Spring Breakers (2013)

April 8, 2013 by The Phage

Spring Break. It’s a concept we don’t really have in the UK, at least not in the way that Hollywood tells me is the norm in the US. We don’t head to the beach, strap on bikinis, take half of it off and drink copious amounts of beer and spirits on the beaches and all start making out. If we did that here, it’d probably be as follows: head to the beach, strap on bikinis, put on at least four more layers, feel pretty miserable that the weather’s so awful and drink copious amounts of tea in a local café. That’s not to say we’re not an exciting nation – we are! I assure you! But our little rock isn’t built for beachy hedonism in the Spring. It also most certainly isn’t built for the sort of debauchery and extreme hedonism on show in Spring Breakers, that’s for sure…

Spring Break forever.

Much has been made of the fact that this is written and directed by Harmony Korine – the guy that brought you the controversial Kids many moons ago. Me? I just associate the name Harmony Korine with the awesomely beautiful song by Steven Wilson (The Phonic Phage recommends it: linked here), so I don’t have much attached to this particular director if I’m being honest. Also, if you’ve just listened to that Steven Wilson song, then this film is the complete antithesis of it. Spring Breakers is big, brash and bold, so check your coat at the door.

The film revolves around four girls (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson and Rachel Korine) and their quest to go on their first Spring Break down in Florida. They’re seeking the teenage American dream: the drugs, the drink and the debauchery. And they get it. But when it all starts to get a bit out of hand, they’re taken under the wing of Alien (James Franco) – a so-called “gangster”, replete with gold teeth and corn-rows. But how far will the girls go to hit the ultimate high?

It all sounds wonderfully superficial doesn’t it? It looks like a very dumb and gaudy premise for a teen drama, as does the trailer. You’d also probably believe this for the first 15 minutes of the film, which has more topless girls than your average adult entertainment convention. It actually made me feel a bit weird to be sitting there watching it, as I contemplated what the film was actually trying to achieve, and whether I’d be watching this for 90+ minutes. But it all changed dramatically when James Franco entered the fray.

I thought Franco was stunning in this film. He plays ~~Kid Rock~~ Alien – the white boy gangster who’s living “the dream”: huge house, more money than sense and a bloody piano outside by his pool, which overlooks the Atlantic Ocean. What fascinated me with Franco was how convincing he was as the somewhat deplorable Alien. I found his character detestable, but his acting sublime. He’s acting full-tilt crazy and that accent? Perfect southern drawl. Franco gets a bad rep for sometimes “phoning in” a performance and playing the same role again and again, but this certainly isn’t the case here.

Kid Rock + Die Antwoord = James Franco. Clearly!

What of the remaining cast? The four girls? I wonder how this was sold to their agents to be honest, as they spend the vast majority of the film in neon bikinis. Much fuss has been made of this being the one to “break the mould” for Hudgens and Gomez who’ve both been associated with “pure” Disney films in the past. I guess its an attempt at rebranding from them both. I found the four of them to be thoroughly convincing in their roles, no doubt about that. They’re far from weak actresses, but I’d be keen to see what they all move onto next in a more “grounded” film that requires more clothes.

What really merits mention here is the cinematography. The film looks sublime. If I had to pigeon-hole it, it’s somewhere between Savages and Drive (but not as poor as the former, or strong as the latter). The colours are bold and beautiful and some of the shots are the type you wish you could frame and mount on your wall; they’re just that good to look at (and no – I’m not referring to the copious shots of topless girls). If nothing else, you’ll be impressed with how the film looks. I feel I also ought to focus on the soundtrack used here too. As some of you know, in a former life I was involved in the music industry (hence The Phonic Phage), so I have an ear for it. When I saw the trailers for Spring Breakers I was ready to dismiss it out of hand, as any film that makes a song and dance of its soundtrack generally isn’t worth watching. I don’t go to the cinema to watch Glee. But I was surprised. Sure, all of the Skrillex (aka Sonny Moore of now defunct metal band From First To Last) tunes were in place, but so too were compositions from Cliff Martinez. Who’s he? Only the guy that made Drive sound so goddamn fantastic. Essentially this clash of aggression and peace, along with the glaring neon and stunning visuals makes this a sensory feast for the eyes and ears.

This actually leads onto the major drawback of the film… what’s the point of it all? It’s an exhilarating ride to be on at times, but afterwards you don’t really know why you’re so excited by what you’ve just seen when you actually think about it. Either the film’s trying to be too clever for its own good and believes it’s delivering a very poignant message to the audience, or there is no message to be taken away from this and it’s pulled the wool over your eyes with all its visual and aural delights. The plot is there, but it’s somewhat hollow and you almost feel bemused with yourself for liking the film as much as you do. Indeed, you might actually walk out of the screening thinking it was the worst way you could have spent a couple of hours… but that’s the joy of Spring Breakers; Spring Break isn’t for everyone!

Spring Breakers is a lot like the wild party it shows on screen. It’s a giddy concoction of noise and visual splendour, but when it’s all over you’re left wondering what you’ve actually achieved from your time spent there. Sure, the memories of that experience are wedged in your head, but you’ve not learnt anything new; you just know you’ve had a good time. That being said, I think praise needs to fall on James Franco, as I’ve not been intrigued by a character in quite some time. For me, he carries this film on his shoulders and runs with it. If you’re a fan of Franco, or my rambling has tempted you into seeing something you’d normally dismiss as “a stupid teen flick” (despite its 18 rating), then I think you should go out there and make your mind up for yourself…

All this film goes to show me is that you can’t do something like this in the UK. Nowhere in our isles could you stay in a bikini all day and night (who hasn’t tried?!). Also, we don’t have those classy red cups that you US folks always seem to have at every frat / sorority party in the history of cinema. Plus, as much as I liked James Franco‘s deep south drawl, I don’t think we could have a character like that over here. For us, the deep south would be a county called Devon. Sure, the accent’s quite slow and meandering, but it doesn’t have that same allure… not by a long shot.

Phage Factor:

Dark Skies (2013)

April 6, 2013 by The Phage

The truth is out there… Are you hearing that theme song in your head yet? Yes, The X-Files did wonders for getting the concept of aliens “out there” into the public domain. It triggered an unhealthy fascination in what’s up in the skies for a lot of people. The same people (mainly guys) also developed an unhealthy obsession with Gillian Anderson. Me? I’m just fascinated with how David Duchovny looks almost exactly the same now as he did back in 1992. Whatever alien gloop he’s using on his skin, I want some! Sure, aliens have taken many forms in the movies too – from the horrific “tongue-y” xenomorphs in the Alien franchise to the little guy who’s got a really long glowing finger and is obsessed with going home – but none are more famous than the “Greys”. You know the ones: really tall, long limbs, huge black eyes… oh, and they’re grey. Think Roger from American Dad! or any alien seen in South Park. Got it? Good. So how does Dark Skies, the latest alien horror movie, deal with the deities from the sky?

The Signs of Dark Skies are evident for all to see…

Well… have you seen Signs? You know, when M. Night Shyamalan was still delivering top notch movies that you really wanted to go out and see? If you’re with me, then lift that plot up and supplant it into Dark Skies and you’ve essentially got the premise. I know what you’re thinking if you’re a regular reader: “Hey, Phage, where’s the plot summary? I don’t like change – just do things like you normally do!”… but I’m honestly not kidding when I say that Signs and Dark Skies are almost exactly the same film. Replace the farm from Signs with a suburban neighbourhood, whip out Joaquin Phoenix and Mel Gibson and replace with Keri Russell and Josh Hamilton and you’re pretty much on the money.

OK, I’ll give you a summary lest I lose you forever into the void that is the internet: Dark Skies follows the lives of Daniel and Lacy Barrett and their two young boys. Sure, they’re going through financial troubles, but that’s the least of their worries when their youngest, Sam (Kadan Rockett) starts to act peculiarly and attributes his odd behaviour to the “Sandman”. But that’s only the beginning… as soon the whole family is engulfed in what can only be described as an “extraterrestrial” experience…

I’m a bit surprised actually, as I’ve made the film sound wholly more exciting than it was. The crux of the problem with Dark Skies isn’t that it’s got a bit too much in common with Signs, but the fact that the pacing is entirely off. Especially for a “horror” movie. I know that I often lament the use of loud noises, camera jerks and cheap startling tactics, but they do at least add some (false) frights into a horror movie. Dark Skies lacks all of these for at least the first 3/4 of the movie. This would ordinarily cause me to commend the film. However, their absence actually exposes the critical weakness of the film: nothing’s happening. It’s not suspenseful – nothing’s happening.

We’re all accustomed to horror films ramping up the tension over their run time. This is especially true with the Paranormal Activity franchise; it’s their calling card. You know the scares are going to get bigger and more intense the longer the run time goes on. Hell, I can still see the ending of REC in my mind’s eye (now that was a horror film!)… that was a build-up punctuated with a ton of scares along the way. It seems that Dark Skies saved all of its material for the final quarter of the film. This wouldn’t be bad, if the final quarter wasn’t quite so poor too. You already know how it’s going to end.

The trouble is that the film tries to shoehorn in too many ideas from other films. You have the obvious Signs similarities, then the use of surveillance footage (Paranormal Activity), night vision cameras (Paranormal Activity 2) and emotionally disturbed children (Poltergeist). What you’re left with is a product that isn’t equal to the sum of its parts.

All that being said, I admire the film-makers for being bold in attempting something a little different from the normal LOUD NOISES approach to horror movies; making it unfortunate that the plot is a bit too bare and basic. When I saw that it came “from the producer of Insidious, Sinister and Paranormal Activity“, I thought I knew what I was going to get (clue: NOISES), but I was mistaken. Turns out I wasn’t mistaken about the ending though…

Ultimately, I just failed to be scared or even feel absorbed by the plot of Dark Skies. Even the most “startling” of modern horror movies at least have me hooked into the plot to see how it’ll all play out, but this was stripped away by my overwhelming sense of déja-vu. Dark Skies isn’t for those with short-attention spans, but nor is it for those that want a pay-off in their films. If the skies are dark and forboding outside your house, don’t try venturing out to the cinema for Dark Skies. You’d have more fun re-watching The X-Files.

So back to the real question here… just how does David Duchovny do it? How does he still look as youthful as he did in the early 1990’s? Maybe it was the fact that he played a character obsessed with aliens? Perhaps he actually did encounter aliens and they gave him some magical youth formula… that’d make a lot of sense. Or maybe it’s just the well-documented fact that he was a sex addict for much of his life and he’s actually a vampire absorbing their youth as he goes. Now that’s a film idea! The truth IS out there.

Phage Factor:

Jack The Giant Slayer (2013)

April 3, 2013 by The Phage

Fairy tales are magical things. They fill a child with a sense of wonder about what could or could not be. Well, that’s the case for the majority of children. For others, they’re a terrifying reminder that ghouls, goblins and trolls are very real and are lurking around every corner. I can’t quite recall which side of the fence I fell on though. I was more preoccupied with the fear of Vigor from Ghostbusters II coming to abduct me than I was about some giant or hobgoblin. Vigor comes out of paintings like a pre-20th Century Samara from The Ring. Now that’s chilling. But I digress… fairy tales are a great source of inspiration for Hollywood, whether they’re ancient Bavarian tales, or stories scribbled on the back of a beer coaster in 2011. But who doesn’t love a twist on the original story? Something fresh to entertain adults and children alike. Enter Jack The Giant Slayer. The words in the title will be familiar, the contents less so.

It’d be fair to say that the words “Jack” and “Giant” should conjure up images of beans, castles in the sky and a thieving kid called Jack. It’s a story that’s been told and re-told since the early 19th Century, so it wouldn’t surprise me if you did know it. But strip out the notion that Jack is a thieving git who steals shiny objects like a magpie from the giant’s house before killing him and getting away with it. Shake it all up a bit. Add in an army of giants and a quest to save a princess and you have Jack The Giant Slayer.

Yes, this is a new take on the classic story, starring Nicholas Hoult as Jack. Last time we saw Hoult was in Warm Bodies, where he played a shuffling corpse capable of human emotions. If you remember, we weren’t overly fond of it owing to The Phage‘s affection for zombiekind. Well now he plays Jack – an extremely poor lad that lives with his uncle, owing to the untimely passing of his mother and father. Jack’s quested with selling some goods in town to repair their ailing house, but through being in the wrong/right place at the wrong/right time, he ends up with some beans… beans that will alter the path of his life and the whole Kingdom of Cloister. A Princess is in peril and there’s a whole army of giants up in the sky who can’t wait for some tasty human flesh.

Giant slaying… pretty funny business!

Actually, now I come to think of it, there are probably some good parallels to be drawn between a zombie film and a giant film. Both bloody love human flesh and both seemingly feature Nicholas Hoult. However, Jack The Giant Slayer comes off as a far more well-rounded film than Warm Bodies and it thankfully lets Hoult flex his acting chops to a decent enough degree. I also feel that merit needs to be given to Eleanor Tomlinson as Princess Isabelle. She just “suited” the role well. But this is undoubtedly Hoult‘s movie.

However, that’s not to say that the film is a classic. The crux of the problem with this film is its inherent reliance on CGI giants. I like to think that CGI has come on dramatically in recent years. We’ve almost been spoiled in the past year with beautiful mo-cap performances from Andy Serkis as Gollum in The Hobbit and Mark Ruffalo in Avengers Assemble. Obviously, massive credit goes to their respective animation teams, but the performances are also sublime.

OK, you may be thinking “well that’s all well and good – they’re only a single character at a time and aren’t as complex as an army of giants”. Well good sir / ma’am, I point you towards the utterly fantastic Troll Hunter. The best Norwegian film I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen at least one). As Hollywood has far deeper pockets than a group of Norwegians, why didn’t the giants look as utterly mind-blowing as those in Troll Hunter? That would automatically bump the film’s rating up.

But the shortcomings aren’t just in the visuals, but in the plotting. However, I don’t want to get too bogged down in there. Look at the title of the film. Think about the story it’s based on. Is it therefore made for you? Really? You’re going to judge it with your 18 year old (Oh you’re older than that? You don’t look it. You must work out.) mind? The initial story is simple, and so is this film. It’s a rescue story, with a smattering of romance and breaking down class constraints. Plus a load of giants and a castle. If you’re willing to switch off and accept the film for what it is, then you’ll enjoy this a lot more than you would otherwise. However, if you’re going in expecting something to rival Tolkien’s recent resurgence at the box office, or something as gritty as Game of Thrones, you’re going to be disappointed.

Finally… can I just draw everyone’s attention to the giants’ accents here? Why are us Brits always seen as the massive, evil giants? Sure, we got a bit carried away with Colonisation over a hundred years ago, but we’ve not done that much to spite the world since then… have we? Well, it makes a change from being portrayed as impoverished (Les Misérables) or as rage-fuelled zombies (28 Days Later) I guess…

Jack The Giant Slayer is a nice twist on the classic tale. It also has a lot more of a moral core than the original story too, so it’s definitely suitable for the youngsters. What about the rest of us? So long as you’re willing to suspend your need for a complex narrative then you’ll have a good time. It’s a popcorn flick, nothing more, nothing less. Judge this book by its fairy tale cover.

I think this version of proceedings would be better suited as a children’s bed time story than the version about the thieving, murdering kid. Kids need morals. What of my own morals? Well, I daren’t touch paintings any more lest they protrude and envelop me into them. Now that’s morals for you. Who’d have thought Dan Akyroyd and Bill Murray could be so influential? And you Vigor… terror of my dreams… you too…

Phage Factor:

GI Joe: Retaliation (2013)

April 2, 2013 by The Phage

Do you remember when toys and games were just that? You know… they were just pieces of plastic that you’d play with in your room or in the bath? Oh come on, it wasn’t just me playing in the “water arena” with my pieces of plastic was it? I was about 5 or 6 okay?! Well, I remember those days… and your imagination was definitely enough to dream up all manner of scenarios and events for these toys. Sure, there might have been cartoons, but no-one wanted to make a film about plastic toys. Then the world changed. Our plastic heroes were suddenly on the screen… and before you knew it Hasbro had somehow managed to put Battleships (a game where you just shout grid co-ordinates) into your local cinema. So after the ridiculously underwhelming “success” of GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra in 2009, Hasbro has now brought you the much delayed GI Joe: Retaliation. Now with 100% more Channing Tatum. Well… sort of…

Dwayne “The Traps” Johnson…

GI Joe: Retaliation follows on from the events of the first film, but decides to scrap the majority of the existing cast in favour of following our new group of “Joe’s”, Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Duke (Channing Tatum) and Jaye (Adrianne Palicki), over another bombastic set of events. I don’t feel like I’m “spoiling” anything here to say that I wouldn’t get too attached to Tatum here… his role is very similar to that of Side Effects. It’s another instance of him being billed ludicrously high as a draw card… you will be disappointed. Be warned.

Anyway, this time around the Joes find themselves “betrayed” as an act of “retaliation” from Cobra – their arch-nemeses. What follows is an attempt to restore their good name as US heroes and stop Cobra’s wicked plan from succeeding. I honestly can’t bring myself to write an engaging plot summary, as I dreamt up more thrilling scenarios in my bath ~~last week~~ when I was a child. Oh, and this time around you can add in the original Joe – Bruce Willis as the GI’s attempt to restore their good name. There was a time where I’d always see Bruce Willis being in a film as a true positive… but this time around? Well, you’ve seen A Good Day To Die Hard haven’t you?

GI Joe: Retaliation isn’t the action movie you were hoping for. This should have been obvious when Paramount delayed the release from June 2012 to April 2013 to add 3D to it. Now, 3D can work – I’m not the critic to tell you that I despise it. It works sometimes, it doesn’t others. But a massive delay to ADD 3D screams cash grab. Some speculated it was to add a bit more Channing Tatum, as his star has risen dramatically following Magic Mike and 21 Jump Street. I’d fall more with the former, as opposed to the latter, that’s for sure!

What of the action? Surely there has to be some great action though right? Well… there are bangs and pops, that’s for certain. Indeed, the children in the audience were whooping and laughing at every single Cobra member that had their rappelling cord cut in a cliff scene. Oh, it’s all fun and games for them. What of the families? They were sons and daughters to people! Children nowadays have no concern for the wellbeing of a family. That’s what’s wrong with Britain! But seriously, there is enjoyment for the younger audience members. For everyone else? You’ve seen it all before.

What you might not have seen before is the size of Dwayne Johnson nowadays. This guy (aka, The Rock) has packed on an immense amount of muscle. Look at his traps! (Traps are the muscles in his neck / shoulder region that make him look so massive). That guy has been doing a hell of a lot of shrugs down the gym. I feel for Johnson, as again he’s in a meat-head role that requires very little acting ability. But he does look massive, so that’s good for him. Hopefully this year’s Pain & Gain can deliver some goods for him. He looks massive in that too! What of the others? I wouldn’t write home about them to be honest. Tatum rivals Anne Hathaway‘s performance in Les Misérables… but only insofar as time on-screen, not in acting ability! And Willis? Once again it looks like he’s wandered onto a set as if by mistake. He seems distracted and a little too laid-back. Looper stands as his only recent performance that really shines. Come on Bruce… please bring back your A-Game!

Ultimately, GI Joe: Retaliation is an underwhelming amalgamation of explosions and muscles. There’s a plot there, but it’s very thin on the ground. It tries to inject suspense and thriller-esque imagery, but fails. Having said that, the film gets an extra half-Phage purely because of Dwayne Johnson‘s traps. That guy deserves the extra half for all that gym time! If you were looking forward to seeing a solid action film, then you’ll be disappointed. Just await the next explosion-fest to hit your local screens in about 2 weeks’ time.

GI Joe should have been left in my toy chest / at the bottom of my bath. Somewhat alarmingly, it appears as though a third instalment is on its way though. Hopefully the script-writers will come and ask me for a decent plot line. I can conjure them up some fantastic ideas. They’ll be way better than the big screen adaptations of Kerplunk and Buckaroo that I’ve got brewing. I’ll go and let the bath run now…

Phage Factor:

Trance (2013)

March 27, 2013 by The Phage

Some directors can become very genre-centric, or known for only one recurring idea that they implement in film after film. For some people this is great; “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. But for others it can become a bit of a drag, as every new film delivers the same basic premise. Look at Michael Bay – he’s maligned for his use of CGI and explosions in near-enough every film he’s put out in the past decade. Then you have directors who switch it up film after film to tackle different genres. Perhaps the most famous example of this right now is Quentin Tarantino – I make no secret of my fanboyism of his catalogue of films. Each of his films has been stunningly different. But having said that… I think there’s another director out there more worthy of the accolade of “most diverse director”. And that would be Danny Boyle.

Danny Boyle is the guy behind Transpotting, The Beach, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours to name but a handful. In there you have tales of drug addicts, a zombie apocalypse and the story of a guy who gets stuck under a boulder and gradually goes bonkers. Boyle isn’t afraid to tackle different genres. He’s also not afraid to tackle theatrics either, as he was the guy behind the London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony, which many hailed as fantastic (me included). So this brings us to Trance – his latest full length film. A film that I put down as one of the 13 to watch in 2013. So does it live up to my lofty expectations?

The look of bemusement on my face during the trailers for Trance…

First things first… I need to deal with the trailer for this film. It’s a trailer I’ve seen jammed in front of many other features recently. Honestly? The trailer is appalling. It actually reduced my hype levels for this film. A lot. It was disorientating, quite boring, and showed way too much narrative for my liking. It almost completely turned me off Trance. And I know some of you feel the same way about it too. Let me put this out there now – discard your thoughts from the trailer. The film is far better than those short teasers would have you believe.

Trance is a heist story. A heist story by way of hypnotherapy and mind-bending reality augmentation. At its core, Trance follows Simon (James McAvoy), who works at an arts’ auction house. Simon’s not playing by the rules. So when a £20 million+ painting rolls through the auction room and the building is raided by thieves led by Franck (Vincent Cassel)… well, Simon’s in on the act. It’s an inside job. The only trouble? James misplaces the painting following a blow to the head. Naturally, Franck and his group are not best pleased by this turn of events and try to force the answer out of Simon. When that doesn’t work, they resort to hypnosis by recruiting Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson) – a therapist. The film then focuses on Elizabeth trying to extract these concealed memories from James’ head…

But that’s only scratching the surface of what this film offers. Whilst my little synopsis accurately covers the first third of the film, it all goes extremely far into left field and gets pretty damn trippy and mind-bending. Immediate thoughts would point towards Inception and Vanilla Sky as inspirations for this film, but even then you’re not really coming close. What Danny Boyle has managed to do is create a vivid world, filled with believable characters and added this bizarre hypnosis twist in a way that really works.

Having said that, the mind-bending sections of this film did actually lose me at one point. I wasn’t sure what I was watching. Was I in reality, or was I in a regression? Maybe this was the point of a certain 10 minute stretch in the latter half of the film, but either way I felt lost. This shouldn’t be the aim of a film – to lose the audience. At all other points in the film I knew exactly what was going on and what was unfolding, but there were definitely sections of “what the hell is happening?”

Now, we need to focus on the acting of the three core players in the film: James McAvoy, Vincent Cassel and Rosario Dawson. As I mentioned in our Welcome To The Punch review, March is McAvoy season. Indeed, I actually saw him performing on-stage in London this past weekend as Macbeth. He was brilliant, if a little beardy and drooly. And Trance is another big outing for McAvoy. Arguably, Boyle has a good record of launching talent into the stratosphere. Just look at Cilian Murphy – a relative unknown when 28 Days Later was released. The same could actually be said of Ewan McGregor when he was selected for the role as lead in Trainspotting.

So, I actually hope that this gives McAvoy‘s career a massive boost. Not that he needs it, but I hope it does. Why? Because this is perhaps the best example I’ve seen of McAvoy‘s acting abilities. Trance really calls upon so many emotions from his character, James. I was sold on every facial tick, mannerism and emotion. A sublime performance. Similarly, Cassel ably plays out his role as the “bad guy” – a solid turn. Much praise has also been lauded on Rosario Dawson here, and it’s entirely merited. She’s an actress that’s already had some fine performances under her belt, but Boyle really brings out another side to her acting abilities, which is great to see.

The successful display of talent on show here is definitely down to Boyle‘s direction and Joe Ahearne and John Hodge‘s script. The film is anything but linear, but the characterisation is rich. One could argue that the film is not as well realised as some of Boyle‘s earlier works and indeed, that middle section got a bit too overwhelming, even for The Phage. There’s also an unexpected amount of gore and nudity (a heavy emphasis on pubic hair, or lack thereof). But then again, this is from the guy that had someone cut his arm off with a penknife and zombies that spewed blood at every turn, so perhaps it’s not that unexpected…

Cassel, McAvoy (with Macbeth beard), Dawson and Boyle – the key to the film’s success.

Trance is another resounding success for Danny Boyle. It has its flaws, it’s not perfect, but as a whole it works in a cohesive manner. It works not only because of Boyle‘s direction and an interesting script, but because of McAvoy, Cassel and Dawson. McAvoy in particular appears to be at the top of his game right now. The trailers for Trance may have dampened my enthusiasm for the film, but this was eradicated within the first 15 minutes. What prevails is an intriguing, thought-provoking film with more twists and turns than a helter-skelter. It’s definitely a film that demands to be seen more than once, that’s for sure.

So although Tarantino is probably at the forefront of your mind for taking on wildly different films nowadays, you’ve probably got to look to Danny Boyle for the truest example of this. His back catalogue includes rom-coms, drama, action and horror. Many of them being seminal examples of the genre. Where does Trance fit into this list? Well, it sits highly in his back catalogue. It may not be the shining example of a thriller in decades to come, but it’s one you definitely can’t predict. And who doesn’t love the unpredictable?

Phage Factor:

Identity Thief (2013)

March 25, 2013 by The Phage

Identity theft is no small matter nowadays. Everyone seems to have their cards cloned. I know that I did a year ago! You’d think it’d be hard to pass yourself off as The Phage, as I’m essentially some weird shape with some legs… but I guess there are certain pockets of breeding in the UK that would yield an orange offspring with spikey legs. In a nutshell, identity theft is something that everyone is starkly aware of nowadays and as such is ripe for the glorious Hollywood treatment right? So how does Identity Thief cope? Does it actually have an identity of its own, or is it just some pale imitation of a superior product?

Sometimes you can’t but show favouritism towards something. You know you shouldn’t, but you do. Maybe you’ve got a child that you prefer more than his/her brother/sister? You clearly don’t tell them, but deep down… you do. The same goes for films when they star someone you’re quite partial to. See, I’m a massive fan of Jason Bateman. I love his style of comedy thanks in no small part to the fantastic Arrested Development. Sure, he’s always essentially playing the same role, but if it ain’t broke – don’t fix it. And don’t fix it he does. Wow, that’s confusing to type. I’m sure I’ve broken 100 grammatical rules there. So when I saw that he was the lead in Identity Thief I was immediately interested in the film… but…

OK, before I delve into the review, let’s give everyone a quick synopsis. Not that it’s needed. If you look at the poster and the title of the film, it should all be pretty apparent right? Jason Bateman plays Sandy Patterson – a good guy. He pays his bills, works in banking and tries to do right by his family. However, all this goes to hell in a handbasket when he has his identity stolen by some deranged woman in Florida (Melissa McCarthy). She racks up a ton of bills and arrest warrants; thus throwing Sandy’s life into turmoil. So what does he do? Well, he heads out to confront his female imposter in order to get his life back. ~~With hilarious consequences.~~

The trouble with this film is it’s essentially way too long and relies on very weak jokes to keep it plodding along. As I’ve already confessed, I enjoy seeing Bateman on-screen, but not even this was enough to keep me engrossed in the movie. It just kept on going… and going… and going. At some points it felt like I was watching Due Date again, but minus the obvious tension of Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis’ relationship. The film also resorts to a saccharine tale of redemption and how one person can reform their character. OK, I should have been acutely aware this is what would happen, as it’d be hard for the film to take many other paths. And now that I think of it, I can’t actually see another way that the film would progress, but it still irked me. It seemed jarring.

The premise of identity theft should be ripe for some great send-ups, but the plot seems to have had its own identity stolen and replaced with that of a mindless pseudo-action/chase movie, replete with some extremely bizarre sex scenes and car chases. This… I wasn’t expecting.

Who are these people? Don’t worry… they’re superfluous.

Having said ALL of this, I still thought Jason Bateman was great. I love his style of acting and this is another fine example of him at his best. It’s just a shame that the script and plotting are so weak. Similarly, Melissa McCarthy is great in her role too; it’s just a shame her character is so vapid for the majority of the film and then unquestionably deep for the final third. Although she’s clearly a great comedic actress, I just grew tired of the gags they had her perform. As I’ve said previously – they just go on… and on… and on. She needed a more well-rounded character or at least some more impressive set pieces to allow her to flex her chops.

Ultimately, Identity Thief falls down in two key areas: laughs and plotting. It lacks both. What you’re left with is a film that’s confused about what it wants to be: a jack of all trades, master of none. It tries its hand at action, raunch and slapstick, but falls down in most of those areas. Hell, even if it worked in the slapstick department, I still wouldn’t be impressed, as that’s not really our favoured style over here at Film Phage.

It’s quite ironic that Identity Thief lacks identity. Maybe it was an extremely cunning and meta joke by the film makers here. Yes, surely that’s what they were thinking when they put together the movie. Surely? Oh… it wasn’t? This is meant to be an enjoyable comedy? Oh… alright then. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen worse movies in recent months, but this is clearly just a movie you’d watch “if it was on TV”. Look out though – it’ll bill itself as a comedy… it’s all lies. Spurious lies.

Film Phage

… for infectious film reviews

Author Archives: The Phage

Spring Breakers (2013)

Phage Factor:

Dark Skies (2013)

Phage Factor:

Jack The Giant Slayer (2013)

Phage Factor:

GI Joe: Retaliation (2013)

Phage Factor:

Trance (2013)

Phage Factor:

Identity Thief (2013)

Phage Factor: