Author: Ben Browne

Dorian Gray

Thought I’d actually review a new film in the midst of catching up on the old ones I’ve seen recently- especially as it is one you could easily miss amongst all the District 9s and Ugly Truths…

Dorian Gray (2009)


On the way back from seeing Dorian Gray, I was having a discussion about Angels & Demons (a film which I have yet to see) after asking what it was like. After the general consensus that it was shit, we thought about possible reasons for said shittiness. The most interesting point was that it would be hard to convey the author’s words and images through a film. Fuck, if they can’t do it for Dan “Hack” Brown, what chance does a film based on the writings of Oscar Wilde have? Turns out, rather a fair one.

“You have the only two things worth having: looks and youth.”


Based on the classic 1891 novel by Oscar Wilde, the film follows the life of the eponymous Dorian Gray (Ben Barnes) as he falls in love with a hedonistic lifestyle introduced to him by Lord Wotton (Colin Firth). Artist Basil Hallward (Ben Chaplin) paints a picture of Gray to immortalise the beauty of him, but the painting soon becomes to represent something more as Gray wishes he would stay that way and never age. As a result, the painting becomes uglier and older whilst leaving Gray unblemished and youthful. I’m obviously not going to bash the story as it is a genuine literary classic and is a story I’ve loved ever since I read it, but what I can judge is whether the film portrayed the story well enough to deserve the Dorian Gray title. Ben Barnes and Colin Firth were both great (Barnes proving he’s one to look out for in the future) as were the cast in general. The problem wasn’t with the acting at all. Everyone put in good, solid performances.

Acting aside, the rest of the film felt a bit flat at times. Most of these things were to do with the needless additions to the story. For some reason, they decided to give Wotton a daughter and have her fall in love with Gray near the end of the film to add “emotional punch”. What it actually does is detract from the main drama, rather than add to it (I must say that Rebecca Hall was brilliant as her, though) I was happy with some of the other additions, especially the ones further exploring Gray’s hedonism as some of things in Wilde’s source novel seem quite tame by today’s standards. It does get a bit Eyes Wide Shut at times though.

The cinematography of Olde London was great and actually made me proud to be sitting there watching a British film. I’m not xenophobic or anything, it’s just that British cinema in general has fallen into a river of shite and has struggled to get out for quite a while. It’s nice to feel that by watching a film, you’re contributing to a worthy cause, rather than an international landfill full of obscene amounts of money.

The one thing than bugged me about Dorian Gray was the painting itself. It should be terrifying, rather than just unnerving. The decision to use CGI for the demonic painting wasn’t a very good one in my book. CGI, unless done very, very well is soulless- the exact opposite of what the painting should represent. It doesn’t look terrible or anything -just mildly creepy. It should be must more that just creepy- it should be shit-your-pants scary.

“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about!”

Dorian Gray is a decent film. It’s got a fantastic cast, some great dialogue and a genuinely creepy atmosphere. It’s good, just not a classic adaptation of a classic.

3:10 To Yuma

With the 100th review old news and the one year anniversary of the blog itself done and dusted, I’m feeling a bit of post-landmark depression. Still, best cure for that is to keep typin’ and reviewin’ until I hit the next notable event. Erm, just pretend there’s a nice segue here into the review…

3:10 To Yuma (2007)

Westerns have an odd place in present day cinema. They are still quite a rarity and when we do see them we seem to want them to be groundbreaking or do something different with the tired old formula. There is rarely a run-of-the-mill Western to be found between all the loud boomfests and supposedly raunchy comedies. Thank Prospector Pete for 3:10 To Yuma then, a Western so average you could stick it between two slices of bread and pass it off as a petrol station sandwich.

“This town’s gonna burn!”

When notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is captured, a posse is thrown together – including penniless rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) – to escort him to the town of Contention, where the 3:10 train to Yuma prison will arrive. The plot itself was pretty decent, with the unwavering goal to get to the train acting as a good yardstick, i.e. here are some people, people got bad person, people got to get bad person to train. Simple as your average Family Guy fan. Christian Bale was passable as Dan Evans, but it is by no means his most memorable role. Bale only seems to have two roles in films these days- normal, bland straight man or ridiculously gruff, gravelly voiced hero. It’s a crying shame too as I can’t believe the star of American Psycho has so few strings to his bow. Anyway, Russell Crowe is also pretty good as Ben Wade, but I do have some problems with his character. Some new paragraph kind of problems… (that is the last time I do that stupid lame joke- I promise)

Ben Wade is supposedly the bad guy of the piece and to be fair, he does do some bastardly things (including a song-induced stabathon and pushing a man off a cliff for insulting his mother – “Even bad men love their mothers.”) but he also draws pictures of birds and at one point even the garden variety, often spotted, brooding Christian Bale. It’s such a blatant indication that Wade isn’t all bad he may as well sign the pictures “Mr. Fucking Sensitivity” and dot all the “i”s with little lovehearts. I wanted Wade to be bad in the way that only outlaws in Westerns can be: kill 50 guys and rape a barwench before brunch, not drawing pictures and the like. I’m not saying that there isn’t any room for well-rounded characters in my book, it’s just that it’s done so heavy handedly it’s quite jarring and ended up painting Wade with the same bland brush as a certain Mr. Bale.

The only people who really stood out in the film were the surprisingly strong supporting cast, who had to do so much supporting their knees were buckling. We have the gruff Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda), the twitchy Doc Potter (Alan Tudyk) and the psychotic second in command to Wade, Charlie Prince (Ben Foster). Foster was genuinely fantastic as Prince and it baffled me why he was the understudy and Wade was the head honcho. Prince makes more impact in 5 minutes than Wade does in the entire film. Credit goes to Ben Foster, who has continually impressed me in everything I’ve seen him in and definitely deserves to be a bigger name.

The third act should have been a solid, tension filled rollercoaster ride with the added time pressure of whether Evans gets Wade to the prison train on time or not. Whilst it does have a lot of gunfire and bullets whizzing about, it didn’t do anything new. We’ve seen all this stuff a thousand times before and frankly, I’m bored of it. If you can’t do something new with your film, why try? Unfortunately, the answer is an in-my-face “To make lots of money” which leaves me to slink off defeated. Amidst all the squibs, there is some truly baffling character development where Evans and Wade start gushing their life stories to each other with no reason why. I rewound to check if I’d missed anything, but no- it is completely unprovoked.

“Sometimes a man has to be big enough to see how small he is.”

3:10 To Yuma is an average film. It won’t set your world on fire, but it might lightly singe the edges, which I suppose is OK. It’s a solid Western, but by no means essential viewing.

Push

Well, Hell’s bells! The Popcorn Bucket is a year old today! My first review seems so damn long ago, but it really wasn’t. I’m not one to pat myself on the back but I’m astounded that I’ve kept something like this up for a whole year. Normally I lose interest when I find something good on T.V. but goddamn it, I stuck in there. Holy fucking Christ, I’m awesome. And blasphemous.

Push (2009)

When Push was released early this year in the UK, it hardly made a ripple or squeak and barely grossed a million at the box office before slinking off to die. So I can safely assume that many of you haven’t seen it (I am choosing to ignore DVD purchases/rentals and internet piracy ‘cos it suits my point) It’s a shame because it’s a solid film with some truly great ideas.

“There are special people in this world. We don’t ask to be special. We’re just born this way.”
Push revolves around a group of people with psychic abilities. There are many different types of psychic including some that can move things with their minds (Movers), some that can implant thoughts in your head (Pushers) and some that can predict the future (Watchers). After young Watcher Cassie (Dakota Fanning) finds under-the-radar Mover Nick Gant (Chris Evans) in Hong Kong, Nick’s life suddenly becomes a lot more danger-filled as a government agency led by Henry Carver (Djimon Hounsou), who experiment on psychics start pursuing the unlikely allies. So far, so X-Men/ Jumper, right? Well, yes and no. The X-comparison is an understandable one (you try and name a film revolving around a group of people with special powers that doesn’t have an “X” in the title…) , but not exactly a fair one. Push makes it clear it is its own film and shows more ingenuinity with some set-pieces and powers than any of the X-Men films did, and that’s really saying something. The story itself was sound enough, I just wish it could have taken itself a little less seriously.

Chris Evans was great, although he did seem to be playing The Human Torch again without the fire (just “The Human” then…) . Dakota Fanning surprised me with her performance as Cassie. Having not seen her since War of the Worlds, it seems that Ms. Fanning has grown up considerably and lost that annoying precocious quality she had in her previous films. She’s always been able to act, but this was the first time I actually believed she was the character. Yes, she’s still a smart-mouthed miniature bastard, but all 12/13 year olds are- why should she be any different?

Push is a pretty ballsy production. If you were handed a low sum of money to make a film, I’m guessing you’d cross off “special effects” and “exotic locales” from your list before you had the chance to say “Who are you and why are you giving me money?”. Push revolves around superpowers and is set in Hong Kong- yeah. Despite its meagre budget (well, comparatively meagre- thing still cost $38 million to make) it looks great and has some really interesting shots of a little-seen side of Hong Kong.

There is a constant flow of great moments/little touches through the film until the end when they pretty much throw the baby out with the bath water, but I’ll get to that in a minute. There is a fantastic gunfight between two Movers to look forward to. Doesn’t sound that exciting? Yeah- the guns are FLOATING IN MID-AIR. Well, I thought it was cool. However, virtually every scene is stolen by Cliff Curtis’ Shifter (One who can change objects into other objects) who is the only one who seems to be having fun with his power. Everyone else seems to treat their awesome powers as some sort of disease that only brings nastiness. RANT ALERT! – why are nearly all superhero films/ films dealing with superbeings fucking depressing these days? Yes, The Dark Knight was awesome, but fuck- somebody actually have some fun with these powers, for God’s sake. I’m pretty sure that if I woke up and had the ability to fly or punch through walls I wouldn’t sit around feeling sorry for myself. I’d be out there seeing how high I could soar, or seeing what/who else I could punch through. Lighten up, please!

“You better do something quick, ’cause I’m getting sick of drawing dead bodies!”

So the ending. It wasn’t bad really, just quite unsatisfying. After endless one-upmanship, the characters just fizzle out a bit rather than go out with a bang. The film would like to think it has left you questioning, but it couldn’t make me care enough to do all that. Still, Push is a decent, solid flick that just screams out for a sequel. Somebody please make an X2 to this X-Men!

Apocalypto

After not seeing this film for a long time and remembering next to nothing about it, I thought I would be best to refresh my memory with a rental and subsequent review. I am well aware that normal people don’t think like this.

Apocalypto (2007)


The film opens on a serene jungle scene. We slowly start zooming in on a massive fern. It’s eerily quiet. Suddenly, a tapir bursts out and runs for its life. After collectively changing their undergarments, the audience are on tenterhooks as we see some Mayan hunters pursue the boar. The frenetic chase goes on at a blistering pace before the tapir buys the farm in the sharp, wooden, spiky booby-trap district. Our hunters start preparing the tapir until one of the hunters convinces another to eat the testicles. Cue much laughing and ball jokes. Welcome to Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto!

“When I catch him, I will peel his skin and have him watch me wear it.”


Apocalypto is the story of young hunter Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) who lives in peace with his pregnant wife and son in the Mesoamerican rainforest. After his homestead is attacked by Holcane warriors, Jaguar Paw is taken captive alongside most of his village and dragged to the Mayan capital. Our hero must escape the various dangers of the capital to be reunited with his family. The basic story was a bit rubbish if I’m honest. The film’s slow pace didn’t help keep me consistently interested in what was going on. Having said that, I was really impressed by Rudy Youngblood as Jaguar Paw, who had the ability to convey many different things without saying a single word. Talking of words, the decision to have the film’s spoken language as Mayan was a fantastic one. It really adds to the immersion of the film and avoids any god-awful 10,000 B.C-style clangers, such as the infamous line: “Do not eat me when I save your life!”.

Apocalypto‘s cinematography is genuinely stunning. There are some breathtaking shots of the natural landscape and seeing full-scale Mayan cities complete with fuckingmegahuge temples is a real treat. You really get the feeling that Jaguar Paw is out of his depth as he stares in a mixture of awe and terror at these massive edifices. It’s no coincidence that many of the film’s best scenes are located in the capital. In fact, the film seems to tighten up once Jaguar Paw is in the Mayan city, but slacken off again when he inevitably escapes (no, I’m not going to Invisotext that spoiler because it is as obvious as the fucking Sun in the sky that he’s going to escape).

Watching it, it’s easy to guess that the director of Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ is behind what is presented on screen. After all, the violence is brutal and the claret is spilt in a way that only Mr. Sugartits himself can do. However, this brutality is justifiable as it was, quite literally, a jungle out there. There is one chilling scene where Middle Eye (Gerardo Taracena) nonchalantly slits the throat of an elder that will stay with me far longer than the details of the story will. The mere thought of how Apocalypto could have been with the violence- all obviously choreographed fight sequences and over-the-top explosions makes me shudder.

When returning to the jungle, Gibson decides to turn Jaguar Paw into a Mayan Rambo and have him use nature against his pursuers with mixed results. That is “mixed results” as in the film’s quality, not “mixed results” as in he doesn’t fuck them all up. Trouble is I saw it all coming and I wanted to be surprised. I know very little about Mayan culture (and am always interested to learn), but I have seen First Blood. The last thing I wanted to be reminded of when watching a film set eons ago was the misadventures of John Rambo, one man army.

“I am Jaguar Paw! This is my forest! My sons and their sons will hunt here after I am gone!”


Thing is, Apocalypto is very self-indulgent. It’s a beautiful film to look at, but the story is pretty weak. When it came down to it, I didn’t really care what happened and taking nearly 2 and a half hours to tell a semi-rubbish story is silly.

The Bank Job

Yes, calm down imaginary fans. I’m back after a two week absence, which I’m sure was totally noticed. Anyway, I really do have a shitload of reviews to catch up on, so let’s get crackin’

The Bank Job (2008)


Oh, Jason Statham- how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. I genuinely like the Stath in anything he’s in. After the sense-raping that is the two Crank films, I just love seeing him in things. He’s the British Vin Diesel- and yes, that’s a good thing. However, like his ridiculously deep voiced Yank counterpart, he does seem to pick some “questionable” projects to act in. I rented The Bank Job believing it to be your standard Stath vehicle with a ’70s setting draped over all the punching people in the face and calling them a ponce. I’m happy to report it’s more than that and a hell of lot more entertaining to boot.

“I know you, Terry. And I know your mates. You’ve always been looking for the big score. The one that makes sense of everything. I have it for you.”

The Bank Job is based on the real-life robbery of the Baker Street Lloyds Bank in 1971. The oddly named Terry Leather (Jason Statham) is an ex criminal who now owns a car dealership. When he is approached by old flame Martine (Saffron Burrows) he is offered a place on a ragtag team planning on raiding the safe deposit boxes held in the Baker Street Lloyds. I really enjoyed the story and having known nothing about the actual event, felt that I was a bit more educated after watching it (although some liberties with the truth are taken, especially involving a certain royal and her nudie pics). If I had to pithily sum The Bank Job up I suppose I would say it is a cross between The Sweeney and Ocean’s Eleven, which is, I think you’ll agree, a bit genius. The Stath was actually good as Terry, putting in more of a Snatch performance than a Transporter one. Although, he is more suited to gruff one-liners and punching people. The stand out for me though was David Suchet’s (yes, the Poirot guy) genuinely nasty Lew Vogel, who has ensured I will never fully trust the funny moustached Belgian detective ever again.

I really expected The Bank Job to be dumb fun. It was fun, but it certainly wasn’t dumb. I must give it credit for not falling into the usual traps that films set in the ’60s and ’70s do. Not once did I see any disco dancing which brought a huge sigh of relief to my inner pedant.

This review may seem shorter than others because of the quality of the notes I scrawled down in my notepad (Apparently I can’t just watch films any more- I must make notes) I wrote down the word “sandblaster” down, but I needn’t have bothered- that scene will be burned onto my brain for a long time to come. It’s genuinely harrowing and features more bastardliness for Suchet.

“Alright, let’s make some money!”

My only real problem with The Bank Job is the same problem I have with films like Ocean’s Eleven. You have to flesh out every character in the team enough otherwise the audience simply won’t care what happens to them. By the end of it, I couldn’t remember the names of half our loveable rogues, let alone what happened to them. Still, that may be down to me not having the brain capacity to deal with over four characters. Anyway, The Bank Job is entertaining and taut enough to warrant at the very least a casual glance.

How To Lose Friends & Alienate People

From small town, small budget comedies to a big city, big budget comedy in a matter of days. Good God, is there anything I can’t do?

How To Lose Friends & Alienate People (2008)

When I first saw the Photoshopped-to-shit poster for this film, I let out a deep sigh. “Simon Pegg has sold out.” I thought as I balled up my fists in cinematic rage. I then vowed not to see the film in the cinema and avoid it for as long as possible. Well, curiosity got the better of me and I rented it the other day. I am a weak, flawed human being.

“I’ve got cock on my hand”

Loosely based on writer Toby Young’s memoir of the same name, How To Lose Friends & Alienate People follows Sidney Young (Simon Pegg) as he leaves his humble British magazine Post Modern Review to work for glossy New York mag Sharps, headed by Clayton Harding (Jeff Bridges). Young also meets co-worker Alison (Kirsten Dunst) who is very frosty towards him. The plot didn’t really do anything new. It’s the same old “fish out of water” plot dragged out every now and again and dressed up as something new. So much so that you can predict the sort of gags that will come up- misunderstandings, clashes of culture- things like that. However, How To Lose Friends… does eventually start doing something interesting with the plot about halfway through, providing you are still paying attention. Pegg was pretty funny (although he’s funnier when he’s spouting lines he’s actually written) and Kirsten Dunst was just Kirsten Dunst- however you may feel about that. The funniest character for me was Jeff Bridges’ Clayton Harding who was just a joy to watch.

From what I gather, Toby Young’s source memoir is more a damning piece of writing, criticising not only the fashion/celebrity world but himself for being part of it than the traditional romcom formula we are given here. However, I haven’t read it so I can only judge on what the film brought to the table. And, whilst it does bring a lot to the table that we’ve seen time and time again- it does some interesting stuff too. Pegg is just likeable as Young, which is probably what rubbed the readers of the book up the wrong way. Yes, he does some shallow and selfish things, but you can’t help but like him. I swear, the man could set my dog on fire and repeatedly punch my mother in the face and I would still smile and tell him how great Shaun of the Dead was. I really liked Megan Fox’s Sophie Maes too- and not just for the obvious reason. Fox actually seems to be acting in this film, which is a change from certain other films starring massive lumps of computer wizardry.

How To Lose Friends… is a mish-mash of different genres. Whilst this could be a good thing, I don’t think it is in this case. For every witty line (and there are several) there’s some slapstick which lets the film down somewhat. There’s nothing wrong with slapstick, it’s just I preferred the dialogue to Pegg falling off things and getting slapped.

“(To his father) You thought Brad Pitt was a cave in Yorkshire.”

I was surprised how much I liked How To Lose Friends & Alienate People. I liked Simon Pegg in it, Gillian Anderson was great and Jeff Bridges was simply fun to watch. I get the feeling that if it had stuck to its witty guns, rather than bringing out the broad comedy slapsticks it would have been a fantastic film instead of simply a great one.

In Bruges

Time for something a little more off-beat now with a look at In Bruges, an easily missable 2008 film that definitely needs more press.

In Bruges (2008)


I didn’t know what to expect going into In Bruges. From the poster I figured it might be a kind of Hot Fuzz retread- doing the “big action, small town” type juxtaposition with Colin Farrell attached just to sell tickets. I was wrong and I’m very glad I was. It’s much better than that.

“Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf. I think I’m heading home.”

After a job gone awry, foul mouthed Irish hitmen Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) are told to lie low in medieval Belgian town Bruges and await further instructions from their furious boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes). The story was great, providing a really strong character driven narrative that kept me hooked. Both Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson were fantastic, giving us the best hitman duo since Jules and Vincent in Pulp Fiction. Honestly. The relationship between the two was brilliant, going from Odd Couple one minute to believable friends the next. Ralph Fiennes was hilarious as Harry, proving he has more strings to his bow than straight-up character actor. The dialogue is also fantastic, with genuinely funny exchanges and endlessly quotable one-liners.

So In Bruges is funny. Let me qualify that and say that In Bruges is darkly funny. Some of the humour present is about as dark as you can get and it’s safe to say it won’t be to everyone’s taste. It has a really strange charm to it all that bypasses all the jokes about racist midgets, drug abuse and more violence and swearing than you can shake a fucking baseball bat at. For most of it, Ken is the eye-rolling straight man to Ray’s sulky teenager, but some of the more affecting stuff is allowed to come through later which is a masterclass in character development.

There are some great scenes too, including a memorable lads’ night out scene with “dwarf” (we are told that the vertically challenged prefer the d-word over the m-word) some Class A drugs and some prostitutes. There’s also a fantastic bit where Ray does his bit for international relations between our country and the rootin’ tootin’ U.S. of A.

“(On the subject of Belgian jokes) Is Belgium with all those child abuse murders lately? I do know a Belgium joke. What’s Belgium famous for? Chocolates and child abuse, and they only invented the chocolates to get to the kids.”

What surprised me most with In Bruges was how moving some of it was. I was caught up in it all and actually got a bit choked up by proceedings- something which really caught me unaware. I would definitely recommend a viewing. Not only will you be getting a great, darkly comic film, you may even learn something about the historic town of Bruges too.

Déjà Vu

Christ, I’ve been lazy of late. I’ve watched quite a few films and haven’t even be bothered to drag my arse a few metres to my computer to type about them. Since I have 5 or 6 films to catch up on, I’d better get started…

Déjà Vu (2006)

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’m a big fan of action films. It’s very easy to point to action films in general and accuse them of being hackneyed and devoid of intelligence. I don’t think of them like that. I think of them as perfect vessels to pass the time- with enough gunfire, death and tits to sate my raging inner pleb. Truth be told, I couldn’t watch a Michael Mann film every day, much in the same way that I prefer not to view The Godfather films on a regular basis. Why? Because they stimulate my brain and normally when I slump in front of my T.V. I’m looking for the opposite of that. Hence why I actively seek out brainless action blockbusters-to shrink the danger of my using my brain too much.

“Brace yourselves, I think you’re about to witness a murder.”

Nothing has “brainless action blockbuster” written over it more blantantly than Déjà Vu. We open on a nice New Orleans day where 500 Johnny Americana sailors are on a ferry to a Mardi Gras party with their smiling, flag-waving little children and doting wives. Suddenly, this tranquil, American-as-apple-pie scene is rocked by a fuckingmegahuge explosion big enough to give Michael Bay a raging hard-on. After several ssslllooow mmmmoooottiooonnn, sad music scored shots of people being stretchered out of the port, we have ATF Agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) pull up and survey the damage- they just done pissed off the wrong motherfucker. Carlin is then recruited by FBI Agent Paul Pryzwarra (Val Kilmer) who has access to a very special machine called Snow White that allows you to see three days into the past- from any angle. The plot was OK, but at least it was a slight twist on the usual action bollocks. Denzel Washington was good, but wasn’t exactly stretching himself. Same goes for Val Kilmer. I did like Paula Patton’s turn as Claire though. She didn’t irritate at all in a pretty much thankless role.

Déjà Vu is a strange film. There is a good central idea in it, but it’s not entirely sure what to do with it, so it tries everything. It’s a clue-finder, suspect viewer and finally a deus ex machina. This isn’t really a bad thing, it’s just a bit wishy-washy. Need a clue? Snow White. Where did the suspect go? Snow White. It’s just a bit lazy. I would have preferred if they used the unique capabilities of the machine to track down evidence and stuff like that.

“We’ve got some unique time constraints.”

Still, Déjà Vu definitely delivers in the action department, including one genuinely inventive sequence which involves Carlin chasing a car from the past in splitscreen. Doesn’t make sense? Watch the film and it will. Déjà Vu is also very well shot, with director Tony Scott bringing his experienced eye to every frame on screen. Trouble is, Déjà Vu is a bit style over substance, even for an action film. I found myself getting a bit bored during the third act and wishing it would stop explaining stuff and actually do something. All in all, Déjà Vu isn’t a bad film- but it’s not exactly that good either.

The Departed

I’ve been indulging my criminal side lately with films like Public Enemies, so I figured I’d review Martin Scorsese’s 2006 Oscar-winning flick. Because I’m badass like that.

The Departed (2006)

I know what you’re thinking- “Martin Scorsese doing a mob movie? How daring (!) Let me just put on my shocked face…” Well, actually The Departed is probably his most daring film in recent years, taking more chances than you’d expect him to. It’s just a shame some of them don’t pay off.

“When you decide to be something, you can be it. That’s what they don’t tell you in the church. When I was your age they would say we can become cops, or criminals. Today, what I’m saying to you is this: when you’re facing a loaded gun, what’s the difference?”

The Departed is a remake of 2002 Chinese film Infernal Affairs, which I haven’t actually seen, so I’m basing my review solely on what The Departed brings to the table. The story goes thusly: the Boston Police Department manages to place young cadet Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) deep undercover in the city’s Irish-American gangland, run by the violent Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). However, gangster Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) has also signed on to join the Police force, planning to leak information back to Costello. The plot is very good, using a parallel between the lives of Costigan and Sullivan to drive events forward. Leonardo DiCaprio is great, but I was pleasantly surprised by Matt Damon. I know the guy can act, it’s just that I’m not used to seeing him as the bad guy. I suppose that’s what happens when you play someone like Jason Bourne.

So, with the two leads talked about, let’s focus on the “villain” of the piece. Jack Nicholson wasn’t even trying, I swear to God. If we’re honest, he hasn’t been really good since One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest back in 1975. Yeah he was okay in As Good As It Gets, but that’s about it (first person to mention his turn as the Joker in Batman gets to die) He just does the same schtick over and over again and I’m getting sick of it. Nearly all of Costello’s lines could have been taken from Nicholson’s life, with the line: “I haven’t “needed the money” since I took Archie’s milk money in the third grade. Tell you the truth, I don’t need pussy any more either…but I like it. “ just needing the words “took Archie’s milk money” replaced with “did Batman in ’89” to be a bona-fide fact. Trouble is, even with all I’ve said above, he’s so damn charismatic almost none of that matters. I just wish he’d stretch himself again, because he’s such a brilliant actor.

Despite my personal beef with Nicholson, the rest of the film is pretty damn good. Scorsese makes an artform out of the tense scenes on display here and it’s good to see. The elevator shootout scene had me jumping at the slightest little noise, which is always a good sign that the director is doing something right. Some of the dialogue is truly stellar too, with most of it spewing from the foul-mouthed Dignam (Mark Wahlberg). Turns out Marky Mark can act. Who knew?

“What Freud said about the Irish is: We’re the only people who are impervious to psychoanalysis.”

The one thing that really let The Departed down was the ending. Not the ending of the story or bad acting or anything like that, but the final shot. I won’t go into it here, because it will spoil some of the twists and turns that should be enjoyed spoiler-free, but it bugged the fuck out of me. It was so smack-in-the-face obvious. It seemed like Scorsese nipped out to the loo and some other director, fresh from some bullshit film school, snuck into the edit suite and decided to add this shot on the end “to add poetic meaning”. It undermines the whole damn film and pissed me off to boot.

Public Enemies

Finally. I get to review my most anticipated film of Summer ’09. After worrying that I’d missed my chance to see it (fuck you, Cwmbran Vue) I got to see the latest Michael Mann flick the other frabjous day. Callooh! Callay!

Public Enemies (2009)


Ah, summer blockbusters. Don’t you just love ’em? They’re pretty much the cinematic equivalent of junk food- satisfying, but ultimately bad for you. Partake in too much and your brain will rot. But still, it’s fun isn’t it? All those action films with massive explosions and all those high budget comedies where you are literally paying some idiot man-children to run about on the screen. Wait a minute- what’s this? Michael Mann has slapped that greasy burger from our hands and presented us with a fantastically presented, lavish meal! God bless you Mr. Mann!

“I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars… and you. What else you need to know?”


Public Enemies is the story of John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), the notorious bank robber who was active in Great Depression 1930’s America. The film portrays the criminal life and loves of Dillinger in parallel to the life of Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) and the birth of the F.B.I. The film constantly cuts between Dillinger’s life on the lam with his girlfriend, Billie (Marion Cotillard) and J. Edgar Hoover’s (Billy Crudup) “war on crime”. The story was excellent, proving that some of the richest tales can be garnered from real life. Having said that, the film took several liberties with the truth, which as someone who is fascinated by the Dillinger story, took me out of the film a bit. Johnny Depp was great as Dillinger, although I got the feeling he was trying hard to supress the urge to ham it up and do something wacky at times. Christian Bale was surprisingly good as Purvis, finally dropping that ridiculous throat-grating voice for a generic American accent. Marion Cotillard was fantastic, although I could have done with seeing more of her.

Nearly every review I’ve read/ heard has drawn attention to the way the film was shot, bitching about the fact that a film set in the 1930’s is shot on spage age, super-shiny HD cameras. I really had no problem with this. It genuinely annoys me when films are intentionally degraded to give them a period feel. The actual past wasn’t all grainy and scratched, nor did it have all the colour bleached out of it. I’m not saying films shouldn’t be in black and white or anything, it’s just that it wouldn’t have suited this film. The details are as meticulously period as you can get anyway, so why complain?

There are so many great scenes in this film it’s hard to know where to begin. The opening jailbreak is really well done, as are the robberies themselves. The stand out scene for me has got to be the lodge scene which has got to be the most realistic gunfight I’ve seen in a long time (I am aware realistic gunplay is sort of Mann’s trademark). There’s also an honestly shocking scene featuring the torture of Billie that will be burned onto my brain for a long time. It’s a genuine thrill to see a skilled filmmaker tell a story like this rather than some glorified music video director randomly hitting buttons, hoping that some meaning can be found amongst all the death, titties and explosions big enough to take out Jeremy Clarkson’s sense of self-importance.

My one real problem with Public Enemies is that it seemed more concerned with what Dillinger did, rather than who he actually was. Anyone can read the history books to find out what Dillinger got up to, but it’s harder to find out what he was actually like. I mean, at the time Dillinger was a legend (and I use the proper sense of the word “legend”, not “Aw- you should ‘ave seen my mate Baz last night- ‘e drank 15 Carlsbergs before puking all over himself and fucking some fat slag- what a legend!) and whilst the film alluded to this, I personally didn’t think the film went far enough into finding out what made the man tick. I also figured we’d see the poverty that was rife in 1930’s America, given the fact that the film was trying to be as historically accurate as it could in other places and also the fact the it would explained why Dillinger was cheered in the street and so on. Picture it, you’re so damn poor you have to shop at Lidl, wallowing in your own despair when you hear of some enigmatic man just like you, robbing the banks in daring heists and leaving the police scratching their heads. Sexy, no? Well, that’s just what it was like and I wish I could have seen some of that.

“They ain’t tough enough, smart enough or fast enough. I can hit any bank I want, any time. They got to be at every bank, all the time.”


Despite these problems, Public Enemies manages to be an amazing film. I thoroughly enjoyed it and it is now battling it out for the best film of the year with Star Trek. It’s just that damn good.