It's not until you really give it some proper thought, but Tom Cruise really has been relatively prolific in the Sci-Fi department over the last decade. Spielberg had him twice in the noughties, the excellent Minority Report and then The War of the Worlds, slightly underrated at the time but I think it's darkness was simply ten years ahead of it's time, the bleak tone is now a common theme in the post-Nolan era of the blockbuster. The recent Oblivion was two thirds of an interesting film, only losing courage towards the end as it turned into a chase-and-explosion fest. Now we have The Edge of Tomorrow, originally entitled (rather better in my view) after the Japanese novel it's based on, All You Need is Kill.
It's a set up that isn't exactly boldly going where no one has gone before. Earth and Humankind has come under threat from an alien menace and we are losing the war. Badly. Europe has been taken over and our last stronghold is good old Great Britain (including some quite inventive and cool alterations of Trafalgar Square and Heathrow Airport).
First off, it's easy, and lazy, to say that it's a little bit derivative. It obviously has a touch of Source Code about it, people have said that the beasties are a rip off of Starship Troopers which I don't agree with, if you are going compare them to anything, it's probably a cross between Venom and the sentinels in The Matrix sequels. The human's armoury is also straight from James Cameron's costume cupboard and one of the key scenes does owe a bit to one of Spielberg's war films.
Interestingly though, I haven't seen anyone compare it to The War of The Worlds. Although Edge isn't quite as defeatist and nihilistic, it does share the same absence of hope. This isn't a glossy Michael Bay action romp, we, humans, are taking one hell of a beating. The opening battle scene, very reminiscent of the start of Saving Private Ryan, is brutal. Thist really is a war, people are dying all over the place. It's not like sequences in Marvel films where widespread destruction seems to result in no human loss whatsoever.
Also, like War of The Worlds, Tom Cruise doesn't start the film as an All-American hero. In War he was flawed, in Edge he is veritably loathsome. He is brilliant as the cowardly PR, spin doctor colonel and it is something we just aren't that used to seeing from him. I really wanted him to snuff it. However, it's also a performance with some depth. It wasn't long before I was feeling sorry for him as he shifts from being obnoxious to outright terrified as he is thrown into a battle completely untrained. As the film rockets along he does start to get back to the standard Cruise we all know, the hero, but he does manage to keep it interesting with a bit of heart as the relationship with the other hero of the piece, Emliy Blunt, develops.
It'a fair to say that before seeing the film, Emily Blunt didn't really strike me as the action hero type. What do I know eh? Who is Ellen Ripley? Blunt is superb. She is the fully trained, kick-ass marine. Think Vasquez from Aliens with longer hair, without the 80's one liners and a massive sword-like weapon instead of a huge gun. Like Cruise's character she doesn't start out particularly likeable, in all honesty she doesn't say much, she simply looks hard as nails. However, as Cruise returns to his more familiar ground, so does Blunt, she softens. It's a pair of well drawn character curves and it's nice to see them develop alongside one another.
The story itself just about hangs together, there are a couple of exposition scenes that spell things out in sci-fi jargon that just about fall on the right side of credible. During which, there is that one line of dialogue which is a signpost (lit of in neon, under floodlights, with giant arrows pointing) for a plot point later in the film. It looks great, the effects and action have a solid and authentic feel. The combat scenes are violent and physical, it has weight and heft, you can tell that the director (Doug Liman) was behind the first Bourne film (which arguably gave birth to our current Bond).
As with some time travel / time loop films (yes Looper, I'm looking at you), if you think about it too much it will quickly unravel and fall to pieces, but while you're in it, it flies along at a frantic pace, is exciting, at times terrifying (not in horror way but in a war is intensely frightening way), it has an ending that satisfyingly delivers and doesn't cop out. Plus it has Tom Cruise dying a lot and Bill Paxton. Yes Bill Paxton.
Not classic, but very good Saturday night sci-fi blockbuster entertainment. Instead of infinite Transformers sequels, Studios should be making and the public should be watching stuff like this.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Showing posts with label Brendan Gleeson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brendan Gleeson. Show all posts
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
PERRIER'S BOUNTY (2009 - Cert 15)
Here is an example of a film that just shouldn't work. It should be rubbish.
We are in an age when Lock Stock is over a decade old, there have been many attempts to recapture the success of that film, not all based within the sound of Bow Bells - Smokin' Aces was a dire attempt by some Americans that seemed to be liked by quite a few people, although I'm not sure why because it lacked humour, story and any positive attributes whatsoever. Then ten years later came In Brugges. Not exactly the same sort of film, but it had the crime, violence, witty dialogue and black, yet juvenile humour that made Guy Ritchie's break out film so appealing. It got decent reviews, had a relatively good box office return, but once it hit the DVD shelves and word of mouth got underway, that was when it really took off. It was one of those that no matter where you are, pub, work, dinner parties, round the parents', someone talked about it and quoted lines from it. It came from nowhere. I suppose it was inevitable, much in the same way as Lock Stock, that people would try to copy all that they could to try and jump on the gravy train. However, I didn't expect something to see something so similar so soon, not quite a carbon copy, but perhaps something that a child might manage with a blunt pencil and some tracing paper - It's not identical but the correlations jump out at you immediately.
Perrier's Bounty's likeness to In Brugges isn't just down to Irish accents, violence and a good looking Irish lead (Colin Farrell is replaced here with Cillian Murphy). Tonally, if it were on TV, Perrier could almost be the second episode directly following on from In Brugges. It's got the same edgy, realistic feel, gritty tourist shots of a scenic city, but with playful banter and humour between the characters. It even has Brendan Gleeson in it as well. If you're making a film that does clearly have similarities to another, having the same actors as well is only going to exacerbate the problems.
The problem is, if we are going to continue with the TV series analogy, that Perrier's Bounty feels like a second episode where the joke has worn thin, the creative pool has run dry, something that should never have got past a pilot. Despite it having the same feel and as In Brugges, the attempts at wit more often than not disappoint. The best you get is a smile and an internal single chuckle, however that is the exception to the rule and more often than not the jokes fall flat on their faces. Scenes that strive for random oddball laughs only succeed in feeling out of place and contrived. Peculiar characters come and go, I was always unsure what purpose they served, whether it was vital to the progression of the plot or just there to amuse, the truth is they failed to do either. The edgier side of the film also misses the mark. The proper drama and gangland violence struggle for credibility alongside the attempted comedic touches, it all feels cartoony, a bit caricature.
So it a comedy drama that fails on both the comedy and the drama. It's a rip off of other films and only ends up as being a pale comparison when looked at alongside those films. It's plot goes one way, then the other feels, disjointed and doesn't really make sense or convince. It's a film that should be rubbish. But it isn't rubbish, it's mediocre, not more than that, but it certainly isn't the worst film I've ever seen (Couple's Retreat, Sucker Punch - I'm looking in your direction).
The only thing that does elevate it to the lofty heights of 'just about watchable' is the cast. It really is a stellar line up - Cillian Murphy as they hero of the piece Michael McCrea, Brendan Gleeson as Perrier, the villain, Jim Broadbent as McCrea's dad, Jodie Whittaker as the love interest. When you have four people on screen like that, the glass quickly becomes half full rather than half empty. Murphy is brilliant at whatever he does and anything that he appears is all the more interesting because of him. Gleeson is his effortless self, making acting look easy, Whittaker continues to climb the ladder and once again impresses (her forthcoming appearance in One Day should only make her even hotter property) and it is always a pleasure to see Jim Broadbent in action (how different would the world be if David Sullivan went with, Broadbent, his initial choice for Delboy). The very fact that these four are playing out proceedings on screen, no matter how nonsensical and pointless the proceedings are, gives the film a bit more gravitas. Of course, the base level of the move is so low to begin with, they can only lift it so far and it's a case of too little too late. Further evidence of this is a voice over/narrator from someone (or something) that is all warbling musing and philosophies on what life and death means. In terms of the content it's dull, dull, dull and quickly becomes irritating, but the voice itself, there's something about it that reels you in. Then when the credits roll you realise it's Gabriel Byrne and you then cotton on to why you found the voice so hypnotic. It just goes to show how important a good cast are to making a film work. When it's a success, it's easy to underestimate the role the actors play, but when you see those people polishing a turd you know how valuable an expert in the craft is.
We are in an age when Lock Stock is over a decade old, there have been many attempts to recapture the success of that film, not all based within the sound of Bow Bells - Smokin' Aces was a dire attempt by some Americans that seemed to be liked by quite a few people, although I'm not sure why because it lacked humour, story and any positive attributes whatsoever. Then ten years later came In Brugges. Not exactly the same sort of film, but it had the crime, violence, witty dialogue and black, yet juvenile humour that made Guy Ritchie's break out film so appealing. It got decent reviews, had a relatively good box office return, but once it hit the DVD shelves and word of mouth got underway, that was when it really took off. It was one of those that no matter where you are, pub, work, dinner parties, round the parents', someone talked about it and quoted lines from it. It came from nowhere. I suppose it was inevitable, much in the same way as Lock Stock, that people would try to copy all that they could to try and jump on the gravy train. However, I didn't expect something to see something so similar so soon, not quite a carbon copy, but perhaps something that a child might manage with a blunt pencil and some tracing paper - It's not identical but the correlations jump out at you immediately.
Perrier's Bounty's likeness to In Brugges isn't just down to Irish accents, violence and a good looking Irish lead (Colin Farrell is replaced here with Cillian Murphy). Tonally, if it were on TV, Perrier could almost be the second episode directly following on from In Brugges. It's got the same edgy, realistic feel, gritty tourist shots of a scenic city, but with playful banter and humour between the characters. It even has Brendan Gleeson in it as well. If you're making a film that does clearly have similarities to another, having the same actors as well is only going to exacerbate the problems.
The problem is, if we are going to continue with the TV series analogy, that Perrier's Bounty feels like a second episode where the joke has worn thin, the creative pool has run dry, something that should never have got past a pilot. Despite it having the same feel and as In Brugges, the attempts at wit more often than not disappoint. The best you get is a smile and an internal single chuckle, however that is the exception to the rule and more often than not the jokes fall flat on their faces. Scenes that strive for random oddball laughs only succeed in feeling out of place and contrived. Peculiar characters come and go, I was always unsure what purpose they served, whether it was vital to the progression of the plot or just there to amuse, the truth is they failed to do either. The edgier side of the film also misses the mark. The proper drama and gangland violence struggle for credibility alongside the attempted comedic touches, it all feels cartoony, a bit caricature.
So it a comedy drama that fails on both the comedy and the drama. It's a rip off of other films and only ends up as being a pale comparison when looked at alongside those films. It's plot goes one way, then the other feels, disjointed and doesn't really make sense or convince. It's a film that should be rubbish. But it isn't rubbish, it's mediocre, not more than that, but it certainly isn't the worst film I've ever seen (Couple's Retreat, Sucker Punch - I'm looking in your direction).
The only thing that does elevate it to the lofty heights of 'just about watchable' is the cast. It really is a stellar line up - Cillian Murphy as they hero of the piece Michael McCrea, Brendan Gleeson as Perrier, the villain, Jim Broadbent as McCrea's dad, Jodie Whittaker as the love interest. When you have four people on screen like that, the glass quickly becomes half full rather than half empty. Murphy is brilliant at whatever he does and anything that he appears is all the more interesting because of him. Gleeson is his effortless self, making acting look easy, Whittaker continues to climb the ladder and once again impresses (her forthcoming appearance in One Day should only make her even hotter property) and it is always a pleasure to see Jim Broadbent in action (how different would the world be if David Sullivan went with, Broadbent, his initial choice for Delboy). The very fact that these four are playing out proceedings on screen, no matter how nonsensical and pointless the proceedings are, gives the film a bit more gravitas. Of course, the base level of the move is so low to begin with, they can only lift it so far and it's a case of too little too late. Further evidence of this is a voice over/narrator from someone (or something) that is all warbling musing and philosophies on what life and death means. In terms of the content it's dull, dull, dull and quickly becomes irritating, but the voice itself, there's something about it that reels you in. Then when the credits roll you realise it's Gabriel Byrne and you then cotton on to why you found the voice so hypnotic. It just goes to show how important a good cast are to making a film work. When it's a success, it's easy to underestimate the role the actors play, but when you see those people polishing a turd you know how valuable an expert in the craft is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)