Safe House

What would you do if you were a low level CIA agent staffing a safe house and the CIA's most wanted shows up to turn himself in? Interesting premise, and one I'll admit drew me in. The idea of Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds as the principals was an added attraction and when I found out that Brenden Gleeson and Vera Farmiga were in support I was sold. Unfortunately, while it looks good on paper, post-movie the only sentiment I am left with is a profound sense of 'meh'.

I'll admit, like many of you, I have a huge man-crush on Ryan Reynolds. If I had my time over again and I could come back as anyone it would be him, the guy is just a movie star. And while in the past he has cruised along on the back of likeable comedy fare (Waiting, Just Friends) recently he seems to be trying to transition to the status of 'serious' actor (Buried). I can see how this role looks like a good fit, unfortunately it's executed with such a lack of humour and grim diligence that anything Reynolds could have brought to the role was lost. You might as well of had Orlando Bloom in there for all the difference it makes. Ditto Brenden Gleeson, ditto Ver Farmiga, both of whom play tragically faceless bureaucrats.

The movies saving grace is its zippy action sequences, even if they do resemble certain well known computer games in places. If this is where you're planning to get your thrills then this won't disappoint; there are the requisite number of gun battles and car chases. For me, the lack of anyone in this movie who had a personality left these feeling empty. To top it off, the ending was irritating in the extreme, I won't spoil it, but it felt like the director was killing of cast members almost at random. Gun shot from unseen assailant, death scene, grim determination to move the plot closer to resolution, repeat.

The one glimmer of hope for this is Washington as the CIA's worst nightmare, but even this was so understated that you're left wondering what might have been if they had been willing to take a few more risks. If your putting a man who is supposedly a master in psychological manipulation and had previously run rings around the CIA on the screen he damn well better seem special. Don't get me wrong, special doesn't have to mean touched, but you have to show me something.

Understated can work in movies that have emotional conflict at their core, movies that try and generate recognition and empathy from their audiences, but in the framework of what is essentially a bit of over blown spy fluff you need something more to keep me watching; you need to break out the crazy, just a little bit. I'm sure somewhere someone is arguing that this isn't an action movie, it's an espionage procedural more akin to Green Zone than Bond. It isn't, the plot holes alone are enough to sink that argument. As with countless espionage based thrillers before it, the maguffin in this instance is a micro chip containing 'files'. In an age of the Internet and infinite copying this makes no sense, the basic premise that you can control information by destroying the medium it is on is incorrect. Hell this premise has been out dated since the invention of the photocopier.

Action fans might find something worthwhile here, but apart from the car crashes there is little here beyond a formulaic thriller that left me feeling cold.

Don't trust me? Get a second opinion here: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/safe-house

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1599348/

Trailer:

Game of Thrones - Season One

Something has happened to me lately. I'm finding it harder to sit through movies these days, many times I find my self switching a film off after 30 minutes and doing something else. Sometimes I go an look at stuff online, other times I work through the stacks of books by my bed that I keep meaning to read. More often than not though I'll put on something else, a TV show.

Something happened to TV a while back. I first noticed it with the West Wing but I guess the Sopranos is an equally valid point. TV shows stopped being weekly and episodic and moved to be more like mini sagas, sweeping stories in which every previous week builds on the previous towards some kind of (hopefully) fulfilling conclusion. TV had gone beyond the 'monster of the week' frame developed by Star Trek and X-Files and on to something altogether (for me) satisfying.

I don't know if it's the short hour long or 40 minute blocks that keep me coming back for me, or the fact that a lot of these stories are so much more complex and have far greater casts of characters than films. I do know however that I don't miss the 'spectacle' that budgets of many millions buys mainstream Hollywood fare, instead I like the focus on character and subtle plotting that comes with a reduced budget (although I imagine a lot of TV budgets are starting to rival Hollywood at this point).

The only precondition for me is being able to watch the thing back-to-back. I tried to follow the West Wing on broadcast TV when in was on but unfortunately my life just doesn't work like that; I can't guarantee to be in the same place weekly. It has to be said that broadcast TV has been entirely respectful of my time, constantly rescheduling shows in favour of cramming something else in they think will bring in more advertising. Since DVD box sets became available to rent and buy, bypassing the broadcasters, I only watch TV shows in long stretches.

As TV is accounting for more and more of my viewing I thought about expanding the blog to cover TV shows. Most of the other blogs out there consider TV shows on an episodic basis (see the awesome Bad Ass Digest), so when my Blu-Ray copy of Game of Thrones Season One arrived that's what I thought I'd do, but to be honest it's not the way I watch TV shows, probably not the way you do either, so here it is: a review of Game of Thrones Season One as an entire work.

For those of you not familiar with George RR Martin's books (and I recommend that you read them) the action is set in a world of Lords and castles, all with their own interests and rivalries, all of them held together by a King (Mark Addy). As with the books this is an ensemble piece, so rather than focus in on any one protagonist we jump between stories as they intertwine and different characters come into each other's orbits.

Spoilers are an issue here because there are a number of twist and turns in the plot that I don't want to ruin, but the first episode sets the tone, revealing that the King's Hand (like deputy King) has died in (suspicious) circumstances and the King wants his old friend the gruff Lord Stark (Sean-Mother-Fucking-Bean) to step into the role. In the North the men of the Knight's Watch defend the Wall, a massive structure designed to keep out, what is hinted to be, the supernatural on the other side. Meanwhile across the Narrow Sea the remnants of the prior dynasty slowly manoeuvre to raise an army and take back what they see as theirs.

The emphasis on they see above is warranted because one of the great things about this story is that everyone has an angle and none of the conflicts between them has a clear and unambiguous solution. this is a world of grey, not black and white. The result is torn loyalties for the viewer; it's hard to pick a side because they are all equally right (or wrong). There are a few unabashed bad guys, look out for 'The Mountain' and 'The Dragon' in particular, but in the main things are just not that simple.

Part of this complexity comes from the level of back story they were able to fit in here. Although this is reduced compared to the book every character has a series of life events behind them that have taken them to this particular juncture. John Carter helmer Andrew Stanton argues that there is no character you can't learn to love if you just listen to their story. Whilst you might not love everyone of the characters, you can at least get where they are coming from.

The other stand out for me was the writing. There's a kind of dark flippancy to some of the characters that for me is unrivalled. Unquestioningly the best of these lines goes to Peter Dinklage, who is worth the price of the box set all by himself. Tyrion Lannister is undoubtedly tragic but he has a kind of cynical optimism played note perfect by Dinklage.

On the negative side I'd argue that there is little that lets the series down. The fantasy setting is a little twee to begin with which might grate with some. This isn't a problem with the show so much as the audience; both sci fi and fantasy suffer from a certain level of incredulity by their nature. As Harrison Ford said 'You can write this shit George but you can't say it'. If you can get past any initial feelings of WTF then you'll be rewarded with a rich and engaging lore.

I have friends who have found the whole thing a little dense 'there are too many characters and they all have funny names'. This might be a fair criticism, there are times when you have to work at it and having read the book or a second viewing might help you pick up the bits you miss here and there. Even if you do miss the odd point the first time the major developments are unlikely to pass you by. In truth, the idea of something so dense it requires a second viewing is one of the things that is pushing TV shows to the forefront of my viewing habits.

The final point I'd make is that the story is incomplete. I was talking about fulfilling conclusions above so I guess that this is a bit of a bait and switch. In truth the series of books this is based on isn't even finished yet so finishing out the entire thing is likely to take HBO the best part of a decade, that is IF they finish the whole thing. This is the flip side of my argument for TV being a more attractive format, on average you're going to have wait much longer for the finished product and there is a risk that the creators will abandon something part way through. Still I think this is a risk worth taking when the pay off is potentially this epic. GoT S1 is well worth your money.

imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/

Opening Credits to Game of Thrones

NB: One of the cool things about the show is how the credits change depending on where the action takes place.

    

Prometheus TED Trailer

I love trailers. In many cases the trailer is significantly better than the film, giving marketing execs a chance to cram in all the cool bits and leave out the dregs. So naturally when viral marketing came along about a decade ago it was interesting to see how trailers developed when they no longer relied on expensive TV time to reach viewers.

Tonight however I cam across what is perhaps the best piece of viral marketing I have ever seen. It's from the upcoming Prometheus and features a future TED talk given by man called Weyland (guy Pierce). Fans of the franchise will recognise this is one half of evil megacorp Weyland-Yutani. The combination of fictional speaker giving an address to a real organisation in a format I'm used to seeing on a regular basis just gripped me. It's like they ripped out a part of their fictional universe and crammed it into my everyday life. I was looking forward to seeing Prometheus before but this has just sealed the deal.

And they say marketing doesn't work :-)

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

It's hard to know where to start with Mission Impossible. I can't even remember if this is the third or fourth  instalment of the franchise. I know MI:2 had a sound track done back Limp Bizkit; that was such a long time ago that I'm guessing that they found time to do a third in between. Let's go with this as the fourth one.

We begin with Tom Cruise breaking out of a grim Russian prison with support from Simon Pegg (OK he defiantly wasn't in MI:2 so this must be number four) and franchise new comer Paula Patton (Deja Vu, Precious). The plot then follows the standard global pursuit of a shadowy terrorist (Michael Nyquvist) who is intent on starting a global thermonuclear war between Russia and the US (think Sum of All Fears). Along the way the gang pick up Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) as an analyst with a past, are disavowed, implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin and are pursued by Russian secret agents/police/another agency.

So firstly, the good. I think they have pitched the level of knowing self-referential humour at exactly the right level. The script is not above taking a few swipes at series cliches ('I hope we get to use masks') but this does not go too far and so does not detract from the stakes or make the film feel too much like a parody. Most of this comes from Pegg, but it was nice to see Jeremy Renner also getting a few good sequences; able to display the self doubts that his previous characters might have lacked.

The set pieces are awesome. It's clear that director Brad Bird was able to bring some of the action nous evident in The Incredibles with him to this. The sequence on the Burj Khalifa was awesome, especially if you stump up the extra cash to see it in IMAX. It is honestly a draw dropping visual experience.

There are, however, things wrong with this movie that keep it from being a classic. The villain is shadowy to the point of being completely undefined. I still have absolutely no idea why he wanted to end the world beyond a few 'on in the background' snippets. This was a problem for me because I like complex villains. For all intents and purposes the Nyqvist was basically playing a monster, something evil and devoid of personality to be cut down without thinking. LOTR or Star Wars might be able to get away with this but I don't have sufficient love for the Mission Impossible franchise to fully forgive this.  

The usual plot holes aside (and there are plot holes, big ones) the other big problem for the film is that it seems to lack a clear through line. I was thinking about the film afterwards, and all I can really remember of it is a series of big set pieces with some plot stringing them together. It never really felt like a complete story for me. Maybe if the characters had been more fleshed out then they could have driven the plot forward more convincingly, but I think is hard to do in an ensemble piece whilst still leaving room for the explosions.

If you can put up with the 2d villain and the disjointed feeling you get zipping between spectacular action then there is a decent evening's entertainment to be had here. Despite the humour and the spectacle though this is not a classic, not in my book.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229238/

Trailer:

In the dark future there is only... dancing

When I first heard about the FP I thought it was made up. The premise seemed so laughable. How could any group of sentient human beings ever get together and think that an apocalyptic movie where characters resolves their differences through dance dance revolution style competitions was a good idea?

Looks like I was wrong as you can now watch the first 10 minutes of the movie on YouTube, but only if you can stomach some of the most annoying 'future speak' dialogue I have ever come across.

I hope I'm wrong about this one. I want to be. I want to like more out there and experimental films, but I just struggle to take this one seriously.

Still, if it ever gets a UK release I'm resolved give it a chance.

Enjoy if you dare (NSFW)