Les Misérables (2013)

January 16, 2013 by The Phage

Back in a former life, before Film Phage was born, I actually worked in the record industry. I scouted bands on a national and international basis for a rather large record label. As such, I’ve got a pretty discerning ear for music. Most music. And if I had started a music site, it’d be called Phonic Phage. Maybe one day we’ll mutate into that, so hands off the name – same for Flick Phage if I ever decide to start reviewing books! All that being said, nothing terrifies me more than the prospect of a musical film. I don’t even like it when someone sings a solitary song in an otherwise tuneless film, so with that weighing heavily on my mind I headed out to see Les Misérables…

As I say, I’m no musical film fan. I remember seeing Sweeney Todd a few years ago and being mortified by the endless churning out of songs! Even my great love of all things Matt Stone and Trey Parker was tested with South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, which featured a whole slew of songs. Some enjoyable, some less so. But saying that, I’m not averse to musical theatre and I’ll be one of the first to see The Book of Mormon when it hits the UK in a couple of months… but me and musical films? An entirely different kettle of fish.

Before seeing Les Misérables I was ready to write this off. For me, Hugh Jackman is Wolverine and not Jean Valjean, Russell Crowe is Maximus Decimus Aurelius and not Javert and Anne Hathaway is now Catwoman and not Fantine. And Sacha Baron Cohen? Well, his role’s pretty accurate: bizarre. And certainly none of them sing. Wolverine certainly doesn’t sing. But the film caught me off guard… Although I may have checked my watch a couple of times.

Wolverine needs to get his act together and have a shave before July!

So, a real summary? Essentially, Wolverine / Jackman / Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread and is jailed / enslaved for an illogical length of time in revolutionary France. He’s overseen by Gladiator / Crowe / Javert – an Inspector who swears to monitor Valjean for the rest of his life to make sure he doesn’t reoffend. But Valjean flees. And does quite well for himself after changing his name – a total character reformation. But Javert never gives up – he’s a lot like Wile E. Coyote constantly chasing that roadrunner. Or General Ross who constantly chases The Hulk. He’s remorseless. There are also several subplots woven in here to add more songs. You’ve got Anne Hathaway‘s impoverished quest to get money for her daughter (who’ll become Amanda Seyfried) who’s in the care of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. Oh, and you’ve got the whole French Revolution underclass being led by Marius (Eddie Redmayne).

OK, a tough plot to summarise, I’ll concede that. That’d be why it’s a three hour West End / Broadway musical then, split up into three acts. As someone who has no clue about what happens, I found Les Misérables particularly interesting and the plot intrigued me. I was dubious of how Hathaway‘s somewhat short time on screen could tally with all the praise and awards she’s been nominated for / received. But that dubiousness evaporated pretty sharply… Wow…

Much fuss has been made of the singing calibre of the cast. Praise has been rightfully doled onto Jackman, who is fantastic as Valjean – he really sells you every emotion that his character feels throughout the film. And Valjean has some major highs and lows in his life. However, less praise has been given to Russell Crowe as Jalvert. Some are saying his singing is awful, out of key etc. etc. However, I’m going to go on record as saying I thought Crowe was perhaps my highlight of the film. I loved his character and just think he conveyed it brilliantly. I’m no thespian, and my talent scouting days are from more popular music genres, but I still thought he brought the goods. I’m a fan of Crowe in general though. He’s often mocked, but I still hold him in high regard. In my eyes he’s on par with Jackman here. Maybe less emotional, but certainly as entertaining.

The other roles? They all do their part. I need to of course focus back onto Anne Hathaway. She looked incredibly distraught and beaten down and really sold me her plight with stark emotion, but she was somewhat “absent” from most of the movie, as fans of the musical will be well aware. Cohen also merits mention for providing some great comic relief. His accent lurches from horny Frenchman to cockney geezer to Ali G, but he definitely plays his role with aplomb.

You’d be surprised just how accurate College Humor’s send up is… But it’s not necessarily a bad thing!

What was slightly more confusing is the choice of extras / minor parts. Why were all of the peasants in revolutionary France either from Yorkshire in the north of England, or from the east end of London? Yet all of the middle class were clearly from somewhere around Hertfordshire. I found it quite laughable that they still use northern accents / cockneys to play the impoverished. Some of the singing sounded like a track from the British punk band Gallows (see below for a great, aptly-titled, tune).

That wasn’t my only gripe either. I mentioned earlier how I was checking my watch. The film is simply too long winded in places. Its run time pushes 2 hours and 40 minutes, so it tests your resolve. If you love the stage version of Les Misérables then you’ll surely see time fly by. But for everyone else? Well, let’s just say that the third act drags quite a bit. Further to this, I just found some of the filming techniques a little dull at times. A lot of emphasis has been placed on the close up of the person singing. That’s great… but this is a film, and not a stage musical. I don’t need to see every mouth movement. I want to see the scene and put it in context. Films have such a large budget for a reason… use it.

Having said that, Les Misérables was a pleasant surprise. I didn’t think I’d stay awake for the entire film, let alone enjoy it. I think a good deal of that enjoyment comes from the fact that I’ve no prior exposure to the plot, so as a film lover I could enjoy where events would take us next. The singing was just “there” in my eyes. Yes yes, it’s all delivered live to film and it worked well, but that wasn’t the reason I enjoyed the film. And I really think more credit needs to be given to Russell Crowe – people are being too snobbish about his performance. He’s an actor. A damn fine one. He’s not a musician.

So whilst my past is shrouded in mystery, you now know me as The Phage that used to dabble in music: the Phonic Phage. But much like Jean Valjean I’ve been on the run from my past for too long. It’s good to have it out in the open. But what I won’t do is sing a merry little song about it. For two hours. Because although I enjoyed Les Misérables, I hope Hollywood doesn’t jump on the bandwagon of making all musicals into films. It’s not a two way street, nor should it be! Just look at poor Spider-Man!

Phage Factor:

Gangster Squad (2013)

January 13, 2013 by The Phage

Have you ever seen a movie poster than thought “oh hell yes, this has X in it… I love X… I bet this film will be great”? Sometimes the gamble pays off as the star in question is someone like Daniel Day-Lewis or Will Smith. Sure, they’ll have the occasional off-film, but overall their hit rate is exceedingly high. On the other hand you have people like Samuel L. Jackson – a self-confessed workaholic, but is as likely to be in a fantastic genre-defining film, as he is a complete dud. It happens. You just hope that you don’t pick the “dud” film in someone’s career – or at least not the one that everyone bemoans as “not his / her best”. So that brings Gangster Squad into the limelight. Its cast has lots of really hot names, but do they meet our expectations?

Gangster Squad is roughly based on the book by Paul Lieberman, which retells the true story of post-World War II Los Angeles. It’s a time of gangsters, where Chicago ruled the United States of America and corruption was rife at every level as the country came to come to terms with post-war life. LA was ruled by Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) – your archetypal gangster: a corrupter and a thoroughly deplorable individual. On the other side of the thin blue line you’ve got the newly established “Gangster Squad” – a secret group of police officers tasked with bringing down Cohen’s Empire. But can they succeed? Therein lies Gangster Squad.

The Gangster Squad

But who is the Gangster Squad I hear you ask? Well, that’d be a team led by Sgt. John O’Mara (Josh Brolin), which consists of half dozen of LA’s best, including Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling), Conway Keeler (Giovanni Ribisi) and Max Kennard (Robert Patrick). Clearly some big names in that list – even Terminator 2‘s T-1000 is in there. How can they lose!? Throw Emma Stone into the mix as Cohen’s girlfriend / piece of arm candy, which Gosling‘s Wooters wants a piece of, then you have an explosive cocktail that should explode with all the sleaze and excitement of post-war USA… but the machine isn’t as good as the sum of its parts.

That’s not to say that all of its “parts” aren’t well oiled an firing away nicely. The two biggest assets of the film lie with the two leads: Josh Brolin and Sean Penn. Brolin portrays the 1940’s-50’s stoic police officer with remarkable conviction. In fact, if you were to throw Brolin back in time, you’d probably be convinced he belongs there anyway. He’s just cut from the right material to suit the time period – Men in Black 3‘s comparison to Tommy Lee Jones is still very apt. You can’t help but imagine this would be the part Jones would play should this have been shot 20 years ago. However, the real kudos needs to go to Sean Penn who is simply fantastic as Mickey Cohen. He’s vile. He’s offensive. He’s a dislikeable human being. A perfect mob boss. There’s a real conviction behind his acting, but then again, we’d expect no less from Penn considering his back catalogue. The only distracting thing? Those prosthetics. They’re almost as distracting at first as Joseph Gordon-Levitt‘s in Looper. I just couldn’t help but think “what’s Mickey Rourke‘s Marv from Sin City doing in this flick?”. The fact that the film styles itself as a noir, much like Sin City did, only solidified these ideas in my head. It was effective makeup, but a little distracting at times.

Prosthetic twins!

However, the film falls down in many other areas to render it “enjoyable” rather than “great”. The plot, for a start, isn’t anything mind-blowing. As you can see from that description, it’s pretty much a case of good guys v bad guys. But then again, it’s a gangster movie; you were going to get that one way or another. The real let downs for me were Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. Individually, I think these guys are fantastic actors, but here they just didn’t shine. When I think of Gosling I either think of his powerful performance in Drive or his suave showing in Crazy Stupid Love, but this is neither. His part tries to be cool and calm, with an undercurrent of love and malice, but it just doesn’t come across as it should. I’m pretty sure this year’s Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive) written and directed Only God Forgives will set him back on track as the super hot property we know he is. Similarly, I feel that Stone was cast just as a name. Her role as Grace Faraday is quite disposable – any mid-20’s actress could have played the part equally as well. Whether she was cast owing to her past dealings with director Rubin Fleischer in Zombieland, or because her chemistry with Ryan Gosling in Crazy Stupid Love was so great, we’ll never know. Regardless, I just wasn’t that impressed with her performance here, which is a shame considering how much talent and charisma she has.

Ultimately, Gangster Squad just failed to ignite for me. It had its moments, and any time Penn was on-screen was fantastic, but it just felt a little too loose and meandering – perhaps 15 minutes longer than it should have been. It also lacked the punch that I expected from the cast. Maybe I should manage my expectations some more, but maybe not, because I know these actors are firing off at nearly the top of their game right now. We should always expect more.

So I guess the lesson here is to “never judge a book by its cover”, or “never judge a film based on a book by its poster credits”, which is nowhere near as catchy. Too much emphasis has been placed on Gosling in the marketing, when they should have really emphasised Penn‘s role, as he’s clearly the don here. A gnarled, prosthetic-ridden don… one that really needs to avenge the death of Goldie, who smelt like angels ought to smell. Oh wait, that’s Sin City‘s Marv again. Simple mistake.

Phage Factor:

The Impossible (2013)

January 7, 2013 by The Phage

Sometimes I think that all of this exposure to disaster-themed movies should make us all pretty prepared for the inevitable catastrophic event that will affect our lives: the zombie apocalypse. We’ve seen survivors flee from rage-fuelled fiends in 28 Days Later, people battle the world’s most rapidly changing climate in The Day After Tomorrow and even survive a hulking great asteroid hitting the Earth in Deep Impact. Hell, all Elijah Wood needed in that last one was a bike! He could outrun the oncoming tidal wave. In short: disaster epics are nothing new. What is a bit more novel is the use of the 2004 tsunami that devastated South East Asia – enter The Impossible.

The Impossible is based on the true story of a family that was in the wrong place at the wrong time on 26th December 2004. Here the family are portrayed by Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts as husband and wife Henry and Maria, and Tom Holland, Samuel Joslin and Oaklee Pendergast as Lucas, Thomas and Simon: their three children. Ultimately, the tsunami tears the family in two, separating Henry and Maria beginning them on a desperate quest to find their children and each other in the tsunami-ravaged coastal areas of Thailand. And what a story it is.

Before I get drawn into the plot and acting, what really must be talked about first is the cinematography and shooting of the tsunami scenes. Quite frankly it’s amazing how these guys pulled this off. You never get the feeling that this is the work of camera trickery or some elaborate staging – it just feels real. This is especially noticeable when the camera shoots from high above so you can see the wave ripping through the hotels and houses like a red hot knife through butter. It’s truly astounding.

But what really struck me about the movie was how emotional it was. The Phage is never one to let his emotions get the better of him at the movies – he’s cold and remorseless. Well, he has been ever since he cried when Jenny died in Forrest Gump when he was a lot younger. That was a sad moment! But since then? A heart like stone. Having said all that, I’m not afraid to say that The Impossible really stirred up those emotions. I defy anyone to not feel touched by some of the scenes in this film. I don’t have little Phagelings running around, so I’m not even a parent – therefore the emotional damage has got to be exacerbated for any parents watching this film too.

Look out for this scene… it’s a heartbreaker.

What brought up these emotions? Sheer acting talent. Naomi Watts is acting her chops off in this film – you really feel her desperation and also wince with every one of her injuries as she struggles to track down some sense of normality. An utterly convincing performance that surely has to be in with a nod in this week’s Oscars nominations. However, credit also has to go to Ewan McGregor here too. The scene that really tore my heart to pieces was one of him managing to make telephone contact with a relative back home. His delivery of the ensuing speech could not be more emotional and evocative. It really feels as if both McGregor and Watts had tapped into the events of the day and really translated those emotions for the camera. Furthermore, at the opening of the film I was ready to dismiss all of the child actors as “caricatures” and “not Pierce Gagnon“, but even they really came into their own as the film progressed. Although Tom Holland is arguably given the bigger slice of camera time as the eldest brother Lucas, all three really round out the picture well and capture the innocence, sadness and anger that comes with separation.

I should hope that it’s quite obvious from the fact that it’s based on a true story that someone at least survives the tsunami. After all, who would tell the story if the entire family was wiped out? No-one. Having said that, finding out exactly who survives and how they manage this is truly enthralling. I must confess that I approached this film with some trepidation because I couldn’t see how a film about separation could sustain my interest over its two hour run time. All of these feelings soon disappeared by the time the wave hit; owing in no small part to the performances on screen and the riveting story. As I’ve said countless times before, it’s sometimes the true stories that seem even more unbelievable than those cooked up by banks of writers in Los Angeles.

Sure, the story’s been tweaked a little by director Juan Antonio Bayona to give it that on-screen flare and drama, but at its core you can’t help but buy into the fear and trauma of these individuals. And although some of the third act scenes feel slightly too forced and almost cartoon-esque with its near-encounters (you’ll see what I mean), the film is testament to some fantastic film making and really capturing the story of those that were part of this natural disaster and also delivering a story that can never be told by so many others that were taken by it.

The Impossible is an emotionally devastating piece of film making that should be applauded for its technical prowess, as well as its performances. All five of the actors portraying the family really captured the sheer desperation and angst that must have been felt by those that were there on that day. I’m not normally one to buy into films that are so flagrantly emotional, but The Impossible really hit all the right notes and truly is a life affirming film – it’s not just a clichéd expression used on posters.

So although my years of training for the end of the world has been delivered by years of exposure to Hollywood and its tales of doom, I don’t know how I’d actually fare if the time ever came. Except for zombies of course… I always have Zombieland to teach me how to survive that particular conclusion. The solution? Double tap the ghoul, remember that zombies can’t climb and just go and hang out with Bill Murray for a bit. Maybe try and convince him to take that role in Ghostbusters III too.

Phage Factor:

Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)

January 5, 2013 by The Phage

Confucius had some pretty good proverbs didn’t he? In fact, so too did a lot of other great minds throughout human history. Now is my time. Yes, in years to come, the future space people will somehow locate this exact page and nod with smug appreciation at how profound this one review is, and how important it would be to the future of mankind. For I ask… if a film is a reboot of a sequel that bears no resemblance to the first sequel and snubs the original’s reboot in favour of the real original, whilst forgoing all other subsequent sequels, is it a reboot after all? If you’re confused by that sentence, then spare a thought for me… I had to write that stuff! Christ, no-one ever told me being a genius would be this tough! I think I’ll revert to form, lest my Phagey brain explode. Here’s a review of Texas Chainsaw 3D… which might be a sequel… or a reboot… or a confusing mess… much like my mind.

Well, where to start with this one. I hope that all of you are familiar with the seminal 1974 horror classic, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? The one that features a guy called “Leatherface” – he’s a cheery chap that loves Black & Decker chainsaws and has an awful skin problem. I assume that’s why he chooses to stitch other people’s faces to his own. As Face/Off hadn’t been released back then I’d presume he’s not just a massive Nicholas Cage fan… although those hairstyles are pretty similar… OK, you’re with me so far? Good. Are you aware that the franchise has spawned three true sequels, in the form of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation? Maybe not. And let’s be honest, why would you? They’re awful. Come on – look at the title of that last one! So the 2003 reboot came as no surprise, and nor did Hollywood’s lust for horror with the 2006 prequel, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning… too bad both of those were about as exciting as a toothpick too.

Leatherface through the ages…

So… All that being said, where does the ambiguously named Texas Chainsaw 3D fit into proceedings? On the surface, it looks like it might be a hokey 3D reboot of the original. You’d be wrong there. What it is in fact, is a sequel to the 1974 original. No, not the 2003 retreading, but the true original. How do you know this? Well, the whole opening of this film shows the ending to the original – the actual footage. The plot then picks up immediately after out victims-to-be have escaped and alerted the townsfolk to what’s gone on in deepest, darkest Texas. Of course, the townsfolk don’t take kindly to this and burn down Leatherface’s family house, complete with family inside. Jump to “modern day” (more on this later) and we find our protagonist Heather (Alexandra Daddario) has inherited a house in Texas from her deceased grandmother. A grandmother that is tied to the original murderous family. A murderous family that may not be entirely dead. And still has chainsaws. You get the picture?

Yes, the plot is about as obvious as me telling you that grass is green and the sea is wet. Heather’s road trip with her pals Ryan (Trey Songz), Nikki (Tania Raymonde) and Kenny (Keram Malicki-Sánchez) doesn’t go as planned. But luckily she did pack every horror cliché in the play book. At times it felt like I was watching another god awful instalment in the Scary Movie franchise. You want the runner to trip up / stumble / make obvious noises? Check. You want to see some boobs? Check. Women in bras and lace panties? Check. Paper thin, disposable characters? Check. Yes, every box is ticked. But that’s not my biggest issue with the film. That rests with why the film doesn’t tell you about Heather’s magical youth formula or time travel machine that she clearly invented..

One of many shots to please the “slasher” diehards…

OK, the original film was set in 1974. It’s clearly 1974 – the clothes, the hair and the cars are all featured at the beginning of Texas Chainsaw 3D. That definitely sets up the time period. But then we switch to 2012 for the “today” action. Trouble is, you see young Heather as a baby in 1974… and you see her as an early 20-something in 2012. This would make her 38. This isn’t a deal breaker for the film, but how could someone have missed out on this? It’d have made more sense to base this off a completely “new” original and got the times lined up. A weak oversight.

What you can’t see is how skimpy her top is. Another cliché? Tick!

With all this being said, you’re probably expecting me to award this film something akin to 0%… but you’d be wrong. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a great film. Hell, it’s not even good. But not many slasher films are good to be honest. I just got a thrill out of seeing Leatherface (ably played by Dan Yeager here) running around with a chainsaw. Sure, it’s not the same as it used to be, as it’s all a bit too slick and not as gritty as the original. It had some fun times and I think that somewhere there’s a good story in there. Unfortunately, it’s let down by more holes than a crocheted blanket. And the final 15 minutes? Wow. The weak, colour within the lines characterisation of Heather is very weak. It’s just absurd. But I guess that’s how they go about setting up sequels nowadays! To me, it just reeked heavily of how Saw managed to extend their franchise. Except for the fact that Saw, despite its flaws, defined a new genre – regardless of how you view the “torture” style. Texas Chainsaw 3D, unfortunately, does nothing to innovate or resuscitate this emaciated franchise.

Texas Chainsaw 3D is a passable slasher movie, but that’s not a high commendation. It throws in every cliché by the truckload and will have you laughing in disbelief rather than cowering behind your hands. It’s a shame that such an iconic character as Leatherface has yet to have a truly great resurrection on screen. Just like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers, I think he has had his time in the sun / moon light. I’m not saying they should be retired to their respective coffins, but they need a severe reworking if they’re ever to recapture them at their best.

And what of my proverb? Is a reboot of a sequel that bears no resemblance to the first sequel and snubs the original’s reboot in favour of the real original, whilst forgoing all other subsequent sequels, actually a reboot after all? Honestly, I couldn’t tell you. I’d put my money on it being a new sequel and not a reboot or retooling. It’s simply opened up an entirely new dimension for Leatherface to invade. After all, considering Heather is able to look so damn youthful and hot despite her apparent age of 38, reality bending inter-dimensional time travel is definitely possible.

Phage Factor:

Parental Guidance (2012)

December 31, 2012 by The Phage

I can’t quite pinpoint the point in my life where I started to feel alienated from those that are younger than me. The turning point where I thought “I was never like that at your age” or “I swear kids weren’t getting pregnant at that age in my day”. Don’t misinterpret that for me being an old, miserable Phage; I’m actually relatively young – spawned in the mid-80’s. But I still wonder what the hell the kids are drinking nowadays to make them behave so oddly. Or maybe I’m just jaded I didn’t behave so recklessly back in my youth. It’s a peculiar thing that happens to everyone when they hit their mid-twenties – they start to relate more to those older than them, than those in their teenage years. This is despite the fact that you’ve obviously been a teenager by this point, but you’ve never been a 30 year old. Odd isn’t it? Well, these inter-generational relationships are the subject of Parental Guidance – a film spanning three generations. But is it lovable like someone else your age, or as irritating as a 18 year old know-it-all that “really discovered who they were” on a beach in Thailand?

Parental Guidance is a good old-fashioned family comedy starring Billy Crystal and Bette Midler as Artie and Diane Decker – two grandparents that are somewhat ostracised by their child owing to their quirkiness. But they’re called upon by their daughter, Alice (Marisa Tomei) to look after their three grandchildren whilst she goes for a few days away with her husband. The problem? Artie and Diane are old school parents, whilst Alice and her husband are more new age (e.g. never say “no”, say “wouldn’t you rather” – a more gently, gently approach). Just how will the family cope?! Yes, yes, it’s all very formulaic and lightweight, but that’s pretty much the point. Obvious comparisons would be to Cheaper by the Dozen and films of its ilk, but they’d be misplaced, because this film isn’t a train wreck.

This is essentially a platform for Billy Crystal to be Billy Crystal. For some, that’ll sound like torment, but to others it’ll sound like heaven. Me? Well, I’ve never really been exposed to many of his movies / appearances on TV – it seems you guys in the US get a lot more of him than we do. For this reason, I thought Crystal was genuinely funny. Sure, some of the jokes were very wide of the mark, but the ones that landed on target made me chuckle. Not guffaw and fall about the aisles, but chuckle nevertheless. Similarly, Bette Midler has been given some great lines too – one exchange between her and a very demanding Russian violin teacher was particularly memorable.

What of the rest of the cast? Well, they’re all serviceable, but as I say – this is a Crystal and Midler vehicle and not much else. They’re just there. I’m well aware that Marisa Tomei can really pull off great roles (The Wrestler for instance), but she was somewhat underutilised here – the part could have been played by any actress really. Similarly, the three children are nothing too remarkable, but their performances never seemed hackneyed or weak. They’re just not Pierce Gagnon. Yes, I can pretty much manage to shoehorn Tom Hardy or Pierce Gagnon into the vast majority of my reviews.

In terms of plot development, you know you’re not going to get some astronomically complex plot. This is a “U” certificate after all – a true family film. Everything is relatively linear and you can foresee the ending before the film even begins, but I don’t think that’s the point. The emphasis is on the dichotomy of parenting styles – old school grandparents vs. new age parents. And I enjoyed that. You see, I’m much more an advocate of the straight-talking method used by Crystal and I could relate to his qualms with the gently, gently approach used by his daughter.

Other reviewers have used a lot of “sch-” prefixed words to describe the film, which I’m not entirely in agreement with. Sure, it’s sweet and sometimes very sentimental, but it’s done well. It carries a message that we can all relate to: we get older and things change. In my screening there were a variety of ages – the parents and grandparents were laughing, but so too were the children. Although the youngsters were more amused by a supersoaker to the groin than Crystal‘s off-the-cuff remarks about life. I can’t say I’ll be recommending the movie to all and sundry, but if you’re in need of a holiday film to entertain the family then you could probably do far worse than Parental Guidance.

Whilst Parental Guidance isn’t a family classic, it is an enjoyable film. It doesn’t outstay its welcome and delivers what you’d expect: an all-around enjoyable family film. If you’ve not been saturated by Crystal in the past then you’ll find much to like here. It’s unlikely to become a film you’ll love and cherish, but nor is it as tacky and obvious as Cheaper by the Dozen and other films that deal with grandparents looking after children. Crystal himself summed up Parental Guidance as a “Home Alone for grandparents”. And you know what? I think he’s about right.

Maybe my enjoyment of this movie is testament to my cynicism about Generation whatever-letter-we’re-on-now. Maybe I’m prematurely long in the tooth. And maybe I’m tainted by my own lack of kids. But for whatever reason, I enjoyed Parental Guidance a good deal. Don’t be led by the opinions of others who’d probably dissuade you from seeing this if you’re on the fence about it. After all, would you listen to the “life advice” of the aforementioned 18 year old who’s just returned from that one week sojourn in Thailand where they got in touch with their inner goddess? When in fact they were just dancing on a beach whilst drinking screwdrivers out of a plastic bag? Yes? No? Well, I guess it all depends on your age… Much like your enjoyment of this film.

Phage Factor:

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

December 29, 2012 by The Phage

Not your typical Craigslist advert. No mention of “no strings fun”, for a start.

Who hasn’t checked out those “Wanted” ads in the local newspaper? Even when you don’t want anything, you’re just keen to see what’s available and out there for the taking. I’m also willing to bet a hell of a lot of you have read the “Date Wanted” / “Singles” section of the newspapers too. Even when you’re all coupled up in coupley bliss. You’re just a bit of a “what if…” person. And you’re probably nosey. Or a no good dirty dog who’s looking to hook up with someone. Though I think you’d probably hit Craigslist before looking at your local newspaper for that. So what would you do if someone wasn’t looking for a hook up, and was in fact seeking someone to go on a time travelling adventure with them? Would you ignore the request? Would you immediately call up and ask to be included in this marvellous adventure? Or would you call and ask if this was some subtle way of asking for sex? It’s your call…

Well, Safety Not Guaranteed plays with this premise of an advert looking for someone to travel back in time with the ad-placer. Aside from asking the applicant to bring weapons (a necessity for time travel – you’ve seen Sliders right? Those guys ended up in all manner of crappy situations!), the advert ends with the line “Safety Not Guaranteed”. Enter the story. The advert’s picked up by a magazine looking for a new feature article, so reporter Jeff (Jake Johnson) and his two interns Darius (Aubrey Plaza) and Arnau (Karan Soni) trek off to the coast to track down the guy that placed the article: Kenneth (Mark Duplass). So whilst Darius is charged with getting the inside scoop on the story by getting to know Kenneth, the boys are left to go on their own journeys of discovery and enlightenment. If I’m being vague, that’s a good thing, as I don’t want to spoil a thing.

Safety Not Guaranteed comes to you from the same producers as Little Miss Sunshine and holds a lot of similarities with it. I’d also throw Garden State into the mix too to give you an impression of the sort of film this is. What’s my opinion of these two films? Well, they’re OK. I’m not crazy about them. They’re entertaining, quirky, indie-style movies for sure. And for some, they’re like scripture, but not so for me. Way too much whimsy and “pleasantness” to tick all the boxes. But Safety Not Guaranteed is a damn fine film. And one that I believe you should take time out to see.

Although it’s a charming and pleasant viewing, it’s not that that had me held; it was the combination of plot and acting. Firstly, I honestly was left guessing the whole way through the film about how it would be resolved. Is time travel possible? What’s this guy up to? Will it work out between X and Y? Hooray for a film that kept me anticipating the next step. Although I must say that I was disappointed that a plot thread involving Jeff was left somewhat up in the air and unanswered. I wanted resolution. But that aside, I found it a thoroughly engaging affair. Due in no small part to the lead players…

Parks & Recreation fans will instantly recognise Aubrey Plaza – the downbeat and sarcastic one from the hit show. Whilst she retains some of her world-weary cynicism here, she really acts convincingly and had me enraptured. She’s oddly introspective and has a delightful way of holding the viewer’s attention in every one of her scenes. I’d never really noticed how good looking she is either. Always a bonus. Similarly, I didn’t know what to expect from New Girl’s Jake Johnson as the lead reporter on the case. I was anticipating a one-track “big man on campus” performance, but his character was lovingly written and had a depth to him not normally seen on-screen. It’s just a pity that his main plot line was left so open and inconclusive. Credit too to Mark Duplass as Kenneth – his performance as a somewhat paranoid eccentric was right on the money. A very subtle and effective performance.

Although too much whimsy and quirkiness in a film normally makes me feel queasy, I’ve got to hand it to those involved with Safety Not Guaranteed. It was entertaining, but never so saccharine that you felt the need to reach for the nearest bin. Admittedly, it was slow at points and I can’t say I was engaged from start to finish, but I never wanted to stop watching. I needed to know how it finished for all the protagonists. With a sub-90 minute running time the film never outstays its welcome, which could have become a real problem for the film. At its core, Safety Not Guaranteed is a story of romance under a thin veil of mystery. I’m not normally one for a movie of this ilk, but it worked. It worked really well.

Safety Not Guaranteed is a very welcome surprise. Seeing “From the producers of Little Miss Sunshine” on the posters didn’t fill me with glee because I’m not that sort of Phage. But the writing pulled me in and the acting held my attention. Its mish-mash of romance, comedy, mystery and sci-fi is an interesting mix that whilst not pandering to one demographic, ably draws in people that wouldn’t normally be interested in what is essentially a romance story. If one word had to sum up this tale, it’d simply be “charming”.

So maybe it is worth answering these ads. Safety Not Guaranteed essentially advertised itself as: “Seeking fans of quirky romantic comedies for a 90 minute experiment. Bring popcorn. Warm, cozy feelings guaranteed.” It’s certainly not one I’d have heeded the call of, but I did. And I’m more than thankful for it. I’d suggest you do the same. By that I mean checking out the movie. Maybe replying to an advert that reads “Seeking an experimental slave that can tolerate pain. Bring condoms. Safety not guaranteed.” isn’t the one you should be replying to… Or maybe it is?

Film Phage

… for infectious film reviews

Category Archives: Review

Les Misérables (2013)

Phage Factor:

Gangster Squad (2013)

Phage Factor:

The Impossible (2013)

Phage Factor:

Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)

Phage Factor:

Parental Guidance (2012)

Phage Factor: