Mr. Nice - Dir. Bernard Rose

Taking a break away from filming Snuff movies and Leo Tolstoy adaptations, Bernard Rose’s newest project tells the story of the famed British drug smuggler Dennis Howard Marks. Born in the idyllic Welsh valleys and going from an A-Grade student to A-Star drug smuggler, Howard Marks became one of the most notorious criminals in Britain after the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act was ratified by Parliament and Edward Heath’s conservative Government declared a ‘war on drugs’ in British culture. Rhys Ifans is Marks, while Chloe Sevigny plays his trusting wife Judy, while a crew of predominately famous British and Irish actors fill the rest of the inclusive roles including David Thewlis, Andrew Tiernan, Omid Djalili, Jamie Harris, and Ken Russell. And despite this array of acting talent on show, the film continually falls due to the lack of engagement either by the characters or the unrealistic situations by which they are involved within.

Rose’s screenplay is based upon Marks autobiography, thus going into this film, dramatization of the events after the fact are expected. Beginning in a small Welsh school and eventually ascending to the heights of Oxford University, Marks (Ifans) is shown to be an intelligent, hard-working youngster who wishes to rise beyond the working-class lifestyle that many had imposed upon themselves without action in the 1950’s and 60’s. However, once he starts to become friends with the free-loving, upper-class, dope smoking students in his dormitory, he starts to experience an alternative perception to not only reality, but financial success; import the drugs to the masses, and thy shall prosper. After graduating Oxford University, and attempting to go into a straight, legal job, Marks eventually gets drawn into the world of international hashish smuggling, and from here on in travels the world trafficking drugs to help his wife Judy (Chloe Sevigny) and their daughters a better life.

Despite initially seeming to be a character study of a bright, Welsh boy who has found success outside of the law, ‘Mr. Nice’ steadily develops into an argument for the pro-legalization of marijuana. Marks takes the name of a steady businessman whose name is “pronounced like the French town Nice, but spelt N-I-C-E,” he continually asserts that he himself has “never taken hard drugs,” while all the scenes involving hashish and cannabis smoking show no harm or violence, and those he involved himself with in dope smoking rings in University all now have attained for themselves respectable middle-class jobs. The police are shown to incompetent buffoons at times choosing to go after Marks rather than the ‘real criminals,’ and finally, and most importantly, the after effects of drug taking is never fully considered, only once does a character attempt to ask if smoking hashish is harmful to one’s mental and physical state and then he is instantly shot down before even given anything that resembles an acceptable answer. While the legalization of any narcotic in either Britain or the United States is always a contestable subject, it would have been a lot more interesting (and maybe even persuasive to the right audience), if Rose had attempted to build upon this area and create a solid basis of argument, rather than simply showing that ‘drugs = peace and love’.

Aside from the fact that ‘Mr. Nice’ is a sub-par pro-legalization film, it does contain many elements of humour, drama and emotion, especially during the first and final acts of the film which tie up the journey Howard Marks takes across the world, from hashish farms in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to inside the walls of a German prison. The chase sequences involving Marks and the various police organisations across the globe are surprising repetitive and incredibly monotonous, however the sequences beyond his life as a drug trafficker, i.e. the relationship with Judy, his friends, and eventually his children, somewhat humanizes Marks and shows that beyond every criminals working life, is a loving element, and for Marks this was his family. While the concrete acting of the various secondary actor and actresses provide continual comic relief to subsidise this ‘serious’ aspect of Marks’s life, especially Jim McCann (David Thewlis), the ranting, raving, sex-obsessed Provisional Irish Republican Army member who helps Marks bring the hashish in through Ireland for a hefty sum of money.

‘Mr. Nice’ is a far-cry away from Bernard Rose’s recent films, and his cult horror classic ‘Candyman,’ and it is still many a cinematic mile away from being classed as perfect film, but it’s at times a humorous British film that attempts to use British talent is sometimes overlooked at their fingertips. Its budget restrictions are clear to see with the combination of new and stock footage, and it stumbles during the most important, middle segment of the film as repetition takes control over the narrative, and it offers nothing new, revolutionary or ideologically important to the cause of the legalization of marijuana, but it does engage at times, and the brilliant, yet traumatic final twenty minutes of the film adequately sum up a man’s life, who is most probably one of the most intelligent drug smugglers to have ever lived.

Buried - Dir. Rodrigo Cortes

It’d be somewhat of a travesty if Ryan Reynolds does not get acknowledged during the awards season for his brilliant and heart-rending portrayal of a father who wakes up and finds that he himself has been buried alive. Going into ‘Buried,’ the less the audience knows about the plot details of the film, the more it will enhance their enjoyment of the proceeding ninety minutes of cinematic screen time. Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) is a truck driver in Iraq who wakes up to find that he is buried alive. Who, why, where, and when, are all questions that are systematically explained throughout the course of the film. But, while the audience’s attention may hinge at times on the development of the narrative, it is the inventiveness of Cortes and the heart-felt performance by Reynolds that keeps the tension and the suspense of the film at a constant high throughout providing one of the best thrillers to see a theatrical release in years.

Cortes takes the minimalist, one-room concept to new heights as he provides only the confines of a basic coffin for the setting of a film. Continually providing diverse camera angles to explore the tiny locational hotspot, while differentiating from close-up to medium shots, allows the audience to be drawn into Conroy’s horrifying situation and encounter each obstacle with the character himself. The lighting of the setting is also meticulously used to create mood and experience, Conroy is trapped within six panels of wood, and natural light is nowhere to be seen, so his use of artificial light is key his changing emotions and the narrative itself. And changing emotions is an understatement; Anger, sadness, surprise, fear, contempt, aggression, and submission, all develop and explode from under the surface of Conroy as he attempts to challenge one of man’s greatest mysteries; understanding the unknown. Reynolds gives quite possibly the performance of his career as he literally providing one-man-cinematic show, while his passionately explosive show-piece alongside the beautifully simplistic cinematography, editing and lighting create a film that keeps audiences on the edge of their seat for its entire duration.

‘Buried’ is an ambitious project, pulled off by an enthusiastic director which breathes a little life into the mystery thriller genre in general. Cortes and Reynolds essentially provide a two-man show that would eclipse most big-budget thrillers by simply sticking to an effective script, concept and performance. It does have its technological flaws, but if you can look past those ever-so-slightly unrealistic aspects, then ‘Buried’ is an incredibly enjoyable suspense-fuelled ride beyond the grave.

Devil - Dir. John Erick and Drew Dowdle

“My dear brethren…the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!” Charles Pierre Baudelaire (1864). Directed by Drew and John Erick Dowdle, and based on a story by the ever mysterious M. Night Shyamalan, ‘Devil’ consists of a traditional story containing a battle between good and evil, set within the confines of an office towers elevator in contemporary Philadelphia. Five strangers are trapped in an elevator together, and one of them may, or may not, be the devil (a being which is the personification of all evil). It is an interesting, and new take upon the premise that the devil may be “walking among us,” and while it is competently filmed and at times dutifully suspenseful, it lacks the intelligence and the inventiveness to the keep an audience hooked for the full eighty minutes of its running time.

Five strangers, consisting of a soldier (Logan Marshall-Green), a temp security guard (Bokeem Woodbine), a cocky mattress salesman (Geoffrey Arend), a young woman (Bojana Novakovic), and a pensioner (Jenny O’Hara) are all seemingly innocuous people who enter an elevator together in the ‘333’ office building. They are all there for different reasons, but when the elevator refuses to respond to basic maintenance and the patrons of the suspended steel box start to become agitated and aggressive, they must try to deduce to whom is to blame for the violence that is surrounding them. While outside the elevator, Detective Bowden (Chris Messina) and his partner Markowitz (Joshua Peace) alongside the tower’s security guards Ramirez (Jacob Vargas) and Lustig (Matt Craven), must also try to figure out what is happening inside the small, enclosed space, is it an aggressive attack by one of the strangers who has something to hide, or are there supernatural forces at work, gaining pleasure from torturing five apparently innocent citizens.

The film begins with a voice-over narration which details the story of the devil, and how he would purportedly occasionally take the place of a living being to torment those around him. A somewhat redundant touch, as the film itself gradually rolls out the story as the minutes tick by. From then on in, after a brief sequence involving a suicide, the characters board the elevator. Nothing is known about why they are in the building, what occupation (if any) they hold, and most importantly the audience does not know their names. They are essentially faceless beings until gradually the audience is fed bits and pieces of information to try and guess the identity of the perpetrator, played out in the same vein as any other mystery thriller. What separates this film apart from the rest however is the duelling storylines taking place between the strangers in the elevator and the Detective investigating ‘their’ (?) potential crimes.

Simultaneously the audience is able to follow the two detectives as they impartially try to understand what is happening in the elevator and who (if anybody) is perpetrating the crimes inside, while the characters inside the elevator increasingly become subjective towards each other. While most importantly, neither side can influence the other, creating a constant atmosphere of tension throughout the film as you wait to see whether the investigation will conclude successfully or whether the investigation will be halted due to the lack of live witnesses involved. Aside, from this however, the rest of the film involving secondary characters, seems to feel out of place, and slow the general pace of the film down, while also detracting away from the mysterious atmosphere of what is happening both in the security booth and in the elevator. While the acting by Bowden, Marshall-Green and Bojana Novakovic manage to keep the film on a professional level and stop it from failing on a most basic level (if a film is primarily set in one enclosed location, then the actors involved need to be able to portray to audience their different, and various contrasting emotions competently enough over a short space of time).

‘Devil’ is an adeptly made film from a story by one of the most notorious filmmakers currently operating at the moment in M. Night Shyamalan (due to his recent ‘critical’ failings). While it doesn’t contain a final-act twist of ‘Sixth Sense’ proportions that will completely revive the horror-mystery-thriller genre for years to come, it is also an enjoyable film that isn’t completely predictable within the first five minutes of screen-time if you can look past its visual flaws.

The Expendables - Dir. Sylvester Stallone

Throw together five of the biggest action stars in Hollywood history, garnish with a little of the new breed, and serve up with a glass of freedom ($82 million refreshing gulps of freedom to be precise) and you have a film which harks back to the days of the 1980’s action genre, where films were more concerned with the amount of explosives used and excessive body-count, rather than the story and the rest of those ‘boring things.’ Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) is the leader of the ‘Expendables,’ a group of mercenaries who take the jobs others wouldn’t even dare considering; over-throwing a dictatorship, and battling Somalian pirates is simply part of their nine-to-five routine. Alongside Ross is Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), an expert with anything that contains a blade, Yin Yang (Jet Li) a martial arts specialist, Hail Caesar (Terry Crews) a heavy-weapons professional, Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren) a Swedish sniper and Toll Road (Randy Couture) the team’s demolitions expert. With Tool (Mickey Rourke), providing the jobs, arms and tattoos as a former member of the Expendables with his own demons in mind.

When the mysterious Mr Church (Bruce Willis) offers the dangerous job of overthrowing the island of Vilena’s evil dictator General Garza (David Zayas) and removing his American partner (Eric Roberts) and his henchmen in the process (Steve Austin, Gary Daniels), Ross’s former partner Trench (Schwarzenegger) stands aside to allow the Expendables to take on the almost suicidal mission. This in itself, is probably the films greatest scene with many cultural references to all three major movie stars careers and personal life’s being thrown abound (“he just loves playing in the jungle, right?” quips Schwarzenegger to Stallone). Once Ross takes the job, what follows is an explosive-driven finale which sees the Expendables attempt the impossible as they send five men on to the island to battle the General’s cantankerous army of hundreds (or maybe even thousands...) against the American invasion.

‘The Expendables’ is essentially an 80’s action movie. It contains the action stars of past present doing what they do/did best (Stallone attempts a flying armbar, Couture finds the perfect way to apply a bone-crunching kimura, and Steve Austin is characteristically inhuman), a typically weak and clichéd script that does contain a few cheesy gems among the stereotypical macho hype, and plenty (lots, and lots, and lots) of outbursts of aggressive, explosive violence from your typical machete decapitation to the more complex hand-held-semi-automatic-rocket-launcher-weapon-thing. The producers and Stallone have also chosen to employ two editors which is an uninspired choice, as the film constantly switches between the fast, freestyle, hand-held Bourne style of Paul Greengrass (in which very little can be seen or understood), to the normal ‘stand back and admire’ method of the static camera. While the use of close-ups are in full swing, as to capture the lack of emotion in a film of this magnitude, the audience want to see body-parts flying every which way Sunday, rather than the leathery skin of a old, and hard-working Sylvester Stallone.

This film isn’t perfect, nor is it a terrible film which contains more testosterone than sense. It is worth watching alone, just for the scene involving the ‘big three’ which is its saving grace. Aside from that however, it is typical action-orientated fan-fare. Remove the stars and you could have simply renamed this ‘Rambo 4.5’ as it contains the same limb-splintering, unrealistic, yet somewhat invigorating blood-shed that, that Stallone vehicle contained.

Gainsbourg - Dir. Joann Sfar

Lucien ‘Serge Gainsbourg’ Ginsburg. Artist. Writer. Performer. Alcoholic. Smoker. Rebel. Womanizer. Genius? Joann Sfar’s film documents the sporadic lifestyle of the famous French artist Serge Gainsbourg (Eric Elmosnino), whose life contained no boundaries, no objects off limit, and continually tested the patience of those huddled together around him. Beginning with a young Gainsbourg developing his taste for painting aspiring models in Nazi-Occupied France as a mere teenager, the film thereupon concentrates primarily upon his relationships with various beautiful women and his life choices in regards to his ever-changing occupation over his sixty-year-life-span.

What makes this film work so well as a biopic is the truly ingenious performances by both Kacey Mottet Klein (Young Gainsbourg) and Eric Elmosnino (Adult Gainsbourg) who both somewhat beautifully represent such a tragic figure throughout his whole on-screen lifetime. Kacey portrays Gainsbourg as a boy who is maturing faster than those other children around him, so far so, that he explains to one of the schoolchildren the reason that he is good at drawing pubic hairs is because he has had an up-close and personal experience with them before. While he is also shown to be a lonely child, an outcast as Jewish child growing up in Nazi-Occupied France, and thus he develops an affable ‘imaginary friend’ to keep himself company. Born as small, soft head that watches over young Gainsbourg as he sleeps in the woods to avoid the Nazi soldiers, his only friend soon becomes his worst enemy as he matures into a complicated man. His once pleasant ‘imaginary friend’ is now a grotesque being with a large nose, long-thin fingers and an affection for cigarettes and bullying Gainsbourg. He continually berates insults, prods and engages Serge, providing the viewpoint that he himself was his harshest critic, and a critic he could not simply dismiss without entire control over his life.

Aside from the performances, the way Sfar allows the films narrative to flow in a temporal manner with no mention of time, or calendar dates, further draws the audience in to Gainsbourg’s contrived world. The only way to tell when an event shifts forward in his lifetime, is through his own physical deterioration from old age which is heavily dictated by his excessive abuse of alcohol and tobacco. But as Gainsbourg becomes older, his sexual conquests stay the same age; from Elisabeth (Deborah Grall), to Jane (the late Lucy Gordon), and to an affair with the insatiable Brigitte Bardot (Laetitia Casta), before he eventually settles down with Bambou (Mylene Jampanoi), who would be his final partner. These are all young, vulnerable women who Gainsbourg exploits for his own sexual misgivings, and once they become too old, or too boring, he discards them like a child throwing away an old toy to badger his parents for a new, more expensive model.

Joann Sfar beautifully flowing biopic paints Serge Gainsbourg as a shallow, misogynistic, grumpy old man, who once had dreams of becoming famous for doing anything, but once those dreams were realised, greed and narcissism triumphed over his once forgotten ambitions. Utilizing his gift for writing, artistry and music Gainsbourg chose the route of controversy and scandal over that of happiness and family, which is exemplified in his response to the media after he had a heart attack. When the reporters asked what he will be doing now after such a dangerous and life threatening operation, Gainsbourg calmly asserted to those in attendance that he will “continue to smoke many more cigarettes and drink much more alcohol.”

Inception - Dir. Christopher Nolan

Visually mesmerizing and narratively enthralling, Christopher Nolan’s stop-gap project before he commits to the third film in his Batman saga is a non-stop thrill ride which delivers on all levels; consciously and sub-consciously. Like everybody else in the real world, Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) has a full-time job except, unlike the rest of society, his job transcends realities. His work involves extracting confidential and sensitive information from client’s minds as they wander in an artificial dream-like state. To attempt this intricate process, they require an ‘architect’ who will construct the dream world in which the client’s subconscious is drawn into, before extracting the information from them. As Cobb mentions however, this process can essentially degenerate into ‘theft’ as clients may subconsciously place their secrets inside a bank or safe, which the team will have to crack to explore and exploit.

After a job goes askew, Cobb is hired by the shady businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) to perform an almost impossible, and incredibly complex act; Inception. Instead of extracting an idea or information, inception requires the planting of an idea into the subconscious mind of the client, thereby influencing any potential future decisions they may make, e.g. implanting into the mind of a client the suggestion that they should release an inferior product in the future to allow a rival competitor to prosper. Cobb assembles together a well-respected and able team of experts willing to commit to the act of inception, including the forger Eames (Tom Hardy), who has the ability to assume any identity in the dream world, the architect Adriadne (Ellen Page) who is young student constructing the world in which they will tread, the chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao) who is providing the substances that will allow them to stay under in the dream world for an extended period of time, and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who is the team’s ‘point man’ and Cobb’s highly regarded second in command.

Despite its hundred and sixty million dollar budget which is most prominent in the film’s stunning visuals, the real endearing aspect of ‘Inception’ is the brilliant story which Nolan allows to slowly unravel throughout the two hours and twenty minutes of run time. Constantly keeping the tension at appropriate heights, while also allowing the story to develop showcasing various twists and tales, Nolan’s screenplay is the intricate competent which truly makes the film work on various inter-connecting levels. From mystery-thriller, to science fiction and a hefty dose of drama, as the story unfolds, the visuals dazzle, and the characters themselves continue to grow, develop and prosper in this artificial environment.

On the surface ‘Inception’ is a heist movie in really simple, generic terms, but under the surface it contains underlying themes of love, loss, grief and the inability to forget those we used to, and still do love. Despite constantly being surrounded by dangerous situations in both realities, Cobb’s real danger comes in the form of his memories and in particular those of his wife (Marion Cotillard). While the other members of his team seem to perform their actions for the thrill of the event and the payment on delivery, Cobb is instead restricted by outside factors which keep him constrained within his transcending prison of never-ending certainty, and this (in?)sanity is projected to the audience in a typically emotional and brilliant Leonardo DiCaprio performance. Aside from DiCaprio, the always radiant Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives yet another proficient acting performance he can be proud of. Yet, despite the array of talent on show including DiCaprio and Sir Michael Caine, no doubt for the next few months the name trickling out of the Casting Department’s on both sides of the Atlantic will be that of the gentlemanly Tom Hardy. From obscurity to the A-List in a matter of years, not bad for the London man who only got his leading role a mere eighteen months ago.

But the real question here is; Can Christopher Nolan do no wrong? With ‘Inception’ comes the directors seventh feature film, and with this his sixth film to open to startling critical acclaim, and as many will agree, rightly so. Nolan has created a fantastically imaginative world where nobody is even safe, even when their bodies shut down and decide to roam the depths of the human subconscious. His story draws you in, while the gravity-defying action and unstable personalities of the characters keep you deeply rooted in your seat for a well-spent two hours and twenty minutes of pure, leisurely cinematic enjoyment.

The Karate Kid - Dir. Harald Zwart

In today’s Cinematic world of constant lifeless reimagining’s and underachieving sequels, it is refreshing to see for once, a well-made, proficient remake which still manages to restrain the positive values and engaging nature of the original. Harald Zwart’s ‘The Karate Kid’ brings the original film into the twenty-first century by using one the most recognised contemporary Asian actors of the last thirty years, and a rising star who is currently heavily overshadowed by his father, and allowing them both to flourish in a respectable and worthy remake. While the only substantial and somewhat controversial difference between the two films is the fact that despite being named ‘The Karate Kid’ in the majority of Western countries, the location of the film and the actual martial art displayed both descend from Chinese culture, unlike the martial art of Karate which is a descendent of Japanese culture. Yet, it must be noted that this ‘cultural controversy’ does not detract away from the true nature of the film.

Xiao (Little) Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) and his mother Sherry (Taraji Henson) decide to get away from things in Detroit and start a new life, with a new culture, in Beijing, China. Once they land in the Middle Kingdom, Dre attempts to settle in by making friends with the local children, and while there he notices the young violinist Mei Ying (Wenwen Han). But his hormones fluttering is not his only problem, as the local bully Cheng (Zhenwei Wang) notices his affection for Mei Ying and humiliates Dre by using his superior Kung Fu skills to hurt the young boy. After he undertakes various beatings, Dre is eventually helped by the mysterious maintenance man of his building in Mr Han (Jackie Chan), who demonstrates his superior Kung Fu skills to a mesmerized Dre. After this, the film’s plot almost mimics the original 1984 ‘Karate Kid’ film to the tee with both man and boy becoming ever closer in the three months Dre has to train before he battles the sadistic bully Cheng at an upcoming Kung Fu tournament.

While on the surface, the film concentrates upon the use of martial arts to contain, and defeat those who attempt to bully and hurt Dre, its underlying theme is of perseverance as both Dre and Han must fight through the past to create their own futures. Dre is young boy in a foreign land, unable to understand, or become truly part of society, while Han is tormented by the mistakes of his past, however through their father-son surrogate relationship; both are able to battle their inner demons head-on. And it is the actors performances which bring this motion picture truly too life. Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan take centre stage in this remake, and both deliver fantastic performances, especially Chan, who portrays the traumatised maintenance man who is scarred beneath the surface, perfectly. While despite a strong act from young Jaden, he is slightly hampered by the fact that his character is only twelve-years old, rendering the majority of the pre-puberty romantic scenes between himself and Mei Ying meaningless despite their emotive beauty.

Alongside the acting, the cinematography of the film at times borders on breathtaking as director Harald Zwart, Editor Joel Negron and Cinematographer Roger Pratt take their time to appreciate the splendour of the Chinese landscape and communicate this cultural veracity to the audience. The sequences filmed on the Wudang Mountain exemplify this beauty as the frame is constantly filled with sights and sounds, no doubt foreign to the Western audience watching, as the camera casually glides above to capture the scenery. This beauty is however lost in the last twenty minutes of the film as it moves forth into the tournament stage, the soft, classical music is exchanged for exuberant rock and roll and the editing mirrors that of a American music video; a noticeable blip, on an almost magnificently shot film.

What constantly drives the film forward, aside from its technical aspects, is the fact that the Sensei/Mentor (Father/Son) relationship between Dre and Mr Han works so perfectly. The scenes they share together will make you laugh, cry, smile, frown, and ultimately feel all warm and fuzzy inside, while the scenes of eye-opening martial arts provides an element of excitement to somewhat balance out the dramatic nature of the film. Whether you enjoyed the original ‘Karate Kid’ film or not, I would still recommend this film to audiences of all ages who appreciate more than heavy explosions and repetitive action sequences.