No. 351 : Wrath of Man (2021)

 

Wrath of Man at the IMDb

I saw a trailer for a new Guy Ritchie film starring Jason Statham, Josh Hartnett and Eddie Marsan called ‘Operation Fortune’ that looked a lot of fun. I was surprised to see it pop up on Amazon Prime, but it turned out it wasn’t the fun caper film from the trailer but a heist movie involving the same people. It’s almost like they finished one film early and decided to bash out another seeing as they had all the crew assembled. If my assumption of this cookie cutter approach is correct, one film would have to be the poorer cousin; but which one is it? It’s this one!

Jason plays his usual character - bald and gruff ex-special forces with a mysterious past - who on this outing is called ‘H’ - they may have been trying for a Steps sub-plot, but it wasn’t really developed. The film opens with a heist which we see from the security van’s crew’s perspective. Something goes awry and we hear that two guards and a civilian have been shot from the police radios - remember that for later.

We then meet Jason who is applying for a job at the security firm three months later. He’s told of the previous robbery and is taken through his paces by ‘Bullet’, the senior guard at the firm. Jason barely scrapes a 70% pass mark at the evaluation, but we suspect that he has more in his locker. True to form his van is soon held up, but Jason shoots up all the bad guys without drawing sweat or changing his facial expression. Company rules say that any incident involving a fatality means those involved should get a desk job, but the boss tells flunky Eddie Marsan that Jason should be promoted instead - he does have top billing, after all.

Meanwhile we meet up with the troupe of bad guys run by ‘Burn Notice’s Jeffrey Donovan. He’s getting on a bit so he gets some help from Clint junior, Scott Eastwood. Scott has a bit of a cloudy eye, so we know from the start that he’s a total psychopath. The robbers are ex-military and are keen for a big score and target Jason’s depot on Black Friday when there will be $150 million cash on hand - haven’t these people heard of credit cards?

The narrative jumps back and forth in time with captions appearing regularly - at one point we are five months back and then it’s ‘3 weeks later’ from then or now? It does get a bit confusing. There are also chapter titles which define the 3 acts, which just come across as pretentious in a film with low aspirations, such as this. Just remember Jason has a soppy son he dotes on and that there’s a mole in the security network who is almost definitely the one you think it is from the start.

This was a half decent offering, and if you are of mind to stick on a mindless Jason Statham film you won’t be disappointed. This isn’t one of his light-hearted efforts where he drops a couple of zingers, this is the brow furrowed and no shit taken Jason with plenty of double taps and needless blood letting.

The non-linear narrative is easy enough to follow, mainly because every ‘twist’ was signposted brighter than a Christmas tree. We know Jason is on the path of vengeance - the title is your clue - and it didn’t take much mental agility to work our where he’d been wronged and who needed shooting to sort things out.

The characters are all wafer thin, but it did seem pointless to kill off virtually every one of them. I know it makes the baddie a bit more ‘boo hiss’ if he kills a few people we have investment in, but sadly the investment was nil, with the interest rate even lower.

Donovan had very little to do and it looked like a lot of the principals did their work in a few days when it suited their schedules. The film lacked any of the glamour or budget of what ‘Operation Fortune’ promises and clearly this effort will be seen as the runt of the litter. For a film like this to succeed you need to really care about the character and his motivation. Here Statham’s character didn’t make any sense, nor did his involvement in the initial heist. ‘We need you to tell us if the truck goes left or right’ says the mysterious overlord on the phone. Given the ambush was set up on the right it didn’t really matter what Statham called in, as that was their only chance of success anyway. Why Jason and his son stopped for a front row burrito was just illogical.

Anyway , slice and dice it anyway you like this was an unsatisfying revenge flick that had some decent gun play and a few familiar faces looking for an easy pay day. It was competently made but totally forgettable and a lesser Statham, if there is such a thing.

Best Bit : Jason drops his burritos ‘W’ Rating : 10/23

No.350 : Wildlife (2018)

Wildlife at the IMDb

It’s Montana in 1960 and all is not going well with Jake Gyllenhaal and Carey Mulligan’s marriage. They are Jerry and  Jeanette and they have a teenage  son Joe. Clearly the writer got stuck on the ’J’s page in his ’name your character’ book.

Wild forest fires are burning across the state meaning the air quality is poor and the kids are receiving fire training. Jerry works at a golf course but is quickly dismissed, with Joe present, for gambling with the guests. We learn he has trouble keeping jobs, meaning that the family is always on the move.

We see him with a couple of beers, so it’s clear he’s immediately become an inveterate drunk. He refuses menial jobs, meaning that Jeanette has to get a job teaching swimming and Joe one after school at a photography studio. He’s happy to do this as it means he doesn’t have to play football which he dislikes but his father expects.

Jerry has a few breakdowns and speeches Willy Loman style, and rashly accepts a dangerous, low paid, job putting out the fires. Jeanette is aghast at first but soon starts to act up and walking out with an older, wealthier man whom she met when she taught him to swim. She takes Joe to meet him and the boy sees him giving Mom a special goodnight kiss. He also sees his ass when he stops over one night.

Joe develops a friendship with a girl classmate, but when Jerry returns and Jeanette announces she’s leaving, he has to witness the final throes of their marriage. What can be salvaged from the wreckage? And will Joe be scarred by the messy break-up of his parents?

This film started out well and for the first half hour I was quite engaged. Gyllenhaal is always watchable and the film suffers when he exits stage left for the middle third. His struggles with authority and keeping a job were interesting and it’s a shame his character wasn’t developed more. Instead the main focus was on their son Joe who, although well played by  Ed Oxenbould (see The Visit), he was a bit dull. Part of his character was that he was a late developer, but he spent a lot of the film staring with a quivering bottom lip.

I think the idea was that he was powerless to intervene as his parents' marriage and, by proxy, his life disintegrated. The raging fires were a strong metaphor and it was no surprise when erstwhile fire-fighter Jerry became a crazy fire starter when trying to sort out his problems.

I didn’t buy into Jeanette’s character arc, who went from doting Mom to drunk floozy almost overnight. Of course she was responding to Jerry’s recklessness in taking the fire fighting job but it didn’t ring true that she’s have the ancient Warren in her bed, with her son in the house, mere days after Jerry left the scene. Mulligan was decent as Jeanette and carried the 60’s fashions well but she was poorly served by  lazy writing and unbelievable character developments.

The film has a kind of  coda at the end where Mom comes back for a visit and the family is briefly reunited. This didn’t really resolve any issues but at least they got the photo for the poster.

Overall this was a decent period examination of a failed marriage but it was ultimately unsatisfying and more than a little dull.

Best Bit : Dinner at Warren’s  ‘W’ Rating 12/23

 

 

No.349 : Welcome to Marwen (2018)

 

Welcome to Marwen at the IMDb

It’s strange how you don’t review any films about a person living a fantasy life and then two come along at once.  Our previous effort ‘Who You Think I Am’ concerned a woman inventing an online personality, this one is about a man who invents a whole world so that he can escape his demons.

I was surprised when this film was offered up on Netflix as I’d never heard of it before despite being a fan of its star, Steve Carell. It’s also directed by ‘Back to the Future’ helmer Robert Zemeckis so it seemed strange that it wasn’t better known, by me at least.

Having seen the film it’s easy to see why the film sunk without trace at the box office. There is a lot to like, but tonally it’s a mess and there are long scenes that are difficult to watch through embarrassment, awkwardness or just plain boredom.

The film is based on a true story of an artist named Mark who was severely beaten by a gang of yobbos who didn’t like his proclivity of wearing hi-heels. He loses his memory and ability to draw and relies on friends and a carer to get through the day. He also retreats into a fantasy world where he becomes his action figure ‘Hogie’ and fights the Nazis in his own model town of Marwen.

The film goes into complete ‘Toy Story’ mode to show Hogie’s adventures which mirror the events of Mark’s own life. His attackers are the Nazis and his troupe of lady resistance fighters are his friends and a favourite porn star.

Mark’s attackers are due to be sentenced and Mark has to speak at their sentencing hearing to ensure the impact they caused on his life is recognised and they receive the appropriate jail time. He also has an upcoming show for the photos he takes of his models, with both events adding to his stress. Things look up however  when a new neighbour, Nicol, moves in and takes an interest in Mark’s hobby.

Will he find peace and love and can Hogie defeat both the Nazis and the Belgian witch who haunts his endeavours?

This was a worthy film that showed the bravery of the main character in surmounting the obstacles placed before him. I can’t say I enjoyed it though. The narrative device of having the toys acting out World War 2 scenes that ran parallel with Mark’s own life was misjudged and took you in and out of the real story with monotonous regularity.

The animation was excellent, with the real cast being morphed into their action figure avatars. I liked how things like the buttons and  zips being too big for the tiny clothes were shown along with their articulated joints. The toys scenes went on too long for me, with a time travel episode lasting ten minutes during which my attention waned. I think you need to have either a kids’ film or a moving redemption drama - to have both squeezed into one film made it a hard watch.

Carell was good, not ‘Foxcatcher’ good, but he did well with difficult material. He must have thought another Oscar nomination was in the offing when he got the script for a brain damaged transvestite, but unfortunately his turn wasn’t enough to keep all the plates spinning. For your money you also get a single scene with ‘Russian carer’ Brienne of Tarth who was dreadful, and the chubby nurse off ‘Nurse Jackie’ who was the chubby friend.

There were good sequences in the film and it was a triumph of the human spirit that deserved to be told. Some scenes were very difficult to endure however, like when Mark had his breakdowns or proposed marriage and there was constant yelling and screaming to endure.

It must have been a hard film to market with the opening animated sequence having a couple of swears so that we knew that this wasn’t for the kids. I’m not sure who it was for really, as it covers a few genres but doesn’t really succeed in any.

A brave effort, but not something I’d recommend or consider as entertainment.

Best Bit :  Trial Speech ‘W’ Rating 10/23

No.348 : Who You Think I Am (2019)

Who You Think I Am at the IMDb

Juliette Binoche plays Claire in this French drama, a lady who is as nutty as squirrel shit.

We meet Claire as she is engaging with her new therapist. She’s frustrated that her former analyst has suffered a stroke meaning that she has to recap her story, the one that brought her under psychiatric care. This helps us as the story mostly unfolds in flashback, with it beginning as the 50 year old lecturer is having quite the jolly time with her younger boyfriend. He’s not too keen however and the relationship is clearly floundering. Claire lives alone, sharing custody of her two boys with her ex-husband who left her for a younger woman.

Claire starts to nosey through her boyfriend’s Facebook on the sly, having gained backdoor access by befriending some of his friends. She casually likes a few photos taken by one such friend and the two start to chat when he thanks her for her approval. Claire enjoys the flirty chat and starts to pose as ‘Clara’, using photos she finds on the net to promote her younger alter ego.

The online relationship starts to blossom and Claire barely notices when her boyfriend leaves her. She starts a Facebook page for Clara and uses her son’s old mobile for contact. Her new beau, Alex, is keen for a meet up but for obvious reasons Claire has to keep him at arms length. At one point the two almost meet when their GPS signals match up but Alex looks straight through Claire as he forlornly seeks out Clara.

Things start to get messy when Claire neglects her kids and starts to act out at work and in her car, egged on by her would be lover’s dirty talk. Eventually she runs out of excuses and tells Alex of her fictitious lover and their plans to move to Brazil. It looks like an innocent flirtation has resolved without issue - apart from her being a total timewaster - but why is she seeing a psychologist?

Things take a darker turn when her ex-boyfriend later tells her that Alex has killed himself over some woman he never met on Facebook. Claire is devastated but presents her doctor with a new book she has written that charts how the relationship could have worked out. We see this enacted in full as the pair enjoy a whirlwind romance - can we know what is real, what is imagined and what is the state of Claire’s mind?

I really enjoyed this film with its attractive cast, excellent direction and clever narrative. It could have been boring with a lot of the story relayed by phone calls and texts but it zipped along and kept me guessing. I enjoyed the French dialogue and feel that subtitles help you stay immersed in a film as you aren’t distracted by your phone and the like, as you need to keep reading what is on the screen.

Binoche is excellent as Claire - she is super sexy and a lot like Elaine out of ‘Seinfeld’. In some ways she was too pretty, as it would be a different film if she was a fatty with a bad complexion. As it was, Alex would have jumped at the chance of a date with Claire, had she come clean.

My guesses at the outcome were all undone by a few neat twists and, although we never doubted that Claire had issues, it was interesting to see her fantasy played out and her reactions to the twists she experienced herself.

Things like online romances and age gap relationships were explored in intimate detail and there was plenty of food for thought. The cast were all excellent and I think the story suited the Parisian location were romance and flirting seemed natural and cool - set this in Glasgow and it’s just a crazed stalker with a SIM card.

Overall an excellent and moving piece of work that has a lot to say about our society, addiction to mobile devices and the age old quest to be loved.

Get it on Netflix right now.

Best Bit : Who’s Phone is That Ringing? ‘W’ Rating : 20/23

No.347 : Wild Rose (2018)

Wild Rose at the IMDb

Off to the sunny climes of Glasgow now, as we witness one woman’s struggle to become a top country singer - don’t say ‘country & western’, that’s a no no.

The ‘Rose' of the title is Rose-Lynn a young Glasgow girl who, when the film starts, is being released from a one year sentence in prison that she received for smuggling drugs. She’s escorted out by Stevie the Bookie, and heads home on the bus as the opening credits roll, against an endless backdrop of country music. If you don’t like country music this is one to avoid, as it’s wall to wall.

She meets up with, and pumps, her old boyfriend before heading home to her mother's, Mrs Overall, who has been looking after her young children for her. She still harbours an ambition to be a country singer and heads back to reclaim her job at Glasgow’s Grand Old Opry. This goes poorly, partly because someone else has her job and partly due to Janie Godley being the barmaid.

Rose-Lynn has to wear a tag which inhibits her plans to be a club singer so she gets a job at a fancy house as a cleaner and befriends the  owner, Susannah. Susannah is a classy lady who married a boy made good from Clydebank. Despite her constant swearing she takes to Rose-Lynn despite the hammering her booze takes when she’s out.

Susannah’s connections in the media get Rose-Lynn a meeting with Radio 2’s Bob Harris who shows what a good DJ he is when he tries to act. He tells Rose-Lynn that she’ll need to write her own songs to be a success, but Rose-Lynn thinks if she can get to Nashville things will all be OK.

Things look up when she wins her appeal against being tagged and Susannah offers to sponsor her trip to the States. Trouble looms however as Susannah’s husband uncovers Rose-Lynn’s past and her ability to screw up every opportunity presented to her looms large. Can she get to Nashville and will this be the key to success that she imagines?

I quite liked this film but it suffered due to Rose-Lynn’s character. I get that she was meant to be a free spirit but her selfishness and rudeness throughout was a turn off for me. I know this was a path to her ultimate redemption but it was cringey to see all the people trying to help her only to be let down by Rose-Lynn’s tunnel vision ambition and lack of empathy. She was well played by Jessie Buckley, who certainly can sing, bit I had no investment in the character who was a serial waster.

It’s probably true that she was just immature but her realisation towards the end about what was important and what was her ultimate redemption seemed totally unearned.

The film was well made with the grimmer sides of Glasgow well realised, as were the more affluent. Mrs Overall did a passable Scottish accent and a few of the Glasgow characters, many of whom were never actors, added a bit of colour and realism.

The endless country ballads were a bit off-putting for me but if you like that sort of music, then is is one for you. The character’s miserable existence sprinkled with some hope for the future was like a 100 minute country song in itself and if that appeals then you, then you should fill your cowboy boots.

Best Bit : Opry Finale  ‘W’ Rating : 14/23

 

No.346 : Women’s Prison Massacre (1983)

 Women's Prison Massacre at the IMDb

The IMDb title page for this film gives it a possessive apostrophe but the poster and title card do not. The original intent may have been for it to be a plural and not a possessive, but it’s probably not important given that the likely viewers of this sleazy trash will be more concerned with the boob quotient rather than correct punctuation. Why can’t we have both though?

This Italian relic dates from 1983 and appears to be part of the ‘Black Emmanuelle’ franchise. This is not explicit however (unlike the film) as although we have the same actress and a character called Emmanuelle, there isn’t any continuity with the previous films…er, as I’ve been led to understand. Maybe they wanted this as a standalone epic or they couldn’t get the rights. Either way it is a terrible exploitation film with blood and boobs served up in equal measure.

The film opens with three ladies delivering monologues to an audience of prisoners. It’s not clear where we are but it looks like it’s meant to be Mexico given the policemen dress like ice cream salesmen. Anyway the play doesn’t go down well, with Emmanuelle getting particularly bad reviews from head bitch Albina, who is possibly so named as she’s a bit pale.

We learn that Emmanuelle has been falsely imprisoned by a corrupt DA who will stop at nothing to silence her. Meanwhile four notorious murders, Led by ‘Crazy Boy’ have been captured. The DA has the great plan to house them at the women’s prison before their executions. It’s not made clear, and it’s certainly not conveyed to the bad guys, but it seems like the DA hopes the baddies will kill Emmanuelle when they inevitably escape. This plan is very weak, mainly because our villains know nothing about it or have anything to gain from it.

The four worst criminals in the country are transported in a single van along some desert back roads. The guards manage to avoid a fake road block when the wise one catches the doppelgangers out, but after a low rent chase the baddies are out and our wise bearded friend is likely to be dead given he's taken a point blank shotgun blast he took to the chest.

Actually he miraculously survives, and our clichéd quartet of baddies, including a sadistic German one, pitch up at the prison and kill all the guards. The police hang back letting each of the men carry out their fantasies against the female prisoners - some of whom are willing, others less so.

Various atrocities take place including a game of Russian roulette, which sees a tin of tomato soup thrown in the lead baddie’s face, before our guys make their break for freedom. They want $5m and a car and are taking Emmanuelle and the lady governor as hostages. Can it end well? Doubtful, given the rest was a load of nonsense!

This was a really tacky film that for some reason Amazon Prime suggested I may be interested in. What a clever algorithm that has detected, through my viewing habits, that I like ‘W’ initialled films. 

You can’t slag this effort off too much, as it pretty much delivers what you’d expect given the title, cast and premise. Emmanuelle was strangely shy in the cut I saw, but the other inmates redressed the balance with several full on displays of love behind bars. The inflatable man wasn’t necessary however.

The dubbing was terrible as was the dialogue - maybe ‘I want to cut your nipples off’ was lost in translation. The plot was wafer thin, but even then it didn’t make sense. The whole plan seemed to be to get some men in a woman’s prison for an hour, have them behave badly, before a shoot out at the end. You can’t say they didn’t deliver on that.

If you seek this film out expecting trashy rubbish with a lot of blood and nudity you won't be disappointed. If you want anything else, then you will be.

Best Bit : Toilet Block Punishment ‘W’ Rating : 11/23

No.345 : We Belong Together (2018)

We Belong Together at the IMDb

Fatal Attraction rehash time now, as a recently sober college professor makes the mistake of falling for a student who happens to be a mentalist.

We meet our hero Thomas as he’s being awarded his 90 day chip at his AA meeting. We learn that his drinking caused him to separate from his wife and children but his new found sobriety has opened up the prospect of a reconciliation. He is allowed access to his kids and is slowly winning back his wife who has now moved in with her mother.

Trouble is just around the corner however in the shape of Tracy, a 26 year old stunner with a military background who has signed up for his classes. He finds her a job in a diner and is soon subject to some pretty full on flirting from his sexy student. An early chat is interrupted by his assistant but she is soon beaten up and chucked over a balcony by a mystery assailant - could it be our mad stalker?

Thomas tries to act all professional but quickly folds when Tracy shows him her bra. The pair then have a really tame sex montage with Tracy keeping the sheets tightly wrapped to her body. Maybe she has a big mole or they’re after a PG rating?

Anyway, Thomas tries to make inroads with his family whilst being increasingly alarmed by his new squeeze’s behaviour. Is she nuts and the killer or is that just what they want us to think? Details of a troubled past are sprinkled liberally about with her character not being developed as much as it is exploded like a Claymore mine. She undoes our man’s sobriety and gets off her meds - we know this isn’t going to end well. Well, it didn’t start well so that’s a fair assumption.

Given the title of the film it’s not hard to guess that we are dealing with an obsessive here - but is it the one we think or is she a victim herself of PTSD and of lazy writing? Dreya Michele wasn’t convincing in the lead and seemed a bit shy for a supposed sexual psycho predator. She is attractive but didn’t convince as a 26 year old - she was 33 at the time of filming. The levels of obsession and nuttiness were well done with every man no doubt flinching each time Thomas got a raft of increasingly manic voicemails.

Soon the ex-wife is injured in an off screen accident and in a coma - who could be causing all of this misfortune to the women in Thomas’ life? It can’t be that obvious, can it? Thomas tries to end the relationship and after an hour we hear the title of the film. How far will the obsession go and who will survive the fallout?

This was a decent offering but it was very by the numbers. From the off we knew the girlfriend was going to be crazy and she was. I was hoping for a bit of misdirection or even a small wrong foot but instead the film went from A to B to C without even a sideways glance.

I didn’t have much invested in the pissed up professor and his troubled times were more funny and inevitable than concerning. It was the standard ‘led by his dick’ male getting his comeuppance with little added in the way of colour or invention. As Thomas’ life fell apart we were meant to marvel at the elaborate scheming in play but it really was just a mad woman behaving badly before her inevitable demise so all the men can return to Tinder without worrying of the consequences. Apart from VD.

The film was 80 minutes and well enough made and paced that it never became an unwelcome distraction, but overall there isn’t anything you haven’t seen before and done better. The finale does leave open the possibility of a sequel so maybe don’t open that Bumble app just yet.

Best Bit : I’ve got a surprise for you! ‘W’ Rating 13/23