The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Star Trek Into Darkness

Directed by: J.J. Abrams

Produced by: J.J. Abrams

Bryan Burk

Damon Lindelof

Alex Kurtzman

Robert Orci

Screenplay by: Roberto Orci

Alex Kurtman

Damon Lindelof

Based on: Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry

Starring: Chris Pine

Zachary Quinto

Zoe Saldana

Karl Urban

Simon Pegg

John Cho

Benedict Cumberbatch

Anton Yelchin

Bruce Greenwood

Peter Weller

Alice Eve

Music by: Michael Giacchino

Cinematography by: Dan Mindel

Editing by: Maryann Brandon

Mary Jo Markey

Studio(s): Bad Robot Productions

K/O Paper Products

Skydance Productions

Distributed by: Paramount Pictures

Release date(s): May 2, 2013 (London premiere)

May 9, 2013 (United Kingdom)

May 16, 2013 (United States)

Running time: 133 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $190 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $443, 865, 011

Alrighty there, minions, it is I, back again (recurring theme is recurring theme). I say that because frankly my mojo has been thrown all out of kilt, and while I could put it down to The Great Gatsby genuinely throwing me for a loop (I am now contemplating seeing it again), I think it can be put down more to a case of outright laziness in the face of the open plateau that I now face. Having now graduated from university, I'm worried that I may become the noughties' equivalent to Benjamin Braddock and spend the rest of my days listening to Simon & Garfunkel while flitting between various Mrs. Robinson's (not Iris!). Not forgetting my penchant for gross exaggeration, I will be getting on with my movies reviews, business as usual. I've got this and a review for After Earth coming in, which I will follow with a review for the month of June (also including the two films I reviewed at the start of the year), and then get on with July (I've already seen The Internship), so, ladies and germs, keep your eyes posted!

So, today's movie up for review is Star Trek Into Darkness. The sequel to J.J. Abrams' 2009 Star Trek reboot, Into Darkness sees the return of more or less every major cast and crew member involved in said film, which is already a good thing, given that Star Trek (2009) was a great science-fiction film in a year that also featured District 9, Moon and Avatar. For those of you don't know (for those who do, I'm telling you again!), I'm a big fan of J.J. Abrams. I'm flying through Lost at present (co-created with Damon Lindelof, also a writer and producer on Abrams' Star Trek work), and since 2006's Mission Impossible III, Abrams has been a creatively productive roller coaster, with just about everything he touches turning to gold (and dollars), so I was pretty excited to see this. In this instalment, Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) violate the Prime Directive of Starfleet, exposing the Enterprise to a planet's civilisation during one of their missions, losing command of the Enterprise. Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) is reinstated as it's commanding officer, and convinces Starfleet to be assigned his first officer. After a bombing in London, Starfleet commanders meet to discuss what to do with the perpetrator, rogue Starfleet agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), when said rogue agent ambushes the meeting, killing Pike in the process, before leaving for Klingon homeland Kronos. After convincing Fleet Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) to let him take Pike's place, Kirk leads the Enterprise crew on a mission to Kronos, his motivations in this mission being dubious, and the plan for Harrison, to be either captured or executed, is very much in the air when we get on our merry way. Let's dance!

Starting off with the good about Into Darkness, technically the film is a piece of wizardry. The whole mise-en-scene, encompassing the departments of production design, make-up, special effects etc. is a marvel to behold. With a near $200 million budget, you'd figure that it should be up there on the screen, and Abrams and co certainly deliver on that promise. Also, returning cinematographer Daniel Mindel does a fine job of capturing the majesty of the production, and also, in terms of the action sequences, delivers a film that is both frenetic and wholly in focus, something that can be quite hard to do with today's action movies. Furthermore, the collaborative editorial work of Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey give Into Darkness this brilliant seamlessness, particularly in the harmony between what is literally physical and what has been created in post-production. Into Darkness, like much of Abrams' productions, have this sense of reality that is wholly legitimate, a trait that is sometimes lacking big-budget blockbusters, but is certainly featured here. Another aspect of the film that must be mentioned is some of the acting. Now, of course this is an ensemble cast, but there are a number of standouts. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are solid once again, and Peter Weller makes a stake as a believably commanding Marcus. However, the standout here is definitely Benedict Cumberbatch. I know what part he plays and all of the various arguments, such as the racial casting (which is, frankly, bollocks!), but I'm still stubbornly going to keep spoilers out of this. Regardless, Cumberbatch delivers a mighty performance. The quality of franchise villains has certainly improved dramatically since Heath Ledger's Joker in 2008's The Dark Knight, and Cumberbatch enters that pantheon. For Harrison, he has developed this marvellously venomous voice, speaking with great eloquence but as though the sounds are coming from the belly of a dragon. You can feel shivers from every little bar of intonation emerging from Cumberbatch. Speaking of The Dark Knight, my personal favourite scene in Into Darkness, which is clearly in dept to the interrogation scene of the former film, involves I suppose 'the great revelation,' where essentially Cumberbatch goes on a magnificent three-to-four minute soliloquy, his facial expressions and remarkable sense of pace giving complete legitimacy (almost sympathy) to his character's motivations. His presence in this scene does more for plot and exposition than about half-an-hour screen time at different point in the film,

which brings me swiftly on to what I find wrong with Into Darkness. Don't get me wrong, it's a work of technical wizardry and the acting was solid, especially that of Benedict Cumberbatch, but, strangely, many of the key players in the Abrams crew fail to deliver this time. Damon Lindelof made a comparison between Into Darkness and The Dark Knight, and while one can recognise the tonal similarities, Into Darkness does not live up to the qualities of the latter picture. Despite an admittedly daring attempt to tell the basil exposition parts in the midst of action sequences a la The Terminator, it still does unfortunately come across as window dressing to a weak backbone. As the old saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. After the brilliant synthesis of the first Abrams Trek, this is most disappointing, particularly when you have a potentially iconic villain in Cumberbatch. Also, I've criticised Michael Giacchino in the past, not because I don't like him (I do very much, in fact!), but because his scores are the type that lend themselves to the possibility of teetering over into screeching histrionics: he is often at his best when he writes simple themes, such as those featured in Lost. Here, the level of grandiosity and big orchestral sounds undercut the seriousness of the picture, and I know I've invoked The Dark Knight twice already, but part of what works on that film is that Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard scribed subtle (but big) themes that fit the action (incidentally, I was wrong the first time about Inception's score: it's terrific). Finally, although artists aren't often the best gauge of their own work and, granted, it has been four years since Abrams Trek Mark 1.0, I still think that there should have been a bit more time and effort in pre-production dedicated to redrafting the film. This is a first for criticism, but as the spearhead of the project, J.J. Abrams should have been aware of the issues involved in the script. I'm sure he may have felt studio pressure, but this represents a slight in his roles, both as producer and director, which is a shame from Abrams really, because I expect more from him.

To conclude my overall analysis (and this is probably a bit tacked on, I won't lie), Star Trek Into Darkness is a work of technical wizardry, with the cinematography and editing helping to contribute to highlighted a strongly-established mise-en-scene. The ensemble cast is uniformly strong, but most outstanding is a terrific turn from Benedict Cumberbatch, who joins the pantheon of iconic franchise villains in contemporary franchise cinema. However, it is also a film whose script lacks a true backbone, requires a lot of work with less window dressing, and, for a change, has an authorial slight or two on the part of J.J. Abrams. It's indicative of the overall piece when the best scene in the film is the revelatory interrogation scene, one of it's few quieter moments and yet it's most engaging. You expect more from this talented a collaborative effort.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 5.9/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Hot! (I haven't been privy to weather like this since last year in France and my whole physiognomy is simply not used to Northern Ireland being this damn warm!)

Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Beware Of Mr. Baker

Directed by: Jay Bulger

Produced by: Jay Bulger

Nick Friedman

Julie Goldman

Jeff Sanders

Omar Soliman

Screenplay by: Jay Bulger

Starring: Ginger Baker

Music by: Ginger Baker

Cinematography by: Eric Robbins

Editing by: Will Cox

Owen Rucker

Caitlin Tartaro

Studio: Insurgent Media

Distributed by: SnagFilms (United States)

Artificial Eye (United Kingdom)

Release date(s): November 28, 2012 (United States; limited release)

May 17, 2013 (United Kingdom/Ireland)

Running time: 100 mins

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: N/A

Box office revenue (as of publication): $116, 476 (Domestic Gross only)

Ahoy there strangers, me again. Although things have admittedly slowed up over the past couple of weeks (Lord knows, other aspects of my life have been rather busy), I have been continuing to watch movies, and following this review, expect one's to come up for Star Trek Into Darkness and After Earth. Before we get started, I wish to dedicate this next review to the memory of James Gandolfini. In case you don't know, I'm also someone who watches certain television series', and right at the top of that is The Sopranos. I only just recently finished re-watching the show, and while it is certainly an ensemble effort and the series has a terrific writing team and crew, it was Gandolfini's Tony Soprano who was the apex, and the physical embodiment of everything that is good about The Sopranos. A magnetic screen presence, behind his hulking and intimidating frame lay a gentle soul with a twinkle in his eye, and when he smiled the way only he could, you just wanted to reach and give him a big bearhug. My thoughts go out to his family members, whose grief I cannot possibly fathom to imagine. Rest In Peace, big man!

So, with no stone being left unturned, let's get down to this. Today's review is on Beware Of Mr. Baker, the title of the picture being a reference to the sign that confronts a visitor upon entering the residence of one Mr. Baker. Namely, the legendary Ginger Baker, widely considered to be one of the greatest rock drummers of all time, though he himself (as explored in the film) contends with that label, seeing himself as following the tradition of jazz drumming, and taking in the influence of African music and rhythms. Sometimes preceding his artistry (not unlike the great Oliver Reed), however, are the tales of excess and debauchery during the peak of his fame, which created an aura around him as a bit of a rock 'n roll wild man. Director Jay Bulger, having wrote an article for Rolling Stone on Baker (The Devil and Ginger Baker), uses his established rapport to develop this documentary on the man, who lives in South Africa with his fourth wife. Right, synopsis sorted!

Starting off with the good regarding the film, much of it's strengths derive from the subject himself. Ginger Baker is a legendary figure in music before you even approach him from a documentarian standpoint, and from this position the legend only continues to grow. One of the most unpredictably entertaining interview subjects in a film for quite a while, Baker regularly shows disdain for the set format. Poor Jay Bulger has to ask the questions, and often gets an expletive-laden retort for his troubles. Indeed, the film opens with Baker attacking the filmmaker with his cane over Bulger's intentions to interview those who knew the man. Baker has many brilliant stories to tell, and serves as an appropriately well-informed narrator to his own tale. Also, now in his seventies, Baker's voice has a world-weary quality that gives the film a sense of legitimacy and despite being from London, he has enough of his own personal twang to make the view continue to listen to what he's saying. The film is really at it's best moments when Bulger embraces Baker's contradictions and the fact that the man is essentially in a constant conflict with himself. Despite his being, for all intents and purposes, a horrible man to his family and friends, the refusal to judge this man and view him objectively is to the film's credit. Furthermore, having this conflict gives moments when Baker reminisces about his favourite drummers and about his feeling more akin to his horses and than other humans gives him (and the film) a true sense of pathos. It's a very entertaining movie at times, but most especially when we are being told a straight story with the eponymous Mr. Baker at the centre.

Now, while the film does not contain enough problems to severely irritate me, there are problems that inhabit the film nevertheless. As mentioned, the film at it's best when a straight story is being told. However, there are certain times in which the film begins to show traits that seem to be inherent in a lot of postmodern cinema. The methods used to tell the larger picture, however, are too multitudinous and do not contribute anything to the film. For instance, the pop art by way of printing press presentation of the Mormon Sex In Chains case covered in Errol Morris' Tabloid may have fit that film, but here, some methods (particularly the animation sequences) go into overkill. What this needs to be is along the lines of Capturing The Friedmans or Gimme Shelter, not This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Ginger Baker is a large and engaging enough figure without the need for him to be dressed up with all these extra frills. This is a problem that, while not necessarily damning a film, has become inherent in recent documentaries, which have this second-nature obsessiveness with transgressive Baudrillard post-modernity. While (as mentioned) not condemning the film, this is the issue at the root of the problems that permeate the film.

In short, Beware Of Mr. Baker is a film that is at times as troubled as it's subject. However, it's troubles come not from the subject, but from issues to do with the methods used to approach it. Methodological research would show that, theoretically speaking, Beware Of Mr. Baker is not a unified, cohesive piece, but instead inappropriately scatterbrained. Nevertheless, even with the issue(s), it is, at it's best, a fascinating, objective portrait of a conflicted man. Baker is never anything less than thoroughly engaging, and he makes for one of the most interesting interviewees I have seen as the subject of a documentary film for quite some time. Although it has flaws, Bulger seems to also recognise the good material, and when Beware Of Mr. Baker tells a straight story of the sign entering the estate of the namesake, it flourishes.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.8/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - "Anyone got a compass?" (I need to get my bearings)

Beware Of Mr. Baker Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Great Gatsby

Directed by: Baz Luhrmann

Produced by: Baz Luhrmann
Douglas Wick
Lucy Fisher
Catherine Martin
Catherine Knapman

Screenplay by: Baz Luhrmann
Craig Pearce

Based on: The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio
Tobey Maguire
Carey Mulligan
Joel Edgerton
Isla Fisher
Jason Clarke
Elizabeth Debicki
Amitabh Bachchan

Music by: Craig Armstrong

Cinematography by: Simon Duggan

Editing by: Matt Villa
Jason Ballantine
Jonathan Redmond

Studio(s): Village Roadshow Pictures
Bazmark Productions
A&E Television
Red Wagon Entertainment

Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures

Release date(s): May 10, 2013 (United States)
May 16, 2013 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 143 minutes

Country(s): United States
Australia

Language: English

Production budget: $105 million

Box-office revenue: $301, 298, 103

Aloha there, my pretties! I say aloha because for a change the weather is absolutely fantastic over here. For the past week or so (with the occasional flash-flood), we in The North here have had clear skies, twenty-degree heat (centigrade for those interested) and I'm starting to work up a sweat just lying in bed! Anywho, much as I'm basking in the rays of the sun (I almost forgot what they felt like), I've been seeing a film or two, so after this one, expect a review for Beware Of Mr. Baker, the Jay Bulger documentary about drummer Ginger Baker. As ever, for all the latest blah blah blah, keep your eyes posted!

I'll just have to say from the outset before I get properly started that today's film is a rather unique case. Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby is adapted from the 1925 F. Scott Fitzgerald novel of the same name, a book which is (quite rightly) considered among the greatest of 20th-Century literary classics. Fitzgerald's work has been adapted to the screen before, most notably 1974's The Great Gatsby, featuring Robert Redford in the title role, and David Fincher's ambitious but turgid 2008 adaptation of The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, but Baz Luhrmann's a different kind of beast altogether. The central story, following Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) in reminiscing his friendship with Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his unwittingly becoming the witness to numerous secrets and lies involving Tom and Daisy Buchanan (Joel Edgerton, Carey Mulligan), sticks very much to the original Fitzgerald source, but stylistically Luhrmann takes a different route altogether. So much so, in fact, that it defies the usual format that I take in reviewing a film. Normally, my third and fourth paragraphs deal with the pros and cons of a given film respectively, but The Great Gatsby is a film of such a strange identity that I'm going to have to break down the wall temporarily in order to truly get across my (oh my) opines. So, the following paragraph will deal with what I see as the 'first part' of the film, up a certain 'turning point,' and the fourth paragraph will look at the 'second part' of the film. Thinking about how I was going to approach this in a review took a bit of time, and I've decided that this format will work best in getting across my views.

Now, I'm just gonna shoot from the hip on this one, because the first part/half of The Great Gatsby is a colossal monstrosity. I know that what Baz Luhrmann is trying to achieve in establishing the outright decadence of the Roaring Twenties, about how despite prohibition being in order, alcohol was arguably easier to access than it was when it was legal, but most of the first part of the film is simply dreadful. Aside from an interesting prologue with Tobey Maguire at the beginning, I found little to no redeeming factors about this section of the film. The cinematography is a big problem, nigh on nausea-inducing. I'm wondering if this is down to the fact that I was watching a 3D film in 2D, but I don't know what they were doing with the frame rate, because I doubt I'm they only one who feels this way. The amount of long zoom and tracking shots are simply unnecessary, and go beyond a stylistic quality, instead infusing it with an illusory sense of gimmickry. Every shot just SCREAMS at me, and even down to the sharpness of the cuts made in the editing suite, I felt like someone was vociferously attacking the negative. The screenplay too is pretty messy. Yes, you can do whatever you want in the process of adaptation, and that Luhrmann's theatrical qualities come across in the final cut, but what they do in these gigantic party scenes adds nothing to the narrative. They could have established the outright decadence, fallacy, the proverbial 'Tears Of A Clown' stuff with about a quarter of the screen time dedicated to these scenes. Also, while I thought highly of the slow reveal of the character of Gatsby, at what point is necessary for every second line of that character to be "... old sport." We already know it's Gatsby and that's his trademark from within a minute or two in his company, don't have DiCaprio jabber on about constantly. It makes the film borderline parodic and undercuts the character if you overtly have gibbering "old sport" as often as the script entails it. The soundtrack/score as well is a screaming honking mess. The original score is by Craig Armstrong, a composer whose work I normally like very much (particularly the subtle minimalism of his contributions to NEDS), but here it is all loudness and has the effect of someone attempting to use the methods of blast fishing, triggering explosives to conjure my brain activity up to it's uncomfortable nth. degree. The soundtrack too, a daring move I must say, is a failed experiment. I have no problem with contemporary urban/hip-hop music being used in this period movie, hey, better to try and fail than to not try at all, but it really doesn't work. Much of the party music ends up coming across as silly, and even the use of George Gershwin fails to fit the mood of the piece. This issue reaches it's nadir with the Emeli Sande cover of Beyonce's Crazy In Love in an atrociously misjudged scene just before Gatsby and Daisy meet again. I know it sounds snobbish and pretentious, but it's use actually conjured a number of laughs from the audience, who were probably just doing so out of not knowing what to do in the midst of such an awkward audio-visual conundrum. I, on the other hand, according to a friend who I saw the film with, continued to sigh and breathe heavily until the scene where Gatsby and Daisy reunite...

... and then, after over an hour of screen time, strangely, it became a movie. (At this point, I've left the review for five-six days, as I'm heading over to Donnington to work at Download Festival and I need my beauty sleep, thank you!) As you might have gathered from what I have mentioned in relation to Tobey Maguire, I was uniformly won over by the film's actors, even when surrounded by the utmost ridiculousness. Maguire plays a great Nick Carraway, whose boyish enthusiasm for the world around him is gradually chipped away. Keeping it in the realm of subtlety, Maguire never goes into melodramatic histrionics to put across the character's arc. Also strong is Carey Mulligan, playing the character of Daisy right down the middle and walking the proverbial tightrope with grace. It's a part that really could have gone either way, with her seeming either too much a moll or an adult waif, but Mulligan does it just right. Once again proving herself a fine screen actress, for all the movie's faults, this remains a memorable performance. Also strong are Jason Clarke (an actor who's gaining my interest more with every role) and Joel Edgerton, whose Tom Buchanan is throughly reprehensible, and Elizabeth Debicki is an impressive Jordan Baker, but some space must be given to Leo DiCaprio's Gatsby. As a physical presence, he fills the shoes of the part very well, even amidst the script's rather overt attempts at self-mythologisation. His part is an example of the second-part tonal shift. He becomes not just a figurehead, but a human being. The whole movie (from a directorial standpoint, Luhrmann begins to have flourishes of brilliance here) improves drastically, and the script almost seems to develop a self-awareness of it's own flaws and the fact that it would be wise to actually make an engaging movie. The cinematography and editing too calms down a bit, and Luhrmann realises that this is a drama and not a Michael Bay film. Even the costumes, which struck me as too bright and forthright, seemed to have their colours muted to an acceptable degree  At it's best moment, Luhrmann's Gatsby can be very touching and heart-rending, which does lead me to conclude "Why couldn't the rest of the movie be like this?" I don't think they needed the first half to be as brash as it was to get that point across, for the second half is a genuinely serene and engaging piece of cinema. A bit of restraint did this film the world of good.

However, for all the restraint and genuine qualities of the film's second half (which include a modest, serene script, Luhrmann directing with control, the cinematography and editing working in a manner befitting the mood of the piece, the terrific cast at it's very best), I still find it impossible to get past just how much I detested the first part. The cinematography was overt, too stylistic without any contributing quality to the narrative and genuinely nausea-inducing, as loud visually as the soundtrack was aurally, none of the soundscapes (original score, hip-hop/contemporary jazz soundtrack) fitting in to the narrative. There was an incredible sense of gimmickry, particularly in the party scenes, that was hard to overcome. Even when I did the (admittedly) enjoyable second half of the film, the looming monster that was the first half still prevailed. I'll admit the purposefulness of the direction and that it's meant to be this way, give the devil in Mr Luhrmann his due for trying to do something interesting but it simply didn't work on an overall aesthetic or emotional level. It's a shame, because I did work with this movie, and from a reviewing standpoint it certainly posed a challenge, but ultimately the scales of justice were tipped slightly in favour of the colossal monstrosity against the serene drama. The Hall of Justice has spoken.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 4.7/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Good (now that this conundrum of a review is done!)

P.S. As I said, I'll give the devil in Mr Luhrmann his due for trying.

The Great Gatsby Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Hangover Part III

Directed by: Todd Phillips

Produced by: Todd Phillips

Daniel Goldberg

Screenplay by: Todd Phillips

Craig Mazin

Based on: Characters created by

Jon Lucas

Scott Moore

Starring: Bradley Cooper

Ed Helms

Zach Galifianakis

Ken Jeong

Heather Graham

Jeffrey Tambor

Justin Bartha

Mike Epps

John Goodman

Music by: Christophe Beck

Cinematography by: Lawrence Sher

Editing by: Debra Neil-Fisher

Jeff Groth

Studio(s): Legendary Pictures

Green Hat Films

Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures

Release date(s): May 23, 2013 (United States)

May 24, 2013 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 100 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $103 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $199, 240, 908

Hey gang, so I took the weekend off, but you can't say I lack dedication to my craft, if my unconstructed rambles can indeed be considered as such. Despite being absolutely skint (I put Queen's University to blame for that: brilliant minds that they are schedule an exam on a Saturday and I miss £200 worth of work, just sublime), I'm making a brave effort (especially with my computer dogging up) to keep up with all the latest in the cinemas. Thanks goodness for my Strand loyalty vouchers and a QFT membership. So, for as much of the shebang as I can keep up with ('all' is a bit of a strong declarative, methinks), keep your eyes posted!

"And slowly I turn...," and there stands before me The Hangover Part III. I have a bit of a storied history with this series of movies, so here's a bit of a preamble. Admittedly, I was one of the (vocal) minority who didn't like the first Hangover, which was a surprise hit back in 2009. Second time round, same old scenario, bumped up to eleven, The Hangover Part II was a horrible bit of work that would have been banned alongside Lucio Fulci and Ruggero Deodato pictures during the Video Nasty's scare of the 1980s. This time round, The Wolfpack (when are Daddy Long Legs and Kevin Nash gonna start picking up royalties?), after Alan (Zach Galifianakis) loses his father and has stopped taking his medication, reunite to take him to a rehab facility. However, on the way, they become involved in a plot involving the recent escapee Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), who has stolen half of a $42 million gold heist from bad dude Marshall (John Goodman), and so the guys have to get in contact with Chow or else one of them (the one who always ends up missing) gets plugged. You get the story, roll the tape!

To start with the good on the film, I've been vocal about this in the past, but I think that Lawrence Sher's cinematography on these pictures contributes to a lot of what people (besides me) seem to enjoy about them. Not only does he handle the camera with grace, doing some great location shooting, he does know how to shoot a comedic scene. There's a real natural eye for how to make the scenes at least 'appear' funnier than they are. The case is no different here, and I hope that he continues to have a fine career. Also, the change in tone of the film to more of a caper/heist genre benefits in the expansion of Ken Jeong's Leslie Chow. In the past, I've found Jeong very annoying in his various capacities as a screen actor, playing the perennial 'crazy Asian' caricature in about eight different films I've had to review. Here though, there is a bit of depth and nuance to the part, and indeed, he's good enough that he threatens (and succeeds) in stealing the show from the wretched Wolfpack. While I didn't laugh beyond the sparse titter or two, most of them were as a result of Ken Jeong, so well done Ken, you now have my curiosity.

This is where we really get going. I've made no bones about the fact that I dislike the first two movies with an avid passion. I would be sitting in the auditoriums weeping and yowling like Tom Hardy in Bronson being surrounded by mental patients dancing to Pet Shop Boys, everyone else laughing while I sat there dumbly impotent in my intolerance to this terror. But my thesis to The Hangover Part III is different. Did I like it? No, same as before. However, the first two Hangover's at least provoked a reaction, one of revulsion, granted, but a reaction nevertheless. In the case of Part Trois, I sat in the auditorium with indifference to much of what was proceeding. Unlike the genre switch of Fast Five, The Hangover Part III's trade doesn't work, the screenplay by director Todd Phillips and Craig Mazin really stinking of lazy and tacked-on. It's like they are wringing the dishcloth until there is simply nothing left to give out, although that ship has long since sank. The movie was predictable as could be, and I must say that I saw must of the 'gags' coming a mile away, of course this thing is going to happen, he's going to do that, he's going to end up with that, it was just such murder-by-numbers material. Christophe Beck's score is rubbish again, being overindulgent and of the Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra variety, blah blah blah. Everyone involved, including the primary three actors, seem bored out of their minds and frankly, if no one involved is going to make an effort to try and push for the last hurdle, then neither am I. It's a sad moment for a movie when my highlights are hearing extracts from Black Sabbath's N.I.B. and Nine Inch Nails' Hurt, two bands who I'm going to see and who remind of what great art can be. I know I'm going off on one and not making a particularly constructive analysis of the details, but the prospect of revisiting this dribblesome bore of a film makes my eyes start to feel heavy (I'm yawning as I type this) and see an early night sleep as a tempting prospect. There's a shot towards the conclusion of the film (no spoilers, not that it'd make a difference) in which The Wolfpack cross a street from left-to-right in a shot that visually invokes the cover for The Beatles' Abbey Road. I just can't help but thinking this is a shoddy attempt at self-mythologisation, I mean, really? You're going to try and compare The Wolfpack (royalties from which I want a finders fee from 'Big Sexy' Kevin Nash) to The Beatles is simply absurd. This band of ingrates will never rise to the pantheon of the greats in the way that Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr did, and I'm content just leaving it at that!

Frankly, I'm posting this conclusion about two or three days after starting this review. To me, there was little to no effort on the part of much of the cast and crew involved to make this Hanover instalment anything worth watching. It is only through the performance of Ken Jeong, who has finally convinced me, after about nine or ten movies, that he is a screen actor to look out for, and Lawrence Sher's cinematography, which was admittedly terrific, that redeems this from being in the bowels of cinema history. However, it is still one hundred minutes of one of the most outright boring films I can remember seeing for quite some time. The thing about the other Hangover films is that even though I didn't like them, I actively reacted to them. Even if it was a negative reaction, I still reacted. Here, I was in a primary state of indifference throughout, and if someone was to kick me in the head while watching The Hangover Part III, I doubt I'd be roused from my seat, bored to sleep as I was.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 2.9/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Sore (broke my leg press record at the gym yesterday and now glad to have my feet up and not be forced to endure another terrible movie. I'm watching Leon: The Professional today!)

P.S. What in the blue hell did the studios spend $103 million on?

The Hangover Part III Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Iron Man 3

Directed by: Shane Black

Produced by: Kevin Feige

Screenplay by: Drew Pearce

Shane Black

Based on: Iron Man by 

Stan Lee

Larry Lieber

Don Heck

Jack Kirby

Starring: Robert Downey, Jr.

Gwyneth Paltrow

Don Cheadle

Guy Pearce

Rebecca Hall

Stephanie Szostak

James Badge Dale

Jon Favreau

Ben Kingsley

Original Score by: Brian Tyler

Cinematography by: John Toll

Editing by: Jeffrey Ford

Peter S. Elliot

Studio(s): Marvel Studios

DMG Entertainment

Distributed by: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Release date(s): April 18, 2013 (London premiere)

April 25, 2013 (United Kingdom)

May 3, 2013 (United States)

Running time: 130 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $200 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $1, 149, 135, 928

Well, as they say, the ball is well and truly rolling, and with no expenses on any illegal substances of any sort, you're flying Air TTWD on account of just out and out grit. Frankly, I've surprised myself that the metaphorical glove still fits, as I thought it'd be a royal pain in the ass to get the ship out of the docks, but we are coasting on. Here's hoping I just don't hit an iceberg (I can make that joke being from Belfast by the way. Side note: at work I've had to tell people off for singing "They built the ship and the ship sank" to the tune of The Clash's I Fought The Law, as it's now considered 'offensive' to make Titanic jokes in Belfast)! So, for more inane rambles, hopefully in the vein of the opening of Woody Allen's Manhattan but coming across instead as banal, and the occasional movie review, keep your eyes posted!

Alrighty, so, today's film up for scrutiny is the latest instalment in the ongoing Marvel Cinematic Universe, Iron Man 3. Now, just for a bit of background, I liked the first Iron Man a lot, thought the 2008 Incredible Hulk with Ed Norton was a good flick, and I thought the Captain America: The First Avenger was decent enough. I haven't seen Iron Man 2, Thor or The Avengers, but what Marvel have done with their movie-making ventures since the first Iron Man is something that was quite unique to comic books, having other characters cross over into each others' films, much like they do in the comics, so that the characters all inhabit the same world. In this the first film since The Avengers, what Marvel have described the start of a second phase for their Cinematic Universe, we have Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) suffering from anxiety attacks after the events of The Avengers. He and Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) are squabbling, and an emerging leader of The Ten Rings terrorist organisation, The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), causes all sorts of problems and having the US government put Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), the former War Machine re-christened Iron Patriot on the case. Amidst all this, we have the ambiguous founder of the Advanced Idea Mechanics Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), a figure from Stark's past and whose position in the proceedings we are uncertain of. Let's take a look!

Starting the pros here (as we always do), I was happy with Marvel's decision to hire Shane Black onto the project. Black has always been an entertaining screenwriter, and his directorial debut, starring Robert Downey, Jr., 2005's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, was a hilarious Chandler-esque raucous and one of the funniest buddy-comedies I'd ever seen. However, the film didn't do great at the box-office (more people really need to see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), and Black hasn't seen much in the way of theatrical releases since. It's hardly a gamble getting him to helm the director's chair (Iron Man 3 was going to make money regardless), but his presence gives Iron Man 3 a freshness that same of the other movies in this universe are lacking. Also, as far as a film goes, it is without question the most distinctive picture of the franchise. Downey, Jr., a magnetic screen presence as ever, begins the film gibbering on, not unlike the narration of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and the film is very much tongue-in-cheek. Also on the acting front, I was impressed Guy Pearce, who carries this controlling silence around the character of Killian. You get this real sense of underlying tension with the subtlety that Pearce injects into the character. He's a fine actor who deserves meaty roles, and this proves it. Unquestionably the show-stealer this time round is Ben Kingsley. It's been an interesting process with Kingsley and my good self (if I'm so bold as to address myself as such. Yes I am!), given that for a time he was oh-so-serious and strangely overbearing. However, since 2008's Fifty Dead Men Walking, he has become a generous actor, putting over a lot of young talent, and with this film, he does a complete about-turn on his onscreen persona. I'm going to try and not spoil this, but on the one hand, he does a suitably menacing job of playing The Mandarin, with a commanding power in his voice, but on the other, he does the complete opposite, a purposeful regression into degeneracy, the juxtaposition of these two different aspects having an almost meta effect. It's a performance of marvellous trickery, and Kingsley does it flawlessly. I know a lot of people are angry with this direction of The Mandarin character, but I personally thought it was executed rather well. As to be expected with a Marvel superhero film (and a $200 million budget), it looks fantastic, with the visual effects in the action sequences, most especially the Stark mansion, Air Force One and climatic scenes, being spot-on. Things fall apart in a believable fashion, but are able to get across the sheer magnitude of what's unfolding. Finally, John Toll's crisp, tonal cinematography a nice addition to the film, giving it a unique look while still maintaing control in the midst of the action sequences.

Now, while Iron Man 3 does have a good few things going for it, the film is also deeply flawed, and not just when it comes down to the script (admittedly, my usual source of grievances), but also when it comes down to the editing and the music. While many of the fanboys are losing their shit over The Mandarin, my issue is that despite it containing Black's obvious way with dialogue, it's still a bloated film that has too much exposition and ended numbing me. Also, some of it moves in predictable ways, in that I knew where some of it was going (not The Mandarin, granted) before it happened. This problem is also down to the editing. Many of the scenes go on way too long where they simply should have been cut. Even a mere couple of minutes could have been cut if expository 'ooh, look at that!' actorly glances were omitted. Another aspect of the film that took away from the film was the original score by Bryan Tyler. Although nowhere near as horrendous as Steve Jablonsky, Tyler has developed this trademark of honking histrionics that attempt to give the film's he scores a power and legitimacy. In the past it has worked (Frailty, Bubba Ho-tep, The Hunted, Bug, Rambo), but here as with a number of his recent compositions it comes across as overly grandiose, full of pomp and circumstance that just isn't necessary. I like some of Tyler's work, but here it was just too much, and marks 2013's return of the Emotional Heartstrings Orchestra (EHO).

Alright, so here we go, concluisio on Iron Man 3. Shane Black is a welcome addition to the Marvel franchise, giving the film an energy, Downey, Jr., Pearce and particularly Kingsley deliver strong performances and it has tremendous special effects, mise-en-scene and cinematography from John Toll. However much it has going for it, Iron Man also has significant flaws in the script and editing departments, which make it baggy, over-expository and too long, and Brian Tyler's score is full of too much unnecessary pomp and circumstance, marking the return of the EHO. More good than bad, but still a bit a mixed bag.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Hot (unusually warm weather in my neck of the woods)

P.S. If this movie is set around Christmas, surely it should come out during the 'Holiday Season' as they call it in the States?

Iron Man 3 Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Evil Dead

Directed by: Fede Alvarez

Produced by: Rob Tapert

Sam Raimi

Bruce Campbell

Screenplay by: Fede Alvarez

Rodo Sayagues

Starring: Jane Levy

Shiloh Fernandez

Lou Taylor Pucci

Jessica Lucas

Elizabeth Blackmore

Original Music by: Roque Banos

Cinematography by: Aaron Morton

Editing by: Bryan Shaw

Studio(s): Ghost House Pictures

FilmDistrict

Distributed by: Sony Pictures Entertainment (International)

TriStar Pictures (United States)

Release date(s): March 8, 2013 (South By Southwest Film Festival)

April 5, 2013 (United States)

April 18, 2013 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 92 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Production budget: $17 million

Box office revenue: $81, 993, 674

Told you so! With regards to the reviews, in my short time back I've already been keeping pretty busy in getting up to scratch with the whole shebang. A window for cinema listings in Belfast is constantly open on my computer, and in the past couple of days, I've got down to seeing Iron Man 3 and The Hangover Part III (sequels abound!), and expect to see more along the lines of The Great Gatsby, Fast And Furious 6 and Star Trek Into Darkness in the next week. So, for all the latest yadda, keep your eyes posted!

The second of two films I saw during my leave of absence was this one, Evil Dead, the 2013 reboot of Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy. For those of you don't know, I'm generally against the concept of remakes as a whole, for I feel that although they claim to be doing something different (more gore, nudity, drug use, blah blah!), they more often than not retread the same waters as the original and do nothing that they hadn't done already better. Take for instance that wretched Nightmare On Elm Street from a few years ago, the best thing to come out of that being that Rooney Mara had her first major lead role and has went on to be a fine actress. For Evil Dead, Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Rob Tapert (producer of the original films) are on board, and relatively unknown director Uruguayan director Fede Alvarez, who has made a number of short films in the past, was hand-picked to helm this project. Story wise, Evil Dead takes the central premise of the original, a group of young people out in a cabin in the woods (most recently subverted by last year's terrific The Cabin In The Woods), and works from there. Shall we dance?

To start with the good, I must say that I admire and respect the direction that Fede Alvarez and co-writer Rodo Sayagues have taken with this Evil Dead. The cabin in the woods premise is just that, a premise from which to build the picture from the ground up, as much of the proceedings evolve from taking this well-tread story into new places. The staging of this location as a borderline intervention for the character of Mia (Jane Levy), whose character has a history of drug addiction, automatically puts to question what is unfolding before the audience, making an interesting dynamic, given that Mia is the character whose perspective we see the picture from. In a tremendous star-making turn, Levy goes through a complete assault of the senses, physically, psychologically, literally, metaphorically, and carries the legitimacy of the piece on her shoulders. She plays a fine twist on the conventional 'scream queen' trope, depicting the conflict of Mia, confident in her plight and yet vulnerably prone to withdrawal symptoms, with an intelligence that goes beyond what one would generally expect from even the best of horror films. Lily Collins was originally signed to play the part, but frankly it would be hard to imagine anyone else doing the part of Mia after this performance, more proof that horror films are still a bastion for great performances for emerging young actresses, as opposed to the radical feminist critique of them being cast on the basis of exploitative titillation. Total unadulterated savagery is the name of the game here, and boy is it done with gravitas. Aaron Morton's cinematography is toned appropriately in terms of lighting, capturing the murky grime and dirt of the film's central location. Also, the editing by Bryan Shaw takes a page from some of the toughest films identified with the movement in French horror cinema known as New French Extremity. Shaw seems to take the part of Michael Myers in this process, approaching the editing as though he is stabbing through reels of film at the prospective audience. The original score by Roque Banos is another marvellous bit of work attached to this film. It takes traditional melodies and rhythm, but perverts them with a brutally heavy score that at once invokes the likes of Ministry's industrial force, Piere Schaffer's musique concrete experiments and the Messa De Requiem of Guiseppe Verdi. The vocals used throughout the film in particular have an in extremis feel, pushed to the nth degree of human possibility. The quieter pieces also have a very Trent Reznor sound in terms of the piano being used as a harmony of the heart rising to the cloud of foreboding tension that envelops the film's characters. Finally, Raimi and co have most definitely made the right choice in having Fede Alvarez nurture their baby. His decisions, such as following the original's effects consisting primarily of physical make-up, give the film a genuine sense of cerebral power. The make-up of this film is realistic and does everything to help make us 'believe' in what is going on, flesh and bone severed with suitable aplomb, and just the sheer amount of dirt on the characters, who go through hell (something often invoked in reviews, but here appropriate) during the course of the film. It's an enterprise of physical horror the likes of which is not often seen in mainstream films. Alvarez directs the picture with the natural confidence of a genre veteran and follows through with conviction on his artistic intent, delivering one of the finest and flat-out vicious examples of recent horror cinema.

Now, much as I loved this incarnation of Evil Dead, there is one particular problem (relatively small, granted) that deny this great film the status of outright masterpiece. The raison d'etre? Well, as far as characters are concerned, unlike the well-developed complexity of Mia, the rest of the characters unfortunately serve as fodder for some of the film's plentiful gruesome scenes. As such, while what they go through is unquestionably horrible, it lacks the weight necessary for us to empathise and get beyond the 'Holy Shit!' gut reaction. I remember when I saw the film with my esteemed colleague over at Danland Movies at one point trying to figure out how many lines Natalie (the blonde one) spoken or if indeed she had vocalised at any point before her proverbial 'scene of focused depravity.' We are unable to view these characters beyond this level, and I've taken to preferring to view them as manifestations of Mia's chaotic psychological state as opposed to anything physical, whether or not that is the filmmakers' intent.

Above and beyond four of the main characters being the caricature of Davy Jones' "chameleon, comedian, corinthian and (you get the point)...," Evil Dead is one of the strongest outings in recent horror cinema. It takes the central premise and goes completely in it's own direction, with the character of Mia having a lot of complexity, with Jane Levy delivering a terrific star-making performance. The savage aestheticism of the film is complimented in the departments of cinematography, editing, production design and original score, all of which contribute to the hellish atmosphere of the picture. Finally, Fede Alvarez was the perfect choice for directing this picture, his decisions, particularly going ahead with the tough physical make-up effects, give the film a real cerebral quality, and this, his debut film, is directed with confidence and conviction. As mentioned, I saw this with ma big homie over at Danland Movies, and, being big fans of the original, we were given a more than pleasant surprise and one of the most fun times I can remember having at the cinema. Both of us were reacting in a way most movies can never dream of having their audiences do, so, under the pretence that we represent the greater public of cinema-going (when I for one exist in a vacuum!), Evil Dead works. In a word: groovy!

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Groovy! (I'll shut up now!)

Evil Dead Trailer

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Good Vibrations

Directed by: Lisa Barros D'Sa

Glenn Leyburn

Produced by: Chris Martin

Andrew Eaton

David Holmes

Bruno Charlesworth

Screenplay by: Colin Carberry

Glenn Patterson

Starring: Richard Dormer

Jodie Whittaker

Michael Colgan

Adrian Dunbar

Liam Cunningham

Dylan Moran

Karl Johnson

 Original Music by: David Holmes

Cinematography by: Ivan McCullough

Editing by: Nick Emerson

Studio(s): Canderblinks Film and Music

Revolution Films

Northern Ireland Screen

Irish Film Board

Distributed by: The Works

Release date(s): May 31, 2012 (Belfast Film Festival Premiere)

March 29, 2013 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 103 minutes

Country: Northern Ireland

Language: English

Production budget: N/A

Box office revenue (as of publication): N/A

I'm ba-aaaaaaaaaaaaa-ck! After my annual leave of absence (which was absolutely necessary this year, as opposed to born out of laziness. Finished University, warranted Scout Leader, First Response/First Aid trained, NCFE qualified and pending-SIA licence, ran a leg of the Belfast Marathon a lot has happened), despite there being a bit of rust, there's nothing a good few movies can't do to grease these gears and get them grinding again. Many of the big film festivals (including Cannes and Berlin of 'The Big Three,' and the US's Sundance, among others) have been and gone, and we open up this year of reviewing right in the middle of Summer Blockbuster Season, so, for all the latest in movie news, reviews and my own personal spews, keep your eyes posted!

So, today (and perhaps tomorrow: who knows? More to the point, who cares?!) we'll having a look at Good Vibrations. During my leave of absence, I saw only two films, this and The Evil Dead (more of which soon), and this was one of my many intrepid endeavours to The Strand cinema. Good Vibrations isn't a bad place to start, as it's a movie rather close to home. Growing up in post-Troubles East Belfast and being a fan of punk (more post-punk in truth) from the period in which this film is set, I thought it would be a good challenge as to whether or not I'd look upon the film with rose-tinted glasses. Set in Belfast during the 1970s, a turbulent period for the city and the country as a whole, we follow Terri Hooley (Richard Dormer), a rabid music lover who decides to open up a record store, the eponymous Good Vibrations, on Great Victoria Street of all places, and he unwittingly becomes a figurehead for the emergence of punk and an alternative Ulster.

To start with the good about Good Vibrations (terrible phrase there, I know), I must compliment the lead acting performance by Richard Dormer. The actor's history in the theatre lends itself to the 'character' of Terri Hooley, elevating him outside of the realm of the average biopic. It's a wise move, working to the film's benefit and serves as a kind of self-mythologising of the story. Dormer has this manic charisma that is very charming and engaging, his Hooley being an almost evangelical preacher in his endeavours to promote the local flavour with his record store. You nearly from the get-go accept him as his part, and when you watch him ramble on with glee about these young bands, Dormer plays it down the line so you're not sure if he's a genius or genuinely insane. From the supporting standpoint, Jodie Whittaker is very good as Hooley's wife Ruth. Whittaker carries much of the same spirit of Dormer, but plays things a bit more subtle, befitting her pragmatist character. To me, she is the real heart of the film, at least philosophically, and Whittaker does a fine job of depicting the conflict between dreams and reality. Of course, with it being a movie about music, you'd expect to sound good, and that it certainly does. You've got work from local bands of the moment, such as Rudi, The Outcasts, Stiff Little Fingers and, of course, the monumental Teenage Kicks by The Undertones. One of the things that the movie does rather well is capture the power of music, in a strong sequence depicting in real-time the original John Peel Radio 1 broadcast of the track. You also have appearances from The Shragri-Las (one of Hooley's favourite bands), David Bowie and the mighty band from the other side of the Atlantic during New York's No Wave scene, Suicide, whose Dream Baby Dream is the basis for a strong montage. Most films would benefit having Suicide on their soundtracks, so, yes, it's music and it's subjective, but I was very happy at that particular inclusion. Also, for a low-budget period film, it certainly captures a period feel. I can tell that Belfast City Centre looks a lot different from how it looked ten years ago, never mind thirty, but the filmmakers haven't let that hinder them. It's also a well-shot picture, Ivan McCullough capturing the drabness of the environment, giving it at it's best moments an almost noir feel in terms of atmosphere. Good Vibrations is a mostly solid picture that's at times heartwarming, but also humorous and entertaining.

Now, while I feel Good Vibrations is a largely solid film, there are a couple of issues I'd like to flag up, a number of which emerge from the script. Written by Colin Carberry and prominent Belfast author Glenn Patterson, the script is pretty consistent for the most part, but dovetails as we reach the third act. Strangely, Carberry and Patterson decide to pack all of the conflict and trials into the third act, giving Hooley a borderline cult of personality that doesn't work. Constant partying and extravagance don't make up for the fact that the character is being a bit of a bastard to his wife and child, an arc which given little to no room to breath, and completely glosses over any semblance of three-dimensionality. As a result of this packing of material into a relatively short space of time, the climax does not work. It made me think of the climax of Purple Rain, but what made the climatic scenes of that film work was that Prince's character The Kid has an emotional development from start-to-finish. Here, it just comes across as rushed and sloppy pasted on after the film's true emotional climax of Teenage Kicks. 

Well, it seemed like I was able to objectively look at this without the rose-tinted glasses alright. The third act of Good Vibrations is deeply flawed and threatens to see the movie commit an act of self-cannibalisation. However, I found that ultimately it has more good than bad going for it. Richard Dormer delivers a terrific lead performance, with Jodie Whittaker buttressing the film's emotional conflict(s). The film's soundtrack is excellent, not just a capsulation of the times but also placed appropriately, serving as much than simple historical standpoints. Despite the low-budget, the filmmakers have managed to establish the 1970s Belfast period look, and cinematographer Ivan McCullough captures the atmosphere, giving it almost noir feel. Good Vibrations has it's flaws, and is by no means Northern Ireland's This Is England or NEDS, but it's a mostly solid film that's worth watching and pretty entertaining.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.0/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Feeling the buzz (going for a double-bill at The Strand later!)

P.S. Check out my new QuickMemes page at http://www.quickmeme.com/user/snoopcallymac/

Good Vibrations Trailer