, 28 days later) which weds the action together.

This film is a triumph for one reason and one reason only. Karl Urban. His portrayal of Judge Dredd is simply superb. Cold and emotionless, behind his helmet, Dredd cares for nothing but the law. But … somehow I feel Urban works a very very subtle element of humanity into him. The result leaves the audience heavily invested in Dredd and that makes this film work. Unlike the earlier Stalone film (which I researched after), Urban doesn’t feel the need to take his helmet off. As one other reviewer has already said this is an ‘ego free’ performance. Apparently Arnold Schwarzneger turned down the role in the earlier Stalone film because he would have had to wear the helmet.

Urban is ably supported by Olivia Thirlby who provides further humanity and the rest of the cast do a decent job. The 3D works well too. There are a couple of scenes in particular where it really comes into its own.

This shouldn’t have been a film that I liked but I most definitely did like it and I don’t feel guilty about it. I loved Dredd’s character. Definitely worth going to see

8/10

 

 

 

The Expendables 2 Film Review

Posted on by

Much fuss was made over The Expendables – a balls-out, high-octane, no-nonsense shoot ‘em up that Sylvester Stallone nurtured to the big screen. It was a lot of fun, and pulled together three Goliath’s of the action world (Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis) along with a handful of other action giants, both past and present.  Its success meant that The Expendables 2 was inevitable.

 

Along with the original ‘Expendables’ (Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture and Terry Crews) Stallone has more hired guns in the mix for the second outing. Liam Hemsworth joins the Expendables crew, Jean-Claude Van Damme is on villain duty, and a seventy-something Chuck Norris is thrown in for good measure.

 

Unfortunately, it would seem less can indeed sometimes be more.  Whilst the first film seemed like a genuine hark back to something lost; an old-skool actioner with some old-skool actioniers, The Expendables 2 reeks of ‘for-the-hell-of-it’ laziness. The first treated the teaming up of Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis as a momentous occasion and played it cool. Their fleeting on-screen trio – the first EVER – was played with a serious hand (as serious as one can expect) with only a slight nod to the audience. Action took the front seat in that film (action and ultra violence, which fans of the 2008 Rambo will attest to).

 

For this reviewer however, The Expendables 2 has lost its trump card and gone for the cobbled-together, self reverential name dropping road and left all the good, old-skool action behind. Don’t get me wrong, there is action. The opening 20 minutes is as good as it gets. But with only a few more exceptions the action is not only not as plentiful as I would have liked but also not as brutal and ridiculously OTT as the first. Jet Li (an undeniable legend) gives a bunch of goons a cooking lesson they won’t forget, but quickly disappears off-screen for the remainder of the film! Statham, it cannot be denied, is a remarkable martial artist and his action sequences are crisp, violent and precise. In fact Statham is also by far the best actor among the Expendable crowd and were it not for him they would be left following Stallone who unfortunately just looks waaaaaaay to old for this sh*t. Schwarzenegger and Willis (the latter of which can also act, but seems to have forgotten) is laughable (not in a good way) and at points cringe worthy.  Every scene with them oozes self parody, with trademark lines being cheapened, hung, drawn and quartered like never before. Oh, and Chuck Norris pops up for no apparent reason and shoots a load of nameless henchmen. Then does the same again later. Fortunately his beard covers the fact that he is also, unfortunately too old for this sh*t. There is also a Chinese woman who is involved in some way, but her acting is so unforgivably bad at times that I wondered if she may have been on work experience. I can’t actually remember what she did in the film except that she was somehow ‘important’ to the story, my brain must have attempted to eradicate her memory from my head.

 

This leaves us with Van Damme. It may come as a surprise to some – although not those who witnessed his performance in JCVD (2008) – but the muscles from Brussels can act. His performance is – along with ‘The Stath’s’ – the best in the film by a country mile. He delivers his lines with natural menace and adds a real villain to an otherwise empty shell of a film. It is thanks to him and Jason Statham that the film is watchable beyond the first 20 minutes. Sure he breaks out the spin-kicks in the show-down but c’mon, there would be uproar were he not to.

 

The Director Simon West (most notable for Con Air in 1997) does his best with the poor script and ludicrous amount of characters to crowbar into the 100+ minutes run time, but it ends up feeling like words, scenes and characters have been shoved into the Lotto’s Lancealot Machine with set of balls number 2 and given a good going over, only to be poured onto the screen like the contents of an un-drained washing machine.

 

Word on the street (the internet street) has it that number 3 has been given a greenlight, with additional names like Harrison Ford and Nicholas Cage being bandied around by publicity types. Whether this will add more gravitas (try not to laugh) to The Expendables 3 or whether or not they are simply yet more names to try to cram inside a 90 minute window with integrity-destroying consequences is yet to be seen.  Thank God the true, un-paralleled master Bruce Lee isn’t alive to be dragged dragon-kicking and screaming into what unfortunately seems to this reviewer to be a sad misfire of an action film-wannabe.

 

P.S – Jackie Chan, please don’t take any calls from Stallone’s agent. I beg you.

Total Recall Film Review

Posted on by

Remake? Reboot? Re-Imagining? Whatever the adjective, this Colin Farrell lead ‘re-doing’ of a Philip K. Dick short story (We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, first published in 1966) has been done before in 1990 with Arnold Schwarzenegger as the lead and Paul Verhoeven lensing. That film acclaimed cult status. And for good reason.

 

In this Len Wiseman (Die Hard 4.0, Underworld) outing Colin Farrell plays the lead character Douglas Quaid who discovers he may or may not be something other than an ordinary, working class Joe in a late 21st century, post chemical-warfare world of multi-stacked urban levels, Minority-Report-esque (also a Dick adaptation) mag-cars and plush, ‘United Federation of Britain’ megalopolises. No expense spared on the visuals, that’s for sure.

 

However. Yes, there was bound to be a however, and for this reviewer it was a big one. The story of Total Recall, We Can Remember It For You….whatever version you are ingesting into your brain-box from whichever medium, benefits from the unknown. The trump card is that you never quite know what is real and what isn’t. At its core the story is about the nature of self. What makes us, us. Our memories? Well what if our memories can be cooked up in a lab, or on a computer with software (or, as the Matrix (1999) showed us, with hard wiring into the brain in a sticky amniotic sack filled with pink lube – more on The Matrix later). Would falsified memories make us still us, or would we be someone else? Unfortunately, if you have seen Paul Verhoeven’s film, you may well know most of these answers already. And that is a real shame. Every ounce of suspense, every scene that hinges on the is-he, isn’t-he dynamic, is redundant. We’ve been here before, and quite frankly the gritty charm of Verhoeven’s outing was far more seductive for this reviewer. Everything seems way too familiar…only, not. I heard tell during hype-time that this outing was ‘closer to the source material’. Not a remake, but another go at the short story. Where I heard that I cannot say and whether it was from ‘official’ sources I do not know. Fact is, it isn’t. It’s Arnie’s story all over again with some superficial and aesthetic changes to give the impression (to the impressionable) that this is something new and shiny. There’s no Mars. No mutants. And if I’m painfully honest, no heart. Even the bits that weren’t in the 1990 film were obvious in their outcome from the get-go.

 

What Arnie lacks in acting ability he makes up for in brawn, screen presence and raw charisma. Farrell might not have the brawn (though an action man he can still be) but he has the acting chops. Unfortunately he left them at home for this one. The phrase ‘a phoned-in performance’ doesn’t quite cut it. I think he emailed this one direct to Wiseman. Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale give it their all. This reviewer got the distinct impression that whilst they were doing their best in a BIG, big-screen performance, Farrell – who let’s be honest is an established, A-List actor at the top of his game – didn’t have much investment in the character and was probably paid a bottomless pit of cold, hard cash for the role.

 

The familiarity with this film didn’t stop at the story either. There were scenes which far too closely resembled Blade Runner, Minority Report (both possibly forgiven as the source material for both was also Philip K. Dick) Star Wars: Episode 2, Escape From New York, The Matrix….to name a few. Even the (few) scenes exploring the philosophy of self which came so effortlessly to Verhoeven’s 1990 film seemed lifted straight from Morpheus’ mouth from The Matrix.

It was a spectacle for sure, but that’s a given in this day and age. Worth a watch? Perhaps. It’s difficult not to draw parallels to the original film, I wish it were. I had hoped this would be a fresh take on the story which stood alone as a worthy interpretation of Dick’s 1966 short. The visuals certainly gave that impression, but that really is where the differences end. Similarities must be drawn, because quite frankly it seemed to be a rehash of the same story. Which begs the question, why make it at all?? (Oh yeah, vast box office takings……silly me).