Jeff, Who Lives At Home

I'm not the biggest fan of surprises. I don't really know why, but I always fear the worst. The telephone rings after 8.00pm? Someone's died. Those two people whispering? They're talking about me. Those presents hidden in a cupboard? All from Poundland. That knock at the door? An axe murderer. But every now and then, a surprise comes along which is genuinely...well, surprising. This week, that surprise was Jeff, Who Lives At Home.

I went along to a preview screening of Jeff, Who Lives At Home, the latest film from the Duplass brothers, not expecting much. Actually, I'd psyched myself up to laugh as little as possible as the trailer made the film look rather dull and unfunny. Starring Jason Segel, Ed Helms and Susan Sarandon, the film follows Jeff, a lazy thirty-something pothead who lives in his mother's basement and generally does as much as your average uni student – i.e. not a lot. Despatched by his mother to buy some wood glue and fix a shutter, Jeff bumps into his brother as he tracks his wife who is possibly having an affair. Doesn't sound like much, but then again, you haven't met Jeff.

Jeff (Segel) is a philosophical kind of chap, with an obsession for the film Signs and a generally positive outlook on life. He isn't the sharpest of tools in the box and, to begin with, is rather annoying (if slightly funny). Waiting to find his destiny and having driven his mother to distraction with his refusal to make something of his life, Jeff is a complex character. At first, I felt it difficult to empathise with someone who has as much common sense as a stick of celery but, as the film progressed, I – along with the rest of the audience – began to warm to him. Segel's performance is pitched at just the right level, balancing humour and emotion with an apparent effortlessness which allowed the character of Jeff to develop over the course of the film. Helms as the less-than-understanding brother pulls of a competent performance, but the star of the film has to be their mother, played by Sarandon. Her perceptive and dynamic portrayal of a woman struggling with her relationships with her sons was unforced and a joy to watch. Shot in a pseudo-documentary style (which was rather uninspiring), the setting of suburban America perfectly reflected the banality of the characters' lives and yet was slightly ironic, given the existential theme of the film. Then again, it's not as ironic as McDonald's being the Official Restaurant of the 2012 Olympics.

A film of two halves would be the most appropriate way to describe the script which you would have thought had been written by two people...until you realise that it has. The first half of the film seems to have most of the gags, most of which raised a smile but little else. The second half, however, was where the magic happened. After lingering shots of waves, waterfall photos and birds in flight, I was slightly concerned that the dialogue would slip over into a pit of existential nonsense, the kind of which would appeal to anyone who wears a bow tie in everyday life. But, luckily (or perhaps skilfully), the Duplass brothers held it together and the second half was a really enjoyable experience. Jeff's naïve but truthful dialogue perfectly reflected the thoughts of other characters and really enhanced the message of the film: your destiny is whatever you want it to be. The denouement, although slightly clichéd, moved me and I felt that the film was genuine and good-natured in its intentions. In no way is this film a standard comedy. In many ways, the comedy took a sideline and was dominated by the drama.

Jeff, Who Lives At Home was a real surprise for me – and a good one at that. It's an affecting, genuine and charming little film which, despite its short running time of 83 minutes, manages to say so much. Catch it if you can, preferably when Jeff's at home.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

Jeff, Who Lives At Home is released nationwide 11^th May.

The Cabin in the Woods

I am in the unusual position of reviewing The Cabin in the Woods without having seen the ending. Or the last twenty minutes to be precise. Why, I hear you ask? Well, let's just say the film didn't agree with one of my fellow cinema goers... But from what I did see, I know one thing. It was like Scooby Doo on steroids. Crazy.

I've never really been into horror films. I just don't get them. Sure, they make me jump where they should and satisfy any bloodfest desires I may have on a Thursday afternoon. But I just can't handle their predictability; everything has been done before and almost all recent horror films just recycle conventions like they're on commission from the Green Party. To be frank, I find them a tad boring. As a budding film critic, however, I felt that a trip to see Drew Goddard's The Cabin in the Woods was in order, if only off the back of an impressive critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I was expecting a run-of-the-mill horror flick with little substance but what I got was a strange experience.

In a nutshell, the plot sees five university friends go on a holiday to a remote cabin – yep, you guessed it – in a wood, and start to realise that everything is not as it first seemed. Soon, they are fighting for their lives as a mysterious control centre manipulates them and their fate. So kinda Big Brother but without Davina...and with more blood. The film is a curious affair, and one which left me rather confused about my feelings towards it as I left...albeit prematurely. Firstly, the characterisation is superficial at best but gave enough for the audience to invest in the characters and care slightly about their fates. Furthermore, the developing narrative was slick and well-paced, balancing this character development with enough action and suspense to keep the audience engaged. Treading a thin line between taking itself too seriously and being very self-conscious of the horror conventions it patently follows, the film has been praised by some for setting the bar for future horror flicks and bringing something new to the well-worn genre. Personally, I saw little evidence for this but it is clear that The Cabin in the Woods is at least striving to be something more than a two dimensional, painting by numbers horror picture.

The plot is slightly mad and when it gets going, boy does it go crazy. The beginning will leave you wondering what on earth is going on and the ending (well, near-ending) will certainly make you think about lifts in a totally different light... The level of violence was also surprising for a 15 as it quite easily could have received an 18 certificate. Despite featuring Bradley Whitford, whom I rather like, the acting was about as flat as an Ikea wardrobe but then again, perfectly adequate for the genre. The special effects, if you can apply the term to zombies, were competent and relatively realistic given the amount of screen time the monsters had. I always maintain, however, that it is what the audience doesn't see that is the most disturbing as too much screen-time for one armed, child axe murderers can desensitise the audience to the horror: much like watching too much Jeremy Kyle. The Cabin in the Woods is by no means a shockingly awful film but, for me, nor is it a brilliantly new caricature of the horror genre. But then again, who am I to talk? I didn't even see the end...

PS This got me thinking, are there any films which would have been better had you walked out twenty minutes before the end? Answers on the back of a postcard... 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Battleship

Hollywood seems to be running out of ideas. With more sequels/prequels/why-have-they-made-another-quels about to hit our screens this summer, it would appear that screenwriters' block has well and truly hit the big studios. But never fear, Hollywood has hit upon an almost limitless creative source for inspiration: board games. Battleship is based on the turn-based board game of the same name (hard to believe, I know) and sees the likes of Taylor Kitsch, Liam Neeson and Rihanna run around warships and make things explode in the name of saving the Earth from an alien invasion. Whatever next – Scrabble: The Movie?

When an international flotilla of warships encounters an alien spacecraft just off the Hawaiian coast, it falls to Alex Hopper (played by Taylor Kitsch, last seen in the flop that was John Carter) to defeat the alien race and ensure the survival of the fleet. Now, the first thing to say about Battleship is that it's all over the place. The pacing is diabolically bad, with the director Peter Berg seeming to only know gears 1 and 5, favouring block gear changes from slow, cliché-ridden dialogue to all out explosive action sequences in the blink of an eye. The overall effect of this uneven narrative is, to say the least, grating. One minute, we're trundling through one-liners such as “They ain't sinking this battleship” and the next, warships are being blown up with artillery meant to look like those little yellow tack things you'd use in the real game, helicopters are being ripped to shreds by angry yo-yos and alien spaceships are busting their moves on Hawaii's surf. Now, whilst submerged in the aural wall of ear-splitting explosions which accompanied these action sequences, I have to say that they did become quite fun. For about ten minutes. At over two hours long, the film could easily have been half an hour shorter and even then the action sequences would have lost their effect.

Watching Rihanna prance around a Destroyer armed with a MP5 submachine gun has to be one of the strangest cinema experiences I've had recently as I really don't understand why on earth she was in the film. Sure, her performance was adequate and her name on the posters will bring in a few more million for the studio but her character seemed incidental and almost like an afterthought: the world would still have been saved had she stuck to running around fields with not much on. Liam Neeson as the Admiral of the fleet gave his usual performance – Liam Neeson as Liam Neeson – and Brooklyn Decker as Hopper's love interest did little to make the threat from the aliens seem alarming. But maybe I'm being harsh – even the finest actors would have struggled to make the dialogue engaging.

Berg has followed in the directorial style of Michael Bay: that is to say, BANG, CRASH, BOOM, WALLOP, SMASH, but the special effects are pretty spectacular and it's refreshing that the film hasn't been released in 3D (if you want sinking ships in three dimensions, head over to Screen 2 showing Titanic). Shots of all kinds of military hardware being deployed, blown up and sunk were quite entertaining but, again, it was a case of too much of a good thing. The sheer madness of the battle sequences and the laughably-awful dialogue almost made the film seem self-conscious and aware of its own silliness. In the end, however, slow-motion shots of geriatric war veterans going to battle stations on a decommissioned battleship were just too much. I'd like to say that Battleship sank but, in reality, it never even floated. 

Clapperboard Rating: * *

Wrath of the Titans

I have several pet hates. Actually, make that many. Poor quality cutlery. Bottle tops not screwed on properly. People jigging their leg up and down in the corner of my eye. The Liverpudlian accent. And totally inaccurate historical films. Now I don't mind films taking a bit of artistic licence in their representations of 14^th century Mongolian carpet-weaving communities, but I think films should at least have some basis in reliable historical fact. Wrath of the Titans, the sequel to Clash of the Titans is one of these films. I appreciate that a film about Greek gods is hardly going to be the most realistic of films but it seemed as though the script writers of Wrath of the Titans had simply used the names of Greek mythical characters and dispensed with every other historical detail. The film's events may as well have taken place in a Scunthorpe nightclub.

Starring Sam Worthington (Avatar, Man on a Ledge) as Perseus, the demi-god and son of Zeus, and with a supporting cast of Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson, the film sees Perseus fight Ares and Hades who have captured Zeus and threaten to unleash the Titans (whoever on earth they are) on humankind. Essentially, the film's story is all over the place and I found myself on several occasions zoning out in an effort to be entertained by the battles as titans and gods got angry with one another. However, even the epic battle scenes and exploding mountains were underwhelming and, I'm afraid, boring. Ralph Fiennes as the baddie seemed to be playing Voldermort, only with more hair and an appearance from Bill Nighy barely raised even the faintest of smiles. Pairing this with astronomically un-engaging acting from Worthington and flat dialogue, I was left totally bored.

From a technical point of view, the CGI effects were competently executed but without the solid characterisation and convincing performances, they were totally wasted. The costumes were, as well, predictable and the inspiration for their design seemed to have come from Disney's Hercules. Add to this the array of godly facial hair sported by Zeus and Hades, who looked as though they had walked right out of a Gandalf convention, and the effect was almost laughable. Queen Andromeda's (Rosamund Pike) hair, however, seemed indestructible in battle as she flicked her golden locks in the manner of a hair colouring advert as she killed fire monsters which leaped erratically around like demented monkeys. I realise this film is a fantasy but, really. The key problem with this film is it totally misjudges the balance between action and narrative. It was never going to be a carefully crafted plot and it seems as though the director (Jonathan Liebesman) tried to cover this up by throwing action sequence after action sequence at the audience. The effect, however is overwhelmingly tedious and the little sense of plot is totally confused and lost in a stagnating mire of head banging, mismanaged action.

Wrath of the Titans' flaw is not its historical inaccuracy. I realise that a film such as this shouldn't, perhaps, be rooted in strict historical fact. But to be honest, a history lesson would have been a welcome alternative to this mind-numbing drivel. There is some discussion as to how to pronounce 'wrath' – is it wrath as in path or wrath as in moth? Wrath of the Titans, I'm afraid, doesn't even deserve this kind of debate. 

Clapperboard Rating: * 

The Pirates! In an Adventure With Scientists!

There used to be a time when everything you owned was made in Britain: the clothes you wore, the carpet you stood on, the Rover parked on the drive, the Raleigh left rusting in the shed and the knives you used to cut the finest joint of British beef. Heck, even your fifteenth-century Ming vase was probably made up the road in Stoke. But times have changed and, for one reason or another, Britain has relatively little to boast about when it comes to producing things. However, in a nondescript Bristol street lies a building which contains one of the few British institutions which show no signs of slowing down production. Aardman.

It's been seven years since the guys and gals at Aardman last went back to primary school and played with plasticine in the name of film and they're back with a swashbuckling comedy in the form of The Pirates! In an Adventure With Scientists! Following the misadventures of the hapless Pirate Captain (brilliantly voiced by Hugh Grant) as he sets out to win the Pirate of the Year Award, the film assembles an impressive cast including Martin Freeman, Brian Blessed and David Tennant as Charles Darwin, who is captured by the Pirate Captain. But as Darwin is made to walk the plank, he notices that the Captain's 'parrot' is, in fact, the last remaining dodo and persuades him to accompany him to London to present the dodo to the Royal Society and make both their fortunes. Historically accurate this film is not, but what ensues is nothing short of mad brilliance.

This is not Disney Pixar, but in a way, that makes the film even better. The jokes come thick and fast and are, for the most part, very witty and charming. Much thought has clearly gone into creating the gags and the little background details – whether it's the motto under the Royal Society's sign – “Playing God since 1660” or the local dentist, “D. K. Ying Dentistry” – were brilliant but slightly distracting as I tried to multi-task and catch every joke at the expense of missing what the characters were saying. But then again I'm not a woman. Of course, the plot is as wacky as Jamie Oliver's choice of baby names, but this is no bad thing. Where else would you have a chase sequence involving a bathtub full of pirates hurtling down a flight of stairs in Victorian London, chasing a disguised monkey clutching a dodo?! But this is Aardman so we'll let them off...

The humour will appeal to a wide audience and, whilst this is obviously a children's film, adults will be more than entertained by the subtle jokes and fast-moving plot which won't leave you slumping in your cinema seat and drifting off into the land of nod as my Dad did when he took me to see Pokémon: The First Movie when I was seven. There was no need whatsoever for it to be in 3D but that goes without saying and I promise never to mention stereoscopy again...ahem. Posh boy Hugh Grant may seem an odd choice for the Pirate Captain but his performance is very convincing. From an artistic perspective, the world which Aardman has created is vibrant and bold: from the smog-filled streets of Victorian London to the exotic Blood Island, the plasticine models complement the CGI work which has been used to make Pirate Captain's high seas shine.

The Pirates! In an Adventure With Scientists! is film which has Aardman's fingerprints all over it (quite literally!) and, as a result, oozes charm and genuine humour. How well it will perform overseas to a non-British audience is open to debate but that's beside the point; Jack Wills may gloss over the fact that their 'Fabulously British' clothing lines are manufactured abroad but Aardman can swap the Jolly Roger for a Union Jack any day...

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *