'Favourite book ever' is a very bold statement and should not be thrown around lightly, but I can honestly say that Richard Matheson's 1954 novel is one of the best books I have ever read. I am not the only person who rates it so highly either. Before the most recent cinematic effort, it has been adapted into two films with different names, The Last Man on Earth (in 1964, starring Vincent Price) and The Omega Man (1971, Charlton Heston), it has been very influential in the growth of the zombie genre and in making popular the idea of infectious disease being an apocalyptic possibility. George A Romero cites it as an influence for Night of the Living Dead and 28 Days Later clearly relies heavily on the book.
This particular adaptation, and I must stress that it is loosely based on Matheson's book, has been in the pipeline for a long time, at one stage during the 80's Ridley Scott was to direct with Arnold Schwarzenegger as the lead , but ultimately it fell to Francis Lawrence (Constantine) to direct and with Will Smith as Robert Neville, the last man alive on earth. Set in New York City, 2012, a viral cure for cancer has mutated and turned human-kind in to zombie like creatures, hungry for blood, vulnerable to daylight. Neville, colonel/scientist in the army, goes about his daily survival tasks (hunting deer in Times Square) during the day, while at night, hiding in his modern fortress of an apartment while he tries to find a cure for the plague.
The first part of the film sets all of this up, and I must say, it does it very well. The explanation of the virus is done nicely, with Emma Thompson in a nice cameo as the doctor responsible. We then leap forward 3 years. Manhattan as a wasteland looks brilliant, abandoned cars, overgrown foliage, eerie silence, it really does feel like a ghost town. Very much like the opening section of 28 Days Later, but less apocalyptic, more as though people gradually gave up. The idea of hunting deer in the centre of New York is also a nice little touch. Neville's isolation is ramped up as his only companions are Sam, his dog, and mannequins that he has named and left in local stores, engaging in banal chatter as he yearns for a semblance of normality. Well executed flashback scenes showing the chaos that erupts when the disease takes hold, add a bit more meat the story and also more depth to Neville's character.
At this stage I think it's worth mentioning Will Smith and his central performance. The choice of actor in this film is perhaps even vital than most other films, as the whole thing rests on their shoulders. This would not be a role for Keanu Reeves. Smith has come a long way from his days as the Fresh Prince and the drivel that was Wild Wild West, he really is an accomplished actor and he shows it again here. He does the pumped up action man stuff well, as you would expect, but it's the other moments that really stand out. There is a constant look of resignation on his face, no hope whatsoever. There are some very touching scenes where he tries to pluck up the courage to approach one of the mannequins, just to say hello. He also manages to portray the maximum amount of emotion possible in a scene with a dog. Turner & Hooch has nothing on this.
So far so good. Then the 'Darkseekers' (a.k.a. the infected) come on to the scene, which of course is when it should really hot up. Now I have two criticisms of the creatures, one is cosmetic and the other is a lot more important.
Firstly, for a reason only they will know, the makers of this film decided to have computer generated creatures. It just doesn't look right. The creatures are essentially zombies, and we have been so used to seeing the undead over the years as actors in (advanced) make up and prosthetics, the action feels physical and textile. It's what we know, and it's what we like. The CGI here isn't exactly top class, and you can tell it isn't real, it takes away from the threat of danger. It's all rather distracting. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The second point, is the decision to make them zombie-like. One the main reasons that the book is so interesting and arresting is that the creatures (in this case vampires) are by appearance, almost exactly the same as humans. Your neighbour John, still looks like John, sounds like John, still engages in the same banter that you had with John, but now he wants to kill you and is beyond saving. The enemy in this film is faceless, generic, bland, we've seen it all before. A huge chunk of originality has been removed and left in a wheelie bin outside.
So once the scene is set so well, it becomes a standard action/monster film that rattles along to its conclusion, which, I admit is not in the usual cannon of Hollywood cop-out happy endings and is quite satisfying, but does massively deviate from the 'Legend' that is meant in the source material, which as possibly my favourite ending to anything, is annoying to say the least.
So I was excited when I first heard about it, I was excited when it first came out, I was excited after the the first half an hour, but then it all quickly evaporated. 28 Days Later was influenced hugely by the novel I Am Legend, but the irony is, despite a promising start this adaptation feels like a dated rehash of Danny Boyle's film which is packed full of more originality and fresh ideas.
Right, I'm off to read I Am Legend again.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Wednesday 29 December 2010
Tuesday 28 December 2010
DEADLY CROSSING (2010)
Hope you all had a good Christmas - here's a review for www.film-news.co.uk
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Deadly-Crossing&nItemID=239
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Deadly-Crossing&nItemID=239
Friday 24 December 2010
THE BOX (2009)
Donnie Darko is one of the most opinion-splitting films in recent years. For every person that thinks it's a modern classic, there is another that thinks it's a pile of pretentious drivel that disappeared up it's own backside. Whatever you think of the film, it did put Richard Kelly on the map and made him 'One to Watch' for the future. His follow up Southland Tales wasn't particularly well received, both critically and at the Box Office. Which brings us to his most recent effort - The Box.
Based on a short story, 'Button, Button' by the legendary Sci-fi/Horror writer Richard Matheson (who also penned I Am Legend, also brought to the screen in a number of different incarnations), which was also subsequently adapted into an episode of the Twilight Zone, it begins with a simple concept that seems as though it has the potential to run a lot deeper. 1976, Richmond, Virginia, suburban couple (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) receive a visit from Arlington Steward (the once again brilliant Frank Langella), a mysterious, facially disfigured man. He gives them a box, containing a button, and a choice. Press the button and they will receive $1m in cold hard cash in a brief case (as is always the way in the movies - no one writes a check or asks for bank details), but someone in the world, that they do not know will die. Or they can leave the button and go about their life normally with no change. It's a brilliant idea to base a film around as the couple wrestle with their conscious and decide what to do. In all honesty though the execution lacks - the writing is clunky and the acting is average at best, plus the financial situation of the couple never leaves any doubt as to what they will decide to do, so much of the tension is lost.
Once the decision is made, the film becomes a very different beast. A Twilight Zone episode. A sub-plot about a Nasa research centre, Langella's mysterious 'Employees', a supposed after-life of some sort, it all just goes a bit mental.....not in a Dusk 'til Dawn, enjoyable kind of way though.
I had no idea what was happening for much of the second half of the film, and I'm not convinced I was meant to. I'm all for being mentally challenged at the cinema and being asked to form my own ideas on whats happening on screen, but this all felt as though Richard Kelly was trying to be a bit too clever. Having said that, I was never bored, I really was eagerly waiting for it all to unfold, but I wasn't fully emeresed, as though I was watching from afar, slightly removed.
Often with these 'ball of string' films, it's the end that is important as the plot unravels. The Box is interesting because it is both unsatisfying and satisfying at the same time. There is a resolution of sorts, and it's not the happy ending you might want, but much of the mystery is left unexplained and I couldn't help but feel annoyed - like being given complicated directions to a recommended pub, only to arrive and realise it's a Wetherspoons.
I saw the film a couple of days ago, I'm still playing it over in my mind, and now I don't think the majority of the film is actually important to Kelly. It's more about the decision made by the two leads and what that says about human beings. And when you look at the film on that basis it is very thought-provoking and interesting. But was it really necessary to bury that central idea in a messy extended episode of the X-Files?
Based on a short story, 'Button, Button' by the legendary Sci-fi/Horror writer Richard Matheson (who also penned I Am Legend, also brought to the screen in a number of different incarnations), which was also subsequently adapted into an episode of the Twilight Zone, it begins with a simple concept that seems as though it has the potential to run a lot deeper. 1976, Richmond, Virginia, suburban couple (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) receive a visit from Arlington Steward (the once again brilliant Frank Langella), a mysterious, facially disfigured man. He gives them a box, containing a button, and a choice. Press the button and they will receive $1m in cold hard cash in a brief case (as is always the way in the movies - no one writes a check or asks for bank details), but someone in the world, that they do not know will die. Or they can leave the button and go about their life normally with no change. It's a brilliant idea to base a film around as the couple wrestle with their conscious and decide what to do. In all honesty though the execution lacks - the writing is clunky and the acting is average at best, plus the financial situation of the couple never leaves any doubt as to what they will decide to do, so much of the tension is lost.
Once the decision is made, the film becomes a very different beast. A Twilight Zone episode. A sub-plot about a Nasa research centre, Langella's mysterious 'Employees', a supposed after-life of some sort, it all just goes a bit mental.....not in a Dusk 'til Dawn, enjoyable kind of way though.
I had no idea what was happening for much of the second half of the film, and I'm not convinced I was meant to. I'm all for being mentally challenged at the cinema and being asked to form my own ideas on whats happening on screen, but this all felt as though Richard Kelly was trying to be a bit too clever. Having said that, I was never bored, I really was eagerly waiting for it all to unfold, but I wasn't fully emeresed, as though I was watching from afar, slightly removed.
Often with these 'ball of string' films, it's the end that is important as the plot unravels. The Box is interesting because it is both unsatisfying and satisfying at the same time. There is a resolution of sorts, and it's not the happy ending you might want, but much of the mystery is left unexplained and I couldn't help but feel annoyed - like being given complicated directions to a recommended pub, only to arrive and realise it's a Wetherspoons.
I saw the film a couple of days ago, I'm still playing it over in my mind, and now I don't think the majority of the film is actually important to Kelly. It's more about the decision made by the two leads and what that says about human beings. And when you look at the film on that basis it is very thought-provoking and interesting. But was it really necessary to bury that central idea in a messy extended episode of the X-Files?
Monday 20 December 2010
BRIDGET JONES' DIARY (2001)
Saturday night in, snow causing chaos on the streets outside, red wine flowing, my mind numbed by the trash that is ITV's Take Me Out to the point where any sort of decision could cause me to spontaneously combust so the easiest thing to do is just to leave the channel unchanged. And that is how I came to be watching Bridget Jones' Diary.
One of those literary phenomenons where every single person on any mode of transport seems to be reading the same book (other examples include Harry Potter, Stieg Larsson, The Da Vinci Code and The Time Traveller's Wife), Helen Fielding's memoir of a 32 year old singleton, desperate to improve herself and to meet the right man, seemed to grip women of all ages. A film adaptation was inevitable. Fielding stayed on writing credits with the assistance of British rom-com stalwart Richard Curtis. Dependable leading men Colin Firth and Hugh Grant came on board, with the slightly unusual, but safe, choice of Texan Renee Zellweger as the title character. Everything is in place.
Jones herself is a familiar character to all of us of a certain age. Early thirties, drinks a lot on school nights, smokes, dates the wrong men, in a job she doesn't really enjoy but does it to get by. No wonder it struck a chord with so many people, Fielding had tapped into a nation's frustrations and insecurities with Jones being a steady personification. She is bored of being set up with bad men by her mother (desperate to live her life vicariously through Jones), such as Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). She betrays her new years resolution to meet a nice sensible man, by shacking up with Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), her womanising boss at the publishing company she works. Needless to say, as with all rom coms, things don't go as well as they might.
Now, I must lay down my marker. I'm not a rom-com fan. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Having said that, the Brits do it far better than our American cousins. Pretty Woman is the only decent one from across the pond that springs to mind, but I could easily watch Four Weddings, Notting Hill and About a Boy to pass the time. Bridget Jones just about manages to fall into that category. But only just. There are one or two funny moments, it's predictable to a point, but it doesn't exactly conform to the usual plot points - Boy meets girl, girl falls for boy, girl and boy argue, boy and girl make up and live happily ever after. The characters are charming, their clumsy British eccentricities make you side with them.
However, I can't help feeling that it's all a bit fluffy, like scatter cushions, all for show.....all of the above Hugh Grant vehicles make me cry. This didn't come close. Even with the always excellent Jim Broadbent heading up the sub-plot geared to generate the tears.
It ticks the boxes though. Hugh Grant doing what he always does, but enjoying himself as the bad guy for a change, Colin Firth criminally underused and clearly going through the motions, only Zellweger looks as though she's really trying, and likeable she is for it. It's watchable enough, you don't get bored, but you also aren't really invested in it either.
I've not read the book, but I can't help but imagine that this is the adaptation equivalent of Watchmen - a decent job, but hollow and lacking the soul of the source material. Ultimately it should have been better. Having said that, lots of women I know are quite fond of the film, so it must have done something right. Not for me though.
Amusingly bland.
One of those literary phenomenons where every single person on any mode of transport seems to be reading the same book (other examples include Harry Potter, Stieg Larsson, The Da Vinci Code and The Time Traveller's Wife), Helen Fielding's memoir of a 32 year old singleton, desperate to improve herself and to meet the right man, seemed to grip women of all ages. A film adaptation was inevitable. Fielding stayed on writing credits with the assistance of British rom-com stalwart Richard Curtis. Dependable leading men Colin Firth and Hugh Grant came on board, with the slightly unusual, but safe, choice of Texan Renee Zellweger as the title character. Everything is in place.
Jones herself is a familiar character to all of us of a certain age. Early thirties, drinks a lot on school nights, smokes, dates the wrong men, in a job she doesn't really enjoy but does it to get by. No wonder it struck a chord with so many people, Fielding had tapped into a nation's frustrations and insecurities with Jones being a steady personification. She is bored of being set up with bad men by her mother (desperate to live her life vicariously through Jones), such as Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). She betrays her new years resolution to meet a nice sensible man, by shacking up with Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), her womanising boss at the publishing company she works. Needless to say, as with all rom coms, things don't go as well as they might.
Now, I must lay down my marker. I'm not a rom-com fan. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Having said that, the Brits do it far better than our American cousins. Pretty Woman is the only decent one from across the pond that springs to mind, but I could easily watch Four Weddings, Notting Hill and About a Boy to pass the time. Bridget Jones just about manages to fall into that category. But only just. There are one or two funny moments, it's predictable to a point, but it doesn't exactly conform to the usual plot points - Boy meets girl, girl falls for boy, girl and boy argue, boy and girl make up and live happily ever after. The characters are charming, their clumsy British eccentricities make you side with them.
However, I can't help feeling that it's all a bit fluffy, like scatter cushions, all for show.....all of the above Hugh Grant vehicles make me cry. This didn't come close. Even with the always excellent Jim Broadbent heading up the sub-plot geared to generate the tears.
It ticks the boxes though. Hugh Grant doing what he always does, but enjoying himself as the bad guy for a change, Colin Firth criminally underused and clearly going through the motions, only Zellweger looks as though she's really trying, and likeable she is for it. It's watchable enough, you don't get bored, but you also aren't really invested in it either.
I've not read the book, but I can't help but imagine that this is the adaptation equivalent of Watchmen - a decent job, but hollow and lacking the soul of the source material. Ultimately it should have been better. Having said that, lots of women I know are quite fond of the film, so it must have done something right. Not for me though.
Amusingly bland.
Saturday 18 December 2010
BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974)
A review that I have done for www.film-news.co.uk
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Black-Christmas&nItemID=233
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Black-Christmas&nItemID=233
ME AND ORSON WELLES (2008)
One of the real pleasures of Lovefilm is that when bored and you will sift through the many, many releases, add things at your leisure, titles that you would never purchase, and probably not really seek out. Then one day something arrives in the post that you have no memory of adding, but you have to watch it to get your money's worth. Then when the end credits start you realise that you've just watched a film you probably wouldn't have seen had it not been for the Lovefilm lottery. And so it was that I saw Me and Orson Welles.
Richard Linklater's film follows teenager Richard (Zac Efron) as he is cast in in a production of Julius Ceaser in the famous Mercury Theatre, a production that is helmed by the great Orson Welles (Christian McKay). As the show gets closer to opening night, the tensions among the cast grow and Richard is put through a the emotional blender as he comes to terms with his talent, falls in love (with Sonja played by Claire Danes), begins to believe he can have it all only to realise that he can't.
Now I must confess I am far from an expert on the life and career of Orson Welles, so whether this is an accurate depiction of the man, his private life and his creative methods is up for debate and I won't be able to judge it on it's accuracy. What I will say though is that Richard Linklater does a fine job of taking us back to 1930's New York. The streets are thronging with people looking the part, old cars trundle up and down the streets. Real time, care and dedication has been put into making this film look the part. It also helps to make this film feel like a good old fashioned movie, like the classics that are shown at lunchtime on a weekday on BBC2. The characters all talk in that way that used to in films, slightly rhythmic, very chipper with every word properly spoken. Light years away from the modern fascination with mumbling, shouting or growling. Richard Linklater deserves praise for this, as well as for the variety in his choice of films. Fast Food Nation, A Scanner Darkly and now this. All very interesting and not remotely similar in theme or execution.
I've not seen a Zac Efron film before. No, not even any of the High School Musicals. It's clear that he is trying to prove that he is an actor to be taken seriously and he does well here. He enjoys himself with the bygone era dialogue and plays well off the other characters. He is at his best when things are going well for Richard, confidence shining through. However, once things take a turn for the worse for his character he is on slightly less sure footing. He is never entirely convincing as a vulnerable, heartbroken teenager. Having said that, he is very likeable on screen and will have a future.
It's good to see Claire Danes back, having never really taken off from the success of Romeo and Juliet. She is perfectly good here, doing things well with what she is given.
The real joy of the film is Christian McKay as Orson Welles himself. A relative unknown, every moment he is on screen the film goes up a notch. He is all overblown exaggerated gestures, when he's happy and friendly, it's almost as though he is your best friend, but when he's angry, you really feel his wrath. It's the unpredictable nature of his actions that make him such an interesting presence on screen. As I said before, I'm not sure how close this to the real Orson Welles, but it is a joy to watch.
The film itself is a good watch, but I can't say that I ever really cared about where it was going. Was I upset when things went south for Richard, not really. Was I over the moon when he was on stage and things were going well? Nope. It isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, it just isn't great. It lacks something, a soul perhaps. All of the attention in making it look authentic has been to the detriment of something else. Which is a shame, because it does look good, and I suspect when Efron's career becomes even more successful, this will be looked upon as big moment for him.
Decent, but worth seeing for Christian McKay alone.
Richard Linklater's film follows teenager Richard (Zac Efron) as he is cast in in a production of Julius Ceaser in the famous Mercury Theatre, a production that is helmed by the great Orson Welles (Christian McKay). As the show gets closer to opening night, the tensions among the cast grow and Richard is put through a the emotional blender as he comes to terms with his talent, falls in love (with Sonja played by Claire Danes), begins to believe he can have it all only to realise that he can't.
Now I must confess I am far from an expert on the life and career of Orson Welles, so whether this is an accurate depiction of the man, his private life and his creative methods is up for debate and I won't be able to judge it on it's accuracy. What I will say though is that Richard Linklater does a fine job of taking us back to 1930's New York. The streets are thronging with people looking the part, old cars trundle up and down the streets. Real time, care and dedication has been put into making this film look the part. It also helps to make this film feel like a good old fashioned movie, like the classics that are shown at lunchtime on a weekday on BBC2. The characters all talk in that way that used to in films, slightly rhythmic, very chipper with every word properly spoken. Light years away from the modern fascination with mumbling, shouting or growling. Richard Linklater deserves praise for this, as well as for the variety in his choice of films. Fast Food Nation, A Scanner Darkly and now this. All very interesting and not remotely similar in theme or execution.
I've not seen a Zac Efron film before. No, not even any of the High School Musicals. It's clear that he is trying to prove that he is an actor to be taken seriously and he does well here. He enjoys himself with the bygone era dialogue and plays well off the other characters. He is at his best when things are going well for Richard, confidence shining through. However, once things take a turn for the worse for his character he is on slightly less sure footing. He is never entirely convincing as a vulnerable, heartbroken teenager. Having said that, he is very likeable on screen and will have a future.
It's good to see Claire Danes back, having never really taken off from the success of Romeo and Juliet. She is perfectly good here, doing things well with what she is given.
The real joy of the film is Christian McKay as Orson Welles himself. A relative unknown, every moment he is on screen the film goes up a notch. He is all overblown exaggerated gestures, when he's happy and friendly, it's almost as though he is your best friend, but when he's angry, you really feel his wrath. It's the unpredictable nature of his actions that make him such an interesting presence on screen. As I said before, I'm not sure how close this to the real Orson Welles, but it is a joy to watch.
The film itself is a good watch, but I can't say that I ever really cared about where it was going. Was I upset when things went south for Richard, not really. Was I over the moon when he was on stage and things were going well? Nope. It isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, it just isn't great. It lacks something, a soul perhaps. All of the attention in making it look authentic has been to the detriment of something else. Which is a shame, because it does look good, and I suspect when Efron's career becomes even more successful, this will be looked upon as big moment for him.
Decent, but worth seeing for Christian McKay alone.
Thursday 16 December 2010
Monday 13 December 2010
THE NEXT THREE DAYS (2010)
I was lucky to go along to an advance screening of Russell Crowe's forthcoming film, The Next Three Days. Released in January 2011, it is a remake of a a French film, Anything for her (Pour Elle - 2007), and has been adapted, written and directed by Paul Haggis, who is quickly developing a bit of a name for himself having written Crash, Million Dollar Baby, Casino Royale, The Quantum of Solace and having made a very good job of directing (and writing) The Valley of Elah.
Crowe plays John Brennan, happy family man, living the perfect life with his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) and their little boy. Then one normal, weekday morning, their lives are torn apart as Lara is arrested for the murder of her boss. Three years down the track, Lara's final appeal is rejected and John is left a desperate man, so he seeks out the advice of an expert jail breaker (Liam Neeson in an irritating cameo) who advises him how to plan his wife's escape. We then reach 'The Next Three Days' as the plan is put into action.
Russell Crowe is in fine form here. He has played some very big, macho characters, but he entirely believable as a suburban father enjoying the perfect, yet quiet life. It's the first part of the film (it is broken up into three parts - the next three years, the next three months and finally the next three days) where he is at his most impressive, coming to terms with being a single parent, trying to give both his wife and his son hope, but knowing that there really is no cause for optimism. The most touching and upsetting scene is where he goes to visit prison to tell Lara that the appeal has been unsuccessful, no words are spoken, he says it all in his eyes. I struggled to keep it together. It is also worth saying at this stage that Elizabeth Banks plays her part as well - left vacant by her ordeal, resigned to a life behind bars, desperate to be with her son who shows no emotion or recognition when he is with her. It's almost a moody, family drama and very moving it is too.
The Next Three Months sees a shift in the film and also in Crowe's character. John leaves the comfort zone of suburban life behind as he tries to get the resources to make the break possible. He encounters a whole host of nasty characters and subjects himself to violence and the drug abuse of dangerous local neighbourhoods. The thing I like most about this element is that Crowe constantly seems out of his death, nothing goes as he wants it too and you I really got the impression that he is a man on the edge and things are spiralling out of control. Haggis shoots it all in the now familiar shaky cam, grainy image way. Very Bourne, but it gives it a very authentic and watchable feel.
Then we have 'The Next Three Days', and, frankly, it all falls apart a little bit - unlike John's plan. The final act is what might have happened if Tony Scott directed Ocean's Eleven. It's just about thrilling enough, engages you so you don't get bored, but you're never really on the edge of your seat. And it's because you never really worry whether they will get away with it and Russell Crowe resorts to type and becomes the action hero again, out of kilter with his portrayal of John before. Have no fear Maximus will save the day. It's a shame because the rest of the film is very unpredictable and it deserves something better than the ending gives it. I also felt let down because I thought the film wasn't going to insult the viewer by spelling out Lara's crime, I thought it would leave it all unanswered, which would have been brave, very brave, but it is needlessly addressed in the final moments.
So two thirds of a good film, an almost great performance from Crowe, ably supported by a good cast (Banks and Lennie James in particular) and proficiently directed by Paul Haggis again. The Next Three Days had me under lock and key, until cliche broke out and escaped.
Crowe plays John Brennan, happy family man, living the perfect life with his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) and their little boy. Then one normal, weekday morning, their lives are torn apart as Lara is arrested for the murder of her boss. Three years down the track, Lara's final appeal is rejected and John is left a desperate man, so he seeks out the advice of an expert jail breaker (Liam Neeson in an irritating cameo) who advises him how to plan his wife's escape. We then reach 'The Next Three Days' as the plan is put into action.
Russell Crowe is in fine form here. He has played some very big, macho characters, but he entirely believable as a suburban father enjoying the perfect, yet quiet life. It's the first part of the film (it is broken up into three parts - the next three years, the next three months and finally the next three days) where he is at his most impressive, coming to terms with being a single parent, trying to give both his wife and his son hope, but knowing that there really is no cause for optimism. The most touching and upsetting scene is where he goes to visit prison to tell Lara that the appeal has been unsuccessful, no words are spoken, he says it all in his eyes. I struggled to keep it together. It is also worth saying at this stage that Elizabeth Banks plays her part as well - left vacant by her ordeal, resigned to a life behind bars, desperate to be with her son who shows no emotion or recognition when he is with her. It's almost a moody, family drama and very moving it is too.
The Next Three Months sees a shift in the film and also in Crowe's character. John leaves the comfort zone of suburban life behind as he tries to get the resources to make the break possible. He encounters a whole host of nasty characters and subjects himself to violence and the drug abuse of dangerous local neighbourhoods. The thing I like most about this element is that Crowe constantly seems out of his death, nothing goes as he wants it too and you I really got the impression that he is a man on the edge and things are spiralling out of control. Haggis shoots it all in the now familiar shaky cam, grainy image way. Very Bourne, but it gives it a very authentic and watchable feel.
Then we have 'The Next Three Days', and, frankly, it all falls apart a little bit - unlike John's plan. The final act is what might have happened if Tony Scott directed Ocean's Eleven. It's just about thrilling enough, engages you so you don't get bored, but you're never really on the edge of your seat. And it's because you never really worry whether they will get away with it and Russell Crowe resorts to type and becomes the action hero again, out of kilter with his portrayal of John before. Have no fear Maximus will save the day. It's a shame because the rest of the film is very unpredictable and it deserves something better than the ending gives it. I also felt let down because I thought the film wasn't going to insult the viewer by spelling out Lara's crime, I thought it would leave it all unanswered, which would have been brave, very brave, but it is needlessly addressed in the final moments.
So two thirds of a good film, an almost great performance from Crowe, ably supported by a good cast (Banks and Lennie James in particular) and proficiently directed by Paul Haggis again. The Next Three Days had me under lock and key, until cliche broke out and escaped.
Saturday 11 December 2010
NOT LIKE OTHERS (VAMPYRER - 2008)
Have a look at this review that I've done for www.film-news.co.uk
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Not-Like-Others&nItemID=221
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Not-Like-Others&nItemID=221
MONSTERS (2010)
There has been a lot of hype about this film. Since I first heard about it, I've heard people calling it a monster film for girls, or a love story for boys. A thinking man's (or woman for that matter) B-movie. It's also been heralded as the beginning of the future of film making. Gareth Edwards, award-winning special effects man, made this film with 4 people, a relatively cheap camera and a laptop. It is reported to have cost just 500,000 quid to make. As a self-confessed monster film nut, I wasn't going to wait for this one to come out on DVD. Tickets at the lovely Soho Curzon booked.
6 years ago, a space probe crashed back down on to Earth in Mexico, bringing some unwanted visitors with it. These aliens, giant tentacled beasts that look a lot like an octopus, make Mexico their home. The American and Mexican military attempt, but fail, to kill them and have to resign themselves to set up the 'Infected Zone'. A huge chunk across the whole of the continent that has been surrendered. America is protected by a huge wall, the Mexicans have a barbed wire fence. This isn't a spoiler, this is all dealt with before the credits have even rolled (it's even in the trailer) and sets the scene for a very different monster film. Gareth Edwards himself said 'If Cloverfield is Iraq, Monsters is Afghanistan'. The world has come to terms with their existence and is just getting on with life as best as they can with them in the background.
The film centres on two people though, Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and Samantha (Whitney Able). Andrew is a professional photographer on the road, tasked with getting pictures of the devastation caused by the creatures. Andrew's boss orders him to get his daughter, Samantha, safely back to the US of A after she is caught up in an attack by the creatures.
I have included the trailer to this film above, but I think that it is important to say that the trailer isn't a good representation of the actual film. There is very little in the way of action set pieces, so if you are going solely because you like the look of the trailer, you will be in for a surprise. But what a pleasant and thought-provoking surprise.
What follows is a trek across the infected zone where Andrew and Samantha are exposed to the Monsters themselves, but also, more importantly, how the Infected Zone has affected the people of Mexico and the plight of those still living in the zone. Poverty, corruption, disease. This journey means that the film feels more like a study of a war-torn country, destroyed by years of conflict. With the quote mentioned above by Gareth Edwards, it is clear that this idea is the basis for this whole film and is a statement about military intervention.
What he also does admirably well is depict a world that is used to and grown tired of the situation. A great scene involves the two leads turning on the news in a motel room, seeing footage of the creatures under fire from the military. This would be a huge set-piece in most films of this type, but here the characters make small talk as the carnage goes on behind them. They've seen it all before. The viewer also gets to see the creatures straight away. The opening scene puts them right there in front of you. No big reveal at the end like Jaws and Cloverfield. They are just there. These creatures are here and have been for a while. Whats the big deal?
There are some lovely visual touches, all done by Edwards on his lap top. Infected Zone signs are a constant reminder of what is happening. A fighter jet floating along a river, a tanker on top of a mountain, both left to rot. This is a desperate part of the world that has given up.
At the centre of all of this though is a relationship. At the beginning of the film, they share little conversation, but as the film progresses and they near their destination, the experiences inevitably pull them closer together in scenes touchingly played by two unknown actors. It's all very believable though, it never feels as though Edwards is forcing these two together just to progress the story, it feels natural and is never overplayed. It is done so subtly that you don't really know it's happening. It's fantastically handled.
The creatures themselves look fantastic, I need to get my hands on whatever laptop Edwards has been using. The action when it happens is unnerving and jumpy, just as you would expect. It's the final sight of them in the film that deserve the most attention though. Edwards has created one of the most visually beautiful and moving scenes that I can remember seeing in any science-fiction film, swiftly followed by a brilliant human moment that is a lovely finish to the film and is still firmly implanted at the forefront of my memory.
So what we have here, is part war film, part monster movie, part road trip and part love story. There is no other way to explain it I'm afraid. It is not a 'jack of all trades, master of none' situation either. It ticks all the boxes, in all the categories, to the point of excellence.
It also makes you think, in the film the creatures are never called monsters, they never attack unless attacked first. Who are the monsters of the title then.....?
See it.
6 years ago, a space probe crashed back down on to Earth in Mexico, bringing some unwanted visitors with it. These aliens, giant tentacled beasts that look a lot like an octopus, make Mexico their home. The American and Mexican military attempt, but fail, to kill them and have to resign themselves to set up the 'Infected Zone'. A huge chunk across the whole of the continent that has been surrendered. America is protected by a huge wall, the Mexicans have a barbed wire fence. This isn't a spoiler, this is all dealt with before the credits have even rolled (it's even in the trailer) and sets the scene for a very different monster film. Gareth Edwards himself said 'If Cloverfield is Iraq, Monsters is Afghanistan'. The world has come to terms with their existence and is just getting on with life as best as they can with them in the background.
The film centres on two people though, Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and Samantha (Whitney Able). Andrew is a professional photographer on the road, tasked with getting pictures of the devastation caused by the creatures. Andrew's boss orders him to get his daughter, Samantha, safely back to the US of A after she is caught up in an attack by the creatures.
I have included the trailer to this film above, but I think that it is important to say that the trailer isn't a good representation of the actual film. There is very little in the way of action set pieces, so if you are going solely because you like the look of the trailer, you will be in for a surprise. But what a pleasant and thought-provoking surprise.
What follows is a trek across the infected zone where Andrew and Samantha are exposed to the Monsters themselves, but also, more importantly, how the Infected Zone has affected the people of Mexico and the plight of those still living in the zone. Poverty, corruption, disease. This journey means that the film feels more like a study of a war-torn country, destroyed by years of conflict. With the quote mentioned above by Gareth Edwards, it is clear that this idea is the basis for this whole film and is a statement about military intervention.
What he also does admirably well is depict a world that is used to and grown tired of the situation. A great scene involves the two leads turning on the news in a motel room, seeing footage of the creatures under fire from the military. This would be a huge set-piece in most films of this type, but here the characters make small talk as the carnage goes on behind them. They've seen it all before. The viewer also gets to see the creatures straight away. The opening scene puts them right there in front of you. No big reveal at the end like Jaws and Cloverfield. They are just there. These creatures are here and have been for a while. Whats the big deal?
There are some lovely visual touches, all done by Edwards on his lap top. Infected Zone signs are a constant reminder of what is happening. A fighter jet floating along a river, a tanker on top of a mountain, both left to rot. This is a desperate part of the world that has given up.
At the centre of all of this though is a relationship. At the beginning of the film, they share little conversation, but as the film progresses and they near their destination, the experiences inevitably pull them closer together in scenes touchingly played by two unknown actors. It's all very believable though, it never feels as though Edwards is forcing these two together just to progress the story, it feels natural and is never overplayed. It is done so subtly that you don't really know it's happening. It's fantastically handled.
The creatures themselves look fantastic, I need to get my hands on whatever laptop Edwards has been using. The action when it happens is unnerving and jumpy, just as you would expect. It's the final sight of them in the film that deserve the most attention though. Edwards has created one of the most visually beautiful and moving scenes that I can remember seeing in any science-fiction film, swiftly followed by a brilliant human moment that is a lovely finish to the film and is still firmly implanted at the forefront of my memory.
So what we have here, is part war film, part monster movie, part road trip and part love story. There is no other way to explain it I'm afraid. It is not a 'jack of all trades, master of none' situation either. It ticks all the boxes, in all the categories, to the point of excellence.
It also makes you think, in the film the creatures are never called monsters, they never attack unless attacked first. Who are the monsters of the title then.....?
See it.
Tuesday 7 December 2010
FOUR CHRISTMASES (2008)
Right, so it's Sunday evening. I've been away for the weekend to Bury St Edmunds. Done some Christmas shopping. Feel a bit groggy from the night before. Get back to the sofa, use my two pizzas for 10 quid voucher at Pizza Express. What next? Well, the girlfriend fancies something 'Christmassy'. She doesn't fancy Black Christmas, I don't really want to go down the Miracle on 34th Street route. That leaves the movie channels, which leaves us at a crossroads. Home Alone 2 or Four Christmases? One I have seen, the other I have not. One I have fond memories of from growing up, the other I have only heard bad things. Classic family comedy v ropey romantic comedy.
Perhaps it was the hangover. It may have been my hurt at being let down by the recent re-watching of National Lampoon's vacation. It may have even been sub-conscious pressure from the better half. Or a narcissistic desire to review something I don't think I will like. Whatever it was, I chose Four Christmases as we tucked into a Sloppy Guiseppe and a Pollo Ad Astra.
Vince Vaughn (new rom-com regular) and Reese Witherspoon play a couple, a couple who are happy as they are. They don't fancy marriage, they don't fancy kids. They are a 21st century pairing, happy with what they have and don't want to go down the ruinous route that their parents undertook, which has consequently left them both with two separate families each. Two families per character, 4 in total, Christmas day, 4 different Christmas celebrations. And that is essentially the set-up. Once their usual selfish holiday plans are put to the sword due to fog, they have to each visit the different factions of one another's families.
You have his bad tempered, red neck dad, her flirtatious, evangelical Christian, cougar mum, she also has a kind caring father, but he must visit his mother who now has a sexual relationship with his old best friend.
And that is it really. Not much else.
I sensed that the film makers saw 'Meet The Parents' and thought to themselves, 'that's a good idea - let's do four mini versions of that in one movie'. And that is all we have here. There is physical comedy (which is, I must admit, comical and, at times, well done) and then gross out, cringey gags that are predictable and far from laugh out loud.
It isn't particularly funny, but then it isn't exactly devoid of humour altogether. I chuckled twice (the girlfriend counted), nothing more, nothing less. Is that what constitutes a comedy these days? I should certainly hope not. Spaceballs and Airplane! managed the same amount in the credits sequence. Have standards slipped that much?
What is most upsetting is the great actors that appear. Jon Voigt, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek. Has it really come to this? You should all know better than this. Please do not be tempted by De Niro's turn in Meet The Parents. He is better than that, and so are you.
Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn share screen time, and they have to resort to wrestling moves and kicks in the balls. These sequences are some of the only amusing moments, but these two bounced off one another in Swingers with dialogue that few people have emulated since. You two are 'money'. Please take me back to those times.
The film also tries to have a message. Please stop this. Don't do it, You can't have a gross out, inappropriate comedy for an hour and then decide that you want the main characters to fall in love all over again as they realise the error of their ways. I despised them at the beginning, what makes you think that I give a toss as to whether they live happily ever after and overcome the badly portrayed commitment phobias that they both have?
It could have been an interesting comedy, an insight into the modern family and how fractured Christmas has become. A study of the 21st century nuclear family or it dissolution. Instead it is an example of how fractured comedies have become, with little thought put into, and time spent on character and narrative. I criticised National Lampoons for it's broken and incomplete structure, and here we have the same problem, 20 years later. Has nothing changed?
Plus it doesn't feel remotely Christmassy. Four Christmases, not one but four, and not once does you ever make you long for Turkey, sprouts and bad telly. If it can't deliver on this, and it can't give you the laughs, what on earth is the point?
If this is what we have to resort to at this time every year, then Bah Humbug.
Perhaps it was the hangover. It may have been my hurt at being let down by the recent re-watching of National Lampoon's vacation. It may have even been sub-conscious pressure from the better half. Or a narcissistic desire to review something I don't think I will like. Whatever it was, I chose Four Christmases as we tucked into a Sloppy Guiseppe and a Pollo Ad Astra.
Vince Vaughn (new rom-com regular) and Reese Witherspoon play a couple, a couple who are happy as they are. They don't fancy marriage, they don't fancy kids. They are a 21st century pairing, happy with what they have and don't want to go down the ruinous route that their parents undertook, which has consequently left them both with two separate families each. Two families per character, 4 in total, Christmas day, 4 different Christmas celebrations. And that is essentially the set-up. Once their usual selfish holiday plans are put to the sword due to fog, they have to each visit the different factions of one another's families.
You have his bad tempered, red neck dad, her flirtatious, evangelical Christian, cougar mum, she also has a kind caring father, but he must visit his mother who now has a sexual relationship with his old best friend.
And that is it really. Not much else.
I sensed that the film makers saw 'Meet The Parents' and thought to themselves, 'that's a good idea - let's do four mini versions of that in one movie'. And that is all we have here. There is physical comedy (which is, I must admit, comical and, at times, well done) and then gross out, cringey gags that are predictable and far from laugh out loud.
It isn't particularly funny, but then it isn't exactly devoid of humour altogether. I chuckled twice (the girlfriend counted), nothing more, nothing less. Is that what constitutes a comedy these days? I should certainly hope not. Spaceballs and Airplane! managed the same amount in the credits sequence. Have standards slipped that much?
What is most upsetting is the great actors that appear. Jon Voigt, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek. Has it really come to this? You should all know better than this. Please do not be tempted by De Niro's turn in Meet The Parents. He is better than that, and so are you.
Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn share screen time, and they have to resort to wrestling moves and kicks in the balls. These sequences are some of the only amusing moments, but these two bounced off one another in Swingers with dialogue that few people have emulated since. You two are 'money'. Please take me back to those times.
The film also tries to have a message. Please stop this. Don't do it, You can't have a gross out, inappropriate comedy for an hour and then decide that you want the main characters to fall in love all over again as they realise the error of their ways. I despised them at the beginning, what makes you think that I give a toss as to whether they live happily ever after and overcome the badly portrayed commitment phobias that they both have?
It could have been an interesting comedy, an insight into the modern family and how fractured Christmas has become. A study of the 21st century nuclear family or it dissolution. Instead it is an example of how fractured comedies have become, with little thought put into, and time spent on character and narrative. I criticised National Lampoons for it's broken and incomplete structure, and here we have the same problem, 20 years later. Has nothing changed?
Plus it doesn't feel remotely Christmassy. Four Christmases, not one but four, and not once does you ever make you long for Turkey, sprouts and bad telly. If it can't deliver on this, and it can't give you the laughs, what on earth is the point?
If this is what we have to resort to at this time every year, then Bah Humbug.
Sunday 5 December 2010
NATIONAL LAMPOON'S VACATION (1983)
Monday off work, freezing cold, spent the morning Christmas shopping and the afternoon traipsing round Hyde Park Winter Wonderland, occasionally stopping to drink mulled wine and spiced cider. One more sneaky pint of ale en route back and then on to the sofa to chill out before the long weekend comes to an end. What we need during these moments is something warm, something familiar, something safe. And so it was that I put on National Lampoon's Vacation.
It's a film that I remember very fondly from my childhood, my mum and dad loving it. I recall them cackling away as I sat there not getting the majority of the jokes and stirring uneasily during the 'love' scenes. However, despite the film being in my DVD cabinet for as long as I can recall, this was the first time I had watched it quite a while. So how does it stand up after all this time?
It stars Chevy Chase, Saturday Night Live regular, at a time when he was at the peak of his powers. Fresh from the success of Caddy Shack, he was everywhere and would go on to star in successful vehicles such as Fletch, Fletch lives, Funny Farm, Spies Like Us and another that I loved as a child, The Three Amigos. It's written by the late, and great, John Hughes who of course penned a whole host of classics, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Home Alone, The Breakfast Club, The Great Outdoors and the wonderful Planes, Trains and Automobiles. He also directed Uncle Buck and Weird Science.
Behind the camera you have Harold Ramis, also riding the rave of Caddy Shack, and before he would hit the heights of Groundhog Day and also helping to pen Ghostbusters with Dan Ackroyd.
All the ingredients are there.....
But it misses the mark.
On this viewing I must admit I barely laughed. There were one or two chortles, but nothing more than that. And before you say it, it's not because I've seen the film before and know all the gags. Put me in front of Airplane! and I'll laugh from start to finish, despite knowing every last joke inside out. The story is a nice premise and should work well, family setting off on a 2 week vacation to Wally World (basically Disney Land) but instead of flying there, they decide that a trip by road will be a great opportunity to all bond. Anyone who has ever journeyed anywhere by car as a family, on a trip further than the local supermarket, knows that this is a recipe for disaster, and this film is no exception. If something can go wrong, it inevitably does. Car crashes, deaths, nudity, toilet humour, financial woe, it's all there as the vacation hits a steadily downward trajectory.
The problem with the film is that it lacks any real cohesion. It feels like a collection of sketches, like you might find in Saturday Night Live. Can you imagine a film based on all the gags in the Armstrong and Miller show, but with all the characters the same throughout? That's what you have here. None of it seems to fit. Disaster, comic pay off, back on the road, next disaster, punchline, better back on the freeway. The punchlines themselves didn't feel quite as they should have either, as though they were too soon or too late. The secret to comedy, someone once said, is timing. They all missed a beat or two here.
It's a credit to Chase and some of the other cast, notably Beverly D'Angelo (Chase's on screen wife), Imogene Coca (bitter and grumpy Aunt Edna) and good old reliable Randy Quaid doing what he does best as cousin Eddie, that the film stands up at all. They do their best with what they have. Chase is naturally funny in a straight kind of way, and putting him in these increasingly nightmarish situations, is a good formula.
However, it's not until you get to the final 20 minutes that the film really settles, with Chase turning a little darker and John Candy turning up for a fun finale that ends on a happy note.
It all feels a little rushed as a whole though. It seems as though everyone involved thought that the most important thing was to get the film out there, regardless of what state it was in. It's not just the comic timing that is off here, this film seemed to happen too soon. All those involved, that I referred to above, went on to make and be involved in some fantastic films that are still talked about today. National Lampoon's Vacation came before they all knew exactly what they were doing, it's rough around the edges. But Ramis and Hughes were able to learn from this and not make the same mistakes on other projects.
Without this film, I doubt we would have Planes, Trains and Automobiles in the state that it is. For that film, which really is a classic, owes a lot to National Lampoon's Vacation, is essentially the same story but with tighter writing, better actors, funnier gags and a heart. If Hughes needed to make this film in order to make Planes, that's fine by me. And for that we should be eternally grateful.
It's a film that I remember very fondly from my childhood, my mum and dad loving it. I recall them cackling away as I sat there not getting the majority of the jokes and stirring uneasily during the 'love' scenes. However, despite the film being in my DVD cabinet for as long as I can recall, this was the first time I had watched it quite a while. So how does it stand up after all this time?
It stars Chevy Chase, Saturday Night Live regular, at a time when he was at the peak of his powers. Fresh from the success of Caddy Shack, he was everywhere and would go on to star in successful vehicles such as Fletch, Fletch lives, Funny Farm, Spies Like Us and another that I loved as a child, The Three Amigos. It's written by the late, and great, John Hughes who of course penned a whole host of classics, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Home Alone, The Breakfast Club, The Great Outdoors and the wonderful Planes, Trains and Automobiles. He also directed Uncle Buck and Weird Science.
Behind the camera you have Harold Ramis, also riding the rave of Caddy Shack, and before he would hit the heights of Groundhog Day and also helping to pen Ghostbusters with Dan Ackroyd.
All the ingredients are there.....
But it misses the mark.
On this viewing I must admit I barely laughed. There were one or two chortles, but nothing more than that. And before you say it, it's not because I've seen the film before and know all the gags. Put me in front of Airplane! and I'll laugh from start to finish, despite knowing every last joke inside out. The story is a nice premise and should work well, family setting off on a 2 week vacation to Wally World (basically Disney Land) but instead of flying there, they decide that a trip by road will be a great opportunity to all bond. Anyone who has ever journeyed anywhere by car as a family, on a trip further than the local supermarket, knows that this is a recipe for disaster, and this film is no exception. If something can go wrong, it inevitably does. Car crashes, deaths, nudity, toilet humour, financial woe, it's all there as the vacation hits a steadily downward trajectory.
The problem with the film is that it lacks any real cohesion. It feels like a collection of sketches, like you might find in Saturday Night Live. Can you imagine a film based on all the gags in the Armstrong and Miller show, but with all the characters the same throughout? That's what you have here. None of it seems to fit. Disaster, comic pay off, back on the road, next disaster, punchline, better back on the freeway. The punchlines themselves didn't feel quite as they should have either, as though they were too soon or too late. The secret to comedy, someone once said, is timing. They all missed a beat or two here.
It's a credit to Chase and some of the other cast, notably Beverly D'Angelo (Chase's on screen wife), Imogene Coca (bitter and grumpy Aunt Edna) and good old reliable Randy Quaid doing what he does best as cousin Eddie, that the film stands up at all. They do their best with what they have. Chase is naturally funny in a straight kind of way, and putting him in these increasingly nightmarish situations, is a good formula.
However, it's not until you get to the final 20 minutes that the film really settles, with Chase turning a little darker and John Candy turning up for a fun finale that ends on a happy note.
It all feels a little rushed as a whole though. It seems as though everyone involved thought that the most important thing was to get the film out there, regardless of what state it was in. It's not just the comic timing that is off here, this film seemed to happen too soon. All those involved, that I referred to above, went on to make and be involved in some fantastic films that are still talked about today. National Lampoon's Vacation came before they all knew exactly what they were doing, it's rough around the edges. But Ramis and Hughes were able to learn from this and not make the same mistakes on other projects.
Without this film, I doubt we would have Planes, Trains and Automobiles in the state that it is. For that film, which really is a classic, owes a lot to National Lampoon's Vacation, is essentially the same story but with tighter writing, better actors, funnier gags and a heart. If Hughes needed to make this film in order to make Planes, that's fine by me. And for that we should be eternally grateful.
Friday 3 December 2010
LIFE BLOOD (2009)
Another review for www.film-news.co.uk .......
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Life-Blood&nItemID=218
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Life-Blood&nItemID=218
ZMD - ZOMBIES OF MASS DESTRUCTION (2009)
Have a look at my review for the site http://www.film-news.co.uk/
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Zombies-Of-Mass-Destruction&nItemID=209
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Zombies-Of-Mass-Destruction&nItemID=209
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)