Ant Reviews: This Means War (2012)

I love you Tom Hardy

Left with nothing to do but pass some time, I decided to watch a movie just to keep my current releases up to date. Do I watch Contraband? I already know that Mark Wahlberg will steal the money for Giovanni Ribisi, who’ll probably double cross them and he’ll have to rescue them and whatever. Safehouse? I already know that Brendan Gleeson is the villain from the trailer, like the twist is the bad guy is the bureaucrat that Ryan Reynolds is working for. The Killer Elite? A little  better, but the closest session was too far away. I will have to say that I seriously considered watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy again for the third time. Perhaps I should have.

My last choice was then This Means War. It contains two of my favourite leading men, Chris Pine and Tom Hardy. Reese Witherspoon doesn’t particularly impress me, I hadn’t seen a whole movie with her in it since Cruel Intentions, though I did watch a few minutes of Sweet Home Alabama. I don’t find her alluring or sexy, she’s a good looking woman to be sure, and a competent actress, but personally I loose my mind over her like the two characters do in the film.

I suppose that’s strike one against credibility in the film. The plot is simple: two spies end up dating the same woman, and compete to see who it is that gets her in the end. And there we have strike number two: I’ve never found myself in a position where I was competing for a woman with my best friend. I can say with some certainty that either of both of us would back off the girl for the sake of friendship. Bros before Hos, as they say.

My guard was down. I wasn’t expecting anything great, and really was watching the film to see Tom Hardy and what he does in a romantic lead. I’ve known about him for a while; having seen him in Star Trek Nemesis at a young age, I was wondering why they’d give such an important role to an unknown. He must have been talented, I thought, and he was. He was also in Black Hawk Down, but in uniform, in the dark with about two other young men that looked a lot like him, so its difficult to remember which one he was. Was he the one with the leg wound or the one holding him down or the medic fixing it?

 There are a few Hardy films I’ve yet to see, one is Bronson and the other is Warrior, both of which I’m keen to check out. There came a point with Bronson, where he’d transformed himself into this hulking beast (which he’s done again for Dark Knight Rises) and I was under the impression that this is what he does now, big character roles where he changes his entire appearance. I have to say that he looks different in every role, and here, though he’s very normal, he looks nothing like he looked in Inception or even Rock N’ Rolla.

But I’m happy to announce that Tom Hardy is the greatest thing in this movie. It’s a great test for the A-list, as most big stars have to drudge through romantic comedies before they’re really big, so its good they’ll be an A-lister leading man that can really handle everything, from monstrous villains to handsome romantic leads convincingly. He filled his lovelorn character with charm and gravitas, and elevated the material somewhat. He even convincingly sells some awkward lines. It was great spending time with the character, and Hardy is deft with comedic timing. Just like in Inception he steals every scene he’s in.

This Means War is no doubt a flawed film, but what struck me most is the tenuous relationship the film has with reality.  The main characters are called Tuck and FDR (?) and as I mentioned, if you can get over how two bros can fuck each other over you can accept the film more.  Pretty much every main character is a scoundrel, and makes horrible decisions; it’s difficult to find any kind of sympathy for the characters, with the exception of Hardy, for the most part. None of the situations or interactions ring true with reality, which is something I feel is a symptom of McG’s films. The Charlies Angels films were high camp, and Terminator Salvation, with its impressive spectacle at times, had characters and situations I found very difficult to relate too.

Perhaps that’s the nature of the game. The whole thing is a female fantasy. The same way a man watches a porno and fantasises that a powerful and satisfying sexual encounter can come so easily and with so many willing partners is as false and as fantastical as the idea that a woman, just by virtue of her being there, has two gorgeous men to choose from. I had also read that with romantic films the professions of the main characters were as if a teen imagined what they’d be like as an adult, devoid of the pressures and disappointments of reality. This film has that, Reese Witherspoon is a product tester that uses a flamethrower on frypans in a colourful lab, Tuck and FDR hit on models at parties before shootouts. That’s something I recognised from years of watching Alias: non-descript villains, terrorists or spies with no political or national connection to any real-world enemies of the west, attending lavish parties in foreign countries. Lavish parties are always a great way for the protagonists to dress up and mingle while hip music plays. It’s a strange, unrealistic conceit. There’s no building up of a legend for the spy to use, no months of intell and confidence work to move up through the ranks of a terrorist organization, no, it’s all Audi sports cars and nightclubs.

But there is something I noticed in Chelsea Handlers character. She has a large role as Witherspoon’s best friend and confidant, with strange, obscene (sometimes clipped) phrases peppered throughout the script. Handler is strangely wooden, but from what I’ve seen of her that deadpan delivery is her style. I imagine a lot of her lines were improvised, and it lead me to realise that pretty much the whole main cast is either playing themselves or playing characters they’re known for to an extent. Witherspoon plays possible the a-typical female romantic comedy lead typical of the post-Meg Ryan era. I think they cast Handler right off her show with little direction and Hardy seems pretty much like himself, which makes me want to meet him all the more, he seems nice.

But with Chris Pine you have a massive arsehole. I don’t think he’s a prick in real life, but he does play those handsome arrogant frat boy characters a lot. Whereas in something like the excellent Carriers his arrogant frat boy is given some depth, here he’s a prick all the way, and the film just confirms that happiness will always be bestowed on those who don’t want nor need it.

SPOILER

I suppose I should mention here just how despicable the characters are, in particular Pine’s character. He’s the lecherous douchebag who sleeps around, while Tom Hardy wants something long term and meaningful with a spouse, so he signs up for online dating and meets Witherspoon. Then Pine picks her up ina  DVD store. They all start dating and Pine develops feelings, despite the fact that his best friend bagged her first, in a manner of speaking. There’s one scene where he’s alone I his apartment and he gets a booty call from a hot Australian flight attendant, which he turns down because he’s developed feelings for Witherspoon. Add to that he fucked her when he said he wouldn’t. Then in the end it turns out that he fucked Hardy’s wife (with whom he’s had a kid with, broken up and reconciled) once in the past and that Hardy never fucked Witherspoon as we were led to believe, so Pine has smashed his dick into everything. A petty thing to take umbrage with, but when the whole film is about a competition between two men it’s hard not to notice when someone wins and another looses. The film then ends with them fighting. I’m reminded of Chronicle, where the character you relate to the most gets fucked over but the guy who’s a dick wins in the end.

It lead me to think again of the female fantasy. It is said that many women want to date bad boys because they think they can change them and make them monogamous, more into what they want them to be. I think the reason why Witherspoon chooses Pine in the end is for that reason. He’s a debauched ladies man, and she wants him faithful and committed, while Hardy WANTS commitment, has a son of his own and WANTS to settle down; there’s nothing for her to change or manipulate. A misogynistic thought perhaps, and I know for sure that I’m reading too deeply into something that’s not designed to be read into, but there you go. Oh, and there’s a point I was thinking in regards to people that, when they have a kid and break up, Middle America and Hollywood demand that they get back together and form a nuclear family again. Tuck cant have a child with an ex and start a new one with Witherspoon, that wouldn’t be proper. For a better explanation of that and how that’s annoying, read this.

SPOILERS END

So yeah, the film overall had some funny moments, some inappropriate scenes. And while the film wasn’t great by any stretch of the imagination, I didn’t have a bad time watching it, truth be told. That’s mainly because of Tom Hardy, adding the right level of engagement. I was annoyed when he wasn’t around, and wanted desperately for him to say “Everything the Circus thinks is gold is shit” into a reel-to-reel machine again and again (that’s a bit inside, but still). It won’t ruin your day to watch it, but it is strangely dark to an extent, what with all the strange, lecherous characters on display. And I have to say, even as a straight man, I’d let Tom Hardy kiss me on the mouth. I’m just saying.

**stars.

Ant Reviews: Shame (2011)

I saw this movie on the morning of Valentine’s Day. A movie about people who can’t find meaningful human attachments? Something I can relate to, YERR.

Shame is a movie about sexual addiction. Brandon (Michael Fassbender at his career-best) lives a chic New York life alone, dealing with his desires in private until his sister Sissy (expertly performed by Carey Mulligan) crashes his party and he’s forced to take her in. Against her he measures his life, and as that intangible, elusive normality rears it head Brandon finds he’s yearning for something more meaningful than the life he’s created. Its in this yearning for normality Brandon experiences the titular Shame.

 I like to think I know a little about sexual addiction. I’ve read My Booky Wook by Russell Brand, which touched on his various addictions, including his addiction to sex. I took umbrage with the media’ portrayal of this when publicising both Brand and the book; they made it seem as if his addiction was glamorous and sexy. A good-looking guy goes around fucking all the time, what’s not to like? I imagine that this portrayal was played more to his female fans, and no doubt those in the media were keen to simply mention Brand and sex in the same sentence. It was brought up a lot in interviews, and still is today. Sexual addiction is a serious topic, and is dealt with as such in his book. In Philadelphia he was in a sexual addiction clinic, alongside paedophiles and a man who had sex with his teen daughter. It wasn’t this groovy sexy place that the media seemed to make out it was, it was dark and dirty and unpleasant.

Likewise the stories I’d heard of comedian Jim Norton’s sexual addiction. Many times on the Opie and Anthony Show he’s publically discussed his addiction, whether through comedy or during more serious talks. I’ve found them as dark as they are humours or enlightening. The re-occurring theme here I’ve found in these comedians’ tales of addiction is that sexual addiction, in my limited knowledge, begins in two places. For Jim Norton, Bob Kelly and Russell Brand, sexual addiction comes after a rejection to alcoholism and drug abuse - addiction mutating into a new form. The other point of origin begins in the past, where an adult cruelly and selfishly interferes with a child. This sexual abuse affects the victim’s interactions as an adult, which is suggested here in Shame.

Brandon and his sister Sissy share a dark past as children. That chapter in their lives skewed their view of love and sex, with Brandon seeking sensation while Sissy desperately seeks love and affection. This ruins their personal lives, and the two occupy a space as damaged yin and yang. Their interactions change from heart-warming to difficult to watch, dysfunctional and painful. Both struggle with their emotions for each other, and I found myself relating to their interactions on a personal level. All of it is handled very well.

Brandon leads an enviable life. He has one of those no-name office jobs, one that pays well and seemingly has lots of free time. I mention this because it’s an oft-used conceit of romantic comedies. As adults we are forever linked to our professions, and for a film to focus on one’s private life their professional life must sit comfortably and unobtrusively in the background. Brandon is a runner who enjoys classic music played on vinyl records. This sophisticated element to his life juxtaposes the filth of his private life, a device employed in Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, where the violent sexual side of Alex DeLarge is offset by the culture and sophistication of classical music.

Perhaps this is what I (kind of) disliked about the film. Brandon leads such a nice life, he does things that most men (even men in the film) wish they could do, in his simple, eye-to-eye seduction. His sexiness is effortless, and again with the aforementioned moneyed lifestyle he displays, I don’t find anything particularly wrong with his life. I mean, the major complication in the film is his sister inserting herself into his life, which begins his soul-searching and desire for more, but still, this wasn’t the shameful life I was expecting.

There were stories that Jim Norton has mentioned about how he has had unprotected sex in the back seat of his car with a transvestite in Jersey City. Or the times he’s had to have sex with a hooker in his car, parked in his parents driveway, so as not to wake them up. This was the smut I was thinking I was going to see in this film, and while it does indeed get pretty rough at the end, Brandon only feels shame once his sister’s around. Perhaps it would have been more of a powerful statement if he felt the need to change of his own volition due to his lifestyle. That he had a sobering moment, a moment of clarity that changed him. It would also have been interesting to see a film about sexual addiction where the addict had a hard time getting what he wanted, for with Brandon it’s in no short supply.

And with that I should mention that I wanted the film to be smuttier. I, like most men my age, have surfed for porn on the web through sites that are essentially YouTube for porn. I’d discussed this with my friends; there are moments, usually after climax, when you clearly understand what it is you’re doing, what you’re looking at. To paraphrase Patrice Oneal, you’ve gotten ‘too many clicks in’ from where you started. (My personal stories don’t compare to what my friends have seen, one of which recalls seeing track marks on the arm of the girl in one video.)  I’m not talking about anything dark or illegal, simply that the level of smut, after the sexual feelings subside, is too intense to accept. Sometimes it’s the video itself; most often it’s the ads or the thumbnail links to other videos. It gets reduced to just shots of genitals and fluids and unrealistic, almost abusive situations. Most porn, in my limited experience, is devoid of intimacy, affection or any real context. I’d only ever seen one porno with any kind of story or acting, and it was more humorous than anything else.

That was what I was expecting from Steve McQueen. I’d watched his first film Hunger in fast forward for certain sequences. Not to say it’s a bad movie, rather it’s intense and difficult to stomach. It was incredibly uncomfortable to watch someone slowly die of starvation, and the long, lingering shots left me feeling equally sick and lethargic. So going into this film, with other critics talking of intensity, I was thinking I was going to feel the shame that Brandon feels, to an extent. That I would be leaving the theatre with the feeling smutty and filthy, the way I had felt in my younger days when I surfed for porn more frequently, that realization that sex is unglamorous and ugly. There were a few moments where we see Brandon watching porn, not getting off but simply exposing himself to sex. I’d heard Jim Norton talk about this a few times, where he just simply had to see it more than anything else, so these moments ring true. There was also discussion of what is on Brandon’s work computer, and how disgusting that stuff was. I was interested as to what it was he was seeing, how bad and how deep he was into stuff, but such is the constraints of a mainstream film. 

So I have to say that my reaction to this film is highly gendered, and I wonder a woman thinks of this film. Aside from the obvious attraction to Michael Fassbender, which many women share, what do they think of his antics? Would their opinion be different if the film starred someone like Jim Norton as opposed to a sex symbol (no offense Jim). As I’ve said, he leads a life that most men, myself included, would envy. His sex addiction, constant masturbating and porn consumption, what would a woman think of that? Most women don’t watch porn nearly half as much as men do, and as I’ve admitted, most men have been (sometimes willingly) exposed to smut on a level that they regret, so in what ways would a woman react?

This doesn’t mean I hate the movie. Not at all actually, and in comparison to the last Fassbender/McQueen collaboration, this film is much, much more watchable. The cinematography is beautiful pared with beautiful music. The cast is watchable and the situations, while emotionally confronting, are ultimately fascinating and engaging. Not the best movie to see with a group of mates, or with a date, but if you’re a guy its interesting to compare your personal obsession with sex with Brandon’s and see if you’ve got a problem.

****stars

Ant Reviews: Chronicle (2012)

…Ain’t about the (ha) Cha-Ching Cha-Ching.
Aint about the (yeah) Ba-Bling Ba-Bling
Wanna make the wooorld dance….

So I complain about the constant youtube ads for Chronicle on my Facebook. Then my friend Roma calls and complains that he, too, is getting annoyed that every time he watches something on youtube he’s forced to watch 15 seconds of that damn mini trailer. We both hate the use of that Jessie J song, just that little snippet. The one that goes

…Ain’t about the (ha) Cha-ChingCha-Ching.
Aint about the (yeah) Ba-Bling Ba-Bling
Wanna make the world dance….

And how every time we have to watch a youtube clip we end up with that infernal song stuck in our heads. It’s not just the song that’s annoying, it’s that little tiny sliver of the chorus that really fucking gets to me. Roma says he hates the bit when Michael B. Jordan goes ‘YEAH’ just after that little bit. I was starting to really hate the dimples in Alex Russell’s cheeks, and how he rubs his fingers as if to say MONEH. No fault to him or the film makers, it was just a simple laugh in the film, overblown to excessive extremes in (what is now) a successful internet marketing campaign. But Roma and I couldn’t help but hear that fucking song, just that little clip of the chorus, playing over and over and over again as we watched the film. And I’m not exaggerating.

…Ain’t about the (ha) Cha-Ching Cha-Ching.
Aint about the (yeah) Ba-Bling Ba-Bling
Wanna make the wooorld dance….

 So just to let you know, that’s where I’m coming from when I review this movie.

The film starts promisingly enough, where the conceit of the camera is introduced so that the main character Andrew (Dale DeHaan) makes sure that his Dad (Michael Kelly) wont come in and hit him while the camera is recording. Thus begins our insight into Andrew’s tortured world, the life of an American teenager and all that it brings. It’s a little bit of a white man’s Akira, with troubled teens seeking popularity and mental powers and lashing out. Since the trailer the main plot, and how the characters get their powers, reminds me of a 1999 X-Files episode called Rush, where 20-somethings pretending to be teens break into a mysterious cave and get superpowers. In both cases the actual getting of the powers is never explained, though in The X-Files they got superspeed instead of telekinesis.

…Ain’t about the (ha) Cha-Ching Cha-Ching.
Aint about the (yeah) Ba-Bling Ba-Bling
Wanna make the wooorld dance….

I couldn’t get over how Andrew looked like my friend Josh, to the point of distraction. DeHaan is convincing enough, for a guy a year younger than me too act and look like a teenager. Michael B Jordan is great, a surprisingly warm character under all the high school popularity. Michael Kelly is always great, he’s a good actor at playing difficult characters. One masterful scene has us side with the abusive dad for a moment, understanding and relating to the pressure he’s under and the way he lashes out, but soon we hate his guts again because he’s genuinely an irredeemably a prick.

…Ain’t about the (ha) Cha-Ching Cha-Ching.
Aint about the (yeah) Ba-Bling Ba-Bling
Wanna make the wooorld dance….

 

Josh Trank’s direction is a bit hit and miss, and by that I mean that the handheld camera conceit gets in the way sometimes. Often when watching handheld movies I just wish that everything be third person again, so that we can just absorb events and not have to judge whether or not the conceit is still strong in some scenes. It seems odd that Andrew would record everything, and while the other characters acknowledge that, sometimes it stretches credibility. Why must he record everything? We know he had the camera to record his father’s abuse, but that doesn’t really stop him later on. Who will he show this footage too. And with the use of the other cameras scattered throughout the film, I’m unsure what the final cut of the movie is: is it a collection of events, a chronicle to document the events of the characters, and if so who compiled and arranged the footage? If it is some kind of abstract move, and simply a filmmakers conceit to insist that the whole film be shot on cameras that are in the story itself? Is it a statement that our whole world is recorded on tape? I hardly think that’s the main message of the film, as it has little to do with the plot in that sense. It would have been better without the constrictions of the handheld conceit, and though the final action sequence was innovative, it would have been great not to have to wonder how we were going to have a camera show record events. And I mean, why is Andrew filming himself mugging some losers on his street. Does that make sense?

…Ain’t about the (ha) Cha-Ching Cha-Ching.
Aint about the (yeah) Ba-Bling Ba-Bling
Wanna make the wooorld dance….

There were some good bits that challenged my expectations a little. Some of the scenes where the main characters test out their abilities were fun and convincing. The interactions between Andrew and Steve (Jordan) were nice, considering how badly Andrew had been treated by everyone around him. Some of the abuse scenes hit a little to close to home for me, and were unpleasant in that they were real, which is a compliment. There is a great scene where Andrew and Steve hold a talent show segment with Andrew’s powers, which gains him popularity and girls. It was well done and had a nice tone to it.

…Ain’t about the (ha) Cha-Ching Cha-Ching.
Aint about the (yeah) Ba-Bling Ba-Bling
Wanna make the wooorld dance….

But I had a problem with the plot. This is where I’m afraid I’m going to have to delve into spoilers. 

SPOILERS BEGIN

Ultimately Andrew is beaten down to the point that he lashes out and destroys stuff. He starts killing people and raging, and his cousin Matt has to kill him. There is a subplot of the film where Andrew suggested they all fly to Tibet to discover inner peace and enlightenment. This is his dream; his escape from the harshness of life and a Middle American teen. The film ends with Matt landing in Tibet, honouring Andrew by completing his quest for peace. This bothered the fuck out of me, and it felt cruel and wasteful. That’s when the movie lost a star in my opinion.

I don’t understand what message they’re trying to send with this film. We follow Andrew, his plight, his rise and fall. We empathize with him, we associate with him, we wish to see how the film ends for his sake. His life is rough, and nothing really works out for him. He’s a little quiet, but not really a sinner. He responds to the abuse that he’s put through, and with power he finally stands up for himself and makes something of himself. He meets a good friend in Steve, who introduces him to high school popularity, and he gets this close to being blown, until he throws up on the girl to his private and public humiliation. Nothing works out for him and it’s terrible. He dresses up in his fathers old fireman gear (a symbol of a fallen hero that his father has become, but I doubt that the filmmakers were getting deep on that particular point) and he engages on a brief life of crime to get money for drugs his mother needs before getting blown up, then his mother dies and his father blames him. When Andrew finally cuts loose and rampages, we’re on his side and understand his plight. We want him to overcome. But he never does. He dies a loser. 

…Ain’t about the (ha) Cha-Ching Cha-Ching.
Aint about the (yeah) Ba-Bling Ba-Bling
Wanna make the wooorld dance….

In the end it’s Matt that’s left standing, much to my chagrin. He’s the least well-developed character of the piece, boring to a point. Suddenly he’s portrayed as a (Kaneda-esque) Hero to Andrew’s (Tetsuo-esque) Villain, with very little preparation to establish him as such prior to the final battle. And I don’t know what that means to the audience or what the filmmakers are trying to say to with his tragic triumph over his cousing. See, Matt is a reasonably popular, reasonalbly normal kid from a presumably healthy home, and is richer than Andrew seeing as he owns a car and drives Andrew to school every day. There is a hot blonde (Ashley Hinshaw) who also videotapes everything, who we first meet as she’s flirting with Andrew. Matt cockblocks, and ends up with her. And again, Matt kills Andrew and stands on the side of the angels, interrupting Andrew’s justified explosion of power and also negating any hard-earned redemption and peace, a peace that he ends up claiming on Andrew’s behalf at the film’s conclusion. Is that the message? If you’re shat on your whole life, you’ll end up a loser and die a loser, and if you have a good life you’ll end up being ok in the end? As my mate Roma said quite succinctly at the end of the film: “If you’re a loser, don’t try and follow the winners path.”

SPOILERS END

…Ain’t about the (ha) Cha-Ching Cha-Ching.
Aint about the (yeah) Ba-Bling Ba-Bling
Wanna make the wooorld dance….

I’m going to take a stab at why I think they did what they did. I think they tried to make a superhero movie without making a superhero movie. And I think in their attempts at keeping things real and unlike a superhero film they ended up stumbling upon something with a bit more worth, this story of a troubled teen’s life. And in their attempts at trying to go back to the superhero story they ended up ruining any goodwill they’d established, and all the fine character moments they’d crafted in order to solidify their main characters into comic book archetypes.

This film, in my mind, suffered the same thing Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) did. In that they had interesting characters and contexts, great, innovative ideas and approaches, subverting what we’d come to expect from well known narratives and concepts. Then when Evans is in the proper Captain outfit, doing proper superhero things, the film gets bored and wraps things up in a jiffy. That’s what happened here with Chronicle: the superhero film elements ruined the superhero film.

So yeah, what would have been an interesting teen sci fi drama is instead a failed superhero movie. That ending really annoyed me. I would have liked to see Andrew overcome his rage, over come his surroundings, and to find the inner peace his tortured soul desired. Seeing as the film is a morality tale about the dangers of power, perhaps if he’d overcome his problems without his powers, to well and truly triumph over adversity. It would have paved the way for a true sequel, not the half-assed one they’d end up making with the surviving characters. Cos in the end it really is about the (ha) Cha-Ching Cha-Ching, it is about the Ba-Bling Ba-Bling. We all wanna make the wooorld dance….

**stars

PS my friend Roma hated the movie. Couldn’t get over that fucking youtube campaign. Who could blame him?

I'm on the Radio!

Not that long ago DJ Ackshun Jackson read my blog and asked me to appear on his show YOYODC! Cartoon and Talk Radio Show as a movie reviewer. I said yes, we had fun recording the show with Ackshun and his lovely co-host Ms Smurfette, and now here it is in all it's glory. We talk about Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Attack The Block, both of which I loved. You can find them on iTunes as well as follow them on facebook. Enjoy.