Bridesmaids

Guest writer Andy Bruce

‘Bridesmaids’: the anti-chick flick, laugh-a-minute, female version of the Hangover, if the ten star user reviews on IMDb are to be believed.

They aren’t.

The film is as ‘anti-chick’ as a spa weekend with your BFF, or carrying a tiara-wearingChihuahuain a Mulberry handbag. I mean, the plot follows a group of women planning a wedding – there’s very little you can do with that to ‘unchickify’ it (though Wiig (‘Saturday Night Live’) and Mumolo (You won’t have heard of her before now) would have you believe that a couple of scenes of scatological humour are enough to do just that); there’s a predictable girl meets guy love story; and it ends with a musical performance which screams ‘Shrek’ more than ‘comedy film of the decade’. This isn’t to say the film is bad – not by any stretch of the imagination. It just doesn’t live up to the hype or the expectations I had going in.

However, any film that opens with Jon Hamm (‘Mad Men’) playing an arrogant asshole having fast sex with the hilarious Kristen Wiig’s Annie is bound to have some great moments, and here the film does not disappoint: from Wiig’s early impression of a penis, to Wiig’s performance on the plane, to Wiig going crazy at the bridal shower. In fact Wiig gets so many great scenes you might be forgiven for thinking the film was written just for her to show off… oh… wait… I guess it was. Don’t get me wrong; Wiig is a great comedian, and if the 2008 Republican vice-president nominee had looked like her instead of Tina Fey, perhaps Wiig would have her own (mediocre) half hour comedy on NBC and Fey would be the one writing greedy big screen scripts for herself. But the fact is that the supporting cast of ‘Bridesmaids’ (perhaps with the exception of Rose ‘Ugly when she cries’ Byrne) barely gets a word in, so much so that the bridal party of six has essentially become a party of four by the end of the film, with Wendi McLendon-Covey and Ellie Kemper becoming nothing more than glorified extras after the halfway point – so much so that I can’t even remember their character’s names. And the same is true of Matt Lucas and Rebel Wilson’s creepy brother/sister act, and the almost offensive underuse of Jill Clayburgh as Annie’s well-meaning mother. The film devotes so much time to Annie’s story that it never really develops the other characters to the extent that they might possibly deserve, and there is rarely any conclusion to their subplots.

The other exception to this is Melissa McCarthy’s (‘Gilmore Girls’) portrayal of Megan, who at first glance might look like the token ‘comic relief’ member of the group. Indeed, at first she plays up to this role with a couple of throw-away lines and some physical comedy, but then develops into a character with actual feelings – a rare occurrence in the film. Her own subplot even gets a conclusion in the coveted (but utterly ridiculous) post-credits scene. So she, along with Chris O’Dowd, who plays the only not-a-glorified-extra male character surprisingly well in a female (Wiig) dominated film, is the real stand-out. Whilst Rose Byrne, who I expected to be great, was lumbered with a two dimensional bitch of a character whose eleventh hour reprieve is out of character at best, and totally unbelievable at worst.

All of this makes the film sound pretty bad, which isn’t the case. It’s just far easier to point out its flaws than remember the scenes that had the audience laughing*, which there were plenty of. For all the above criticism, Wiig plays Annie perfectly, switching from hilarity to sombre moments seamlessly, and carrying the audience with her on her journey to rock bottom and then even lower, and you can truly feel for her character. The main plot revolves more around friendship than the actual planning of the wedding, which gives the film more depth than its poster and marketing would have you believe, and the fact that they managed to make an actual comedy into a full length two hour film rather than the standard eighty minute ‘comedy’ is not without merit.

Despite the faults pointed out above, the film is still very good, and well worth the student two-for-one ticket it cost. Go in with great expectations and you’ll come away slightly disappointed, but you’ll still have had two hours of laughter. Ignore the hype and you’ll come away happy and you’ll have had two hours of laughter.

*I wanted something more dramatic like ‘cackling’ or ‘giggling’, but they both imply a predominantly female audience, which is accurate but shouldn’t put men off seeing it – there were at least 10 of us in the full cinema…

Degree: 2.1

A funny film to highlight Wiig’s great writing/acting,

though the humour is often obvious and unintelligent.

The crass scatological humour doesn’t really do enough to offset

the 95% female cast, 90% of whom are almost pointless. Certainly doesn’t live up to hype.

Bridesmaids

Ever wondered what the hangover would have been like if it had happened ‘The Hangover’ has happened to a hen party? Well on 24th June you may find out. Staring Kristen Wiig in her first major on screen role (plus she also wrote it) as bridesmaid Annie who is trying to get through an expensive wedding on the cheap. Not very easy when you are the maid of honour. Full of both play on words as well as fart and poo jokes, this could be a sleeper film to match its male counter part.

It’s Kind Of A Funny Story

Released soon in January (7th to be more precise) this looks like a real heart warming film. Adapted from the book of the same name it follows 15 year-old Craig Gilner as he spends some time in hospital to deal with his depression. With Zach Galifianakis playing his usual absurd role, but with a lot more heart we could see the actor that was promised after ‘The Hangover’. The film also has the young stars Kier Gilchrist ( from the US show ‘The United States of Tara) and Emma Roberts (from ‘The Wild Child’) who both seem, at least from the adverts, to really pull their weight.

The Beaver

No this is not some sort of pun (though I bet lots of guys chuckled when coming up with the idea), it is a comedy that shows just how crazy Mel Gibson can be…the characters he plays that is. ‘The Beaver’ seems to follow a man unorthodox method to battle his depression. Leave a comment and let me know what you think of it. It will be out in the UK on February 11th.

Gulliver’s Travels

We have all seen the Orange advert before every film over the past few months, now here is the full version of the trailer for Jack Black’s new film ‘Gulliver’s Travels’. It takes the Georgian book written by Jonathan Swift and puts it in a modern day context, with jokes about both Star Wars and iPhones. Along side Black is a huge host of British and American talent including Emily Blunt, Jason Segal, Katherine Tate, Billy Connolly and Amanda Peet. It will be out on Boxing Day.

The Kids Are All Right

The film plays out like a sperm donor’s worst nightmare: he tries to make a quick $60 and 18 years later he gets a child knocking on his door saying they share the same DNA. Surely this can’t be allowed? If this is what leaves you pondering when you leave the cinema than you will have missed the entire point of the film. ‘The Kids Are All Right’ is as much about the laws of sperm donorship as ‘Juno’ is about teen pregnancy or ‘The Social Network’ is about Facebook, they are all just surface plot devices that allow characterisation to occur. In fact ‘The Kids Are All Right’ is not about sperm donors or LGBT rights to parenthood, but simply about family dynamics and all kinds of people’s relationships with each other.

The film follows one summer in the life of this unconventional family where Joni (Mia Waskikowska) has just finished high school and will be heading off to college, much to the delight of her two mums Nic and Jules (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore).  While all this is going on Joni’s half brother (same sperm donor different mother) Laser (Josh Hutcherson) is hanging out with the wrong crowd since he lacks a suitable male role model. Laser craves this older male company: you’d be right in thinking that sounds pretty gay since his mothers also incorrectly think so.  Nevertheless, he convinces Joni to get in contact with their sperm donor father who turns out to be the organic restaurateur and playboy Paul (Mark Ruffalo), an embodiment of male energy with his rugged beard and pristine motorbike.

The first meeting between sperm donor and offspring is painfully awkward and that is the true charm of the film; this incredibly uncomfortable chemistry is to be expected from this incredibly unusual situation and none of the characters have any idea what is meant to be happening. This feel of realism is in every scene, from the interrupted ‘relations’ in the bedroom to the singing at the table and talking about the inauthentic feel of lesbian porn; these scenes feel as if they are only slightly enhanced versions of real family conversations (or is my family just very weird?). On top of this no character is flawless or likable all the time and each one adds to the drama that goes on that summer, drama that pushes everyone to his or her limits.  Again, the film perfectly reflects normal human relationships very accurately. The original script is rumoured to have been a lot darker, with the Paul character being portrayed as a manipulative, scheming guy who wanted to break up the family on purpose rather than doing it by accident. In the final version he is as out of his depth with the situation as any of them, and he turns out to be very sweet on some occasions as he tries to bond with the tight nit family. For me the change to a lighter feel was a good move by Cholodenko (the director) as diffusing the blame means many characters are at fault and this adds depth and reality to the story. It goes to show the difficulty of romance and staying madly in love when life and hardship gets in the way. It is also a nice to change to have flawed protagonists, no matter what their gender or sexuality might be.

In between all the drama there are some very sweet and touching moments where Nic and Jules are very sweet together and are like any straight married couple. They fight with both each other and their kids, but underneath it all there is love and this creates the crucial family chemistry.  Since the story is meant to be just one short part of the family’s long time together there are a lot of story arcs that are left unresolved when the credits start rolling and this personally annoyed me and will also annoy some other members of the audience. I understand that it also makes it seem as if the life is continuing after the film has ended, but to me it felt as if they had created lots of story arcs and never got round to finishing them. This is, however a very light criticism that does not at all mar the rest of the film, which is light, interesting, and overall real.

 

2:1 Nothing ground breaking here, but an enjoyable depiction of a new type of modern family.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

 

 

Burke and Hare

reviewed by guest lecturer Will Tooke

When I was about 13, I went on a school trip to London. We did the usual sights –the Science Museum and a West End show, the then new Millennium Wheel (wow I feel old).  But I remember none of those things. What really stuck with me was the London Dungeon’s realistic recreation of the Jack the Ripper murders.  It was, I suppose, pretty unsuitable for kids: latex prostitutes scattered over the plaster cobbles of fake Whitechapel, rubber intestines strewn from gaping red abdominal cavities.  And the thing is, I wasn’t actually scared by all the gore. I wasn’t a squeamish kid, and I love a good gore fest if it’s done well. (Check out Peter Jackson’s riotous 1993 zom-com  Braindead) If not disgust, then what? It just all felt uncomfortably distasteful, even though the scenes before me then recreated events that occurred over a century previously.

I was worried then that Burke and Hare would be similarly opportunistic, it’s a pretty gory story about two evil men who line their pockets by killing the unsuspecting inhabitants of 1820s Edinburgh, to sell off their corpses to unscrupulous medical schools, where they were dissected for medical students and the curious public alike.  It would be all too easy for a film to be a modern version of such a grim spectacle, peddling the punters lopped up stiffs for lowbrow entertainment.

I realize already having dismissed the London Dungeon as distasteful, applauding Burke and Hare’s humour may seem like I’m having my cake and eating it. But if done seriously, such a film would be just nasty.  American TV movies seem to love making blandly serious biopics about more recent serial murderers, and why anyone would want to sit through them? What makes Burke and Hare palatable is the streak of black humour that runs thicker than blood throughout, owing more perhaps to Monty Python than to reality. It’s a pretty difficult line to walk, and make no mistake that in this film bones break, arteries squirt, and organs splatter, but somehow it gets away with it.

Firstly, it’s directed by American John Landis, who helmed such greats as An American Werewolf in London and The Blues Brothers, as well as the video to Michael Jackson’s Thriller, and his understanding of horror and comedy show are clearly visible.  Piers Ashworth and Nick Moorcroft’s script has some great dialogue and although they rightly take liberties with what actually happened (because you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story), a lot of the plot remains fairly true to reality. It may not be so authentic in terms of story, but in terms of set the film impresses in its recreation of the slums of the pre-industrial 19^th century Scotland, realized in shades of grimey gray and excrement brown, inhabited by dour, whiskery faces with dirty teeth. You know, a lot like Scotland today.

Also to the film’s strength is the excellent cast. The end credits are very much a who’s who of great British character actors: Christopher Lee, David Schofield, Tom Wilkinson, Jenny Agutter, Hugh Bonneville, Tim Curry (Dr Frank-N-Furter himself, lest we forget) and an almost unrecognisable Bill Bailey are all present, but the real stars of the show are undoubtedly Andy Serkis and Simon Pegg in their roles as the eponymous body snatchers. Serkis, whose ability as a great physical performer is indisputable after he brought Gollum to life in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, excels as the darker, more Machiavellian Hare, and Simon Pegg nicely contrast this with his weaker willed, more naïve Burke who lets greed get the better of him.  Whereas in my last review of RED I complained that jam packing the cast full of stars was distracting and felt simply like a way to generate buzz about a not very good film, here you get the impression that they actually wanted to do the movie because its clear that they all had a lot of fun making it. Landis even finds the time to fulfil the wishes of millions by bumping off snobby film director Michael Winner, more recently known for those awful ‘calm down dear’ insurance ads. It’s just a shame they couldn’t have found time to jab a stiletto into the ample gut of the Go Compare opera singer…  Amongst the supporting cast, the diminutive Ronnie Corbett stands out, very nearly stealing the show as Captain McLintock, the bumbling leader of the Edinburgh militia who nevertheless manages to capture Burke and Hare, evoking Shakespeare’s slapstick guardsmen Dogsberry and Verges from Much Ado About Nothing.

Shakespeare is actually an appropriate cultural comparison to make- the crushing inevitability of a less than happy ending, and the ambition for money and power corrupting conscience that both occur in Burke and Hare are equally present in much of Shakespeare’s best work – so too of course, was a sense of humour and a healthy smattering of blood of guts. If you ever struggled imagining what that famous description of Macbeth’s battlefield victim being ‘unseamed from the nave to the chops’ would actually look like, then rest assured that Burke and Hare will leave you in know doubt.

Macbeth, funnily enough, is also where the film itself becomes a little undone – a subplot about Burke deciding to finance an all female production of the Scottish Play just to get into the lacy knickers of aspiring actress Ginny (Isla Fisher) drags a little, and just isn’t as funny as it could have been. Small qualms aside, Burke and Hare is genuinely entertaining, and at 91 minutes doesn’t overstay its welcome, somehow managing to be a bright and breezy romp about, uh, period serial killers.  Perhaps then Fred and Rose West: The Musical could work, just not for another few hundred years.

2.1 – Not at all like what some reviews would have you believe,

Burke and Hare is a delicious slice of macabre comedy that definitely won’t

be to everyone’s taste, but has a lot to like. Bloody good fun.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Easy A

There are very few chick-flicks that people will openly admit to liking; often people probe others into making the admission first for films like ‘Mean Girls’ and ‘Clueless’. Well here is a film that I, and I am sure many others, will admit to liking. It has everything you want from a good, enjoyable film; wit, charm, sex appeal, emotion and most importantly a real insight into what is happening in modern day culture.

Emma Stone is the lead, playing Olive Penderhast who matches her flaming red hair with equally tense wit and intelligence. This is not another Cady Heron or Cher Horowitz (the classic Chick Flick heroines) , but a unique character who is both clever and attractive, but also very funny and quirky. Even though Olive has all this going for her she, rather surprisingly, is a nobody in high school until a false rumor of her losing her virginity to a college student puts her on the social map. The lie grows bigger and takes on a life of its own when Olive decides to embrace this new reputation, but also to use it to give street cred/man points to the geeks at her school. Here is the story of a girl who can’t say no, but not in the way we might be more familiar with. This story is made more interesting because although it might follow the usual ups and downs of the genre the high the Olive rides is not the high of popularity, but of notoriety; there is a huge difference between the two.

It is here that the film dissects and analyses modern culture and goes into how sex sells. Olive is shot into the spot light due to her sexual escapades and this mimics many modern day celebrities; stars like Lady Gaga, Megan Fox and Collin Farrell have become as famous for their obvious sexuality as they have for their talents and none of us wonder what having this sort of reputation might be like for them. Here we see the downside of a sexual reputation that quite a few people strive for or just brush aside as if it is something normal. However, Olive feels isolated and unwanted because no one wants her for anything, but her reputation and this begins to really affect her.

But the film doesn’t just concentrate on sex; it also looks at many different topics that appear in across a range of different sub groups. We look at the bullying of LGBT teenagers in high school, which feels particularly relevant after the recent series of gay teen related suicides in the States. There are also scenes demonstrating the ridiculously militant attitudes of the far right religious groups as well as the poor attitudes of the American public (state) school system. By looking at all these various issues, the film feels both interesting and relevant to its primary audience, but also interesting and informative to those who might be a little out of the loop.

The entire cast is also great, I don’t think there is a single weak performance, but none stand out more than Emma Stone. Before this she was best known for her supporting role in ‘Super Bad’, but she really manages to show off her skills as a lead with her great comic timing so every line is delivered expertly. The supporting cast is also fantastic; Amanda Bynes, who has come back from her short break from acting, was delightfully horrible as the plastic lead ‘Jesus-freak’ Marianne; similarly, Dan Bryd (from Cougar Town) is hilarious as the victimized gay guy. The adult cast also have fantastic moments with Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson making the entire audience laugh out aloud as Olive’s crazily liberal parents.

In fact the reason for all these great performances was because the script was very clever and witty, so everyone had a great line or two. The conversation flows like an extended episode of ‘The Gilmore Girls’. Some might find the literary references and pop culture puns a bit pretentious, but for me it was the perfect balance of highbrow humour and obvious physical comedy.

Overall the film is a great thing to see with just about anyone. It still has some of the same flaws of all other chick-flick, but it misses out most of them and makes up for the rest. This is a movie that will lighten up a dull and dark evening and will be watched at least once a year when released on DVD.

Degree- 2:1. This film feels like it taps into the zeitgeist,

at least as much as a chick-flick can. Funny, smart and warm; it has everything.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

 

R.E.D

reviewed by guest lecturer Will Tooke

Another month brings out another comic book adaption. The playful, immersive odyssey of Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and the subversive, ultra violent thrill ride of Kick-Ass are still fresh in my mind, I went to see RED with high hopes – after all, with an incredible cast of Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and your Grans favourite, Helen Mirren, what could possibly go wrong? Err, well, quite a lot actually.

Based on the DC comic written by Warren Ellis and the unfortunately named Cully Hamner, this movie version of RED is similar in name only. A cursory Google (I hadn’t heard of RED before either…) revealed that the scriptwriters had changed quite a bit. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a purist – one of the greatest things about good movie adaptation of novels or books is how the screenwriter handles the source material. Think of 2001s About A Boy based on Nick Hornby’s novel. Gone – thank God – is the heavy handed, zeitgeisty sub-plot to do with Kurt Kobain’s death, a reason why it stands as an example where the film is better than the book. Of course, film adaptations don’t always work out for the best – 2009s Watchmen suffered terribly from an overlong script, and the fact that for some reason it never quite managed to live up to the spirit of the dystopian epic that is Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ 1986 graphic novel. Yes, screenwriting – particularly adapting works – is a difficult game indeed, one that demands subtlety in approach if not content.

The fact then that screenwriters Jon and Erich Hoeber take great big blundering axe chops to the original is a bad sign. Bruce Willis’ character, ex-CIA agent Frank Moses, survives from the original lineup. The rest are all new additions. Whereas the comic is apparently a darker, straighter story of murky political intrigue and shady secret service dealings, on celluloid RED is a much lighter, family friendly affair. It is, after all a 12 A, and I can’t help wonder if somewhere in the ether floats a grittier, original script, more faithful to the original, before the studio talked it down from an 18 or a 15 to a 12 certificate. It’s a real shame actually, because the core idea is a good one – old spooks come out of retirement to kick some butt after someone or other tries to have them killed. The cheap and easy way to make this family friendly of course is to a) have curiously bloodless fight scenes and b) add some humour.

Oh sweet Jesus, the humour.

In a big loud dumb action movies, there is nothing wrong with a few jokes. Brucie’s own Die Hard quadrilogy is the stronger for them, and cheesy jokes and lazy innuendo pretty much substituted plot for much of Roger Moore’s stint as Bond. But in RED, the cheesy jokes are ladled on like fondue. And it just gets incredibly annoying, right up to a silly pre-credits scene that sees Brucie wheeling John Malkovich through a Moldovan minefield in a wheelbarrow, whilst the latter clutches a nuclear bomb. Typing that out, it sounds pretty funny, like something out of under rated Cold War farce Top Secret! (Seriously, you must see it before you die), but after a few hours of cutesy posturing, my sense of humour failure was borderline terminal.

And even if the awful jokes had been exorcised from RED, I’m not so sure it’d have worked, either. The plot has more flabby twists than Ann Widdecombe’s routines on Strictly Come Dancing: to the extent that it’s unforgivably hard to follow, which is why I haven’t mentioned what happens so much. ‘So wait, now that guy isn’t a baddie?’ one little boy sat near me in the cinema said out loud, to no one in particular. His guess is as good as mine, frankly.  The story circles around something about the covering up of something bad that the now Vice President of the United States (perhaps?) did in Guatemala in 1981 whilst he was in the army. Now bearing in mind said V.P is played by Nip Tuck’s Julian McMahon, this is particularly hard to swallow seeing as McMahon would have been 13 in 1981. Yup, that particular plot hole bugged me so much, I looked up an actor’s actual birthday, just to give me something else to complain about.

I suppose I should provide a bit of a balance by saying that parts of the film are OK – the sight of Helen Mirren firing a huge machine is funny for a bit, and the whole thing is filmed well, each shot framed like a comic book pane. Bruce Willis does his trusty trademark ‘McClane smirk’ – the same facial expression since the good old days of Die Hard, back when Brucey had hair. The same smirk Brucey has done in pretty much every film he’s been in since 1986. If Bella Lugosi was cinema’s Man of a Thousand Faces, then Willis has become cinema’s Man of Just One Smirk. I’m being harsh on Brucey, he does the hand-to-hand combat fights very well, and as a protagonist he’s hard not to like. It’s just I can’t remember the last time he was truly stretched in a role. Perhaps in The Sixth Sense? Which was also the last time M. Night Shyamalan made a decent film. And that was a long, long time ago. In any case, the few good points don’t make up for the whole – in the same way that the excellent German motorway system doesn’t excuse the regime that created them.

I suppose the biggest crime is that this is perhaps the greatest example of recent cinema of a truly brilliant cast who are truly wasted. In the opening credits, there is literally not one actors name that popped up that I didn’t recognize and who isn’t good. Alongside the main four stars are Brian Cox, Karl Urban – two veterans of the Bourne Trilogy, as well as James Remar from TVs Dexter, Mary-Louise Parker from Weeds, Richard Dreyfuss, and the 93 year old Ernest Borgnine. I can only presume they were very well paid or just don’t care anymore.

Degree-2.2 If you like your films with lots bullets that pass in slow motion making a

WOOOSH noise, explosions that seemingly compete with plot holes

to see which one can be the biggest, then you’ll love this.  Otherwise you should probably

just stay away.

It narrowly escaped a third solely because Helen Mirren fires a big loud machine gun.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

 

Flipped

I am really excited about a new movie out this November (12th November to be precise) called ‘Flipped’

Set in the idyllic culdesac America the film looks like it will be cute, twee coming of age story with cute characters and some clever writing,and is the latest project  by ‘Stand By Me’ director Rob Reiner. It is also a love story with a his & hers perspective style of story telling which I think will give an extra bit of depth and chance for comedy.