Man On Wire

In 1974 daredevil wirewalker, Philippe Petit, carried out the greatest ‘artistic crime’ of the twentieth century by fastening a cable between the roofs of the two towers of the World Trade Center and walking across it.

At a time when all films seem to have the sub text of the 9/11 disaster lurking in the background; it is a breath of fresh air to watch a documentary where the towers are portrayed as a symbol of hope, of human endeavour and of man’s unyielding urge to go where no man has gone before.

Our animated and tenacious hero, Philippe Petit, narrates the story along with the rest of his crew taking us through the years of preparation which was required to pull off this incredible act. From the first moment when Petit was inspired; by drawing a line between the towers in a dentist office, to the thrilling events of breaking into the World Trade Center and actually executing the heist.

Petit saw this mission not as a performance but as a bank job and that is how director, James Marsh, treats the subject. He has masterfully constructed this tale into what feels like a 70’s crime thriller; opening the story as the crew are infiltrating the World Trade Center and twisting the screw of tension almost to breaking point only to jump out for rest bite and fill in the back story which fleshes out the characters and efforts which they have taken to get to their point of no return.

Yet underneath the excitement of this compelling narrative lies the story of two men, Philippe and Jean-Louis, who are as if bounded by fate to be on this mission. Philppe’s blind determination is balanced by Jean-Louis’s pragmatism. As if Jean-Louis is destined to be carrying the weight of potential failure for Philippe so that he can blindly step into the abyss between those towers with child like glee and excitement.

Man On Wire is an uplifting and thrilling story which dares you to chase after your dreams no matter how peril filled they may be. A must see.

4.5/5

Pineapple Express

When people mention Pineapple Express, it is usually in the same breath as Superbad and occasionally Knocked Up. Granted, Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen were behind all three movies (to varying degrees) and they all come from the Apatow stable - which is now enjoying the inevitable backlash from critics - but to call it a follow-up and imply a more-of-the-same attitude is to do it a disservice. Pineapple Express is not another teen comedy or another frat-boy-comes-of-age movie, where the characters find themselves in embarrassing, socially awkward situations and generally make fools of themselves, while having the breathing room to improv and riff off each other with hilarious results.

No, Pineapple Express is a very different beast. It's a 'genre' movie bringing with it all the associated challenges. It's an Action Comedy. It's a Stoner Action Comedy to be more specific. For a stoner action comedy you're gonna need a significant plot, you're gonna need lengthy elaborate action sequences, you're gonna need the obligatory smoking sequences and cheap stoner gags and on top of that you're gonna need to be funny, so funny in fact, that you don't suffer in comparison to Superbad. That's a tall order. How did they set about achieving it? Well, by doing almost everything differently, something to be roundly applauded.

They keep the plot fairly simple; Seth Rogen's pot-smoking loser, witnesses a murder and has to go on the run with his dealer, getting unwittingly caught up in a war between 2 rival drug gangs in the process. As far as the, action sequences go they stick rigidly to one rule. These guys are not action stars! They are stoners! So we have no athletic, quick-thinking bad-ass action moves, followed by comedic quips ala Lethal Weapon or Rush Hour. Instead the comedy comes from their complete inability to achieve anything remotely physical. There is one sequence in which the pugilists even seem incapable of hurting each other because they are completely lacking in any physical prowess, ingenuity, strength or athleticism. Apparently the idea for this movie came from asking, what if the bad guys had chased Brad Pitt in True Romance instead of Christian Slater. Just like Lebowski was thrown into a Film Noir plot for comedy gold, they throw two everyman stoners into a convoluted action movie set-up and have them react almost realistically to every situation i.e. with utter panic, inarticulacy and incompetence. These guys are not Mel Gibson.

As far as the stoner comedy goes, there almost is none. Don't get us wrong, they mine the fact that the characters are stoned in the most inappropriate situations for all it's worth. They just don't assume for one moment that smoking weed in itself is funny. It's all about the context. One example: Smoking weed = boring. Selling weed to 12-year-olds to get money to flee town, smoking it with them, thinking you're cool but ultimately getting so stoned that you get caught by the police = funny.

In all this perhaps accidental innovation, they don't quite achieve everything. They don't achieve the same comedy hit rate that Superbad managed as they just aren't allowed spend as much time mining for laughs. Also, the success of the their previous efforts has often been down to the audience getting to spend time with a group of friends who have a ready-made sense of humour complete with recognisable rivalries, resentments and raillery. This is more about the burgeoning of a friendship rather than the exploration of an existing one. And yet again Rogen and Goldberg have tooled their script as a love story between two males. Of course buddy comedies always have that undercurrent (witness the countless Brokeback Mountain trailer parodies) but Pineapple Express - and Superbad before it - dispense with the coyness and overtly set up the relationship of a weed smoker and his dealer as essentially a fuck-buddy relationship that turns into love. The attempt to invest this friendship with such metaphorical undertones (or overtones) illustrates the care and attention to detail and the desire to do something a little different with the genre that permeates the whole enterprise and sets it apart from a turgid Ratner rip-off. Still, to step all over our original point, it's no Superbad.

3/5

RocknRolla

RocknRolla is a Guy Ritchie film. From the opening voice over you know what is coming next. It seems that after recent failures Ritchie has decided that the best way to proceed is simply to copy the general outline of his previous success Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. One Two (Butler) and Mumbles (Elba) are two criminals who get in over there heads in a dodgy property deal and end up owing money to Lenny Cole (Wilkinson), a notorious London Gangster. They have a week to come up with the money. As with his previous work there are numerous interlinking subplots.

Ten years ago when Ritchie’s debut Lock, Stock and Two Smocking Barrels hit the silver screen we were impressed. The films many interwoven subplots worked well together, the characters were cool and there was enough humour and action to keep us entertained. A couple of years later he brought us Snatch an undoubtedly enjoyable film, but effectively a sequel. Since then Ritchie’s films have been a commercial and critical failure with Swept Away being a particular low. RocknRolla is not going to change our opinion that Ritchie is a one hit wonder.

RocknRolla is not without merit - some parts are well shot, there are a few funny moments but in the end there are no stand out performances, no great dialogue, no great characters, no dramatic twists and not enough hot women. So basically RocknRollla is Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels without the mojo. Having said all that, its reasonably entertaining.

Rating 2.5/5

Babylon A.D.

In a post apocalyptic world where global warming has mucked up the environment and where corporations are the new religion; a mercenary, Thoorop (Vin Diesel), takes a job of transporting a 'special' girl and her minder from Mongolia to New York.

After supposed studio tinkering with the final cut, Babylon AD ends up a vacuous neutered beast of a film. It’s hard to say how much at fault director Mathieu Kassovitz (La Haine) and screenwriter Eric Besnad are since they have publicly stated that this not their intended cut. Despite their protests, we can only judge the work on display; which is greatly flawed.

One would think that director Kassovitz had left his ‘How Actors Should Act’ handbook back in France when dealing with Diesel, Yeoh and lovely actress Melanie Thierry. A particularly guilty scene set in a tent in Alaska where our nuclear family supposedly ‘bond’ and ‘share a laugh’ ends up plain creepy and weird. Like at other points in this film, the scene is misjudged in its direction but there is a resounding feeling that something has been cut immediately preceding this which would make these scenes seem less out of place.

The blame can’t all go on the head of the big nasty studio though (of course, the action scenes are dull since all the money shots have been unceremoniously wrenched to make this a PG12 cert.) the story as it stands is uninteresting and is devoid of character depth. This is not to lecture that all action films have to be character driven, not at all. But what the genre does demand are central characters that either a.) we care about or b.) we enjoy watching them kick the shit out of the big boss’ henchmen. So, because the action has been clipped there is no window for us to like Vin Diesel’s hard man act e.g. ‘Pitch Black’; and because Mr. Diesel’s mercenary is a mono-syllabic oaf we don’t give two flying ones what happens to him.

It’s not all doom and gloom for this venture though. The cinematography and set design conjure a bleak and semi-compelling vision of the future. We may be sick to the teeth of seeing a future filled with scorched skies and radioactive bed sheets but it’s about the only aspect of this film that may be worth the cinema ticket. Otherwise, keep your cash in your pocket and take a look at the director’s cut once it is inevitably is released on DVD.

2/5