In Time

Running Time: 109 minutes
Media: Cinematic Release

Due to circumstances beyond my control, the last film from my seven movie marathon on 29/10/2011 started about fifteen minutes earlier than advertised. Needless to say I've sent my concerns to the cinema in question ad awaiting further word to their response for starting a film much earlier than they should have. Granted, it was probably one of the final sessions for the day and they may have wanted to finish early, but at the cost of not notifying patrons of this change may have gotten a few more disappointed movie-goers such as myself.

That aside, In Time, a film which is set in a future where the aging gene has been turned off, so (woohoo!) everyone gets to live forever, right? Wrong, it turns out there's a contingency plan set in place... You stop aging when you turn 25, however once you hit that quarter century, a timer activates on your arm, counting down a year... At this stage, you know you have a year to start earning more time in order to stay alive. Time has, as a result become the ultimate currency. As a result, the rich can pretty much become immortal while the poor, like Will Salas, played by Justin Timberlake struggle to get through day by day. When your counter reaches zero, the death is like having the plug pulled from you and you basically fall where you die. This form of death is the basic driving point of the film, beating the clock in order to get the next few seconds, minutes and hours just to stay alive. A scary thought indeed.

Will Salas finds himself in a unique dilemma after saving an aristocrat from "New Greenwich", the rich side of where he lives; it seems the 105-year old Henry Hamilton is tired of his life and wants to end it. He transfers the 116 or so years left on his timer to Salas while he sleeps, leaving him enough time to go to a nearby bridge and wait for time to catch up with him before plunging to his death into a storm drain. Salas sees this happen and runs for his life, whilst also being pursued by a mob known as the Minutemen, led by a 75 year-old chap called Fortis, who rob the unsuspecting poor of their precious time; and a Timekeeper known as Raymond Leon, who attempts to adhere to the laws set by time, to ensure that nothing illegal happens, whilst also trying to live day to day.

The movie which also features Amanda Seyfried as Sylvia, an aristocrat whose dad is 110 and the overall bad guy of the movie, and Olivia Wilde, who plays the part of Will Salas's mother, Rachael Salas. Now, I know there have been a lot of MILF jokes going around the 'Net, with guys saying how much they'd love to do Justin Timberlake's mom... I know, crude... but, hey have you seen Olivia Wilde lately? She's still one smoking woman!

The movie takes on a "Bonnie and Clyde" sort of feel to it toward the end, and with the lack of color available in this film, which is usually the case in many a dystopian type of movie, the film does seem to work rather well. You find yourself racing against time with them as they try to survive with every action they take. For some reason I could have seen this movie being a bit longer, but the length was quite adequate, and I did find myself glancing at my left arm a few times expecting to see thirteen numbers counting down instead of my Fossil watch! I've given this movie 4½ stars and a strong recommendation to see it if you fancy a bit of a sci-fi fix... This is by far one of the most original films I've seen.

The Three Musketeers (2011)

Running Time: 110 minutes.
Media: Cinematic Release.

This version of the Alexandre Dumas père classic has actually failed somewhat to appeal to most movie critics such as myself, and I can see why... Don't get me wrong, there's action, and more action, and more action on top... Though it seems that what Paul W. S. Anderson, the director has done was taken the original story by Dumas, spun a lot of black outfits on the title namesake cast, and threw in a lot of steampunk elements into it, and called it a "film". I don't know if I can call it that.

The Three Musketeers calls for a lot of suspension of disbelief whenever certain steampunk references are used; the super-duper crossbows, the airships, and so forth, all make you wonder whether this could ever possibly happen in 18th century France and England; or whether this was some warped alternate dimension. The title cast are all virtually unknowns to me, leaving actors like the vivacious Milla Jovovich playing Milady de Winter, and the ever typecast Christoph Waltz to play Cardinal Richelieu, to grace our screens and remind us that this is not one of those independent films that you would find stashed away in the back of the DVD drawer. The only real star of the movie is Orlando Bloom who (knowingly and intentionally) hams up every scene he appears in and defies our logic on top of this by walking around in heels.

Yes, it does adhere to the original storyline (somewhat), but aside from this Paul Anderson's decisions that led to this film being released as what I saw this past Saturday are somewhat deserving of the 3.9 out of 10 rating received on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm inclined to agree with them here. To be honest, the film's previous remake in 1993, starring Kiefer Sutherland, Charlie Sheen, Oliver Platt and Chris O'Donnell gave this version a considerable kick in the ass in comparison.

What's surprising here is that the way this film ended gave the possibility that there may be a continuation of this movie in a sequel... I highly doubt this could happen given how schmaltzy this movie was... I'm giving it the lowest rating I've ever given so far, and that's two-and-a-half stars; though I have a feeling I'm being fairly kind there...

Real Steel

Running Time: 127 minutes.
Media: Cinematic Release.

When I first heard about this particular movie, I was like "Hang on, I know this from somewhere..." and did a little digging... Sure enough the fifth film of my seven movie marathon on 29/10/2011, was based on an old 1963 Twilight Zone episode I had seen ages go in a re-run.

This sci-fi movie takes place in the not too distant future, in the year 2020. Regular boxing by humans has been replaced by robots. Hugh Jackman plays Charlie Kenton, a former boxer who owns such a robot who ultimately gets KO'd to pieces and is eventually replaced by Atom, the robot visible in the movie poster here, who ends up competin against a number of odds in teh robot boxing scene. Not only that but Charlie has to deal with his somewhat estranged son, Max, an eleven-year old Justin Bieber clone with an ego the size of a small third world nation. He's stubborn, supposedly quite knowledgeable and he despises his dad. What joy, what bliss...

The estranged parent and child storyline has been done ad absurdum, as has the underdog storyline... Putting the two together and throwing it in with CGI characters which resemble souped-up Rock'em Sock'em Robots from the early 1980's, gives some credibility to the film and pays the original story from which this was based, some well respected tribute; but this is not a film to be taken too seriously. It's definitely a film to take your kids to see, but after four rather great films, Real Steel didn't seem to sit as far up as the others I had seen that day. By this time, I had already seen four amazing films, it was edging toward 9pm and I kinda felt that the film was not on the same par. I honestly think it was the kid's ego in that film that spoiled it for me...

All in all, this would be a great movie to take the kids to, they'll enjoy the robots smashing one another, over and over again. Take them to see this film and they will do the beds, the dishes and the lawn for a good few weeks to make up for the joy they receive for seeing this film. Adults, it's a fairly decent effort and Jackman plays his part well enough to get some respect from the audience. Be on the lookout for Kevin Durand as Ricky, Charlie Kenton's nemesis. Those who have watched enough of Hugh Jackman over the years may recognize Durand as the actor who played Fred J. Dukes (aka The Blob) in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

I've given this movie 3½ stars for a decent effort, and great use of CGI.

The Thing (2011)

Running Time: 102 minutes.
Media: Cinematic Release.
 
The Thing was the fourth movie in my seven movie marathon on 29/10/2011. This movie actually serves as the prequel to the 1982 version of the movie which starred Kurt Russell!

I was actually quite impressed with this sci-fi/horror film, and having seen the 1982 version *ages* ago when I was much younger, this prequel kinda answered a few questions about the original; and it's also made me want to get the original and see it again!

The scene of where it all happens is in the Thule Antarctica station in winter, 1982. Put simply, the Norwegian research team there come across a spaceship underneath the ice; but also an escaped alien encased within the ice, which the team, aided by scientists played by Eric Christian Olsen and Mary Elizabeth Winstead drag back to the station. Winstead plays a very Ripley-esque character who reminds me a lot of Sigourney Weaver's well known role in Alien, whilst still resembling Winona Ryder. You may recall Winstead's portrayal of Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim vs The World back in 2010.

I guess everyone can figure out what happens next, the alien naturally escapes from the ice... and like in any isolation/alien film, people start getting killed off by the alien. The beautiful thing about The Thing, is that the alien has this natural gift to not only absorb other people but also imitate them... mind you these Things seem to have a knack for not staying hidden for very long... One particular scene involves one particular individual who has been imitated by one of the Things to absorb another individual, fusing with it... It was kinda disgusting actually! But very well done...

The scenes move from one to the next in quick succession and work fast enough for the audience to catch up, but leave you guessing for more as to what happens next. I thoroughly enjoyed this film but will be giving it four and a half stars as the special effects were a little unbelievable at times, even though the film has been carefully researched to incorporate a number of elements from its 1982 sequel.

Drive

Running Time: 100 minutes.
Media: Cinematic Release.

Drive is a really unusual movie... the third movie in my seven movie marathon on 29/10/2011.

And when I say "unusual", I mean "warped"... Drive is a crime drama which seems to start off in a manner similar to how we'd picture one of the films from Jason Stratham's The Transporter series. Ryan Gosling stars as the unnamed film stunt-car driver who moonlights as getaway driver, who despite his being much of a conversationalist seems to make up for this with his ability to put pedal to the metal.

In Drive, the Driver finds himself involved with jailbird husbands and their suffering families, Jewish mobsters and conspiracies; all which sends the film spiraling to an inevitable emptier conclusion than expected, which although ties up loose ends, does so sloppily and leaves you wondering how you wound up where you were at the end of the film. Given though, that this is an art-house kind of film, and not necessarily a Hollywood blockbuster, I have to shift my perspective accordingly.

There's a great sense of apathy in this film and it seems there's very little emotion displayed on the characters save for anger... and yet the Driver seems to be the only person who provides any real emotion... well, towards the second half of the film... aside from that, the Driver very rarely says anything more than five words at any one time, if that. This considerably screwed with my head as you would think the main character of a film would be the one who tends to have a considerable speaking part... The violence in this film increased almost exponentially as time went on and this also was a considerable cause for concern, as far as the audience's reaction was concerned.

This movie exhibits a lot of 80's themes, scenery, and references... the mobile phones, cars and clothing are very antiquated, and even the soundtrack is very 80's-influenced; which adds to the feel of the movie. But still, this movie left me reasonably uncomfortable in the end; whether this was due to the violence, or how it left me at the end, I'm not sure... At the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, Drive was praised and even received a standing ovation... To be perfectly honest, I simultaneously can and cannot imagine why either of these would be the case. I admit, the 80's themes and the quiet brroding nature of Gosling's role are novel, but a standing ovation and so forth are, in my personal opinion, somewhat questionable. I've decided to give this movie four stars.