2011 was a bit of a weird year for young actor-comedians. James Franco starred in Oscar-nominated 127 Hours and blockbuster Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Seth Rogan shocked everyone by starring in a cancer comedy that wasn’t just exploitative, and Jonah Hill turned his hand, not entirely unsuccessfully to more serious acting in baseball drama Moneyball. After taking a risk on Moneyball though, The Sitter looks to sit Hill firmly back in his comfort zone. While on suspension Noah Griffith (Hill) is coaxed into babysitting a neighbours kids so his mum can go on a hot date, hence becoming the titular Sitter of the title and making the phrase “hijinks ensue” both predictable and as redundant as a Russell Brand marriage councillor.

In it’s defence, this is a film that never claims to be anything besides simplistic, but besides that it does seem unsure of what exactly it wants to be. The attempts at comedy often seem uncomfortable with the children alongside for the ride; while under other circumstances it’d feel fine to laugh at Noah’s misfortune, now the fates of three largely innocent children are also tied in. Speaking of the children, they feel like they’re there mainly to add a sense of dramatic gravitas – a stereotypical spoilt girl, Blithe (Landry Bender) and two boys; one the generic adopted troublemaker Ricardo (Kevin Hernandez), the other an effeminate guy, Slater (Max Records) dealing with being gay. Shockingly, this is one of the few times the film actually seems entertaining, dealing with it with tact, without becoming overly sentimental or cloying.

However, watching this you can’t get the feeling you’ve seen it all before. Hill’s character is supposedly a nice guy deep down, and we’re supposed to root for him to get treated better than his current on-again, off again girlfriend Marissa (Ari Graynor) treats him, but they seem almost like mirror images. Both seem self absorbed, lazy and just using the other to get something, but because he looks like an underdog and says a few words of wisdom to the children, we’re supposed to root for Noah and boo Marissa. While Hill clearly has “the likeability factor”, this film stretches it until it snaps, with nearly everyone he meets seeming to view him as a lovable but misunderstood misanthrope despite the fact he’s actually neither lovable or all that misunderstood.

The clichés keep coming after this, as there’s even a typical impossibly attractive nerdy girl who was into him all along, Roxanne (Kylie Bunbury), and yet somehow this comes across as the most believable part of the movie. Not that believability was the way it should have gone necessarily, as Sam Rockwell as drug dealer Karl pays no attention to anything that’s come before and plays his own brand of crazed villain, not dissimilar from his role in Iron Man 2. Like Iron Man 2 however, you can’t help put feel that Rockwell’s potential gets a little wasted here, even if it was him who got most of the laughs out of me.

All in all, while The Sitter provided a few laughs, the characters are largely recycled or unsympathetic and there’s nothing much here that you won’t have already seen. This brand of crass comedy has been done before, and much better.

4/10

Setting itself up as the biopic to beat this awards season, J. Edgar follows the life of the titular J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo Dicaprio), widely regarded as one of the most influential Americans of the 20^th Century. Starting (chronologically at least) with his beginnings in the Bureau of Investigation in his mid-twenties, it then progresses to his appointment as the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a position he held until his death by heart attack on May 2^nd, 1972.

A controversial figure, Hoover is credited with building the FBI into the task-force it is today and instituting many of the technological advances of the time that we now view as standard, such as a centralized database of fingerprinting; in contrast he is critiqued for using blackmail to stay in power, exceeding the jurisdiction of the Bureau and collecting evidence using illegal methods. Rumours have long circulated that Hoover was homosexual, and this is touched on also, alongside the praise and criticism I’ve mentioned.

Issues are dealt with sensitively and without bias, and where there isn’t a definitive answer, the film doesn’t feel the need to create one. For the vast majority of the film, the nature of Hoover’s relationship with Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer, in a career best) is left affectionate but still suitably ambiguous. After things come to head, with the much publicised kiss, again no attempt to label or clarify the issue is made. This sounds like a criticism, but it’s far from it; it’s refreshing to see human relationships dealt with without the broad brush-strokes they normally receive. His relationship with secretary and occasional confidant Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts) is treated similarly. While it’s clear there’s an initial attraction there, again other factors interfere.

It’s a shame that the film wasn’t longer as there are so many areas that could have benefited from more time, but it already clocks in at over two hours. Having so much story and details to tell within the time however makes the film seem more deliberate; the issues raised here are the key issues. Clever directing and a tightly focused script mean that rather than just lumbering through a history lesson, we get an attempt to pin down what defines a man. Unfortunately while the script may be tightly focused on it’s subject, the narrative suffers somewhat. Many supporting characters don’t get a chance to develop, and flashbacks within flashbacks might help understand the character, but make placing many events on a chronological line other than how they relate to the previous event tricky. To his credit, Eastwood senses this and gives earlier scenes a more washed out, monochrome look while using more colour in those scenes closest to the present day. This also works as a metaphor for Hoover’s life and career; as he builds the FBI into what he wants it to be, institutes the changes he wants and gains companionship, his life becomes more complete, compared to the lonely boy at the beginning who works in an office with ideas that go ignored. In contrast, when his mother (a woefully underused Judi Dench) dies, the colours again seem muted and dulled.

Shadows are also used cleverly – while their very presence can be seen as a reference to the nature of much of Hoover’s work, it’s somewhat telling that the only sex scene that takes place is observed through sound and shadows. This is a man who is much more used to listening to sex than participating in it, and displays the voyeuristic nature of his work. Even early on in his career he is seen having spent much of his time recording how others have spent theirs. It seems typical Eastwood to take something simple, and make it a little more unusual. Dicaprio manages to balance these many sides of the man, portraying the many complexities, going from repressed to proud to cantankerous within seconds, often within the same scene. Hammer has less of a range to work with but with what he has he shows he can act on the same level, keeping pace with three-time Oscar nominee Dicaprio, and deserves at least an Oscar nomination.

In short, wonderful performances and simple but polished direction manage to shine despite an occasionally limited and narratively confusing script. This attempts neither to condemn nor praise this controversial figure and thus may manage to alienate both bases, but at it’s core lies a solid movie executed well.

8/10

 While a dramatization of events at a bank during the recent financial crisis was inevitable, the post-Christmas timing feels a little cruel. However, featuring a cast so acclaimed you could probably base a drinking game around how many Oscars or Oscar-nominations they have, an awards season release was inevitable and sets Margin Call as a film which has a lot of potential to deliver.

Opening with mass unemployment, it’s not long after being introduced to Stanley Tucci’s risk assessment executive Eric Dale before he too is shown the door. From their use of specific language and cold indifference, it’s clear he is neither the first nor the last to go, but before he leaves he hands a flash drive with his current work on over to young employee Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto). While Seth Bregman (Penn Badgley) tries to convince him to go out, he stays in the office to work on Eric’s old project, and discovers something that ends up getting passed along a lengthy chain until eventually they get their boss to decide what to do, starting with Will Emerson (Paul Bettany), then Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey), following on to Jared Cohen (Simon Baker) and eventually John Tuld (Jeremy Irons). It sounds like a recipe for a confusing mess of a film. Surprisingly, it’s Bettany, one of the few older men in this without an Oscar nod who ties the piece together. His character could be criticised of being a little too stereotypical of the reckless banker, but he manages to make himself a charismatic presence, balancing existing as a figure of admiration to the younger bankers while still keeping up a rapport with Spacey. It’s a shame the film is only an hour fifty, as while Spacey’s performance is no American Beauty, he manages to make his co-star shine in nearly all of his scenes, particularly when sparring with Irons’ indifferent CEO John Tuld, in contrast to a forgettable Demi Moore performance.

JC Chandor’s directing clearly displays a lot of faith in his cast, using a large amount of close-ups to catch every movement of their face. At times, the younger stars seem to struggle here, slightly less convincing than their senior co-stars, yet few actors their age could compare favourably to such Oscar winners. While Penn’s character Seth is not a million miles away from his normal bookish roles, the touch of a playboy side he gets to show makes for interesting and entertaining viewing. Often he successfully inserts a hint of a dry or dark sense of humour to his scenes that provides a touch of much needed levity when dealing with what could be dull subject matter. When things get tougher however, his calm façade is broken to show deeper emotion. In contrast, Quinto’s banker is a much more restrained, sensible and moral kind of fellow, suffering slightly from the limited range in which he’s given to work. While it’s one of the oldest tricks to pair two contrasting characters to allow them to bounce broader contrasting ideas off each other, it’s still used because it’s still effective. Their naivety however, can get a little grating, but it does help display their youth, albeit in a ham-fisted kind of manner.

On paper, Margin Call sounds like it should be a slow and sleep-inducing type of film, a cynical cash-in on a financial crisis or just designed to be Oscar-bait, but thanks to a reasonable length, an excellent cast and a tight script creates an entertaining thriller.

7/10

Remakes, love them or hate them, they sell. And while technically a prequel and not a remake, at times you wonder if the message got passed on to anyone on set. Chronicling the events leading up to the 1982 film of the same name, we get to see the titular Thing extracted from the Antarctica ice before, and I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say, chaos ensues. Bloody, messy chaos.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is on familiar ground here, as when she tries to convince her crewmates that they are in trouble with a capital T, the indifference she’s met with until blood starts flying is all too similar to her role in Final Destination 3. However, she manages to pull of a fairly convincing scientist, even if the writing or dialogue doesn’t always help, occasionally making large jumps based on relatively little evidence. It’s also nice to see Norwegians on film being played by actual Norwegians, even if some seem there just to raise the body count and others just to ensure continuity with the original material.

The biggest surprise though is probably just how well continuity matches up, with so many subtle nods to the original material and several scenes seemingly lifted straight from it. Dialogue modernised, sets and effects polished up and then boxed off and sent to cinemas. If you remember much of the first film, you’ll find little new here to surprise you. Not unusual for a prequel, but the extent to which some elements are copied seems a little excessive. It’s like the same film, but with more exposition in the beginning, more modern special effects and less ambiguity, which to me was one of the best features of the original.

That’s not to say there’s nothing new here. There’s more beautiful cinematography, especially of the frequent flames shown throughout, more exposition on the discovery of the alien and as mentioned the effects have been shined up nice for the 21^st century. A scene around the spaceship we could have done without, but it was something new. The question is whether these updates were worth the lack of ambiguity in the original and the more defined characters, and I’d have to say no. So while this was an entertaining film and something a little different in a saccharine filled Christmas film season, it could have been so much more.

6/10