Monthly Archives: April 2011

I Saw the Devil

(Kim Jee-Woon, 2010, South Korea)

★★★★☆

Like so many films of a similar ilk, the opening scene in director Kim Jee-Woon’s stylishly brutal I Saw the Devil sees a vulnerable young woman viciously murdered in her car by a sadistic serial killer, whilst awaiting rescue in the shadowy outskirts of town. Starting as he means to go on, Jee-Woon takes the revenge thriller and turns it on its head, delivering an incredibly enjoyable, albeit nihilistic, tale of one man’s intense passion for revenge with more than a few tricks up its bloody sleeve. South Korean cinema has gone through somewhat of resurgence of late, taking universally acknowledged genres and twisting them to create an originality that is so few and far between in modern Hollywood fare.  In a similar vein to Oldboy with its fearless use of violence to accommodate its gritty narrative, I Saw the Devil mixes bone crunching action with, at times, excessively gruesome gore to great effect.

Following the murder of his pregnant fiancée, Soo-hyun (Lee Byung-hun, The Good, The Bad, The Weird, A Bittersweet Life) a secret agent who masters in stealth, goes about finding and destroying the man responsible, picking off each suspect until he finds his guy. The man in question is Kyung-Chul (Oldboy himself, Choi Min-Sik), a sadistic, seemingly indestructible murderer who is both psychotic and devious in equal measure, a man who will stop at nothing to acquire his prey. However, this is no simple revenge tale, and once Hyun locates Kyung-Chul, a rigorously twisted game of cat and mouse ensues as the hunter becomes the hunted and the tables are drastically turned, set in a world rife with decay and social ruin, where psychopaths reign supreme.

First off, I Saw the Devil is not for the faint of heart, it is relentlessly bloodthirsty in every sense of the word and prides itself on its unpredictability and mastery of Lee Mo-Gae’s cinematography, with some scenes mixing beautifully captured vistas with high levels of graphic violence. Take the aforementioned opening sequence for instance; snow gently falls through the air as this defenceless woman is butchered, her blood staining the snow carpeting the ground beneath her. It is a striking way to open a film, acting as a cruel precursor to the oncoming events that only become more merciless as the film goes on. Though it may not be wise to applaud a film for its potentially harmful content, it is however important to stress the mature demographic Jee-Woon is aiming for, an audience who will appreciate the dark sense of humour and the wildly inventive sequences that run through the films grisly veins.

Perhaps the films’ downfall lies with the progression of its own narrative; a nonstop cat and mouse pursuit that causes it to become repetitive as it draws to a prolonged conclusion, with a predictability that contrasts with the erratic events that followed. However, this is outshined by a rare focus on its characters, with as much time spent with the antagonist as with the protagonist, perhaps more so, allowing Choi Min-Sik to fully embody his larger than life psychopath.

Though I Saw the Devil may not for everyone, Kim Jee-Woon’s inventive twist on the vigilante-style thriller genre is packed with a deft balance of visceral thrills and visual panache, ensuring that nothing gets lost in translation.

• A Bittersweet Life, 2005. [Film] Directed by Kim Jee-Woon, South Korea: B.O.M. Film Productions Co.
• The Good, The Bad, The Weird, 2008. [Film] Directed by Kim Jee-Woon, South Korea: Barunson.
• I Saw the Devil, 2010. [Film] Directed by Kim Jee-Woon, South Korea: Softbank Ventures.
• Oldboy, 2003. [Film] Directed by Chan-Wook Park, South Korea: Egg Films.

Thor

(Kenneth Branagh, 2011, USA)

★★★☆☆

The questions plaguing most cinemagoers lips when it comes to watching Thor, the latest in Marvel’s planned ‘Avengers’ venture, isn’t whether the 3D is actually necessary (it isn’t), neither is it whether relative newcomer Chris Hemsworth can pull off the titular role (he can), or if there is a post-credits sequence (there is), no, it’s whether director Kenneth Branagh has the ability at applying his dab hand to a special effects-heavy superhero movie. The answer is a surprising yes, Thor is a solidly entertaining, if somewhat lightweight, entry into the Marvel canon, a comic book adaptation that thankfully sidesteps the gratuitous name checking of last year’s overstuffed Iron Man 2 and serving as an enjoyable introduction to the god of thunder.

Hemsworth stars as Thor, a strong-willed but arrogant Norse god manipulated by his meddlesome brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) into defying their father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and subsequently banished to earth, where, with the help of an astrophysicist (Natalie Portman) and her mentor (Stellan Skarsgård), he tries to regain his powerful weapon Mjolnir, a glorified mallet, and attempts to return to his realm. However, back on Asgard, Loki overthrows his father’s kingdom and attempts to rectify the truce previously forged with the merciless Frost Giants of Jotunheim, which threatens to destroy the safety Odin has established for years.

As complex and slightly predictable as the plot may sound, Thor revels in the way it circumvents the norm and offers something more than the standard origin-orientated focus of most franchise openers. However, this is very much an appendage of the Avengers franchise and the overarching S.H.I.E.L.D organization, which occasionally distracts the film from delivering a totally satisfying outing for the character, culminating in a weak, CGI-heavy finale which stands only to promise something better in next year’s assembly piece.

Clunky dialogue comes as a pre-requisite for the genre, so are gorgeous looking visuals, with the cloudy city of Asgard looking remarkable when juxtaposed with the sparse vistas of New Mexico, the section of the film that works best. Indeed, the finest parts of the film are in its observation of this fish out of water coming to terms with an entirely alien landscape, leading to some humorous encounters with civilian life. Furthermore, during its earth-bound scenes, the film tries and mostly succeeds at blending comedy with romance, with Hemsworth and Portman making for a very believable pair, the Megara to his Hercules who share great chemistry.

Whilst the Asgard portions of the film are more tedious than enjoyable due to a distinct lack of urgency or emotional clout, with the subzero antagonists posing minimal threat due to their superficial, repetitive menace, Thor is certainly one of the more watchable superhero movies of late, a film that, if not taken too seriously, is guaranteed fun while it lasts.

• Iron Man 2, 2010. [Film] Directed by Jon Favreau. USA: Paramount Pictures.
• Thor, 2011. [Film] Directed by Kenneth Branagh. USA: Paramount Pictures.

Arthur

(Jason Winer, 2011, USA)

★★☆☆☆

Though supporting roles in films such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall acted as an appropriate channel for Russell Brand’s brazen acting style, his abilities at convincing as a leading man in Get Him to the Greek (Marshall’s quasi-sequel) were found somewhat wanting, with Brand given free rein to effectively play heightened versions of himself on the big screen. This sluggish approach is paralleled once again in Arthur, an unwanted remake to the treasured original, which starred ‘cuddly’ Dudley Moore as the alcoholic millionaire and sole heir to his family’s wealth, who falls for the amiable Liza Minelli against his frosty mothers best wishes. Lacking Moore’s charm and affability, Brand is a poor successor to the role of Arthur and turns the character into a one-note, spoilt juvenile delinquent who enjoys throwing his money around and laughing in the face of the recession. Even when he’s supposed to appear drunk, all Brand can do is play it slightly more kinetic and aggravating, with emotions that are devoid of authenticity and sincerity, exacerbated during a cloyingly sentimental sequence in the latter stage of the narrative, which is laughable instead of emotionally resonant.

Given that the original followed a formulaic structure, and had performances from the likes of an Oscar winning John Gielgud which held the film together, this remake brings nothing new to the table and says nothing about excessive expenditure in today’s economic climate; much like last year’s puerile Sex and the City 2, Arthur features characters whose prosperity is untarnished by the suffering world outside their ignorant bubbles. As a rejigged version of Gielgud’s acerbic butler, Helen Mirren, who’s unshifting facial expressions convey a consistent sense of ‘I am so much better than this’, plays Arthur’s long-suffering nanny and mother figure, and is unfortunately saddled with clichéd characterisation and lines that become increasingly more embarrassing as the film goes on. Getting one of Britain’s most cherished actresses to spout lines like ‘wash your winky’ not once, but twice throughout a film is just not funny, neither is boiling the solid acting abilities of Jennifer Garner down so much that her underwritten, bland socialite character is given no room to breathe, where her only memorable sequence sees her pinned to a magnetic bed. Similarly, queen of ‘mumblecore‘ Greta Gerwig and her talent for understatement, previously witnessed in Noah Baumbach’s Greenberg, is shamelessly taken advantage of, though her effortless charisma is the best thing the film has to offer.

Director Jason Winer, whose minimal repertoire consists of bland TV movies, shows no restraint throughout his film, never allowing the camera to stop moving and let scenes play out on their own steam, instead opting for a quickened pace that mimics the protagonists excitable persona, robbing any potentially heartfelt scenes between Brand and Gerwig of their much needed warmth, and allowing the film to become hurried and tactlessly stuck together. With only a couple of decent one liners to its name, Arthur the film can best be summed up as a perfect accompaniment to Arthur the character; brash, annoying and emotionally shallow, which proves that Russell Brand really has no range when it comes to acting.

• Arthur, 2011. [Film] Directed by Jason Winer. USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.
• Greenberg, 2010. [Film] Directed by Noah Baumbach. USA: Scott Rudin Pictures.
• Sex and the City 2, 2010. [Film] Directed by Michael Patrick King. USA: New Line Cinema.

Scream 4

(Wes Craven, 2011, USA)

★★★☆☆

As belated as it is unexpected, given the loose end-tying finale of the flat third instalment in the franchise, Scream 4 (or Scre4m in some circles) comes eleven years after the previous and apparently final chapter in the post-modern slasher trilogy, reuniting screenwriter Kevin Williamson with self-made ‘master of suspense’ Wes Craven for their fourth stab at satirizing the horror genre, which sees our three haggard protagonists return for more scares, bloodshed and self-referential laden subtext.

Less a remake, more a story continuation with shades of a generational re-boot, Scream 4 is set on the tenth anniversary of the Ghostface’s last murder spree, taking the setting back to where it all began in the pleasant town of Woodsboro, as perpetual victim Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns for a signing on the last leg of her book tour,  joining up once again with (now sheriff) Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), ex-journalist and struggling writer. However, this being a Scream film, the bodies start piling up almost instantly and new characters are embroiled within another twisted mystery over who is behind the mask and more importantly, why they are picking off their latest victims. Staying with her aunt (Mary McDonnell) and cousin Jill (Emma Roberts), Sydney becomes concerned with not only protecting herself but her family, and coming to terms with a ghost that continues to haunt her.

Williamson’s script, which was unmistakably the sorely missed element in Scream 3, bitingly witty as it is once again, aims much more for laughs rather than genuine scares this time round, which unfortunately robs Scream 4 of the cutting edge that made its opening two instalments so popular and memorable, despite the inclusion of the sort of self-referential humour thats makes these films stand out from an increasingly imitable crowd. Though this is arguably the bloodiest film in the series, it is also the most over-crowded and over-plotted, with characters introduced for the sole purposes of being offed, subplots that go nowhere and more red herrings than the narrative can actually accommodate. Where the film works best, as seen previously, is in its sharp, self-aware attitude toward the rules (or lack thereof in contemporary cinema) of the horror genre, yet it is peppered with occasionally unexciting dialogue and one-liners that are on the wrong side of ridiculous. However, the film’s best line comes during the films actually unpredictable third act reveal, as Sydney reiterates the accepted opinion that remakes should never toy with the success of the original, an astute observation that parallels the films self-knowing outlook on movie sequels, further demonstrated by the fictional ongoing series of the preposterous Stab films, which is one of the most prescient aspects of the film.

Grounding the series in its modern day setup, where genre trends such as ‘torture porn’ and ‘shaky-cam’ chillers have taken centre stage over old school slasher aesthetics, and social networking has become the backbone of communication whereby almost everything is either being filmed, tweeted or broadcast live over the internet, detailed in one scene where the killer is webcamming the pursuit of his latest victim, Williamson never really rises above the potential of his ironic premise, rarely giving social commentary to these monumental cultural and genre shifts. Scream 4 would have worked better if it didn’t fall back on convention as much as it eventually does; becoming the very thing it attempts to send up.

Seeing Campbell, Cox and Arquette return once more is as assuring as being with old friends again, even if they appear at times vacant and unconcerned, with Campbell’s Sydney being substantially relegated to the sidelines, leaving it up to the younger generation to pick up the slack which they are more than capable of doing, with Roberts and Hayden Panettiere giving excellent performances as fearless cine-literate high schoolers.

Does Scream 4 add much to the legacy of its three predecessors? Not particularly, but it’s still great to be in familiar territory in a rare third sequel that is as enjoyable as it is rushed, and flawed as it is nominally perceptive, despite its frequent lapse into laughable cliché.

• Scream 3, 2000. [Film] Directed by Wes Craven, USA: Dimension Films.
• Scream 4, 2011. [Film] Directed by Wes Craven, USA: Dimension Films.

Rio

(Carlos Saldanha, 2011, USA)

★★☆☆☆

The latest animated feature from Blue Sky Studios, the company responsible for the forgettable Robots (2005) and the dwindling Ice Age franchise, stars Jesse Eisenberg as the voice of Blu, a sheltered blue macaw who, although living a domesticated life with his human owner in wintery Minnesota, discovers that he is the last living male of his kind in the world, and in order to save his species, must fly to Rio de Janeiro to meet and inevitably breed with one of the rare females named Jewel (Anne Hathaway). However, when the valuable two are stolen by Brazilian poachers, Blu’s inability at flying hinders their desperate attempts at escape and finding his way back to his worried owner.

First off, the casting of Eisenberg in the lead role is surprising at best considering the type of films and genres he usually stars in, yet it works and injects life into an otherwise unexceptional 3D adventure. Eisenberg’s involvement is definitely a divergence from critically lauded performances in films such as The Social Network, yet his portrayal of Blu smacks of the anxious, charming Jewish persona with which he has become associated, a deft balance of naive buffoonery and Semitic neurosis, spouting lines like “This is the coolest place I’ve ever seen, despite all the health code violations” in a scene which sees our heroes entering a bird-themed night club.

Despite its reasonably original premise, for a kids film at least, Rio is let down by the fact that it is another vehicle for useless 3D, useless because it adds nothing to the narrative and because the filmmakers feel the need to include the obligatory shots of objects flying at the screen for no apparent reason. Furthermore, the film’s sense of humour, despite having occasional moments of inspiration, caters predominantly towards youngsters, although there are a few jokes that teeter on the brink of innuendo, giving reason to the MPAA’s initial PG rating for “mild off-colour humour”, something 20^th Century Fox weren’t exactly thrilled about. The film never quite knows whether it wants to be an all-out kid’s film or an adult-friendly animation in the Pixar mould, which has an alienating effect on the audience due to the confusion of who the humour, and indeed the film, is actually aimed at. This is furthered by Disney-inspired musical interludes that slow down rather than progress the narrative, doing nothing but showcase the vocal talents of Black Eyed Pea Will. i. Am, actor turned R’n’B artist Jamie Foxx and Flight of the Conchords star Jemaine Clement, who turns in a humorous performance as a malevolent cockatoo. Similarly, there is a certain amount of ethnic stereotyping within the characters, which would be okay if it wasn’t laid on so thick by the filmmakers, who clearly wish to appeal to a wider audience and try to appear ‘down with the lingo’ of assorted demographics, similar to what Dreamworks tried to do in what is perhaps their worst animated feature, Shark Tale.

As far as the voice cast go, no one comes close to Eisenberg and Clement in terms of charisma; Leslie Mann and Rodrigo Santoro make for very dry human characters in a lightweight romantic subplot and Hathaway is lifeless and not given much to do with her underwritten character, hampering the budding relationship between Jewel and Blu, which is static rather than emotionally satisfying, adding nothing to the age-old ‘opposites attract’ formulae. Though the animation is relatively flawless and the depiction of Rio is exotic and visually appeasing, Rio’s interchangeable ambience and comedic attitude puts it in danger of outstaying its welcome to older audiences, who will end up taking their kids to see what is essentially a harmless film that is let down by its unremarkable stature.