Seven Pounds

*Contains emotionally intense scenes. They're not kidding. I was bawling my eyes out at the end.

Some fabulous performances from Will Smith, Rosario Dawson and a rather under-used Woody Harrelson.

OQ: It's time.
Score: A+

Defiance

This was the finale of my marathon film weekend and the second to feature World War II. Actually I wasn't going to see it this weekend, but as I was leaving Seven Pounds on Sunday, I bumped into a couple of friends who were on their way in to this, and I decided to take full advantage of my Unlimited card and not return home to play XBox as I had originally intended.

It's a fantastic story, made all the more amazing for being true. A group of Belorussian Jews flee the German death squads and set up camp in a forest. I found the story does focus more on one of the brothers, played by Daniel Craig, to the detriment of the other brother's story.

The only downside to the film is that because it is mostly shot in a forest, there are parts of the film that end up looking like they were done on the cheap. The ending is a little bit Hollywood, but then I can't say with any confidence that's not what actually happened.

Score: B-
OQ: Every day is like an act of faith.

Valkyrie

The first in what turned out to be another marathon film weekend.

Saturday, and what turned out to be a very popular Tom Cruise film. The queue to get in was enormous! It was out the bloody door!

For what seems like a long time Cruise's films have suffered from what has affectionately been termed the "Tom Cruise Effect". This usually results in people not liking the film and giving it bad reviews simply because Tom Cruise is in it. It's an effect I first found out about when I wrote a review of War of the Worlds.

However, Cruise has finally found a way around this in Valkyrie. People aren't giving it bad reviews because Tom Cruise is in it. They're giving it bad reviews because it's historically inaccurate!

Not that most people will probably realise this. The few parts of the assassination plot that I remembered from school were all present. In any case, historical accuracy is all a matter of perspective and balance. Completely accurate historical films are called documentaries. Almost any other film has to, at some point, deviate from the historical record in order to tell the story well.

What was more interesting was the performances from Cruise, Bill Nighly, Tom Wilkinson, Eddie Izzard and Terence Stamp. The story of how small details built up into unsurmountable obstacles.

OK, so half the time you can tell that Tom has just shoved one hand up his sleeve and is folding two fingers into his palm to play the injured Stauffenberg. But a film that held a minutes silence before every day's shooting in his memory isn't going to take massive liberties with the truth.

Score: B-
OQ: We have to show the world that not all of us are like him.
Trivia: The June 20th assassination plot was the last of the fifteen known attempts on Hitler's life.
You'd think he'd get the hint after the first five or so, wouldn't you?

The Wrestler

Hmm...

I think my comments to my sister as we were leaving summed this up. I'm glad I saw it, but I can't say I enjoyed it.

The talent on display is quite impressive. I was a little worried by the marketing blurb that Mickey Rourke gives the performance of his career, since it's a little like saying Aaron Eckart's performance in The Dark Knight was better than in The Core. It's not saying much. Cheese left out in the sun for three days gives a better performance that Aaron Eckart did in The Core. The phrase can be interpreted in different ways.

The trailer leads you to believe that it's a "Man screws up in the past, then gets his life back together" movie. It's not.

Still, it was very emotive. Powerful performances from many of the cast, and Mickey Rourke does a very good job portraying his character. He conveys the emotions superbly.

A little squeamish in places, and with an odd mixture of camera styles. Sometimes it's very documentary with the camera following a character and all you see is their back, other times it's very cinematic, panning around and showing the characters in a landscape.

Totally impossible to score on the Saxon Film Scale, and not one that I can think of a suitable quote for.

The Spirit

I suppose if I'd ever read any of the comics graphic novels beforehand then this might have made more sense to me. As it was, I had to piece together the back-story as I went along. This is no bad thing, it avoids the dreaded "info dump" that so many films use to let the audience know where the hero comes from, but I felt that without this meticulous piecing together of back-story and motiviations for hero and villain that the film would have been much, much shorter. The basic story boiling down to

1. Bad guy wants something.
2. There's an accidental complication.
3. Bad guy gets thing.
4. Hero thwarts him.

While Samuel L. Jackson isn't half bad as the villain, and certainly better than he was in Jumper, I can't help but feel this is mostly because of the well written script and the tight direction of Frank Miller.

The graphic novel touches are easy to spot. Not just the occasional decent into black and while with a splash of red tie, but also in the visual metaphors, like Eva Mendes' locket being a symbol that she still remembers her roots and her love for the hero.

Overall I can't really fault it, it's a comic book come to life. The visuals are very stylish and the acting is decent, but there's nothing desperately new to see and the plot's been done a thousand times before.

Score: A disappointing C+

The Black Hole (1979)

Recorded this a week or so ago, but only just get round to watching it.

If I tell you that it's a sci-fi film from 1979, you might jump to the conclusion that it's a Star Wars cash in. And you would be right, but put that to one side for the moment because it is important to realise that after Star Wars, everyone was churning out space movies* and most of them were just dire. Even some of the "purer" sci-fi moves were abysmal. However this is a Disney movie, their first to get a PG certificate and the last they made under the old classic model of film making, in which the studio produced all the models, props and special effects, so you know it's going to be the best they could achieve at the time. It was certainly a very expensive movie to make.

Story: A survey ship, The Palomino, discovers a giant black hole and a bit of a mystery. Sitting next to the black hole, impossibly holding its position against the most powerful force in the universe is a derelict starship, the USS Cygnus, missing for twenty years. Suddenly the ship lights up, and forced to dock after being damaged, they discover a ship run by robots and commanded by Dr. Hans Reinhardt**, who claims the crew abandoned ship years ago.

But incongruences start to appear in the story. Captain Holland sees one of the robots limping, and Lt. Pizer witnesses a "funeral" for one of the robots.

For me, the most memorable part of this film from my childhood was the robots. An uncredited Roddy MacDowell plays the voice of V.I.N.CENT remarkably well, with Slim Pickens taking the voice of B.O.B. You might be forgiven for thinking that South Park stole the look and feel of them to create their characters.

Score: C+ Good film, but time has not been kind to it. Well worth a watch to see one of the better Star Wars cash in movies.

OQ:

V.I.N.CENT: To quote Cicero: rashness is the characteristic of youth, prudence that of mellowed age, and discretion the better part of valour.
Lieutenant Charles Pizer: Vincent, were you programmed to bug me?
V.I.N.CENT: No sir, to educate you.

To film the special effects, Disney originally wanted to rent the Dykstraflex camera system (the first computer-controlled camera) from Industrial Light & Magic. However, the price and rental terms were unacceptable so Disney went to its acclaimed engineering division to come up with its own version. What resulted was Disney's A.C.E.S. (Automated Camera Effects System), which was radically superior to the Dykstraflex system; the Mattescan system, which enabled the camera to move on a matte painting (that was previously impossible); and a computer-controlled modelling stand. At the time, this put Disney technologically ahead of ILM.

At the time of its release, the movie featured the longest computer graphics sequence that had ever appeared in a film.

The character of V.I.N.CENT. was originally to have more elaborate electronic eyes (based on electronic stock ticker-type billboards), which would have given him a greater range of facial expressions. Unfortunately, the electro-mechanical eyes simply didn't work properly and the effect was abandoned at the beginning of principal photography.

The laser pistols originally had light up tips that would activate when the actors pressed the trigger, thus giving the animators cues as to when someone was actually firing the guns. This proved to be a problem however because the actors would unconsciously press the triggers when they were not supposed to often times inadvertently shooting cast members.

During the climactic escape from the Cygnus, the survivors scramble out into the vacuum of space to board the probe ship without any protective suits. Pizer even needs to be rescued from flying away into space, but no one asphyxiates from lack of oxygen. Reportedly, space suits were indeed designed for the sequence, but the cast refused to wear them because of how they looked.

*Not sci-fi, you understand. These were mostly just movies set in space.
**You just know with a name of Hans, he's going to be evil.

Taken

"The best action film since Bourne," says the marketing blurb. And for once they're not entirely wrong.

Taken is quite similar to the Bourne films in the way it is shot, so if you liked them, chances are you'll like this. My friend said it's basically Man On Fire meets Bourne, which is probably a fair assessment.

Liam Neeson is a great choice for the lead. He has the range to handle the emotionally charged scenes, but the action and fight scenes are something entirely new for him to play with and he excels in these. The fights are a little more violent than Bourne, but there's never any blood. Strangely I felt this added to the realism.

The background with the CIA is covered in a rather clunky and awkward scene with him reminiscing with his friends at a barbecue. But this can be forgiven because it is important to get it out of the way and get on with the story. All you need to know about his past is covered quickly in a few lines of dialogue.

As his search for his daughter intensifies, his increasing desperation is portrayed very well. He uses every contact, calls in every favour, burns every bridge.

Plot hole count: One.
My friend asked at the end "How did he get out of France?" I don't think this is a plothole in itself, given the character's background. But an interesting question is "Why didn't his friends go with him to help?" The answer being: because then it would have been a whole different animal, and personally I'm not sure I'd want to watch that. Seeing one man being ruthless in the pursuit of his daughter's kidnappers is one thing. Seeing a bunch of men being ruthless in the same pursuit is something else.

Score: A
It's rare I score anything an A, but I thoroughly enjoyed this and the cameo by Holly Valance pushed it over the B+ mark.

OQ: Please apologise to your wife for me*.

*Sounds like the dullest quote ever. Is actually a great scene.