Penelope Cruz starred in Pedro Almodovar’s Volver and the two have collaborated once again in Broken Embraces, a drama about infidelity and redemption. This Spanish film is told from the perspective of Harry Caine, a blind writer, who is forced to deal with past pains 14 years earlier when he was directing what was to be his last film.

Broken Embraces is a character-driven drama starring Lluís Homar,Blanco Portilla, José Luis Gómez, Rubén Ochandianoand Penélope Cruz. The film’s narrative progression is a little confusing at first, but all the pieces eventually come together as each character’s motivations are explored and alliances are made. Lluís Homar plays Harry, a blind writer formerly known as Mateo, a promising film director years earlier. Lena, his lead actress and muse played by Penélope Cruz, is his desire and the two enter into a torrid love affair behind the back of Lena’s “partner”, Ernesto (Gómez). Ernesto watches the two from a roving peephole intently as his son relays behind-the-scenes footage as part of his documentary.

Broken Embraces has a similar story to Fellini’s 8 1/2 with a focus on a director, a film and a muse. Which is quite interesting because Penélope Cruz recently starred in a supporting role alongside Daniel Day-Lewis in Nine, a musical film adaptation of 8 1/2. The film was even referenced in Broken Embraces, making a direct parallel with Fellini’s classic. Another admirer of Fellini’swork is David Lynch, renowned auteur of dreams and nightmares.Mulholland Drive broached the same relationship between film, director and lead actress with the prospect of a film within a film.

The plot functions like an extension of the primary relationship from 8 1/2, Nine and Mulholland Drive. The lilting soundtrack is similar to the music of longtime Lynch accomplice, Angelo Badalamenti. Broken Embraces gives Almodovar a chance to embellish and really sink his teeth into the collateral damage of a behind-the-scenes love affair. He’s able to explore the peripheral relationships, building up to one cataclysmic event that started the trail of retribution and healing process for each character.

Homar is like Kelsey Grammer’s Frasier in many respects. His face, his physique, his affinity for art and culture and his love for women. However, he’s more serious and contemplative, relying on the support of others and trying to make the most of life as a blind man seeking an outlet for his creativity and passion. Cruzis reminiscent of to Audrey Hepburn in appearance, physique and even performance as she gracefully carries herself across the screen with a spellbinding performance as the elemental Lena. She may show more skin, but captures the same aloof royalty thatHepburn imbued, with a performance even more deserving of appreciation than her role in Nine.

This is a beautiful film. Almodovar captures some real emotional turmoil in all the familial relationships in Broken Embraces with strong performances overriding any inconsistencies in the narrative. The back-and-forth time warp jolts the film a bit, but this is about the emotional currents, the characters and the drama rather than relaying a monumental message. The film may have its flaws and does harp on for ten minutes too long, but captures real vulnerability through its behind-the-scenes story and contrasting spectrum of love.

The bottom line: Absorbing.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za

World’s Greatest Dad… we see the slogan on coffee mugs, t-shirts and fake certificates, but how could someone truly know they were the world’s greatest dad? There’s no way of quantifying it… and the illustrious title comes wrapped in a bundle of bias, making it a personal, yet hollow compliment with the best of intentions. A pretty complex little conundrum, which is probably why this film’s for adults with Robin Williams as the World’s Greatest Dad… he’s not.

Robin Williams stars as Lance Clayton, a loving father, a committed teacher and a struggling writer. His form of “writer’s block” makes it so that his work keeps getting blocked from magazines, newspapers and publishing houses. To make matters worse, his ungrateful brat and only child, Kyle would make Bart Simpson blush with his repertoire of explicit language fueled by his filthy mind. When Lance finally does get his golden opportunity to become a full-time writer, ironically it’s his son, who is there to open the door and keep him on the straight-and-narrow.

This is a drama and a pretty gutsy, twisted, adult comedy too. It’s for those of us, who like their comedy black. It’s one of those awkward schoolyard dramas with mature themes like Donnie Darko, Rushmore and Charlie Bartlett, where one kid seems to be at the centre of it all. The kid in this case is Kyle, whose sudden celebrity status helps his father write his first book. The language is often filthy thanks to Kyle, the situations are quite dark and perverted… yet writer-director Bobcat Goldthwait still manages to hold onto the reins of this dark horse-drawn carriage with Robin Williams up front to help keep equilibrium.

Williams is ideal for the part of Lance and works his Robin Williams magic once again with a solid performance. He’s ably supported by a grown up Spy Kid and vastly experienced, Daryl Sabara as Kyle, who embodies the very essence of a problem child-turn-teenager. The performances are straight-up with most of the humour coming from rude wisecracks and hilarious relational shock situations rather than slapstick or witty dialogue. Any film directed by someone called Bobcat is going to be different and World’s Greatest Dad runs the gauntlet of bad taste with its head held high.

The title is completely misleading and choosing World’s Greatest Dad for Father’s Day would be about as awkward as choosing There’s Something About Mary as a first date movie. Yet, it somehow manages to pull it off. Kyle’s preoccupation with sex is normal for a teenage boy, but they just turn the taps on full blast… making his infatuation perverted and his character completely unlikable. Perhaps that’s why its so easy on the audience when he suffocates himself to death while masturbating. He becomes such a detestable brat, that it’s more of good riddance than a farewell.

World’s Greatest Dad is hugely entertaining, despite the bad language, voyeuristic interludes and pubescent nightmares. The performances are top draw and the film’s skewered comedy actually becomes quite contagious… guilty, but contagious. It’s obviously not for everyone, which is why it’s been relegated to the art circuit. Having peers like Rushmore, Donnie Darko and Charlie Bartlett will also give you an idea of it’s dark “schoolboy” slant, but it’s one of those awful, yet unmissable movies you’ve just got to see for yourself and probably by yourself too!

The bottom line: Skewered.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za

The world would seem a little out-of-place without that lovable, jolly green ogre with the Scottish accent and his jabbering doggedly companion, Donkey. It’s sad to say goodbye to the big green fella, but we’ll always have his happy-go-lucky adventures. Shrek Forever After concludes the Shrek franchise in 3D, drawing to a close the last chapter of the tongue-in-cheek fairy tale saga. It’s been fun, but all good things have to come to an end.

Shrek Forever After is an improvement on Shrek the Third, which put the novelty and energy of the series in doubt. This fourth installment seems a bit tired and unnecessary, but the good news is that Dreamworks have managed to salvage any damage done by the crass and mixed bag that was Shrek the Third. Shrek Forever After is a sequel and the film-makers have tried to instill a fresh burst of energy to the last chapter with a take on that magical family classic It’s A Wonderful Life.

Shrek, Donkey, Fiona and Puss-in-Boots voice talents – Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz and Antonnio Banderas – have all made a return with Walt Dohrm voicing Rumpelstiltskin. The chemistry is still there between the characters, although it’s almost a little too comfortable and Shrek Forever After leans more heavily on Myers with Shrek in almost every scene. The other voice talents absorb a team supporting role as Shrek is bandied from one character to the next. The comedy is slightly subdued by the tone in this episode with the funniest bits coming from Walt Dohrm’s take on Rumpelstiltskin and Banderas as Puss-in-Boots in his new body.

Most fairy tales end with a wedding, but Shrek Forever After begins with babies and parenthood sinking in. Shrek’s a father and his new responsibilities are starting to take their toll. No more uninterrupted wallowing in the mud bath or me-time. The big green guy also misses his bachelor days when he could scare anyone at will. Meanwhile, Rumplestiltskin is scheming to overthrow the King and take control of Far Far Away… A “chance” encounter, a couple of “eye-tinis” and a scrawl of magic ink later, and Shrek has signed over a day of his life in exchange to be ogre-for-a-day, unwittingly enabling Rumpelstiltskin to rewrite history and rule supreme over a much darker fairy tale kingdom.

Shrek Forever After has a much darker, melancholic tone than the earlier trilogy of more lighthearted escapades. The stakes have been raised with Shrek fighting for his wife as well as his life and there’s much less to laugh about as Shrek goes head-to-head with the evil little Mr. Stiltskin and his witches. The fourth installment further distances itself from the series with 3D technology, giving the environment more depth. We’re given a chance to see how things would’ve been without Shrek in a very dreary kingdom, in which Shrek is an outsider, a stranger to his fairy tale friends.

The attempt to mimic It’s A Wonderful Life was a good concept platform to create another adventure without making a straight prequel, however the references and familiarity with the original Shrek make things seem a little tired and unnecessary. Shrek Forever After isn’t as feel-good as its previous chapters and this is also reflected in the selection of music. “I’m A Believer” gets another run, but the other tracks are subdued and don’t embody the same happy feeling that music from the first three chapters enthused.

There are also inconsistencies in the world of Far, Far Away… with an ogre empire appearing after it was made to seem that Shrek was the only ogre in town. The other fairy tale creatures were unique with one Pinocchio, Three Little Pigs etc. and this convenient arrangement was just a little jarring with a strange parallel to The Gummi Bears. Then Shrek Forever After has tried to become more pure with very few pop culture references. Apart from a Deliverance banjo duel riff, there are very few links compared with Shrek, Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third. The gross out gags of Shrek the Third have been toned down and the sequel occupies itself with simply presenting a story instead of trying to be clever with Matrix inspired fights and a Knights TV show instead of Cops.

This Shrek movie is darker and uses 3D quite sparingly. The immersion into a 3D environment has been handled well, without making the animation too gimmicky. The message about gratitude is good and it’s great to see a franchise like Shrek opting for depth instead of superficial emotion. However, the movies have become synonymous with feel good fun and to make such a drastic tonal shift for the closing chapter was always going to be risky. However, Shrek Forever After and the Shrek franchise can leave the silver screen with their heads held high. The end result is better than Part 3 and manages to bridge the new 3D divide, but doesn’t seem to add much more to the Shrek series.

Shrek Forever After is very competent, smart at times and full of surprises with echoes from previous chapters. One can even applaud the film-makers for defying the urge to include easy pop culture references and gross-out gags and going for a purist take on the kingdom of Far Far Away, employing 3D technology in a subtle way. However, the heart of Shrek has been plucked out with the dramatic, darker tonal shift with melancholy evoking the darker spectrum of emotion, instead of keeping proceedings as superficial, fun and light-hearted as they’ve always been. Shrek Forever After is entertaining and worth the watch, but must be set apart from the previous adventures for maximum enjoyment.

The bottom line: Melancholic.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za

Scott Hicks has directed such soul-stirring classics as Shine and Billy Elliot, and it’s been quite some time since he ventured into romantic comedy terrain with No Reservations. The Boys Are Back falls somewhere between the majestic emotional journey of films like Shine and the quiet reserved power of Hearts in Atlantis, once again focusing on a central parent-child relationship. The Boys Are Back is no different – based on a true story, written as a novel by Simon Carr and lovingly adapted to film by Hicks.

Underrated actor, Clive Owen, is given the reins as Joe Warr – a father, sports writer, role model and single parent. After his wife passes… Joe is left with Artie, their young boy, whose very notion of life and death is still being assembled. For Joe, life has become a whole lot more complicated… dealing with loss, raising a boy on his own and keeping his job as a top sports writer. Just when he thinks he’s got a grip on things… Artie starts acting up, his ex-wife sends his estranged son on holiday and his boss starts to weigh in on him. Life’s little hiccups…

The Boys Are Back is a warm film, despite dealing with loss, abandonment and the “joys” of single parenthood. It’s sometimes tougher for a Dad, who wants to be a best friend and strong father figure to his sons simultaneously. The adventure for these boys is played out in life’s unpredictability, the mistakes we learn from and the “what doesn’t kill you, only makes you stronger” ideology. Hicks swathes The Boys Are Back with a sense of reality, a simple yet affirming story about coping, layered with a heartwarming and hopeful message.

This is a touching film, a heartwarming drama and laced with sensitive performances from Clive Owen, Rupert Grint look-a-like George McKay as Harry and Nicholas McAnulty as young Artie. They are the boys… and their back-to-basics adventures are homegrown, full of freedom and down-to-earth warmth. They say the best things in life are free and The Boys Are Back intends to prove it! Spirited performances, good father-son chemistry and a real-life true story will remind you why it’s great to be a parent.

The Boys Are Back is comparable with Martian Child for the father-son dynamic between Joe and Artie, while the coming-of-age journey for Rupert Grint character in Driving Lessons parallels with George McKay’s role as Harry. This is a heartfelt drama, which is rewarding for its rich storytelling and true-to-life performances. It’s simplicity and connectedness make The Boys Are Back a special and memorable film, which may not have the grandeur of Hicks’s best work – but still manages to capture the soulful essence.

The bottom line: Spirited.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za

The Maid aka La Nana, is a Chilean domestic drama about a lonely woman trying to hold onto her household position after more than 20 years of service to an upper middle class family in Chile. Kids, teenagers and even parents need looking after… especially in this day and age when work and play don’t seem to leave much time for chores. The housework and even the daycare is now considered to be part of a full-time maid’s job. Their job title may not extend beyond a clean kitchen and tidy house, but they become a part of the family – detached, yet connected – like a unwanted guest.

This is where Raquel finds herself, caught between the roles of maid and family member. Intimate in the sense that she takes out the dirty laundry, is a stash for family secrets and holds the key to their home. It’s a position of trust with serious privacy privileges… from staying in a room in the home to bringing a tray into the host’s bedroom in the morning, she works day and even night trying to make a living and establishing her place.

However, Raquel’s headaches, age and increasing pressure from a demanding family are starting to take their toll. Her employer is trying to alleviate Raquel’s workload by getting another helper, but Raquel will have none of it… playing mind games and bullying her competitors out of the front door. The Maid is a drama, but it’s more than that – moving into the domain of psychological thriller and toying with some fairly sinister motives.

Catalina Saavedra is Raquel and dominates The Maid with a stirring performance. One that shows more than tells, creating a complex character in a bittersweet arrangement… moving from detestable to likable and absorbing every emotion in the process. Saavedra’s performance is one of the main reasons to see The Maid and it wouldn’t be surprising to see her nominated for an Oscar. In fact, the entire ensemble deliver on performance given their screen time, facilitating the harassment, the claustrophobia and the eye-opening perspective of Raquel in something akin to Robin Williams in One Hour Photo.

Writer-director, Sebastian Silva, brings his vision to life with a docudrama feel to the cinematography and an easy swagger to the dialogue in this bittersweet story. It’s not for everyone, most subtitled films rarely are, and conveys the plight of the maid from several angles. Silva cleverly recycles the drama by bringing new competition into the house, changing the atmosphere and presenting a different work ethic with each new maid.

Watching housework, toil and devious scheming is taxing and this makes the film is fairly stressful, especially for those with a full-time maid of their own. The Maid forces viewers to see the domestic situation from an intimate outsider’s perspective, instead of just blissfully ignoring all the inside knowledge that comes with the territory. It’s quite frightening to see just how ingrained a relative stranger can become in a home and interesting to see how one copes with being there, but not truly being there.

The Maid cracks open a facet of life so often overlooked by film-makers and creates a thought-provoking, albeit haunting depiction of life for a busy, crowded and lonely soul. The reality drama factor is reminiscent of films like Rachel Getting Married and Silva keeps it tight with hand-held cameras allowing the title character into every little space of the home. There are moments when the film could have gone beserk, but Silva keeps the intensity up without losing the lid. This subtle “holding back” keeps things within the realm of reality, but leaves the door open for future low budget horror/thriller film productions.

The bottom line: Powerful.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za

The first thing you’ll be thinking is… why, oh why, oh why did they remake a film only 3 years after the original Death at a Funeral? Well, the first guess would be money. If the cow’s not dry, there’s milking to be done and Hollywood hasn’t got any time for charity, although you’d be forgiven for thinking that considering some of the film productions that actually make it past the conceptual phase. It’s just easier to get an audience, rake up a bit of press and run with a title and plot that everyone’s enjoyed already. They did it with The Italian Job, creating a movie that involved a heist with Mini-Coopers spawning a sequel in The Brazilian Job. Thankfully, the new Death at a Funeral had the decency to familiarise itself with the source material, Frank Oz’s hilariously dark comedy, Death at a Funeral (2007).

Death at a Funeral (2010) isn’t trying to hide the fact that it’s a carbon copy of the original, it’s embracing the characters to the point of reprising Peter Dinklage’s pivotal performance as the little guy. What’s it about… death at a funeral. This time Chris Rock’s in charge of proceedings at his father’s funeral and it’s set in the United States instead of the English countryside. The opening credits cleverly start with a heart monitor flatline that becomes a series of roads and networks for the hearse to bring us to the opening scene.

The new Death at a Funeral actually has loads of potential arming itself with a winning ensemble including: Chris Rock, Keith David, Danny Glover, Loretta Devine, Tracy Morgan, James Marsden, Zoe Saldana, Luke Wilson, Martin Lawrence and Peter Dinklage. That’s quite a comedy arsenal if you ever considered doing a comedy remake. The cast share the film quite well with Rock guiding the narrative and the supporting posse adding weight for the laughs in a scene-for-scene translation of the original by Neil LaBute.

The chemistry is there with James Marsden going all the way, but one gets the impression of a nervous hesitation… and possibly an over-commitment to the original. Death at a Funeral (2007) was distinctly British with a little American comedy thrown in and the remake is an antithesis when it comes to casting, location and flavour. The original was regarded as something of an art house film playing to a niche audience in the line of other dark comedies like Eulogy. The remake gives the film wider scope, mainly due to the big name cast, allowing the comedy to be more accessible to a commercial market.

The result is actually pretty decent as a winning premise, ensemble and comedy come together with a fresh spin on the original. LaBute keeps no. 2 faithful, yet presents it for a wider American audience. The big problem is that the ship has sailed and the broken champagne bottle is still on ice. It’s difficult to forget such memorable comedic twists and such a hilarious farce as Frank Oz’s Death at a Funeral (2007). It’s so fresh in our minds that you could almost do a parallel scene-by-scene comparison without having to watch the original again.

The idea was great, the comedy is passable a second time around, but the remake just seems completely pointless three years down the line. As a stand-alone comedy it’d be a satisfactory production, but compared with the original – it falls short. They should have waited until its 10 year anniversary before attempting a remake because this just seems irreverent, even more than bowling a cadaver out of a coffin. If you haven’t seen the original, you’ll leave the cinema satisfied after a good chuckle. If you have – the second time round the mulberry bush will echo with a sense of deja vu with hollow laughter from the uninitiated.

The bottom line: Secondhand.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za

Toy Story 3 completes the groundbreaking Pixar Toy Story trilogy 11 years after Toy Story 2 in Real 3D. It’s been worth the wait… as Toy Story 3 throws fourteen new characters into the toy box, ups the stakes for the gang and presents another near-perfect animated adventure. The original voice cast of Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (Buzz), Joan Cusack (Jessie), Don Rickles (Mr. Potato Head), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Hamm) and Estelle Harris (Mrs. Potato Head) are back!

It feels like it’s been more like a year or two than a decade since we saw Buzz Lightyear taking on the evil Zorg. Well, it’s onto new things in Toy Story 3 as Andy has aged with the film and ready to head off to college. There’s plenty of nostalgia that goes with his prized possessions, but it’s time to stash the memories away in the attic. Events take a turn and it’s not long before Woody, Buzz, Barbie and the rest of Andy’s toys land up in Sunnyside, a daycare centre.

Toy Story 3 had to be bigger, bolder and funnier than its predecessors, which is probably why it took Pixar so long to refine part three according to their high standards. Most sequels follow this formula, delivering more of the same with a bigger budget and more time constraints. This is not the same for Toy Story 3, which looks and feels like it’s been in production all those years.

The story manages to swirl around several characters, while introducing new toys and maintaining a strong focus on entertainment without losing control. There’s never really a dull moment with such superb storytelling from Michael Arndt, John Lasseter,Andrew Stanton and director, Lee Unkrich as Woody plans a rescue “round-up”, Buzz talks Spanish and the creepy well-groomed Ken doll showcases his wardrobe for Barbie.

Disney/Pixar have managed to manufacture yet another winning classic in Toy Story 3. While there’s a consistency between Toy Story 2 and 3 in terms of characters, the genre mix is slightly more focused on action/adventure than comedy. Toy Story 2 involved some thrilling moments of mild peril, but Toy Story 3 takes a page from Small Soldiers by elevating the adventure to the next level with more thrills, twists and turns to keep you locked in. The whole production seems to have been forged with ’subtlety’ as its buzz word. The toys are gimmicky enough and there’s no point in drawing attention to the medium of 3D. The eco-friendly message isn’t slapped in your face and also doesn’t give away the film’s true age.

Perhaps the filmmakers realised that they’d need to ensure the film’s longevity by keeping it as timeless as possible. Playing down the 3D gimmickry and focus on hot topic trends such as the worlds current slant towards organic and green living allows Toy Story 3 the ability to tap into a timeless quality that gives it about 50 years of scope and relevance. There aren’t any objects flying at you from the screen and the subtext message of recycling makes its point without being preachy. The comedy has also been downplayed without as many toy reference jokes as in Toy Story 2. This makes the story amusing at times, but the emphasis has shifted from fun and laugh-out-loud moments to create a rich, clean and creative family film for everyone.

Toy Story 3 delivers wholehearted traditional Disney values of honour, teamwork, family, unity, loyalty and bravery. There are of course some scary moments… that lazy eyed baby and Ken doll’s Keaton persona come to mind, but they’re fleeting and simply echo the darker side of the first Toy Story. The third installment doesn’t rely on humans as much as Toy Story 2 did with Wayne Knight as the chicken man. Toy Story 3 is more about the toys, using humans as book ends to introduce and wave farewell to the characters. It’s one of those films that has the ability to warm your heart and even bring a few tears to the surface… but that’s the magic of this franchise – they’re just toys!

The CGI and technical wizardry is just as phenomenal as Toy Story 2 and the textures are more convincing than ever. The 3D technology is the new kid on the block and the animators use it to create a heightened sense of atmopshere, environment and reality rather than simply making things stand out. The soundtrack includes a track from the Gipsy Kings and embodies a warm, mellow feel, ranging from sad nostalgia to fun, uplifting and friendly songs.

The real mastery behind Toy Story 3 is that it manages to appeal to everyone. There are of course those that stubbornly refuse to accept animation as a genuine form of mature cinema-going entertainment. However, its charms will arrest the attention of just about everyone else. Jeremy Mansfield had the pleasure of voicing the Chatter Telephone, although it seems as though this was done in such a way to localise the film to each country/region. While the original voice cast was fattened up with some familiar Hollywood voices from the past including: Michael Keaton as Ken, Ned Beatty as Lotso, Timothy Dalton as Mr. Pricklepants, Jeff Garlin as Buttercup, Bonnie Hunt as Dolly, Whoopi Goldberg as Stretch and Richard Kind as Bookworm.

All in all, Toy Story 3 has been well worth the wait and is everything you could have wished for and more… It’s rare for a sequel to out-perform the original and it’s even stranger for a trilogy to go from good to excellent to near-perfection. There’s very little one can say to diminish the overall impact of Toy Story 3… it’s just brilliant, a movie of the week, movie of the season and possibly the best animated feature of the decade right up there with Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Up and WALL-E! While Toy Story 3 does benefit from being screened in 3D, it’s optimum but not essential.

The bottom line: Brilliant.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za

Endgame (2009) is a political drama and thriller based on the covert discussions that led to the end of Apartheid in South Africa and mustn’t be confused with End Game (2006), a conspiracy thriller starring Cuba Gooding Jr. The term ‘endgame’ is a clever title for this Pete Travis film. It means the final stage in a process of events, describing the closing stages of a Chess game when most of the pieces have been removed from the board. The symbolism of white versus black, the strategy, the delicate balance of power all feed back into the story, a gripping historical depiction of the back room discussions held in London and their repercussions for South Africa as a country.

Michael Young (Miller), a senior employee at Consolidated Gold, a London-based mining company, instigates a secret meeting between the African National Congress headed by Thabo Mbeki (Ejiofor) and the National Party with Professor Will Esterhuyse (Hurt), a firm believer in social justice as mediator. The negotiations are heated at first as both sides try to strong-arm for ascendancy. Meanwhile the violence in South Africa is escalating with limpet mines and car bombs putting the government in a state of emergency. The Apartheid government try to use the talks to nullify the national crisis, while earnest attempts to find a middle ground from the ANC go in vain.

Endgame is a well-crafted political drama and thriller from Vantage Point’s Pete Travis. The emphasis is on drama as the focus shifts between South Africa and England with high-powered individuals locked in a game of social politics. The film attempts to recreate the severe political climate of the day with key scenes depicting car bombs, “post box” bombs and a general mistrust between black and white South Africans. These elements add an edge to the proceedings, heighten the emotion and generate an intensity and urgency to the meetings, while Travis gives the heavy dialogue more clout against an air of uncertainty and turmoil.

The movie is shot on location and looks the part with old South African police vehicles and classic product references to take the audience back in time. It’s a fascinating story for the uninformed, who were unaware of these secret talks or how integral they were to Mandela’s release and the transition in F.W. De Klerk’s term of presidency. Four key players are given the credit according to Endgame: Thabo Mbeki, Will Esterhuyse, Nelson Mandela and Michael Young for initiating the talks.

The performances are solid with another fine turn by Chiwetel Ejiofor as Thabo Mbeki. Jonny Lee Miller is convincing as Michael Young, who quietly introduces the story only to drop back into role of facilitator. Mark Strong creates yet another dark malevolent force as an Apartheid agent in Dr. Niel Barnard. Then William Hurt delivers a well-rounded take on Professor Will Esterhuyse with one of the best on-screen Hollywood South African accents yet. Clarke Peters looks to be an aspect of the great Madiba and fills the placeholder with a good effort, although doesn’t carry the screen time or grace to rival Morgan Freeman’s take in Invictus.

Endgame’s drama is reinforced by a solid cast, adding weight to the story and driving an intricate and entertaining script by experienced TV screenwriter, Paula Milne. The direction counterbalances the wordy script with bursts of thrilling suspense as men in suits watch over and threats from government manipulate the taut political situation. However, the sum of these parts doesn’t reach their full potential with Endgame sliding into overtime.

The intense drama is all the more gripping for its script, infotainment and direction, but still seems to make a meal of a turning point, which didn’t really garner much post-Apartheid media interest. Furthermore, Endgame comes at a time when South Africans are looking to bigger and brighter things, instead of dwelling on the echoes of a dark past. It’s a solid production, competent to its core, but there’s nothing magical or exciting enough to make it anything more than just another Apartheid film in the same league as Goodbye Bafana, Catch A Fire and A Dry White Season.

The bottom line: Effective.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za

Killers is brought to you by The Ugly Truth’s director, Robert Luketic and star Katherine Heigl – minus Gerard Butler. This movie is reminiscent of The Bounty Hunter, another recent “romcom” actioner about the shenanigans of a couple living under false pretences on the brink of some sort of reunification. At its best, Luketic is aiming for the lofty realm of Hitchcock’s To Catch A Thief as our lead duo meet in a similar fashion to Hitchcock’s escapade featuring Cary Grant and  Grace Kelly.

Spencer (Kutcher) and Jen (Heigl), meet on vacation in France and marry quickly, only to be put in jeopardy when Spencer’s undercover spy identity is revealed and a hefty bounty is put on his head. Their white picket fence suburban life becomes a sham and their marriage is put to the test as their “neighbours” start gunning for them. Unfortunately, Killers doesn’t even come close to To Catch A Thief and apart from some idyllic shots of Nice, France: the director lacks the ingenuity, the familiar premise wears thin and the co-leads lack the same class and chemistry.

Killers is more comparable with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s sexy comedy thriller, Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Even then it doesn’t have the goods… coming off second best as a poor man’s excuse for that light, playful and slick action “romcom”. As hard as they try, the duo just aren’t as sexy, funny or convincing as the once “hottest couple on the planet”. The film was probably given the backing on the condition that they try and imitate the format and terrific chemistry between Zachary Levi and Yvonne Strahovski in Chuck, a TV series about an undercover spy in the vein of 24 meets Get Smart. The undercover suburban married couple episode from Season 2 resonates and intersects in several instances.

Once again, it just doesn’t measure up to its influences. For starters, Ashton Kutcher has been miscast and almost manages to derail the film. Instead of trying to drum up some chemistry and magic, he remains aloof, distant and unconvincing against Heigl’s typical character performance. Killers called for a stronger lead and it’s as if the role had been written for Gerard Butler – the missing component from The Ugly Truth. Butler has a more charming, rugged and espionage-ready persona, which when contrasted with Kutcher in Killers - makes it look like father and son. Kutcher is self-conscious and never looks comfortable, acting as though he’s receiving his lines through an earpiece.

The short bursts of action help sustain interest in this lack-lustre thriller as Kutcher becomes a prime target, but it’s too little too late. When one of the funniest scenes in the film is Kutcher trying to grow a moustache like co-star, Tom Selleck – you’ve really got to wonder why you”re still watching. Sexy-thrillers can get away with not being super funny, but they’ve got to deliver on sex appeal and thrills. Sadly, Killers lacks in all departments with a few awkward comedy moments and some mediocre action sequences. The whole production would have been forgivable if it wasn’t for the real killer – Kutcher’s literal anchor performance. Without any movie magic, it’s just a case of going through the motions and sifting the script for a laugh or two.

There are even moments in the dialogue, where it’s almost as if the writers are really asking Kutcher if everything’s okay? It would have been less conspicuous if you could actually tell the difference between his character’s normal temperament and when he seems distracted. Lines like you’re acting like “a chained Rhesus monkey at the wheel” and “is everything okay between us?” echo with a hollow reverberation through the cinema. His distant character dulls everything down a notch, making the suspense less suspenseful, the funny less funny and the action less threatening. Perhaps Luketic gave Kutcher the wrong impression when he suggested that he embody a certain numbness in the killer’s disposition?

It’s a real pity that the co-leads didn’t click. This film had serious potential, which is exactly why most people will see it. No one wants to watch a dull “romcom”, even if there are one or two car chases and explosions thrown in for good measure. Killers flags when contrasted with Mr. & Mrs. Smith and we can only hope that Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz don’t fall into the same trap as The Bounty Hunter and Killers with the upcoming Knight and Day. Without the trio of Luketic, Heigl and Butler from The Ugly Truth, a sulky performance from Kutcher just leaves static air between the screen and the audience – making the whole experience quite sterile and unnecessary.

The bottom line: Forced.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za

Andy Warhol was daring. Well, so is Leon Schuster. He’s resorted to wearing heavily padded prosthetic disguises in his latest outing, Schucks Tshabalala’s Survival Guide to South Africa 2010, but who can blame him if he wore a bullet-proof vest too! He’s taken at least a hundred snot-klaps in his day and that’s just off-camera. On-camera, Schuster has the ability of a full-time matchstick man, roping the victim in with his utterly bizarre set of South African characters and accents in a situation even more ridiculous. It’s a surreal scenario, like watching a car crash in slow motion as Schuster builds the mark up to such extreme emotion to have them hit him in the face or bolt like the last sheep in a slaughterhouse.

Schuster has become a household name, but more than that… he’s a legend – giving a country with 11 official languages something to laugh about is anything but easy. You can hurl sticks and stones at the brand of low-brow comedy in movies like There’s A Zulu On My Stoep, Mr. Bones and Mama Jack, but the numbers speak for themselves. Schucks Tshabalala’s Survival Guide to South Africa 2010 is a return to the candid camera stuff. The grand candid master must have realised how hungry people were for reality comedy in post-recession, pre-World Cup fervor. This must have also been spurred on by a reasonable attempt from a new candid franchise called Rainbow Skellums and it’s been a while since that 50/50 mix of story and candid camera in Oh Schucks, I’m Gatvol!

Alfred Ntombela, Schuster’s partner in crime and comedy makes yet another appearance as Shorty – Schucks’s sidekick. Just like Schuster, he’s willing to go the extra mile for comedy featuring in a laugh-out-loud mortician scene and as a shower security accessory. The two have heaps of fun in this lively, rainbow tribute to South Africa’s flavour ahead of the World Cup. Politicians such as Helen Zille, Alan Boesak and Rob van Vuuren are a few recognisable faces amongst the multitudes of “Oh, Schucks!” targets. The Survival Guide is set in Cape Town and cleverly connects the dots with an international tour group as Schucks is commissioned by SA tourism with the task of creating a tour guide movie for foreigners to acquaint themselves with our country.

Schuster does go to town with highlighting the problem areas in South Africa, but they’re no secret and he always reels things back in with a laugh and a hug for the ‘X’. As a Dutch correspondent, he loses his temper with a man selling vuvuzelas in the background of an interview with Helen Zille. He focuses on contentious issues such as roadside traffic bribery with an androgynous speed cop pulling people over and charging them for stopping in a no-stopping zone. Schucks even tests the boundaries with taxis, seeing how far they’re willing to go to make a buck as he tries to get a corpse to Wellington on a sunny day. The film is jam-packed with outrageous situations, some revised, some borrowed and he manages to set a good pace.

The end result is a typical Leon Schuster candid camera style movie with plenty of laugh-out-loud laughs and a genuine South African culture. No one’s untouchable as far as Schuster goes and the clash of cultures makes the whole show all the more enjoyable. This is a solid piece of South African comedy and the only real disappointment is that they couldn’t have come up with a more theme-committed conclusion. The Survival Guide to South Africa angle was well-conceived, but the whole production would have benefited from a stronger finish. The last scene rolls into the credits without a proper farewell, making the film seem a little inconsistent after a good run.

The bottom line: Funny.

Screenplay with Spling
Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling
www.spling.co.za