Life of Pi (2012)

December 23, 2012 by The Phage

The Life of Pi… It must be an interesting story, depending on which angle you take. You could follow it from its humble doughy beginnings. You’d recoil at the brutal kneading and stretching. Laugh when it hits the giddy heights of 200 degrees as it bakes to perfection. And you’ll weep when its whole life is obliterated by some greedy child (or Jim from American Pie). Oh wait, that’d be a pie. Still, an interesting story. Well, since the title’s not referring to baked goods, it certainly can’t be telling the tale of π, can it? That beautiful mathematical constant that spreads herself far and wide, penetrating every hole and circle in the world like some promiscuous lady of the night. No? Oh, so it’s Ang Lee‘s adaptation of the book “Life of Pi” then? Probably a safer bet than a tale about a number or baked goods then…

Yes, Life of Pi is the big screen adaptation of the novel by Yann Martel – the critically revered book about one man’s life and all the highs and lows that it brings. Without delving too much into the story, it follows the life of Pi (played by numerous actors, but mainly Suraj Sharma as Pi the younger, and Irrfan Khan as Pi the elder) – a young Indian boy who travels with his family (and their zoo) across the Pacific Ocean to begin life anew in Canada. Tragedy strikes when the freighter they’re travelling on sinks to the depths of the ocean. But Pi survives. As do some of his fellow travellers. Mainly those that don’t speak very often: his animals. The film / book works as a retrospective, as Pi recounts the story to a budding novelist, played by Rafe Spall. It really is a bombastic and incredible story, filled with stunning visuals and heart warming moments, but I left the screening feeling somewhat underwhelmed.

Well, where to begin. This film has been the subject of much hype with critics branding it as the cinematic event of the year. And on paper you could understand why. First up, we have the choice of director: Ang Lee. This is the guy that was once the darling of tinsel town following his big one-two hits of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain, but he’s been rather quiet in recent years. He also toyed with Hulk back in the day. Back before Hulk started smashing puny Gods… and before his alter-ego was played by Edward Norton. Lee’s Hulk was derided far and wide for being rather too serious and taking far too long to bring the big, green guy to the screen. But this was the pre-Batman Begins and pre-Iron Man era. A time when superhero movies were nothing but a blemish on the income sheet of studios around the world. Oh how things have changed…

But back on track. You have the big name director in place, renowned for great stories and/or gorgeous visuals, and you have a critically-acclaimed, best selling novel to back it up. What can go wrong? Well, nothing’s wrong per se, but there’s not a whole lot that I feel merits such great praise. Yes, the 3D technology feels at home for the first time since Avatar and the CGI animals are simply fantastic, but past that I don’t feel there’s a whole lot to rave about.

Whilst the story is interesting, it’s certainly not compelling enough to justify the 120+ minute run time in my opinion. Despite the fact that The Hobbit was a long movie, it never felt that way – the plot constantly developed and evolved. New locales were uncovered and new characters encountered. But Life of Pi is a pretty lonely story for the most part. Whilst it takes a long while to get to the boat’s sinking, that was fine – it enriched Pi’s character and helped us understand his upbringing. But when the story breaks down into Pi and his animal friends, it gets slow. It gets really slow. This may work very well as a book (I wouldn’t know, I’ve not read it), but it doesn’t work so well as a film. As I say, it’s not a poor stab at what must be a very hard story to translate to film, but I feel that it might just not be possible to pull off, regardless of director and screenplay writer.

It sure is a lonely life. Would probably be made better with pie.

One thing I can agree with is how smooth and stunning the CGI-generated animals are on-screen. If I hadn’t just come off the back of seeing The Hobbit in 48fps and cooing at Gollum’s animation, I wouldn’t hesitate in calling these creatures the finest creations this year. You’d swear that our young adventurer was aboard his life raft with Richard Parker (his tiger). It’s going to be a tough call for the Academy to decide who walks away with the Best Visual Effects’ Oscar in 2013, but I’ll bet you it’s someone associated with one of these two films.

Ultimately, I just failed to connect with the story. Myself and others left the screening uttering phrases such as “is that it?”, “I don’t get it” and “that was different”. I’m glad I go to such vocal screenings sometimes (though if that punk kid on my aisle slurped the ice out of his empty cup one more, I’d have had to educate him in the Life of Pain). The story, whilst lovely to look at, feels a little empty at the end of it all. Especially when you factor in the “twist” ending that those familiar with the book will already know of. Sure, it’s an adventure. Sure, it’s nice to look at. But ultimately, it’s much like a painting – beautiful to behold, and it may tell a fascinating story, but it won’t appeal to every viewer. Some people just prefer Spider-Man to Rembrandt.

Life of Pi is certainly one of the most ambitious films of the year. But with ambition comes an inherent risk – the risk that it was too ambitious. Whilst I commend the whole team behind the film for really striving to bring the story to life, I can’t help but feel that it just isn’t a story that translates into a 2 hour cinematic adventure. I’m sure it’ll scoop some awards this season, but it certainly isn’t the darling some would have you believe. And as for being a “family adventure film”? I’d leave the kids at home. Especially if they’re going to slurp ice every 20 seconds.

This Christmas season I’m more interested in the Life of Pie than the Life of Pi. Whilst I type, I can smell fresh mince pies cooling downstairs and I can’t wait to tuck into every pie under the sun whilst I enter my festive bloating-session. I’d much rather invest my hours into ensuring those pies are golden and delicious than have to invest another two hours into a film like Life of Pi. Though one thing I’m certain of is that no-one really wants to hear the story of π and how it gained all its digits. Let me start that story off for you right now… 3.14159… bet you can’t wait for that killer twist “7” that’s coming up…

Phage Factor:

Jack Reacher (2012)

December 19, 2012 by The Phage

Have you ever had the experience of watching a film and almost instinctively knowing how it’ll progress? I’m not talking about a predictable film with a basic plot, but one where you’re “in” the movie and understand the character and how their actions will play out. This may happen because it’s about your day job. As a Phage, I just knew how my viral peers would act in Contagion – I knew every move that would happen before it did. Maybe you’re a clinically-diagnosed psychopath, which enabled you to see the progress of Seven Psychopaths like some kind of deranged oracle? Well, with Jack Reacher I too felt like I knew about a sniper’s motivations before they became apparent. Not because the film was predictable. Not because I’m actually an assassinating phage… But because I played a pretty similar video game recently.

Jack Reacher is the latest film directed by, and starring, Tom Cruise. It’s another of those oh-so-popular novel adaptations that you see so frequently nowadays. Cruise is Jack Reacher – a decorated war veteran who’s somewhat of a problem solver. The ultimate detective. So when a sniper goes on to assassinate five random people at a riverside in Pittsburgh and is subsequently arrested, he asks for Jack Reacher. Because it turns out the case is not as simply solved as one might at first presume.

So why did I feel like I knew some of the plot twists? Well, thanks to seeing countless films and playing video games that deal with a similar premise. Plus a good dose of common sense. That’s not to belittle the overarching plot at all, as it’s still interesting, it’s just that you can see some of the supposed “curveballs” coming at you from quite a distance. Only the unobservant viewer would be shocked by the unfolding revelations. Having said all that, it’s still a solid film.

One of the key assets of the movie is its lead actor: Tom Cruise. Cruise has recently hit a run of form and this easily trumps all his performances of the last five years. He’s broody, he’s intense and he’s witty. It’s this latest point that really hits home throughout the film. Cruise delivers some truly delicious lines throughout the film in a very dry, off-the-cough manner – all of which had the audience laughing as a whole. A great thing to witness in what can be a very serious film. Speaking of which, I couldn’t help but think back to the events in Newtown last week when I saw the opening gambit to the movie. It comes as no surprise that the US release has been delayed by the shooting, as it does cut close to the bone if you’re sensitive to such issues.

So whilst Cruise is on top form, can the same be said of the rest of the cast? Well, it’s a mixed bag. Sure, you have the talent of Robert Duvall and Helen Pike, who are both great. But to be honest, not all of the characters get the fleshing out they deserve; so they appear somewhat one dimensional. This is especially true of David Oyelowo‘s Detective Emerson and Jai Courtney‘s Charlie. Oyelowo‘s detective’s motives are transparently clear from start to end and Courtney‘s thuggish enforcer, Charlie, is just a simple thug. There’s no shock, no surprise, no nothing. He does exactly what you’d expect. I also can’t help but wonder if they cast someone hoping he’d be as good as Tom Hardy in the “menacing bruiser” role. He isn’t. I’ll be interested to see how Courtney acts as John McClane Jr. in A Good Day to Die Hard next year. He’s going to have his work cut out for him to match Willis there. And I’ll probably write that they should have cast Tom Hardy in that too.

Whilst he may look (slightly) like Tom Hardy… he most certainly is not Tom Hardy. Shame.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the romantic sub-plot that so often plagues these types of films (spare The Bourne Identity). Director Christopher McQuarrie really knows how to handle sexual tension. It makes for a really refreshing “relationship” and makes the character of Jack Reacher all the more appealing. He’s a man who’s there to get the job done. Not one to waste his time being all soppy and loving.

Although Jack Reacher is a solid action / suspense film, it’s not going to set the world alight. I’m hopeful that we’ll see the character again on-screen in an almost inevitable sequel, much like we did with Jason Bourne in The Bourne Identity. It’s clear that Tom Cruise enjoyed the role and I like the character as a whole. He just needs a more meaty task with a more sturdy supporting cast. And perhaps a more novel plot.

I’m pretty sure I could be Jack Reacher. After all, I’ve played a good few games and seen all the episodes of the BBC’s fabulous Sherlock series. I could combine the lethal reflexes I’ve learned with the intellect I’ve drawn from Benedict Cumberbach‘s Sherlock. Though in reality, I’m pretty sure that the only “skills” I’ll have gained are calloused thumbs from the gamepad and a knowledge of the script of the series. So if anyone’s hiring for a case where all I have to do is press a button and spew lines, then screw Reacher – hire The Phage!

Phage Factor:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

December 17, 2012 by The Phage

It’s not unusual for a film to have that “marmite” effect, where you either love it or you hate it. For instance, whilst some (The Phage included) think that Tarantino‘s films are witty, well crafted slices of cinematic gold, others see them as films that just “try too hard” and are filled with superfluous dialogue. Another aspect of cinema right now that’s proving divisive is the use of 3D technology, as not many films use it to good effect and instead use it as a way to put their hands in your pockets and pry those extra coins out. Normally to make up for a lacklustre film. But now, a new contender enters the ring to compete for “Most Divisive Tool in Cinema”: 48 frames per second shooting and projection, thanks to Peter Jackson‘s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. But is the film worth the money in your pocketses? What’s in your pocketses? You stoled it! You stoled my moneys!! Brings me back my precious!!

If you’ve been living under a rock for the past 24 months then you won’t have heard about Peter Jackson‘s latest foray into Middle Earth to tell the tale of The Hobbit – a small prequel to The Lord of the Rings. I’m going to get one thing out in the open right now: I’ve never read The Hobbit. Nor have I ever read The Lord of the Rings. So what you’re getting here is a completely objective (as possible) review of the film… and not a review blinded by sentimentality about a book. So shall we begin?

To cut a ~~long~~ short story short, The Hobbit is the tale of Bilbo Baggins, who was played by Ian Holm in the original trilogy (and reprises his role here as the older Baggins), and is now played by Martin Freeman. The story focuses on how Gandalf (Ian McKellan) tasks the young Baggins with a task to accompany Thorin (Richard Armitage) and his band of dwarves as they trek to the Lonely Mountain to reclaim a homeland for their race. Throw in a chunk of side-plots about a Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbach – you won’t really see him here) and an orc warrior that really has a score to settle with Thorin and you’re about there. And of course… you don’t forget about Gollum (Andy Serkis). Nobody forget about Gollum.

So far, so suitably epic. And I must say the film does deliver on that word: epic… eventually. The first 30-40 minutes of the film are incredibly slowly-paced and one would argue “tedious”. This is perhaps made all the worse by the new “marmite” of the cinema: 48fps. For those not in the know, you normally see a film at 24 frames per second (how fast the film is shot and projected) – it looks like a film. A bit grainy, but warm and fuzzy. What Jackson has decided to do is update the formula and shoot at double the speed. This should mean double the clarity and enrich the image. But if like The Phage, you’re not used to this style of filming, it’s extremely jarring. The opening prologue looked like it was being projected at 1.2x speed – everything appeared slightly sped-up and comedic. Not quite to the same extent to a Benny Hill sketch, but more like you’d accidentally sped up a DVD by a notch. As many have pointed out, it looks like a television sitcom or sci-fi (think 1970’s Dr. Who). You half expect Tinky Winky or La-La to stroll over the horizon banging on about “tubby custard” or that damn hoover that used to eat the pink gloop (yes, a Teletubbies reference on Film Phage… in 2012. Damn, we’re current!)

The ultimate impact of 48fps is the fact that yes, things appear much clearer… including the make up and prosthetics on the dwarves. Interior sets also look incredibly cheap and false – this is especially noticeable in the aforementioned 40 minute opening in Bilbo’s house. However… However… I warmed to this method of filming. Especially when it came to the large, lush New Zealand landscapes and anything featuring a CGI character, be they orc, goblin or troll.

So whilst I speak of the CGI, let’s delve in here. Some hubbub has been made of the fact that the orcs here are 100% artificially generated. In the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, all of the orcs were extras decked out in prosthetics and they looked brilliant. You see, I’d argue that The Hobbit‘s orcs look even more fantastic – perhaps owing to that high frame rate. The same can be said of all trolls and wolves in the film too. All look simply amazing, so credit really has to go to the SFX crew working on the film. This brings us to what was, for me, the highlight of the film… Gollum.

Andy Serkis deserves some type of award. Or at least acknowledgement that he is a talent to be reckoned with. Whether it’s Gollum here, or Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the mo-cap performance he brings to the piece is phenomenal. Let’s also not forget his instantly recognisable accent for Gollum – perfection. The entire section revolving around him and Bilbo is cinematic gold. And the visual effects make Gollum look even more lifelike than ever before. You’d swear that he was in the room with Martin Freeman. It’s just a shame that by all accounts, this is the only time we’ll see Gollum in the rest of this prequel trilogy… a real shame. Bring on Dawn of the Planet of the Apes then!

Speaking of “trilogy”, I was initially sceptical of how a short story book could be adapted to fill three 3 hour films. It seemed a little over-the-top and very much like a cash grab. I still somewhat stick to those sentiments, but it’s interesting to see how many extra elements Jackson has thrown into the mix. From speaking with others (Phages never travel alone… like hobbitses), much of the material concerning the Necromancer and Pale Orc aren’t part of the original story – they’re part of the broader Tolkien universe. I’m looking forward to seeing how they develop as the trilogy progresses. I’m not sure it needs 9 hours to explain all of this, but I’m not as cynical as I once was… Maybe, just maybe, Jackson can pull it off again. At 48 frames per second.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey isn’t the masterpiece many expected it to be. The story lags in places and the decision to use 48 frames per second is a massive risk for Jackson. Luckily, I think it pays off once you’re able to immerse yourself in the story and get over the nausea-inducing opening gambit. Resist the urge to head to a 24fps showing in the next screen and strap yourself in. Once you see your first orc, you’ll be happy you stayed.

One thing I can guarantee is that you’ll leave the screening talking about one character, and that is Gollum. You’ll see children running around hunched over, talking to themselves, and lamenting the loss of their “precious”. A word of warning though. Don’t let them put their hands in your pockets whilst they search for the ring. I think that’s frowned upon in popular culture.

Phage Factor:

Sightseers (2012)

December 12, 2012 by The Phage

Cinema-goers are an eclectic bunch. The love for film transcends every demographic – old, young, nerd or jock. Everyone’s welcome at the cinema. I’m not sure that should always be the case, as some patrons are slightly more… unusual than others. We’ve all had the misfortune to sit near one. Or maybe you actually are one of those fruitcups that makes everyone else sitting around you either a) incredibly annoyed with you, or b) scared of you. Good for you. Probably. You know the people I’m talking about though; some will guffaw with laughter over the mildest of amusements (replete with thigh slapping), whilst others will actively talk to the screen out loud because I’m sure the characters in the film can hear you and appreciate your feedback. Well, my viewing of Sightseers was definitely one of those viewings and the film lends itself to the screwballs.

Sightseers is a British “comedy” about a roadtrip around the British Isles by Chris (Steve Oram) and his newly-minted and incredibly timid girlfriend Tina (Alice Lowe). The couple travel to the most mundane of British amusements (a pencil factory, a tram museum etc.) whilst towing their caravan behind them. However, there’s a twist. Chris is a little bit psychotic… he’s a bit of a serial killer when his patience is tested. Hilarity ensues. Well, it should… but it doesn’t. Not one iota.

This is an incredibly dark film. So dark that nary a ray of light can penetrate it. I cannot label this a comedy unless you get your jollies from either a) incredibly banal jokes, or b) extreme violence. If this is you… I’d contact someone about that. You’ll know you’re one of these folks if you find yourself talking to a screen at the cinema. If you’re like me however, you’ll leave the cinema feeling incredibly beaten down and slightly unhappy. This isn’t a comedy, so don’t believe the plaudits and opinions some of our bigger and more noticed peers may be throwing at this film.

Whilst I found the initial half of the film incredibly hard going, owing to its humour missing me entirely and the plot blundering along at an incredibly slow pace, I did find my interest improving over the course of the film. The whole “serial killer” vibe is very much a one-trick pony, but I was intrigued to see how the plot would progress and conclude. The two lead actors, Oram and Lowe are fantastic in their respective roles, so nothing can be taken from them. Their characters are incredibly vivid and well-realised, it’s just a pity that I didn’t find myself warming to either of them over the 88 minute runtime.

I just struggle to get over the humour of the film. A while ago in my Cockneys vs. Zombies review I mentioned a similar phenomenon wherein there was much knee-slapping from certain audience members who couldn’t get enough of the Brit-themed zombie action. I struggled to see how this was funny in the slightest, despite labelling myself a massive advocate of British comedy. I think it ultimately comes down to a divide in the population. Whilst some members of the public love shows like Peep Show and The Inbetweeners, others will find that humour too awkward and instead opt for Two Pints of Lager and Miranda. I fall into the former camp and cannot tolerate the latter. For my non-UK readers, let me put it a different way. The former two shows are a lot like The Office (US and UK) – quite awkward situational comedy, whilst the latter are the classic laughter-track sitcoms that swamp the TV landscape where laughter comes as a result of someone falling over or saying “bum”. As non-cerebral as you can get.

With that being said, I feel that Sightseers appeals to those in the latter camp. For better, or worse, I just couldn’t identify with this film on any level beyond watching it to review. As I say, it’s not a bad film, and will definitely have its audience out there in the world, but it really wasn’t for me. Releasing it at Christmas was also a peculiar choice too. This is definitely an October film – a dark, oppressive season for a dark, disturbing film.

2012 has been somewhat of a stale year for British comedy at the box office, at least by The Phage‘s reckoning. The Wedding Video, Keith Lemon: The Film and Cockneys vs. Zombies all failed to bring me joy and Sightseers has the same fate. That being said, Sightseers is a very different type of film that may have just been mis-labelled as a comedy. It’s more of a thriller / horror with dark humour thrown in for the ride. Whilst the acting is incredibly convincing, the film just didn’t entertain me. And whilst I’m not averse to a downbeat ending (in fact, I quite enjoy them), the whole film was so downbeat that the ending was just a nail in the coffin for me.

But then again, if you were the person in my screening that proclaimed “oh dear” at the top of your voice when someone died, or you asked questions of / warned the characters on-screen, then you probably thought this was a great film. It seems the UK has more than its fair share of the mentally unstable that frequent the cinema at mid-week. I can’t help but feel that Chris and Tina from Sightseers would be two of those characters. Let’s just hope that person X from my screening doesn’t own a caravan and harbor a homicidal rage. We can but hope.

Phage Factor:

Rise of the Guardians (2012)

December 9, 2012 by The Phage

When I was a young ‘un I used to love the Christmas period. Well, I still do, but I used to love it even more and nothing signalled the arrival of Santa Claus (and the birth of some other dude… Ghandi?) than Christmas specials hitting TV and wintry films arriving at the cinema. There was Home Alone, Miracle on 34th Street and The Santa Clause to name but three. Yes, the early 1990’s were a golden age for Christmas films. It was also a golden time for The Santa Clause’s Tim Allen who was still enjoying his fame thanks to Home Improvement. Although since then, he donned a space suit and started yabbering on about going to “Infinity” (an impossibility), the loon has been unable to find regular employment. Nowadays however, I rely on Die Hard and Die Hard 2 to get me in the mood for Christmas. Nothing embodies Christmas like Bruce Willis in a vest. So how does Rise of the Guardians fare in bringing about some Christmas cheer… despite being set at Easter?

Rise of the Guardians is every child’s fantasy come true. Or I like to think it would be, as kids are a bit “too” mature nowadays and probably fantasise about semi-naked pictures of Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus more than true fantasy. Regardless, Rise of the Guardians follows the exploits of a superteam of Santa Clause / North (Alec Baldwin by way of Moscow), the Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman), the Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher) and the Sandman (voiceless) as they fight the resurrected evil that is the Boogey Man / Pitch Black (Jude Law). However, to stop the nefarious Pitch Black from eradicating the joy from every child on Earth and shattering their belief in the four heroes, they need the help of a newly selected Guardian: Jack Frost (Chris Pine). But Jack has issues. Cue the story…

The premise certinaly isn’t unoriginal. It’s also quite delectable timing considering how The Avengers have primed audiences for big team ups this year. And how do you get bigger than Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny teaming up? Well, I guess you could pursue South Park’s Super Best Friends route, but we all know how well that would go down nowadays considering who is in that team. He who shall not be named… No, not Voldermort you fool. Someone else. Anyway, getting back on track, the story itself has a nice set up and follows a tale of temptation and redemption. Sure, you’re not going to see a twisting Seven Psychopaths style storyline, and you can probably see every twist and turn coming (it’s a kids’ film after all), but it’s one of those movies that you can switch off and just enjoy for what it is.

Avengers Assemble! Or Guardians Garrison! Whichever.

Now I’m going to need to draw on a few other big animated films from this year in order to assess its quality. Namely, Ice Age: Continental Drift, Brave and Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted. I’m well aware that I’ve reviewed other movies that are “animated” this year, but I’m excluding the stop-motion brilliance of Frankenweenie and the creditable ParaNorman (let’s also forget about Wreck-It Ralph, as I annoyingly have to wait until February to see this thanks to a lapse UK release schedule). So how does it compare? Well, favourably. I wouldn’t say it’s better than those other films per se, but it is different, and is equally enjoyable. This goes for both adults and children. In fact, I’d argue that it’s far more enjoyable for the youngsters than any other animated film this year. Bold statement, but there we go. It combines those childhood fantasies with a superhero-esque team up. How can that not be enjoyable?!

Regular readers will know I never applaud actors for essentially just reading from a script to lend voices to a film and this will be no exception. All voice work is fantastic and I especially loved Alec Baldwin‘s North – beautifully Russian and beautifully funny too. It’s also nice to see Jackman in something a little more “cuddly” than late. I’m sure Les Miserables will alter his image in the public’s eye too (though to me, he’ll always be Wolverine).

What I’m more inclined to comment on here is the quality of the animation. Once again, it’s utterly sublime. At least to my eyes. Another fantastic job from the guys at Dreamworks. Hell, if you see Pixar or Dreamworks stamped in front of a movie, you know you’re getting a quality looking piece of work. It doesn’t always tie closely with the quality of the film itself, but is always a reliable gage of animation quality, which is no bad thing.

Although the film was fun overall, I just felt it was a bit vapid in places. It’s hard to put my finger on why this is exactly, but I didn’t leave the screen thinking it was as solid as it could have been. I was engaged, I laughed and I enjoyed it all, but something was lacking for me. Don’t get me wrong, Rise of the Guardians is a solid film and one that probably deserves to be seen this December, especially if you have kids, but it doesn’t leave me as spellbound as it should do. Or maybe I’m just still bitter about not having Wreck-It Ralph in the UK yet. Bah humbug indeed.

All in all, Rise of the Guardians is a beautifully put together Christmas film. It’s just one that’s lacking that biting edge and indeed lacking Christmas itself, despite the copious amounts of snow on show. Considering the film’s set at Easter there’s a hell of a lot of snow on show. I mean, where is it set? Siberia? Considering the thin smattering of Christmassy films on show this year, Rise of the Guardians should be your ideal choice to get you in the mood. Especially if you have children, who’ll simply lap it up.

But me? I’ll be going to Nakatomi Plaza again and “we’ll get together, have a few laughs…”, as Bruce himself says to me on an almost yearly basis. Because, as well know, nothing really represents Christmas like a load of guns, terrorists and Holly McClane ruining John’s December year after year. Yippee-ki-yay turkeystuffer!!

Phage Factor:

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

December 6, 2012 by The Phage

Being meta and self-referential isn’t a new tool in Hollywood. Although movies rarely “break the fourth wall” and talk to the audience, some are acutely self-aware and make reference to the trappings of film-making. In my last review I opened by talking about Tropic Thunder, which is in itself a film about making a film. You also have the Scream franchise, which became very self-referential and aware of its genre confines. Essentially: it’s not a new technique. So how does this relate to Seven Psychopaths, the follow-up to director Martin McDonagh‘s In Bruges? Read on to find out…

Writer’s block… it’s a bitch.

Although the plot kicks and bucks like an unbroken bronco, it can be broken down as a story that follows Marty (Colin Farrell) – a screenwriter struggling from writer’s block whilst penning his latest film: Seven Psychopaths. The only trouble with this screenplay? He’s not got any characters, or plot… or anything. Through talking with his best friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) he gradually expands his list. But Billy’s also a dog-knapper: he steals dogs with his partner Hans (Christopher Walken) in order to collect the inevitable reward that is offered by the beleaguered owner. This works out pretty well for the pair until they pick the wrong Shih Tzu to steal… that belonging to Woody Harrelson‘s Charlie, who’s quite frankly a nasty piece of work.

So therein lies the initial premise of the film, but I’d be doing a disservice to you guys if I said that was “it”. Marty’s journey to write his screenplay is extremely entertaining and not at all predictable. As I mentioned earlier, the plot is anything but predictable. The characters even talk about plot mechanics and how Marty should flaunt the dynamics of a typical thriller and mix it up. The real film (the one you’re watching) then follows suit and switches up. This film is very meta and constantly refers to itself in a none-too-cheesy or obvious way.

As loyal readers of the ‘Phage will know by now, I’m a sucker for a non-linear plot and something that really catches me off-guard. This film did that. In spades. Especially since I was pretty much unaware of this film coming to cinemas at all, spare a trailer that preceded last week’s viewing of Silver Linings Playbook. Although I found the initial opening 20 minutes difficult to immerse myself in (owing to some distracting patrons in my screen), I soon became engulfed in the film. If I wheel back to those trailers, they’d have you believe this is an out-and-out hoot – a real comedy. But this is dark. Really dark. It’s still comedic, but be prepared that this isn’t a light-hearted film about some dog-knappers mixing it up with the wrong people. This isn’t an Adam Sandler / Rob Schneider movie.

Now, the plot is fantastic, but what of the actors? We have here perhaps some of the best performances of the year. I know – a bold statement to make in a year of so many great films. Farrell seems much more at home in this type of role that he does in the other blockbusters he’s been in this year, and he’s allowed to use his Irish brogue, which is a plus. Whilst he’s great, the real honours need to go to Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken. Both are simply incredible in their respective roles. Sam Rockwell‘s Billy is incredibly well written and Rockwell‘s delivery is sublime. Although I’ve seen a lot of his filmography, I’ve never left a screening and felt that he was spectacular in his role. Seven Psychopaths changed all that. He’s funny, unpredictable and captivating. He’d be the runaway best supporting actor if it wasn’t for Christopher Walken, who is on sterling form. I can’t actually recall the last time I saw Walken in a role that wasn’t tongue-in-cheek and a bit camp. But here he’s engaging and incredibly powerful. A scene with him and Harrelson in a hospital is incredibly affecting. Can we have more of this in future please?

Farrell, Rockwell and Walken: the perfect storm.

In case you’re unable to put 2 + 2 together, then you should be getting the impression that I really enjoyed Seven Psychopaths. After a somewhat rough opening (owing to non-film based factors) the film really got on track and constantly threw curve balls at me. I love a good twisting plot that is topped off by great acting talent. Although I’ve focused on Farrell, Rockwell and Walken, the other players here are solid. But their performances will never come close to the core three members of the cast here. It’s a very male-centric film, that much is for certain. In fact, the film within a film also mentions that detail. Whether the film is trying to be too clever for its own good is up for debate, but I felt all the meta plot mechanisms worked fluidly and in a really enjoyable way. Or maybe I’m not clever enough to realise that it’s too clever for it’s own good. Damn that’s a clever sentence.

Seven Psychopaths is a brilliant slice of film making. It’ll have its detractors who thought it was too “up itself” for its own good, but those people are probably too “up themselves” too. We’re all up something or other it would seem. How you can’t appreciate Rockwell and Walken in this film is beyond me. Both are on career-best form and this film needs to be seen for that reason alone. Come for the actors, stay for the plot.

So, you’ve had my introduction, ramblings about plot, ramblings about actors, first paragraph of sensible summary and now it’s time for the second paragraph that cleverly ties it all together, right? That’s the Film Phage way after all. That’s what we do. But I’m clearly not clever enough to flaunt my layout and the conventions of a review site. Maybe I’ll just align this paragraph to the right? Yeah, that’s edgy. That’s crazy. That’s meta. Maybe.

Film Phage

… for infectious film reviews

Category Archives: Review

Life of Pi (2012)

Phage Factor:

Jack Reacher (2012)

Phage Factor:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Phage Factor:

Sightseers (2012)

Phage Factor:

Rise of the Guardians (2012)

Phage Factor:

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

Phage Factor: