Author Archives: The Phage

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

by

2

“The name’s Bond, James Bo-… it isn’t? Ethan Hunt? No? Well, I must be Jason Bourne then right? I’m so forgetful – you know, with the whole amnesiac assassin thing I have going on… What? I’m… Aaron Cross?! Who?” Life as a government trained agent can be terribly hard on the old grey matter. With so many franchises and names bounding around, you’ve got to feel for a character like Aaron Cross; being up against some of the biggest, brightest and down-right bad ass(est) in the field. So with Cross picking up the mantle from Bourne in The Bourne Legacy can he deliver where it matters… even if he didn’t get his desired title of The Cross Conundrum?

Hunt, Bond, Bourne and Cross. Pick your hero.

The Bourne Legacy, in case your grey matter has also been taxed too hard, is the fourth installment in the “Bourne…” franchise of films. The original trilogy, starring Matt Damon, was loosely based on a set of books from the 1980s by Robert Ludlum. The Bourne Legacy takes its title from the fourth book, which isn’t written by Ludlum, and… has nothing else in common with the book. The film is set chronologically alongside the events of The Bourne Ultimatum and follows a new agent: Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), who much like Bourne, enjoys successfully running away from the CIA. With this being a thriller, and my oath to the Nine Realms, that’s all I’ll reveal of the plot, but I’m sure you know the premise after three blockbuster movies!

Let me make one thing clear from the get go: I never worshipped at the altar of Bourne. Perhaps it all went wrong with me watching The Bourne Supremacy before any other of the movies. Sure, it was glitzy, the action was frenzied and Matt Damon was brutal, but it lacked soul for me. Does this hinder your enjoyment of this fourth installment? Well, yes and no. If you’re not familiar with certain key terms such as “Treadstone” and “Blackbriar”, or the premise behind the initial trilogy then the first 45 minutes will be very tough for you. The film doesn’t like to dwell on the past. I understand the need to “get on with the show”, but if The Avengers can summarise a whole five other movies and back-stories so seamlessly, then it’s not infeasible. Even though I knew what these terms meant, that opening act left me feeling cold and somewhat lost. It’s like I’d fallen asleep in the trailers and woken up midway into a film. It was jarring, and not at all helpful. Not a great start.

Hawkeye switches arrows for good old bullets.

That being said, there is much to enjoy in this movie once you’ve picked up the premise and Jeremy Renner has had a shave (you’ll see what I mean). What ensues is an international game of cat and mouse filled with great action sequences and a constant degree of suspense. Maybe not as much as one would hope for, but enough to sate the appetite. In typical thriller fashion, these events clearly lead to a crescendo… a climactic end sequence… the money job. Whilst it was a thrilling ride, I can’t help but feel that writer and director Tony Gilroy had been watching a bit too much Terminator 2: Judgement Day, as it all came off a tad “invincible cyborg”. You could have switched Renner and “X” with Arnie and T-1000 and felt right at home, even down to “X”‘s origin story and lack of dialogue. Though this T-1000 is no-where near as menacing as Robert Patrick.

It was great to finally see Jeremy Renner again taking the lead in a movie, after recently being locked in serviceable supporting slots in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and The Avengers. He’s deserved a chance to again take the leading role, and I’m glad it’s come. Alongside Hawkeye Renner in the top-billed cast is Rachael Weisz and the old Hulk Ed Norton as friend and foe respectively. Everyone’s acting is up to scratch, but no-one really excels. There’s no “wow” moment in terms of dialogue or manner of delivery. The film is carried along primarily by the action and the plot. After all, this is a Bourne… movie, so maybe witty monologues aren’t to be expected. That being said, there’s also no excuse for muddying the action scenes with such rabid editing, which made it difficult to discern what was going on on-screen. Just don’t expect such exquisitely shot fight scenes as in The Raid: Redemption and you’ll be fine.

Hawkeye, for the love of God, don’t tell him you thought Mark Ruffalo was a better Bruce Banner… You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.

One has to wonder whether this will be the last slice of Bourne we’ll be having at our cinemas. Sure, there are six more books, but as I mentioned – this film had nothing to do with the book, spare the title. And unless Universal can convince Paul Greengrass to return as director, we won’t be seeing Matt Damon return as Jason Bourne either. So the future is somewhat open-ended for this universe. A universe I, as a non-avid fan, would be keen to return to.

Overall, The Bourne Legacy is a lot like Usain Bolt after stepping off a theme park ride and into a sprint: unstable on its feet for a while, but eventually gathers itself and tears along at pace. It’s a solid entry in the franchise, but is really hampered by that slow and meandering opening. Although I wouldn’t expect Gilroy to take the novice viewer by the hand for the initial 15 minutes, explaining previous plot points, I would expect more exposition to improve on that opening.

The beginning of Aaron Cross’ story is intriguing, but isn’t yet enough to cement him along the A list of on-screen agents. But thankfully, he’s not with the reject pile of Johnny English and those damn Spy Kids either. But maybe I just prefer my agents to quaff shaken martinis, make sexual puns about “brushing up on a little Swede”… and lamentably parade around in Speedos, as he insists on doing in recent years.

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

Offender (2012)

by

0

Revenge. They say it’s a dish best served cold. With a side of calculation and dedication; although perhaps followed by a dessert of guilt and remorse. We’ve all felt it at some point. When someone takes your last slice of Papa John’s pizza from the refrigerator you just want to hunt them down and beat them remorselessly until they’re crying for you to stop… but we don’t necessarily act on these urges; though I will get some revenge for that stolen last slice of heaven. Offender deals with these issues… well, not the stolen pizza premise, although I’ll start writing a screenplay for that hit. It does however serve up a very modern British take on the tale.

And by “British”, I really do mean British. If you’re not a native of the UK, then I’ll issue you a warning: some of the dialogue will be confusing unless you take a sub-30 year old native in with you to act as a translator, or a fan of the UK hip-hop and grime music scene (a gritty UK version of glitzy US rap: see YouTube video above). Although not as “London speak”-heavy as other recent Brit-flicks such as Attack The Block or the terrible Anuvahood, it’s still smattered with the language. If you’re clueless about what I’m rambling about – and believe me, it’s not jolly “cockney rhyming slang” – read this guide, it might clue you in.

Offender, set to the backdrop of last year’s London Riots, tells the tale of how Tommy (Joe Cole) goes about exacting his revenge on a group of ne’er-do-wells who’ve turned the life of him and his girlfriend (Kimberley Nixon) upside-down. Needless to say, they’ve done a lot more than take a slice or pizza, or even an entire pizza. In order to get his revenge for the harrowing experience he’s had to endure, he gets himself incarcerated into a juvenile detention centre. If this sounds a bit familiar, then maybe you’re thinking of the initial premise of Prison Break? There are similarities to be had, but here the aim isn’t escape and exoneration for false imprisonment, but purely to inflict pain. It’s more of a hybrid of Scum and Law Abiding Citizen.

Joe Cole: One to watch.

Two of the biggest assets of the film are with the leads: Joe Cole and Kimberley Nixon. I know both from UK television series for very opposing roles. Cole appeared in the UK’s Skins series as a thoroughly detestable yet charismatic character who was driven by violence – a true bad boy. Whilst I know of Nixon through her role in comedy series Fresh Meat, where she plays quite a naive and confused student. Whilst Cole‘s role in Offender is in the same ballpark as his Skins‘ character, they’re markedly different in the fact that here he’s a good guy trying to be honourable. Nixon meanwhile is a revelation: truly showing a broad canvas of emotion over the film’s running time. I’m very pleasantly surprised. Returning to Joe Cole, I just hope he’s supplied with more films in the future, and doesn’t descend into playing the same character time and time again, like fellow Skins‘ alumnus Jack O’Connell (Eden Lake, Harry Brown) – who I also think is fantastic, but has played a lot of similar roles; though thankfully his future work looks more varied. I’m hopeful that Cole can follow in the footsteps of previous Skins’ stars, such as O’Connell, Nicholas Hoult (X-Men: First Class) and Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire).

Although the film is lucky to have two stellar lead players, the same cannot be said for all of the cast or the script they have to work with. The film tries to fire off too many sub-plots as it carries on in order to fill out back story to some of the supporting characters, but some of these go no-where and are not resolved. One of the prison officers (referred to as “Screws” in the credits list…) gets a bit of a fleshing out at one point, which raised my interest as he was playing up to the dime-a-dozen “corrupt officer” role, but this was quickly dashed and he returns to the one dimensional character that was first established. A shame. This is just one of a few examples of plots that were beginning to sprout and then abandoned or never given a satisfying pay off.

Juvenile Detention Centres: Not known for their morale-boosting wardrobe.

The majority of the young actors used in the film are actually ex-offenders themselves – perhaps to add authenticity to the film. With this being the case, I can’t fault their performances. These are guys that haven’t had money thrown at them for acting school, and for the most part you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the trained and untrained actors. They all far outpace their more senior thespians in the film, who don’t fare quite as well.

However, the major flaws lie with that plot. You can see any “twists” coming from too far away as the film tries to conform to the archetypal “thriller” routing. I’d also like to have seen more dialogue, as opposed to brooding shots of people walking around in slow motion, but I’m sure this will come with experience for director Ron Scalpello. Not bad for a first movie, but he’s not going to light the world up just yet. Joe Cole on the other hand? Well, I’ve high hopes for him.

All in all, Offender is a solid British revenge film, but lacks any real innovation and can’t compete with similar films out of the US. Sure, it spins it with the modern inner-city London language and sets it to the very real backdrop of the 2011 riots, but this is like putting a fresh coat of paint on a tired out car. It looks new, but under the bonnet it’s still the same old engine. And it’s also a car that only domestic audiences will want. Just like Attack The Block, I’d be surprised if this film made a dent anywhere but the UK. US “gang” films can easily translate over to UK audiences, but the reverse won’t be true any time soon.

Or if you’d rather I summarised in the right vernacular: “Blud, this film has bare tings goin’ for it, ‘specially that Joe Cole, is it? But dat plot? Allow it.” Translation: “This film has a lot of good things going for it; most notably Joe Cole. But the plot? Don’t expect too much.” I don’t think this is going to be pinned up as a reason to visit London any time soon either… Now gimme dat pizza back ‘fore I murk you bruv, y’ear?

Phage Factor:

3 Star

The Reboot Rebuke

by

0

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we ca… we ca…

>ERROR... ERROR... Rebooting...

There is a single dimension that is well known to man. It is a dimension as vacuous and repetitive as infinity. It is the grey area between new and old, between unneeded and unnecessary, and it lies between the peak of man’s fears and the pit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of zero imagination. It is an area which we call… The Reboot Zone.

Welcome to the first part of The Phage’s editorial piece on the scourge / saviour of the box office: the reboot. Over the next fortnight I’ll be acting as the prosecutor and defence team in the case of “The People vs. D.A. Reboot”. Schizophrenic? You bet we are!

I’d love to say that you’ll ultimately be the judge… but I probably will, as a) I like the sound of my own voice keyboard clacking, and b) we’re quite a new site and our readership so far are a lot like peeping Toms: often here, but as invisible as the awards in Adam Sandler‘s trophy cabinet. But hey – I’m an exhibitionist, so carry on coming back to feast your eyes folks, I’ll give you a show! Speaking of which… let’s get the aforementioned on the road…

The Prosecution

Beautiful ladies and handsome gentlemen of the jury, I come to you today to demonstrate that lightning never successfully strikes the same place twice. And should you brandish a lightning rod to force the strike, you inevitably get burned. I will present evidence that will show you beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendent, D.A. Reboot, is guilty of destroying actors’ careers and modern cinema as a whole.

I urge you to think of your most cherished memory or experience involving a movie. You can still remember the sights, smells and sounds of that day. Perhaps you were with a loved one: a first date, the first connection of hands, or a stolen first kiss? Now imagine that your leading man or leading lady has been replaced by Rob Schneider doing his normal “derp-de-derp” routine (see Exhibit A: the YouTube video below) and the plot is essentially the same, but has been sapped of all charm, excitement and wonder. And what’s that smell? Oh God! The room you’re watching in smells inexplicably of sewage. Your date? Well they are not happy – you never got that first kiss, in fact he/she spread rumours that you have a weird, depraved fetish that no-one in the Western world condones (outside of Amsterdam). Yeah, that one. Not pleasant is it? Not pleasant at all. This is essentially what Hollywood is doing to so many people’s favourite films: defecating on them and sullying people’s memories. And making you out to be a pervert.

Exhibit B: Bubo the Owl. A casualty of the reboot.

I’d like to draw your attention to 2010’s abomination that was Clash of the Titans (straplined “Titans Will Clash“, honestly!): a reboot of the 1981 stop-motion classic. The UK’s Guardian newspaper put it best, stating that it is “at its best during its breakneck second half, when the 3D effects distract from the 2D protagonists and the risible dialogue is drowned out by the clash of steel and the gnash of pincers.” I applaud Xan Brooks’ scathingly backhanded compliment, which highlights the problem with so many reboots: all style, no substance. And they scrapped the lynch pin of the movie: Bubo the adorable, robotic owl. Some things cannot be forgiven, or forgotten.

But it continues: Robocop, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Godzilla… the list of reboots continues to grow. Godzilla, already rebooted in 1998, is again being rebooted in 2014. Perhaps without a rockin’ Jamiroquai theme song this time.

Exhibit C: Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man.

Some will argue that an “adequate period” always passes before a reboot is released: typically 20 years. I refute this, highlighting 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man as a copy of the 2002’s Spider-Man, or Death At A Funeral – a 2010 remake of a 2007 original. Mistake me not, I am not citing films that re-use the title, but change the film, such as X-Men and X-Men: First Class, or any James Bond movie, as these are obviously worthy films in their own right. The prosecution draws issues with the retelling of tales that are either a) uncalled for, b) already told recently, or c) retold so appallingly that they trigger widespread disgust amongst critics and the public alike.

I now read you an account from a witness, whose identity is withheld:

“I grew up adoring The Pink Panther movies, but was so scarred by Steve Martin‘s reboot that I had a severe psychiatric trauma, which caused me to draw a moustache on my face with a marker, paint my chest pink, and parade around in a pair of torn white underpants yelling “I am le Pink Pom-Pom”. This went on from dawn ’til dusk for a good 3 weeks. I was arrested on several occasions. For unsettled legal reasons I’m unable to talk of the horrors that occurred after The Pink Panther 2 was released. But I can tell you it did involve a spate of sexual activity with packs of supermarket brand streaky-back bacon and a love for all things Rob Schneider. Reboots ruined my derp, derp, de-derp life.”

Shocking words. Shocking, bizarre words. But I hope it illustrates how damaging a reboot can be; not just to the actors and film studios involved, but to people like you – the viewers. You may be sitting there now saying “never me”, but what if your cherished series was next on the block? Could you handle it? Ever noticed how obsessed you’re becoming with food and cookery shows recently? Well that’s symptom #1 of what doctors* are referring to as “Reboot Rebuke”, or the street slang Schneideritis.

I hope that you agree with me that reboots are a plague on our cinemas: robbing truly gifted, imaginative film-makers of the opportunity to begin novel franchises. Novel franchises that amaze, captivate, and begin so many more “cherished moments” that will last a lifetime. And not only this, but the same reboots smash the memories of those that loved the original. I leave you with a question: would you rather eat your favourite flavour of ice cream for the rest of your life; knowing that every new scoop would taste more and more like sewage every time you ate it, until the point it was inedible? Or would you rather try a new flavour every time? Sure you’d eventually hit that appalling coffee flavour that no-one likes, but the next scoop is bound to be tastier! The same is true for films. If you’re with me, then I urge you to find D.A. Reboot guilty on all charges.

*Doctors accredited by the same University as Dr. Dre, Dr. Who and Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days (2012)

by

0

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Summer Days: Sleeping. With animals. Not in that way.

We all remember those long idyllic summer holidays that came with the end of a school year: lengthy bouts of sleep, hanging out with friends and generally doing nothing much of anything. That was until our parents forced us into doing chores or even getting a bona-fide job because they were sick of us lounging; probably due to their resentment towards us. Now I am one of the elders, and also resent these little brats who get so long off anything resembling hard work. Sparing a rant, the latest Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie picks up on the summer holiday theme. But is it like that awesome summer where you finally kissed that girl from down the street and completed Streets of Rage II with your buddy on your Mega Drive, or is it like that god awful summer where your mum made you get up at 6am to go to work as a labourer at a garden gnome manufacturer, despite knowing at age 14 that you were destined for far more…?

If you’re unfamiliar with the hugely successful Diary of a Wimpy Kid books then don’t feel ashamed, as I walked into the film knowing little about them or the previous films. I knew they existed, just like I know that 50 Shades of Grey series exists, but I never felt the need to read any of them. Maybe I’m not the right demographic for either, being a) over the age of 13, and b) not being a sexually repressed middle-aged woman / inexperienced teenage girl. I’m sure you can figure out which condition applies to which series. Essentially, the Diary of a Wimpy Kid films follow the trials and tribulations of Greg (Zachary Gordon) and his best friend Rowley (Robert Capron) as they go through that difficult late tween, early teen period of their life. We’ve all been there, we can all relate to them to some degree. As mentioned previously, this film squares in on how Greg and Rowley spend their summer holiday: dodging jobs, longing for crushes (Holly, played by Peyton List) and learning important life lessons. The so-called “dog days” in Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days. And yes, there’s a dog. On screen for about 10 minutes.

All actors pull their weight, but don’t go in expecting Oscar nods any time soon. Age has no bearing on acting capacity, as BAFTA and Academy Award nominee Hailee Steinfeld showed in True Grit last year. It’d be safe to say here that the actors are having fun with their part, but it does come across somewhat stifled. Gordon comes across as an introspective and more likeable young Matthew Broderick in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, or a less comedic Michael Cera in his Arrested Development days. Essentially, all the acting is serviceable, but nothing more.

“Listen – I’ve got Matthew Broderick and that Chunk kid from The Goonies on the line… they want their act back. Unless ya do the truffle shuffle…”

Having said that, it’s the young actors that come off far better from this film than the older cast (excluding Greg’s Dad Frank, played by the always likeable Steve Zahn). The real issues are with the “16-ish year olds”. Both Devon Bostick and Melissa Roxburgh, who play Greg and Holly’s older siblings, really grate. Either the script has called for “stereotypical teenager” or they really hammed up those lines. Also, I know it’s common practice for 20-something year old actors to play teenagers, but come on… Roxburgh looks as much of a 16 year old as Betty White does.

Betty White edges out Melissa Roxburgh in the “look 16 years old competition 2012”.

The trouble with this film is that I failed to feel much for the course of it. With The Lorax I felt distracted and sometimes bored, with Ice Age: Continental Drift I was entertained and laughed. But here? Well, I was interested by it, and the 94 minutes went fast, but I didn’t ever get past a smile; due to relating to Greg’s story. Or because South Park had done a particular scene exactly the same some years ago. The film typifies “middle of the road”. But then again, the film’s probably not made with me in mind is it?

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days is in fact a lot like those long and lazy summer holidays of our youths. They’re fun enough, and they’re soon over, but what did we actually achieve in them? Anything? When it boils down to it, the film comes across as a feature length Nickelodeon movie (or at least, how I remember Nickelodeon in the era of Clarissa Explains It All and Rocko’s Modern Life), or a Malcolm in the Middle aimed purely at the pre-teen, early teen market.

We can all relate to the movie, but I think most will be taken from it by the younger viewers who want to see their book / film friends going on another journey. Me? I think I’m going to dig out that old games console and boot up Streets of Rage II again and relive my misspent youth. What did I achieve in those summers? Getting AWESOME at games and developing the fastest thumbs in the West. And developing a loathing for garden ornaments.

Phage Factor:

Ted (2012)

by

0

If you’ve seen a poster, a trailer or a bus advertising Ted you’re sure to know that this film is brought to you courtesy of Seth Macfarlane: the man behind the Family Guy, American Dad! and The Cleveland Show franchises. Though I think it’s best for all if we forget the last title on that list, as I’m pretty sure people with an IQ over 39 don’t think The Cleveland Show is “comedy” in any shape or form. Unless you’re a simpleton. For the uninitiated, Family Guy revolves around a Simpsons-esque family and their shenanigans. Most of these episodes are essentially random sketches tied together with some semblance of a plot. American Dad! again focuses on a family, but is much more plot-driven – like any good sitcom. The Cleveland Show… well… let’s just not go there. Why am I explaining all this? Well, everyone has a “favourite” of these three titles whilst some can’t stand Macfarlane‘s brand of humour. Consequently, your enjoyment of this film will rely heavily on which of these four shrines you worship at. See if you can guess where I fall…

It’s a Macfarlane face-off… which camp do you fall into? Moronic, sketch-driven or plot-driven comedy?

Ted follows the life of 35 year old John (Mark Wahlberg) and girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis)… and of course Ted (Seth Macfarlane), the toy that came to life when John was 8 years old. At a core level, the film deals with the dilemma of being one of the boys vs settling down. Add in a truck load of 1980’s TV references, a sprinkling of drug paraphernalia and a sometimes obvious plot and you have Ted. Firstly, I want to say that in recent years I’ve become a big fan of Wahlberg, especially his contributions to HBO’s Entourage both on and off-screen, and in 2010’s spectacular The Fighter. His performance in Ted is what you’ve come to expect of the guy – professional, comic and charming. Similarly Kunis, who works with Macfarlane on Family Guy, acts admirably; although her role as the “straight guy” limits her ability to flex any comedic muscles on screen. The supporting cast is also brilliantly put together, surely thanks to Macfarlane‘s rich address book accrued from the numerous cameos that Family Guy and American Dad! have had over the years. I won’t ruin any of these for you, but appearances from a 1980’s film star and a famous Hollywood A-lister who doesn’t utter a single word are simply sublime. The only negative I can draw from the cast is the fact that Macfarlane didn’t write anything comedic for Lori’s boss Rex, who is played by the awesome Joel McHale from one of my favourite ever series: Community. An opportunity missed.

This brings us to Macfarlane himself who voiced Ted and wrote the script. Ted as a character is solid and beautifully rendered by the animation team. I just feel that we’ve seen this character before if you’re familiar with Macfarlane‘s TV series. He’s a slacker, a “bro” and less than politically correct – all things which you could pin to numerous other characters. But overall, I can look past this as it’s clearly Macfarlane‘s sense of humour and that’s fine. The character worked well. What felt a bit more hackneyed was the script, which came across as a number of hit-and-miss sketches loosely woven into a plot. Ringing any bells yet?

The trailers showed off some of the big hitting comedic moments, and there are more to be found in there, but there was also a lot of humour that fell flat for me. For instance, an elongated fight scene erupts that reminded me of Pineapple Express. I didn’t like Pineapple Express. I didn’t like this either. It just wasn’t funny. Luckily these duds were outweighed for me by Macfarlane‘s pop culture references (when they sit inside the plot) and sometimes sinister sniping at other popular celebrities. He does this in his animated shows and doesn’t pull any punches on the big screen too. This, for me, is funny. It’s a shame that more of the film wasn’t as guffaw-inducing as the prologue and epilogue by Sir Patrick Stewart (who also voices characters for American Dad!).

Bart Simpson by way of South Park: not a Family Guy fan!

But then again, many people in the screening I was attending laughed at literally everything. For some their humour level was any reference to drugs. I call these “The Cleveland Show fans” (or young teenagers… or adults with the brains of young teenagers… or morons – it’s ok, they won’t get offended; often they can’t read) – replete with honking laughs that made me think I was about to be attacked by a flock of geese. Next you had the people with a humour level resulting in them laughing at jokes that were in the trailer that surely every film-goer has seen? I call these “Family Guy fans“, as the jokes are funny but you’ve seen them before – just as with many jokes on Family Guy. Then finally you have people that enjoy the humour thrown up as part of the plot: the “American Dad! fans“.

If you’re playing along at home and guessed that I am c) an American Dad! fan, then kudos to you. Go get yourself a cookie. If you guessed a) then I strongly suggest you watch The Cleveland Show – it’s probably right up your alley.

Ultimately, Ted earns the title of “funniest film of the summer”, but more by default as it’s not had strong competition. Had 21 Jump Street landed at the same time, it’d have easily lost the title. It has its great moments, but much like Macfarlane’s Family Guy it has an uneven hit-to-miss ratio in term of gags.

If you didn’t like Macfarlane before, then seeing a non-animated form of his comedy won’t change your mind. If you believe the man can do no wrong then you’re delusional you’ll get a lot of kicks out of this film. If you fall somewhere in between and think that his shows have their moments, then there’s fair reason to see this. Macfarlane‘s humour has made the jump to the big screen far better than Matt Groening‘s The Simpsons Movie… but nowhere near as well as Matt Stone and Trey Parker‘s South Park or Team America: World Police. That’s what you get for letting manatees write your comedy Seth!

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

The Lorax (2012)

by

1

You know it’s summer when Hollywood unleashes a relentless assault of animated features to enthral the kids and hopefully entertain their accompanying parents during the school holidays, and this year is no exception. Up next in the blitzkrieg is the extravagantly colourful world of The Lorax, based on Dr Seuss’ story of the same name. But does this old yarn-turned-film both bedazzle and amuse, or is it simply a children’s tale set to bewilder and bemuse? Read on dear reader for I shall wage, that the truth is to be found here on Film Phage…

The Lorax (ably voiced by Danny DeVito) for the uninitiated is a story by Dr Seuss essentially telling the tale of the environment vs. corporate greed. I won’t go into the intricacies of the “plot”, but it’s suffice to say that the film tells of how one man (the Once-ler, voiced by Ed Helms from The Hangover) tells a young boy his tale of how his lust for profits rid the world of vegetation and how he didn’t listen to The Lorax: the guardian of the trees. He then entrusts the final seed in existence to this young boy for him to do with as he wishes. If this sounds a bit hokey, then that’s simply because it is. Seuss’ original story is incredibly short and is a bit like a parable; ending on the cliffhanger of “will he or won’t he”. But this is a children’s movie, not the infuriating ending to Inception, so expect no ambiguities… in fact, don’t expect much at all.

What you can expect are modern-day animation staples such as beautiful rendering, celebrity voices and a paper-thin romance. It’s the latter that really undermines the ethos of the film, with Ted (Zac Efron) wanting to find the tree to get in there with his crush Audrey (Taylor Swift). Seuss’ original vision is somewhat bastardised here, as this kid doesn’t really give two Humming-fish about the environment – he’s fulfilling his basic human urges… to get a smooch! C’mon, he’s probably 10, he’s not looking for some hanky panky with a 13 year old girl. Well, that might be the norm in certain districts in a town or city you know, but I’m certain that’s not the case here.

But that’s not all the film does to betray Seuss’ original vision… oh no no… if you live in the US you’ll be fully aware of this advert on your TV, and if you’re not from the US, then watch this bearing in mind that this is a pro-environment, anti-corporation film:

Yes indeedy – the Lorax LOVES a car powered by petrol… made from trees. A confusing message to send out you say? Well that pretty much sums up the entire film: confused. Most of the “extra” material not mentioned in Seuss’ book is simply padding to give context and get to the Lorax part of the tale (and he only sticks around for about 1/2 the entire film). All of these shortcomings just compound how bitter a pill this is to swallow, as it looks beautiful – the animators have rendered Seuss’ world with such loving detail; it’s just a shame that the script has all the charm and charisma of a tin of stale sardines.

The Lorax

Place your bets for a good review… now.

So what about the humour? Surely this film succeeds in that area? Well, I’m afraid not. Whilst I found Ice Age: Continental Drift unexpectedly engaging and genuinely funny in places, I found myself sitting there like the Grinch for this film. And others in the screening reflected this mood. There were muted sniggers from some, and the kids laughed every time a bear or fish made a meaningless squawk, but there was nothing really entertaining about the script. And let’s never speak of those joyless songs. That’s why it’s such a shame to hear that DeVito not only recorded his voiceover in English, but also in Russian, Spanish, German and Italian despite speaking none of these languages: he did it all phonetically. This is a simply mind-blowing approach to voiceover work, which is why it’s so soul destroying to see a film of such lacklustre calibre after all that effort.

I really wanted to like The Lorax, I really did. I always root for an underdog, and after disagreeing with fellow critics’ opinions on Ice Age: Continental Drift, I thought I too might find some green shoots of quality on which to feast, but instead was left with a mouthful of tarmac. If only the Once-ler had obeyed the laws of basic economics and just replenished his supply of trees as he went – he’d have made untold profit and kept the environment going… and also prevented me from needing to sit through 86 minutes of poorly-scripted cinema.

And so dear reader I bring this woeful tale to a close,
as the fable of The Lorax has left The Phage somewhat morose.
Whilst easy on the eye and replete with pure intention,
the story’s dreadfully weak script makes one call one’s sanity into question.
And not even the sublime, multilingual DeVito: the once Oswold Copperpot,
can render this film’s flaws so easily forgot.
For The Lorax is no Horton… Not even a Grinch,
but you can’t help but wonder what next of Seuss’ books Hollywood will pinch.
So lest I end up sounding like old Yoda the Jedi,
I’ll end this little ditty and bid you goodbye.
But I’ll be taking bets on which tale they will next pilfer and pluck…
Or you could be one of those that no longer gives a …

Phage Factor: