Radha Mitchell managed to get through the first round of the FA Cup of Actors despite a relatively poor showing: 3/10 for Surrogates and 4/10 for Thick as Thieves. Her second round opponent, Ellen Page, has had a good rest since her first entry but Mitchell is thrown straight back into the action with Melinda and Melinda. Will those tired legs let her down or will quality shine through?
Directed by Woody Allen, Melinda and Melinda looks at what happens when you tell essentially the same story as a tragedy or a comedy (it's not exactly the same story but we'll come back to that later). It's all a little bit Sliding Doors and it gives Radha Mitchell a chance to show off her acting chops. Her performance is probably the most impressive thing about this film. Although it's impressive on a technical rather than an engagement level. She plays the two Melinda's in different ways: one is a likeable friendly lady who has problems but is getting on with life, the other is an irritating smoking obsessed curly haired neurotic. Yet the writing didn't lead to me particularly care about either of them.
The story starts with Melinda crashing her friends' dinner party. She's had a bad time with her relationship and needs a place to stay. Her buddies try to set her up with a lucky fellow. But obviously things aren't that simple.
As you can see from above, the story is pretty slight. This is a consequence of the fact that it's told twice. My problem with Melinda and Melinda is that the tragedy isn't that tragic and the comedy, while the better of the two, isn't that funny. In my mind a tragedy should have a really bleak ending, worse than the majority of things that generally happen in real life. Yet here the ending is a tad too pleasant for my liking despite being the downer that tragedies require. It also cheats on the endings because the finale of the comedy is upbeat. I would have liked to have seen exactly the same story told in the two different ways.
The comedy is okay but only ever managed to squeeze a smile out of me (rather than the belly laughs that The Sleeper promotes). I never like the idea of watching Will Ferrell in films. I don't know why but I'm not that keen. Yet I've liked him in the only two films that I've ever seen him in: Elf and this. I never said I wasn't highly irrational. All the way through his performance I could picture Woody Allen: the writing and Ferrell's delivery add up to a quality Woody Allen impression. This was probably the role Allen would have played in the days when he feasibly could have wooed Radha Mitchell.
One upside of Melinda and Melinda is that it has dispelled the horrible visions of Mitchell dancing with Banderas in Thick as Thieves. Here she gets to dance again, with another slimy character, but it's not disturbing in the slightest. This shows that the blame lies squarely at the unmoving feet of Banderas.
To surmise, Melinda and Melinda fails to deliver as either a tragedy or a comedy. And as a drama it fails too due to a lack of empathy for the characters. It seems that playing too many games in a short space of time has led to some serious crampage for Radha Mitchell. It's likely now that the semi-final beckons for Ellen Page (unless Inception or X-Men: The Last Stand come up that is). 3/10 evlkeith If you like this you could also try: Sleeper, Vicky Cristina Barcelona.
We finally reach the last review from the first round of the FA Cup of Actors with Radha Mitchell's replay with David Warbeck. Surely Mitchell has to go through after Warbeck's pathetic attempt at goal with Rat Man. Let's see if she can pull a half decent performance out of the bag with Thick as Thieves.
Morgan Freeman and Antonio Banderas star as a couple of thieves intent on pilfering some Faberge eggs (an interesting true fact is that Faberge could see that they were heading down a path of business suicide producing beautifully ornate eggs so they decided to start knocking out mass produced aftershave in the form of Brut to keep the loan sharks at bay). Radha Mitchell enters the fray as the Goddaughter of Freeman and as love interest for swarthy Banderas. Predictably, Freeman doesn't approve.
As you'd expect from the people making this film, it's entertaining in a 'just let it wash over you' kind of way. The heist is nothing special but contains all of the requisite parts: casing the joint, preparation and actually carrying out the robbery including some completely rubbish red lasers that Giant Haystacks would be able to walk through without tripping the alarm. How they don't manage to get the prone form of Banderas sliding along on a skateboard type contraption, I'll never know. There's nothing here that you haven't seen a thousand times before.
In fact, the whole film is a bit lacklustre. I think this is partly due to the script and the casting. The writing lacks any real kind of wit and doesn't give the actors any help in building on-screen relationships. It doesn't help either that there isn't any chemistry between Mitchell and Banderas or for that matter, any rapport between Banderas and Freeman. It's not that any of them does a bad job individually, but when they are put together, they don't gel.
It's a bit like Costa Rica's recent performance against England: they know they're through and so they do the least they can do to secure the top spot in the group. Everything about Thick as Thieves plays it nice and safe, keeping it tight at the back but with no real inclination to surge forward and score. The director also did Deep Impact which I quite liked, although on the strength of this I can see why she hasn't done any more features.
As for Radha Mitchell, I'm more used to her being terrorised by various nasty creatures such as Pyramid Head or a huge crocodile so it was a minor surprise to see her saucing it up here. In a night club, she has to perform a slightly embarrassing dance with Banderas while he stands there still, pretending that he hasn't got any slinky latin dance moves just waiting to burst out from his hips. But to balance this, she does get a classy shot in her underwear. Acting wise it's not her best performance, yet it's not offensively bad, nice and safe like everything else.
All of this adds up to the fact that she's through to the second round. But like Costa Rica, she needs to up her game to fight off the much stronger threat of Ellen Page. 4/10 evlkeith If you like this you could also try: Rififi, The Killing.
After David Warbeck's pretty feeble attempt at goal with The Ark of the Sun God, Radha Mitchell goes on the counter offensive with Surrogates. Now, I hadn't heard of this one when it came up on my Random-Film-Selector but it's got Radha Mitchell in it (obviously) and Bruce Willis who's normally good for entertainment value. So let's give it a whirl.
Willis stars as Greer, a hard-nosed FBI agent on the trail of, well, not much really. There's not that much crime going on. Pretty much everyone is living their life through a surrogate, a robot that is linked to them via a mind control device. So they get to lie in the comfort of their own homes, while their surrogate goes out into the world and does their job, cuts the lawn and irons their pants. This is all experienced by the user but in a safe environment. If the surrogate is destroyed in a hilarious meat grinder incident then a new one is purchased and Bob's your uncle. Crime is at an all time low until two surrogates are found with their eyes fried. Worryingly their users are dead too. Ooh la la. Greer, with his partner Peters (Radha Mitchell), gets on the case sharpish.
Recently I reviewed Loups=Garous and ranted about mobile phones a bit. I was rather happy that a film had come along that agreed with my moderately extreme views. Then along comes another. Surrogates is a thinly veiled attempt at having a dig at technology in general, mobiles, Facebook etc. Basically, it posits the view that a large proportion of people live their life vicariously through technology and rarely connect in real-life with other people. At one point Greer (as himself rather than his surrogate) suggests to his wife's surrogate that they should have a holiday. Without their surrogates. She disagrees and thinks he's an idiot. Substitute a mobile phone with internet access for surrogate and you get a situation that has probably been played out in quite a few homes.
The point at which I deviate from the film is in a question that it poses: if you could destroy all surrogates, would you? The film has its own answer but I think that technology addiction is not the real problem, just a symptom, and by destroying them the underlying problem would still be present. Another symptom is the hell-hole Starbucks. Not just the hell-hole Starbucks, I'm using them as a representative of high-priced luxury items (Hollister goods, Minis and Marks and Spencer ready made mash would also fit into this category). As for what I consider to be the real problem, well in true mathematician style I've given you a couple of clues and now I'm going to let you try to work that out for yourself. Anyway, I digress.
So Surrogates hates mobiles and Facebook, but what else has it got going for it? Surprisingly, not much. Willis spends half of the film as an unemotional surrogate and when he finally emerges as his human self, he's still not at his charismatic best. Mitchell is treated even worse. She's a surrogate for the entire film apart from a tiny shot of her as a human. She's completely wasted. Not good for her FA Cup chances.
Just as the acting performances feel lifeless and plasticky, the visuals are equally as unnerving. If you imagine watching a film almost entirely set in the uncanny valley then Surrogates comes pretty close. I was creeped out for the most part by the surrogates with their airbrushed perfect skin. It's not a pleasant film to watch. When Willis finally gets his proper stubble and slightly craggy appearance out, it's a breath of fresh air. Also the action sequences where the surrogates leap about like superheroes look so fake that they're laughable.
Maybe the whole point of Surrogates is that this vision of the future is unnerving, yet entirely possible. It still doesn't make it a good film to watch. I though David Warbeck had fluffed it, only get a 3/10 rating for his effort in the FA Cup of Actors but he's still in the fight. In fact, he faces a replay with Radha Mitchell after the rest of the first round matches. 3/10 evlkeith If you like this you could also try: Loups=Garous, I, Robot.
I saw this on holiday for the first time last year, when I was desperate for something half decent to watch. From the director of Wolf Creek, starring Radha Mitchell (Silent Hill) and Michael Vartan (Alias), it's about a great big stonking crocodile; what can go wrong?
Surprisingly, not a lot. It's another of those films that needs to be filed under 'far better than they have any right to be'. In the first part of the film, when Pete McKell (Vartan) sets off on a tourist boat down an outback river with Kate Ryan (Mitchell), it looks more like a nature documentary and includes some beautiful photography. The director obviously loves the region. Then in comes the crocodile...
The group of tourists gets trapped by a rather large crocodile on a small island, that is rapidly being flooded due to the tidal nature of the river. Mclean knows how to keep the tension up in various scenes throughout the film. He also knows to surprise you, by breaking the tension with something unexpected. The night time crossing of the river is a stand-out scene.
The only problems in Rogue are some of the cast. Sam Worthington. Can't stand him. I'm maybe being unfair but I still haven't got over how useless Avatar is. He's actually not too bad, but he brings back shocking memories. Then there's the family where the mother has cancer. The mother and father are both irritating. I was glad when they were out of it. They don't necessarily get killed though.
The practical and CGI effects work well on the crocodile and only a few shots look ropey. Most of the time it looks believable. There are some amusing deaths too. Not as many as you'd like, but okay. All in all, a fun film that exceeded my expectations. 7/10 evlkeith
If you like this you could also try: Lake Placid, Alligator, Spiders.
Now, I know this is not the most popular of films, even amongst horror aficionados and fans of the original game, but it is a film I keep coming back to again and again.
I played the original Silent Hill game on the Playstation some years ago and can't remember it exactly; however the film does give me similar feelings to my recollections of the game.
Radha Mitchell plays the mother of a young, sleepwalking girl who constantly witters on about a place called Silent Hill. She takes her there and promptly loses her in an atmospheric and confusing place filled with a mist made of ash. A great deal of disturbing monster filled mist action ensues, the highlight being Pyramid Head; you wish there was more of him. The original ending was going to include loads of Pyramid Heads but due to budgetary reasons was changed to the current ending.
One of the most maligned parts of the film is the role that Sean Bean plays as the husband. Yes, he is Basil Exposition. Yes, the director didn't really want to include the character. But he does add to the sense of poignancy in the final scene so I don't mind him too much. And he's from Yorkshire.
I have one question about the film. How is it rated as a 15 when there is a intimate scene including razor wire and a lady's privities? The Evil Dead was banned for far less and is still rated an 18 now.
Easily my favourite video game film (admittedly, there's not much competition) but also one of my all time favourite films. Writing this review makes me want to watch it again... 9/10 evlkeith
