2/10
It is something of a running joke with me that three words in particular can send me running in terror from any theatre, those I saw on a Cornwall theatre box office noticeboard.
Those three terrifying words are;
A
New
Musical.
Now I can say that the movie based equivalent of this rule of thumb is "John Carpenter's" - if ever there was a man whose very name was a testament to absent minded, brainless mediocrity it must be the erstwhile film-maker behind the classic Halloween and its first sequel, as well as more lovable than they are good romps like Escape From New York or Big Trouble In Little China.
It seems that at a point somewhere around 1990 Carpenter's mercurial talent finally dribbled away and led to such embarrassing, stillborn monuments to wasted budgets as "John Carpenter's Vampires" or this outrageous misfire.
For me, the title "Ghosts Of Mars" (originally "John Carpenter's Ghosts Of Mars", of course) conjures up a fascinating movie - a study, perhaps of mankind coming to terms with the guilt of violating the stasis of a dead world, perhaps making wondrous discoveries and seeking out a new meaning to their existence as they spread to the stars.
But then, of course, you read the cast list - Ice Cube, Natasha Henstridge, Pam Grier, Clea Duvall & Jason Statham are not the cast for a meaningful look into our souls.
In fact, I'm not sure any of them are capable of a meaningful look if their next straight to video release depended on it.
Let's get the story out of the way first. In the sort of move sci fi films take when exposition would be too much effort, we are front loaded with a lot of information regarding a colony set up on Mars - that "terraforming" is not yet finished (for non geeks, the practice of "terraforming" is the practice of rendering an uninhabitable planet, habitable) and that for no discernible reason, the society is Martiachal in nature, perhaps because of a surfeit of female actors being available, possibly to try and make a point. Whatever point they may have been trying to make, though, is hindered by the classic decision to have lots of homosexual female characters, and make poor old Statham randy as all hell - because naturally in a male-dominated society many authority figures are aggressively gay and women are always trying to talk men into having sex with them while working. Yeah.
In this world, a strange force has been unleashed that possesses the minds of people, turning them into savage, warlike maniacs - for the look, think Duran Duran's "Wild Boys" video with more blood - who chop off non-possessed people's heads and burn up the colonies of the "invaders".
So here's what the film is saying.
Er... nothing.
While it may become humanity to have a little respect and say "we're not the first people to have lived on this planet", why bother when you can have gunfights instead? You take a concept as lofty as "Ghosts Of Mars" and reduce it to a four set gunfight with lousy acting and hackneyed plot devices. The leads have little to no chemistry and the supporting cast are here for paycheques only.
Only Jason Statham, playing to type, comes out with any kind of credit, if only for sticking to his role faithfully and not being too hateful. Henstridge displays all of the emotional and dramatic range you would expect from the woman whose greatest role was as a sex obsessed alien in Species.
As for the action sequences, Bond in the 60s looked better - the grenade explosions here are depicted almost indentically to the classic "a bit of a bang and a guy bouncing off a trampoline" formula.
Plus it has Clea Duvall in it! She was in How To Make A Monster for christ's sake! And she's in most of this one! What the hell?
Many bad movies are destined to become cult classics. This is not one of them. If I can teach you anything, dear reader - it is to put this list in your "never watch" file.
Ouch. Anyone's career would take a hit if responsible for this - and John Carpenter has Vampires on his conscience too - maybe it's time to hang up the viewfinder, Johnno.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Quick Movie Review: Zombies: Wicked Little Things
3/10
The story is, a mum and her two daughters move to a creepy old house because they are broke after the death of the kids' dad - and he left them the home in the will.
There are lots of problems with this movie, but I won't waste your time making you read all of them - I'll stick to the highlights.
First of all, it is not a "zombie movie" per se. Of course, it concerns the return of some dead, wronged children from a mine shaft where they were left to die by a very bad person many years before, but they don't really follow any of the traditions or conventions of the Zombie movie (they talk, for example, as well as carrying weapons...)
Second, while all the acting is, to put it nicely, reasonable, no characters are likable or sympathetic - the mother is a terrible parent, leaving her young daughter alone for long periods only to be surprised when she is not there any more when she returns home - this happens at least three times. The youngest daughter is close to sympathetic, but is barely present, presumably due to school commitments (a high budget is not one of the film makers problems) so we get very little - the older daughter is as hackneyed an older teen as you could imagine, concerned with coolness, boys and a bit of reefer (guaranteed death to anyone caught smoking it and enjoying it, btw). Yawn.
Characters are introduced and killed off just as fast, the "zombies"' make up makes them resemble nothing as much as depressed Clowns and there is absolutely, definitively, no depth.
In fact, the only reasonably effective sequence is at the very end, where the bad man gets his comeuppance (actually it's the bad man's grandson or something - bad luck, Junior!) and our leads get drenched in his blood from the loft where he's hiding. No - it's not that good a sequence, but I'm clutching at straws.
The real tragedy is, unlike The Strangers or Alone In The Dark, it is just not a film worthy of a hideously negative review - it is too well made to be mocked or entertaining through sheer incompetence, but too bad to enjoy.
There is no reason to see this, so don't. I don't know how much clearer your faithful reviewer can be.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
The story is, a mum and her two daughters move to a creepy old house because they are broke after the death of the kids' dad - and he left them the home in the will.
There are lots of problems with this movie, but I won't waste your time making you read all of them - I'll stick to the highlights.
First of all, it is not a "zombie movie" per se. Of course, it concerns the return of some dead, wronged children from a mine shaft where they were left to die by a very bad person many years before, but they don't really follow any of the traditions or conventions of the Zombie movie (they talk, for example, as well as carrying weapons...)
Second, while all the acting is, to put it nicely, reasonable, no characters are likable or sympathetic - the mother is a terrible parent, leaving her young daughter alone for long periods only to be surprised when she is not there any more when she returns home - this happens at least three times. The youngest daughter is close to sympathetic, but is barely present, presumably due to school commitments (a high budget is not one of the film makers problems) so we get very little - the older daughter is as hackneyed an older teen as you could imagine, concerned with coolness, boys and a bit of reefer (guaranteed death to anyone caught smoking it and enjoying it, btw). Yawn.
Characters are introduced and killed off just as fast, the "zombies"' make up makes them resemble nothing as much as depressed Clowns and there is absolutely, definitively, no depth.
In fact, the only reasonably effective sequence is at the very end, where the bad man gets his comeuppance (actually it's the bad man's grandson or something - bad luck, Junior!) and our leads get drenched in his blood from the loft where he's hiding. No - it's not that good a sequence, but I'm clutching at straws.
The real tragedy is, unlike The Strangers or Alone In The Dark, it is just not a film worthy of a hideously negative review - it is too well made to be mocked or entertaining through sheer incompetence, but too bad to enjoy.
There is no reason to see this, so don't. I don't know how much clearer your faithful reviewer can be.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: Beyond Re-animator
5/10A
Oh dear - if you don't want to read about how silly and hilarious this outrageous tongue in cheek horror movie is or some of the more nasty bits, don't read this review.
The origins of Re-Animator lie with that well adjusted H.P. Lovecraft fellow, who wrote the original tale ("Herbert West - Re-Animator") as a satire on Frankenstein and the like, playing up the melodrama to comedic levels while still obtaining creepiness from the premise and his usual way with words.
The original film dispensed with much of what little subtlety there was and went down the broader, more comedy horror angle.
Comedy horror is a weird genre and it is best done with absolute conviction. Those of us unfortunate enough to have seen Scary Movie know that playing it with open mockery just won't work.
To this end, Re-Animator's great strength was in its utter conviction to seeing its logic through in grisly and horrible fashion - the most legendary sequence is a severed head performing cunnilingus on a captive victim - probably the nastiest idea in what is already a pretty icky movie. Its next major strength was its lead, Jeffrey Combs - who many will recall from The Frighteners where he played another strange oddball character. An absolute master at delivering utter nonsense with Shakespearian conviction (Nanoplasm and re-animating the dead are hard sells for even the most talented of actors.) he is the giant of a planet around which all the subsequent nonsense revolves, and it's hard to imagine anyone else carrying this film.
As for the story itself, the pretext exists purely to allow the now incarcerated Herbert West to get up to his old tricks and use his "formula" to bring the dead back to life. In this picture he has an accomplice in the form of a traumatised young doctor, obsessed with the idea of returning people from the dead since his sister was killed by one of West's creations.
And the whole thing takes place in a prison, presumably (if not intentionally) in Mexico, since the entire crew, most of the cast and several of the ADR folk are clearly from south of the border where, coincidentally, films are cheaper to make. (wink)
It's an odd prison, overseen by a warden who, once you've realised he resembles nothing as much as the lost Chuckle brother, it's all you can think about (we were shouting "not Chico Chuckle!" every couple of minutes). It also features a single female staff member, a nurse, who wears nothing beneath her smock but underwear, since that's policy, clearly, in an all male prison(!)
Naturally, when West and his little buddy start bringing folk back from the dead, the same old problems arise - the newly undead are just mindless monsters, good for nothing but violence. West believes he has a solution in the form of "Nanoplasm", a sort of life force or soul substitute that he has been harvesting from the recently killed, so starts experimenting with using this - with unintended consequences, not at all surprisingly.
From this point on the film is pretty much on rails, and nothing really unexpected happens in the plot (ie: it all goes to hell) but there are moments of crazed brilliance - the young doctor is beaten up by the reanimated corpse of his love, who all the while is begging him to kill her - the warden becomes crossed with a rat, and the sequence during the credits when a rat is fighting with a reanimated, er.... gentleman's privates was one of the most incredible laugh out loud moments I've seen in ages.
Poorly acted by all but the lead, badly directed - it's sole saving grace is in the physical effects (the usual get out clause for makers of horror films). They are breathtaking in their audacity, and even when played for laughs they still have a satisfying "ewww!" factor.
It's not big, it's not clever, and it's so far from sophistication it makes Little Chef look Michelin starred, but it was funny, and silly, and hit just the right note when I saw it.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Oh dear - if you don't want to read about how silly and hilarious this outrageous tongue in cheek horror movie is or some of the more nasty bits, don't read this review.
The origins of Re-Animator lie with that well adjusted H.P. Lovecraft fellow, who wrote the original tale ("Herbert West - Re-Animator") as a satire on Frankenstein and the like, playing up the melodrama to comedic levels while still obtaining creepiness from the premise and his usual way with words.
The original film dispensed with much of what little subtlety there was and went down the broader, more comedy horror angle.
Comedy horror is a weird genre and it is best done with absolute conviction. Those of us unfortunate enough to have seen Scary Movie know that playing it with open mockery just won't work.
To this end, Re-Animator's great strength was in its utter conviction to seeing its logic through in grisly and horrible fashion - the most legendary sequence is a severed head performing cunnilingus on a captive victim - probably the nastiest idea in what is already a pretty icky movie. Its next major strength was its lead, Jeffrey Combs - who many will recall from The Frighteners where he played another strange oddball character. An absolute master at delivering utter nonsense with Shakespearian conviction (Nanoplasm and re-animating the dead are hard sells for even the most talented of actors.) he is the giant of a planet around which all the subsequent nonsense revolves, and it's hard to imagine anyone else carrying this film.
As for the story itself, the pretext exists purely to allow the now incarcerated Herbert West to get up to his old tricks and use his "formula" to bring the dead back to life. In this picture he has an accomplice in the form of a traumatised young doctor, obsessed with the idea of returning people from the dead since his sister was killed by one of West's creations.
And the whole thing takes place in a prison, presumably (if not intentionally) in Mexico, since the entire crew, most of the cast and several of the ADR folk are clearly from south of the border where, coincidentally, films are cheaper to make. (wink)
It's an odd prison, overseen by a warden who, once you've realised he resembles nothing as much as the lost Chuckle brother, it's all you can think about (we were shouting "not Chico Chuckle!" every couple of minutes). It also features a single female staff member, a nurse, who wears nothing beneath her smock but underwear, since that's policy, clearly, in an all male prison(!)
Naturally, when West and his little buddy start bringing folk back from the dead, the same old problems arise - the newly undead are just mindless monsters, good for nothing but violence. West believes he has a solution in the form of "Nanoplasm", a sort of life force or soul substitute that he has been harvesting from the recently killed, so starts experimenting with using this - with unintended consequences, not at all surprisingly.
From this point on the film is pretty much on rails, and nothing really unexpected happens in the plot (ie: it all goes to hell) but there are moments of crazed brilliance - the young doctor is beaten up by the reanimated corpse of his love, who all the while is begging him to kill her - the warden becomes crossed with a rat, and the sequence during the credits when a rat is fighting with a reanimated, er.... gentleman's privates was one of the most incredible laugh out loud moments I've seen in ages.
Poorly acted by all but the lead, badly directed - it's sole saving grace is in the physical effects (the usual get out clause for makers of horror films). They are breathtaking in their audacity, and even when played for laughs they still have a satisfying "ewww!" factor.
It's not big, it's not clever, and it's so far from sophistication it makes Little Chef look Michelin starred, but it was funny, and silly, and hit just the right note when I saw it.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Quick Movie Review: I'm A Cyborg, But That's OK
5/10
Park Chan-Wook, maker of Oldboy, Lady Vengeance and Sympathy For Mr Vengeance, three excellent movies, if of questionable morals, makes a bit of a mis-step with this odd movie.
It concerns a young lady who, upon being traumatised by her Granny's commital to an asylum becomes comvinced she is a cybertnetic organism - a cyborg.
Cue a trip to an asylum herself at the behest of her daft and prejudiced (if not mad herself) mother.
There she meets all manner of crazy folk including a boy in a cardboard mask who steals things, a liar, a man convinced he has to apologise for everything etc etc
Unfortunately that is about it - of course she gets entangled romantically, and goes through ups and downs, but the whole thing resembles nothing so much as One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest with all the fun and plot removed. It has little message, few jokes, and stilted performances notable in their difference fromt hose in his earlier films.
I laughed at a couple of bits, and her fantasies of acting out her cybernetic powers were ok, but I also yawned twice and wasn't really sorry to see it end.
So, a classic 5/10 then.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Park Chan-Wook, maker of Oldboy, Lady Vengeance and Sympathy For Mr Vengeance, three excellent movies, if of questionable morals, makes a bit of a mis-step with this odd movie.
It concerns a young lady who, upon being traumatised by her Granny's commital to an asylum becomes comvinced she is a cybertnetic organism - a cyborg.
Cue a trip to an asylum herself at the behest of her daft and prejudiced (if not mad herself) mother.
There she meets all manner of crazy folk including a boy in a cardboard mask who steals things, a liar, a man convinced he has to apologise for everything etc etc
Unfortunately that is about it - of course she gets entangled romantically, and goes through ups and downs, but the whole thing resembles nothing so much as One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest with all the fun and plot removed. It has little message, few jokes, and stilted performances notable in their difference fromt hose in his earlier films.
I laughed at a couple of bits, and her fantasies of acting out her cybernetic powers were ok, but I also yawned twice and wasn't really sorry to see it end.
So, a classic 5/10 then.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, April 3, 2009
Movie Review: Victim
7/10
This is an exceptional movie, in the literal sense.
Made in 1961 , it tells a moral tale about what was known as "The Blackmailer's Charter", or the aged, christianity inspired anti-homosexuality laws that existed at the time.
According to imdb, it is the first english language film to use the word "Homosexual" at all!
Dirk Bogarde plays the barrister Melville Farr (outrageously decadent name!) presented with a problem when his lover commits suicide while being questioned about missing funds. The police suspect he was being blackmailed, and finding copious amounts of material concerning Farr the police are pretty sure what's going on. Thing is ; does Farr copme out and help trap the blackmailers - ruining his reputation and marriage in the process? Or should he maintain his reputation and burgeoning career by keeping silent?
While many others refused to play parts in the film because of the subject matter, Bogarde is intense and excellent as the central character although everyone else bar his wife is fairly two dimensional, in the style so prevalent at the time. As the wife, Sylvia Sym is excellent as the woman who loves a man who cannot love her back - capturing her torment and conflict perfectly.
As for the film's message, it's entirely anti-status-quo. While people's views are mixed from homophobic and archaic to more liberal, the coda and final speeches make it clear that these laws caused needless suffering and gave licence to hundreds of people to profit from what is in the end, hardly a choice on the victim's parts.
Now, as for the filmmaking itself, it's your typical kitchen sink drama level, no particular flashy camera moves or innovations in filmmaking, but solid as a rock.
I can recommend this to you purely for its originality in story. It's an importasnt, while not essential, part of film history.
I enjoyed it very much.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
This is an exceptional movie, in the literal sense.
Made in 1961 , it tells a moral tale about what was known as "The Blackmailer's Charter", or the aged, christianity inspired anti-homosexuality laws that existed at the time.
According to imdb, it is the first english language film to use the word "Homosexual" at all!
Dirk Bogarde plays the barrister Melville Farr (outrageously decadent name!) presented with a problem when his lover commits suicide while being questioned about missing funds. The police suspect he was being blackmailed, and finding copious amounts of material concerning Farr the police are pretty sure what's going on. Thing is ; does Farr copme out and help trap the blackmailers - ruining his reputation and marriage in the process? Or should he maintain his reputation and burgeoning career by keeping silent?
While many others refused to play parts in the film because of the subject matter, Bogarde is intense and excellent as the central character although everyone else bar his wife is fairly two dimensional, in the style so prevalent at the time. As the wife, Sylvia Sym is excellent as the woman who loves a man who cannot love her back - capturing her torment and conflict perfectly.
As for the film's message, it's entirely anti-status-quo. While people's views are mixed from homophobic and archaic to more liberal, the coda and final speeches make it clear that these laws caused needless suffering and gave licence to hundreds of people to profit from what is in the end, hardly a choice on the victim's parts.
Now, as for the filmmaking itself, it's your typical kitchen sink drama level, no particular flashy camera moves or innovations in filmmaking, but solid as a rock.
I can recommend this to you purely for its originality in story. It's an importasnt, while not essential, part of film history.
I enjoyed it very much.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Movie Review: The 40 Year Old Virgin
8/10
There's so many ways this movie could be appalling.
It could have gone for the main character as spotty greasy nerd with no social skills, but instead imbues is lead with a genuinely believable likability.
His quest to get the girl could have been uniformly crude, obvious and graphic, but instead it is more enjoyable and even, at the very end, strangely touching.
It might have had all the laugh-free gross out qualities of lame fare like Scary Movie, or in fact any film with a title in the " (noun) movie" format. In fact its humour comes from unexpected quarters, not the protagonists obvious ignorance in lovemaking, but from his relationships with those around him - and their journeys are as interesting as that taken by Andy (Steve Carell)
The supporting cast could have been obvious, selfish, two-dimensional or wooden. They are anything but. We have one of the most accomplished casts in modern comedy - Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, Seth Rogen (admittedly playing that Seth Rogen character) and Jane Lynch all add such skill to smallish parts that they lift the film up to next level.
Jane Lynch in particular as Andy's amorous boss is an absolute dream. Since Lynch is capable of reading a eulogy and making it funny she has outrageous fun with with her uber-creepy dialogue - at one point delivering a short piece of dialogue so perfectly I woke up the baby next door with my laughing (don't tell the dad, please, it took an hour to calm her down).
The dialogue in question, for those who have seen the film, was the "I'm very discreet" section culminating in some nasal acting... genuinely laugh out loud funny.
Catherine Keener is also excellent in what is on the face of it an unforgiving, unfunny part (the woman of his dreams? YAWN!) lending a sense of fragility and ridiculousness to the character while still making her believable as someone you might fall in love with.
Paul Rudd, too excels in the role of dumped lover, totally in denial about the failed romance that ended years ago.
But this is Carell's movie, and luckily we have the good side of Steve4 here - pathetic but sympathetic, slightly dopey yet likable, odd but believable. He has taken pains, clearly, to mould this character in the image of his standard fare. While this role doesn't take him out of his comfort zone, I do see him pulling a Robin Williams in a few years and adding to his performance in Little Miss Sunshine some more good dramatic roles.
As for the film, 40 Year Old Virgin manages to be silly without being condescending, funny without being overly crude, and touching without being mawkish. I loved it, in a silly way.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
There's so many ways this movie could be appalling.
It could have gone for the main character as spotty greasy nerd with no social skills, but instead imbues is lead with a genuinely believable likability.
His quest to get the girl could have been uniformly crude, obvious and graphic, but instead it is more enjoyable and even, at the very end, strangely touching.
It might have had all the laugh-free gross out qualities of lame fare like Scary Movie, or in fact any film with a title in the " (noun) movie" format. In fact its humour comes from unexpected quarters, not the protagonists obvious ignorance in lovemaking, but from his relationships with those around him - and their journeys are as interesting as that taken by Andy (Steve Carell)
The supporting cast could have been obvious, selfish, two-dimensional or wooden. They are anything but. We have one of the most accomplished casts in modern comedy - Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, Seth Rogen (admittedly playing that Seth Rogen character) and Jane Lynch all add such skill to smallish parts that they lift the film up to next level.
Jane Lynch in particular as Andy's amorous boss is an absolute dream. Since Lynch is capable of reading a eulogy and making it funny she has outrageous fun with with her uber-creepy dialogue - at one point delivering a short piece of dialogue so perfectly I woke up the baby next door with my laughing (don't tell the dad, please, it took an hour to calm her down).
The dialogue in question, for those who have seen the film, was the "I'm very discreet" section culminating in some nasal acting... genuinely laugh out loud funny.
Catherine Keener is also excellent in what is on the face of it an unforgiving, unfunny part (the woman of his dreams? YAWN!) lending a sense of fragility and ridiculousness to the character while still making her believable as someone you might fall in love with.
Paul Rudd, too excels in the role of dumped lover, totally in denial about the failed romance that ended years ago.
But this is Carell's movie, and luckily we have the good side of Steve4 here - pathetic but sympathetic, slightly dopey yet likable, odd but believable. He has taken pains, clearly, to mould this character in the image of his standard fare. While this role doesn't take him out of his comfort zone, I do see him pulling a Robin Williams in a few years and adding to his performance in Little Miss Sunshine some more good dramatic roles.
As for the film, 40 Year Old Virgin manages to be silly without being condescending, funny without being overly crude, and touching without being mawkish. I loved it, in a silly way.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Movie Review: Diary Of The Dead
3/10
Frankly, it's rubbish.
Sorry, wanted to get that out of the way early on in case you only read some of it and got the idea I didn't find it lazy, trite and predictable.
A little while ago I gave a reasonably positive review to excellent Spanish language Zombie horror quickie [REC]. In that film, a documentary crew get caught up in the moment as things get quickly out of hand in a high rise apartment block - it lasts 80 minutes, is unflinching in its plot and also more than often scary.
I mention this here because if you want to see a zombie movie in which a documentary crew get caught up in the tide rising dead then see [REC], don't bother watching the American remake (what's the point?) and certainly don't watch Diary Of The Dead.
Where [REC] is taught, efficient and scary, Diary is lazy, bloated and toothless.
We are immediately off on a bad one with the VO narration of what sounds like a stoned twenty-something lady - it resembles nothing so much as Harrison Ford's legendary "if I do it this bad they won't use it... or will they?" voice over in the original cut of Blade Runner. She's telling us how, unlike the Spanish film, she will be using all manner of interesting cuts and music cues to "scare" her supposedly terrified and ignorant worldwide audience.
You see, it's all very Zeitgeist - honest! The kidz is on da Yootoobz, innit? Sigh...
Since his two early Zombie movies, Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead (the latter of which I consider the definitive Zombie movie) George A Romero has lost his way. Sorry if you're a huge fan but Day Of The Dead is too nihilistic for my tastes, Land Of The Dead is too Gung Ho and Diary.. well, it's just silly.
It's meant to be, I think, a satire on the desire of the YouTube generation(TM) to make themselves heard on all subjects, no matter if they know what they are on about or not.
What he has made is a movie with no teeth. Ironic really. Even "Land" had some amusingly satirical bits; I recall particularly Dennis Hopper's George W. Bush allegory screaming "You Have No Right!" at the horde of invading undead, as if somehow trying to appeal to their sense of inferiority.
In "Diary" Romero simply chooses to make every single character as hateful as humanly possible - Jay, the director, is a personality-free jerk with one character beat (I MUST make this film) his girlfriend, who doubles as our narrator, is a frosty aloof Polaroid of a proper character. Everyone else is an archetype to the point of parody - you have the angry New Yorker, The nerd, The Christian Girl, The pretty and big boobed Texan girl, her shallow as a residue boyfriend and, in a spectacular misjudgement, a weird Englishman - their lecturer, who is obviously a drunk and refers to guns as "too easy to use". He is a character from broad farce, shoehorned in for no apparent reason - plus he's great with a bow and arrow because of his history at Eton.
Odd.
What gore there is, is reasonably well done, but if you're that sort of horror movie watcher who enjoys the odd memorable death (I'm only human) you're in for slim pickings here - though one standout moment involves a character's spectacular method of dispatching himself and a zombie at the same time using a farm implement. That's almost the only thing that remains lucid in your mind after the hour forty or so of this film.
By the time the young survivors have reached the mansion where their friend lives, all interest had vanished as far as I was concerned, and the cheap joke at the expense of the monster movie they'd originally been making registered barely as much as my need to clean the Cat's bowls.
You'll notice I've spent rather a lot of time talking about other films in this review - it's because I truly feel that any (yes, any) of the other films I have mentioned in this post are vastly superior to this latest effort from Romero - the acting is lame, the plot is dull, the set pieces are, barring the strangely postmodern humour of the deaf Amish farmer sequence, unmemorable.
Avoid this unless, like me, you are a Romero completist.
A major disappointment - exactly the opposite of [REC]
See that instead. It really is rather good.
A
P.S. The deaf Amish Farmer is the only thing saving this from a mind numbing 2/10.
See the full post by clicking here...
Frankly, it's rubbish.
Sorry, wanted to get that out of the way early on in case you only read some of it and got the idea I didn't find it lazy, trite and predictable.
A little while ago I gave a reasonably positive review to excellent Spanish language Zombie horror quickie [REC]. In that film, a documentary crew get caught up in the moment as things get quickly out of hand in a high rise apartment block - it lasts 80 minutes, is unflinching in its plot and also more than often scary.
I mention this here because if you want to see a zombie movie in which a documentary crew get caught up in the tide rising dead then see [REC], don't bother watching the American remake (what's the point?) and certainly don't watch Diary Of The Dead.
Where [REC] is taught, efficient and scary, Diary is lazy, bloated and toothless.
We are immediately off on a bad one with the VO narration of what sounds like a stoned twenty-something lady - it resembles nothing so much as Harrison Ford's legendary "if I do it this bad they won't use it... or will they?" voice over in the original cut of Blade Runner. She's telling us how, unlike the Spanish film, she will be using all manner of interesting cuts and music cues to "scare" her supposedly terrified and ignorant worldwide audience.
You see, it's all very Zeitgeist - honest! The kidz is on da Yootoobz, innit? Sigh...
Since his two early Zombie movies, Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead (the latter of which I consider the definitive Zombie movie) George A Romero has lost his way. Sorry if you're a huge fan but Day Of The Dead is too nihilistic for my tastes, Land Of The Dead is too Gung Ho and Diary.. well, it's just silly.
It's meant to be, I think, a satire on the desire of the YouTube generation(TM) to make themselves heard on all subjects, no matter if they know what they are on about or not.
What he has made is a movie with no teeth. Ironic really. Even "Land" had some amusingly satirical bits; I recall particularly Dennis Hopper's George W. Bush allegory screaming "You Have No Right!" at the horde of invading undead, as if somehow trying to appeal to their sense of inferiority.
In "Diary" Romero simply chooses to make every single character as hateful as humanly possible - Jay, the director, is a personality-free jerk with one character beat (I MUST make this film) his girlfriend, who doubles as our narrator, is a frosty aloof Polaroid of a proper character. Everyone else is an archetype to the point of parody - you have the angry New Yorker, The nerd, The Christian Girl, The pretty and big boobed Texan girl, her shallow as a residue boyfriend and, in a spectacular misjudgement, a weird Englishman - their lecturer, who is obviously a drunk and refers to guns as "too easy to use". He is a character from broad farce, shoehorned in for no apparent reason - plus he's great with a bow and arrow because of his history at Eton.
Odd.
What gore there is, is reasonably well done, but if you're that sort of horror movie watcher who enjoys the odd memorable death (I'm only human) you're in for slim pickings here - though one standout moment involves a character's spectacular method of dispatching himself and a zombie at the same time using a farm implement. That's almost the only thing that remains lucid in your mind after the hour forty or so of this film.
By the time the young survivors have reached the mansion where their friend lives, all interest had vanished as far as I was concerned, and the cheap joke at the expense of the monster movie they'd originally been making registered barely as much as my need to clean the Cat's bowls.
You'll notice I've spent rather a lot of time talking about other films in this review - it's because I truly feel that any (yes, any) of the other films I have mentioned in this post are vastly superior to this latest effort from Romero - the acting is lame, the plot is dull, the set pieces are, barring the strangely postmodern humour of the deaf Amish farmer sequence, unmemorable.
Avoid this unless, like me, you are a Romero completist.
A major disappointment - exactly the opposite of [REC]
See that instead. It really is rather good.
A
P.S. The deaf Amish Farmer is the only thing saving this from a mind numbing 2/10.
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Movie Review: Pom Poko
8/10
Odd. Very odd.
Studio Ghibli have made several absolute classic pieces of animation featuring humans as its leads (Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, My Neighbour Totoro) but here's something a little more strange - a story about a colony of Tanuki (Raccoon Dogs) whose home is being destroyed to make way for the "Tama Hills Project", a new development of housing outside Tokyo.
In one of those mad folk stories the Japanese like exploiting so much; Tanukis (translated confusingly as Raccoons), foxes and "some cats" are able to transform at will into almost anything (ever wondered how that fox you just saw seemed to vanish into thin air?), and this makes for some excellent sequences such as an early battle in which the Tanukis switch from being normal four legged creatures into two legged ones akin to Winnie The Pooh and when defeated become kind of squishy, abstract children's drawings. For a while it's extremely disorienting but soon becomes second nature as each character is ingeniously designed to be recognisable in most of their forms, even when changing to a human being out of desperation.
If Studio Ghibli do one thing well, it's their animation. However strange or alien the stories become, the visual feast is compelling and moreish. In each sequence invention and skill combine with a sense of humour and non-mawkish cuteness to be lovely to watch. The upside of using traditional animation is that the transformations are all seamless and natural progressions, rather than having the chemical sheen of CGI or the ickiness of live action technical methods.
However - I wouldn't say Pom Poko is an absolute must for your kids or young folk to see unless they can accept the conclusion. It's not a particularly uplifting film, since the odds the Tanukis have to face are overwhelming and things look bleak for them - but it is plenty of fun, and if you can overcome the very distracting presence of oversized nutsacks on all of the males, and prominent breasts on the females there's a lot of entertainment to be had.
It's not a tragedy; just don't expect everything to turn out OK. If you are thinking of showing it to your kids do have a watch of it yourself first just to make sure they'll cope with some of the issues and events.
Of course, the obvious political overtones are useful for children to see - cute animals get harmed by human expansion. A reasonably strong and well delivered message is contained herein - especially since the film is unflinching in its consequences (in one sequence the Tanukis protesting pranks kill three humans) and the views of its characters, which range from the "kill all humans" approach of Gonta, to the more peaceful ghost haunting ideas of Shoukichi - which present obvious parallels to political and philosophical viewpoints. Even the elders, usually presented in fiction as wise and wonderful, are not equal to the task set for them - instead all pretending to be asleep when a mission is to be handed out, or being distracted by thoughts of food (mainly Tempura) from the task at hand.
It is a far more intelligent film, and gives the younger audience a lot more credit, than most made for children nonsense being made in the West. It is also fairly philosophical in its approach, rather than simply being a nice woodland creatures romp through the pretty drawn countryside.
In terms of its peers at Studio Ghibli I am still of the opinion that the best film for kids they've made is My Neighbour Totoro, a lovely little film indeed. My favourite of the more mature work they've done is probably still Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke - all fine films, but Pom Poko stands up fine despite being made by a different part of the business.
I think it's worth you seeing if Japanese animation is your thing - it's neither twee nor condescending.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Odd. Very odd.
Studio Ghibli have made several absolute classic pieces of animation featuring humans as its leads (Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, My Neighbour Totoro) but here's something a little more strange - a story about a colony of Tanuki (Raccoon Dogs) whose home is being destroyed to make way for the "Tama Hills Project", a new development of housing outside Tokyo.
In one of those mad folk stories the Japanese like exploiting so much; Tanukis (translated confusingly as Raccoons), foxes and "some cats" are able to transform at will into almost anything (ever wondered how that fox you just saw seemed to vanish into thin air?), and this makes for some excellent sequences such as an early battle in which the Tanukis switch from being normal four legged creatures into two legged ones akin to Winnie The Pooh and when defeated become kind of squishy, abstract children's drawings. For a while it's extremely disorienting but soon becomes second nature as each character is ingeniously designed to be recognisable in most of their forms, even when changing to a human being out of desperation.
If Studio Ghibli do one thing well, it's their animation. However strange or alien the stories become, the visual feast is compelling and moreish. In each sequence invention and skill combine with a sense of humour and non-mawkish cuteness to be lovely to watch. The upside of using traditional animation is that the transformations are all seamless and natural progressions, rather than having the chemical sheen of CGI or the ickiness of live action technical methods.
However - I wouldn't say Pom Poko is an absolute must for your kids or young folk to see unless they can accept the conclusion. It's not a particularly uplifting film, since the odds the Tanukis have to face are overwhelming and things look bleak for them - but it is plenty of fun, and if you can overcome the very distracting presence of oversized nutsacks on all of the males, and prominent breasts on the females there's a lot of entertainment to be had.
It's not a tragedy; just don't expect everything to turn out OK. If you are thinking of showing it to your kids do have a watch of it yourself first just to make sure they'll cope with some of the issues and events.
Of course, the obvious political overtones are useful for children to see - cute animals get harmed by human expansion. A reasonably strong and well delivered message is contained herein - especially since the film is unflinching in its consequences (in one sequence the Tanukis protesting pranks kill three humans) and the views of its characters, which range from the "kill all humans" approach of Gonta, to the more peaceful ghost haunting ideas of Shoukichi - which present obvious parallels to political and philosophical viewpoints. Even the elders, usually presented in fiction as wise and wonderful, are not equal to the task set for them - instead all pretending to be asleep when a mission is to be handed out, or being distracted by thoughts of food (mainly Tempura) from the task at hand.
It is a far more intelligent film, and gives the younger audience a lot more credit, than most made for children nonsense being made in the West. It is also fairly philosophical in its approach, rather than simply being a nice woodland creatures romp through the pretty drawn countryside.
In terms of its peers at Studio Ghibli I am still of the opinion that the best film for kids they've made is My Neighbour Totoro, a lovely little film indeed. My favourite of the more mature work they've done is probably still Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke - all fine films, but Pom Poko stands up fine despite being made by a different part of the business.
I think it's worth you seeing if Japanese animation is your thing - it's neither twee nor condescending.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Movie Review: How To Make A Monster
1/10
Since I can't face describing this atrocious failure of a movie - have the fruits of my bored twittering throughout.
Creature Features is apparently a set of films attempting to an attempt to recapture B-Movie values for the modern (90s) age. It fails utterly.
The best B Movies are good movies with low budgets, like for example Blair Witch or Evil Dead.
This is just a bad movie with terrible acting, millions of plotholes, lousy production and no fun bits. B-Movies are often bad, but why anyone would intentionally deliver something so one dimensional, cliché ridden and lame as this is beyond me.
Avoid it if you can!
21:23 2nghts movie's Creature Features' "How To Make A Monster" -will be bad,but knowingly so. Like idea of homages 2 BMovies but ty hrdly eva wrk. # 21:24 Movie - alreeady is bad - computer game designers trying to make scary game... I bet I know where this is going # 21:25 ridiculous over clichéd geek charaxcter called "bug" spotty greasy with glasses. Sad. # 21:26 Tyler Mane playing a character called "Hardcore". He was a wrestler. Tyler Mane that is # 21:26 Best line so far: "It's a dump. I love dumps" # 21:27 This five minutes in and I've already tweeted four times. "They're cookies, not hemlock - you paranoid sociopath!" # 21:28 ???? Computer company owner lady has weird young boy voice... # 21:30 I think my eyes have started bleeding - this film is SOOOO bad! # 21:31 "Scary is, as scary does!" - Hardcore # 21:32 OK - think I'm getting the picture, it's meant to be a comedy... # 21:32 but not in a particularly funny way. # 21:35 "I won't be an intern forever..." # 21:39 "Pussy - you fight like a lesbian biker b___ch" - Hardcore. I'm thinking this may be a lost David Mamet screenplay # 21:46 seriously considering turning this piece of rubbish off - it's that bad. And not even funny. # 21:50 Oh my dear god. Weird Dominatrix they brought in for Mocap is topless and bouncing... Lightning strikes... inexplicably since they are s ... # 21:51 OH! And lightning strike! Let me guess... # 21:52 whoa! first f word... # 21:56 dear god. the game they've designed is hilariously bad # 21:59 Ah yes, the intern has a world changing dotcom startup idea that's about charity. # 22:01 ARGH! Meaningful chat - "you either become a monster, or a victim" ouch # 22:03 Ah yes - "Hello?" and then going to investigate a strange noise - how original... # 22:07 this is horrible... just horrible. I am starting to feel ill # 22:09 "Failure's the worst prison there is... noone gives a s__t about you - not even the interns" # 22:11 Every actor in this film was just outperformed by a tray of brownies. # 22:14 ah yes... and the phones are out naturally # 22:16 oh dear - the mocap sutit is alive. what a genius twist. It seems to be able to vanish at will, too # 22:20 At least there's some gore now.AND HOW DOES A MOCAP SUIT GROW VINE LIKE WIRES THAT GRAB BODY PARTS AND ATTACH THEM TO ITSELF???# 22:21 A mocap suit... is this the worst monster ever? # 22:25 It's a really bad thing when your main reaction to monster movie is to yawn # 22:35 aaaand Bug sacrifices himself.... almost certainly with no reason. # 22:38 The only way to win is if a woman can beat the computer game- where's Scribsy when you need her? # 22:49 So - you're making a movie about a computer game that comes alive - is it important to know anything about hw computers wrk? You'd have thought # 22:53 Oh dear: This film's moral is - to be successful you must become a monster. In a really hackneyed way. At least its over now. # 22:54 Can you beat a souped up MoCap suit to the "worst monster ever crown"? Send me a tweet folks! Signing off for a while #
See the full post by clicking here...
Since I can't face describing this atrocious failure of a movie - have the fruits of my bored twittering throughout.
Creature Features is apparently a set of films attempting to an attempt to recapture B-Movie values for the modern (90s) age. It fails utterly.
The best B Movies are good movies with low budgets, like for example Blair Witch or Evil Dead.
This is just a bad movie with terrible acting, millions of plotholes, lousy production and no fun bits. B-Movies are often bad, but why anyone would intentionally deliver something so one dimensional, cliché ridden and lame as this is beyond me.
Avoid it if you can!
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, March 13, 2009
Quick Movie Review: The X Files (Fight The Future)
7/10
The X Files! What a show that was 5 series of mostly genius, capped off with a movie event that tied up some loose ends and kicked off the next set of storylines.
Of course, your enjoyment of the movie will be directly related to your enjoyment of the series - if you hate the show this is never going to change your mind.
Basically it's more of the same; the big conspiracy was built up over years and almost immediately jumped the shark after the start of season 6 so this is the best bit as far as the "big" storyline goes - the unsatisfying final seasons that would have done better for a clean break with Mulder and Scully era (rather than hanging on to Scully fo rdear life when she clearly doesn't want to be there) are still a long way off at this point.
But enough about its place in the show.
It's a really rather decent ride - I'll never forget the early section where Mulder finds a bomb in a vending machine and the response of his boss to the find is great cinema. The story itself is a bit of enjoyable hokum, revealing the rather odd plot of the "Elders" such as the Cigarette Smoking Man and The Englishman in its strange entirety, and getting a glimpse of the aliens - never a good move in my book.
About halfway through it gets a little too silly but frankly if you like the series it gets a 7/10. If you don't like the show I'd guess at 5/10, but it's not like you'd watch the film if you'd resisted the charms of aliens and the Lone Gunmen (here for about a second).
A
See the full post by clicking here...
The X Files! What a show that was 5 series of mostly genius, capped off with a movie event that tied up some loose ends and kicked off the next set of storylines.
Of course, your enjoyment of the movie will be directly related to your enjoyment of the series - if you hate the show this is never going to change your mind.
Basically it's more of the same; the big conspiracy was built up over years and almost immediately jumped the shark after the start of season 6 so this is the best bit as far as the "big" storyline goes - the unsatisfying final seasons that would have done better for a clean break with Mulder and Scully era (rather than hanging on to Scully fo rdear life when she clearly doesn't want to be there) are still a long way off at this point.
But enough about its place in the show.
It's a really rather decent ride - I'll never forget the early section where Mulder finds a bomb in a vending machine and the response of his boss to the find is great cinema. The story itself is a bit of enjoyable hokum, revealing the rather odd plot of the "Elders" such as the Cigarette Smoking Man and The Englishman in its strange entirety, and getting a glimpse of the aliens - never a good move in my book.
About halfway through it gets a little too silly but frankly if you like the series it gets a 7/10. If you don't like the show I'd guess at 5/10, but it's not like you'd watch the film if you'd resisted the charms of aliens and the Lone Gunmen (here for about a second).
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, March 9, 2009
Quick Movie Review: The Killing
6/10
A reasonable heist movie from director Stanley Kubrick early in his career that concerns an ex-con's plans for one last big score at a race course, and the consequences of it.
The Kubrick style shines through on a couple of occasions (with interesting first person perspective shots, most effectively at the very end) and his dry wit and sardonic sense of humour pervades the film, not least in the dopey George's marriage to his wife who I am certain is played by a relative of Alison Janney, so alike is the performance and attitude to that towering amazon of The West Wing.
That being said, there is little here that raises the film above average thriller stakes - the multi-timelines are well done, but the way in which they are explained is through voiceover not in the person of any of the characters, but in a style reminiscent of nothing more than the old Dragnet one. All strident seriousess.
Sterling Hayden is best value fort money as the tired and worldly wise ex-con and the nefarious plan is interesting and depicted with tension and flair, but I just didn't get that into the rest of the picture.
I think any fan of Kubrick should see all his films, but I don't think you'll be coming back to The Killing over and over again, though I did find it markedly superior to Killer's Kiss, the other early black and white Kubrick film I have seen recently.
Good but not great.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
A reasonable heist movie from director Stanley Kubrick early in his career that concerns an ex-con's plans for one last big score at a race course, and the consequences of it.
The Kubrick style shines through on a couple of occasions (with interesting first person perspective shots, most effectively at the very end) and his dry wit and sardonic sense of humour pervades the film, not least in the dopey George's marriage to his wife who I am certain is played by a relative of Alison Janney, so alike is the performance and attitude to that towering amazon of The West Wing.
That being said, there is little here that raises the film above average thriller stakes - the multi-timelines are well done, but the way in which they are explained is through voiceover not in the person of any of the characters, but in a style reminiscent of nothing more than the old Dragnet one. All strident seriousess.
Sterling Hayden is best value fort money as the tired and worldly wise ex-con and the nefarious plan is interesting and depicted with tension and flair, but I just didn't get that into the rest of the picture.
I think any fan of Kubrick should see all his films, but I don't think you'll be coming back to The Killing over and over again, though I did find it markedly superior to Killer's Kiss, the other early black and white Kubrick film I have seen recently.
Good but not great.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Movie Review: Watchmen
6/10
Ack... the sheer difficulty of translating Watchmen to the screen deserves some sympathy. A classic graphic novel that told about seven interweaving stories and with tonnes of background information, it was a project that sat for decades in development hell.
Don't let the review score put you off seeing it if you were going - the tale is still exciting and well told, though there is no way for me to see the movie as if through the eyes of someone not familiar with the book.
The tale is of a parallel America, buoyed in its sense of self-importance by the presence of Dr Manhattan - a genuine superhero who has godlike powers. At the same time, several vigilantes have taken up the habit of wearing masks to take on the gangs and criminals they can't take down by legal means. At its heart it's a study of what would really happen if the tales of Batman, Superman et al were literally true.
Particularly interesting is the exploration, through Dr Manhattan, of how someone superhuman could possibly identify, sympathise or even live with ordinary humanity at all. The answer is clearly "not very well".
To bring it to the screen,Zack Snyder has cut much of the historical flashbacks and detail focussing on the main plot, concerning the murder of a masked vigilante called The Comedian (who is excellent in this film) - why this happened and what its consequences are.
I do want to make it clear though, that the less than perfect score is not because of any poorness of the adaptation, in fact it's a reasonably faithful rendition of the original tale, with several cuts for brevity's sake (ha!) - the problems with this film are actually all film-making ones.
First, and most jarring, is the issue of the soundtrack. I am a very musical person, and like many cinema goers am very badly affected by bad music choices. The music cues in Watchmen are laughably trite choices, marked by a credulous sense of cleverness that the triteness really makes laughable.
Examples in the form of questions:
1. What piece of classical music is playing under the Vietnam sequence?
2. What is the most overused piece of music in movies and is used here during a hallelujah moment?
3. If you want to show the passage of time and use an appropriate piece of music to underpin it what folk singer's song would you use?
These stupidly obvious choices raised laughs - and I don't think they work as satirical comedy choices even if that was the intention as they just appeared to be ones that the makers considered clever....
Answers at the end.
Other choices are just weird - despite the America of this parallel universe being staunchly anti-communist one scene is quite oddly underscored by "99 Luftballons" a song about communist revolution, but this scene is just of a Silk Spectre walking into a restaurant, not a political scene at all! And no-one in this America would play a communist song openly, so it's not a case of that's what is playing in the diner... odd.
Second major complaint is with Malin Akkerman. She is atrocious as Laurie, the Silk Spectre. Seemingly a student of the Richard Gere school of "sighing as acting", and her longer speeches are horrific object lessons in endurance film-watching.
The Watchmen tale that they have created through their creative choices revolves for much of its length around her (not a problem since the story of her relationships is crucial to the plot) and the poor performance means that the centre of the film is poisoned, causing major problems with emotional investment, tension and pay off.
===MINOR SPOILER - SKIP IF CONCERNED===
Third big problem is that they have changed the books ending somewhat - not a bad thing given the controversial nature of the books ending (which veers a little into silliness) but the issue is that their replacement ending makes even LESS sense. I can't really talk about it, but unlike the books ending, in which the intended outcome is achieved by use of outside threats, the one used in the film is achieved through something with a national affiliation, pooh-poohing the idea it could have a uniting consequence - quite the opposite.
=============================
Also, it is very violent. I don't mind so much given the circumstances (and it is deservedly an 18 rated movie) plus its desire to show what would really happen if a very strong vigilante attacked a load of weaker people with extreme prejudice. I do have a problem with the laughable sex scene (even if it had better music) because it is overlong, poorly acted and unintentionally hilarious.
I want to talk about the best thing about the film now to cheer myself up.
In Rorschach, Alan Moore invented one of the best characters in the genre, a hyper-moral, ultra conservative, super violent sociopath who is, nevertheless, the unquestionable anti-hero of the piece. While his origin (and that of his "face") is lost in the movie adaptation, we still get a great sense of the person this is. And he is a force of nature! The performance is superb, even down to the voice over where you can almost hear his bile rising as he describes the city he hates and yet feels a drive to stalk.
Every bit of the film that is good involves him - it just feels a bit flat when he's not involved. If I'd been in charge I would have taken his story as the main focus and ran with it. Guess that's why I'm not in movies.
Other than that the film's real strengths are the novel's strengths; the moral questions and totally amoral approach to the American dream that really make the story something more than the typical "masked hero saves city" stories that typify the genre.
I do think it's worth seeing, but some of its excesses (wire work? Sudden Slow motion? Dumb exposition dialogue) may stem from its director being Zack "300" Snyder instead of the many directors (Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and others) that have been attached to the project over the years of development. Well done to them on getting it done, but it isn't perfect by any measure.
'til next time!
A
1. Ride Of The Valkyries
2. Hallelujah (again)
3. The Times They Are A'Changing
See the full post by clicking here...
Ack... the sheer difficulty of translating Watchmen to the screen deserves some sympathy. A classic graphic novel that told about seven interweaving stories and with tonnes of background information, it was a project that sat for decades in development hell.
Don't let the review score put you off seeing it if you were going - the tale is still exciting and well told, though there is no way for me to see the movie as if through the eyes of someone not familiar with the book.
The tale is of a parallel America, buoyed in its sense of self-importance by the presence of Dr Manhattan - a genuine superhero who has godlike powers. At the same time, several vigilantes have taken up the habit of wearing masks to take on the gangs and criminals they can't take down by legal means. At its heart it's a study of what would really happen if the tales of Batman, Superman et al were literally true.
Particularly interesting is the exploration, through Dr Manhattan, of how someone superhuman could possibly identify, sympathise or even live with ordinary humanity at all. The answer is clearly "not very well".
To bring it to the screen,Zack Snyder has cut much of the historical flashbacks and detail focussing on the main plot, concerning the murder of a masked vigilante called The Comedian (who is excellent in this film) - why this happened and what its consequences are.
I do want to make it clear though, that the less than perfect score is not because of any poorness of the adaptation, in fact it's a reasonably faithful rendition of the original tale, with several cuts for brevity's sake (ha!) - the problems with this film are actually all film-making ones.
First, and most jarring, is the issue of the soundtrack. I am a very musical person, and like many cinema goers am very badly affected by bad music choices. The music cues in Watchmen are laughably trite choices, marked by a credulous sense of cleverness that the triteness really makes laughable.
Examples in the form of questions:
1. What piece of classical music is playing under the Vietnam sequence?
2. What is the most overused piece of music in movies and is used here during a hallelujah moment?
3. If you want to show the passage of time and use an appropriate piece of music to underpin it what folk singer's song would you use?
These stupidly obvious choices raised laughs - and I don't think they work as satirical comedy choices even if that was the intention as they just appeared to be ones that the makers considered clever....
Answers at the end.
Other choices are just weird - despite the America of this parallel universe being staunchly anti-communist one scene is quite oddly underscored by "99 Luftballons" a song about communist revolution, but this scene is just of a Silk Spectre walking into a restaurant, not a political scene at all! And no-one in this America would play a communist song openly, so it's not a case of that's what is playing in the diner... odd.
Second major complaint is with Malin Akkerman. She is atrocious as Laurie, the Silk Spectre. Seemingly a student of the Richard Gere school of "sighing as acting", and her longer speeches are horrific object lessons in endurance film-watching.
The Watchmen tale that they have created through their creative choices revolves for much of its length around her (not a problem since the story of her relationships is crucial to the plot) and the poor performance means that the centre of the film is poisoned, causing major problems with emotional investment, tension and pay off.
===MINOR SPOILER - SKIP IF CONCERNED===
Third big problem is that they have changed the books ending somewhat - not a bad thing given the controversial nature of the books ending (which veers a little into silliness) but the issue is that their replacement ending makes even LESS sense. I can't really talk about it, but unlike the books ending, in which the intended outcome is achieved by use of outside threats, the one used in the film is achieved through something with a national affiliation, pooh-poohing the idea it could have a uniting consequence - quite the opposite.
=============================
Also, it is very violent. I don't mind so much given the circumstances (and it is deservedly an 18 rated movie) plus its desire to show what would really happen if a very strong vigilante attacked a load of weaker people with extreme prejudice. I do have a problem with the laughable sex scene (even if it had better music) because it is overlong, poorly acted and unintentionally hilarious.
I want to talk about the best thing about the film now to cheer myself up.
In Rorschach, Alan Moore invented one of the best characters in the genre, a hyper-moral, ultra conservative, super violent sociopath who is, nevertheless, the unquestionable anti-hero of the piece. While his origin (and that of his "face") is lost in the movie adaptation, we still get a great sense of the person this is. And he is a force of nature! The performance is superb, even down to the voice over where you can almost hear his bile rising as he describes the city he hates and yet feels a drive to stalk.
Every bit of the film that is good involves him - it just feels a bit flat when he's not involved. If I'd been in charge I would have taken his story as the main focus and ran with it. Guess that's why I'm not in movies.
Other than that the film's real strengths are the novel's strengths; the moral questions and totally amoral approach to the American dream that really make the story something more than the typical "masked hero saves city" stories that typify the genre.
I do think it's worth seeing, but some of its excesses (wire work? Sudden Slow motion? Dumb exposition dialogue) may stem from its director being Zack "300" Snyder instead of the many directors (Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and others) that have been attached to the project over the years of development. Well done to them on getting it done, but it isn't perfect by any measure.
'til next time!
A
1. Ride Of The Valkyries
2. Hallelujah (again)
3. The Times They Are A'Changing
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, March 6, 2009
Lets Talk Cats (not movies)
You may be wondering where I've been all week and why the movies have dried up and here's your answer; cats. We've also been concentrating more on Deadwood and The Wire than films, but I'm hoping to see Watchmen this weekend...
OK, I'm not famous for my tolerant nature - many things get me angry, but get this little tale - it's especially galling.
Imagine you're a lovely black cat, whose owners couldn't face paying to get you spayed.
When your owners have a baby, one of them (presumably Mum) develops an allergy and the lovely people kick you and your daughter (who's about 6 months old) into the back garden.
Thing is - remember your owners couldn't be arsed to get you spayed? Well guess what happens to an unspayed cat who is left outside for weeks? Yup - you get pregnant. Let's not judge - you're not a person, and its pretty much hardwired into you to get pregnant if you can.
Your owners do anything about it?
How about no?
How about they leave you to give birth in an old rotten Rabbit hutch? Yeah, that'll work.
And then why don't they call the local cat trust up and give them an ultimatum - If they don't come pick you up, they'll leave you in the cold to die. Nice owners you had there.
Wankers.
Things look grim for cats who are unwanted in the U.K. - twat owners like these ones refuse to get the poor things spayed or neutered and this leads to a whole lot of unwanted kittens and cats and there just anren't enough willing homes to take them in - certainly not a mum, young daughter and three newborn kittens at once. There isa great fallacy around spaying apparently and thats that a cat is healthier if they've already had a litter before spaying.
Let me make this clear, everyone in the cat arena has told me the same thing:
THERE IS NO BENEFIT LETTING YOUR CAT HAVE A LITTER BEFORE SPAYING. IN FACT YOU DO MORE HARM BRINGING UNWANTED, UNHOMED KITTENS INTO THE WORLD.
THE BELIEF IN ANY SUCH BENEFIT IS, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, TOTAL BOLLOCKS.
For families like this one, there's a very stretched to the limit system of fostering in place - families or couples (or individuals) prepared to take in a mum and kittens in this situation and give their time and love to socialise and develop these guys. This is so they will hopefully grow into viable pets having the best possible chance of rehoming. Time and love are all you need - the trust provide food, litter and moral supportr and boy do I need moral support sometimes!
Make no mistake - there are two outcomes available to many unwanted cats - rehoming or death. It is impossible for any trust to look after all the cats that need looking after - many are feral or traumatised in the first place and don't adapt well to being looked after.
To get to the point, Mrs Algo and I have taken in the unwanted family described above.
The mum is about two years old and already has has one litter about 6 months agao (and yet wasn't neutered afterwards by her dumb f__ing owners) - the older daughter, who we've renamed since the given name was retarded, is the only one from the earlier litter still present and these two are fairly inseparable.
(Quick aside: I won't be giving the older twos' names on this blog to protect us from the owners beating me up - for calling them wankers. They are still wankers, though.)
Mumsy arrived tired but open to contact, and we've been happy with how she's settling. the older daughter is not so well socialised (partly due to the young age of her mother) and is having trouble overcoming her wariness - don't blame her, given her prior human contact.
However, today we've had the breakthrough we wanted with Odie (as in O.D. - older daughter) - she's been out of the pen (which was provided for us like everything else) and fussed a bit. With mum, treats got her out, but things were more difficult with Odie; she sniffs and lick treats but won't eat them not sure why but maybe she doesn't like fish flavoured ones - we'll get her in the end. Odie spent the last two hours of this evening hiding under our cheapass sofa but at least she's got out and about a little.
I guess I should say, if you think there may be room in your heart to help out a local trust and look after some cats please, please, please give it real thought (i.e. don't think you'll be ok then backpedal) and if you reckon you can help call them up and see what you can do.
These people do a wonderful job with very little support and staggering odds stacked against them. Any help you could give would be wonderful.
As for what happens later? After 6 to 8 weeks these cats will be rehomed - we may keep two of the kittens as our own (let's face it, we probably will) but the others need rehoming - you won't be forced to keep all 5-8 of them forever. The key thing to do is talk to the trust and see what they advise.
Oh - did I mention I knew nothing about cats until I got attached to the cat that nearly was a few weeks ago? Needless to say I am learning on the fly.
Since I won't post pictures of the old'uns for security purposes, tomorrow or sometime soon I'll probably introduce you to the kittens we've called (for now) Bootsy, Smokey and The Bandit.
Yes. The Bandit. Really.
We won't be keeping that name. But you have to call them something for reference! The Bandit is the runt, so gets called Tiny, sometimes.
Only Bootsy's name is probably permanent (for the real Bootsy go here).
A (going soft in my old age)
See the full post by clicking here...
OK, I'm not famous for my tolerant nature - many things get me angry, but get this little tale - it's especially galling.
Imagine you're a lovely black cat, whose owners couldn't face paying to get you spayed.
When your owners have a baby, one of them (presumably Mum) develops an allergy and the lovely people kick you and your daughter (who's about 6 months old) into the back garden.
Thing is - remember your owners couldn't be arsed to get you spayed? Well guess what happens to an unspayed cat who is left outside for weeks? Yup - you get pregnant. Let's not judge - you're not a person, and its pretty much hardwired into you to get pregnant if you can.
Your owners do anything about it?
How about no?
How about they leave you to give birth in an old rotten Rabbit hutch? Yeah, that'll work.
And then why don't they call the local cat trust up and give them an ultimatum - If they don't come pick you up, they'll leave you in the cold to die. Nice owners you had there.
Wankers.
Things look grim for cats who are unwanted in the U.K. - twat owners like these ones refuse to get the poor things spayed or neutered and this leads to a whole lot of unwanted kittens and cats and there just anren't enough willing homes to take them in - certainly not a mum, young daughter and three newborn kittens at once. There isa great fallacy around spaying apparently and thats that a cat is healthier if they've already had a litter before spaying.
Let me make this clear, everyone in the cat arena has told me the same thing:
THERE IS NO BENEFIT LETTING YOUR CAT HAVE A LITTER BEFORE SPAYING. IN FACT YOU DO MORE HARM BRINGING UNWANTED, UNHOMED KITTENS INTO THE WORLD.
THE BELIEF IN ANY SUCH BENEFIT IS, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, TOTAL BOLLOCKS.
For families like this one, there's a very stretched to the limit system of fostering in place - families or couples (or individuals) prepared to take in a mum and kittens in this situation and give their time and love to socialise and develop these guys. This is so they will hopefully grow into viable pets having the best possible chance of rehoming. Time and love are all you need - the trust provide food, litter and moral supportr and boy do I need moral support sometimes!
Make no mistake - there are two outcomes available to many unwanted cats - rehoming or death. It is impossible for any trust to look after all the cats that need looking after - many are feral or traumatised in the first place and don't adapt well to being looked after.
To get to the point, Mrs Algo and I have taken in the unwanted family described above.
The mum is about two years old and already has has one litter about 6 months agao (and yet wasn't neutered afterwards by her dumb f__ing owners) - the older daughter, who we've renamed since the given name was retarded, is the only one from the earlier litter still present and these two are fairly inseparable.
(Quick aside: I won't be giving the older twos' names on this blog to protect us from the owners beating me up - for calling them wankers. They are still wankers, though.)
Mumsy arrived tired but open to contact, and we've been happy with how she's settling. the older daughter is not so well socialised (partly due to the young age of her mother) and is having trouble overcoming her wariness - don't blame her, given her prior human contact.
However, today we've had the breakthrough we wanted with Odie (as in O.D. - older daughter) - she's been out of the pen (which was provided for us like everything else) and fussed a bit. With mum, treats got her out, but things were more difficult with Odie; she sniffs and lick treats but won't eat them not sure why but maybe she doesn't like fish flavoured ones - we'll get her in the end. Odie spent the last two hours of this evening hiding under our cheapass sofa but at least she's got out and about a little.
I guess I should say, if you think there may be room in your heart to help out a local trust and look after some cats please, please, please give it real thought (i.e. don't think you'll be ok then backpedal) and if you reckon you can help call them up and see what you can do.
These people do a wonderful job with very little support and staggering odds stacked against them. Any help you could give would be wonderful.
As for what happens later? After 6 to 8 weeks these cats will be rehomed - we may keep two of the kittens as our own (let's face it, we probably will) but the others need rehoming - you won't be forced to keep all 5-8 of them forever. The key thing to do is talk to the trust and see what they advise.
Oh - did I mention I knew nothing about cats until I got attached to the cat that nearly was a few weeks ago? Needless to say I am learning on the fly.
Since I won't post pictures of the old'uns for security purposes, tomorrow or sometime soon I'll probably introduce you to the kittens we've called (for now) Bootsy, Smokey and The Bandit.
Yes. The Bandit. Really.
We won't be keeping that name. But you have to call them something for reference! The Bandit is the runt, so gets called Tiny, sometimes.
Only Bootsy's name is probably permanent (for the real Bootsy go here).
A (going soft in my old age)
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, March 2, 2009
Quick Movie Review: Starter For Ten
4/10
Far be it from me to presume to throw a spanner in the works of the James McAvoy star maker machine, but why is it this film is just not very good? Another thing - this proves is that the British film industry must try harder than simply relocated the same plots from other films to Bristol if it wants to make any sustained progress in the long term viability stakes.
Well, my prevailing theory at the moment is that Starter For Ten represents the lowest amount of effort put into making a film on the subject matter. The romances follow the same tired old clichéd beats - initial romance is flaky and shallow, the real girl he should be with is obvious to us but passed over by the hero because, well, the film demands it. He even has the same old conversation with his mate who says - "we're never going to make anything of ourselves but you can, and it's insulting to us if you waste that chance" which I'm certain I remember from elsewhere but it is late and the film eludes me. Even his big mistake at the Challenge itself isn't really that tremendously exciting since the only consequences to him appear to be that he gets into the Smiths and looks depressed for a few minutes (any Uni student's been through that).
There are a couple of funny beats - the botched headbutt, for example, and the stoned confrontation with Alice's naked parents, but the sheer obviousness of the story never goes away and for me the film never overcame this issue.
Many people really like Starter For Ten. I don't. By all means make up your own minds. BBC films will be grateful for the cash.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Far be it from me to presume to throw a spanner in the works of the James McAvoy star maker machine, but why is it this film is just not very good? Another thing - this proves is that the British film industry must try harder than simply relocated the same plots from other films to Bristol if it wants to make any sustained progress in the long term viability stakes.
Well, my prevailing theory at the moment is that Starter For Ten represents the lowest amount of effort put into making a film on the subject matter. The romances follow the same tired old clichéd beats - initial romance is flaky and shallow, the real girl he should be with is obvious to us but passed over by the hero because, well, the film demands it. He even has the same old conversation with his mate who says - "we're never going to make anything of ourselves but you can, and it's insulting to us if you waste that chance" which I'm certain I remember from elsewhere but it is late and the film eludes me. Even his big mistake at the Challenge itself isn't really that tremendously exciting since the only consequences to him appear to be that he gets into the Smiths and looks depressed for a few minutes (any Uni student's been through that).
There are a couple of funny beats - the botched headbutt, for example, and the stoned confrontation with Alice's naked parents, but the sheer obviousness of the story never goes away and for me the film never overcame this issue.
Many people really like Starter For Ten. I don't. By all means make up your own minds. BBC films will be grateful for the cash.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Jumanji
5/10
Having finally seen Jumanji, a good 14 years after it would have been cool, I'm not sure I am that gutted I never saw it before.
The effects have not worn particularly well, neither has the plot, which exists purely as a way of introducing countless effects sequences and while supposedly dealing with the danger of missed opportunities and not being afraid of growing up is in fact all about monkeys driving police cars.
Nothing wrong with that - significant comedy mileage to be had from monkeys driving police cars.
Meh. It just didn't grab me, plus the kids deserve all they get for playing a 2 dimensional roll and move game like Jumanji. Where's the auction mechanic? The multiple paths to victory? (I am joking)
Maybe I was in the wrong mood, and sure it was a bit of fluffy fun for an afternoon with your virus checker but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to others, so it gets an almost definitive 5/10.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Having finally seen Jumanji, a good 14 years after it would have been cool, I'm not sure I am that gutted I never saw it before.
The effects have not worn particularly well, neither has the plot, which exists purely as a way of introducing countless effects sequences and while supposedly dealing with the danger of missed opportunities and not being afraid of growing up is in fact all about monkeys driving police cars.
Nothing wrong with that - significant comedy mileage to be had from monkeys driving police cars.
Meh. It just didn't grab me, plus the kids deserve all they get for playing a 2 dimensional roll and move game like Jumanji. Where's the auction mechanic? The multiple paths to victory? (I am joking)
Maybe I was in the wrong mood, and sure it was a bit of fluffy fun for an afternoon with your virus checker but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to others, so it gets an almost definitive 5/10.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: Ran
8/10
OK, I'll be up front. I know the play King Lear quite well, so a large part of the surprise and tension of a plot that essentially is identical with a couple of recastings is lost on me.
For those who come to Kurosawa's Ran with no knowledge of the play or plot I'll give the fivepence summary;
Hidetora, an old and venerated leader of men realises he is getting old and cedes control of his kingdom to his oldest son, with castles and lands given to his other two. While he will do this, he will keep his title of "great leader", all his privileges and a retinue of 30.
Now, any student of feudal politics will see the flaw in his logic here. I'm not one, and I did.
Naturally this is a recipe for strife between the brothers as they will vie for power and since two other factions border the land, it may destroy the whole kingdom that Hidetora created in 50 years of bloodshed.
Only one of his sons, Saburo, has the courage to point this out to the old man, and in a rage at his insolence, the Great Leader has Saburo banished, along with one of his own Vassals, Tango (feel free to snicker - did) who makes the same argument.
Saburo is taken in by one of the bordering families and married to their daughter and essentially stands by for the majority of the picture as the family tears itself apart, only returning to retrieve the old man who, rejected and by now quite mad with guilt and horror, wanders the plains of his old kingdom with only his jester for company.
So, obviously folks, for those of you in the know, it's King Lear.
The main switches are for Lear's daughters to morph into Hidetora's three sons and for the introduction of what is essentially a Lady MacBeth character, who works behind the scenes to control matters toward her own end. Minor changes include the Kent/Tango character having less to do and the Gloucester character being reimagined as a victim of Hidetora's past crimes - a blind ghost of his past, if you will.
Right - this debt to Shakespeare is not a problem, many movies are influenced by the great man's work and this one has no pretentions of originality in that regard.
What it does fantastically is tell the story in a striking and emotional way, and in fact the change in setting to feudal Japan works wonders in explaining some of the less rational character choices in Shakespeare since the rigid moral codes here account for much of the false code of European honour propounded by the bard.
Kurosawa was always a wonderful director, both of sweeping vistas and intimate settings - here he doesn't exceed his earlier work such as Seven Samurai in skill and craft. The black and white vistas and images of that film are replaced by modern technicolour, but the colour palette is used to full effect as the three houses differentiate by colour and the vivid blood red stains during the battle scenes attest.
Even more effective is the colour changes surrounding Hidetora himself, who as the film goes on he goes from his starting position on a sunny green hilltop to the grey desert, all the while becoming more ghoulish in appearance to the point of death himself.
The introduction of Lady Kaede, as the manipulative power behind the throne, is another masterstroke - she provides another side to the story, and while the obvious reading of her character is of a crazed villainess, a moments contemplation shows a very different picture.
The battle scenes themselves are epic, confused and deadly, with none being depicted as glorious or victorious in any sense (since we are shown both victor and loser in every case) - the blood itself, of which there is lots, is of the Hammer Horror bright red variety, which is a disappointment though I am unclear as to whether this was an enforcement of rules by the production or not.
It is precisely this way of depicting the seriousness of war that marks Kurosawa as a true genius - many lesser men would introduce some editorialising at these points, or tip their hands as to which side you should be rooting for, but none of the battles end in this way. The defining scene in the whole movie is the shot of Hidetora, betrayed and defeated, unable even to take his own life after breaking his sword, simply wanders out of his tower and through the remnants of the battlefield - and the attacking soldiers part ranks to let him go!
It's an outstanding film, and one that justifies its hefty length with great character work, acting, shooting and effects - I would definitely recommend it not only to anyone who enjoyed Seven Samurai, but also to fans of Shakespeare, who will see how the great man's works translate across the world to another culture entirely.
It's not perfect and it is definitely Seven Samurai's inferior but do see it if you can.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
OK, I'll be up front. I know the play King Lear quite well, so a large part of the surprise and tension of a plot that essentially is identical with a couple of recastings is lost on me.
For those who come to Kurosawa's Ran with no knowledge of the play or plot I'll give the fivepence summary;
Hidetora, an old and venerated leader of men realises he is getting old and cedes control of his kingdom to his oldest son, with castles and lands given to his other two. While he will do this, he will keep his title of "great leader", all his privileges and a retinue of 30.
Now, any student of feudal politics will see the flaw in his logic here. I'm not one, and I did.
Naturally this is a recipe for strife between the brothers as they will vie for power and since two other factions border the land, it may destroy the whole kingdom that Hidetora created in 50 years of bloodshed.
Only one of his sons, Saburo, has the courage to point this out to the old man, and in a rage at his insolence, the Great Leader has Saburo banished, along with one of his own Vassals, Tango (feel free to snicker - did) who makes the same argument.
Saburo is taken in by one of the bordering families and married to their daughter and essentially stands by for the majority of the picture as the family tears itself apart, only returning to retrieve the old man who, rejected and by now quite mad with guilt and horror, wanders the plains of his old kingdom with only his jester for company.
So, obviously folks, for those of you in the know, it's King Lear.
The main switches are for Lear's daughters to morph into Hidetora's three sons and for the introduction of what is essentially a Lady MacBeth character, who works behind the scenes to control matters toward her own end. Minor changes include the Kent/Tango character having less to do and the Gloucester character being reimagined as a victim of Hidetora's past crimes - a blind ghost of his past, if you will.
Right - this debt to Shakespeare is not a problem, many movies are influenced by the great man's work and this one has no pretentions of originality in that regard.
What it does fantastically is tell the story in a striking and emotional way, and in fact the change in setting to feudal Japan works wonders in explaining some of the less rational character choices in Shakespeare since the rigid moral codes here account for much of the false code of European honour propounded by the bard.
Kurosawa was always a wonderful director, both of sweeping vistas and intimate settings - here he doesn't exceed his earlier work such as Seven Samurai in skill and craft. The black and white vistas and images of that film are replaced by modern technicolour, but the colour palette is used to full effect as the three houses differentiate by colour and the vivid blood red stains during the battle scenes attest.
Even more effective is the colour changes surrounding Hidetora himself, who as the film goes on he goes from his starting position on a sunny green hilltop to the grey desert, all the while becoming more ghoulish in appearance to the point of death himself.
The introduction of Lady Kaede, as the manipulative power behind the throne, is another masterstroke - she provides another side to the story, and while the obvious reading of her character is of a crazed villainess, a moments contemplation shows a very different picture.
The battle scenes themselves are epic, confused and deadly, with none being depicted as glorious or victorious in any sense (since we are shown both victor and loser in every case) - the blood itself, of which there is lots, is of the Hammer Horror bright red variety, which is a disappointment though I am unclear as to whether this was an enforcement of rules by the production or not.
It is precisely this way of depicting the seriousness of war that marks Kurosawa as a true genius - many lesser men would introduce some editorialising at these points, or tip their hands as to which side you should be rooting for, but none of the battles end in this way. The defining scene in the whole movie is the shot of Hidetora, betrayed and defeated, unable even to take his own life after breaking his sword, simply wanders out of his tower and through the remnants of the battlefield - and the attacking soldiers part ranks to let him go!
It's an outstanding film, and one that justifies its hefty length with great character work, acting, shooting and effects - I would definitely recommend it not only to anyone who enjoyed Seven Samurai, but also to fans of Shakespeare, who will see how the great man's works translate across the world to another culture entirely.
It's not perfect and it is definitely Seven Samurai's inferior but do see it if you can.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Quick Movie Review: Get Over It
5/10
Why on Earth did I watch this?
Short answer; I was doing some minor level, boring filing type job and had the film on in the background. It didn't really gain much of my attention throughout.
It's basically a teen movie (which makes me, at 27, feel a bit creepy) about a boy whose gifrlfriend dumps him and he decides to join up with the schools terrible Midsummer Night's Dream musical to try and win her back.
I was going to turn it off, but it then brought on Martin Short (who I claimed made his last decent movie in the shape of Three Amigos!) and things picked up - he says such lines as "Shakespeare was a great poet, but Burt Bacharach he ain't", and has frequent manic episodes which really made many of his scenes a watchable experience.
Other than Short, the main characters parents, who in their leniency are definitely the worst parents ever, add some more much needed comic relief but nothing much else really jumps out.
A fairly enjoyable hour and a half, but nothing more than that.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Why on Earth did I watch this?
Short answer; I was doing some minor level, boring filing type job and had the film on in the background. It didn't really gain much of my attention throughout.
It's basically a teen movie (which makes me, at 27, feel a bit creepy) about a boy whose gifrlfriend dumps him and he decides to join up with the schools terrible Midsummer Night's Dream musical to try and win her back.
I was going to turn it off, but it then brought on Martin Short (who I claimed made his last decent movie in the shape of Three Amigos!) and things picked up - he says such lines as "Shakespeare was a great poet, but Burt Bacharach he ain't", and has frequent manic episodes which really made many of his scenes a watchable experience.
Other than Short, the main characters parents, who in their leniency are definitely the worst parents ever, add some more much needed comic relief but nothing much else really jumps out.
A fairly enjoyable hour and a half, but nothing more than that.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Movie Review: In The Spider's Web
0/10
Wow... I mean... wow!
Imagine, if you will, the most outrageously incompetent film you can, take away about five more percent competence and you have In The Spider's Web, a steaming turd of a film, a suspiciously malodorous patch of stain on the face of film making.
Now... the fact I viewed this movie was not an accidental event - me and Mrs Algo had caught a breathtaking five minutes of it on Sky Three while skipping through channels and knew we had to record it ready for our game weekend we were having (a weekend with friends where we play lots of games and watch films, usually terrible films, for comedy value)
The last movie at such an event was the lame Fear City, but even this was nowhere the sheer mouth open aghast madness inducing, wincingly excruciating embarrassment that is presented by In The Spiders Web. This isn't even an old 50s B-movie. It's a recent full colour effort from 2007.
If you ever see it, just try and get your head around the fact it was made in 2007. Go on. Try it.
I'll try and do justice to the plot...
A group of friends is walking through a studio based jungle when they notice there's a lot of spiders webs about... so they decided to set up camp under a bunch of them (I know, I know...)
Naturally one of them is bitten (well, duh!) and they are forced to seek help at a local village where an inexplicably creepy doctor (played by the frequently unreliable Lance Henriksen) who sports a creepy long fingernailed set of hands, and spouts gibberish about why there's Bolivian spiders in India.
In case he wasn't suspicious enough, his "brother" wanders around in a sack mask due a bone disease. The mere chance that anyone wouldn't run for the safety of town is laughable - and we are instead forced to sit through mad decisions (lets go into the creepy cave full of spiders!), crazy foreign tribesmen (look! they're eating plastic spiders!) and shifting distances (it took us 5 seconds to run down this passage, but the crazy sword wielding guy and his mates who are chasing us, NEVER arrive)
It loses coherence (!) after this and by the half hour point resembles nothing so much as a made for children tv show with a budget of about £50 and an editor who understands nothing about editing.
Several shots are reused a couple of times (at different speeds, no less) and the scripts madder moments are worsened by the editor's juxtaposition of nonsense dialogue with unrelated bits of action. It also manages to contradict itself on a couple of occasions, and to hit virtually every cliche in the book.
For no reason characters take crazy decisions, their supposed guide knows nothing about anything and its intended suspenseful moments bear more resemblance to lousy trick or treat costumes.
Never mind the fact that the extras casting appears to use the rule; "they look a bit foreign" without any regard for place or time. The Indian police force boast what look like the Frenchmen, Spanish and Africans amongst their number, and the villagers are pulled from every asian ethnic group there is.
This... I hesistate to call it this, but.... film... is a prime example of what is wrong with the movie world - it's under budgeted, scripted by those million monkeys, over edited and atrociously acted, with no sense of its own silliness and a failure to grasp even the barest, tiniest rules of filmmaking.
Lastly, if your movie relies on terrifying spiders they'd better be scary.
These aren't... the CGI spiders are atrocious, resembling the quality of ships present in the first Babylon 5 series chucked onto the film, other spiders are clay models that look painted by 5 olds and, the icing on the cake, some are just plastic models hung from fishing line.
You think I'm joking about the plastic spiders, don't you.
I'm not.
Avoid Avoid Avoid.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wow... I mean... wow!
Imagine, if you will, the most outrageously incompetent film you can, take away about five more percent competence and you have In The Spider's Web, a steaming turd of a film, a suspiciously malodorous patch of stain on the face of film making.
Now... the fact I viewed this movie was not an accidental event - me and Mrs Algo had caught a breathtaking five minutes of it on Sky Three while skipping through channels and knew we had to record it ready for our game weekend we were having (a weekend with friends where we play lots of games and watch films, usually terrible films, for comedy value)
The last movie at such an event was the lame Fear City, but even this was nowhere the sheer mouth open aghast madness inducing, wincingly excruciating embarrassment that is presented by In The Spiders Web. This isn't even an old 50s B-movie. It's a recent full colour effort from 2007.
If you ever see it, just try and get your head around the fact it was made in 2007. Go on. Try it.
I'll try and do justice to the plot...
A group of friends is walking through a studio based jungle when they notice there's a lot of spiders webs about... so they decided to set up camp under a bunch of them (I know, I know...)
Naturally one of them is bitten (well, duh!) and they are forced to seek help at a local village where an inexplicably creepy doctor (played by the frequently unreliable Lance Henriksen) who sports a creepy long fingernailed set of hands, and spouts gibberish about why there's Bolivian spiders in India.
In case he wasn't suspicious enough, his "brother" wanders around in a sack mask due a bone disease. The mere chance that anyone wouldn't run for the safety of town is laughable - and we are instead forced to sit through mad decisions (lets go into the creepy cave full of spiders!), crazy foreign tribesmen (look! they're eating plastic spiders!) and shifting distances (it took us 5 seconds to run down this passage, but the crazy sword wielding guy and his mates who are chasing us, NEVER arrive)
It loses coherence (!) after this and by the half hour point resembles nothing so much as a made for children tv show with a budget of about £50 and an editor who understands nothing about editing.
Several shots are reused a couple of times (at different speeds, no less) and the scripts madder moments are worsened by the editor's juxtaposition of nonsense dialogue with unrelated bits of action. It also manages to contradict itself on a couple of occasions, and to hit virtually every cliche in the book.
For no reason characters take crazy decisions, their supposed guide knows nothing about anything and its intended suspenseful moments bear more resemblance to lousy trick or treat costumes.
Never mind the fact that the extras casting appears to use the rule; "they look a bit foreign" without any regard for place or time. The Indian police force boast what look like the Frenchmen, Spanish and Africans amongst their number, and the villagers are pulled from every asian ethnic group there is.
This... I hesistate to call it this, but.... film... is a prime example of what is wrong with the movie world - it's under budgeted, scripted by those million monkeys, over edited and atrociously acted, with no sense of its own silliness and a failure to grasp even the barest, tiniest rules of filmmaking.
Lastly, if your movie relies on terrifying spiders they'd better be scary.
These aren't... the CGI spiders are atrocious, resembling the quality of ships present in the first Babylon 5 series chucked onto the film, other spiders are clay models that look painted by 5 olds and, the icing on the cake, some are just plastic models hung from fishing line.
You think I'm joking about the plastic spiders, don't you.
I'm not.
Avoid Avoid Avoid.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Movie Review: Close Encounters Of The Third Kind
7/10
I can't tell you how upsetting to me that 7/10 is.
In my mind's eye, Close Encounters sits there staring at me like a puppy I just kicked and spat on.
Here's the thing, by my own rules it can't get a higher score. It just can't.
Why do I care about that anyway? Well, to me Close Encounters was always a fond experience I recalled from my childhood. The central tale of a man faced with something so simply profound he loses touch with the "ordinary world", costing him his wife and his old life in the process, was just awesome.
I love the design of the ships, the way the little ones seem like playful children - "Toys" as Barry describes them. This little boy is an excellent performance from the young lad Cary Guffy - actually responding to the toys given as bribes to get him to do the scene!
To get to my point, there is a superb scene in Barry's mom's kitchen, as he finds the fridge open and food all over the floor. He then is startled by two aliens.
Here's why the scene is great - it focuses on the young boy and more importantly his reactions to the new arrivals. But since he's a kid he's not at all afraid (the actor was responding to crew in masks!) and after the initial surprise he is enchanted and excited.
That's how you do aliens. Remember when Signs, a fairly effective tension movie, went bad? Close Encounters has the same problem:
IT SHOWS THE ALIENS!
Dear god. If you exist please wipe the final twenty minutes of this movie and replace it with him just walking into the spaceship and never seeing the aliens. Please?
It's almost enough to turn me to prayer.
This horrible, horrible, misstep costs the film dearly - a single shot of the appalling drawn on eyes on a lame plastic mask sticks with me more than anything now.
It's still a great movie, and the alien symphony at the end is still a wonderful bit of film-making and genuinely magical - Richard Dreyfuss, Bob Balaban and Francois Truffaut are all excellent. i just can't get the plasticy faced children in alien costumes out of my head now.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I can't tell you how upsetting to me that 7/10 is.
In my mind's eye, Close Encounters sits there staring at me like a puppy I just kicked and spat on.
Here's the thing, by my own rules it can't get a higher score. It just can't.
Why do I care about that anyway? Well, to me Close Encounters was always a fond experience I recalled from my childhood. The central tale of a man faced with something so simply profound he loses touch with the "ordinary world", costing him his wife and his old life in the process, was just awesome.
I love the design of the ships, the way the little ones seem like playful children - "Toys" as Barry describes them. This little boy is an excellent performance from the young lad Cary Guffy - actually responding to the toys given as bribes to get him to do the scene!
To get to my point, there is a superb scene in Barry's mom's kitchen, as he finds the fridge open and food all over the floor. He then is startled by two aliens.
Here's why the scene is great - it focuses on the young boy and more importantly his reactions to the new arrivals. But since he's a kid he's not at all afraid (the actor was responding to crew in masks!) and after the initial surprise he is enchanted and excited.
That's how you do aliens. Remember when Signs, a fairly effective tension movie, went bad? Close Encounters has the same problem:
IT SHOWS THE ALIENS!
Dear god. If you exist please wipe the final twenty minutes of this movie and replace it with him just walking into the spaceship and never seeing the aliens. Please?
It's almost enough to turn me to prayer.
This horrible, horrible, misstep costs the film dearly - a single shot of the appalling drawn on eyes on a lame plastic mask sticks with me more than anything now.
It's still a great movie, and the alien symphony at the end is still a wonderful bit of film-making and genuinely magical - Richard Dreyfuss, Bob Balaban and Francois Truffaut are all excellent. i just can't get the plasticy faced children in alien costumes out of my head now.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Bowfinger
5/10
So average I don't really want to waste much time on, it this is actually in all probability the best comedy Steve Martin or Eddie Murphy has been in for years, telling the story of a supposedly lovable charlatan, a nobody film maker (who, as a poster in the background describes, made "The Yugo Story".
He has one last chance to hit it big, and decides to cast as his leading man the biggest star in Hollywood in the form of Kit Ramsey - Eddie Murphy being a really irritating Tom Cruise alike who is blatantly insane, hearing voices and spending time at the scientology stand-in "MindHead".
That's about as funny as it gets. Malcom MacDowell's in it, with the kind of wandering accent he is great at, Heather Graham flounces about as a small town girl just arrived in Hollywood who is a bit more worldly wise than you'd think.
The problem I have with this film is that as a critique of Hollywood it just has no guts. Where Sunset Boulevard smacked the silver screen dead centre, Bowfinger pulls its punches. All the characters are resolved at the end and even Robert Downey Jr.'s high level Hollywood agent is nothing more than a jerk in a suit offering little more than clumsy "agents are scum" clichés.
I laughed a couple of times, at the way a character is forced to run across a busy motorway for a shot and at the dog walking in high heels but those show this films genuine level - it is immature, dumb and toothless.
At best its a mildly amusing timewaster, at its worst its just a waste of time.
Meh.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
So average I don't really want to waste much time on, it this is actually in all probability the best comedy Steve Martin or Eddie Murphy has been in for years, telling the story of a supposedly lovable charlatan, a nobody film maker (who, as a poster in the background describes, made "The Yugo Story".
He has one last chance to hit it big, and decides to cast as his leading man the biggest star in Hollywood in the form of Kit Ramsey - Eddie Murphy being a really irritating Tom Cruise alike who is blatantly insane, hearing voices and spending time at the scientology stand-in "MindHead".
That's about as funny as it gets. Malcom MacDowell's in it, with the kind of wandering accent he is great at, Heather Graham flounces about as a small town girl just arrived in Hollywood who is a bit more worldly wise than you'd think.
The problem I have with this film is that as a critique of Hollywood it just has no guts. Where Sunset Boulevard smacked the silver screen dead centre, Bowfinger pulls its punches. All the characters are resolved at the end and even Robert Downey Jr.'s high level Hollywood agent is nothing more than a jerk in a suit offering little more than clumsy "agents are scum" clichés.
I laughed a couple of times, at the way a character is forced to run across a busy motorway for a shot and at the dog walking in high heels but those show this films genuine level - it is immature, dumb and toothless.
At best its a mildly amusing timewaster, at its worst its just a waste of time.
Meh.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
