The Case for a Shoe Connection

It is about time that I admit it.  Really, I have to stop denying it and come clean.

Yes, my brown casual shoes are pretty much dead.

They were bought as a pair of disposable shoes before a trip to Europe about 3 years ago, and I never expected them to last the trip.  The fact they survived (barely) an ill-advised trek up amongst the steep snow-strewn pathways of an "easy-to-intermediate" Swiss mountain was nothing short of a miracle - and the looks some of the Swiss gave me on my trip, on espying my shoes, indicated that they also thought my survival was something I should be thanking the deities for.

However, after that trip, I took a (metaphoric) shine to these shoes.  Sure, the laces were long and prone to unknotting at the most impractical of times; they were not terribly waterproof (though, being fairly thin, they dried out incredibly easily); and the grip they provided was tenuous at best - but still.

And so, they came with me on trips to South East Asia, and around New Zealand.  And they survived, though some of the threads started to fray and, by the start of this year, the soles of the shoes had started to fall away, turning them kind of into reverse jandals, and in the most dangerous way.

Thus, the shoes entered semi retirement this year, and now, with the purchase of a replacement pair, they may finally be retired to the big shoe store in the sky, with all the other shoe-y soles (argh!  Bad pun; but I had to).

And so, before they are laid to rest, an ode:

An ode to my shoes (RIP)

Oh, shoes
I shall miss youse
No more shall we walk together
With your tan laces and fake brown leather
Our paths diverge, yours and mine
As I abandon shoes that have lost their shine
Rest thee well, my faithful loafer
Now that, for me, your job is over.


Verdict: Goodbye, good and faithful shoes.  You will be missed.  8 laces out of 10.

The Case for Guaranteed Safety

There were several reasons I wanted to go and see Safety Not Guaranteed.

The first hook was the promise of a quirky film.  I love those sorts of films.

Then there was the promise of the cast delivering the aforementioned quirkiness.  This was not a vast collection of ultrafit superheroes in skin tight costumes (not that there is anything wrong with that), but a small assortment of kooky actors the majority of whom I recognised from some of their work on the small screen.  First off, the awesome Aubrey Plaza, mostly seen in Parks and Recreation, putting her sour, youthful looks to good use here as intern Darius.  Then there is the also awesome Mary Lynn Rajskub, who has been a bit all over the place really but whom I think is wonderful wherever I have seen her.  And thirdly, the loud and brash but completely likeable Jake Johnson as Jeff, playing almost exactly the same character he plays in The New Girl except this time his character has a job.

The quirky story starts when Jeff takes interns Darius and Arnau (Karan Sani) to a small town on the coast to track down a local man who is looking for a partner to take with him back in time.  They find the quirky Kenneth (Mark Duplass) working in a local convenience store, and Darius takes on the mission of getting closer to him.  

At first, it seems a fairly family friendly premise, and there were several families at my screening - though I did wonder what the parents thought of the fairly colourful language Jeff is wont to use.  It is actually quite jarring to hear Jeff curse like a trooper, as every other character seems almost allergic to using harsh language, but it works for the character despite that.

The film is full of little triumphs and little poignant moments.  And of course Plaza's huge, judgemental eyes.  With all those rewards, it was pretty easy to overlook the fact that... well, that the facts really didn't add up in the end.  Jeff's reconnection with a high school sweetheart is a very, well, sweet interlude, but it doesn't really go anywhere.  As to the timetravelling, that is something I really shouldn't even try and hint at, so I won't.

Nonetheless, despite it ending a bit messily, I have to say I enjoyed the film.  I can't say I enjoyed it immensely, as it doesn't really work or pretend to be on that scale.  Safety Not Guaranteed seems very happy to be a small film with small ambitions.  And there is nothing wrong with that.

Verdict: Safety Not Guaranteed doesn't really take a huge amount of risks, with a great comedic cast and a winning sense of whimsy.  It all plods along slowly, assuredly, though in the end, I was a little bewildered as to where we ended up.  8 wanted ads out of 10.

The Case for Dredd Locks

I can't say anything bad about the new Dredd movie, starring the jaw of Karl Urban in the role made infamous by Sylvester Stallone in the last movie outings.

That is, of course, not to say that this version is a brilliant film.  It's pretty grim, fairly serious, and there isn't  huge amount of character development or any real sort of plot.  But that is kind of the point.

Dredd is not about an incredibly complicated and involved storyline, with a rich history steeped in mythology or having to reference the real world.  It's all about a bleak, post apocalyptic world where the law needs to be taken into the hands of a few for any semblance of order to exist.  And the most sturdy, incorruptible hands belong to the man who never takes of his helmet, the Judge called Dredd.

And the film works because Dredd himself does not learn, or grow, or emote, or do anything namby pamby.  Dredd is there to dispense justice in the most violent and explosive way possible.  And so, in this version at least, he does.

Character development and emotion is left to other characters in the film.  Dredd's partner, Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) is learning how to be a Judge and so its through her eyes we witness the depravity and violence of the future.  On the other side of the law lies Lena Heady, honing her evil skills that she wonderfully uses in Game of Thrones and killing lots and lots of people with a minimum of mercy and a maximum of firepower.

The only problem with the film is that, at times, it all goes a bit slowly.  For most of the film, the two Judges make their way through enemy territory dispensing justice in the most deadly way possible.  Which is fine for the most part, but when things aren't being blown up, the pause does give one time to reflect on the fact that they are still not near the end.  The fact that the drug of choice in the bleak future is one that slows down time for the user - and for us, as we are shown the very pretty effects of the drug-induced experience - also adds to the sense of easy slowness.  

I think I was also a little distracted by some highly irritating cinemagoers behind me who seemed to have an unlimited supply of highly rustle-able bags and another unlimited supply of meaningless banter.  Grrr.  And no matter how hard I telepathically signalled to the Judges on the screen, none of them came down and mowed down the offenders in a hail of futuristic bullets.

But despite the slowness, the film itself was everything that a Dredd film should be: violent, straight forward, no nonsense and stubbled.  Urban is just awesome, as is the rest of the cast, and unlike Stallone, its obvious there is no Stallone-sized ego to get in the way of what the film should be. As much as this film is about the Judge, Dredd is just the steady core around which everything else happens, and Urban is solid, gritty and rock like - just as Dredd should be.

I have no idea if a second film is in the works, but it would be interesting to see any such plan would involve developing the character of Dredd, as really, that would probably ruin it.  In the meantime though, I will revel in the shallowness of this incarnation.  Sorry Stallone, Urban is the Law.

Verdict: Dredd is a shallow, violent piece of cinema, thankfully.  If you like your movies full of explosions and cynicism, this film is great.  Just try not to go all Judge-Mental if other people in the cinema don't view the film with the right level of respect.  7.5 laws out of 10.

The Case for Perpetual Loops

Looper, starring the awesome Joseph Gordon-Levitt doing a superb impression of his "older Joe self" (Bruce Willis), has got rave reviews.  

And it is a really impressive movie.  Bleak, depressing, with a few tricky twists, turns and tricks along the way to keep you guessing and entertained.  Unfortunately, it is also one of those movies that you can't talk too much about.

What I can say is that Gordon-Levitt is fantastic, Willis is himself, Paul Dano is bloody irritating and about halfway through Emily Blunt shows up with an American accent to provide a bit of class.

I can also say that I am not as big a fan of the movie as the majority it seems.  When it comes to time travel stories, I am particularly fussy, and as much as it is amusing when the characters say "I can't explain it because it is too complicated", I am not a fan when that is the magic verbal wand that is swished about to explain things that, really, make no sense whatsoever.

But I won't go into that here.  No, I will just say that it definitely kept me entertained most of the way through (I thought the end was a bit of a disappointment, truth be told) and Gordon-Levitt once again is brilliant.

Verdict: Looper is not really a lot of anything new, but is done really well with a (mostly) amazing cast. 7 temporal anomalies out of 10.

The Case for a Relaxing Weekend

Someone sent this to me after a busy week, and it gave me a wee bit of a titter.




Verdict: I must obey. 

The Case for More Expendability

I did not walk into Expendables 2 expecting a terribly thought provoking movie.  It was a film where I expected action, lots of it, machismo (and testiculi), also a lot of that.  And lots of jokes too, both really bad in jokes and plain awful normal ones.

Spoiler Alert time!

 
So it was completely necessary that Liam Hemsworth’s golden, handsome, awesome, soulful, youthful soldier with a girl in Paris and terrible taste in cardigans and whom Sly loves like a son (I presume) be slaughtered within the first 20 minutes.  His “depth of character” was completely distracting in a film where depth should only be measured in the thickness of a man’s biceps (Terry Crews gets to flex a bit to give the film a definite 80s feel) or the size of the wrinkles in a man’s face.  It was therefore completely satisfying when Jean Claude Van Damme kicked a knife into his prideful, youthful chest – and impressive too, considering the difference in stature between the two men.

Yes, JCVD is very much the sun glasses wearing bad guy in this film, though the glasses seem more to hide the dark bags under his eyes than to provide an air of coolness in the dark caverns of the mine which is his normal lair.

But then, all the classic stars are looking a bit haggard (besides Bruce Willis who just looks like himself).  Dolph Lundgren is back again, mocking his intelligence and doctorate and his Lurch-like looks with terrible come on lines and a wild look of barely contained insanity, and he almost wins the “most awesome character” stakes this time around.  Sylvester Stallone is Barney the Boss, looking amazingly vascular and hard as a rock, albeit a rock that has stood several centuries.  And Jason Stratham rounds out the “main” guys, outclassing almost everyone (besides Bruce) with his acting ability and managing to nab Charisma Carpenter somewhere along the way (lucky guy).

Despite the presence of Arnie (stuck to recycling dialogue from his previous movies, and the movies of others), and a brief flurry of martial arts awesomeness from Jet Li, the biggest cheers and the “most awesome character” award went to that block of ginger wood, otherwise known as Chuck Norris.  It’s incredible how little his face moves (and how tiny his eyes are) during any of the few scenes that he is in, and whether this is due to his particular brand of “acting” (known as “rather bad” I think) or to some botox injections, I cannot say.

There are explosions galore, and lots of blood, but the big disappointment for me was how many of the big set pieces were computer generated, and even worse, were very badly computer generated.  It should perhaps be made mandatory to give all of these things to Weta Digital to do, as the terrible ways that planes and helicopters and blood were incorporated into the live scenes were absolutely appalling.

But perhaps that shoddiness was meant to be in line with the cragginess of the leads (Hemsworth definitely could not be considered to be “craggy”), and with the pile of stinking toilet paper that was probably called the script.  Did the writers realise that plutonium does not automatically equal nuclear weapon, or am I just ignorant of how explosive it really is?  Really, the plot makes no sense whatsoever and is laden with as much testosterone-heavy dialogue (though not that much swearing, I noted) as a classic 1980s action flick.  

And of course, because of all that, it completely works.  Well, once Hemsworth is dead anyway.  Once he is gone, and the action gets under way again, there is no time for reflection and any emotion other than anger or rage – as it should be.  There are stops along the way as the guys “bond” over very manly foibles, trade insults, help the oppressed, and destroy large buildings with weapons of various sizes, and there is even a mild hint at a romance, but in general it is lots of guns and fights and blades and CGI blood (again) and everyone is happy. 

The audience was perhaps stereotypical for this film too.  Expendables 2 has been out for a few weeks, but the screening was about three quarters full, with lots of guys in their 20s with their girlfriends along as well, revelling of the macho of the movie and refusing the sit in their allocated seats (I decided it wasn’t worth the argument, though took them on and, on the examination of tickets, got them to move, the expressions on their faces pleading seat-hogging innocence though we all KNOW they took those seats deliberately.

Anyway, despite the lack of cinema etiquette of some of the crowd, the film pleased us all immensely.  It was great to see the old guard back on screen for a bit, showing they still had the spirit if not quite the athleticism they once had.  Except for Stratham, whose oeuvre I may need to investigate now…

Verdict:  It starts off strongly, dips a little, but then picks up again and runs with it right to the end.  Expendables 2 is a huge amount of fun for those who don’t want to be challenged by cinema but would rather just see mindless action and explosions, though it also helps if you don’t expect realism either.  The boys grunt and fight and are as manly as ever, and mock themselves the whole time.  Loads of fun, and it’ll be interesting to see if they all get in the movie ring for a third time.  750 bullets out of 1000.

The Case for a Lunar Realm

Wes Anderson films are always a little off centre and so quite alternative for a mainstream theatre, but nonetheless, I have seen his last two films at Readings and they have played to fairly large, if not full, audiences.

His latest film, Moonrise Kingdom, has had lots of praise lavished upon it and, to cut to the chase, deservedly so.  The story revolved around two kids who run away from home just as a major storm hits the small island on which they live.  So far, so Disney.  But the island is populated with kooky characters played by a very impressive cast, including Frances McDormand, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis and the always awesome (even in Garfield… well, perhaps) Bill Murray.  And adding to the “but”, the two kids are very quirky in themselves, falling into an awkward yet touching love story as they appreciate their mutual oddness.

Every performance is impressive, even if the kids are meant to act fairly sanguine throughout.  There are no hysterics (from the kids at least) even though every main character comes with a sense that something is missing from their lives.  But, despite the monotone of some of the characters and the sadness that they bring with them, the film is awash with colour, quirky visual gags and a strong sense of humour of the absurd kind. 

All of which had the audience I was with cackling away, and even had a few people talking for most of the duration.  Normally, I would cast my pale attempt of a death stare the way of anyone who dares raise their voice for a conversation in a cinema and contemplate all sorts of means of inflicting physical pain upon them, but for some reason, it didn’t annoy me (well, not too much; occasionally) and my companions didn’t notice the conversations at all.  The film is not so intense that such distractions prove detracting, though still common courteousy should have stopped them from continuing to natter quite as much as they did.

And, with an odd but involving soundtrack, we even stayed in the auditorium until the very last part of the credits had finished rolling, all of us with smiles on our faces and a little bit of a bounce in our step.  Uplifting, in a very odd and pleasurable way.

Verdict:  The style of Moonrise Kingdom will not be a surprise to anyone who has seen the Royal Tenenbaums, but this film is a bit more satisfying than the last few Anderson films I have seen, Darjeeling Limited and the Life Aquatic.  The performances are all outstanding, and the central love story completely engaging, and its all… well, pretty wonderful.  9 books on a beach out of 10.