Australian Penthouse

Director: Todd Phillips
Cast: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zack Galifianakis, Ken Jeong, John Goodman
ROADSHOW ENTERTAINMENT

IN the original Hangover film, Todd Phillips and his merry band of comedians somehow stumbled on crowd-pleasing, comedic gold, converting a relatively modest film budget into a global hit. A sequel was inevitable, and it came in the form of the instantly forgettable The Hangover Part II: a bigger-budget repetition of the same formula that made even more money.

For the third instalment, writer/director Todd Phillips has acknowledged the obvious shortcomings of repeating the same formula and hoping for different outcome by taking the series back to the drawing board with what appears to be an even bigger budget. This time around, there are no bachelor parties, no hangovers, and the series takes on a decidedly darker tone.

Mr Chow’s (Jeong) smallish show-stealing role in the first two films has been greatly expanded alongside the other big-laugh generator: the idiotic Alan (Galifianakis). In theory this makes a lot of sense, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired as their respective brands of farfetched comedy only seem to work in small doses that garnered more chuckles than big laughs.

To go too far into the plot would, strangely, give things away, as many of the beats of Part III register as drama or, at times, thriller; and there are even some twists and turns that you may not see coming. There’s nothing wrong with taking a drastic departure from the formula—in fact, Phillips deserves kudos for doing just that—it’s just that almost everything tends to feel flat, and the individual and combined proven talent of the Wolfpack trio don’t seem to have a whole lot to work with on the comedy front.

In fact, Phillips seems to have tried to balance out the wacky antics of Chow and Alan by manoeuvring Phil (Cooper) and Stu (Helms) into dual straight-man roles: a move that makes Part III feel a tad light on more grounded comedy. There are a handful of big laughs, but some of those are ruined if you’re familiar with the film’s trailer.

It appears that in his attempts to right the ship that was set adrift in Part II, Phillips has oversteered and pushed it in directions that feel inorganic to the series, and disappoint on the all-important laughs front. The Hangover Part III certainly isn’t the worst comedy ever made, but it doesn’t hold a flame to the laugh-inducing effectiveness of the original film.

THE HANGOVER PART III is in cinemas on the 23^rd of May.

Review: Nathan Lawrence

Directors: Nick Love
Cast: Ray Winstone, Ben Drew, Damian Lewis, Hayley Atwell, Steven Mackintosh
HOYTS DISTRIBUTION

IF there’s one thing you can tell going into a movie with Ray Winstone in a leading role it’s that, nine times out of ten, he’s going to play a hard-arse. Of course, this isn’t necessarily a negative when in the right setting, but Winstone’s career as a hard-arse is a mix of fantastic films and some that are less than stellar.

In The Sweeney Winstone plays Jack Regan, a detective in the armed-robbery division (nicknamed “The Sweeney”) who isn’t afraid to bend or break the law to get results. His dodgy tactics capture the interest of Internal Affairs officer Ivan Lewis (Mackintosh) whose vendetta against Regan is made all the more personal by the fact that Winstone is banging his wife, Nancy (Atwell). After a robbery ends in a seemingly senseless killing, Regan and his crew are in a race against time to stop a highly trained gang before they strike again.

As far as British crime-caper films go, The Sweeney isn’t as memorable as Lock, Stock or Snatch, but it’s an entertaining movie nonetheless, made all the more enjoyable by a particularly engaging performance from Ben Drew as Regan’s right-hand man, George Carter.

It’s a bit slow in parts, and the romantic sub-plot between Regan and Nancy is as unnecessary as it is disturbing (watching Winstone and Atwell hook up isn’t the most attractive on-screen coupling), but there is a great mentor/learner rapport between Winstone and Drew. Better still, some of the firefights are reminiscent of Michael Mann’s Heat, and there is enough action to maintain audience interest throughout.

It may not be the best example of British cinema, but The Sweeney is still worth a look if you’re a fan of storylines that explore good cops gone bad.

THE SWEENEY is in cinemas on the now.

Review: Nathan Lawrence

Directors: Judd Apatow
Cast: Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Jason Segel, Chris O’Dowd, Megan Fox
UNIVERSAL PICTURES

PITCHED as a “sort-of sequel to Knocked Up”, This is 40 is really a spin-off to the 2007 comedy starring Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl. Instead of following the main characters of Knocked Up, though, This is 40 focuses on supporting characters detached Peter (Rudd) and overly emotional Debbie (Mann).

Unfortunately, This is 40 doesn’t have the same comedic impact as Knocked Up. It’s not that the collective talent isn’t up to the task of delivering the goods, either; it’s more that the film falls into the trap of the recent Apatow trend of trying to balance comedy with drama. The problem is, much like Apatow’s Funny People, the laughs are spaced out at 20-minute intervals, and the drama simply doesn’t work when you’re not rooting for the plight of the main characters.

Debbie is approaching 40, and it’s causing her to have a long, hard look at her life to see if she’s happy with where her life is heading. Pete’s problems are more professional, as the indie record label that he runs has fallen on hard times. As he tries to save face and support his bum of a dad (Albert Brooks), his professional problems inevitably boil over into tensions around the house.

You’re supposed to want Debbie and Pete to work through their problems but, right from the outset, they make it difficult to root for their marriage. Debbie is a highly strung wife who seemingly flips out at Pete every other scene, then tries to talk about the communication problems they have. Pete is too detached, doesn’t seem to have an active interest in his family’s wellbeing, and is a bit of a dick. It seems more believable that these characters should end their marriage, but Apatow insists that this sort of polarised relationship should work.

As for their financial problems, they’re difficult to relate to for the average person. While Pete and Debbie talk about money being tight, they hardly seem to do any real work, they still drive their mid-range vehicles everywhere, and there really doesn’t ever seem to be a tangible reason to believe that they’ve fallen on financially challenging times. It’s more akin to watching a millionaire complain about money being tight and complaining that they can only have the gardener once a fortnight, instead of once a week.

Every time This is 40 tries to be a drama, it presents inconsistences that make it difficult to engage with. As a comedy, there just aren’t enough laughs there to maintain interest, and at 134 minutes, it’s way too long when there isn’t enough comedy to maintain interest. On paper This is 40 could have worked, but the result is a film that doesn’t quite know what it wants to be.

THIS IS 40 is in cinemas on the now.

Review: Nathan Lawrence

Directors: Sacha Gervasi
Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Danny Huston, Toni Collette
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX

RENOWNED character actor Anthony Hopkins once again transforms into another iconic on-screen character in Hitchcock. The difference this time, though, is instead of playing the fictional likes of Doctor Hannibal Lecter, Hopkins embodies silver-screen icon Alfred Hitchcock.

After the success of North by Northwest, film media are asking Hitchcock if he’s had his day and it’s time to retire. Rising to the challenge, Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville (Mirren) wager their reputations, savings and even their house on a risky film adaptation of Robert Block’s horror novel Psycho.

Hitchcock orders his assistant Peggy Robertson (Collette) to buy all stocks of the novel to ensure that cinemagoers won’t know the plot twists ahead of time but, despite his commitment to the adaptation, none of the Hollywood studios want to finance the film. Even when Hitchcock and Reville self-fund the film, distributor Paramount is dubious as to the potential success of a controversial storyline and is constantly watching over Hitchcock’s shoulder as he tries to work. To further complicate matters, a rift forms between Hitchcock and Reville, as suave author Whitfield Cook attempts to woo Alma.

If you know a lot about Alfred Hitchcock or, specifically, the behind-the-scenes trivia surrounding Psycho, there won’t be any plot turns you won’t see coming. That being said, it’s a credit to the filmmakers that they haven’t strayed from the facts, and where poetic licence is injected, it really works.

Hitchcock does fall flat in parts, but that’s mainly due to the constraints of telling a biographical tale. Hopkins is enchanting as the eccentric Hitchcock, Mirren portrays a believable dichotomy in her love/loathe marriage with the auteur, and the supporting cast all offer fantastic performances; even those with limited screen time.

Hitchcock isn’t exactly a necessary film; it’s not the type of story which, after you’ve seen it, makes you understand why it had to be immortalised. But it is a quirky and interesting story nonetheless; and one that’s worth the price of admission.

HITCHCOCK is in cinemas on the 10^th of January.

Review: Nathan Lawrence

Directors: Ruben Fleischer
Cast: Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Giovanni Ribisi
ROADSHOW ENTERTAINMENT

IF only a film was the sum of its cast. Unfortunately, Gangster Squad stands as another example of a film that had the potential to get it right given the collection of talent but, instead, delivers a mostly unforgettable experience.

Sergeant John O’Mara (Brolin) is a no-bullshit cop who’ll stop at nothing to ensure that justice is served, motivated by the horrors of his soldiering in World War II. You’ll know this is motivation because it’s explicitly said to him several times throughout the film, which neatly sums up the problems with a lot of the dialogue: it’s mostly expositional and, therefore, unbelievable.

It doesn’t take long for O’Mara to step on the toes of gangster kingpin Mickey Cohen (Penn): the unofficial law in 1950’s Los Angeles. Seemingly powerless to stop him, O’Mara is recruited by Chief Parker (Nick Nolte) to form a handpicked secret taskforce to destroy Cohen’s operation from the ground up. With the help of his pregnant wife, O’Mara pulls together a ragtag team of cops with attitude problems, and starts his war against Cohen.

On paper, Gangster Squad sounds like a 21^st century reimagining of classic gangster flick The Untouchables, but it has very little in common outside the basic premise. The over-the-top violence of the bad guys is softened by the inability for the titular gangster squad to do more than incapacitate their foes, instead of just killing them. They talk tough, but they rarely deliver on the follow-through. Despite the MA15+ rating, Gangster Squad plays it safe most of the time, and is so off kilter in certain scenes that you’ll quite literally find yourself laughing at what’s going on; even though you’re supposed to be taking it seriously.

Gangster Squad is fantastically shot, and the film certainly captures the looks of the time, but there’s not a whole lot else to praise. It’s a real shame because the talented cast does the best with the cards they’re dealt. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to stop Gangster Squad from being a disappointment that should have been a whole lot better.

GANGSTER SQUAD is in cinemas on the 10^th of January.

Review: Nathan Lawrence

Directors: Rian Johnson
Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, Pierce Gagnon
ROADSHOW FILMS

2012 has been a big year for sci-fi, but while the various remakes (Total Recall), prequels (Prometheus) and sequels (Men In Black III) have proven to be divisive among critics and cinemagoers, one sci-fi film is set to impress across the board.

Best of all, it doesn’t slot into any of those aforementioned categories. Looper offers a breath of fresh air on the time-travel formula. As with any great film that has time travel, the sci-fi mumbo jumbo takes a back seat to strong characters, a compelling storyline and, in the instance of Looper, plenty of action to move it forward.

Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is one of a group of hitmen known as ‘Loopers’ in the year 2042. He has the job of waiting in a field for his targets—hooded and bound—to be transported back in time for assassination. Joe then disposes of the target body that technically doesn’t exist, collects the silver bars that are strapped to the target’s back, and enjoys all of the perks of a well-paying gig.

To kill time, Joe practices a foreign language; all part of his bigger plan to eventually leave the Looper lifestyle and comfortably retire far away from his old life. Joe’s plans are unravelled, though, when his future self (Willis) is sent back in time and escapes before Joe can knock him off.

Because of his failure, Joe’s boss (Daniels) sends his goons to hunt down present and future him. Present Joe is keen to ‘fix the mistake’—that is to say, kill his future self—while future Joe is willing to go to any lengths to protect the woman he loves; a woman that present Joe is years away from meeting.

After barely escaping capture, present Joe stumbles onto a farm that’s occupied by Sara (Blunt) and her son Cid (Gagnon). With both versions of Joe being hunted, it’s only a matter of time before an inevitable showdown between them and the mob goons that are pursuing both men.

Aside from some pacing issues in the first half of the film, Looper is an immersive and engaging world right from the beginning. Writer/director Rian Johnson has come a long way since his humble beginnings with cult-classic detective noir high-school tale Brick; even if some of that noir influence is present in Looper.

Thanks to some impressive prosthetics work and a lot of acting skill, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays such a believable version of a younger Bruce Willis that you’ll wish they had more screen time together. Watching them talk it out, shoot it out or, hell, even stare it out, are some of the most entertaining moments of the film.

Everyone brings out their A-game for Looper, too. Gordon-Levitt and Willis carry the film, but the supporting cast brings the goods to the table, lifting Looper to impressive heights. Jeff Daniels adds depth to his mob boss character, Emily Blunt puts in her best performance to date as Sara, but special praise has to go out to child-actor Pierce Gagnon who sinks his teeth into a layered character in much the same way that Hayley Joel Osment did in The Sixth Sense. This kid is one to watch for future films.

While the action is solid and frequent enough to keep action-junkies sated, the real surprise is just how dark Rian Johnson is willing to go with the material. Present Joe’s insistence on killing his future self is really only the beginning. Once you see how far future Joe is willing to go to protect the woman he loves, you may have to collect your jaw off the ground.

It’s because of this and the alignment of all the factors that make a film great—performances, plot and character arcs—that keeps Looper fresh from start to finish. Looper isn’t just one of the best sci-fi films of 2012; it’s one of the best films of the year. Go see it.

LOOPER is in cinemas on the 27^th of September.

Review: Nathan Lawrence

Directors: Timur Bekambetov
Cast: Benjamin Walker, Dominic Cooper, Anthony Mackie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rufus Sewell
Twentieth Century Fox

YOU’VE got to respect a film whose title has no misconceptions about what it’s all about. As you may have already guessed, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter follows the fictional historical revisionism that tells a very different tale about the 16^th president of the United States of America, Abraham “Honest Abe” Lincoln.

The respective zany and highly stylised tendencies of director Timur Bekambetov (Wanted) and producer Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!) unite in complementary ways to create a film that balances fun, horror, action and even a healthy dose of historical accuracy (vampires notwithstanding) to create a mature and entertaining romp from start to finish that really works, most of the time.

As a boy, Abraham Lincoln witnesses the murder of his mother at the hands of a slave-trading vampire. Years later and consumed by revenge, a drunk Lincoln confronts his mother’s murderer and is almost killed, save for the timely intervention of Henry Sturges (Cooper). Sturges takes Lincoln under his wing and trains him in the axe-wielding art of vampire slaying.

Lovers of traditional pre-Twilight vampires can rest assured that Vampire Hunter is a return to form for the blood-sucking mythical beasts, which are actually rather intimidating in their presentation and actions. And as Lincoln gains confidence by slaying vampires by night, he slowly takes an interest in national politics by day, becoming the man that can be known from the history books.

Except for a few scenes in the middle of the film that slow down the pacing and forget the preceding fun, Abraham Lincoln is an absolute riot. The action is engrossing, the comedic beats work well and, refreshingly, the 3D presentation is actually worth paying the surcharge for because of the clever foreground visual techniques employed to add depth to action sequences and the fact that it actually adds a layer of immersion to this historical fantasy world.

The title of the film is partially ridiculous for a reason: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter isn’t meant to be taken seriously, and in those few scenes where it takes itself too seriously, it suffers for it. But outside of this, the film is a hell of a lot of self-aware fun from start to finish that’s well worth the price of admission.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER is in cinemas on the 2^nd of August.

Review: Nathan Lawrence

Directors: Adrian Grunberg
Cast: Mel Gibson, Peter Stormare, Bob Gunton, Kevin Hernandez, Doloros Heredia
Icon

SAY what you will about Mel Gibson’s personal life, but the man sure knows how to get the job done when it comes to his craft. What started out as an acting career in the likes of Lethal Weapon, flourished into some seriously talented storytelling behind (or on both sides of) the camera with films such as Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto.

Nowadays, Mel is returning to the acting side of things, having shown that he’s still got the leading-man goods with recent films Edge of Darkness and The Beaver. Get the Gringo rounds off a trilogy of awesome in terms of Mel’s performances, as he steps into the getaway driver’s seat of an unnamed protagonist who ends up on the wrong side of the law in Mexico. Dodgy Mexican cops take his hefty score, while his reward is to be thrown into a prison unlike any other. The goal: escape and get his money back.

It has the usual prison tropes—gangs, violence and a shrewd protagonist eager to escape—but it’s also attached to a populated slum where the families of the inmates visit and, in some instances, live. Mel has to get used to this foreign prison world at the same pace that the audience does, which makes for a unique take on the prison/gangster formula and, ultimately, an engaging world.

The tone of the film is similar to In Bruges or The Wrong Man in that it bounces between hysterical black comedy and dark drama with comparative ease. In fact, Get the Gringo almost recklessly shifts between genres and techniques in a way that should result in a mess but, instead, meshes together in an entertaining way that comes across as both unique and effective.

Ageing Mel shows he’s far from being over the hill and still able to convincingly go toe to toe with gunfights, human drama and comedic timing. Get the Gringo is a little rough around the edges, but it ticks all the right boxes for a mature yarn that is well worth watching.

GET THE GRINGO is in cinemas now.

Review: Nathan Lawrence

Directors: Ridley Scott
Cast: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Guy Pearce
20^th Century Fox

RIDLEY Scott’s return to the sci-fi genre that made him a household name with the likes of Alien and Blade Runner is already proving to be divisive with critics and moviegoers alike. While there’s certainly no denying that Prometheus is overflowing with beautiful (and sometimes haunting) imagery and brimming with intriguing sci-fi ideas, there are some core problems with the film.

First, the good stuff. The $150-million budget is visually evident in every frame of film. From stunning set and costume design, to the look of the hostile alien world, it’s a visual teat; the inclusion of native 3D (i.e. not 2D film that’s converted to 3D in post-production) adds to the experience in a way that harkens back to the technology’s effective use in Avatar. This really is the vision of a master storyteller.

Ironically, that’s the biggest problem with Prometheus: the story. From the outset, it sets up some big questions about human belief and the origin of our species; fantastic themes for exploration in a sci-fi backdrop. But as the intrepid team of scientists follows an ancient invitation to a desolate alien world, the narrative begins to suffer. The cast is too big, so certain secondary characters are cardboard cutouts whose only onscreen purpose is provide expositional dialogue or add to the potential body count when their exploration turns into a fight for survival.

There’s more than a fair share of illogical behaviour from apparently intelligent minds, while certain actions make no sense whatsoever. For every scene-stealing performance from the brilliant Michael Fassbender, there’s an unnecessary scene or pointless action that stands as a stark contrast to the exploration of mature ideas. Worse still, by the time the credits roll, the film hasn’t answered (or, arguably, attempted to answer) the core questions of the film; questions that are overtly repeated by one of the main characters during the climax.

Prometheus is a divisive film because its brilliance—the core themes, Fassbender’s performance and beautiful cinematography—is interspersed with lazy storytelling and inauthentic characterisation. It’s not a terrible film; it’s just damn disappointing for anyone expecting Ridley Scott to make a triumphant return to the cinema sci-fi genre that he helped to create. Avoid the trailers, promotional material and even some of the spoiler-laden posters, and you’ll have a better chance of appreciating the beauty and avoiding the disappointment.

PROMETHEUS is in cinemas now.

Review: Nathan Lawrence