Apr 18 2013
60 Comments
Film

LAMMYS 2013 – Peddling My Wares

I’m very pleased to announce that I have been nominated for 3 LAMMY awards – Best New Lamb, Best Reviewer and Best Rating System. I had the potential of being nominated for a few others but there were so many amazing blogs in the mix that it’s not disheartening in the slightest to have only got the 3 nominations.

GetAttachment.aspx

I would like to say a huge thank you to anyone who has voted for me thus far – Mark from Marked Movies, Keith from Keith & The Movies, and Ruth from Flixchatter all threw my name in the hat at the initial submission stage, so a massive thank you to them. If I have missed you out here, I apologise and I of course extend my thanks to you too. Also, a big thank you to Joel and David who have worked so hard to make the LAMMYS possible. So here’s a little blurb about why you should vote for me in the aforementioned categories…

Best New Lamb

The blog has actually been active now for over 12 months but this is my first year of taking part in the LAMMYS. It was a somewhat slow start and took me a while to build up a readership (something I partly blame on my ambiguous blog title), but I now feel a proper part of the movie blogging community. I try to pitch in with comments and ‘likes’ when I can, as well as taking part in blogathons and offering guest reviews. As with all categories, there are some truly brilliant blogs in the mix here and it’s an honour to be nominated alongside them.

Artist’s impression of my potential winning speech

Best Reviewer

Most of the posts on here are reviews. I mix it up occasionally with features and whatnot, but it is mainly reviews. I like to think I’ve found a good style of writing and hope that I offer both the positive and negative aspects of a film. I try not to be totally subjective and do try to recognise whether the film would appeal to other people rather than just my own tastes. I try to review as wide a variety of films as possible from new releases to classic films and everything in between. Again, I’m in very esteemed company with this one, but it’d be nothing short of amazing if you gave me a vote.

Best Rating System

The big one. I’m actually quite surprised I’m nominated in this one to be honest, must have been rather slim pickings. I just use pigeons instead of stars, nothing much more to it than that to be honest. Still, if you want to vote for me, I’m not going to stop you! Didn’t really do a good job of selling this one, did I? Still, my pigeons are happy :)

5 pigeons

So there we go, that’s where we’re at. You can place your votes here, although you do have to be a member of the LAMB to vote. Whether I end up winning or not, it really is amazing to be nominated. However, I am practising my gracious loser face and modelling it on the below…

UiGBL

Thanks,

Chris

Tagged , , ,
Apr 16 2013
38 Comments
Film Reviews

Film Review: Room 237

Room 237Since the birth of cinema all those years ago, there are few films that have captured people’s imagination quite like The Shining. There are some who think Stanley Kubrick butchered Stephen King’s original text (including, famously, King himself), whilst there are many who believe it is one of the deepest, most meticulously put together films of all time.

Room 237 is a series of theories on the The Shining’s themes and messages from some who very much believe the latter.

Now, you’re enjoyment of Room 237 is going to hinge on a couple of important factors. The first is whether or not you’ve seen The Shining. For those who somehow haven’t seen it yet, then there’s probably not going to be much here to like. The second factor is how you feel about modern film criticism. If someone analysing films’ smallest and seemingly inconsequential details irks you then, again, this probably isn’t wise viewing.

Here we have five film theorists picking The Shining apart in excruciating detail, their interpretations carrying varying levels of plausibility. There are suggestions that the film is really about the genocide of the native Americans, whilst another theory is that this was Kubrick’s Holocaust film. Whilst these seem reasonable given the evidence presented, other theories carry less weight. That The Shining was Kubrick’s admission that he helped fake the Apollo 11 moon landings, whilst still interesting, is stretching things ever so slightly.

Kubrick is famous for the attention to detail he lavished upon his pictures and there’s a very good chance that some of what’s being offered here was indeed the filmmaker’s intentions. However, assertions that an office paper tray has been purposely placed to create a phallus when Overlook manager Ullman stands next to it is laughable at best. According to one of the theorists, whether Kubrick intended these messages is besides the point; what matters is that they’re there. How anyone can judge what Kubrick has unconsciously put into his films is bizarre and a even a little arrogant.

In terms of how the documentary has been created, Room 237 is a little amateurish. We are never see anything of the five theorists; they are simply faceless voices, which does diminish their claims somewhat. As you’d expect, we see a series of scenes from The Shining to help explain the various claims, but we also get a number of scenes from other Kubrick films, as well as several other unrelated films, that actually make everything a little confusing. A random scene from Spartacus or A Clockwork Orange adds nothing to what’s being shown.

Whilst much of what’s being said can be disputed or flat out denied, what cannot be refuted is the lasting impact of The Shining. Above anything else, what Room 237 makes blindingly obvious is that this is a film that enraptured film critics and fans around the world and continues to do so. Maybe a paper tray does resemble a huge penis (it doesn’t) or perhaps Kubrick’s face can be seen in the clouds during the title sequence (it can’t), but what’s not up for debate is the passion some have for The Shining and that its impact doesn’t look like diminishing any time soon.

3 and a half pigeons

3.5/5 pigeons

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Apr 13 2013
39 Comments
Film Reviews

Quickie: Rust and Bone

Rust and BoneAlain (Matthias Schoenaerts) is put in charge of his young son and takes a job as a nightclub bouncer to earn a wage. When he helps killer whale trainer Stéphanie (Marion Cotillard) home after a fight, the two part ways, but after she is the victim of a horrific accident that severs both her legs, she leans on him for support and the two strike up a bond.

The story of Rust and Bone (De rouille et d’os in its mother tongue) is so typically French: unusual, quirky, heart warming, but also often harsh and brutal. It strikes a nice balance between being character and narrative driven, which really helps you become invested in the characters and what they become. The film splits its time between Alain and Stéphanie, both of whom have their obvious issues, but more of the focus falls on Alain, which is unfortunate as his story is the least interesting of the two and some may find him rather difficult to relate to based on some of his actions.

One of the standout features of Rust and Bone is its cinematography; virtually every shot is simply stunning. Whether capturing Stéphanie swimming for the first time since her accident or Alain’s gritty world of underground boxing, Jacques Audiard’s direction and Stéphane Fontaine’s cinematography is nothing short of breathtaking.

One of the few contentious issues with the film is its ending. It is too easy a conclusion that focuses far too much on the destination for these characters rather than the journey and, as such, may not feel fully satisfying. Having said that, Rust and Bone is a real life-affirming film about overcoming whatever demons you may have and is one of 2012′s real gems.

4 pigeons

4/5 pigeons

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Apr 10 2013
50 Comments
Film Reviews

Film Review: Trance

TranceWhen Danny Boyle was announced as the creative director for the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympic Games, there was a fair amount of WTF-ing, but he managed to turn something no-one really cares about into something really quite impressive. Of course to us film fans, Danny Boyle is pretty well known but this brought the diminutive Mancunian attention on a truly global scale, even more so than his 2009 Oscar win for Slumdog Millionaire. And what better advert for his first film since the Olympics, Trance?

Simon (James McAvoy) is an art auctioneer who gets involved with a Franck (Vincent Cassel), a criminal who has agreed to wipe his gambling debts in exchange for helping to steal a hugely valuable painting. However, when Simon gets hit on the head and can’t remember the location of the painting, he seeks the help of hypnotist Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson) to help him remember.

Trance does an excellent job of keeping you hooked throughout. It’s pretty perfectly paced and is neither a minute too long nor too short. However, it’s a film that had very little lasting impact for me. I was entertained for the 100 odd minutes the film was on, but almost as soon as the credits rolled, I felt somewhat indifferent to the whole thing. It plays out like a pretty standard heist flick for part of the film but when Elizabeth gets thrown into the mix, it becomes much more cerebral with nods to films such as Inception without ever displaying the style or the substance of Christopher Nolan’s film.

It ticks along at a fair old pace, which constantly keeps you glued to the screen but, much like Soderbergh’s Side Effects, when it comes to twists, turns and double bluffs, there are just too many in too short a time and the whole thing starts to feel a little brain bending. This is no doubt the point, but it doesn’t really give you the opportunity to fully make sense of things before the end of the film.

One area where Trance does excel is in its aesthetics. It looks superb, which is something we’ve come to expect from Boyle’s films. Each one of his films has a distinct visual style and Trance is no exception. From dark and grimey underground settings to spectacularly lit nighttime vistas, Trance is visually very impressive, but it does feel like Boyle is papering over the cracks a little. For example, his constant use of canted camera angles to give the film a dream-like quality is less than subtle and becomes a little distracting.

All of the actors do a decent enough job, but none are particularly exemplary. James McAvoy is fine and does nothing wrong, whilst Vincent Cassel could be replaced with just about any other actor; his talents simply aren’t put to the test here. Rosario Dawson probably comes out of this with the most credit, but the script still doesn’t really allow her to stretch herself as perhaps it could.

Trance is by no means a bad film. It’s fun and frenetic, but it’s also largely forgettable, which is not a criticism often attached to Boyle’s films. It’s a film that definitely deserves a place in the director’s filmography but, unfortunately, doesn’t come close to troubling those at the top.

3 and a half pigeons

3.5/5 pigeons

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 07 2013
49 Comments
Film Reviews

Film Review: Killer Joe

Killer Joe

William Friedkin has had an odd career thus far. He directed acclaimed classics such as The Exorcist and The French Connection, picking up an Academy Award for latter, which would have led many to assume he would continue knocking out major pictures such as these. However, have a quick glance over his filmography since then and it’s littered with rather underwhelming films that you’d do well to even recall the name of. Killer Joe is Friedkin’s first release since 2006′s Bug and is probably his most commercial film in over a decade.

Chris (Emile Hirsch) is a down-’n'-out drug dealer who owes a lot of money. With time running out to repay he concocts a scheme to have his mother killed and collect on the life insurance. Enter Killer Joe (Matthew McConaughey), a corrupt police officer who moonlights as a killer for hire, whom Chris enlists to help off his dear ol’ ma. However, when Joe takes a liking to Chris’s younger sister Dottie (Juno Temple), the whole situation becomes an even more twisted nightmare.

The tone for Killer Joe set is from the off as Chris’s step-mother Sharla (Gina Gershon) opens the door to their trailer with absolutely nothing on her bottom half, her excuse being “I didn’t know it was going to be you”. From that point on, the film doesn’t pull any punches and is drenched in the kind of depravity and filth that would normally have many turning off. Instead, there’s something fascinating about this family and their warped world that challenges you to keep watching more than it invites you to turn away.

Killer Joe

It really isn’t an easy watch by any means and there are instances that make your skin crawl. Joe’s lust for the clearly mentally inept and indeterminably aged Dottie is hugely creepy, whilst the infamous fried chicken scene is nothing short of fucked up. It really does need to be seen to be believed. In fact, this is the only scene where Killer Joe actually feels maybe a little too gratuitous for the sake of gratuity, although its dark (dark as in black as the night) humour just about saves it from crossing that line. And it’s this humour that is the film’s most important element. Without it, it would be too dark, too twisted to really work, but instead it wears its sadism with a wry smile that lightens the mood just enough.

Killer Joe is a somewhat claustrophobic film and, as such, it’s important that performances are strong, and they generally are. Emile Hirsch is decent without ever being spectacular, whilst both Thomas Haden Church and Gina Gershon are entertaining as Chris deadbeat father and step mother respectively. Juno Temple is brilliantly naive and disturbing as Dottie, but it’s Matthew McConaughey who absolutely steals the show and continues his successful ‘McConnaissance’ (a phrase stolen from whichever genius thought it up). McConaughey is downright creepy and sadistic as Joe, but he plays it so well that you can’t help but somehow be drawn to him, very much as everyone else in the film is.

Killer Joe isn’t a film to settle down with for some light-hearted viewing. It’s depraved and backward, right down to its no doubt divisive conclusion, but it’s this very depravity that is much of its attraction. It never allows you to feel truly comfortable, largely thanks to Friedkin’s direction and McConaughey’s performance, but it’s a mesmerising snapshot of a family dynamic you pray to God doesn’t exist in real life.

4 and a half pigeons

4.5/5 pigeons

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 02 2013
31 Comments
Film Reviews

Film Review: A Late Quartet

A Late QuartetMidway through A Late Quartet, Christopher Walken’s character is teaching a music class during which he tells a story of an incident when he played a piece of classical music for one of his peers and thought he’d messed it up good and proper. However, the other musician told him that he’d done well and that it’s important to focus on the good stuff and leave the morons to pick on the faults. He may very well have been inviting the film’s audience to do the same as A Late Quartet does do some things well but it also has its very clear faults.

The films tells the story of a world-renowned string quartet comprising of cellist Peter (Christopher Walken), first violinist Daniel (Mark Ivanir), second violinist Robert (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and violist and Robert’s wife Juliette (Catherine Keener). However, when Peter is diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease and his future in the quartet becomes uncertain, the group’s professional and personal relationships become strained.

A Late Quartet is a film about classical music that isn’t really about classical music. Those hoping to delve into the world of Beethoven, Mozart et al will be somewhat disappointed as this is very much a character piece that relies on the dynamics between the characters and the performances of the actors. It’s a rather slow film with no discernible action to speak of, but it does very well to keep your attention, which enables you to invest in much of the plight the characters experience.

However, some story arcs are a lot stronger than others, and perhaps the most interesting is Walken’s Peter. He is the old master, the one that all of the others look up to and it genuinely feels like a hammer blow when he is diagnosed with Parkinson’s. Seeing him come to terms with the news and deteriorate as the film progresses is interesting but it’s something that ends up being on the film’s periphery. It is used as the catalyst for the other characters’ problems but it’s the most interesting story of the film and is not afforded enough attention. Robert is another engaging character and is superbly played by PSH, but his wife Juliette is much less interesting and feels very much like a weak link. Daniel is hot-headed, arrogant but undoubtedly talented but he’s a character who’s difficult to warm to and a relationship he develops with Robert and Juliette’s daughter feels contrived and a formulaic addition to an otherwise generally intelligent script.

Once you’ve bought into these characters’ lives (or some of them at least), the film delivers with an emotional climactic punch. It’s a little manipulative and it doesn’t really come as much of a surprise but it’s still satisfying enough. There was room for A Late Quartet to be something a little more than it ended up being. Some characters and storylines are stronger than others which leaves it feeling slightly uneven, but it’s still an engaging watch. Maybe only a moron would focus on the faults but when those faults prevent it from being as good as it potentially could have been, they’re worth mentioning.

3 and a half pigeons

3.5/5 pigeons

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 28 2013
61 Comments
Film

Movie Grievances: Bad Film Posters

Along with trailers, film posters are one of the biggest tools a PR agency has to promote a new film. A good film poster can get your mind racing and get the blood pumping as you eagerly anticipate the film’s release. Posters are some of the first interactions people have with a film and can instantly determine their excitement levels towards it. So why, oh why, do they often end up looking like they were made by a blind kindergarten child? There are some incredibly talented graphic designers and Photoshoppers out there whose talents are clearly going to waste whilst idiot with clearly no interest in movies knocks something together on MS Paint.

And it’s bad enough that someone has actually created such monstrosities, but someone at the film’s PR agency, whose job it is to advertise the film and make people actually want to watch it, will have signed it off. Surely a quick quality control check by anyone with eyes would be enough to set the sirens off and ensure whoever vomited up these pieces of crap are never allowed near a stock photo of Jessica Biel or Katherine Heigl again.

Here I have highlighted some of the reasons why bad movie posters annoy me so much…

The Bad Photoshop

The PenthouseBy far the most ubiquitous amongst awful movie posters, the bad Photoshop is also the most obvious of fuck ups. Often found on posters of generic romantic comedies, it requires only rudimentary Photoshop skills to cut actors from stock photos and position next to other actors obviously cut from a separate stock photo. There may also be face transplants, limb extension/reduction, mismatched lines of sight, and various other reality puncturing mistakes. What gets me about these is that I don’t understand why it’s so hard to just take a photo of the actors together at the same time. Sure, that’s not always easy, especially if the poster is coming out way ahead of the film, but it should be in their contract that they should be available for such purposes.

Just look at the adjacent poster for The Penthouse. Look at it good and hard. In fact, you don’t have to look at it good and hard; it’s so blatantly abhorrent it verges on offensive. Are we seriously meant to believe that all of those people are in the same bed at the same time? I’d also wager that none of those actors’ faces actually belong to their bodies. It raises so many questions. Why does Rider Strong only have half a chest? Where are Kayley Cuoco’s legs ( I think that’s here in the middle), just where is she gazing, and why is she trying to crush Mya? I can only imagine the unimpressed look on Corey Large’s face is because he was privvy to an early mock up of this poster.

This is but one of hundreds, if not thousands, of badly Photoshopped film posters. I know some films have small budgets but there are some talented artists, graphic designers, Photoshoppers out there. it can’t be that difficult to find one.

See also: The Accidental Husband, The Bounty Hunter, The Whole Ten Yards

The Deliberately Misleading

My GirlI doubt there are many people who would base their decision whether to see a film or not solely on a poster, and judging by some posters that’s probably a good thing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a film’s poster is supposed to give some sort of idea as to the tone of the film. Disney always have jolly and colourful posters, whilst horror films usually have dark and foreboding ones. Not exactly rocket science. So why make a poster that can only be described as intentionally misleading? The one that jumps out at me more than any other in this respect is My Girl.

What a heartwarming and delightful film My Girl must be based on that poster. Macaulay Culkin and Anna Chlumsky look like they’re having a blast enjoying the best days of their life. That is until Macaulay Culkin GETS KILLED BY A HUGE SWARM OF BEES! Yep, stung to death. Of course, there are nicey nice issues going on as well but nothing can mask the fact that a child (and a child who was universally loved at the time thanks to Home Alone) had been offed by a load of bees. Good luck with your traumatised children.

See also: Seven Psychopaths (the one where they list people as psychopaths who aren’t the psychopaths in the film), My Sister’s Keeper, Kramer vs Kramer

The Disconcertingly Vague

This is kind of a sub-section the misleading poster in that it offers no clue whatsoever as to what the film is actually about. These are perhaps the laziest of all posters as they take no creative thought; at least badly Photoshopped posters are a dearth of skill rather than imagination. You can glean little to no information from these posters, and they’re often only used to shove down your throat the fact that a Hollywood star has a new film out – it doesn’t matter what the film is about; all that matters is that it exists and you should tip your wallet over the nearest box office cashier so you can watch it.

Now that’s not to say that the films these posters are advertising are bad, because a lot of them aren’t. A lot of them are pretty good; it’s just the poster that’s terrible. Take Jerry Maguire over there – perfectly good film but apparently the only thing we need to know about it is that Tom Cruise is in it. And maybe the fact he wears a shirt and tie. Other than that, this could be a film about drug addiction, a rogue CIA agent or Tom Cruise might end up being killed by a swarm of bees.

It should also be noted that teaser posters are not included here. Teaser posters are supposed to be vague and are therefore exempt from this rant. They can still be rubbish though.

See also: Vanilla Sky, Hitch, Funny People

The Mismatched Names

Morning GloryThis is probably the least obvious and more sporadically occurring of bad movie posters but it is one that has always annoyed me. So, to clarify, this is where you have two or more actors on the posters, usually lined up, and the names at the top listing who’s in the film do not match up with the pictures underneath. So you could have Brad Pitt’s name above Julia Roberts’ face. Now I know this is down to contract stuff and the names aren’t necessarily there to indicate who the actor below is, etc, etc, but it still looks weird. On some posters it’s not all that obvious but for some it sticks out a mile and someone really should have flagged it up. If it’s not possible to do the simple thing and switch the names around due to whatever reason, then surely it’s not too difficult to edit the photo and move some people around so everything matches up. Maybe this is me just being a little obsessive compulsive but, again, it just smacks of laziness.

This poster for Morning Glory is a perfect example. The names are so close to the actors’ heads that it’s almost impossible to notice they don’t match, and once you’ve noticed it, it becomes more and more obvious. They’ve managed to get Diane Keaton right; that’s definitely Diane Keaton, but Harrison Ford and Rachel McAdams are almost certainly wrong. When there’s little else happening in the poster other than having the three of them standing there (this could also be a vague poster, in fact), the whole thing is amplified even more.

See also: Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Network, Sherlock Holmes

So there we have it – some example of how bad film posters annoy me. Are there any that particularly do your head in for whatever reason? Leave a comment and let me know.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Mar 26 2013
49 Comments
Film Reviews

Quickie: Midnight in Paris

Midnight in ParisGil (Owen Wilson) is a screenwriter with writer’s block. On a trip to Paris with his high maintenance fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) he talks a midnight stroll and finds himself mysteriously time travelling to 1920′s Paris where he meets various famous historical figures including Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Salvador Dali, amongst others.

Beautifully shot in the French capital, Midnight in Paris really is as quirky as it sounds. It’s essentially a time travel story but is a million miles away from the likes of Looper and 12 Monkeys. The premise itself is enough to keep your interest throughout as you wonder which different famous faces Gil will bump into next. However, it also crosses the line into self indulgent and pretentious at times, too. You have to have a fairly decent knowledge of the characters to fully appreciate all the references; for those that don’t it could be an incredibly alienating experience.

Wilson is the perfect light-hearted lead, whilst McAdams barley gets chance to make an impression. Michael Sheen is excellently despicable has Inez’s arrogant know-it all friend Paul, and the various others who pop in and out also add their own little something to the film. Marion Cotillard, for example, is marvellous as usual as a 1920s love interest for Gil.

However, whilst Sheen’s character makes a habit of talking down to those around him, Midnight in Paris too often does the same to its audience. If you can get past this, though, there’s a fantastical story here that makes you just a little jealous of Gil and his Parisian adventure.

4 pigeons

4/5 pigeons

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 22 2013
52 Comments
Film

LAMMYS 2012/13 – For your consideration

Although I’ve had this blog for over a year now, this is the first time I’ve taken part in the LAMMY awards and I’m very excited about being a part of it. First of all, I would just like to say a huge thank you to every single person who has liked, commented on and shared any of my posts; it really makes the effort feel worthwhile and I get a real buzz from seeing a new comment pop up on a post.

I have been fortunate enough to have been put forward for the first stage of LAMMY nominations in several categories but to actually be one of the nominations, I need my readers to help a blogger out and vote for me. Yes, I’m arrogant enough that I nominated myself for some (not all!) of these categories, but you can’t win if you don’t buy a ticket! So here are the categories I am nominated for…

  • Best blog

  • Best new LAMB

  • Funniest writer

  • Best running feature – What is…?

  • Most knowledgeable

  • Best reviewer

  • Best ratings system

So this is me asking for LAMB members to consider me in their voting. There are some amazing blogs out there who are far more deserving than me but if you do fancy slinging a nomination my way then I would be more than grateful. I’m not going to go campaigning and bleating on about it here, there and everywhere, so this is likely to be my only post on this unless I actually get nominated further down the line.

You can vote by clicking this link – https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/T6PCWCN

And here is a poster I made stole and butchered to unashamedly try and swing your vote…

lamb poster

If you do decide that you want to vote for me then you have my eternal gratitude.

Thanks, as always

Chris

Tagged , , ,
Mar 21 2013
34 Comments
Film Reviews

Film Review: The Paperboy

The PaperboyThere are some films that are just difficult to tear your eyes away from. No matter how revolting certain scenes are, how deplorable you find some of the characters, how much it tests your gag reflex, certain films just demand your attention and refuse to leave your retinas once they’ve been burned there. The Paperboy is one of those films.

Ward Jansen (Matthew McConaughey) is a newspaper reporter returning to his Florida hometown to investigate inconsistencies in the case of Hillary Van Wetter (John Cusack), a local ne’er-do-well sentenced to the electric chair for killing a police officer. Jack (Zac Efron), Ward’s brother, is enlisted to help but when he becomes infatuated with Charlotte Bless (Nicole Kidman), a woman who has been writing letters to and is apparently in love with Van Wetter, the whole case becomes much more complicated.

Everything about The Paperboy just screams trashy. The sweat-soaked tar pit of balmy 1960′s Florida is the perfect setting for this bunch of dysfunctional characters to go about their business in some of the most backward ways imaginable. Nicole Kidman urinating on Zac Efron is just one of several scenes that beggar belief. In fact, so preposterous are some scenes that it verges on parody; it’s difficult to know whether to laugh and cringe at it or with it. Despite that, it’s these scenes that are also the film’s most engrossing. When it’s trashy, it’s intriguing at least; when it slips into the more traditional territory of Zac Efron’s yearning heart, it loses something, as if the filmmakers felt they couldn’t go too leftfield with Efron to risk alienating his fans.

Almost all of the actors here are taken out of their comfort zones; John Cusack is hugely creepy as the clearly unhinged Van Wetter, whilst Matthew McConaughey continues his successful path away from the rom-coms that earned him a dodgy rep previously. It’s Nicole Kidman, however, who really stands out. Whilst some may find her character intolerable, the way she pulls it off should be commended. The fact that many of these characters are so extreme, all looking weather beaten or dolled up to the nines in Kidman’s case, makes Zac Efron a bit of an anomaly. He does well enough with what he’s given, but his preened good looks just don’t work for the tone of the film. He also spends a hell of a lot of time in little more than his pants, often for no good reason. Decide for yourself whether that’s a good thing or not.

The story isn’t one you’ll likely care about too much, at least not all of it; Matthew McConaughey’s Ward probably holds the most interesting story arc, but this is little more than a side plot. Investment in the actual story gets relegated somewhat, replaced by intrigue as to what trashy turn it’ll take next. There’s also a shed load going on under the surface, including race relations, closet homosexuality, Freudian Oedipal issues, and more besides, and it does feel a little overt, particularly when it’s unnecessarily spelled out to you in voiceover.

It’s difficult to really like The Paperboy but it does have something magnetic about it. It’s a little too reliant on its shock value which does detract from what’s going on, but the grime and dirt that oozes from every pore makes for an unsettling cocktail of discomfort and curiosity.

3 pigeons

3/5 pigeons

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 536 other followers