- Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom ☆☆☆☆
- Gremlins ☆☆☆☆
- Tokyo Godfathers ☆☆☆☆
- Toy Story 2 ☆☆☆☆
- Toy Story ☆☆☆☆
- Trading Places ☆☆☆☆
- Guardians of the Galaxy ☆☆☆☆
- The Empire Strikes Back ☆☆☆☆
- The Fellowship of the Ring EE ☆☆☆☆
- The Return of the King EE ☆☆☆☆
- The Two Towers EE ☆☆☆☆
- Nebraska ☆☆☆☆
- Robot & Frank ☆☆☆☆
- The Cat Returns ☆☆☆
- Frank ☆☆☆
- Home Alone ☆☆☆
- Kingdom of Heaven DC ☆☆☆
- X-Men DOFP ☆☆☆
- Scrooged ☆☆☆
- Batman Returns ☆☆☆
- Die Hard 2 ☆☆
- Lucy ☆☆
- The Zero Theorem ☆☆
SCORECARD
DECEMBER
Review Roundup - The fine line between clever and stupid
LUCY (2014)
As one of the last science fiction type films I'd see towards the end of this year I was actually looking forward to this from an action stand point rather than anything else. Many years ago Luc Besson directed the likes of Nikita and Léon, and while the genres in his back catalogue are not straightforward these stood out has having both explosive stopping power and solid character material that made them engaging on more than one level.
So here it's a shame that this failed to deliver on either front. As for the science fiction elements, these are the parts that work least of all and everything begins to come apart as they take precedence in the storyline. Early on it felt like there could be potential so what makes it stumble so much?
As one of the last science fiction type films I'd see towards the end of this year I was actually looking forward to this from an action stand point rather than anything else. Many years ago Luc Besson directed the likes of Nikita and Léon, and while the genres in his back catalogue are not straightforward these stood out has having both explosive stopping power and solid character material that made them engaging on more than one level.
So here it's a shame that this failed to deliver on either front. As for the science fiction elements, these are the parts that work least of all and everything begins to come apart as they take precedence in the storyline. Early on it felt like there could be potential so what makes it stumble so much?
Festive Roundup - 'tis The Season
FESTIVE MELTDOWN (PART TWO)
Speaking of unsettling daytime movies, I wonder what time do they usually broadcast Scrooged? The first visitation (which replaces the classic Jacob Marley scene with a golf playing booze swilling TV executive) is kinda disturbing, even if the full on zombie effects are clearly being played for laughs. Later there's a poor guy who's found frozen to death in the sewers, which is just bleak in ways that can't really be made into a joke. It gets the message across effectively I suppose. Ebenezer Scrooge might have been replaced by Frank Cross but the material is all pretty much still here despite the modern day spin and the meta parts of the story.
As a film the first half when Frank (Bill Murray) gets to be a total jerk to everyone is the strongest part. He's a cartoonish but believably scummy guy fuelled by callous ambition and little else. It slowly becomes less effective when the Ghost of Christmas Present shows up and the slapstick starts to creep in, but there's still a lot of fun stuff overall. The real problem is that the opening gag (who doesn't want to see The Day The Reindeer Died) is just impossible to beat, they put themselves at a disadvantage. But the past Christmas Future and Past scenes which all work well, and it's always good to see Karen Allen outside of Raiders. Overall though... the best take on this story is still the one with Kermit the Frog.
Movie Rating: 3/5
Christmas Rating: Richard Donner (3/5)
Festive Moment: 'Charles Dickens would have wanted to see her nipples!'
I guess I'm starting to move into all the familiar festive viewings as things go on here. But at least that means we can cover a decent John Landis comedy, and one with a pre let's-play-everyone Eddie Murphy. There's a lot of simple but effective class comedy in Trading Places with the prince and pauper style swap going on, and some of the visual gags like the judgemental portrait gallery are wonderful. Elsewhere it's about what you'd expect from a film where the two leads are being directed effectively, and the inclusion of Denholm Elliot is just an extra treat. The first act has a lot of the best dialogue as as con artist Billy-Ray Valentine (Murphy) finds himself caught out and thrown behind bars, before the scheme of two scheming old geezers starts to unfold.
It starts to fall a part a bit once the big Wall Street plan at the end comes along, and there's a subplot involving a New Years Eve train party and a caged gorilla that really outstays its welcome. The whole stock exchange plot pushes it away from being essential Xmas viewing, and there's too much information crammed into the finale few scenes. What does all this buying and selling mean? I'm still not entirely clear. But what the heck, it still mostly fits the bill and has plenty of laughs from the likes of Dan Akroyd and Jamie Lee Curtis at their peak. I guess it's Merry New Year for everyone involved.
Movie Rating: 4/5
Christmas Rating: Clarence Beakes (2/5)
Festive Moment: Salmon and the worst ever Santa beard
In a rare break from the previously established format I will totally cheat here and include this Christmas special. I reserve the right to write whatever nonsense I feel is appropriate here after all. This seasonal outing for Rowan Atkinson's acidic anti-character stands alone from the other episodes, but still includes sequences taken from the earlier Elizabethan and Georgian period shows. It's never quite as good as those two classic seasons (which get included here as dream sequences or ghostly visions) but it has a lot of good moments since the writing is still great.
Plus it has to be said that the idea of the original Charles Dickens story being done in reverse is a master-stroke. The kind, generous man realising he could benefit from being cruel is pretty good spin on things after his true character was so well established. All of the usual suspects return as characters they've played or in new roles (such as Miriam Margolyes as Queen Victoria) which keeps the variety act tone going. In general it's kind of uneven but includes just enough acerbic quips and mean spirited retorts to make it essential annual viewing.
Episode Rating: 3/5
Christmas Rating: Robbie Coltrane (3/5)
Festive Moment: 'Ill-conceived love I should warn you, is like a Christmas cracker. One massively disappointing bang and the novelty soon wears off'
Time for some animation with Tokyo Godfathers. While I was never a massive fan of the likes of Paprika or Millennium Actress this is by far the best of Satoshi Kon's efforts -- for any time of year. Those others of course showed his great skill and imagination as a storyteller, but this is the one that manages to cram in the charm, tragedy and character depth I often crave and it pushes the whole film to new levels. All the weird cuts and odd narrative moments he likes to include are still present and correct of course, and it builds into a magical experience. At the same time this is often a dark, melancholy and more down to earth story, resulting in an immediately effective contrast.
A band of mismatched homeless people struggling with their demons might not seem like the obvious choice for Yuletide viewing, but the themes of family ties, charity and making up for bad past decisions all firmly fall in line with many other seasonal classics. The idea of coincidences driving the plot forward instead of just being contrived or awkward also makes for interesting viewing. Since they're central to the story it never becomes over done, and the weird sense of humour on display is often compelling. The bleaker elements provide some sombre moments that flesh things out but never become too morbid, and overall it's a rounded story full of oddball humour, character drama and genuine humanity. A true animated gem.
Movie Rating: 5/5
Christmas Rating: Uncle Bag (4/5)
Festive Moment: Saved by an angel
Speaking of unsettling daytime movies, I wonder what time do they usually broadcast Scrooged? The first visitation (which replaces the classic Jacob Marley scene with a golf playing booze swilling TV executive) is kinda disturbing, even if the full on zombie effects are clearly being played for laughs. Later there's a poor guy who's found frozen to death in the sewers, which is just bleak in ways that can't really be made into a joke. It gets the message across effectively I suppose. Ebenezer Scrooge might have been replaced by Frank Cross but the material is all pretty much still here despite the modern day spin and the meta parts of the story.
As a film the first half when Frank (Bill Murray) gets to be a total jerk to everyone is the strongest part. He's a cartoonish but believably scummy guy fuelled by callous ambition and little else. It slowly becomes less effective when the Ghost of Christmas Present shows up and the slapstick starts to creep in, but there's still a lot of fun stuff overall. The real problem is that the opening gag (who doesn't want to see The Day The Reindeer Died) is just impossible to beat, they put themselves at a disadvantage. But the past Christmas Future and Past scenes which all work well, and it's always good to see Karen Allen outside of Raiders. Overall though... the best take on this story is still the one with Kermit the Frog.
Movie Rating: 3/5
Christmas Rating: Richard Donner (3/5)
Festive Moment: 'Charles Dickens would have wanted to see her nipples!'
I guess I'm starting to move into all the familiar festive viewings as things go on here. But at least that means we can cover a decent John Landis comedy, and one with a pre let's-play-everyone Eddie Murphy. There's a lot of simple but effective class comedy in Trading Places with the prince and pauper style swap going on, and some of the visual gags like the judgemental portrait gallery are wonderful. Elsewhere it's about what you'd expect from a film where the two leads are being directed effectively, and the inclusion of Denholm Elliot is just an extra treat. The first act has a lot of the best dialogue as as con artist Billy-Ray Valentine (Murphy) finds himself caught out and thrown behind bars, before the scheme of two scheming old geezers starts to unfold.
It starts to fall a part a bit once the big Wall Street plan at the end comes along, and there's a subplot involving a New Years Eve train party and a caged gorilla that really outstays its welcome. The whole stock exchange plot pushes it away from being essential Xmas viewing, and there's too much information crammed into the finale few scenes. What does all this buying and selling mean? I'm still not entirely clear. But what the heck, it still mostly fits the bill and has plenty of laughs from the likes of Dan Akroyd and Jamie Lee Curtis at their peak. I guess it's Merry New Year for everyone involved.
Movie Rating: 4/5
Christmas Rating: Clarence Beakes (2/5)
Festive Moment: Salmon and the worst ever Santa beard
In a rare break from the previously established format I will totally cheat here and include this Christmas special. I reserve the right to write whatever nonsense I feel is appropriate here after all. This seasonal outing for Rowan Atkinson's acidic anti-character stands alone from the other episodes, but still includes sequences taken from the earlier Elizabethan and Georgian period shows. It's never quite as good as those two classic seasons (which get included here as dream sequences or ghostly visions) but it has a lot of good moments since the writing is still great.
Plus it has to be said that the idea of the original Charles Dickens story being done in reverse is a master-stroke. The kind, generous man realising he could benefit from being cruel is pretty good spin on things after his true character was so well established. All of the usual suspects return as characters they've played or in new roles (such as Miriam Margolyes as Queen Victoria) which keeps the variety act tone going. In general it's kind of uneven but includes just enough acerbic quips and mean spirited retorts to make it essential annual viewing.
Episode Rating: 3/5
Christmas Rating: Robbie Coltrane (3/5)
Festive Moment: 'Ill-conceived love I should warn you, is like a Christmas cracker. One massively disappointing bang and the novelty soon wears off'
Time for some animation with Tokyo Godfathers. While I was never a massive fan of the likes of Paprika or Millennium Actress this is by far the best of Satoshi Kon's efforts -- for any time of year. Those others of course showed his great skill and imagination as a storyteller, but this is the one that manages to cram in the charm, tragedy and character depth I often crave and it pushes the whole film to new levels. All the weird cuts and odd narrative moments he likes to include are still present and correct of course, and it builds into a magical experience. At the same time this is often a dark, melancholy and more down to earth story, resulting in an immediately effective contrast.
A band of mismatched homeless people struggling with their demons might not seem like the obvious choice for Yuletide viewing, but the themes of family ties, charity and making up for bad past decisions all firmly fall in line with many other seasonal classics. The idea of coincidences driving the plot forward instead of just being contrived or awkward also makes for interesting viewing. Since they're central to the story it never becomes over done, and the weird sense of humour on display is often compelling. The bleaker elements provide some sombre moments that flesh things out but never become too morbid, and overall it's a rounded story full of oddball humour, character drama and genuine humanity. A true animated gem.
Movie Rating: 5/5
Christmas Rating: Uncle Bag (4/5)
Festive Moment: Saved by an angel
Review Roundup - In the not too distant future
ROBOT & FRANK (2012)
Frank Langella stars in this science fiction drama, a story which despite featuring advanced robotics has no hint of dystopia or society on the verge of collapse. It's a cosy world, more Star Trek than Blade Runner in that respect. Though the scenes in which Frank's local library books are replaced by a 'virtual community' environment could perhaps be considered a little unsettling, this more of a backdrop to events which provide enough cause for concern on a human level. The technology here is reminiscent of real life developments - the title characters design has similar features to the Honda ASIMO project - but the other elements like phones and less sophisticated machines are added subtly to allow for a realistic feeling to the world. But this is a character piece with the dressing of a near future used as one small aspect of the story.
The real depth in the story comes from the title characters, and yes the robot is always just that, he's never given a name. In spite of this, and despite it stating more than once that it's just a machine and not alive; a lot of the best character moments are between these two. Frank is an aged jewel thief with a growing mental illness which affects his memory and his day to day life, and so against his wishes a helper is left by his son to provide lifestyle improvements like planning hobbies and diet. Frank's distaste for this slowly falls away when he realises that these projects could include lock picking at super fast speed and burglary planning - which the robot allows as this all goes towards aiding his brain power. The dynamic of the grumpy older man and the innocent monotone robot works really well as he slowly becomes attached to his faceless helper, ignoring the fact that any hints of his new friend being subversive or unlawful are all just programming; Frank's health are its only concerns. But of course it's only human that this level of anthropomorphic thinking transfers to the audience, and they make a likeable double act.
All this adds extra layers to a story about someone trying to recapture the past, even if they've never been entirely happy with how being a crook or doing jail time affected their children growing up. Ideas like books being taken away to be replaced with computer displays build on the other aspects of Frank's world when at times he begins to forget how old his family are or even smaller things like how long local restaurants have been closed down. When things are so downbeat it's easy to root for them and get invested as bumps in the road come along to shake up the big heist plans. This kind of sadness also adds to the atmosphere of the movie which balances out the more humourous parts of the script and any which might otherwise become too sickly. As this all comes to a head there are a few developments that feel a little rushed and the conclusion does raise a few questions on first viewing, but this is forgivable.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
NEBRASKA (2013)
From one drama to another, albeit one more concerned more tragic story elements; Nebraska follows Woody (Bruce Dern) and his son as they travel across states to collect on what is clearly a phony million dollar sweepstakes prize. David is more concerned with his father's health and seems to be going along with the idea just to spend time with someone he feels distant from - it's clear as they travel and meet even more awkward family members along with people from his past that there's a lot he doesn't know about the man beyond the fact that he has a big alcohol problem and is slowly coming apart at the seams. The stark black and white photography adds a coldness to the proceedings which are already very melancholy, but it's interesting to see how the visuals add to scenes in which regrets and mistakes of the past are discussed. It's also a story which comments on the nature of family and friends, the choices that begin these relationships, and how dark their true colours might be when it comes out that Woody is going to be 'a millionaire'. In spite of this there are moments of warmth here, and it has a bleak comedic element going throughout that makes it a complex and compelling watch.
4/5
Frank Langella stars in this science fiction drama, a story which despite featuring advanced robotics has no hint of dystopia or society on the verge of collapse. It's a cosy world, more Star Trek than Blade Runner in that respect. Though the scenes in which Frank's local library books are replaced by a 'virtual community' environment could perhaps be considered a little unsettling, this more of a backdrop to events which provide enough cause for concern on a human level. The technology here is reminiscent of real life developments - the title characters design has similar features to the Honda ASIMO project - but the other elements like phones and less sophisticated machines are added subtly to allow for a realistic feeling to the world. But this is a character piece with the dressing of a near future used as one small aspect of the story.
The real depth in the story comes from the title characters, and yes the robot is always just that, he's never given a name. In spite of this, and despite it stating more than once that it's just a machine and not alive; a lot of the best character moments are between these two. Frank is an aged jewel thief with a growing mental illness which affects his memory and his day to day life, and so against his wishes a helper is left by his son to provide lifestyle improvements like planning hobbies and diet. Frank's distaste for this slowly falls away when he realises that these projects could include lock picking at super fast speed and burglary planning - which the robot allows as this all goes towards aiding his brain power. The dynamic of the grumpy older man and the innocent monotone robot works really well as he slowly becomes attached to his faceless helper, ignoring the fact that any hints of his new friend being subversive or unlawful are all just programming; Frank's health are its only concerns. But of course it's only human that this level of anthropomorphic thinking transfers to the audience, and they make a likeable double act.
All this adds extra layers to a story about someone trying to recapture the past, even if they've never been entirely happy with how being a crook or doing jail time affected their children growing up. Ideas like books being taken away to be replaced with computer displays build on the other aspects of Frank's world when at times he begins to forget how old his family are or even smaller things like how long local restaurants have been closed down. When things are so downbeat it's easy to root for them and get invested as bumps in the road come along to shake up the big heist plans. This kind of sadness also adds to the atmosphere of the movie which balances out the more humourous parts of the script and any which might otherwise become too sickly. As this all comes to a head there are a few developments that feel a little rushed and the conclusion does raise a few questions on first viewing, but this is forgivable.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
NEBRASKA (2013)
From one drama to another, albeit one more concerned more tragic story elements; Nebraska follows Woody (Bruce Dern) and his son as they travel across states to collect on what is clearly a phony million dollar sweepstakes prize. David is more concerned with his father's health and seems to be going along with the idea just to spend time with someone he feels distant from - it's clear as they travel and meet even more awkward family members along with people from his past that there's a lot he doesn't know about the man beyond the fact that he has a big alcohol problem and is slowly coming apart at the seams. The stark black and white photography adds a coldness to the proceedings which are already very melancholy, but it's interesting to see how the visuals add to scenes in which regrets and mistakes of the past are discussed. It's also a story which comments on the nature of family and friends, the choices that begin these relationships, and how dark their true colours might be when it comes out that Woody is going to be 'a millionaire'. In spite of this there are moments of warmth here, and it has a bleak comedic element going throughout that makes it a complex and compelling watch.
4/5
Review Roundup - Talking heads
FRANK (2014)
When talking about a film like this it can be difficult to nail down the exact components and pigeon hole it in a way that makes it simple enough to discuss. Even suggesting a genre proves to be a challenge, after all strangeness in itself is not enough to define a story. Of course it's billed as a wacky comedy with an odd collection of musicians trapped in isolation while they attempt to record an album, but under the surface this is a much darker and melancholy tale. The underlying character study is far more unwieldy, and like the eccentric characters taking centre stage there are many troubled layers beneath the mask.
Michael Fassbender dons the big head of Chris Sievey in a story which takes only a small inspiration from the television personality, opting instead to tell a story about the problems of musical inspiration and the nature of talent, or perhaps even genius. The performance, or lack of is both touching and alienating. The enigma of a man who refuses to show his face offers both intrigue and frustration as a core to the movie, as often he is not the focus. Despite the title, this story is really about Jon (Domhnall Gleeson) a keyboard playing songwriter, and an outsider looking in at this established group. Whether they look different, speak different languages or simply have a better grasp of their place in the scheme of things, they are all detached in some way or another. The limits of his ability are immediately clear and while Frank and the group's manager seem welcoming it's obvious that the other members question his worth; and perhaps they are justified in doing so as his lack of creativity slowly gives way to ego. While the device of such a character plays on the idea that the band are outcasts, Jon is rarely likable and his dependance on social media is both a distraction to the story and a jarring visual element. I'd prefer to have Twitter as something that exists outside of the screen personally.
In spite of my issues this is mainly a story about music, and it's great in that regard - Frank is both a great personality and front man. The experimental rock sound has hints of Jim Morrison, with one scene during the recording sessions in particular suggesting the more bizarre sections of The End a little. Perhaps it's worth just hearing to get a better idea; personal tastes and where similarities can be drawn will differ from person to person. But as soundtracks go this is a recommendation. Ultimately a lot of this is very good but the idea of it being a comedy is never central, it's a misleading label. As the elements about suicide attempts, mental hospital patients and panic attacks come into play, these are the issues which become thematic as things progress. It's interesting to view these characters as unknowable, and it's a thought provoking idea that the nature of inspiration may be a mystery with or without disorders and neuroses - but at the same time I would have liked more time to explore that side of things. Like the mask this draws you in but always keeps things at a distance despite there being moments of real depth. There a many great scenes which develop a sense of emotional weight yet it can feel cold and unfocused at times, showing care with many issues while keeping them at arms length. Ultimately it may be worth a look just for those moments. If that simple description of weird is appealing, of course.
3/5
When talking about a film like this it can be difficult to nail down the exact components and pigeon hole it in a way that makes it simple enough to discuss. Even suggesting a genre proves to be a challenge, after all strangeness in itself is not enough to define a story. Of course it's billed as a wacky comedy with an odd collection of musicians trapped in isolation while they attempt to record an album, but under the surface this is a much darker and melancholy tale. The underlying character study is far more unwieldy, and like the eccentric characters taking centre stage there are many troubled layers beneath the mask.
Michael Fassbender dons the big head of Chris Sievey in a story which takes only a small inspiration from the television personality, opting instead to tell a story about the problems of musical inspiration and the nature of talent, or perhaps even genius. The performance, or lack of is both touching and alienating. The enigma of a man who refuses to show his face offers both intrigue and frustration as a core to the movie, as often he is not the focus. Despite the title, this story is really about Jon (Domhnall Gleeson) a keyboard playing songwriter, and an outsider looking in at this established group. Whether they look different, speak different languages or simply have a better grasp of their place in the scheme of things, they are all detached in some way or another. The limits of his ability are immediately clear and while Frank and the group's manager seem welcoming it's obvious that the other members question his worth; and perhaps they are justified in doing so as his lack of creativity slowly gives way to ego. While the device of such a character plays on the idea that the band are outcasts, Jon is rarely likable and his dependance on social media is both a distraction to the story and a jarring visual element. I'd prefer to have Twitter as something that exists outside of the screen personally.
In spite of my issues this is mainly a story about music, and it's great in that regard - Frank is both a great personality and front man. The experimental rock sound has hints of Jim Morrison, with one scene during the recording sessions in particular suggesting the more bizarre sections of The End a little. Perhaps it's worth just hearing to get a better idea; personal tastes and where similarities can be drawn will differ from person to person. But as soundtracks go this is a recommendation. Ultimately a lot of this is very good but the idea of it being a comedy is never central, it's a misleading label. As the elements about suicide attempts, mental hospital patients and panic attacks come into play, these are the issues which become thematic as things progress. It's interesting to view these characters as unknowable, and it's a thought provoking idea that the nature of inspiration may be a mystery with or without disorders and neuroses - but at the same time I would have liked more time to explore that side of things. Like the mask this draws you in but always keeps things at a distance despite there being moments of real depth. There a many great scenes which develop a sense of emotional weight yet it can feel cold and unfocused at times, showing care with many issues while keeping them at arms length. Ultimately it may be worth a look just for those moments. If that simple description of weird is appealing, of course.
3/5
Scorecard
NOVEMBER
- Raiders of the Lost Ark ☆☆☆☆☆
- The Thing ☆☆☆☆☆
- Dial M for Murder ☆☆☆☆
- Guardians of the Galaxy ☆☆☆☆
- Source Code ☆☆☆☆
- Strangers of a Train ☆☆☆☆
- Vertigo ☆☆☆☆
- X2 ☆☆☆☆
- Dawn of the Planet of the Apes ☆☆☆☆
- X-Men Days of Future Past ☆☆☆
- Edge of Tomorrow ☆☆☆
- Brain Damage ☆☆☆
- Cleopatra '63 ☆☆☆
- The Man Who Knew Too Much '56 ☆☆☆
- Halloween ☆☆☆
- How to Train Your Dragon ☆☆☆
- Meet the Feebles ☆☆☆
- The Princess Bride ☆☆☆
- Under the Skin ☆☆☆
- Godzilla '14 ☆☆
- The Robe ☆☆
- Flying Swords of Dragon Gate ☆
Review Roundup - Cherry Bomb
GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY (2014)
It's easy to become cynical when every blockbuster out there is constantly promising to be a good time. Eventually it becomes clear that it's all part of an endless hype machine advertising yet another hollow product. For all the easy targets to be hit in the name of popcorn adventure stories too often there's a John Carter, a Green Lantern or a Star Trek Into Darkness. CGI fuelled tedium and poor writing often take the place of real fun and spoil things for everyone. The simple pieces that make up entertaining ride are apparently too easy to fumble or break entirely. Luckily the top brass at Marvel Studios more often than not have their heads screwed on... so far at least. There have been some rough patches but with The Winter Soldier nailing the slick action vibe earlier in the year, James Gunn's oddball space fantasy has got the lighter and more colourful angles covered.
It's easy to become cynical when every blockbuster out there is constantly promising to be a good time. Eventually it becomes clear that it's all part of an endless hype machine advertising yet another hollow product. For all the easy targets to be hit in the name of popcorn adventure stories too often there's a John Carter, a Green Lantern or a Star Trek Into Darkness. CGI fuelled tedium and poor writing often take the place of real fun and spoil things for everyone. The simple pieces that make up entertaining ride are apparently too easy to fumble or break entirely. Luckily the top brass at Marvel Studios more often than not have their heads screwed on... so far at least. There have been some rough patches but with The Winter Soldier nailing the slick action vibe earlier in the year, James Gunn's oddball space fantasy has got the lighter and more colourful angles covered.
Review Roundup - Continue? Yes/No
EDGE OF TOMORROW (2014)
In a return to science fiction, Tom Cruise stars in this adaptation of Japanese novella All You Need is Kill, keeping it's story of an alien invasion in which soldiers become trapped in a time loop. While that title and the cast has unfortunately been Westernised (Edge of Tomorrow is very Star Trek) this is at least an improvement on his previous vehicle Oblivion. Taking cues from the likes of Groundhog Day and more recently Source Code, this is never as good as either of those films but at least offers an action filled adventure that manages to maintain a sense of humour and has a well paced story. While it has a lot of fun and some fine spectacle, several aspects lead to it being essentially flimsy and it lacks the depth that could have been afforded by having such a brain wracking central concept. It also doesn't help that some elements lead to clichés and strange plot holes that could have been avoided considering the amount of rewrites the script went through. Still, while it's never excellent it mostly works.
Officer Cage (Cruise, originally written as Keiji) a PR man thrown onto the front line for attempted blackmail, finds himself reliving the military's last ditch attack after being killed in the assault. He has no experience of warfare, he's just a talker. By teaming up with Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt, keeping the original name) a veteran who has been through this but lost that power, they plan a way to win what is at first a futile battle by learning more and more, one day at a time. With death required to send him back in time, the makers seem to understand there is comedy to be mined instead of just having an all out dark and gritty look at the futility of war. This brings a problem to the table however, in that darker ideas and character development are left aside in place of popcorn entertainment. Which isn't a negative thing entirely, but they could have expanded on certain elements while keeping a fun balance. A single scene shows the toll this is taking; having tried endlessly to get through the lines with Vrataski, Cage starts to think this will never work out - at least for the both of them. He's seen the way it all plays out so many times that it drains any motivation. But it's brief and later gives in to unnecessary saccharine with a predictable ending. Despite the deliberate use of European beaches to convey a sense of seriousness this is at the core just a throwaway action film. Real characterisation is never reached even if the cast is likeable throughout.
The real issues arise from any closer examination of the story as it unfolds. Cage is shown as a TV personality selling the war effort, but nobody he meets knows him or believes his story about being forced into the battle; instead they are all told he's a deserter and never question this. Maybe troops in Britain don't get the US news? They go further later on by taping his mouth shut when he tells them about the future; it's played for laughs but seems a little strange when he knows such fine details. Rita is being shown to the public as a hero but she still has to go in with the other grunts, and they never explore this propaganda angle or offer any satire. The enemy is named as "the Mimics" but they never mimic anything except a mass of writhing tentacles. By the time the finale comes along this silliness starts to pile up, but this kind of shallow writing is just weak rather than something which derails the whole story. The military use of powered armour (the kind they had to cut from Starship Troopers) offers some fun visuals, even if like the aliens they are not particularly well designed. They should have looked to the original illustrations for sleeker costumes. But overall this is still a good time, and for once in this genre the pace and fun factor keep things moving along to avoid it becoming a complete shambles.
3/5
BONUS REVIEW
UNDER THE SKIN (2013)
Scarlett Johansson drives a van around Scotland to lure men into an alien soup. Yep, that's it. As a premise this allows for a number of weird and sinister moments - as well as some neat visuals - but the film has a number of other elements fighting for attention and doesn't ever consolidate them into a fully formed narrative. The horror aspect is the strongest and offers some very creepy material, but the use of hidden camera footage comes across as jarring when it's clear that the non actors have been asked to take part in the other parts of the film. By suggesting this early on it's a distraction to have time to think who is real and who is acting. A third act in which our nameless woman starts to do more than hunt for human prey is a nice turn of events, and there are various scenes that suggest her view of our society as she she explores it - but this is never fleshed out. They do manage to convey a sense of character from someone that has little dialogue but like everything it could have gone a little further to give it all more weight. Still if you're looking for a slow, atmospheric and unsettling piece of sci-fi come drama it might be worth a look.
3/5
In a return to science fiction, Tom Cruise stars in this adaptation of Japanese novella All You Need is Kill, keeping it's story of an alien invasion in which soldiers become trapped in a time loop. While that title and the cast has unfortunately been Westernised (Edge of Tomorrow is very Star Trek) this is at least an improvement on his previous vehicle Oblivion. Taking cues from the likes of Groundhog Day and more recently Source Code, this is never as good as either of those films but at least offers an action filled adventure that manages to maintain a sense of humour and has a well paced story. While it has a lot of fun and some fine spectacle, several aspects lead to it being essentially flimsy and it lacks the depth that could have been afforded by having such a brain wracking central concept. It also doesn't help that some elements lead to clichés and strange plot holes that could have been avoided considering the amount of rewrites the script went through. Still, while it's never excellent it mostly works.
Officer Cage (Cruise, originally written as Keiji) a PR man thrown onto the front line for attempted blackmail, finds himself reliving the military's last ditch attack after being killed in the assault. He has no experience of warfare, he's just a talker. By teaming up with Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt, keeping the original name) a veteran who has been through this but lost that power, they plan a way to win what is at first a futile battle by learning more and more, one day at a time. With death required to send him back in time, the makers seem to understand there is comedy to be mined instead of just having an all out dark and gritty look at the futility of war. This brings a problem to the table however, in that darker ideas and character development are left aside in place of popcorn entertainment. Which isn't a negative thing entirely, but they could have expanded on certain elements while keeping a fun balance. A single scene shows the toll this is taking; having tried endlessly to get through the lines with Vrataski, Cage starts to think this will never work out - at least for the both of them. He's seen the way it all plays out so many times that it drains any motivation. But it's brief and later gives in to unnecessary saccharine with a predictable ending. Despite the deliberate use of European beaches to convey a sense of seriousness this is at the core just a throwaway action film. Real characterisation is never reached even if the cast is likeable throughout.
The real issues arise from any closer examination of the story as it unfolds. Cage is shown as a TV personality selling the war effort, but nobody he meets knows him or believes his story about being forced into the battle; instead they are all told he's a deserter and never question this. Maybe troops in Britain don't get the US news? They go further later on by taping his mouth shut when he tells them about the future; it's played for laughs but seems a little strange when he knows such fine details. Rita is being shown to the public as a hero but she still has to go in with the other grunts, and they never explore this propaganda angle or offer any satire. The enemy is named as "the Mimics" but they never mimic anything except a mass of writhing tentacles. By the time the finale comes along this silliness starts to pile up, but this kind of shallow writing is just weak rather than something which derails the whole story. The military use of powered armour (the kind they had to cut from Starship Troopers) offers some fun visuals, even if like the aliens they are not particularly well designed. They should have looked to the original illustrations for sleeker costumes. But overall this is still a good time, and for once in this genre the pace and fun factor keep things moving along to avoid it becoming a complete shambles.
3/5
BONUS REVIEW
UNDER THE SKIN (2013)
Scarlett Johansson drives a van around Scotland to lure men into an alien soup. Yep, that's it. As a premise this allows for a number of weird and sinister moments - as well as some neat visuals - but the film has a number of other elements fighting for attention and doesn't ever consolidate them into a fully formed narrative. The horror aspect is the strongest and offers some very creepy material, but the use of hidden camera footage comes across as jarring when it's clear that the non actors have been asked to take part in the other parts of the film. By suggesting this early on it's a distraction to have time to think who is real and who is acting. A third act in which our nameless woman starts to do more than hunt for human prey is a nice turn of events, and there are various scenes that suggest her view of our society as she she explores it - but this is never fleshed out. They do manage to convey a sense of character from someone that has little dialogue but like everything it could have gone a little further to give it all more weight. Still if you're looking for a slow, atmospheric and unsettling piece of sci-fi come drama it might be worth a look.
3/5
Review Roundup - Monster Miss
GODZILLA (2014)
After the fun but immensely shallow Pacific Rim, and having seen Gareth Edwards previous film Monsters the stage was set; he could build a perfect bridge between the two. His first feature's strength was it's subtle use of giant creatures as a back drop for some good human drama. While it was nothing mind blowing there was a lot of potential to be seen in the world building, the clever use of low cost effects and the misdirection of the title. The problem is that while it's true that these elements are present in his move into big budget film making, there are a number of other problems that overshadow this. In what should have been an absolute victory for the Big G having last been wasted by Hollywood in the 1990s, things don't work out. Instead of balancing the two elements, neither the spectacle or the drama is handled in a way that works.
Straight off the bat the parts done really well stand out. Brian Cranston dealing with a nuclear accident in the opening scene sets the scene for the major strengths - engaging characters with motivations that work, and tension building through growing disaster events. It would be easy to plan out a story that brings his emotionally wrecked engineer into a collision with Ken Watanabe's biologist as both are invested from differing viewpoints. But the focus shifts early on to bring a lot of one dimensional military characters instead, for reasons that are unclear. Rather than delivering on what could be dramatic scenes between these two, Cranston's son played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson comes in after the plot moves forward in time several years. His family melodrama has no weight, the character has zero personality, and to makes things worse the way the monster parts of the story unfold are written in for complete convenience from his job as a bomb disposal expert to the path of destruction managing to arrive just where he is at the time. This weakness could have been saved by pure monster power but the problems don't end here.
Introducing the idea that these are ancient animals reliving their old life cycles is a great idea, and the way things play out to reflect current world concerns in a great use of the themes from the original 1954 movie. But not once but twice, the big battle scenes are cut short. Instead of a first and second act finale to hit those beats and keep things going, cameras cut away awkwardly to show other events instead. It's cringeworthy when they decide to end a sequence early and show it on someones TV in the background of another scene, or literally close the door on an attack when survivors get into a shelter. Maybe they had financial problems? This might have been acceptable if the sequences at the very end where amazing but the problems persist and they have way too many obscured shots from the perspective of ground troops or moments shown in dark and dusty nighttime environments. The great designs are shown off several times but don't get utilised nearly enough. All the excitement is sucked out, and it's very confusing to see the build ups done right and the outcome then totally fumbled. It's hard to say what went wrong when they clearly have the tone down and know how to build up tension in several great scenes. They even manage to give the creatures some humanity in what are the best moments, playing against expectations. But it's a big shame that these are fleeting.
2/5
BONUS REVIEW
X-MEN DAYS OF FUTURE PAST
X-Men as a screen franchise has had a troubled history, so while this latest entry is thankfully a great time I am always amazed it came back from the depths of a wasted Last Stand and the shambolic Origins: Wolverine. Hitting a number of the same notes as First Class, this remains a light but fun story using the younger cast members and real world history and a stepping off point for some absurd but entertaining set pieces. In what could happily be a final note for the series, a Terminator style future filled with death and grey wastelands collides with a colourful alternate 1970s where scary robots are created by evil mustache wearing scientists. As a result there are far too many mutants, many being on screen only to display their own visually impressive powers. At this point it's clear which ones are being introduced for special effects scenes rather than characterisation. But it balances the bleak and the fun pretty well in the end, despite a lack of real focus - while First Class worked best when it was trying to be a Magneto film this could have done better being more about Mystique or Professor X. Still, it's great to hear the X2 theme again and their is a lot to like even if at times it feels episodic.
3/5
After the fun but immensely shallow Pacific Rim, and having seen Gareth Edwards previous film Monsters the stage was set; he could build a perfect bridge between the two. His first feature's strength was it's subtle use of giant creatures as a back drop for some good human drama. While it was nothing mind blowing there was a lot of potential to be seen in the world building, the clever use of low cost effects and the misdirection of the title. The problem is that while it's true that these elements are present in his move into big budget film making, there are a number of other problems that overshadow this. In what should have been an absolute victory for the Big G having last been wasted by Hollywood in the 1990s, things don't work out. Instead of balancing the two elements, neither the spectacle or the drama is handled in a way that works.
Straight off the bat the parts done really well stand out. Brian Cranston dealing with a nuclear accident in the opening scene sets the scene for the major strengths - engaging characters with motivations that work, and tension building through growing disaster events. It would be easy to plan out a story that brings his emotionally wrecked engineer into a collision with Ken Watanabe's biologist as both are invested from differing viewpoints. But the focus shifts early on to bring a lot of one dimensional military characters instead, for reasons that are unclear. Rather than delivering on what could be dramatic scenes between these two, Cranston's son played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson comes in after the plot moves forward in time several years. His family melodrama has no weight, the character has zero personality, and to makes things worse the way the monster parts of the story unfold are written in for complete convenience from his job as a bomb disposal expert to the path of destruction managing to arrive just where he is at the time. This weakness could have been saved by pure monster power but the problems don't end here.
Introducing the idea that these are ancient animals reliving their old life cycles is a great idea, and the way things play out to reflect current world concerns in a great use of the themes from the original 1954 movie. But not once but twice, the big battle scenes are cut short. Instead of a first and second act finale to hit those beats and keep things going, cameras cut away awkwardly to show other events instead. It's cringeworthy when they decide to end a sequence early and show it on someones TV in the background of another scene, or literally close the door on an attack when survivors get into a shelter. Maybe they had financial problems? This might have been acceptable if the sequences at the very end where amazing but the problems persist and they have way too many obscured shots from the perspective of ground troops or moments shown in dark and dusty nighttime environments. The great designs are shown off several times but don't get utilised nearly enough. All the excitement is sucked out, and it's very confusing to see the build ups done right and the outcome then totally fumbled. It's hard to say what went wrong when they clearly have the tone down and know how to build up tension in several great scenes. They even manage to give the creatures some humanity in what are the best moments, playing against expectations. But it's a big shame that these are fleeting.
2/5
BONUS REVIEW
X-MEN DAYS OF FUTURE PAST
X-Men as a screen franchise has had a troubled history, so while this latest entry is thankfully a great time I am always amazed it came back from the depths of a wasted Last Stand and the shambolic Origins: Wolverine. Hitting a number of the same notes as First Class, this remains a light but fun story using the younger cast members and real world history and a stepping off point for some absurd but entertaining set pieces. In what could happily be a final note for the series, a Terminator style future filled with death and grey wastelands collides with a colourful alternate 1970s where scary robots are created by evil mustache wearing scientists. As a result there are far too many mutants, many being on screen only to display their own visually impressive powers. At this point it's clear which ones are being introduced for special effects scenes rather than characterisation. But it balances the bleak and the fun pretty well in the end, despite a lack of real focus - while First Class worked best when it was trying to be a Magneto film this could have done better being more about Mystique or Professor X. Still, it's great to hear the X2 theme again and their is a lot to like even if at times it feels episodic.
3/5
Review Roundup - Hammer Time
THE RAID 2 (2014)
In an effort to follow up the original film and use an earlier script that was previously considered too expensive, The Raid 2 (sometimes subtitled with it's original name Berandal or 'Thug') is a strange and wonderful thing to see come together. Originally the story of a prisoner befriending a crime boss's son and joining a mob war, this is now an undercover cop film and the nameless thug has been replaced with the hero Rama from the first outing. If this all sounds a bit unwieldy and convoluted, that's only because it is. But whether this all collapses under it's own weight or if they manage to throw in enough eye watering set pieces and imaginative moments for it to work is something for serious consideration. The result is both an improvement and a step down from it's predecessor, but in the end manages to be it's own thing.
In an effort to follow up the original film and use an earlier script that was previously considered too expensive, The Raid 2 (sometimes subtitled with it's original name Berandal or 'Thug') is a strange and wonderful thing to see come together. Originally the story of a prisoner befriending a crime boss's son and joining a mob war, this is now an undercover cop film and the nameless thug has been replaced with the hero Rama from the first outing. If this all sounds a bit unwieldy and convoluted, that's only because it is. But whether this all collapses under it's own weight or if they manage to throw in enough eye watering set pieces and imaginative moments for it to work is something for serious consideration. The result is both an improvement and a step down from it's predecessor, but in the end manages to be it's own thing.
Scorecard
OCTOBER
- The Terminator ☆☆☆☆☆
- The Raid 2 ☆☆☆☆
- Encounters of the Spooky Kind ☆☆☆☆
- Jackie Brown ☆☆☆☆
- Let The Right One In ☆☆☆☆
- Nosferatu: The Vampyre ☆☆☆☆
- Rasputin The Mad Monk ☆☆☆☆
- Seven ☆☆☆☆
- The 7 Golden Vampires ☆☆☆
- The Abominable Snowman ☆☆☆
- Captain Kronos ☆☆☆
- Dracula (1958) ☆☆☆
- Fright Night ☆☆☆
- Scars of Dracula ☆☆☆
- Nosferatu ☆☆☆
- Only Lovers Left Alive ☆☆☆
- The Host (Goemul) ☆☆☆
- The Thing From Another World ☆☆☆
- The Vampire Lovers ☆☆
- Straight on Till Morning ☆☆
- Tales from the Crypt ☆☆
- Dracula ☆☆
- Salem's Lot ☆☆
Horror Bites - Halloween Bloodsuckerfest
PART THREE: LEFTOVERS
Time to go even further forward in time. And where better to start than with Fright Night which makes a nice return to the 1980s after a few older school viewings. Despite some weird vampire seduction moments (just how old are these school kids?) and a story about creepy neighbours that has been done many times already, it's all very entertaining. There's a certain kind of charm to it all and Chris Sarandon as the vampire next door is both effortlessly charming and sinister.
There's nothing exceptional here if you consider the sum of its parts but it's fun and imaginative. Maybe it's just because I like the sort of period over acting from an '80s feature. Some of the scenery chewing great particularly from Roddy McDowell who plays a has-been movie star thrust into a real horror scenario. There are a few splatter moments and lot of fun practical effects included, including wolf transformations and dissolving bodies. The electronic score from Brad Fiedel (The Terminator) isn't that memorable but it helps give this all a classic vibe. (4/5)
Since this is the third and final segment here I will have to include a bit of everything. Let's start with the original version of Salem's Lot. Like the evil clown film It this is a two part TV movie based on the works Stephen King. but unfortunately this isn't really as good as a whole. There are some interesting elements here but while the vampires are pretty damn creepy the whole thing is a bloated mess with too many plot holes. I have to assume that the unexplained moments are book elements that have been cut down for time.
The vampire genre always has a lot of rules to explain, but when they choose some but don't keep to them it makes things hard to follow. It's also a problem that it's full of rambling Stephen King tangents that don't serve enough of a purpose. I'd like to see this re-edited but even then there's too much material that doesn't work. Does it really need a lengthy section about a guy catching his unfaithful wife if neither of them is a main character? While James Mason adds a touch of class and the main vampire is great most of it is just a head scratcher. (2/5)
Keeping with the theme of mixing things up I have to add a foreign language release, and one that is by far the most successful entry to this viewing session; Let The Right One In. It's deeply unnerving but also deeply character driven. The story is dark and weird but has a strong bond of friendship at the centre... even if it's one that will being ruining the lives of every day people. This is a great idea which it doesn't shy away from exploring. The vampire is more than just a monster and its victims are more than just faceless goons to increase the body count, so everyone wins.
It also asks questions about the nature of innocence as troubled boy Oskar meets the vampire Eli. He may have a sadistic streak waiting to surface and Eli may have a lost childhood under the cold immortal exterior. Looking at the amount of bloodsuckers on this list the kind of depth here is nearly unheard of. Even if some of the even darker elements of the original story are glossed over this is an adaptation that really works. It's eerie, haunting and very engaging. Which in this subgenre is a rare achievement. (4/5)
The same can't quite be said for Interview With The Vampire. I get the feeling a whole lot of this has been either chopped down or removed to fit the running time, or at least it's told in a way that gives it that vibe. While what's left is interesting enough, Brad Pitt feels miscast in a role that isn't energetic enough for him. Antonio Banderas arrives later but it doesn't help as he spouts a bunch of pseudo philosophy just leads nowhere. Perhaps the two lead actors should have been swapped?
On the other hand Lestat (Tom Cruise) is totally unlikeable but at least he's got a personality you can hate. It's a shame then that it feels like he could have been given more to do. It's bloody when required with few great Stan Winston effects, and it really picks up when scenes of action and revenge come into play. But as a horror story it lacks any real chills. It has a lot of period drama style, so if intricate costumes and sets are your thing it won't disappoint. In the end the problem of the story feeling cut short means that it lacks depth and closure Which is problem when someone's whole life story is being told. (3/5)
I'll bring this all to a close this with a newer entry in the genre, Only Lovers Left Alive. It does what the title suggests at least, but whether the melancholy romance elements and that sombre idea of living forever works against more quirky elements is debatable. I really like Tilda Swinton's performance as a wise and immortal figure. But other parts aren't quite as fleshed out as they should be, including John Hurt has a vampiric Christopher Marlowe or the concept of modern human blood being toxic because of Twenty-First Century living.
It works a lot better when these undead creatures are simply drawn as artists, writers or musicians. Adam (the suicidal musician) and Eve (the considerate naturalist) make a good pair while others like her sister Eva (the immature monster) arrive to upset their balance. Perhaps the latter is a bit much when most of the story is more thoughtful and low key as a character study. Then again perhaps that's the whole point. It's all nicely filmed and has enough thought provoking stuff along the way so it's a good note to go out on. (3/5)
(Part one) (Part two)
Time to go even further forward in time. And where better to start than with Fright Night which makes a nice return to the 1980s after a few older school viewings. Despite some weird vampire seduction moments (just how old are these school kids?) and a story about creepy neighbours that has been done many times already, it's all very entertaining. There's a certain kind of charm to it all and Chris Sarandon as the vampire next door is both effortlessly charming and sinister.
There's nothing exceptional here if you consider the sum of its parts but it's fun and imaginative. Maybe it's just because I like the sort of period over acting from an '80s feature. Some of the scenery chewing great particularly from Roddy McDowell who plays a has-been movie star thrust into a real horror scenario. There are a few splatter moments and lot of fun practical effects included, including wolf transformations and dissolving bodies. The electronic score from Brad Fiedel (The Terminator) isn't that memorable but it helps give this all a classic vibe. (4/5)
Since this is the third and final segment here I will have to include a bit of everything. Let's start with the original version of Salem's Lot. Like the evil clown film It this is a two part TV movie based on the works Stephen King. but unfortunately this isn't really as good as a whole. There are some interesting elements here but while the vampires are pretty damn creepy the whole thing is a bloated mess with too many plot holes. I have to assume that the unexplained moments are book elements that have been cut down for time.
The vampire genre always has a lot of rules to explain, but when they choose some but don't keep to them it makes things hard to follow. It's also a problem that it's full of rambling Stephen King tangents that don't serve enough of a purpose. I'd like to see this re-edited but even then there's too much material that doesn't work. Does it really need a lengthy section about a guy catching his unfaithful wife if neither of them is a main character? While James Mason adds a touch of class and the main vampire is great most of it is just a head scratcher. (2/5)
Keeping with the theme of mixing things up I have to add a foreign language release, and one that is by far the most successful entry to this viewing session; Let The Right One In. It's deeply unnerving but also deeply character driven. The story is dark and weird but has a strong bond of friendship at the centre... even if it's one that will being ruining the lives of every day people. This is a great idea which it doesn't shy away from exploring. The vampire is more than just a monster and its victims are more than just faceless goons to increase the body count, so everyone wins.
It also asks questions about the nature of innocence as troubled boy Oskar meets the vampire Eli. He may have a sadistic streak waiting to surface and Eli may have a lost childhood under the cold immortal exterior. Looking at the amount of bloodsuckers on this list the kind of depth here is nearly unheard of. Even if some of the even darker elements of the original story are glossed over this is an adaptation that really works. It's eerie, haunting and very engaging. Which in this subgenre is a rare achievement. (4/5)
The same can't quite be said for Interview With The Vampire. I get the feeling a whole lot of this has been either chopped down or removed to fit the running time, or at least it's told in a way that gives it that vibe. While what's left is interesting enough, Brad Pitt feels miscast in a role that isn't energetic enough for him. Antonio Banderas arrives later but it doesn't help as he spouts a bunch of pseudo philosophy just leads nowhere. Perhaps the two lead actors should have been swapped?
On the other hand Lestat (Tom Cruise) is totally unlikeable but at least he's got a personality you can hate. It's a shame then that it feels like he could have been given more to do. It's bloody when required with few great Stan Winston effects, and it really picks up when scenes of action and revenge come into play. But as a horror story it lacks any real chills. It has a lot of period drama style, so if intricate costumes and sets are your thing it won't disappoint. In the end the problem of the story feeling cut short means that it lacks depth and closure Which is problem when someone's whole life story is being told. (3/5)
I'll bring this all to a close this with a newer entry in the genre, Only Lovers Left Alive. It does what the title suggests at least, but whether the melancholy romance elements and that sombre idea of living forever works against more quirky elements is debatable. I really like Tilda Swinton's performance as a wise and immortal figure. But other parts aren't quite as fleshed out as they should be, including John Hurt has a vampiric Christopher Marlowe or the concept of modern human blood being toxic because of Twenty-First Century living.
It works a lot better when these undead creatures are simply drawn as artists, writers or musicians. Adam (the suicidal musician) and Eve (the considerate naturalist) make a good pair while others like her sister Eva (the immature monster) arrive to upset their balance. Perhaps the latter is a bit much when most of the story is more thoughtful and low key as a character study. Then again perhaps that's the whole point. It's all nicely filmed and has enough thought provoking stuff along the way so it's a good note to go out on. (3/5)
(Part one) (Part two)
Horror Bites - Halloween Bloodsuckerfest
PART TWO: SHLOCK-TOBER
While the first segment of this little marathon focused on just a few of the incarnations of Dracula that have come about over the decades, sequels and spin-offs were always slightly different in tone. Which may be putting it lightly when it comes to Hammer releases in their later years. To be brutally honest, most of their sequels starring Christopher Lee... are varying degrees of bad. Brides of Dracula is best, and doesn't include him, while Prince of Darkness is a mixed bag. Scars of Dracula is the only one I can enjoy for what it is. Which is an oddity amongst the sequels and seems be a stand-alone plot (even if they start it with yet another absurd resurrection). Where do they keep finding the Count's ashes if they blew away with the morning light in 1958?
Lee actually gets some dialogue this time even if it's just in a few early scenes. But it's always good to see him being given more to do. It's been reported that many of the films have no speaking part for D but it's been disputed why. He claims that he refused to read while the film makers say they didn't write anything in the first place. The fake bats are still really awful and there are some comedy moments which are very out of place, but it's still entertaining for the most part in a silly kind of way. Their attempts at adding more violence and sex this time are still really tame which is kind of endearing, which I guess adds to the fun. (3/5)
On the subject of adult material it's strange that that The Vampire Lovers is case of reputation over actual content. Hammer's take on the Carmilla story is strangely uneventful on the whole. It's cult status and the advertising material for it are pretty misleading. In the modern day you can see it all for what it is - a product of it's time from a mainstream studio. A few decapitations are all this includes in the way of real horror and most of the vampire moments are done in vague dream scenes which lack any kind of atmosphere.
All the supposed erotic content is very low key unless the idea of a few shots of naked skin are to be considered adult content. How racy! As for the story itself Ingrid Pitt is fine but the character isn't developed and whether Miss Carnstein is truly evil or just lonely isn't explored with any depth. The weird plot threads that are left hanging (she has a few helpers early on who are never explained) also don't help. Worst of the General played by Peter Cushing is barely in it, what a crime. (3/5)
Luckily he appears as Van Helsing in one of the strangest entries here, Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires. The good doctor is in China... for some reason. Something about discovering if local folk tales are true, unfortunately the local academics will have nothing to do with it. Also in town is Dracula... (played by Not Christopher Lee) also for some reason. He's set up shop in the Far East disguised as a priest, while a group of golden masked vampires terrorise the locals for him. Or so it appears.
The problem is that they actually were doing this before he showed up, so their arrangement is less than crystal clear. In fact in a way he's totally superfluous, appearing in the opening and then being dispatched in mere seconds right at the very end. I guess at this stage Van Helsing is just a seasoned pro at all this staking business. But story isn't the focus here - it's all about the undead action. This is a collaboration with the Shaw Brothers studio, and the team up brings plenty of fight scenes to the film. It's all complete nonsense but I guess that this strange set of circumstances could only ever result in a strange movie. (3/5)
The nonsense continues with Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter. He's British military captain who uses a Japanese sword and has a rather German accent, so your guess is as good as mine. He travels the land often taking off his shirt while just occasionally fighting evil. It's a film that has a kind of a kitchen sink approach, as you can see with his sidekick - both a professor and hunchback. After a while it's easier not to question this kind of thing and just go with all the nonsense.
They throw in some unique (and perhaps fabricated) vampire lore, including a life draining species rather than the ones that drink blood. There's also a strange scene where they use frogs buried in the woods to discover if someone is the walking dead. I guess you'd have to call this an adventure story rather than any kind of horror, but it kind of works. Where else are you going to get a finale where the hero smiths a sword and duels with the vampire? Hammer had plans to make this a series but it never panned out, and while I enjoy this you can kind of see why. (3/5)
(Part one) (Part three)
While the first segment of this little marathon focused on just a few of the incarnations of Dracula that have come about over the decades, sequels and spin-offs were always slightly different in tone. Which may be putting it lightly when it comes to Hammer releases in their later years. To be brutally honest, most of their sequels starring Christopher Lee... are varying degrees of bad. Brides of Dracula is best, and doesn't include him, while Prince of Darkness is a mixed bag. Scars of Dracula is the only one I can enjoy for what it is. Which is an oddity amongst the sequels and seems be a stand-alone plot (even if they start it with yet another absurd resurrection). Where do they keep finding the Count's ashes if they blew away with the morning light in 1958?
Lee actually gets some dialogue this time even if it's just in a few early scenes. But it's always good to see him being given more to do. It's been reported that many of the films have no speaking part for D but it's been disputed why. He claims that he refused to read while the film makers say they didn't write anything in the first place. The fake bats are still really awful and there are some comedy moments which are very out of place, but it's still entertaining for the most part in a silly kind of way. Their attempts at adding more violence and sex this time are still really tame which is kind of endearing, which I guess adds to the fun. (3/5)
On the subject of adult material it's strange that that The Vampire Lovers is case of reputation over actual content. Hammer's take on the Carmilla story is strangely uneventful on the whole. It's cult status and the advertising material for it are pretty misleading. In the modern day you can see it all for what it is - a product of it's time from a mainstream studio. A few decapitations are all this includes in the way of real horror and most of the vampire moments are done in vague dream scenes which lack any kind of atmosphere.
All the supposed erotic content is very low key unless the idea of a few shots of naked skin are to be considered adult content. How racy! As for the story itself Ingrid Pitt is fine but the character isn't developed and whether Miss Carnstein is truly evil or just lonely isn't explored with any depth. The weird plot threads that are left hanging (she has a few helpers early on who are never explained) also don't help. Worst of the General played by Peter Cushing is barely in it, what a crime. (3/5)
Luckily he appears as Van Helsing in one of the strangest entries here, Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires. The good doctor is in China... for some reason. Something about discovering if local folk tales are true, unfortunately the local academics will have nothing to do with it. Also in town is Dracula... (played by Not Christopher Lee) also for some reason. He's set up shop in the Far East disguised as a priest, while a group of golden masked vampires terrorise the locals for him. Or so it appears.
The problem is that they actually were doing this before he showed up, so their arrangement is less than crystal clear. In fact in a way he's totally superfluous, appearing in the opening and then being dispatched in mere seconds right at the very end. I guess at this stage Van Helsing is just a seasoned pro at all this staking business. But story isn't the focus here - it's all about the undead action. This is a collaboration with the Shaw Brothers studio, and the team up brings plenty of fight scenes to the film. It's all complete nonsense but I guess that this strange set of circumstances could only ever result in a strange movie. (3/5)
The nonsense continues with Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter. He's British military captain who uses a Japanese sword and has a rather German accent, so your guess is as good as mine. He travels the land often taking off his shirt while just occasionally fighting evil. It's a film that has a kind of a kitchen sink approach, as you can see with his sidekick - both a professor and hunchback. After a while it's easier not to question this kind of thing and just go with all the nonsense.
They throw in some unique (and perhaps fabricated) vampire lore, including a life draining species rather than the ones that drink blood. There's also a strange scene where they use frogs buried in the woods to discover if someone is the walking dead. I guess you'd have to call this an adventure story rather than any kind of horror, but it kind of works. Where else are you going to get a finale where the hero smiths a sword and duels with the vampire? Hammer had plans to make this a series but it never panned out, and while I enjoy this you can kind of see why. (3/5)
(Part one) (Part three)
Horror Bites - Halloween Bloodsuckerfest
PART ONE - DRAC ON DRAC ACTION
Vampires, creatures of the night, the walking undead. What a load of complete and utter nonsense eh? Well yes and no. Less a horror villain and more a familiar face in popular culture, you can't move for the amount of blood drinking ghouls out there. They appear on breakfast cereal and children's television shows after all. Are they ever scary? It's hard to be sure when they have so many weaknesses. Are they appealing? I have to say yes. Despite the varying quality of the media involving Dracula and his followers there's something interesting about all of this. With or without the Gothic trappings of his original time period.
Score Card
SEPTEMBER
Mad Max 2 ☆☆☆☆
Pulp Fiction ☆☆☆☆
Samsara ☆☆☆☆
Big Trouble in Little China ☆☆☆☆
Critters ☆☆☆☆
Dredd ☆☆☆☆
First Blood ☆☆☆☆
Shadow of a Doubt ☆☆☆☆
The Raid ☆☆☆☆
They Live ☆☆☆☆
Strange Circus ☆☆☆
In the Mouth of Madness ☆☆☆
Mad Max ☆☆☆
My Neighbors the Yamadas ☆☆☆
Nikita ☆☆☆
Tremors ☆☆☆
Die Hard with a Vengeance ☆☆☆
Event Horizon ☆☆☆
Ghidora the Three Headed Monster ☆☆☆
I'm a Cyborg but that's OK ☆☆
Transcendence ☆☆
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome ☆☆
The Amazing Spider-man 2 ☆
Mad Max 2 ☆☆☆☆
Pulp Fiction ☆☆☆☆
Samsara ☆☆☆☆
Big Trouble in Little China ☆☆☆☆
Critters ☆☆☆☆
Dredd ☆☆☆☆
First Blood ☆☆☆☆
Shadow of a Doubt ☆☆☆☆
The Raid ☆☆☆☆
They Live ☆☆☆☆
Strange Circus ☆☆☆
In the Mouth of Madness ☆☆☆
Mad Max ☆☆☆
My Neighbors the Yamadas ☆☆☆
Nikita ☆☆☆
Tremors ☆☆☆
Die Hard with a Vengeance ☆☆☆
Event Horizon ☆☆☆
Ghidora the Three Headed Monster ☆☆☆
I'm a Cyborg but that's OK ☆☆
Transcendence ☆☆
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome ☆☆
The Amazing Spider-man 2 ☆
Review Roundup - System shock
TRANSCENDENCE (2014)
The promise of a return to slower moving but thought provoking science fiction offered by Wally Pfister's directorial debut was something that easily got my attention. As a fan of the idea of A.I. and the blurring line between the human the synthetic, I was hoping to get an older style movie where sci-fi would be used to tell a good story or offer some kind of parable instead of just having being an excuse to blow up some cars and buildings (not that I don't have time for pyrotechnics). The cinematographer had been a long time collaborator with Christopher Nolan and so the chance to see him taking what had been learned working on the likes of Memento and The Prestige and using that on a project of his own. But does this plot of artificial intelligence have any brains, and is there more to it than stylish photography?
Straight away you can see that this has the slick visual look of the Dark Knight series. It's a great looking film, but the issues come across with just about all of the other aspects of the story. Shots are beautifully constructed but often linger for far too long and there is never any urgency to any of the proceedings - it really drags it's feet even as things spiral out of control. The premise of a man considering death and using himself as a test subject to forward his own ambition and that of his partner is a great setup and the dangers of creating an intelligence that far outmatches it's creators is of course a well worn plot device. But how this plays out lacks any serious drama considering the amount of existential dilemma which could have been mined from the subject and the kinds of every day fears it might have played up. It's surprisingly flat and emotionless, and the idea that these characters are scientific minds is odd when so many strange choices are being made.
It's also strange to see a story which lacks any real central character. Considering that Johnny Depp is plastered all over the marketing, it's an odd thing to find that he isn't a focal point for the plot. His partner (Rebecca Hall) is used as the irrational heart of the film and his colleague (Paul Bettany) is the concerned brain of it, but they are never really used as an anchor to tie all of this together. Which isn't to say that the cast aren't doing a good job - a positive aspect when the material is so clunky at times. I like Bettany but along with everyone else he feels under used. When things finally come to pieces and everyone realises what kinds of problems they might have been a part of, it never picks up the pace and the nano-technology elements just come across as silly as science jargon about computer viruses and internet connections get thrown about. Nothing seems to work here and it's a big shame.
2/5
BONUS REVIEW
THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2
This is a film with three writers. Which I suppose might explain what a mess they made of it. With the dull re-hashing of the origin story out of the way, there was room to go almost anywhere with this material; after all they had a huge amount of comics to draw from. Unfortunately they decided to throw in all kinds of random ideas and see what would stick, and none of it does. Recycling the Harry Osbourne plot from the Sam Raimi films but condensing it all into one plot would be bad enough, but adding to that a story about Jamie Foxx becoming the villain Electro in another laboratory accident means that any kind of real focus gets thrown out the window. This only gets worse as these elements collide with tangents about Spider-man's missing parents and his love life. Scenes come across as random and often feel like they have been stitched together from different films, quirky romantic moments and trashy super villain material clash with coming of age drama. None of the casting works, the big set pieces are overblown and have unconvincing effects and it's impossible to care about any of it - even as the story aims to heighten the drama in the finale.
1/5
The promise of a return to slower moving but thought provoking science fiction offered by Wally Pfister's directorial debut was something that easily got my attention. As a fan of the idea of A.I. and the blurring line between the human the synthetic, I was hoping to get an older style movie where sci-fi would be used to tell a good story or offer some kind of parable instead of just having being an excuse to blow up some cars and buildings (not that I don't have time for pyrotechnics). The cinematographer had been a long time collaborator with Christopher Nolan and so the chance to see him taking what had been learned working on the likes of Memento and The Prestige and using that on a project of his own. But does this plot of artificial intelligence have any brains, and is there more to it than stylish photography?
Straight away you can see that this has the slick visual look of the Dark Knight series. It's a great looking film, but the issues come across with just about all of the other aspects of the story. Shots are beautifully constructed but often linger for far too long and there is never any urgency to any of the proceedings - it really drags it's feet even as things spiral out of control. The premise of a man considering death and using himself as a test subject to forward his own ambition and that of his partner is a great setup and the dangers of creating an intelligence that far outmatches it's creators is of course a well worn plot device. But how this plays out lacks any serious drama considering the amount of existential dilemma which could have been mined from the subject and the kinds of every day fears it might have played up. It's surprisingly flat and emotionless, and the idea that these characters are scientific minds is odd when so many strange choices are being made.
It's also strange to see a story which lacks any real central character. Considering that Johnny Depp is plastered all over the marketing, it's an odd thing to find that he isn't a focal point for the plot. His partner (Rebecca Hall) is used as the irrational heart of the film and his colleague (Paul Bettany) is the concerned brain of it, but they are never really used as an anchor to tie all of this together. Which isn't to say that the cast aren't doing a good job - a positive aspect when the material is so clunky at times. I like Bettany but along with everyone else he feels under used. When things finally come to pieces and everyone realises what kinds of problems they might have been a part of, it never picks up the pace and the nano-technology elements just come across as silly as science jargon about computer viruses and internet connections get thrown about. Nothing seems to work here and it's a big shame.
2/5
BONUS REVIEW
THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2
This is a film with three writers. Which I suppose might explain what a mess they made of it. With the dull re-hashing of the origin story out of the way, there was room to go almost anywhere with this material; after all they had a huge amount of comics to draw from. Unfortunately they decided to throw in all kinds of random ideas and see what would stick, and none of it does. Recycling the Harry Osbourne plot from the Sam Raimi films but condensing it all into one plot would be bad enough, but adding to that a story about Jamie Foxx becoming the villain Electro in another laboratory accident means that any kind of real focus gets thrown out the window. This only gets worse as these elements collide with tangents about Spider-man's missing parents and his love life. Scenes come across as random and often feel like they have been stitched together from different films, quirky romantic moments and trashy super villain material clash with coming of age drama. None of the casting works, the big set pieces are overblown and have unconvincing effects and it's impossible to care about any of it - even as the story aims to heighten the drama in the finale.
1/5
Review Roundup - Master of Puppets
THE MASTER (2012)
Recently I got around to seeing Paul Thomas Anderson's western epic come oil drama There Will Be Blood. It was a real treat; an impressive piece of work all round, full of historical details and amazing photography. It was slow burning (with of course some bursts of fire from the characters and their drilling operation itself) but at the same time it was incredibly engrossing; the soundtrack was strange and sinister, and best of all the human drama was extremely intense. A dark and blackly humorous look at ambition and greed but at the same time simply a well crafted story. So looking at The Master and seeing many similarities, I have to report that unfortunately it's a let down. After coming to anticipate something more it wasn't engaging in the same way. But comparing the two the pieces all seem to be here. What is it that creates such a lack of satisfaction?
This is certainly another acting master class, and again it all looks and sounds amazing, but beyond the quality of the players and how it's all staged their journey is oddly inadequate in comparison. It never comes to any apparent conclusions about the nature of the subjects at hand, which is a shame since it has a number of fascinating ideas to explore. Is it a study of the weak under pressure or those who are easily led in tough times? Is it a look at ego and ambition? Is it a look at post Second World War culture clashes and the negative effects of fledgling pseudo sciences? All of these ideas are touched upon but in surface detail only and this lack of narrative focus undermines the experience. Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman) is a charismatic but twitchy writer and figurehead, who beams under flattery but crumbles and devolves into anger when questioned. This alone could have made for a great character study. In a darker turn Amy Adams plays his wife, perhaps the puppet master behind the scenes pushing him along and directing their followers, but their aims and ideals are vague and never explored. Is it a simple fraud case or are these real believers? The claims that Dodd is a nuclear physicist and his hypnosis methods could cure leukemia are very disturbing, but whether this is fantasy or actual faith isn't explained. The plot meanders and offers a lot of good character moments but never moves towards any real arcs or a solid outcome.
The story itself follows Joaquin Phoenix as Pacific War veteran Freddie as he comes across this nefarious couple and their group, The Cause. At the centre of the film it's an amazing creation, someone who is visibly broken by wartime experiences having fallen into alcoholism and can no longer function within normal social standards. Perhaps he never could as flashbacks suggest he didn't quite fit into military life. He's a twisted and slowly unraveling wreck of a man - but to what end? What he feels The Cause can offer him is never really explained and what he offers them in return besides a test subject for their persuasion techniques or the occasional hired help is unclear. There's certainly a friendship between him and Dodd, who perhaps means to exploit his weaknesses or is just interested in seeing his own less acceptable desires being expressed without inhibition. What exactly makes Freddie so actively violent towards the naysayers in the group or those speaking out against his new found club is not obvious since he never fully accepts their ideas. How he comes to a point that makes it acceptable to move on in his life is also unclear, though he has developed by the end in some ways. The cult itself moves from house hold meetings and court room scandal into book publishing and more worryingly school openings, yet it's uncertain if this is a real success for it's leaders and how these things are actually moving along, or if this is temporary and the damage they are doing through the "self help" being offered is going to come back and bite them later on. There are a lot of cryptic moments and unexplored ideas here. Whether this is worthy of further exploration or is just as vapid and hollow as the cult itself; that remains to be seen.
3/5
BONUS REVIEW
I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK (2006)
What happened Park Chan-Wook? From the teeth pulling nastiness of the Vengeance trilogy and the human drama of JSA, things seem to be going well. But for whatever reason things haven't quite panned out and much like Thirst, here there are plenty of wacky scenes but the real ideas are never developed into a story that works. This suffers more for it, and the gravity of a plot containing elements about psychological trauma and the treatment of mental illness should really have been dealt with in a manner which allows for some serious depth. Instead the tone doesn't ever work as the occasional somber moments collide with the more frequent comedy sequences. They showcase a lot of problem people but never explore their issues in a meaningful way, opting instead for crazy special effects and oddball humour rather than actual therapy. The abrupt ending just serves to amplify this feeling of confusion in what is a wasted opportunity overall.
2/5
Recently I got around to seeing Paul Thomas Anderson's western epic come oil drama There Will Be Blood. It was a real treat; an impressive piece of work all round, full of historical details and amazing photography. It was slow burning (with of course some bursts of fire from the characters and their drilling operation itself) but at the same time it was incredibly engrossing; the soundtrack was strange and sinister, and best of all the human drama was extremely intense. A dark and blackly humorous look at ambition and greed but at the same time simply a well crafted story. So looking at The Master and seeing many similarities, I have to report that unfortunately it's a let down. After coming to anticipate something more it wasn't engaging in the same way. But comparing the two the pieces all seem to be here. What is it that creates such a lack of satisfaction?
This is certainly another acting master class, and again it all looks and sounds amazing, but beyond the quality of the players and how it's all staged their journey is oddly inadequate in comparison. It never comes to any apparent conclusions about the nature of the subjects at hand, which is a shame since it has a number of fascinating ideas to explore. Is it a study of the weak under pressure or those who are easily led in tough times? Is it a look at ego and ambition? Is it a look at post Second World War culture clashes and the negative effects of fledgling pseudo sciences? All of these ideas are touched upon but in surface detail only and this lack of narrative focus undermines the experience. Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman) is a charismatic but twitchy writer and figurehead, who beams under flattery but crumbles and devolves into anger when questioned. This alone could have made for a great character study. In a darker turn Amy Adams plays his wife, perhaps the puppet master behind the scenes pushing him along and directing their followers, but their aims and ideals are vague and never explored. Is it a simple fraud case or are these real believers? The claims that Dodd is a nuclear physicist and his hypnosis methods could cure leukemia are very disturbing, but whether this is fantasy or actual faith isn't explained. The plot meanders and offers a lot of good character moments but never moves towards any real arcs or a solid outcome.
The story itself follows Joaquin Phoenix as Pacific War veteran Freddie as he comes across this nefarious couple and their group, The Cause. At the centre of the film it's an amazing creation, someone who is visibly broken by wartime experiences having fallen into alcoholism and can no longer function within normal social standards. Perhaps he never could as flashbacks suggest he didn't quite fit into military life. He's a twisted and slowly unraveling wreck of a man - but to what end? What he feels The Cause can offer him is never really explained and what he offers them in return besides a test subject for their persuasion techniques or the occasional hired help is unclear. There's certainly a friendship between him and Dodd, who perhaps means to exploit his weaknesses or is just interested in seeing his own less acceptable desires being expressed without inhibition. What exactly makes Freddie so actively violent towards the naysayers in the group or those speaking out against his new found club is not obvious since he never fully accepts their ideas. How he comes to a point that makes it acceptable to move on in his life is also unclear, though he has developed by the end in some ways. The cult itself moves from house hold meetings and court room scandal into book publishing and more worryingly school openings, yet it's uncertain if this is a real success for it's leaders and how these things are actually moving along, or if this is temporary and the damage they are doing through the "self help" being offered is going to come back and bite them later on. There are a lot of cryptic moments and unexplored ideas here. Whether this is worthy of further exploration or is just as vapid and hollow as the cult itself; that remains to be seen.
3/5
BONUS REVIEW
I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK (2006)
What happened Park Chan-Wook? From the teeth pulling nastiness of the Vengeance trilogy and the human drama of JSA, things seem to be going well. But for whatever reason things haven't quite panned out and much like Thirst, here there are plenty of wacky scenes but the real ideas are never developed into a story that works. This suffers more for it, and the gravity of a plot containing elements about psychological trauma and the treatment of mental illness should really have been dealt with in a manner which allows for some serious depth. Instead the tone doesn't ever work as the occasional somber moments collide with the more frequent comedy sequences. They showcase a lot of problem people but never explore their issues in a meaningful way, opting instead for crazy special effects and oddball humour rather than actual therapy. The abrupt ending just serves to amplify this feeling of confusion in what is a wasted opportunity overall.
2/5
Review Roundup - Bionic Commando
CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER (2014)
Jump starting the 'phase two' Marvel Studios releases after a shaky start seemed like a tough job, but Steve Rogers returns to put things back on track in what is a surprisingly satisfying spy thriller come action fest. The emphasis being on the latter. Where Thor: The Dark World was full of unconvincing fantasy plot elements and distracting CG, and Iron Man 3 meandered too much with questionable character developments, it's an unexpected move for this latest entry to be packed with intrigue, stunt work and what almost verges on paranoia conspiracy material. Almost. Though it falls into the trap of overblown spectacle and another doomsday device type countdown during the finale, it's far from the silly universe squashing ideas in the previous outing for the God of Thunder and uses the man out of time idea in a few interesting ways without going for more easy fish out of water comedy. Despite managing to build on a new tone for the series the darker moments aren't taken too far; and this is still a lot of fun.
While there may be one too many generic sequences and giant explosions in that third act, it's got to be said that this has a refreshing amount of real car chases, great fight choreography and a new level of grit for the Avengers franchise as a whole. It's noticeable just how many people are stabbed, shot and exploded from a pure action movie point of view. It was nice to see a vibe which has mostly been lost in recent mainstream adventure movies. Of course I don't mean that in a sadistic way but in that it allows for a certain level of impact, something which can be sanitized in a genre where primary colours and humorous banter are prevalent. It's not as intense as a lot of the material in The Dark Knight with all it's pencils and gasoline, but this time around Marvel does seem to be pushing the certificate in a new ways, and it works really well in creating a comic hero movie which doubles as a watchable thriller. While the attempts to have a plot which throws back to hidden agenda espionage stories aren't that successful, the action style seems to have gone back to the 90s. They avoid the simplistic three action beat formula and deliver a number of visceral and highly entertaining set pieces and don't pull any punches. But this is only ever as successful as the film as a whole right?
Luckily what brings all of this together is the story, though as I say it's not entirely outside the usual superhero tropes. But while this is far from a serious critique of surveillance culture, reviving the 'trust no-one' message results in a particular sense of urgency as the central characters discover the roots of their dilemma. Everyone knows by now which ones are going to be safe and sound as the credits roll, but it still comes together well enough to keep a degree of tension going. The simple virtues of the Captain himself remain a strength in a time when other protagonists are brooding and conflicted, and this is advantageous for the plot allowing it to show contrasting ideals and have him play off the other heroes - for all the subterfuge and double crossing this isn't a laugh free effort which I appreciate. That being said I still don't buy Black Widow and Nick Fury as real personalities, but they at least get a few moments. Even the titular Winter Soldier feels under utilised in what is a slightly overlong film but perhaps this can be expanded on in the future? For once I look forward to it.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS (2013)
Another oddball work from Joel and Ethan Coen, this musical journey has a lot of melancholy and a good deal of sly and dark humour as folk singer Llewyn (Oscar Isaac) struggles with his musical career, personal problems and a cat he doesn't own. It's a back and forth journey as he goes from one awkward disappointment to the next, and one night's sleep on a sofa to another; and it becomes clear that his decisions along the way may not be particularly wise and his own baggage may be causing issues he is unwilling to deal with. This type of character study doesn't paint a likeable portrait as many of his acquaintances are vocal about but it never creates a real arc. He is offered real friendship at least once but seems unable to build on this or take creative options that compromise his ideas a little, he'd rather have what he wants or quit entirely. This all or nothing outlook is perhaps a realistic view of artistic temperaments and I like a lot of what is done here, but in the end it isn't quite the fulfilling experience I might have expected.
3/5
Jump starting the 'phase two' Marvel Studios releases after a shaky start seemed like a tough job, but Steve Rogers returns to put things back on track in what is a surprisingly satisfying spy thriller come action fest. The emphasis being on the latter. Where Thor: The Dark World was full of unconvincing fantasy plot elements and distracting CG, and Iron Man 3 meandered too much with questionable character developments, it's an unexpected move for this latest entry to be packed with intrigue, stunt work and what almost verges on paranoia conspiracy material. Almost. Though it falls into the trap of overblown spectacle and another doomsday device type countdown during the finale, it's far from the silly universe squashing ideas in the previous outing for the God of Thunder and uses the man out of time idea in a few interesting ways without going for more easy fish out of water comedy. Despite managing to build on a new tone for the series the darker moments aren't taken too far; and this is still a lot of fun.
While there may be one too many generic sequences and giant explosions in that third act, it's got to be said that this has a refreshing amount of real car chases, great fight choreography and a new level of grit for the Avengers franchise as a whole. It's noticeable just how many people are stabbed, shot and exploded from a pure action movie point of view. It was nice to see a vibe which has mostly been lost in recent mainstream adventure movies. Of course I don't mean that in a sadistic way but in that it allows for a certain level of impact, something which can be sanitized in a genre where primary colours and humorous banter are prevalent. It's not as intense as a lot of the material in The Dark Knight with all it's pencils and gasoline, but this time around Marvel does seem to be pushing the certificate in a new ways, and it works really well in creating a comic hero movie which doubles as a watchable thriller. While the attempts to have a plot which throws back to hidden agenda espionage stories aren't that successful, the action style seems to have gone back to the 90s. They avoid the simplistic three action beat formula and deliver a number of visceral and highly entertaining set pieces and don't pull any punches. But this is only ever as successful as the film as a whole right?
Luckily what brings all of this together is the story, though as I say it's not entirely outside the usual superhero tropes. But while this is far from a serious critique of surveillance culture, reviving the 'trust no-one' message results in a particular sense of urgency as the central characters discover the roots of their dilemma. Everyone knows by now which ones are going to be safe and sound as the credits roll, but it still comes together well enough to keep a degree of tension going. The simple virtues of the Captain himself remain a strength in a time when other protagonists are brooding and conflicted, and this is advantageous for the plot allowing it to show contrasting ideals and have him play off the other heroes - for all the subterfuge and double crossing this isn't a laugh free effort which I appreciate. That being said I still don't buy Black Widow and Nick Fury as real personalities, but they at least get a few moments. Even the titular Winter Soldier feels under utilised in what is a slightly overlong film but perhaps this can be expanded on in the future? For once I look forward to it.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS (2013)
Another oddball work from Joel and Ethan Coen, this musical journey has a lot of melancholy and a good deal of sly and dark humour as folk singer Llewyn (Oscar Isaac) struggles with his musical career, personal problems and a cat he doesn't own. It's a back and forth journey as he goes from one awkward disappointment to the next, and one night's sleep on a sofa to another; and it becomes clear that his decisions along the way may not be particularly wise and his own baggage may be causing issues he is unwilling to deal with. This type of character study doesn't paint a likeable portrait as many of his acquaintances are vocal about but it never creates a real arc. He is offered real friendship at least once but seems unable to build on this or take creative options that compromise his ideas a little, he'd rather have what he wants or quit entirely. This all or nothing outlook is perhaps a realistic view of artistic temperaments and I like a lot of what is done here, but in the end it isn't quite the fulfilling experience I might have expected.
3/5
Score Card
AUGUST
The Godfather ☆☆☆☆☆
Captain America: The Winter Soldier ☆☆☆☆
Close Encounters of the Third Kind ☆☆☆☆
Escape From New York ☆☆☆☆
The Untouchables ☆☆☆☆
There Will Be Blood ☆☆☆☆
Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan ☆☆☆☆
The Andromeda Strain ☆☆☆☆
The Godfather Part II ☆☆☆☆
Iron Man ☆☆☆☆
Inside Llewyn Davis ☆☆☆
Noah ☆☆☆
Once Upon A Time In America ☆☆☆
Star Trek The Motion Picture ☆☆☆
The Master ☆☆☆
This is Spinal Tap ☆☆☆
Ghostbusters II ☆☆
The Godfather Part III ☆☆
The Godfather ☆☆☆☆☆
Captain America: The Winter Soldier ☆☆☆☆
Close Encounters of the Third Kind ☆☆☆☆
Escape From New York ☆☆☆☆
The Untouchables ☆☆☆☆
There Will Be Blood ☆☆☆☆
Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan ☆☆☆☆
The Andromeda Strain ☆☆☆☆
The Godfather Part II ☆☆☆☆
Iron Man ☆☆☆☆
Inside Llewyn Davis ☆☆☆
Noah ☆☆☆
Once Upon A Time In America ☆☆☆
Star Trek The Motion Picture ☆☆☆
The Master ☆☆☆
This is Spinal Tap ☆☆☆
Ghostbusters II ☆☆
The Godfather Part III ☆☆
Review Roundup - Waterworld
NOAH (2014)
You're gonna need a bigger boat ~ Methuselah
Never one to be tied into a particular genre, Darren Aronofsky has always managed to maintain a certain level of thought provoking intrigue to his body of work, from the time warping spectacle of The Fountain to the low budget grit of Pi. So when the next project he would be working on was announced as a new take on a Biblical epic I wasn't too concerned despite it appearing to be on the surface a fantasy blockbuster in the vein of so many The Lord of the Rings imitators. The likes of The Ten Commandments are hardly going to make a come back in the modern era, so a fresh approach would be interesting to see with a little intelligence applied to the oldschool mythology the makers clearly have a passion for. Even with the rumblings about CGI creatures I kept an open mind, after all good writing would be something to support any number of deviations from the traditional ideas suggested by this story. But ultimately whether they managed to create a balance between interesting character depth and big budget set pieces is up for discussion.
Noah is an impressive looking movie. Utilising the primordial landscapes of Iceland means that they avoid any of the distracting green screen back drops which made The Hobbit films seem so phoney. It's almost post apocalyptic at times. The volcanic blacks and barren open spaces manage to evoke a very interesting idea of how the world might have looked in it's earlier days. Whether this is a typical idea of the Earth created in the Old Testament is up to interpretation, and indeed the most impressive sequences offered here are those which blend ideas about fallen angels, Eden and the descendants of Cain with beautiful images suggesting the evolution of both the galaxy along with primitive life growing from fish to reptiles. The time lapse style effects are used a number of times during the story for both exposition and to further the plot, and are easily the best moments. There are hints of magical elements in the earth and even a look at animals which will soon be extinct, and these small hints are fantasy in the established lore are nice. Whether the real meat of the story and the characters portrayed are as strong as this, is another question.
In a surprisingly dark turn of events, the reality of a world destroying flood and the mental toll it has on the protagonist and his family are not shied away from. Screaming survivors are crushed by waves and the idea of whether the last humans deserve a similar fate once they have done the task at hand is questioned. These elements offer several tense scenes during the third act as the situation sinks in, it allows for a good amount of character depth as emotions run amok. There are somber hints that despite the events taking place even the chosen few are capable of depravity. The build up to the Ark's voyage on the other hand has a number of weak links, particularly when rock monsters and Ray Winstone are involved - and some big moments use both. I appreciate that the sins of man are something which needs to be shown before they are washed from the face of the planet, but at times they feel like something from another film particularly when battle speeches get churned out and the less subtle effects work arrives. I actually like the idea that banished creatures from Heaven have been cursed to become bound to the Earth itself but the Golem type designs here also seem out of place.
Despite the cast all being good with some interesting moments from Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins), Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) and Crowe as Noah himself there still feels like a clash at times as intrigue and subtlety meet dumb blockbuster action beats. It succeeds in many respects and taking it as a genre picture it certainly outshines the bigger, louder films Peter Jackson has released in the past few years, but I feel like they could have pushed further with the philosophical ideas rather than going with scenes of evil being equated to mining, hunting animals or picking flowers. It all feels a little conflicted as silly meets the sublime, though for the latter it's worth seeing.
3/5
You're gonna need a bigger boat ~ Methuselah
Never one to be tied into a particular genre, Darren Aronofsky has always managed to maintain a certain level of thought provoking intrigue to his body of work, from the time warping spectacle of The Fountain to the low budget grit of Pi. So when the next project he would be working on was announced as a new take on a Biblical epic I wasn't too concerned despite it appearing to be on the surface a fantasy blockbuster in the vein of so many The Lord of the Rings imitators. The likes of The Ten Commandments are hardly going to make a come back in the modern era, so a fresh approach would be interesting to see with a little intelligence applied to the oldschool mythology the makers clearly have a passion for. Even with the rumblings about CGI creatures I kept an open mind, after all good writing would be something to support any number of deviations from the traditional ideas suggested by this story. But ultimately whether they managed to create a balance between interesting character depth and big budget set pieces is up for discussion.
Noah is an impressive looking movie. Utilising the primordial landscapes of Iceland means that they avoid any of the distracting green screen back drops which made The Hobbit films seem so phoney. It's almost post apocalyptic at times. The volcanic blacks and barren open spaces manage to evoke a very interesting idea of how the world might have looked in it's earlier days. Whether this is a typical idea of the Earth created in the Old Testament is up to interpretation, and indeed the most impressive sequences offered here are those which blend ideas about fallen angels, Eden and the descendants of Cain with beautiful images suggesting the evolution of both the galaxy along with primitive life growing from fish to reptiles. The time lapse style effects are used a number of times during the story for both exposition and to further the plot, and are easily the best moments. There are hints of magical elements in the earth and even a look at animals which will soon be extinct, and these small hints are fantasy in the established lore are nice. Whether the real meat of the story and the characters portrayed are as strong as this, is another question.
In a surprisingly dark turn of events, the reality of a world destroying flood and the mental toll it has on the protagonist and his family are not shied away from. Screaming survivors are crushed by waves and the idea of whether the last humans deserve a similar fate once they have done the task at hand is questioned. These elements offer several tense scenes during the third act as the situation sinks in, it allows for a good amount of character depth as emotions run amok. There are somber hints that despite the events taking place even the chosen few are capable of depravity. The build up to the Ark's voyage on the other hand has a number of weak links, particularly when rock monsters and Ray Winstone are involved - and some big moments use both. I appreciate that the sins of man are something which needs to be shown before they are washed from the face of the planet, but at times they feel like something from another film particularly when battle speeches get churned out and the less subtle effects work arrives. I actually like the idea that banished creatures from Heaven have been cursed to become bound to the Earth itself but the Golem type designs here also seem out of place.
Despite the cast all being good with some interesting moments from Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins), Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) and Crowe as Noah himself there still feels like a clash at times as intrigue and subtlety meet dumb blockbuster action beats. It succeeds in many respects and taking it as a genre picture it certainly outshines the bigger, louder films Peter Jackson has released in the past few years, but I feel like they could have pushed further with the philosophical ideas rather than going with scenes of evil being equated to mining, hunting animals or picking flowers. It all feels a little conflicted as silly meets the sublime, though for the latter it's worth seeing.
3/5
Retrospective - Mob Week
"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."
It's been a while since I sat through any 3 hour long, blood soaked crime epics. Maybe I am getting soft but some of the stuff on offer isn't exactly easy to stomach, be it the unsavoury moments of Once Upon a Time in America, or some of the acting in The Godfather Part III... For this particular session I dug out the period pieces, so no Frank White or Tony Montana this time around. But perhaps a Christopher Walken season will be on the cards.
As for the main event, Coppola's opener is pretty incredible. The Godfather is often suggested as being over rated, but after all this time looking at it with fresh eyes... I can't agree. Even considering it from the point of view that it's simply a series of dramatic set pieces with a tense build ups and a violent pay offs, the atmosphere and foreboding created is pretty impeccable. The restaurant, the toll booth, the final shift in power - it's all great stuff. That concluding baptism scene shows how visually telling a story should be done. It all plays out perfectly and as that door closes on the final moment, it feels nothing less than satisfying. As for the players, Brando churns out sage but chilling advise, Pacino goes from war hero to calculating killer, and the supporting cast are all good too - I really like James Caan and Robert Duvall here.
But this has all been said before, time for the real questions. Is Part II the better movie? I have to say no. It's still great for sure, but without the core arc and with that second narrative it's unwieldy, meandering and doesn't have the same amount of punch. But the segments still make a fine movie. Micheal's domestic strife offers the best scenes as he becomes more openly cruel and his wife learns that this is a one way streak. But on the other hand... is Part III a good film? Once more I have to say no. I really went into this with an open mind after hearing the bad press and had put watching it off for a long time, maybe it would be an unsung gem. But nothing works. There's a silly plot about the Vatican, and it's full of scenes where Pacino goes to lengthy board room meetings, does a lot of mumbling about trying to go straight but never really comes across as remorseful. It's barely the same character. I can't take it seriously and the rehashed scenes and questionable supporting cast don't help. Another street parade, another execution, another weird scene about cousin's romancing... what happened? There's also too much unintentional comedy, the scene where an enemy of the family is given poisoned cakes comes across as ridiculous. Much has been said about these films being boring, but this is the only one that is tedious.
Elsewhere I looked into the nearest rival for the Corleone saga, at least in terms of scope and production value - Sergio Leone's adaption of The Hoods. I don't think I've been this conflicted about a film in a long time. Once Upon a Time in America has an amazing score, the casting for the different ages works really well, the visuals are intricate and the childhood sections are poignant with the high point being the backlash for their antics and the "Noodles, I slipped" moment. It's heartbreaking. But what's up with the big rape scene? The longer it goes on the more it derails the movie. And it goes on forever. Was all the stuff about street gangs and wasted youth leading up to his point? The character writing certainly fails to justify it. I figured under the surface there might be a romantic in Noodles, but the diamond in the rough is smashed by the entrance of what is just a pure sociopath. It's impossible to care when he looks sentimental for the good old days after that point, I guess all the poetry didn't sink in after all.
I get that these impoverished urchins don't have the best moral fiber and it's established they have less than ideal respect for women, but surely a little growth is required in this kind of story? Maybe I am being unfair but the idea that the innocent kids grew up to be good and the brats became crooked to the bone just feels weak. Is this intended to be a deconstruction of the romantic mobster image? They should have done it in a less skin crawling fashion. Maybe it's the way this was all edited, after all even this 229 minute version is still cut down. But Deborah doesn't seem to have real reasons to stick around these guys and even Max's "don't call me crazy" thing comes out of nowhere. It's hardly Back to the Future II but still seems kind of random. I probably dwell on this aspect too much, and it would be hypocritical to condemn certain scenes where mob violence and death are used so artfully, but those elements are appropriate for what the writing provides as motivation and because of the setting itself. I want to like this more so much more, and I am being very negative about what is far from being a poor film, but it goes to such lengths to make everything feel cold and vicious. It's beautiful, melancholy and well made but the heart is black under all the trappings of wistful nostalgia.
On a more upbeat note however, is this really Sean Connery's worst ever accent? That remains to be seen (looking at you Red October). But as for a more stylised look at the prohibition era, The Untouchables is a lot of fun. Well for a Brian De Palma movie at least. This is anything but light hearted and of course has the "touchable" elevator revenge scene amongst other hard hitting moments. Maybe it's just the quirky Morricone theme or the central characters feeling a bit like they've come out of a comic book. Perhaps it's just that you know they are going to beat the odds despite casualties along the way, they will bring down Al Capone.
It's one of the bigger moments for Kevin Costner's early career before other highlights such as JFK and ... Robin Hood (just me?) and though he does a good job as the straight arrow I am not his biggest fan. De Niro as the villain feels a bit like a caricature despite some good speeches, and the same can be said of Ness's sidekicks Malone and Wallace as the opposing ends of the law enforcement spectrum; pulling guns versus by-the-book. But this fits the general tone. It's especially true of Billy Drago as Nitti the killer, who seems to be the living archetype of a hitman; a sinister, impossibly thin figure who has white gloves to contradict how dirty his hands are. Andy Garcia's Agent Stone is passable but never gets anything interesting to do and is a weak link amongst so many personalities. When talking about the film I probably don't have to mention the Odessa Steps sequence but there are a lot of other great moments particularly Capone's big dinner and the the fateful break in at Malone's house standing out. Maybe it's apt to round all this off by being able to root for the good guys.
It's been a while since I sat through any 3 hour long, blood soaked crime epics. Maybe I am getting soft but some of the stuff on offer isn't exactly easy to stomach, be it the unsavoury moments of Once Upon a Time in America, or some of the acting in The Godfather Part III... For this particular session I dug out the period pieces, so no Frank White or Tony Montana this time around. But perhaps a Christopher Walken season will be on the cards.
As for the main event, Coppola's opener is pretty incredible. The Godfather is often suggested as being over rated, but after all this time looking at it with fresh eyes... I can't agree. Even considering it from the point of view that it's simply a series of dramatic set pieces with a tense build ups and a violent pay offs, the atmosphere and foreboding created is pretty impeccable. The restaurant, the toll booth, the final shift in power - it's all great stuff. That concluding baptism scene shows how visually telling a story should be done. It all plays out perfectly and as that door closes on the final moment, it feels nothing less than satisfying. As for the players, Brando churns out sage but chilling advise, Pacino goes from war hero to calculating killer, and the supporting cast are all good too - I really like James Caan and Robert Duvall here.
But this has all been said before, time for the real questions. Is Part II the better movie? I have to say no. It's still great for sure, but without the core arc and with that second narrative it's unwieldy, meandering and doesn't have the same amount of punch. But the segments still make a fine movie. Micheal's domestic strife offers the best scenes as he becomes more openly cruel and his wife learns that this is a one way streak. But on the other hand... is Part III a good film? Once more I have to say no. I really went into this with an open mind after hearing the bad press and had put watching it off for a long time, maybe it would be an unsung gem. But nothing works. There's a silly plot about the Vatican, and it's full of scenes where Pacino goes to lengthy board room meetings, does a lot of mumbling about trying to go straight but never really comes across as remorseful. It's barely the same character. I can't take it seriously and the rehashed scenes and questionable supporting cast don't help. Another street parade, another execution, another weird scene about cousin's romancing... what happened? There's also too much unintentional comedy, the scene where an enemy of the family is given poisoned cakes comes across as ridiculous. Much has been said about these films being boring, but this is the only one that is tedious.
Elsewhere I looked into the nearest rival for the Corleone saga, at least in terms of scope and production value - Sergio Leone's adaption of The Hoods. I don't think I've been this conflicted about a film in a long time. Once Upon a Time in America has an amazing score, the casting for the different ages works really well, the visuals are intricate and the childhood sections are poignant with the high point being the backlash for their antics and the "Noodles, I slipped" moment. It's heartbreaking. But what's up with the big rape scene? The longer it goes on the more it derails the movie. And it goes on forever. Was all the stuff about street gangs and wasted youth leading up to his point? The character writing certainly fails to justify it. I figured under the surface there might be a romantic in Noodles, but the diamond in the rough is smashed by the entrance of what is just a pure sociopath. It's impossible to care when he looks sentimental for the good old days after that point, I guess all the poetry didn't sink in after all.
I get that these impoverished urchins don't have the best moral fiber and it's established they have less than ideal respect for women, but surely a little growth is required in this kind of story? Maybe I am being unfair but the idea that the innocent kids grew up to be good and the brats became crooked to the bone just feels weak. Is this intended to be a deconstruction of the romantic mobster image? They should have done it in a less skin crawling fashion. Maybe it's the way this was all edited, after all even this 229 minute version is still cut down. But Deborah doesn't seem to have real reasons to stick around these guys and even Max's "don't call me crazy" thing comes out of nowhere. It's hardly Back to the Future II but still seems kind of random. I probably dwell on this aspect too much, and it would be hypocritical to condemn certain scenes where mob violence and death are used so artfully, but those elements are appropriate for what the writing provides as motivation and because of the setting itself. I want to like this more so much more, and I am being very negative about what is far from being a poor film, but it goes to such lengths to make everything feel cold and vicious. It's beautiful, melancholy and well made but the heart is black under all the trappings of wistful nostalgia.
On a more upbeat note however, is this really Sean Connery's worst ever accent? That remains to be seen (looking at you Red October). But as for a more stylised look at the prohibition era, The Untouchables is a lot of fun. Well for a Brian De Palma movie at least. This is anything but light hearted and of course has the "touchable" elevator revenge scene amongst other hard hitting moments. Maybe it's just the quirky Morricone theme or the central characters feeling a bit like they've come out of a comic book. Perhaps it's just that you know they are going to beat the odds despite casualties along the way, they will bring down Al Capone.
It's one of the bigger moments for Kevin Costner's early career before other highlights such as JFK and ... Robin Hood (just me?) and though he does a good job as the straight arrow I am not his biggest fan. De Niro as the villain feels a bit like a caricature despite some good speeches, and the same can be said of Ness's sidekicks Malone and Wallace as the opposing ends of the law enforcement spectrum; pulling guns versus by-the-book. But this fits the general tone. It's especially true of Billy Drago as Nitti the killer, who seems to be the living archetype of a hitman; a sinister, impossibly thin figure who has white gloves to contradict how dirty his hands are. Andy Garcia's Agent Stone is passable but never gets anything interesting to do and is a weak link amongst so many personalities. When talking about the film I probably don't have to mention the Odessa Steps sequence but there are a lot of other great moments particularly Capone's big dinner and the the fateful break in at Malone's house standing out. Maybe it's apt to round all this off by being able to root for the good guys.
ScoreCard
JULY
- All Is Lost ☆☆☆☆
- American Hustle ☆☆☆☆
- Cinema Paradiso ☆☆☆☆
- Unforgiven ☆☆☆☆
- Rise of the Planet of the Apes ☆☆☆☆
- Silent Running ☆☆☆☆
- Invasion of the Body Snatchers ☆☆☆☆
- Jiro Dreams of Sushi ☆☆☆☆
- Her ☆☆☆☆
- Dirty Harry ☆☆☆
- Electroma ☆☆☆
- Grand Budapest Hotel ☆☆☆
- Interstella 5555 ☆☆☆
- Lego Movie ☆☆☆
- Memoirs of a Geisha ☆☆☆
- Millennium Actress ☆☆☆
- Sudden Impact ☆☆
- The Dead Pool ☆☆
- The Enforcer ☆☆
Review Roundup - The Sting
AMERICAN HUSTLE (2013)
While something like Rush played down the 70s hair and fashion a little and had a digital sheen about it, David O. Russel's latest is a period caper which goes full on with the hair pieces and shirts, and has a cigarette stained, desaturated look to the visuals. In a story about scams, loan sharks and political corruption, it's fitting that style, and also dressing up is at the forefront. In an opening scene we see Christian Bale's Irving slowly put together a complex toupee and it's this meticulous approach which continues throughout the movie. The level of pure swagger and attitude makes the ridiculous mix of hairspray and eye watering shirt designs come together. In spite of all these pieces seeming laughable at first, once things get moving the film draws you in much like the victims of the government sting at it's centre. Are they putting the confidence in con man? It may be a ridiculous thing to say, but because of that perhaps it's a perfectly suitable opening line.
Beginning with a Goofellas-esque narration, the story starts with a fairly standard rags to riches approach as Irving goes through childhood antics, small business ownership and later into stolen art and loan cons. It's here he teams up with Sydney (Amy Adams) who has a similar story of a past she wants to escape. Through his business front and her shaky British accent they grow to become something more which leads them to fall into an FBI fraud investigation. It's here the bulk of the story spirals from as they are coerced into doing their work for the benefit of others. The most interesting part of all this is how the crime is approached without ever being black and white. These are not thinly drawn characters but people with a variety of issues - all of them are faking it or putting on a show. Even Bradley Cooper's federal agent isn't quite the big man he hopes to be, and as it progresses the veneer of their egos begins to crack. Irving begins to doubt his choices once he's in the bureau's pocket and befriends their target Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) a politician who seems genuinely interested in the greater good rather than the corrupt bribe taker that was expected. This mix of torment and conflicting loyalties is where the best elements of the film come together as Irving balances more than one plan against domestic issues with his reclusive yet unpredictable wife (Jennifer Lawrence). But whether the pieces hold together strongly during the lengthy 138 minute running time is another question.
The story does feel it's length despite all of the parts being played by some great talent. Detractors have noted that the over improvised style of the performances is a little grating, and while some scenes could have been more tightly constructed I found the naturalistic dialogue to be a strength. The same cannot be said of the scheme underpinning this material though, and as things spiral out of control and the targets grow in size I didn't feel that this side of the story has as cohesive as it could have been. That being said this is still a fun and entertaining drama with some great moments. The blend of sweeping camera work and period music is done very well, and there are even some genuinely tense moments as the plan attracts some bigger fish than perhaps anyone was expecting. Under further scrutiny it may not all tie together perfectly, but it's enjoyable to see them try.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
THE LEGO MOVIE (2014)
In a surprising move, the film all about children's building blocks isn't a big money grab and offers a layer of biting satire on top of the eye-popping, multicoloured adventure. I am disappointed that there isn't more to the story though, and while it's great to see fun being poked at people with no imagination and those in favour of homogenised corporate brands, there isn't much else going on here. The big threat is something which is the opposite of creativity, and that's great - but they ride this single joke for far too long and reveal it way too early. It has to be said that this is entertaining and I appreciate how good it looks (the detail and realistic look of the plastic is very impressive) but I'd have liked stronger sense of humour beyond the obvious. It's hard to be cynical with this kind of message but I'd prefer if it was a little less simplistic.
3/5
While something like Rush played down the 70s hair and fashion a little and had a digital sheen about it, David O. Russel's latest is a period caper which goes full on with the hair pieces and shirts, and has a cigarette stained, desaturated look to the visuals. In a story about scams, loan sharks and political corruption, it's fitting that style, and also dressing up is at the forefront. In an opening scene we see Christian Bale's Irving slowly put together a complex toupee and it's this meticulous approach which continues throughout the movie. The level of pure swagger and attitude makes the ridiculous mix of hairspray and eye watering shirt designs come together. In spite of all these pieces seeming laughable at first, once things get moving the film draws you in much like the victims of the government sting at it's centre. Are they putting the confidence in con man? It may be a ridiculous thing to say, but because of that perhaps it's a perfectly suitable opening line.
Beginning with a Goofellas-esque narration, the story starts with a fairly standard rags to riches approach as Irving goes through childhood antics, small business ownership and later into stolen art and loan cons. It's here he teams up with Sydney (Amy Adams) who has a similar story of a past she wants to escape. Through his business front and her shaky British accent they grow to become something more which leads them to fall into an FBI fraud investigation. It's here the bulk of the story spirals from as they are coerced into doing their work for the benefit of others. The most interesting part of all this is how the crime is approached without ever being black and white. These are not thinly drawn characters but people with a variety of issues - all of them are faking it or putting on a show. Even Bradley Cooper's federal agent isn't quite the big man he hopes to be, and as it progresses the veneer of their egos begins to crack. Irving begins to doubt his choices once he's in the bureau's pocket and befriends their target Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) a politician who seems genuinely interested in the greater good rather than the corrupt bribe taker that was expected. This mix of torment and conflicting loyalties is where the best elements of the film come together as Irving balances more than one plan against domestic issues with his reclusive yet unpredictable wife (Jennifer Lawrence). But whether the pieces hold together strongly during the lengthy 138 minute running time is another question.
The story does feel it's length despite all of the parts being played by some great talent. Detractors have noted that the over improvised style of the performances is a little grating, and while some scenes could have been more tightly constructed I found the naturalistic dialogue to be a strength. The same cannot be said of the scheme underpinning this material though, and as things spiral out of control and the targets grow in size I didn't feel that this side of the story has as cohesive as it could have been. That being said this is still a fun and entertaining drama with some great moments. The blend of sweeping camera work and period music is done very well, and there are even some genuinely tense moments as the plan attracts some bigger fish than perhaps anyone was expecting. Under further scrutiny it may not all tie together perfectly, but it's enjoyable to see them try.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
THE LEGO MOVIE (2014)
In a surprising move, the film all about children's building blocks isn't a big money grab and offers a layer of biting satire on top of the eye-popping, multicoloured adventure. I am disappointed that there isn't more to the story though, and while it's great to see fun being poked at people with no imagination and those in favour of homogenised corporate brands, there isn't much else going on here. The big threat is something which is the opposite of creativity, and that's great - but they ride this single joke for far too long and reveal it way too early. It has to be said that this is entertaining and I appreciate how good it looks (the detail and realistic look of the plastic is very impressive) but I'd have liked stronger sense of humour beyond the obvious. It's hard to be cynical with this kind of message but I'd prefer if it was a little less simplistic.
3/5
Review Roundup - Digital Love
HER (2013)
I guess it's rare these days to see visions of the future that are not down beat dystopias. The popular worn out aesthetic from Brazil and Blade Runner is used a lot, and all these worlds are created where technology is everywhere yet has it never been cleaned and nobody owns anything that looks new. You can use flying cars but no-one seems to own a decent light-bulb. Outside of thematic reasons and storylines, the idea of the high tech meeting low living standards serves a strict purpose; those run down apartments some how feel realistic despite it being an unlikely outcome for people that always want the latest thing. So with Spike Jonze's latest offering it's unusual to see a different type of grounded reality - the glimpses of new technology are background details and subtle changes in fashion. It's hardly Star Trek, but unless you consider the idea of sentient iPhones and motion controls in videogames being normality disturbing it's not really a bleak outlook. While this is a world where bright colours, high pants and mustaches are in fashion, at the heart it's simply a story about the distance between people in a time where social media does anything but bring us closer. And yes, it's a romance involving a guy and a computer.
Joaquin Phoenix is social outcast Theodore. This isn't because of some deep rooted cliché problem, but that he is going through a divorce - he's losing what he feels is important, and struggles to get involved with existing friends. Instead he's absorbed in his work - in the most on the nose aspect of the story he works for a company that writes letters for people. They may use wireless, voice activated cell phones and flashy computers but now they talk to each other even less. Someone else composes their romantic letters, and their personal family matters are now in the hands of a writer. Things have become hands free and hands off - so when an operating system that features a new intelligence arrives on the market, it seems perfectly plausible that these consumers will become hooked and develop friendships with them. I think only one person in the whole story even blinks an eye at his newly formed romance; his ex wife who feels that Theodore is unwilling to deal with real people. In a way she's right of course, but it questions the idea of what is real as the computer systems advance and mature so rapidly. It challenges this idea as the human half of the couple begins to seem selfish and the artificial personality grows beyond it's physical restraints.
Initially I was a little disappointed that this wasn't in the vein of Jonze's oddball drama Being John Malkovich. It does have a sly sense of humour but isn't in line with that strange world with all the weird characters and fantasy elements. This is more of a companion to his sad robot short I'm Here - a melancholy, romantic character piece. Phoenix is very good as someone having to act in reaction to a bodiless voice and the supporting cast includes Chris Pratt and Amy Adams as his surprisingly relaxed friends as they too learn about this new girlfriend and the operating system itself as it becomes more widespread. Of course equal credit has to go to Scarlett Johansson as the voice of Samantha. They pull of the idea of a real relationship really well as things go through the expected ups and downs as well as the problems of a character without a physical form; ultimately build to a conclusion which is the most sci-fi part of the story. This is also a great looking film with a lot of striking design work and a handful of small futuristic elements that are downplayed. But this sums the story up, a drama that is pretty on the outside but has a lot of food for thought under the surface.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
JIRO DREAMS OF SUSHI (2011)
One of the few real life documentaries that I have seen in a long time, this surprising movie is something I happened across online just recently (shout out to Scott C's Great Showdowns). The subject matter is really interesting, as master of sushi Jiro Ono and his life are explored. This includes his dreams of course, and yes the title is correct; but they also take time to discuss his ideals and the standards of perfection he is still committed to furthering. The food all looks amazing thanks to some neat photography techniques, even for those without a taste for raw tuna and wasabi it's worth a look. A dry sense of humour and a few somber moments of reflection on life choices and career building help it have a varied tone that is always fascinating.
4/5
I guess it's rare these days to see visions of the future that are not down beat dystopias. The popular worn out aesthetic from Brazil and Blade Runner is used a lot, and all these worlds are created where technology is everywhere yet has it never been cleaned and nobody owns anything that looks new. You can use flying cars but no-one seems to own a decent light-bulb. Outside of thematic reasons and storylines, the idea of the high tech meeting low living standards serves a strict purpose; those run down apartments some how feel realistic despite it being an unlikely outcome for people that always want the latest thing. So with Spike Jonze's latest offering it's unusual to see a different type of grounded reality - the glimpses of new technology are background details and subtle changes in fashion. It's hardly Star Trek, but unless you consider the idea of sentient iPhones and motion controls in videogames being normality disturbing it's not really a bleak outlook. While this is a world where bright colours, high pants and mustaches are in fashion, at the heart it's simply a story about the distance between people in a time where social media does anything but bring us closer. And yes, it's a romance involving a guy and a computer.
Joaquin Phoenix is social outcast Theodore. This isn't because of some deep rooted cliché problem, but that he is going through a divorce - he's losing what he feels is important, and struggles to get involved with existing friends. Instead he's absorbed in his work - in the most on the nose aspect of the story he works for a company that writes letters for people. They may use wireless, voice activated cell phones and flashy computers but now they talk to each other even less. Someone else composes their romantic letters, and their personal family matters are now in the hands of a writer. Things have become hands free and hands off - so when an operating system that features a new intelligence arrives on the market, it seems perfectly plausible that these consumers will become hooked and develop friendships with them. I think only one person in the whole story even blinks an eye at his newly formed romance; his ex wife who feels that Theodore is unwilling to deal with real people. In a way she's right of course, but it questions the idea of what is real as the computer systems advance and mature so rapidly. It challenges this idea as the human half of the couple begins to seem selfish and the artificial personality grows beyond it's physical restraints.
Initially I was a little disappointed that this wasn't in the vein of Jonze's oddball drama Being John Malkovich. It does have a sly sense of humour but isn't in line with that strange world with all the weird characters and fantasy elements. This is more of a companion to his sad robot short I'm Here - a melancholy, romantic character piece. Phoenix is very good as someone having to act in reaction to a bodiless voice and the supporting cast includes Chris Pratt and Amy Adams as his surprisingly relaxed friends as they too learn about this new girlfriend and the operating system itself as it becomes more widespread. Of course equal credit has to go to Scarlett Johansson as the voice of Samantha. They pull of the idea of a real relationship really well as things go through the expected ups and downs as well as the problems of a character without a physical form; ultimately build to a conclusion which is the most sci-fi part of the story. This is also a great looking film with a lot of striking design work and a handful of small futuristic elements that are downplayed. But this sums the story up, a drama that is pretty on the outside but has a lot of food for thought under the surface.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
JIRO DREAMS OF SUSHI (2011)
One of the few real life documentaries that I have seen in a long time, this surprising movie is something I happened across online just recently (shout out to Scott C's Great Showdowns). The subject matter is really interesting, as master of sushi Jiro Ono and his life are explored. This includes his dreams of course, and yes the title is correct; but they also take time to discuss his ideals and the standards of perfection he is still committed to furthering. The food all looks amazing thanks to some neat photography techniques, even for those without a taste for raw tuna and wasabi it's worth a look. A dry sense of humour and a few somber moments of reflection on life choices and career building help it have a varied tone that is always fascinating.
4/5
Review Roundup - Dollhouse
THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014)
Wes Anderson seems to be someone who can rub people the wrong way. However this isn't because of any common complaints - he doesn't make over produced blockbusters, badly written teen melodramas or sleazy, immature popcorn cinema. Here it's a fairly specific issue in that the direction is seen as... pretentious. I don't personally agree but there is sometimes a feeling that with a little nudge in the wrong direction things could veer off into the territory of style over substance. But I do like the style. There's something that appeals to me about all the stage like framing, the weird and neurotic characters, and the off beat, awkward semi seriousness of the acting. So, in a film brimming with intentionally obvious miniatures, gaudy colour schemes and even more odd personalities than usual, does it all fall nicely into place or is all the madness a bit too much for it to manage?
A few new things have been introduced that set this apart from the previous releases by the makers of The Life Aquatic and Moonrise Kingdom. Immediately there is a strange framing narrative, that goes back in time to not one but two settings, where the narration is done by an author who changes in age before it then moves to another character entirely. However the most obvious addition to the style of the film is the use of aspect ratios that are historically accurate in a film that is in no way an attempt at retelling history. Since most of the story takes place in a pre widescreen era, there's a squared off 4:3 visual for much of the plot which can be a little distracting - though many classic films of the period are now available in home release like this. Along with the usual on screen lettering and camera angles, this adds another layer of artificiality to the whole thing. Adding that to the storybook effects shots and intricate dolls house sets mean that it feels a bit too... mechanical. The humanity of those earlier movies is rarely shown as the plot rushes between humour, murder, and stolen painting caper. This isn't to say there is no sense of depth or that it lacks any touches of melancholy along the way, but those moments are rather fleeting.
Fortunately it does have a lot of charm and the characters, while not particularly fleshed out in that broken, depressive Anderson way, are all memorable and entertaining in some degree. The big credit goes to Ralph Fiennes who drops the sneering Voldemort act to become the hotel concierge M. Gustave; a very particular, over perfumed man who's love of his older guests spurs the story on, and a figure who can be surprisingly foul mouthed despite his fussy personality. It's a dry, humorous performance which carries the movie. While Tony Revolori does a fine job as his protegé Zero, at times it seems as though he has become lost amongst the excessive amount of supporting cast members, particularly at the parts in the story in which they become separated. There are a vast number of bit parts and cameos and the movie is full of the usual suspects like Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson. It's an impressive list, but perhaps something that detracts from the central duo at the core. Ultimately like the titular hotel this is a fun, colourful but over elaborate piece of work that goes a little too far in the way of intricate setups at the cost of serious drama. But it has to be said it's still a lot of fun and there are many aspects to admire during the adventure. Perhaps it's fitting there are so many moments about cake decoration.
3/5
BONUS REVIEW
ALL IS LOST (2013)
"....Fuck" ~ Robert Redford
In sharp contrast to the overflowing list of cast members seen in 'Grand Budapest...' this is a one man show. A lean, engaging survival story of one man versus the sea. In a way it's almost a version of Life of Pi that has been stripped of excess fat, or a film that could be seen as an antithesis to Gravity - there is almost no dialogue in comparison to Sandra Bullock's chatty space farer, and it certainly has none of the over played sentimental moments. Without any kind of inessential context or back story, you're left with just a nearly mute protagonist and his immediately problematic situation. Redford's grizzled performance allows for many great moments as you follow his efforts to stay alive as he discovers the limits of his sailing knowledge, and the film has lot of great photography, particularly the beautiful underwater moments amongst all the harrowing disaster. A simple story that is effectively told, what more can you ask for.
4/5
Wes Anderson seems to be someone who can rub people the wrong way. However this isn't because of any common complaints - he doesn't make over produced blockbusters, badly written teen melodramas or sleazy, immature popcorn cinema. Here it's a fairly specific issue in that the direction is seen as... pretentious. I don't personally agree but there is sometimes a feeling that with a little nudge in the wrong direction things could veer off into the territory of style over substance. But I do like the style. There's something that appeals to me about all the stage like framing, the weird and neurotic characters, and the off beat, awkward semi seriousness of the acting. So, in a film brimming with intentionally obvious miniatures, gaudy colour schemes and even more odd personalities than usual, does it all fall nicely into place or is all the madness a bit too much for it to manage?
A few new things have been introduced that set this apart from the previous releases by the makers of The Life Aquatic and Moonrise Kingdom. Immediately there is a strange framing narrative, that goes back in time to not one but two settings, where the narration is done by an author who changes in age before it then moves to another character entirely. However the most obvious addition to the style of the film is the use of aspect ratios that are historically accurate in a film that is in no way an attempt at retelling history. Since most of the story takes place in a pre widescreen era, there's a squared off 4:3 visual for much of the plot which can be a little distracting - though many classic films of the period are now available in home release like this. Along with the usual on screen lettering and camera angles, this adds another layer of artificiality to the whole thing. Adding that to the storybook effects shots and intricate dolls house sets mean that it feels a bit too... mechanical. The humanity of those earlier movies is rarely shown as the plot rushes between humour, murder, and stolen painting caper. This isn't to say there is no sense of depth or that it lacks any touches of melancholy along the way, but those moments are rather fleeting.
Fortunately it does have a lot of charm and the characters, while not particularly fleshed out in that broken, depressive Anderson way, are all memorable and entertaining in some degree. The big credit goes to Ralph Fiennes who drops the sneering Voldemort act to become the hotel concierge M. Gustave; a very particular, over perfumed man who's love of his older guests spurs the story on, and a figure who can be surprisingly foul mouthed despite his fussy personality. It's a dry, humorous performance which carries the movie. While Tony Revolori does a fine job as his protegé Zero, at times it seems as though he has become lost amongst the excessive amount of supporting cast members, particularly at the parts in the story in which they become separated. There are a vast number of bit parts and cameos and the movie is full of the usual suspects like Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson. It's an impressive list, but perhaps something that detracts from the central duo at the core. Ultimately like the titular hotel this is a fun, colourful but over elaborate piece of work that goes a little too far in the way of intricate setups at the cost of serious drama. But it has to be said it's still a lot of fun and there are many aspects to admire during the adventure. Perhaps it's fitting there are so many moments about cake decoration.
3/5
BONUS REVIEW
ALL IS LOST (2013)
"....Fuck" ~ Robert Redford
In sharp contrast to the overflowing list of cast members seen in 'Grand Budapest...' this is a one man show. A lean, engaging survival story of one man versus the sea. In a way it's almost a version of Life of Pi that has been stripped of excess fat, or a film that could be seen as an antithesis to Gravity - there is almost no dialogue in comparison to Sandra Bullock's chatty space farer, and it certainly has none of the over played sentimental moments. Without any kind of inessential context or back story, you're left with just a nearly mute protagonist and his immediately problematic situation. Redford's grizzled performance allows for many great moments as you follow his efforts to stay alive as he discovers the limits of his sailing knowledge, and the film has lot of great photography, particularly the beautiful underwater moments amongst all the harrowing disaster. A simple story that is effectively told, what more can you ask for.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)