The one thing that offends me most about The Hangover: Part 2 is the title. Not the whole thing (I am partial to a hangover myself occasionally), just the Part 2 aspect. Almost as if Todd Phillips really believes that this is something more than it is, a larger, epic story arc that this movie is just a fraction of. The Godfather this ain't.
Before wading in here, I've got to say that I enjoyed the first film. It was funny, with funny characters, particularly Stu and Alan (Ed Helm and Zach Galifianakis), and as a massive fan of Las Vegas, I've got a bit of a soft spot for it. Admitedly, further viewings of the film have seen my enthusiasm and patience start to wane but all in all, it was a good comedy. I felt the need to qualify that because I wouldn't want my hatred of the second instalment to be misconstrued as a sense of humour failure.
The real problem with Part 2 is that it just isn't funny. I did not laugh once. Not even smiled. Fundamentally this is a problem for what is billed as a comedy. The same formula of the first film is applied to a different location, Bangkok. Phillips clearly thought that losing the same character, but somewhere else would be a stretch too far so instead we lose Stu's soon to be brother in law a couple of days before the wedding. The same three chaps wake up, Stu, Alan and Bradley Cooper's Phil, in a bad hotel room in Bangkok and have to put the pieces together.While the wake up scene in the first film was funny, unexpected and felt a little fresh, on this occasion we know it's coming and it feels immediately tired. We have all seen pictures of the face tattoo, it's on the poster, in fact there was even stuff in the press about Mike Tyson suing because of it (well done publicity department). So a joke that may have caught us off guard, has instead been bled to death before the film has even started.
And that's the problem with the whole film. The same jokes are used again, Todd Phillips and his 'writing' team, believing that the fact that we know what's coming next will be funnier than actual jokes. The baby is replaced by a drug dealing monkey (yes, I know, on paper it sounds funny but I assure you that the reality is not. In fact, the spying monkey in the first Indy film beats him hands down). Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) is back again through arguably the most tenuous plot line ever conceived, Stu's taste for ladies of the night (not vampires) crops up again, as does a Mike Tyson cameo.
The writers then seem to lose even more confidence in their ability to write a good joke and send us on a nonsensical action plot where Paul Giamatti turns up to collect some cash and leave me wondering what on earth he is up to. Car chases, gun fights, double crossing all take place, relentlessly smashing me in the face to the point where I was left feeling completely numb.
I can't even be bothered anymore to continue to tell you how awful The Hangover: Part 2 is. It's not funny, it's not entertaining, it's not a patch on the first film and it stinks of a sequel made solely with cash registers in mind. Having said that, if that was the aim, it's succeeded. And then some. Hollywood is after all a business and this film has taken £34 million (the 5th most this year) at the UK box office alone, despite it suffering awful reviews and being terrible. The truth is that because of the success and widespread enjoyment of the first film, the second film was always going to rake the cash in, it just would have been nice if someone actually paused and considered making something good.
During his recent press appearances for the DVD release of the film, Bradley Cooper has said that a third is on the way, and, hold the front page, it may have a new structure. What that deviation entails has yet to be seen, but it could be a bold move, and if they bother to write some jokes, it could make amends for this monstrosity. It could of course just be shite as well.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Sunday 4 December 2011
Friday 2 December 2011
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN (2011 - Cert 15)
I blame Judy Garland. It's all her fault.
Let me explain. Five days before my first trip to the flicks in a while (to see Marilyn) I went to Richmond Theatre to see a play that had done the rounds all over the country and a stint in the West End. It was called End of the Rainbow and shared a few similarities with My Week With Marilyn, the main ones being that they both attempted to show us a different perspective on a top female icon of the last century (Rainbow being Judy Garland and Marilyn obviously being Marilyn Monroe). Both were also set in London, chronicling a small portion of their lives as they hit the UK for work (a run of concerts and a film respectively).
Before I turn this into a theatre blog though, I must first concentrate on Marilyn and why it simply didn't work for me. I think I can boil it down to one problem, boring characters. Quite a big problem and I know what you're saying, Marilyn Monroe, how can she and the the film possibly possibly be boring? I don't think it can be blamed on the actors, Michelle Williams in the case of Marilyn herself. She certainly looked the part and sounded the part. She even moved like her, she clearly must have studied a lot of footage of Monroe as it looked very authentic. However, because the character is written without any depth whatsoever, it becomes a very flat impersonation more than anything else. We are meant to think that Monroe is insecure, delicate, misunderstood, a tortured genius. This is portrayed by us enduring what are effectively bloopers on set as she struggles with her lines without the help of a touchy feel director. Then with the kind words from fellow actors she perks up a bit. That's it. That's what the writer (Adrian Hodges) thinks counts as characterisation. Perhaps it's to be expected from a writer of Primeval. He has managed to turn a 20th century icon, a goddess into a dull, boring, woman. Then there is the other main character, the 'My' of the title, Colin Clark (played by Eddie Redmayne). Again, perfectly decent performance but the character just wasn't interesting. Much of the film is him in rooms, being told useful information by other characters, without any real explanation as to why a third assistant director on the film (effectively a tea maker) has become everyone's confidant. It doesn't feel as though he is pushing his own narrative, he is a passenger in the whole piece, but he really should be a driver. It makes his character feel bland. This consequently meant that the relationship between he and Marilyn just didn't resonate with me, it didn't work, and most importantly, I didn't believe it. There was constantly a sense that they might not both live happily ever after together, but I ultimately didn't actually care.
The two dimensional nature continues elsewhere. A whole host of good actors, Judi Dench, Emma Watson, Dominic Cooper, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, Derek Jacobi, even my mums friend Karl Moffatt (yes, I am name dropping) try their hardest with very limited material, all figures that don't feel essential to the story, more incidental and an excuse to get another big name in there on the cast list. Only Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier comes out with any real credit and satisfactory screen time.
Another problem is that it's simply too nice, too polished, not daring enough. Monroe's drug problem is shown by jars of pills by the bed, arguments are muted with lots of arm waving, no real histrionics. It feels middle of the road, lacking any punch whatsoever. Like David Haye brushing you across the face with a small bean bag. You expect more, you want more, it just doesn't deliver.
So what did Judy Garland do wrong? Nothing, quite the opposite, but that's the problem. Because Rainbow was so good, I think she may have contributed to ruining My Week With Marilyn. Admittedly the subject matter of Rainbow is a little darker in tone (it builds up to Garland's premature death at the age of 47) but it was much more subtle in it's portrayal of a fragile star, much more affecting and so much more interesting. Had I not seen End of the Rainbow, or had it not been quite so good, perhaps I would have enjoyed Marilyn more, because it's not a terrible film, I've seen far worse, it's perfectly ok, a fluffy, good looking, mildly amusing way to pass an hour and a half. Unfortunately though, it's nothing more than that.
Let me explain. Five days before my first trip to the flicks in a while (to see Marilyn) I went to Richmond Theatre to see a play that had done the rounds all over the country and a stint in the West End. It was called End of the Rainbow and shared a few similarities with My Week With Marilyn, the main ones being that they both attempted to show us a different perspective on a top female icon of the last century (Rainbow being Judy Garland and Marilyn obviously being Marilyn Monroe). Both were also set in London, chronicling a small portion of their lives as they hit the UK for work (a run of concerts and a film respectively).
Before I turn this into a theatre blog though, I must first concentrate on Marilyn and why it simply didn't work for me. I think I can boil it down to one problem, boring characters. Quite a big problem and I know what you're saying, Marilyn Monroe, how can she and the the film possibly possibly be boring? I don't think it can be blamed on the actors, Michelle Williams in the case of Marilyn herself. She certainly looked the part and sounded the part. She even moved like her, she clearly must have studied a lot of footage of Monroe as it looked very authentic. However, because the character is written without any depth whatsoever, it becomes a very flat impersonation more than anything else. We are meant to think that Monroe is insecure, delicate, misunderstood, a tortured genius. This is portrayed by us enduring what are effectively bloopers on set as she struggles with her lines without the help of a touchy feel director. Then with the kind words from fellow actors she perks up a bit. That's it. That's what the writer (Adrian Hodges) thinks counts as characterisation. Perhaps it's to be expected from a writer of Primeval. He has managed to turn a 20th century icon, a goddess into a dull, boring, woman. Then there is the other main character, the 'My' of the title, Colin Clark (played by Eddie Redmayne). Again, perfectly decent performance but the character just wasn't interesting. Much of the film is him in rooms, being told useful information by other characters, without any real explanation as to why a third assistant director on the film (effectively a tea maker) has become everyone's confidant. It doesn't feel as though he is pushing his own narrative, he is a passenger in the whole piece, but he really should be a driver. It makes his character feel bland. This consequently meant that the relationship between he and Marilyn just didn't resonate with me, it didn't work, and most importantly, I didn't believe it. There was constantly a sense that they might not both live happily ever after together, but I ultimately didn't actually care.
The two dimensional nature continues elsewhere. A whole host of good actors, Judi Dench, Emma Watson, Dominic Cooper, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, Derek Jacobi, even my mums friend Karl Moffatt (yes, I am name dropping) try their hardest with very limited material, all figures that don't feel essential to the story, more incidental and an excuse to get another big name in there on the cast list. Only Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier comes out with any real credit and satisfactory screen time.
Another problem is that it's simply too nice, too polished, not daring enough. Monroe's drug problem is shown by jars of pills by the bed, arguments are muted with lots of arm waving, no real histrionics. It feels middle of the road, lacking any punch whatsoever. Like David Haye brushing you across the face with a small bean bag. You expect more, you want more, it just doesn't deliver.
So what did Judy Garland do wrong? Nothing, quite the opposite, but that's the problem. Because Rainbow was so good, I think she may have contributed to ruining My Week With Marilyn. Admittedly the subject matter of Rainbow is a little darker in tone (it builds up to Garland's premature death at the age of 47) but it was much more subtle in it's portrayal of a fragile star, much more affecting and so much more interesting. Had I not seen End of the Rainbow, or had it not been quite so good, perhaps I would have enjoyed Marilyn more, because it's not a terrible film, I've seen far worse, it's perfectly ok, a fluffy, good looking, mildly amusing way to pass an hour and a half. Unfortunately though, it's nothing more than that.
Tuesday 29 November 2011
CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011 - Cert 12A)
With The Avengers project Marvel Studios really seems to have got the knack of the Superhero genre. It's found it's place, it's voice. It's the perfect compliment to the art house film sensibility that Christopher Nolan's Batman films have created. While Nolan seeks to arguably stimulate first and entertain second, with Iron Man (not so much Iron Man 2) and Thor, Marvel's Louis D'Esposito leaves us in doubt as to what his sole aim is. Glossy Friday/Saturday night blockbuster entertainment. The films that The Fantastic Four yearned to be. Fun, exciting with a nice solid emotional foundation.
The pitch perfect series continues with Joe Johnston's (Jurassic Park 3, Jumanji) Captain America. It's the usual brand of comic book nonsense, although this time it's USP is that it's set during WW2. A digitally reduced (in size, not there ladies) Chris Evans plays Steve Rogers, a weedy American kid who is desperate to fight in the War, only to be refused because he's not fit enough, and he's, well, tiny. A sinister German doctor picks him for a special project by the US Army, to create the ultimate soldier (not Universal Soldier Van Damme fans). The lesson here of course is that a real hero is not necessarily the strongest man out there, but the most determined, the bravest. It clearly lacks the depth in theme of The Dark Knight and even Rami's Spiderman films but it's done in such a way that it doesn't feel laboured, it just works. Pitch perfect once again you see.
Despite the period setting, Hitler is not the bad guy. This isn't Tarantino after all, it's a Superhero film. Instead we have a rogue wing of the Nazi party led by Hugo Weaving's Johann Schmidt (Weaving evoking the nastiness and pantomime villain-ness of his agent in the Matrix), AKA The Red Skull, intent on winning the war and ruling the world, aided by Toby Jones' brilliant scientist. Yes I know what you're thinking, this is quite a cast, with some proper thespians. It doesn't stop there either, Tommy Lee Jones does his thing as Colonel Chester Philips, Hayley Atwell as the love interest, Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark. A lot must be said about these big names adding a good deal of gravitas to the piece, but they aren't just turning up, saying some lines and taking their cash. They all put in good performances, the bad guys have the most fun but Atwell manages to avoid being annoying which is no mean feat in these films where women tend to be there for eye candy and plot development. All in all, good stuff from the cast lifting it above other special effects laden drivel.
I use the word laden, although that is harsh. There are obviously effects there, and when they pop up they are impressive, but it doesn't feel heavy on the CGI. In fact, brace yourself, the effects seem to be used for the benefit of the film and not just for the sake of it. The most impressive use is in the downsizing of Evans for the puny Steve Rogers. It's certainly very impressive and not at all distracting, which is an achievement in itself. If there is a criticism to be had of the action and effects is that it takes a hell of a lot (no pun intended) from the two Hellboy films, metal machinery that has an almost supernatural and magical quality.
It's a clever film as well, a 15 minute chunk of which explores the role that propaganda plays in a war and what it really means to be a hero. For example, can good be done fighting the war at home. It's a lot more thought provoking than you expect and it did catch me off guard. In a good way, like eating a posh kebab. It has an unexpected quality. There is also a lot of joy to be had in experiencing this film as part of a bigger picture, a cinema universe created by Marvel studios. We know that it's working towards a grand stand finish, there's plenty of in jokes such as seeing Tony Stark's (Iron Man) dad making his name as the weapon developer that we only hear about in the Iron Man films, we wait for Sam L Jackson's one-eyed Nick Fury to turn up and we wait to see how on earth Captain America ends up in the present day (spoiler alert - tenuously).
Captain America feels like a continuation of the other films, which is as it should be. This is not really a sequel and it's certainly not a completely stand alone film. This is shaping up to be one of those rare breeds, something that can be released as a box set and feel as though that's how it's meant to be. Apart from Hulk staring Edward Norton, we'll forget about that one.
Roll on next summer. Bring on The Avengers.
Oh and if you're wondering, It's probably my favourite of the Avengers films so far. It goes in this order:
1. Captain America
2. Iron Man
3. Thor
4. Iron Man 2
5. Hulk
The pitch perfect series continues with Joe Johnston's (Jurassic Park 3, Jumanji) Captain America. It's the usual brand of comic book nonsense, although this time it's USP is that it's set during WW2. A digitally reduced (in size, not there ladies) Chris Evans plays Steve Rogers, a weedy American kid who is desperate to fight in the War, only to be refused because he's not fit enough, and he's, well, tiny. A sinister German doctor picks him for a special project by the US Army, to create the ultimate soldier (not Universal Soldier Van Damme fans). The lesson here of course is that a real hero is not necessarily the strongest man out there, but the most determined, the bravest. It clearly lacks the depth in theme of The Dark Knight and even Rami's Spiderman films but it's done in such a way that it doesn't feel laboured, it just works. Pitch perfect once again you see.
Despite the period setting, Hitler is not the bad guy. This isn't Tarantino after all, it's a Superhero film. Instead we have a rogue wing of the Nazi party led by Hugo Weaving's Johann Schmidt (Weaving evoking the nastiness and pantomime villain-ness of his agent in the Matrix), AKA The Red Skull, intent on winning the war and ruling the world, aided by Toby Jones' brilliant scientist. Yes I know what you're thinking, this is quite a cast, with some proper thespians. It doesn't stop there either, Tommy Lee Jones does his thing as Colonel Chester Philips, Hayley Atwell as the love interest, Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark. A lot must be said about these big names adding a good deal of gravitas to the piece, but they aren't just turning up, saying some lines and taking their cash. They all put in good performances, the bad guys have the most fun but Atwell manages to avoid being annoying which is no mean feat in these films where women tend to be there for eye candy and plot development. All in all, good stuff from the cast lifting it above other special effects laden drivel.
I use the word laden, although that is harsh. There are obviously effects there, and when they pop up they are impressive, but it doesn't feel heavy on the CGI. In fact, brace yourself, the effects seem to be used for the benefit of the film and not just for the sake of it. The most impressive use is in the downsizing of Evans for the puny Steve Rogers. It's certainly very impressive and not at all distracting, which is an achievement in itself. If there is a criticism to be had of the action and effects is that it takes a hell of a lot (no pun intended) from the two Hellboy films, metal machinery that has an almost supernatural and magical quality.
It's a clever film as well, a 15 minute chunk of which explores the role that propaganda plays in a war and what it really means to be a hero. For example, can good be done fighting the war at home. It's a lot more thought provoking than you expect and it did catch me off guard. In a good way, like eating a posh kebab. It has an unexpected quality. There is also a lot of joy to be had in experiencing this film as part of a bigger picture, a cinema universe created by Marvel studios. We know that it's working towards a grand stand finish, there's plenty of in jokes such as seeing Tony Stark's (Iron Man) dad making his name as the weapon developer that we only hear about in the Iron Man films, we wait for Sam L Jackson's one-eyed Nick Fury to turn up and we wait to see how on earth Captain America ends up in the present day (spoiler alert - tenuously).
Captain America feels like a continuation of the other films, which is as it should be. This is not really a sequel and it's certainly not a completely stand alone film. This is shaping up to be one of those rare breeds, something that can be released as a box set and feel as though that's how it's meant to be. Apart from Hulk staring Edward Norton, we'll forget about that one.
Roll on next summer. Bring on The Avengers.
Oh and if you're wondering, It's probably my favourite of the Avengers films so far. It goes in this order:
1. Captain America
2. Iron Man
3. Thor
4. Iron Man 2
5. Hulk
Sunday 9 October 2011
THE TROLL HUNTER (2010 - Cert 15)
I recently went to see Apollo 18 and in my review I was quick to pronounce the 'found footage' film dead. Although I did lay down the caveat, unless the makers of a film manage to do something new or interesting with the formula. And Norwegian André Øvredal has managed it with The Troll Hunter.
It all starts off as you would expect, a message on the screen introducing the film, explaining that tapes were found containing a whole load of footage and the following is what was cut from all of that celluloid. So far so seen all before. What follows that message is not at all what I would have expected, much more than I had hoped for (and from the trailer my hopes were high) and it all left me wanting more. Much much more. In a very, very good way.
We start off following three students who are trailing Hans, who they think is a bear hunter (played by Otto Jespersen). He has become a bit of a mystery in local circles, he travels in a caravan and is kitted out with a load of gear that all seems to be a bit heavy handed, even for bear hunting. Interview attempts are refused gruffly, they wait bored as he sleeps by day and heads out on the road at night. That is until one night they head deep in to the Norwegian forests and get caught up in an exchange between Hans and the creatures he's really hunting. Trolls. Yes, Trolls.
The whole film is played with a completely straight face. Any disbelief that trolls really exist is quickly disposed of, as everyone accepts that this is a monster that we have to live with. There is a Troll Security Service, a shadowy FBI like division that is tasked with keeping them away from populated areas. The Troll Hunter Hans talks of myths (or what we think of as myths) as scientific fact, for example he talks of rapid calcification rather than turning to stone. It's this serious take on what is all grounded in fairy tale stories that bring the laughs, deadpan delivery of such stupid lines can't fail but bring a tickle. Then you have the trolls themselves. They look great, a few quid has clearly been spent on the effects (a budget of £3m is reported) and the film makers are proud of them. This isn't Jaws with only fleeting glimpses of what's involved, we see the monsters in all their glory very early on. There is no disputing that there is a cartoony quality to their appearance, and once again, when this is up against a tone that is so serious without any nods or winks to camera, it is genuinely both fun and funny.
It isn't all fun and games though, there are some genuinely scary moments. As you might expect there are plenty of jumps (easy to pull of on the handheld camera), but the scenes where the trolls are on the rampage are really exciting. They are massive hulking creatures and we are with the little people and their handheld camera. There is an impressive scale to it all. There are also one or two unexpected moments of unsettling violence (that you don't necessarily see, you actually hear) that do catch you off guard. Just when you get the sense that this is a fun, friendly romp, a bit of death and destruction comes along and makes you think twice about where the film is going. It just doesn't let you settle.
Otto Jespersen really deserves a hell of a lot of credit. He is really the only person on screen for any proper length of time, and the whole thing hangs on his performance. He nails the Quint-like character and then some. He gets all the best lines, never smiles and gets to be a bit of a hero at the end. If he didn't get it so right, the film would have fallen over very seriously.
The Troll Hunter is an absolute blast, it ticks all of the boxes, fun, funny, scary, it really puts you through the mixer. Its probably summed up best by it's last 5 minutes, going from barnstorming heroics, to sombre conclusion but then still finding the time to tack on some explaining at the end containing the biggest laugh of the lot.
The found footage film can live on, especially if André Øvredal has anything to do with it.
The whole film is played with a completely straight face. Any disbelief that trolls really exist is quickly disposed of, as everyone accepts that this is a monster that we have to live with. There is a Troll Security Service, a shadowy FBI like division that is tasked with keeping them away from populated areas. The Troll Hunter Hans talks of myths (or what we think of as myths) as scientific fact, for example he talks of rapid calcification rather than turning to stone. It's this serious take on what is all grounded in fairy tale stories that bring the laughs, deadpan delivery of such stupid lines can't fail but bring a tickle. Then you have the trolls themselves. They look great, a few quid has clearly been spent on the effects (a budget of £3m is reported) and the film makers are proud of them. This isn't Jaws with only fleeting glimpses of what's involved, we see the monsters in all their glory very early on. There is no disputing that there is a cartoony quality to their appearance, and once again, when this is up against a tone that is so serious without any nods or winks to camera, it is genuinely both fun and funny.
It isn't all fun and games though, there are some genuinely scary moments. As you might expect there are plenty of jumps (easy to pull of on the handheld camera), but the scenes where the trolls are on the rampage are really exciting. They are massive hulking creatures and we are with the little people and their handheld camera. There is an impressive scale to it all. There are also one or two unexpected moments of unsettling violence (that you don't necessarily see, you actually hear) that do catch you off guard. Just when you get the sense that this is a fun, friendly romp, a bit of death and destruction comes along and makes you think twice about where the film is going. It just doesn't let you settle.
Otto Jespersen really deserves a hell of a lot of credit. He is really the only person on screen for any proper length of time, and the whole thing hangs on his performance. He nails the Quint-like character and then some. He gets all the best lines, never smiles and gets to be a bit of a hero at the end. If he didn't get it so right, the film would have fallen over very seriously.
The Troll Hunter is an absolute blast, it ticks all of the boxes, fun, funny, scary, it really puts you through the mixer. Its probably summed up best by it's last 5 minutes, going from barnstorming heroics, to sombre conclusion but then still finding the time to tack on some explaining at the end containing the biggest laugh of the lot.
The found footage film can live on, especially if André Øvredal has anything to do with it.
Sunday 2 October 2011
BATTLE LOS ANGELES (2011 - Cert 12a)
With titles such as LA Noire, Heavy Rain, Grand Theft Auto 4 and the Uncharted series, the video game industry is pushing the boundaries of what that particular medium is capable of. The games are now extremely cinematic in their outlook and development, they have fully developed narratives, rounded characters with depth and emotion, in other words your actions, as the gamer, have consequences. It's come a long way since Pong. With the incredible sums of money generated by the games developers and distributors, many people have commented that it has the potential to even become the new cinema. So while people who make the games are striving to improve plots, hiring well known screenwriters, actors and directors, cinema needs to do something to stop the supposed shift from popcorn to the joypad.
Battle Los Angeles appears to think that cinema should do the same thing in reverse. While games aspire to be cinematic, Jonathan Liebesman wants cinema to be emulate the formula that have made games so successful.
This isn't a gripe at the overuse of CGI. Yes, there is a lot of computer generated effects in the film, but that's the way things are now. It's a film about massive alien spacecrafts attacking the earth, you expect these to be created with a few clicks of a mouse. In fact, the effects are very impressive, possibly some of the best I've seen, all for a relatively modest budget of £70m.
No, my complaint is that the film seems to have been structured just like a video game. It's as if someone applied tracing paper over the game blueprint and completely copied. Action, dialogue, action, dialogue, action, dialogue. I appreciate that this is the general state of big budget blockbusters, that's no different from Transformers, Indy or Pirates, but it's the quality and purpose of the dialogue between bangs that is the problem. It's there solely to introduce the next piece of action, setting up the next mission or level. If anyone has played a video game, like Tomb Raider for example, you will know that in between stages there is a 'cut scene', which basically comprises of poor acting, a number of cliches, all culminating in a 'now we need to go and get this thing and put it in that thing'. End of cut scene, off you go. That is exactly what Battle Los Angeles is like, but with cranked up cliche. Characterisation is kept to a minimum, instead the marines are lifted from any story involving marines we've ever seen. Aaron Eckhart, the lead (looking bemused as to why exactly he is doing this (money of course)), has a back story involving Iraq and losing a team of soldiers, blah, blah, blah, do we think he might reprieve himself and exorcise those ghosts? This collection of marines also appears to be the most annoying set that could have been found or created. A number of 'not really knowns' struggle with Christopher Bertolini's useless script. The grunts from Aliens this is not. It's gratingly irritating, formulaic, exposition, nonsense that serves only to get in the way of the alien bashing, which is another facet that looks at (and steals from) video games.
When our marines first encounter them, they are sneaking through claustrophobic LA streets, darting in and out of houses, the camera leaping about from one point of view to another. Yes, just like a First Person Shooter but with photography that could have been lifted from The Hurt Locker of the Green Zone. Liebesman has clearly been playing Call of Duty or Resistance, because he has served up as FPS film. At first it's quite exhilarating and tense, there is something quite interesting about an alien shoot out that feels and looks like an Iraqi war film, but set in the States, but it all wears very thin, very quickly. You play video games to feel involved, watching Battle Los Angeles is like sitting their watching someone else play a game that you have no interest in. It's boring. What is also unforgivable is that at first the aliens seem to need hundreds of bullets to kill them, then our heroes discover what part of the body is weakest. Once that happens, only a couple of bullets are required to dispatch, no matter how far away the shooters are. The menace completely vanishes and the aliens become an annoying part of the scenery.
Does it do anything well? I did like the fact that there was no story set up with the aliens before it all kicks off. It is very much filmed from the view of the marines, and they are thrown straight into it without any warning or real intelligence. I presume that is true to many of the missions that they undertake, they wouldn't be party to all of the facts. Unfortunately, Liebesman and the script don't have the conviction to carry on with this, instead the reason for the invasion is speculated on in television and radio reports, completely falling out of sync with the rest of the film. It simply doesn't fit. It smacks of film makers patronising the audience, presuming that we would not be able to cope without some sort of background.
I had looked forward to this, I love a monster film, I love a big budget popcorn churner, it looked like it might be an interestingly gritty glimpse at a war that human kind could really lose. Instead, it's a shallow bore of a film without any emotion at all, very rarely excites and never engages.
Battle Los Angeles appears to think that cinema should do the same thing in reverse. While games aspire to be cinematic, Jonathan Liebesman wants cinema to be emulate the formula that have made games so successful.
This isn't a gripe at the overuse of CGI. Yes, there is a lot of computer generated effects in the film, but that's the way things are now. It's a film about massive alien spacecrafts attacking the earth, you expect these to be created with a few clicks of a mouse. In fact, the effects are very impressive, possibly some of the best I've seen, all for a relatively modest budget of £70m.
No, my complaint is that the film seems to have been structured just like a video game. It's as if someone applied tracing paper over the game blueprint and completely copied. Action, dialogue, action, dialogue, action, dialogue. I appreciate that this is the general state of big budget blockbusters, that's no different from Transformers, Indy or Pirates, but it's the quality and purpose of the dialogue between bangs that is the problem. It's there solely to introduce the next piece of action, setting up the next mission or level. If anyone has played a video game, like Tomb Raider for example, you will know that in between stages there is a 'cut scene', which basically comprises of poor acting, a number of cliches, all culminating in a 'now we need to go and get this thing and put it in that thing'. End of cut scene, off you go. That is exactly what Battle Los Angeles is like, but with cranked up cliche. Characterisation is kept to a minimum, instead the marines are lifted from any story involving marines we've ever seen. Aaron Eckhart, the lead (looking bemused as to why exactly he is doing this (money of course)), has a back story involving Iraq and losing a team of soldiers, blah, blah, blah, do we think he might reprieve himself and exorcise those ghosts? This collection of marines also appears to be the most annoying set that could have been found or created. A number of 'not really knowns' struggle with Christopher Bertolini's useless script. The grunts from Aliens this is not. It's gratingly irritating, formulaic, exposition, nonsense that serves only to get in the way of the alien bashing, which is another facet that looks at (and steals from) video games.
When our marines first encounter them, they are sneaking through claustrophobic LA streets, darting in and out of houses, the camera leaping about from one point of view to another. Yes, just like a First Person Shooter but with photography that could have been lifted from The Hurt Locker of the Green Zone. Liebesman has clearly been playing Call of Duty or Resistance, because he has served up as FPS film. At first it's quite exhilarating and tense, there is something quite interesting about an alien shoot out that feels and looks like an Iraqi war film, but set in the States, but it all wears very thin, very quickly. You play video games to feel involved, watching Battle Los Angeles is like sitting their watching someone else play a game that you have no interest in. It's boring. What is also unforgivable is that at first the aliens seem to need hundreds of bullets to kill them, then our heroes discover what part of the body is weakest. Once that happens, only a couple of bullets are required to dispatch, no matter how far away the shooters are. The menace completely vanishes and the aliens become an annoying part of the scenery.
Does it do anything well? I did like the fact that there was no story set up with the aliens before it all kicks off. It is very much filmed from the view of the marines, and they are thrown straight into it without any warning or real intelligence. I presume that is true to many of the missions that they undertake, they wouldn't be party to all of the facts. Unfortunately, Liebesman and the script don't have the conviction to carry on with this, instead the reason for the invasion is speculated on in television and radio reports, completely falling out of sync with the rest of the film. It simply doesn't fit. It smacks of film makers patronising the audience, presuming that we would not be able to cope without some sort of background.
I had looked forward to this, I love a monster film, I love a big budget popcorn churner, it looked like it might be an interestingly gritty glimpse at a war that human kind could really lose. Instead, it's a shallow bore of a film without any emotion at all, very rarely excites and never engages.
Saturday 1 October 2011
THE INBETWEENERS MOVIE (2011 - Cert 15)
I must admit that when this project was first announced it didn't excite me. Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive fan of the television series (if you haven't seen it by now, you really must pull your finger out) and it's accurate observations of being a teenage boy inter-spliced with gross out humour that never fails to shock and bring laughs, but a film version? Really? We've been here before, On The Buses and Kevin and Perry Go Large are British examples, the disappointing X-Files film is another that springs to mind, where something has been lost in translation to the big screen. Sitcoms work in brilliant 25 - 30 minute bursts, they aren't baggy, the story lines have to be concise and the writers can focus on the laughs. Treble or quadruple the length and all of sudden everything becomes bogged down with plot and concept and it loses balance. I feared for The Inbetweeners.
Then I saw the trailer. Ordinarily for a comedy, they try and pack the best jokes into the preview, if that was the case with The Inbetweeners then we were in a lot of trouble. If that was the best that the four chaps could muster then a baggy plot is the least of our worries, it just wasn't going to be funny. That trailer and my reservations meant that I had firmly decided that The Inbetweeners was one where I would be waiting for DVD, I've only got so much free time to get to the flicks (jobs eh?).
Then word began to spread and money began to be spent. I didn't hear a bad word said about it, from both critics and the man and woman on the street, it was top of the UK Box Office for four consecutive weeks, raking in almost £40m in that period. That's more than The Hangover 2 and the fourth Pirates film. Third biggest film in the UK this year, behind the final Harry Potter and The King's Speech. Whether it's good or not, that is a remarkable achievement for something that started life as a little know sitcom on E4.
So I gave in and went to see whether it was worth all the fuss. And I have to say that it is.
The film sees boys finish sixth form and Simon dumped by his sweetheart Carly. Surely the only way to get over her is to go to on holiday with the boys? The almost formulaic decision to move the setting to a trip to Malia brought groans of derision and only increased my reservations, but it must be said that it was an inspired choice. It's a rite of passage for us growing up, it's part of our quest for independence. And all boys holidays bring about funny stories....
The best way to sum it up is that it really is just like the television programme. What would you expect, the writers and usual director all being retained. As a result it never really feels cinematic, apart from an opening short that goes from the sky into Simon's bedroom. That never really matters though as the sentiment behind it has not been lost, the edgy gross out humour is there, the foul mouths are there and the awkward comedy that us Brits are now famous is present and correct. Most importantly it is funny. The jokes in the trailer that I didn't think worked, were now funny, put them in a context and you have laughs. The big set piece scenes fit nicely, although never really living up to those key moments from the TV series. The characters are as we remember them, Neil dim-witted and enthusiastic, Simon is the usual wet lettuce and overly eager to please, Jay continues to talk the finest vintage BS that you could imagine and our narrator Will still exasperates as to how he ended up in all of this, despite the fact that he secretly loves it. Many people have commented on just how perfectly The Inbetweeners encapsulates what it's like to be a teenage boy, but as a bloke who has done these holidays, it's incredible just how authentic some of it feels. The roles of PR's getting us into clubs, the matching t-shirts, the transfer from the airport, the hotel lottery, being stuck at a family pool, it's all perfectly observed and much of my enjoyment of the film must be put down to how it all reminded me of a time long gone by.
As the outpouring of word of mouth and positive reviews have turned into a tidal wave, people have started to claim that the film is our answer to American Pie, and I've got to say that I think just doesn't really give it the compliment it deserves. The Inbetweeners has a but more of a soft side than it's American comparison and the numerous sequels and imitators. There are some really nice moments in it, as the boys go from arguing and making up, that really are quite sweet. I particularly liked an exchange between Neil and Will, the posh one asking rhetorically what the point of it all is, only to receive an unexpected answer that was just what the doctor ordered. There is nothing like teenage boys making up, all grunts and limp handshakes.
It's not just about the four chaps though is it? It's about their hormonal hunt for women. And it's the women, the group of four girls that are the object of the boys' affections, that did irritate me a little. Not that there is anything wrong with their performances, Laura Haddock, Tamla Kari, Jessica Knappet and Lydia Rose Bewley all doing a decent job, but what doesn't work is that they are all clearly out of the chaps' league. There is just no reason why the girls would be susceptible to the advances, particularly when all the boys do is offend or act like the chocolate teapots that they are. I know that The Inbetweeners isn't completely grounded in reality, but the girls are completely out of sync with the caricatures that the majority of the characters are.
Despite all of that, come the end of the film when everyone lives happily ever after, that is all forgotten and I was completely sold on the lessons that the boys had learnt, which I think is down to the brilliance of the creations of Will, Simon, Jay and Neil. There is a history there, 3 series before the film, we know those characters and we've been through a lot with them, it's that affection that carries the film through the occasional stretches without any chuckles and had me forgiving any misjudgments.
It's not perfect, but it's yet another great look into the trials and tribulations of being a teenage boy in the world of fishbowls, boat parties and sex on the beach. It's nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be, in fact it was far better than I feared, with a very unexpected sensitiveness to it. Traces of a couple of very tiny, barely noticeable, tears were not what I was anticipating.
Then I saw the trailer. Ordinarily for a comedy, they try and pack the best jokes into the preview, if that was the case with The Inbetweeners then we were in a lot of trouble. If that was the best that the four chaps could muster then a baggy plot is the least of our worries, it just wasn't going to be funny. That trailer and my reservations meant that I had firmly decided that The Inbetweeners was one where I would be waiting for DVD, I've only got so much free time to get to the flicks (jobs eh?).
Then word began to spread and money began to be spent. I didn't hear a bad word said about it, from both critics and the man and woman on the street, it was top of the UK Box Office for four consecutive weeks, raking in almost £40m in that period. That's more than The Hangover 2 and the fourth Pirates film. Third biggest film in the UK this year, behind the final Harry Potter and The King's Speech. Whether it's good or not, that is a remarkable achievement for something that started life as a little know sitcom on E4.
So I gave in and went to see whether it was worth all the fuss. And I have to say that it is.
The film sees boys finish sixth form and Simon dumped by his sweetheart Carly. Surely the only way to get over her is to go to on holiday with the boys? The almost formulaic decision to move the setting to a trip to Malia brought groans of derision and only increased my reservations, but it must be said that it was an inspired choice. It's a rite of passage for us growing up, it's part of our quest for independence. And all boys holidays bring about funny stories....
The best way to sum it up is that it really is just like the television programme. What would you expect, the writers and usual director all being retained. As a result it never really feels cinematic, apart from an opening short that goes from the sky into Simon's bedroom. That never really matters though as the sentiment behind it has not been lost, the edgy gross out humour is there, the foul mouths are there and the awkward comedy that us Brits are now famous is present and correct. Most importantly it is funny. The jokes in the trailer that I didn't think worked, were now funny, put them in a context and you have laughs. The big set piece scenes fit nicely, although never really living up to those key moments from the TV series. The characters are as we remember them, Neil dim-witted and enthusiastic, Simon is the usual wet lettuce and overly eager to please, Jay continues to talk the finest vintage BS that you could imagine and our narrator Will still exasperates as to how he ended up in all of this, despite the fact that he secretly loves it. Many people have commented on just how perfectly The Inbetweeners encapsulates what it's like to be a teenage boy, but as a bloke who has done these holidays, it's incredible just how authentic some of it feels. The roles of PR's getting us into clubs, the matching t-shirts, the transfer from the airport, the hotel lottery, being stuck at a family pool, it's all perfectly observed and much of my enjoyment of the film must be put down to how it all reminded me of a time long gone by.
As the outpouring of word of mouth and positive reviews have turned into a tidal wave, people have started to claim that the film is our answer to American Pie, and I've got to say that I think just doesn't really give it the compliment it deserves. The Inbetweeners has a but more of a soft side than it's American comparison and the numerous sequels and imitators. There are some really nice moments in it, as the boys go from arguing and making up, that really are quite sweet. I particularly liked an exchange between Neil and Will, the posh one asking rhetorically what the point of it all is, only to receive an unexpected answer that was just what the doctor ordered. There is nothing like teenage boys making up, all grunts and limp handshakes.
It's not just about the four chaps though is it? It's about their hormonal hunt for women. And it's the women, the group of four girls that are the object of the boys' affections, that did irritate me a little. Not that there is anything wrong with their performances, Laura Haddock, Tamla Kari, Jessica Knappet and Lydia Rose Bewley all doing a decent job, but what doesn't work is that they are all clearly out of the chaps' league. There is just no reason why the girls would be susceptible to the advances, particularly when all the boys do is offend or act like the chocolate teapots that they are. I know that The Inbetweeners isn't completely grounded in reality, but the girls are completely out of sync with the caricatures that the majority of the characters are.
Despite all of that, come the end of the film when everyone lives happily ever after, that is all forgotten and I was completely sold on the lessons that the boys had learnt, which I think is down to the brilliance of the creations of Will, Simon, Jay and Neil. There is a history there, 3 series before the film, we know those characters and we've been through a lot with them, it's that affection that carries the film through the occasional stretches without any chuckles and had me forgiving any misjudgments.
It's not perfect, but it's yet another great look into the trials and tribulations of being a teenage boy in the world of fishbowls, boat parties and sex on the beach. It's nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be, in fact it was far better than I feared, with a very unexpected sensitiveness to it. Traces of a couple of very tiny, barely noticeable, tears were not what I was anticipating.
Sunday 25 September 2011
APOLLO 18 (2011 - Cert 15)
Right then, here we go again. It's found footage time once more, although this one does have the nice and clever tagline of 'There's a reason we've never gone back to the moon'. It also has the benefit of being set in space, the isolation of being nearly 240,000 miles from home and the claustrophobia of space suits and cramped space vessels. When you think about the fears that can be played and preyed upon with just those premises alone, I'm surprised that we haven't been here sooner.
The set up is the same as with all of these films - the following footage was posted on lunartruth.com, blah, blah, blah. Three men on a top secret trip to the moon, during the Cold War era, to see what the Russians are up to with their own space programme. The film is made up of a combination of handheld cameras and cameras inside the spacecraft, and it all follows their trip up into Space and onto the moon. Little glimpses of the characters are attempted but it all falls flat and quickly falls into the cliche category. But that doesn't matter really does it? The reason we watch these films are for when it all goes tits up, we want the scares, the jumps.
We don't have to wait long for things to get a little bit creepy, although you do have to wait a while for the scares. In fact, I'm still waiting. Through the Russian angle of the plot, our astronauts (well two of them, one is left orbiting the moon in the main craft) hit the surface to set up surveillance equipment so they can monitor the Commies to their heart's content, and it's while they're wandering around that we have to sit through the now usual slow build up of 'occurrences'. What's that in the background? Why is that on the moon? What does that mean? It does admittedly have an air of mystery, but without a real creep factor (like with Blair Witch for example), it is all grows a little tedious very quickly.
Then the proverbial hits the fan. There is a nugget of an interesting and original idea in the actual threat, somewhere in there, but it's executed in a way that we have seen many times before, you can go through the sci-fi horror checklist, many elements of Alien and Event Horizon sticking out the most. In fact, the video game Dead Space, whose success was so reliant on it's nods towards the genre and it's conventions without any real originality, seems as though it contributed one or two ideas here. There are a couple of jumpy moments, which don't really take much to pull off these days, especially with a dark room and a handheld camera, but you can see them coming a mile off. Even with the nice tension-building touch of one of the astronauts being in a pitch black crater with only the use of a camera flash for intermittent moments of light, you know it's coming and it takes the edge away from it.
There is a conspiracy plot in there as well which doesn't fit, and trying to explain something like that in a film that is meant to be tacked together with blocks of footage feels contrived and out of place. The acting by the cast of unknowns is efficient at best, I was never entirely convinced of the characters and because of the format the terror isn't something that is really conveyed through facial expressions and delivery of dialogue, it's more screams in space helmets. They do a fairly average job with what they are given.
As it builds towards the finale I was anticipating a big pay off, the mystery coming together and leaving something with me as the credits roll, just like Blair Witch and the fella standing in the corner, but it never really gets there. This flat ending is pretty much synonymous with the rest of film. It's all made pretty well, it looks polished but for a budget of £5m for this type of film you would expect that. Perhaps the best way to sum it up is to go back to the Russians, more precisely, Russian Dolls - there are a number of layers to the film, all look and seem decent enough and nicely made, but ultimately at the centre of it all, it's empty and not at all satisfying.
Found footage films aren't dead (check out The Troll Hunter), but if film makers aren't going to do anything new or interesting with the idea, then don't bother.
The set up is the same as with all of these films - the following footage was posted on lunartruth.com, blah, blah, blah. Three men on a top secret trip to the moon, during the Cold War era, to see what the Russians are up to with their own space programme. The film is made up of a combination of handheld cameras and cameras inside the spacecraft, and it all follows their trip up into Space and onto the moon. Little glimpses of the characters are attempted but it all falls flat and quickly falls into the cliche category. But that doesn't matter really does it? The reason we watch these films are for when it all goes tits up, we want the scares, the jumps.
We don't have to wait long for things to get a little bit creepy, although you do have to wait a while for the scares. In fact, I'm still waiting. Through the Russian angle of the plot, our astronauts (well two of them, one is left orbiting the moon in the main craft) hit the surface to set up surveillance equipment so they can monitor the Commies to their heart's content, and it's while they're wandering around that we have to sit through the now usual slow build up of 'occurrences'. What's that in the background? Why is that on the moon? What does that mean? It does admittedly have an air of mystery, but without a real creep factor (like with Blair Witch for example), it is all grows a little tedious very quickly.
Then the proverbial hits the fan. There is a nugget of an interesting and original idea in the actual threat, somewhere in there, but it's executed in a way that we have seen many times before, you can go through the sci-fi horror checklist, many elements of Alien and Event Horizon sticking out the most. In fact, the video game Dead Space, whose success was so reliant on it's nods towards the genre and it's conventions without any real originality, seems as though it contributed one or two ideas here. There are a couple of jumpy moments, which don't really take much to pull off these days, especially with a dark room and a handheld camera, but you can see them coming a mile off. Even with the nice tension-building touch of one of the astronauts being in a pitch black crater with only the use of a camera flash for intermittent moments of light, you know it's coming and it takes the edge away from it.
There is a conspiracy plot in there as well which doesn't fit, and trying to explain something like that in a film that is meant to be tacked together with blocks of footage feels contrived and out of place. The acting by the cast of unknowns is efficient at best, I was never entirely convinced of the characters and because of the format the terror isn't something that is really conveyed through facial expressions and delivery of dialogue, it's more screams in space helmets. They do a fairly average job with what they are given.
As it builds towards the finale I was anticipating a big pay off, the mystery coming together and leaving something with me as the credits roll, just like Blair Witch and the fella standing in the corner, but it never really gets there. This flat ending is pretty much synonymous with the rest of film. It's all made pretty well, it looks polished but for a budget of £5m for this type of film you would expect that. Perhaps the best way to sum it up is to go back to the Russians, more precisely, Russian Dolls - there are a number of layers to the film, all look and seem decent enough and nicely made, but ultimately at the centre of it all, it's empty and not at all satisfying.
Found footage films aren't dead (check out The Troll Hunter), but if film makers aren't going to do anything new or interesting with the idea, then don't bother.
Friday 23 September 2011
THE LOST BOYS (1987 - Cert 15)
I've been a big fan of the Secret Cinema, you may have seen a couple of my posts talking about them. They transport you inside the film you are about to see with bold set designs, actors and a willingness by the punters to garm up in fancy dress, fully entering into the spirit of it. I had noticed that there was a recent move away from much loved classics, and there was a desire by the organisers to educate rather than entertain. Although I loved The Battle of Algiers, it was a far cry from other events that I had heard of with films like Blade Runner and An American Werewolf in London. The fun seemed to have started to seep out.
Step forward Future Cinema, apparently 'the people who bring you Secret Cinema', and their California double header. Sponsored by the Californian Tourist Board, there were two outdoor screenings on two consecutive days, The Lost Boys and then Top Gun. Part of Canary Wharf was turned into the Santa Carla sea front, with ferris wheel and fun fair. You could have a go at canoeing, there was a army locker room, a briefing room, you could even have a go at a spot of taxidermy. All in all, they did good.
Anyway, the film I opted for was The Lost Boys, the second time I've seen it in the open air after last year's Somerset House double bill with Let The Right One In. It must be said that there are a number of films that I remember from growing up that just haven't stood the test of time at all, they become dated and are never as fun as I remember them being. Exhibit A - Big Trouble in Little China. The Lost Boys does not fall into this bracket. No way.
It's one of those where everything seemed to fall into place, the stars were aligned. Everyone remembers Kiefer Sutherland's great vampire performance, it launched Corey Haim into the big time, people stood up and took notice of Jason Patric, there was even room for a bit of 80's favourite Corey Feldman, proper thespians Dianne Wiest, Barnard Hughes and Edward Herrmann help to give the film a little more weight, even the remarkably cheesy, dated (and pretty rubbish) theme song Cry Little Sister by Gerard McMann has a charm and somehow fits the film perfectly.
From start to finish it's great fun and entertainment. It scares, the vampire eye's view opening scene still packs a punch, the is a lot more gore than I remember there being, the massacre of some surf dudes have much of the claret than I suspect my younger self could have stomached.There are plenty of jokes in there, Grandpa (Hughes) and the brilliant Frog Brothers (yes, that was my outfit for the event) get the majority. There is even a bit of romance, with the previous winner of cheesiest use of music for a sex scene (the award now taken by Watchmen and it's use of Hallejulah). For this type of film it's got a plot that keeps you guessing to an extent with a good old fashion whodunnit/whoisit element. It also manages to stay on the right side of 80's nostalgia. Although there is cheese (take a look at the band playing at the seafront) it makes you smile rather than cringe. It's all perfectly pitched, taking itself seriously but with a tongue firmly in the cheek.
So it ticks all of the boxes nicely, but viewing it again I noticed something that the film cleverly did, playing to both parents and kids alike. It made parents ask themselves what they thought that their kids were doing when they stayed out all night. Dianne Wiest asks Patric at one point, 'You stay out all night, sleep all day, wear sunglasses in the house', is that not what we all did when we went out clubbing? As someone who did do that, I couldn't help but think that it would be cool if that was how vampires kept their cover. The film also looks at youth subculture and tells the viewer that it's ok to be different, in fact it's bloody cool. No scene better summing it up than the family's first drive through Santa Carla to the Echo and The Bunnymen track People Are Strange.
Is it really nearly 25 years since it came out? Amidst the flood of vampire films that are around at the moment, your Twilights and so on, it could easily sit alongside them. As exciting as when I first saw it, and as current today as it was back then.
Step forward Future Cinema, apparently 'the people who bring you Secret Cinema', and their California double header. Sponsored by the Californian Tourist Board, there were two outdoor screenings on two consecutive days, The Lost Boys and then Top Gun. Part of Canary Wharf was turned into the Santa Carla sea front, with ferris wheel and fun fair. You could have a go at canoeing, there was a army locker room, a briefing room, you could even have a go at a spot of taxidermy. All in all, they did good.
Anyway, the film I opted for was The Lost Boys, the second time I've seen it in the open air after last year's Somerset House double bill with Let The Right One In. It must be said that there are a number of films that I remember from growing up that just haven't stood the test of time at all, they become dated and are never as fun as I remember them being. Exhibit A - Big Trouble in Little China. The Lost Boys does not fall into this bracket. No way.
It's one of those where everything seemed to fall into place, the stars were aligned. Everyone remembers Kiefer Sutherland's great vampire performance, it launched Corey Haim into the big time, people stood up and took notice of Jason Patric, there was even room for a bit of 80's favourite Corey Feldman, proper thespians Dianne Wiest, Barnard Hughes and Edward Herrmann help to give the film a little more weight, even the remarkably cheesy, dated (and pretty rubbish) theme song Cry Little Sister by Gerard McMann has a charm and somehow fits the film perfectly.
From start to finish it's great fun and entertainment. It scares, the vampire eye's view opening scene still packs a punch, the is a lot more gore than I remember there being, the massacre of some surf dudes have much of the claret than I suspect my younger self could have stomached.There are plenty of jokes in there, Grandpa (Hughes) and the brilliant Frog Brothers (yes, that was my outfit for the event) get the majority. There is even a bit of romance, with the previous winner of cheesiest use of music for a sex scene (the award now taken by Watchmen and it's use of Hallejulah). For this type of film it's got a plot that keeps you guessing to an extent with a good old fashion whodunnit/whoisit element. It also manages to stay on the right side of 80's nostalgia. Although there is cheese (take a look at the band playing at the seafront) it makes you smile rather than cringe. It's all perfectly pitched, taking itself seriously but with a tongue firmly in the cheek.
So it ticks all of the boxes nicely, but viewing it again I noticed something that the film cleverly did, playing to both parents and kids alike. It made parents ask themselves what they thought that their kids were doing when they stayed out all night. Dianne Wiest asks Patric at one point, 'You stay out all night, sleep all day, wear sunglasses in the house', is that not what we all did when we went out clubbing? As someone who did do that, I couldn't help but think that it would be cool if that was how vampires kept their cover. The film also looks at youth subculture and tells the viewer that it's ok to be different, in fact it's bloody cool. No scene better summing it up than the family's first drive through Santa Carla to the Echo and The Bunnymen track People Are Strange.
Is it really nearly 25 years since it came out? Amidst the flood of vampire films that are around at the moment, your Twilights and so on, it could easily sit alongside them. As exciting as when I first saw it, and as current today as it was back then.
Tuesday 20 September 2011
ONE DAY (2011 - Cert 12A)
Outdoor film screenings are the thing of the moment. In one September weekend recently, I saw a screening of The Lost Boys (part of two day event with Top Gun being the following day) on a Saturday in the open air in Canary Wharf and then on the Sunday One Day in Marble Hill Park, put on by Natwest as a thank you for it's customers (apparently the bank made no profit from the event).
It was while huddled up under a blanket, braving the weather and my rear-end fighting numbness induced by the new 'innovative' Bumbox (a cardboard, fold up seat that should see an increase in cases of piles), that I realised that film adaptations of much loved books come under a different set of critical criteria to original films without a history in literature. Especially so when it's a book like One Day. It's one of those that you see every day on the train, there is always someone reading it. If you went into work tomorrow and took a quick show of hands I would guess around half would have read it. Every single one of them would know someone who had read it. I did so recently, as hype gathered about the coming film adaptation, my mum, sister and girlfriend all told me I had to read it before the cinema release. When three women in my life tell me to do something, I'm better off doing it, so I did. And I have to say that I loved it. I'm sure everyone around knows about the structure by now, we visit two characters, Emma and Dexter, on the same day, 15th July over two decades as their lives weave in and out of one another's. David Nicholls' real achievement though is not making any gaps appear despite the obvious holes in time that would arise as you miss out 364 days of every year. There is no over-explaining of what happened over the past 12 months, it all just falls into place and you feel that you've been with them every step of the way. He cleverly manages to have us fill in the gaps on our own, the book just infers and suggests.
The structure, the real hook of the novel, is ultimately the biggest challenge to the adaptation. Where Nicholls had 400 or so pages to take time and care in giving Dexter and Emma (the two leads) depth and character, a two hour film might get a little cramped or rushed. Nicholls, on screenplay duty as well, sensibly leaves certain parts of the book out. Lone Scherfig, who we know from the very good An Education, does superbly with the material that Nicolls retains, and there is plenty of it. I get the feeling that they had a good time recreating various parts and aspects of the last 20 years. Haircuts and clothes, including some horrendous suits that you can't believe people wore. The book is a great look back at modern history with clever observations at things like the growing market for posh sandwich shops, useless 90's TV and what 'trendy' meant back then. The film pulls this off very well and feels nicely like a late-twentieth century period piece, much more subtly done than what we have become used to (Flashbacks in Friends for example, and the hideous caricature opening in Sex And The City 2). Aside from these moments Scherfig does as she did with An Education, gently efficient.
The tone of the film is a lot more delicate than the book. There is a lot more sardonic wit on the page than on screen, the edge of the characters being taken away slightly in the film. In fact, I didn't really read the book as a love story, it was more about a male meltdown and how many bad choices, men and women, we all make during our lives. The film's focus is definitely as a love story though and I think that is both a cause and a symptom of the toning down of the dark. Having said that, it serves this purpose very well, there are some nice 'lovey' scenes, some very touching moments (the one that got me was a scene with Dexter and his father), and the broad comedy is kept to a minimum, only a couple of moments akin to typical Brit-Rom-Com laughs. Although those moments both appeared in the book, in the film they both felt very out of place, Scherfig playing the subject matter seriously and not for guffaws. If laughs are to be had it's to be on a much more slight level than Bridget Jones. Dialogue and facial expressions rather than slapstick.
All of the press attention in the build up to the release has not actually been about it not being faithful to the book, it's been about Anne Hathaway's attempt at a Yorkshire accent. Having read and heard all of this 'furore' it's impossible to watch the film without thinking about how's she getting on. It must be said that her accent does take a walk around a few places in the UK, never really sure where it wants to land, but to go on about that wouldn't be fair, because her performance is very, very good. It's a big challenge, to both her and Jim Sturgess, to play one character over a twenty year period. Not just in terms of appearance, but also in how previous events in the narrative have had an effect on them, especially when, due to the structure, we aren't party to everything that has happened. Sturgess has been getting the majority of the plaudits, with Hathaway getting slated (solely on the accent - on that subject, there is an argument that for someone who has lived in Yorkshire, Edinburgh and London, the accent might nip about a bit), but she was the one I was more impressed with. Considering that her last attempt at 'serious' was her incredibly irritating role in the slightly irritating Rachel Getting Married, One Day has put her firmly on my map and I'm a little more confident about her being chosen for The Dark Knight Rises. Also, good to also see Rafe Spall, his career trajectory coming along nicely from his beginnings in Shaun of the Dead. He verges on a slightly cartoon performance, and doesn't feel totally consistent with the rest of the film, but that is a small gripe. Ken Stott will be who I remember from the film though as he was the one who delivered the line that was the straw that broke the camel's back, the one that opened the tear ducts.
Now, back to my original point, adaptations getting a rough deal. I enjoyed the film a lot, and I do mean enjoy, and I do mean a lot, but I walked away with the remains of my picnic, slightly disappointed. Why? The only reason is that the film not the book. Much of what I've written above is comparing screen to page, while what I should be doing is comparing One Day to other releases, other films in that genre. When I do, I become much more positive in my overall assessment. If you group it together with other rom-coms it's far superior. The useless Jennifer Anniston vehicles don't come close, even if you look at a more serious rom-com, such as the awful The Holiday, it smashes it out of the park. It's a better film and deserves more than to be thought of in that bracket. It was an attempt at something like An Education, even Never Let Me Go, a 'proper' film, and ultimately it falls slightly short. And there is no shame in that.
Perhaps the right thing for me to do would have been to not read the book before the film, that way I would have watched it as what it is - A film. Let's see if I manage to watch The Hobbit without comparing that to the book....that'll be the test of me turning over a new leaf.
The tone of the film is a lot more delicate than the book. There is a lot more sardonic wit on the page than on screen, the edge of the characters being taken away slightly in the film. In fact, I didn't really read the book as a love story, it was more about a male meltdown and how many bad choices, men and women, we all make during our lives. The film's focus is definitely as a love story though and I think that is both a cause and a symptom of the toning down of the dark. Having said that, it serves this purpose very well, there are some nice 'lovey' scenes, some very touching moments (the one that got me was a scene with Dexter and his father), and the broad comedy is kept to a minimum, only a couple of moments akin to typical Brit-Rom-Com laughs. Although those moments both appeared in the book, in the film they both felt very out of place, Scherfig playing the subject matter seriously and not for guffaws. If laughs are to be had it's to be on a much more slight level than Bridget Jones. Dialogue and facial expressions rather than slapstick.
All of the press attention in the build up to the release has not actually been about it not being faithful to the book, it's been about Anne Hathaway's attempt at a Yorkshire accent. Having read and heard all of this 'furore' it's impossible to watch the film without thinking about how's she getting on. It must be said that her accent does take a walk around a few places in the UK, never really sure where it wants to land, but to go on about that wouldn't be fair, because her performance is very, very good. It's a big challenge, to both her and Jim Sturgess, to play one character over a twenty year period. Not just in terms of appearance, but also in how previous events in the narrative have had an effect on them, especially when, due to the structure, we aren't party to everything that has happened. Sturgess has been getting the majority of the plaudits, with Hathaway getting slated (solely on the accent - on that subject, there is an argument that for someone who has lived in Yorkshire, Edinburgh and London, the accent might nip about a bit), but she was the one I was more impressed with. Considering that her last attempt at 'serious' was her incredibly irritating role in the slightly irritating Rachel Getting Married, One Day has put her firmly on my map and I'm a little more confident about her being chosen for The Dark Knight Rises. Also, good to also see Rafe Spall, his career trajectory coming along nicely from his beginnings in Shaun of the Dead. He verges on a slightly cartoon performance, and doesn't feel totally consistent with the rest of the film, but that is a small gripe. Ken Stott will be who I remember from the film though as he was the one who delivered the line that was the straw that broke the camel's back, the one that opened the tear ducts.
Now, back to my original point, adaptations getting a rough deal. I enjoyed the film a lot, and I do mean enjoy, and I do mean a lot, but I walked away with the remains of my picnic, slightly disappointed. Why? The only reason is that the film not the book. Much of what I've written above is comparing screen to page, while what I should be doing is comparing One Day to other releases, other films in that genre. When I do, I become much more positive in my overall assessment. If you group it together with other rom-coms it's far superior. The useless Jennifer Anniston vehicles don't come close, even if you look at a more serious rom-com, such as the awful The Holiday, it smashes it out of the park. It's a better film and deserves more than to be thought of in that bracket. It was an attempt at something like An Education, even Never Let Me Go, a 'proper' film, and ultimately it falls slightly short. And there is no shame in that.
Perhaps the right thing for me to do would have been to not read the book before the film, that way I would have watched it as what it is - A film. Let's see if I manage to watch The Hobbit without comparing that to the book....that'll be the test of me turning over a new leaf.
Monday 19 September 2011
THE SKIN I LIVE IN (2011 - Cert 15)
This film is a rare thing in the current age, a horror film without 'scares'. There's no jumps, no found footage, no gore and no silly masks. That isn't to say though that it didn't scare, unnerve or unsettle. Over a week later, much of it is still haunting me, more so than any Saw or Paranormal Activity.
Antonio Banderas, back taking himself seriously after boosting the pension with Shrek, Spy Kids and Zorro, is Robert Ledgard, famed plastic surgeon. After a nasty car smash scars his wife with horrific burns he becomes obsessed with developing a synthetic skin more resilient than nature's version that failed his loved one. We meet him in his pristine and idyllic home, nothing out of place at all and nothing out of the ordinary. Except of course for a room where his wife is protected/imprisoned, wearing a protective bodysuit. Ledgard watches here from his bedroom through surveillance equipment, mustering up the courage to go and see her. In terms of plot that's all you're getting. To tell you anymore would give far too much away. Even in the brevity of my synopsis there are things that aren't strictly true, to reveal the ultimate truth would dent you the joy of seeing it all play out.
As I came out of the cinema, my girlfriend said 'I love Pedro Almodovar'. I confessed to having never seen one of his films. She told me I must have done, I told her I really hadn't done. Obviously I was right, I hand't done, but on the evidence of this film, I will certainly now be going through his back catalogue.
It's a beautiful film to look at. There is a clinical appearance to the film, almost sanitised. It's certainly a deliberate and conscious decision by the director, it represents a sort of mirror to Ledgard's personality, a visual allegory. It means that the viewer is to a degree kept at arms length, not involved in the action, a definite spectator - again much like Ledgard himself. The house where the majority of the film is set continues this sterilised atmosphere, nothing seems out of place, perfect but in a Stepford Wives way. not fake, but at the same time definitely not real. When this illusion of perfection is shattered, it heightens the impact, making it all so much more unsettling and disturbing.
Banderas is excellent. It's a monotone performance, but that should not be seen to be a negative. Banderas and Almodovar cleverly give nothing away. The viewer is never really sure whether they should be with him or not, is he a hero, an anti-hero or an out and out baddie. Banderas turns in a performance that is the epitome of keeping cards close to the chest, all is not as it seems, you want it to be as it seems but there is something underneath that could push everything in a different way.
Supporting cast is spearheaded by Elena Anaya who plays the wife. She pulls off a great tormented soul, but her performance becomes all the more impressive as the story unfolds and her character's layers peels away like an onion (yes, it does induce tears) revealing a depth that you just don't expect.
I appreciate that this is a fairly brief review, but I don't really think I can say much more without spoiling the surprises. The film's narrative is thoughtful and intricate, never going where you expect it to, nothing is signposted, the viewer is given the freedom to use their own devices to fill in gaps (not plot holes) and arrive at their own conclusions. Although I pointed out earlier that there aren't any scares, there are a few scenes that are an uncomfortable watch, but these aren't what give the film it's impacting uppercut. It's more the ideas that unsettle, the wallop playing out in my own head rather than on screen. It's easily one of the better releases of this year so don't be put off by the subtitles - pack your glasses and see it. It's top notch.
It'll also make you think twice the next time you are being put under general anaesthetic....
Right, I'm off to order some Almodovar DVDs.
Antonio Banderas, back taking himself seriously after boosting the pension with Shrek, Spy Kids and Zorro, is Robert Ledgard, famed plastic surgeon. After a nasty car smash scars his wife with horrific burns he becomes obsessed with developing a synthetic skin more resilient than nature's version that failed his loved one. We meet him in his pristine and idyllic home, nothing out of place at all and nothing out of the ordinary. Except of course for a room where his wife is protected/imprisoned, wearing a protective bodysuit. Ledgard watches here from his bedroom through surveillance equipment, mustering up the courage to go and see her. In terms of plot that's all you're getting. To tell you anymore would give far too much away. Even in the brevity of my synopsis there are things that aren't strictly true, to reveal the ultimate truth would dent you the joy of seeing it all play out.
As I came out of the cinema, my girlfriend said 'I love Pedro Almodovar'. I confessed to having never seen one of his films. She told me I must have done, I told her I really hadn't done. Obviously I was right, I hand't done, but on the evidence of this film, I will certainly now be going through his back catalogue.
It's a beautiful film to look at. There is a clinical appearance to the film, almost sanitised. It's certainly a deliberate and conscious decision by the director, it represents a sort of mirror to Ledgard's personality, a visual allegory. It means that the viewer is to a degree kept at arms length, not involved in the action, a definite spectator - again much like Ledgard himself. The house where the majority of the film is set continues this sterilised atmosphere, nothing seems out of place, perfect but in a Stepford Wives way. not fake, but at the same time definitely not real. When this illusion of perfection is shattered, it heightens the impact, making it all so much more unsettling and disturbing.
Banderas is excellent. It's a monotone performance, but that should not be seen to be a negative. Banderas and Almodovar cleverly give nothing away. The viewer is never really sure whether they should be with him or not, is he a hero, an anti-hero or an out and out baddie. Banderas turns in a performance that is the epitome of keeping cards close to the chest, all is not as it seems, you want it to be as it seems but there is something underneath that could push everything in a different way.
Supporting cast is spearheaded by Elena Anaya who plays the wife. She pulls off a great tormented soul, but her performance becomes all the more impressive as the story unfolds and her character's layers peels away like an onion (yes, it does induce tears) revealing a depth that you just don't expect.
I appreciate that this is a fairly brief review, but I don't really think I can say much more without spoiling the surprises. The film's narrative is thoughtful and intricate, never going where you expect it to, nothing is signposted, the viewer is given the freedom to use their own devices to fill in gaps (not plot holes) and arrive at their own conclusions. Although I pointed out earlier that there aren't any scares, there are a few scenes that are an uncomfortable watch, but these aren't what give the film it's impacting uppercut. It's more the ideas that unsettle, the wallop playing out in my own head rather than on screen. It's easily one of the better releases of this year so don't be put off by the subtitles - pack your glasses and see it. It's top notch.
It'll also make you think twice the next time you are being put under general anaesthetic....
Right, I'm off to order some Almodovar DVDs.
Thursday 18 August 2011
THE RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011 - Cert 12A)
I’m not a Planet of the Apes aficionado, not by any stretch of the imagination. I saw the first one years ago, so long ago that I can’t remember anything about it, least of all the ‘twist’ at the end. So, with this in mind I didn’t approach The Rise of the Planet of the Apes (or ROTPOTA as it’s now become known) with any preconceptions or any of the usual reservations about a modern day butchering of a vintage franchise. I’m not really sure what I was expecting, but I definitely wasn’t expecting what I got.
Rupert Wyatt, who’s only achievements of note to date are small British flick The Escapist and a few episodes of Hollyoaks, has crafted a thoughtful and at times upsetting summer blockbuster. Rather than simply adopting a prequel approach, Wyatt’s ROTPOTA is more of an origins story, charting the development of Caesar, from pet chimpanzee to leader of a revolution. Set in the present day, or extremely near future, James Franco’ s scientist is determined to find the cure to Alzheimer’s. Testing on apes takes place and through a slightly iffy plot point Franco ends up taking a baby chimp home. He names it Caesar and as he grows up it becomes clear that the experiments have had an effect on the monkey, giving him advanced intelligence to the point where Caesar behaves more like a child rather than a pet. As Caesar reaches the equivalent of adulthood he starts to get exposure to all that is wrong with the world. His pure innocence and naivety is taken for granted and abused resulting in flashes of anger and aggression. He meets maltreatment in captivity with other monkeys, all the while using his advanced stuff between the ears to plot escape and revenge. Some of the scenes where Caesar gets hurt are genuinely upsetting and even at times harrowing. Much of this has a lot to do with the incredible special effects. Weta, the company behind Gollum and the updated King Kong, have raised the bar even further. Andy Serkis is again on mo-cap duty and this is easily the most impressive CG character I have ever seen. You never feel that you are watching a computer-generated ape, it seamlessly combines with the physical environment and feels totally realistic. The real achievement though is the emotion and depth that comes across through the technology. This isn’t Jar Jar Binks, it’s miles ahead of Paul (who I was relatively complimentary about), this is a proper living and breathing character. There were a number of tear-inducing moments as the camera gets up close to Caesar and you can see the pain, frustration, anger and unhappiness. All of this without any dialogue (he might be smart but he can’t speak). If it were a live actor (in the flesh) everyone would be calling this one of the performances of the year and calling for a statuette.
The development of Caesar reminded me of Batman Begins and X-Men: First Class. Caesar is Batman and Magneto, the film taking the blank canvas of the character and showing all of the brush strokes as the picture forms fully, all the hurt and mistreatment transforming the central figure into the monster that drives the film to it’s conclusion. It really took me by surprise (in a very good way), for what looks on the face of it a popcorn-fodder action flick the reality is something very different – a state of the art character piece. And a brave one at that, to put a CG ape as the centrepiece was a bold move but Wyatt does it with such confidence that he seems like the most obvious and natural idea in the world.
The ironic thing with the film is that despite the amazing characterization and acting of the lead character, the supporting cast of humans never get close to the same level and suffer from cliché. Franco is decent, but that is only because he’s watchable all the time, Freida Pinto is the epitome of filler and exposition as the love interest/some scientist or something, she has virtually nothing to do, David Oyelowo is the corporate bloke and good old Brian Cox is wasted in a bit part as the keeper of the monkey enclosure. Only John Lithgow as Franco’s Alzheimer suffering father (forming an interesting extra emotional motivation for Franco’s character) and Tom Felton (nasty piece of work) manage to do anything interesting with their roles. It’s a massive shame because if the actors managed to up their game and the writers took a bit of time to create something with more depth, we could have been talking about something in the same league as Inception and The Dark Knight. As it stands it’s probably just on the rung below, but definitely part of the new breed of intelligent blockbuster.
The final part of the film really does satisfy, the ape revolution culminating in a thrilling scene on The Golden Gate Bridge, visually spectacular and a rare treat these days to see action of that nature not in colour-drained 3D. After all of the mayhem, Wyatt impressively still takes the time to fit the last piece of the jigsaw into Caesar, the straw that breaks the monkey’s back, and then give the events of the film a wider context and suggest the possibility of the story continuing into other movies. All of this and it still weighs in at under 2 hours. A remarkably concise film with a minimal fuss approach.
Out at the same time as the much hyped Super 8 and heavily marketed Cowboys and Aliens, ROTPOTA could be seen as a bit of a stealth hit, creeping up on the competition. It’s done very well in the States and has made a very good start over here. It’s well worth checking out, not only for the technical genius of it, but also as a film about someone good turning bad as well as good old fashioned Friday night entertainment.
Saturday 13 August 2011
SUPER 8 (2011 - Cert 12A)
I've been on the receiving end of the Super 8 hype more than most people. In fact I think I've had double the dose for I was in New York earlier this year just before the film was released there at the beginning of June, then over the last couple of weeks I've been witness to Blighty's very own, and it has to be said slightly more subtle, version of the marketing Juggernaut. Whether here or on the other side of the pond the message has essentially been the same - 'This is the best Spielberg film that Spielberg didn't make'. Yes the great man was on production duties and may of course had some input into the creative process but this was very much the work of the new kid on the block, J J Abrams. As both writer and director, this, we are told, is the most personal project that he has yet undertaken and a result of the success he had enjoyed through Lost and the Star Trek reboot, he had now been given the opportunity to really make something that was important to him. The big draw for everyone though was how 'Spielbergian' it was all meant to be, a word that was coming up in every article, review to TV spot.
Now that I have seen it, it truly is Spielbergian. The small town setting is there, in this case Lillian, Ohio (Spielberg was brought up in Ohio), which is where we meet our standard issue Spielberg hero, 13 year old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) and his friends (Kyle Chandler, Ryan Lee, Gabriel Masso and Zach Mills) shooting their very own zombie film, using a Super 8 camera (ahhhhh I hear you say - it's the same type of camera that both Spielberg and Abrams used to make their early films). It's taken back to 1979, to a time when small town America was real suburbia (See The Goonies, Close Encounters, ET and Poltergeist) and it also has the effect of giving everyone straggly haircuts and flares that are instantly related to old-Spielberg. As the plot progresses, with the kids 'on set' witnessing a massive train crash and 'something' escaping from the train wreck and terrorising the town, you know you really are in Spielberg country. Then by the time the army turns up and gets involved (a la ET and Close Encounters) you have moved away from referencing and nods and shifted into the world of the homage or the cinematic love letter. It went much further than that as well though. If you look at all of those early Spielberg films, not just those that he directed but others he hand a hand in writing, ET, Close Encounters, Jaws, The Goonies and Poltergeist, and even later ones such as Jurassic Park and Empire of the Sun, at the centre of it all is a family relationship, often that of a father figure and a son. Super 8 explores the same themes and does it superbly, opening with the death of Joe Lamb's mother and the strained relationship that is left between him and his father. Youthful love is also there through Elle Fanning's love interest Alice Dainard in a nicely crafted relationship that blossoms throughout. It gives the film a real heart.
Super 8 is clearly is meant to echo the films of Abrams' mentor and he succeeds in that aim, making something that feels instantly familiar, like bumping into a good mate who you haven't seen in while, you both just slip into the groove despite the time elapsed since your last shared bag of pork snacks. Just making a nerdy love letter to one of Cinema's greats doesn't just make a great summer blockbuster though, as we keep being told this is, it needs to entertain as well and be a film in it's own right.
And to be fair to Abrams he does manage this as well. It's brilliantly paced, it rips along with the right level of set-up before chucking us in and then keeping us interested with humour, intrigue, tear-inducing characterisation, action and peril. The train crash in particular is a real stand out set piece. It looks fantastic and is rare example of a modern action sequence taking the breath away, arguably as good as anything I've seen this year. The initial 'something' scenes where the carnage starts to take shape have the jumpiness you would expect without being gory or remotely violent. The tension builds nicely as the town realises it is in danger and the usual army vs local police (Joe's father as the deputy sheriff) conflict plays out. What is most impressive though is how touching the film is. There are some hairline moments that you might miss with a blink that really do make the characters what they are. A sharp intake of breath here, a prolonged look there, less is definitely more, very much reminiscent of my favourite scene in Jaws where Brody's son mimics his movements. Abrams deserves credit for not over explaining things when it comes to characterisation, but the young cast in particular should also be praised as their performances create so much depth and go beyond kids running away from 'something'.
I just wish Abrams showed the same reluctance with spelling out character's feelings as he did with plot exposition. There is one horribly clumsy moment where an important element of the story is explained to us, practically like a teacher with a blackboard. It sticks out like a sore thumb among a film of otherwise high quality, unfortunately it's one of the distinct memories that I have taken from the viewing and has tainted it. This extends into a rather unsatisfying ten minutes as the film builds to the climax and we are introduced to the slightly underwhelming 'something' and a bit of an ET moment. It's a shame that there is this 15 minute spell where things don't work, because everything before is so good, and it recovers in time for a beautiful, touching and yes, very Spielbergian, final scene that is a very fitting way to sign off.
It ticked all of the boxes of a summer blockbuster, and then went beyond, I laughed (including an end credits sequence that you should stick around for), I cried (at least three times) and I jumped (the girlfriend jumped out of her skin throughout). It's just a real pity that there is a small part of the film that is so mis-judged and feels so out of place.
My only other reservation is that this is a film made by a film geek, and if there is a generation of cinema-goers that aren't as familiar as I am with what Abrams is trying to emulate, they may not have the same appreciation of that attempt and it's result as I do. It also only really looks back, unlike Attack the Block that felt familiar but at the same time fresh. I'm confident that this won't really be a problem though when it comes to putting bums on seats, and among a summer line up of reboots, robots, superheroes and sequels, I really hope it does well. It's a film that has it's heart firmly in the right place and Abrams sentiment can probably be best summed up by one of my favourite scenes in the film, with the young boys watching on in admiration at Elle Fanning's character, as she acts out a scene in their zombie movie. It's that moment of wonder that motivates Abrams to do what he does.
Now that I have seen it, it truly is Spielbergian. The small town setting is there, in this case Lillian, Ohio (Spielberg was brought up in Ohio), which is where we meet our standard issue Spielberg hero, 13 year old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) and his friends (Kyle Chandler, Ryan Lee, Gabriel Masso and Zach Mills) shooting their very own zombie film, using a Super 8 camera (ahhhhh I hear you say - it's the same type of camera that both Spielberg and Abrams used to make their early films). It's taken back to 1979, to a time when small town America was real suburbia (See The Goonies, Close Encounters, ET and Poltergeist) and it also has the effect of giving everyone straggly haircuts and flares that are instantly related to old-Spielberg. As the plot progresses, with the kids 'on set' witnessing a massive train crash and 'something' escaping from the train wreck and terrorising the town, you know you really are in Spielberg country. Then by the time the army turns up and gets involved (a la ET and Close Encounters) you have moved away from referencing and nods and shifted into the world of the homage or the cinematic love letter. It went much further than that as well though. If you look at all of those early Spielberg films, not just those that he directed but others he hand a hand in writing, ET, Close Encounters, Jaws, The Goonies and Poltergeist, and even later ones such as Jurassic Park and Empire of the Sun, at the centre of it all is a family relationship, often that of a father figure and a son. Super 8 explores the same themes and does it superbly, opening with the death of Joe Lamb's mother and the strained relationship that is left between him and his father. Youthful love is also there through Elle Fanning's love interest Alice Dainard in a nicely crafted relationship that blossoms throughout. It gives the film a real heart.
Super 8 is clearly is meant to echo the films of Abrams' mentor and he succeeds in that aim, making something that feels instantly familiar, like bumping into a good mate who you haven't seen in while, you both just slip into the groove despite the time elapsed since your last shared bag of pork snacks. Just making a nerdy love letter to one of Cinema's greats doesn't just make a great summer blockbuster though, as we keep being told this is, it needs to entertain as well and be a film in it's own right.
And to be fair to Abrams he does manage this as well. It's brilliantly paced, it rips along with the right level of set-up before chucking us in and then keeping us interested with humour, intrigue, tear-inducing characterisation, action and peril. The train crash in particular is a real stand out set piece. It looks fantastic and is rare example of a modern action sequence taking the breath away, arguably as good as anything I've seen this year. The initial 'something' scenes where the carnage starts to take shape have the jumpiness you would expect without being gory or remotely violent. The tension builds nicely as the town realises it is in danger and the usual army vs local police (Joe's father as the deputy sheriff) conflict plays out. What is most impressive though is how touching the film is. There are some hairline moments that you might miss with a blink that really do make the characters what they are. A sharp intake of breath here, a prolonged look there, less is definitely more, very much reminiscent of my favourite scene in Jaws where Brody's son mimics his movements. Abrams deserves credit for not over explaining things when it comes to characterisation, but the young cast in particular should also be praised as their performances create so much depth and go beyond kids running away from 'something'.
I just wish Abrams showed the same reluctance with spelling out character's feelings as he did with plot exposition. There is one horribly clumsy moment where an important element of the story is explained to us, practically like a teacher with a blackboard. It sticks out like a sore thumb among a film of otherwise high quality, unfortunately it's one of the distinct memories that I have taken from the viewing and has tainted it. This extends into a rather unsatisfying ten minutes as the film builds to the climax and we are introduced to the slightly underwhelming 'something' and a bit of an ET moment. It's a shame that there is this 15 minute spell where things don't work, because everything before is so good, and it recovers in time for a beautiful, touching and yes, very Spielbergian, final scene that is a very fitting way to sign off.
It ticked all of the boxes of a summer blockbuster, and then went beyond, I laughed (including an end credits sequence that you should stick around for), I cried (at least three times) and I jumped (the girlfriend jumped out of her skin throughout). It's just a real pity that there is a small part of the film that is so mis-judged and feels so out of place.
My only other reservation is that this is a film made by a film geek, and if there is a generation of cinema-goers that aren't as familiar as I am with what Abrams is trying to emulate, they may not have the same appreciation of that attempt and it's result as I do. It also only really looks back, unlike Attack the Block that felt familiar but at the same time fresh. I'm confident that this won't really be a problem though when it comes to putting bums on seats, and among a summer line up of reboots, robots, superheroes and sequels, I really hope it does well. It's a film that has it's heart firmly in the right place and Abrams sentiment can probably be best summed up by one of my favourite scenes in the film, with the young boys watching on in admiration at Elle Fanning's character, as she acts out a scene in their zombie movie. It's that moment of wonder that motivates Abrams to do what he does.
Tuesday 9 August 2011
THE A-TEAM (2010 - Cert 12A)
Another 80's throwback and another attempt at tapping into the nostalgia that we all feel for something we grew up with. From when I first heard that this was in production I was never for one second confident that it was going to be able to emulate the joy that I felt with Hannibal, Face, Murdoch and BA on Saturday afternoons, just like if they said they were going to make McGuyver or Airwolf into a film, if I want to revisit those days I may as well just buy the box set for next to nothing and chill out on the sofa. Why go to all the trouble of trying to get others to fill those well worn shoes and dart about in that familiar van?
Having now seen it (on TV as I was never excited enough to watch it at the Flicks) I was right in my assumption, it just didn't live up to or recreate that excitement I felt when I was younger. Whether that was due to my headstrong nostalgia or my unrealistic expectations doesn't really matter, it just didn't do the job.
That isn't to say that it isn't without any merit whatsoever though.
Rather than assume we all know what they are, the film is an origins story, telling us how The A-Team became soldiers of fortune, heroes in Iraq in covert operations, double-crossed and turned into fugitives fighting to clear their name. Hannibal (Liam Neeson), BA (Rampage Jackson), Face (Bradley Cooper) and Murdoch (Sharlto Copley) are introduced, no, thrown at us in an action sequence that transported me straight back in time, not to Saturday tea time, but to the 80's when action entertained, when it surprised and when it exhilarated. Nowadays we've seen everything, dinosaurs once impossible are now on BBC and ITV primetime, aliens destroying cities used to be made from tiny models, after Independence Day it can be done with a couple of clicks of a mouse (over-exageration I know, I'm not belittling the talent in CGI). It's hard to do something that we haven't seen before, but Joe Carnahan (Narc and Smokin' Aces), combines over the top action (helicopter looping the loop), humour (Bradley Cooper rolling down a hill entombed in a roll of tyres) and a touch of the familiar (the black van and 'I pity the fool' references) to get us on the edge of our seat. As an opening to the film, it really does work. It thrilled and amused in equal measure, and there is a definite joy in seeing Hannibal chomp down on a cigar and Face flash a smile at a woman. However, much in the same way that there is pleasure in eating Arctic Roll, it's short lived as you realise that taste is just a flash of the familiar and that you'd much rather be tucking into a Magnum double caramel or a cornetto enigma.
As the film progresses it all wears thin rather quickly. The nods to the TV series fade into inconsequence, the amusing quips from Murdoch become less frequent (and less funny), the humour and charm fade and all you are left with is action sequences (outrageously blasé action sequences) that are hurled at you by Carnahan. They are still enjoyable scenes but by the time we've seen a tank falling out of the sky on a parachute firing at fighter drones (halfway through the film) there is a feeling that we've peaked and it's gradually downhill from here.
There is a plot that thinks it's akin to the double crossing and second guessing of Bourne or the Craig-era Bond, but doesn't really make sense and lacks any real depth which means that not understanding doesn't really matter and you don't really give a hoot as to who the bad guy is. A love-story strand is introduced as well as a strange and worrying thread where BA finds peace with himself only to discover by the end that violence does indeed solve problems that feels sinister and off-tone with the rest of the film.
Essentially when the film reaches the second half, the action dries up and plot takes over (ineffectually) with (failed) attempts at characterisation, all coming together for a totally outrageous and overly unrealistic (yes, even compared to the tank bit) finale that tries to be a lot cleverer than it actually is. Despite 50% of the film falling away there are times when it does work. The main cast are all decent and entertaining enough, particularly Copley, and the first two or three set pieces make this the film that The Expendables desperately wanted, and ultimately failed, to be.
Just about worth a watch but you'd be better off watch any of the Die Hard films or any early Arnie to Sly films.
Having now seen it (on TV as I was never excited enough to watch it at the Flicks) I was right in my assumption, it just didn't live up to or recreate that excitement I felt when I was younger. Whether that was due to my headstrong nostalgia or my unrealistic expectations doesn't really matter, it just didn't do the job.
That isn't to say that it isn't without any merit whatsoever though.
Rather than assume we all know what they are, the film is an origins story, telling us how The A-Team became soldiers of fortune, heroes in Iraq in covert operations, double-crossed and turned into fugitives fighting to clear their name. Hannibal (Liam Neeson), BA (Rampage Jackson), Face (Bradley Cooper) and Murdoch (Sharlto Copley) are introduced, no, thrown at us in an action sequence that transported me straight back in time, not to Saturday tea time, but to the 80's when action entertained, when it surprised and when it exhilarated. Nowadays we've seen everything, dinosaurs once impossible are now on BBC and ITV primetime, aliens destroying cities used to be made from tiny models, after Independence Day it can be done with a couple of clicks of a mouse (over-exageration I know, I'm not belittling the talent in CGI). It's hard to do something that we haven't seen before, but Joe Carnahan (Narc and Smokin' Aces), combines over the top action (helicopter looping the loop), humour (Bradley Cooper rolling down a hill entombed in a roll of tyres) and a touch of the familiar (the black van and 'I pity the fool' references) to get us on the edge of our seat. As an opening to the film, it really does work. It thrilled and amused in equal measure, and there is a definite joy in seeing Hannibal chomp down on a cigar and Face flash a smile at a woman. However, much in the same way that there is pleasure in eating Arctic Roll, it's short lived as you realise that taste is just a flash of the familiar and that you'd much rather be tucking into a Magnum double caramel or a cornetto enigma.
As the film progresses it all wears thin rather quickly. The nods to the TV series fade into inconsequence, the amusing quips from Murdoch become less frequent (and less funny), the humour and charm fade and all you are left with is action sequences (outrageously blasé action sequences) that are hurled at you by Carnahan. They are still enjoyable scenes but by the time we've seen a tank falling out of the sky on a parachute firing at fighter drones (halfway through the film) there is a feeling that we've peaked and it's gradually downhill from here.
There is a plot that thinks it's akin to the double crossing and second guessing of Bourne or the Craig-era Bond, but doesn't really make sense and lacks any real depth which means that not understanding doesn't really matter and you don't really give a hoot as to who the bad guy is. A love-story strand is introduced as well as a strange and worrying thread where BA finds peace with himself only to discover by the end that violence does indeed solve problems that feels sinister and off-tone with the rest of the film.
Essentially when the film reaches the second half, the action dries up and plot takes over (ineffectually) with (failed) attempts at characterisation, all coming together for a totally outrageous and overly unrealistic (yes, even compared to the tank bit) finale that tries to be a lot cleverer than it actually is. Despite 50% of the film falling away there are times when it does work. The main cast are all decent and entertaining enough, particularly Copley, and the first two or three set pieces make this the film that The Expendables desperately wanted, and ultimately failed, to be.
Just about worth a watch but you'd be better off watch any of the Die Hard films or any early Arnie to Sly films.
Wednesday 3 August 2011
CHASING AMY (1997 - Cert 18)
I was a very late arrival to the Kevin Smith party. I saw Dogma when I was a lot younger and can remember very little of it, in fact I'm sure I didn't really get it, I was just a teenage boy who liked Salma Hayek. By the time I got around to actually seeing Clerks (only a couple of months ago) it was getting embarrassing telling people that I thought of myself as a film buff but hadn't seen that so-called seminal classic. Once I had seen it I knew immediately what people had been banging on about all these years. I went into work the next day preaching it's virtues and quoting lines from it. One of my work mates mentioned that it is one of fiancé's favourite films, only bettered by one of Smith's other films, Chasing Amy. Next thing I know I've got the a copy of Chasing Amy on DVD passed on to me in exactly the same way that I force people to watch Shaun of the Dead. 'You have to see this'. and so it sat on one of my shelves for a couple of months, never being touched, rarely being considered. The truth is the front cover put me off.
It smacked of rom-com. The colour of the writing, all the characters on the cover, the woman taking up the majority of the space. The title combined with the imagery made it seem like There's Something About Mary, everyone after the same girl. It just didn't scream 'watch me'.
One lazy Sunday afternoon, the girlfriend and I needed something easy to watch to keep Monday morning at bay. She (a purveyor of the rom-com) reached for Chasing Amy and after a moment's pause, where I decided that if I had to watch a rom-com it may as well be one by Kevin Smith, I gave in.
Now that I've watched it, I'm disappointed by myself. Angry even. For allowing it to sit on a shelf, unwatched, for judging a book by it's cover. Due to my stupid film snob tendencies I was put off by an assumption, a rash one, and this meant that there was a delay in seeing one of the best films about relationships I have ever seen.
Clerks is good, very good, it's the one that everyone talks about and the film that saw Smith burst on to the scene, but Chasing Amy is better, it's braver, it's about something that not many people have tried to explore - The modern relationship, and the insecurities that come with it.
Ben Affleck is Holden, comic book artist, living and working with his best mate Banky (Jason Lee). All is good as their comic Bluntman and Chronic (based on Jay and Silent Bob of course) is a success. The only thing that is missing is the girl. Then he meets her, Alyssa, played by Joey Lauren Adams. She has it all, beautiful, smart, funny with an attitude. The only problem is she's a lesbian. Yes she likes girls. Don't be fooled into thinking it's a stupid, immature comedy about 'conversion' though, it's more about how sexual liberation and the modern obsession with openness has opened a whole can of worms, issues and insecurities. Ego's are dented, feelings are hurt, all because the people care and worry.
It's drenched in typical Kevin Smith dialogue. People speak how we all want to speak. I would love to bounce off other people with instant dry wit plucking an amusing simile out of thin air from my endless supply. It doesn't scream realism but it is great to watch. Highlights include a great exchange as to why women are to blame for men being bad at cunnilingus and why one character can't travel without taking an exhaustive porn collection. I know what you're thinking, it's a sex comedy. And to some extent it is, but not in an American Pie/Porkys guise. It's not a gross out comedy, more observational, like how you might imagine Jerry Seinfeld to be if he discovered sex all over again. And developed a potty mouth.
The quality in Smith's writing goes much further than just jokes and good speeches. Chasing Amy is a film that relies on, ok uses the well worn rom-com formula (i.e. guy meets girl, guy likes girl, guy get's girl, guy upsets girl, guy gets girl back, or does he?) but still manages to feel new and fresh. Part of that will be down to the irreverent humour, the unfamiliar behaviour of the characters for this genre, but a great deal of credit should go to Smith for creating a film with characters and situations that you really feel for. We aren't siding with the characters because convention tells us to do so, we are with them every step of the way because their insecurities are those that nag away at you when you first start seeing someone you really like. We have all been there. Amongst all the rough (and there is a lot of sweary sex banter) there are some gems, where you feel like you are getting an insight into the film maker's heart, none more so than when Silent Bob simply becomes Bob and the film get's it's title. It's a segment that all at the same time creates real emotional sympathy but also cuts straight to what the film is about and is trying to say. Smith's genius, acting and writing, making it all seem so easy.
It then digs deeper, much deeper than a couple trying to love each other against the odds, it addresses sexual tendencies and the prejudices that they create, the assumptions that we make everyday. The film constantly challenges what we believe and whether we could be accused of being homophobic or judging a book by it's cover. I consider myself to be very open-minded and accepting but I had to question myself a number of times as thoughts quickly jumped into my head. It's a remarkable achievement to have made something that has so many layers and says so much but on the face of it seems to be something quite simple and juvenile. Just like when Alyssa falls for Holden.
The screenplay also manages to stop Joey Lauren Adams' squeaky, whiny voice from grating by giving her enough interesting things to say that I didn't notice. That's unfair on Lauren Adams actually because she is very good in this. She has to be the loveable love interest at some points, a spunky independent lesbian at others and a bit of a bitch the rest of the time. It's a challenging role that she pulls off very well, despite that voice. The whole cast is very good to be fair, Ben Affleck before he went big on good form and proving that he can be engaging, we like him but we know he is making a pig's ear out of everything, Jason Lee as the best mate gets all the best lines, the along with Dwight Ewell camping it up as the gay representative, both there as comic relief but ultimately, as you quickly realise, there for much more than fluff round the edges, their superbly delivered dialogue makes you laugh immediately, then you have to stop to wonder whether you should really be laughing.
When I finished watching it, I said I thought it was one of the most important films I have ever seen. Although that might be over egging it slightly, it's the best example I have seen of a film exploring sexuality, questioning what society really thinks of homosexuality, the assumptions that we make everyday and, most importantly, what has happened to modern relationships through a generation of experimentation. Essentially it asks, and is reassuringly not arrogant enough to answer, whether we are ready for and actually better off because of sexual liberation.
See it.
It smacked of rom-com. The colour of the writing, all the characters on the cover, the woman taking up the majority of the space. The title combined with the imagery made it seem like There's Something About Mary, everyone after the same girl. It just didn't scream 'watch me'.
One lazy Sunday afternoon, the girlfriend and I needed something easy to watch to keep Monday morning at bay. She (a purveyor of the rom-com) reached for Chasing Amy and after a moment's pause, where I decided that if I had to watch a rom-com it may as well be one by Kevin Smith, I gave in.
Now that I've watched it, I'm disappointed by myself. Angry even. For allowing it to sit on a shelf, unwatched, for judging a book by it's cover. Due to my stupid film snob tendencies I was put off by an assumption, a rash one, and this meant that there was a delay in seeing one of the best films about relationships I have ever seen.
Clerks is good, very good, it's the one that everyone talks about and the film that saw Smith burst on to the scene, but Chasing Amy is better, it's braver, it's about something that not many people have tried to explore - The modern relationship, and the insecurities that come with it.
Ben Affleck is Holden, comic book artist, living and working with his best mate Banky (Jason Lee). All is good as their comic Bluntman and Chronic (based on Jay and Silent Bob of course) is a success. The only thing that is missing is the girl. Then he meets her, Alyssa, played by Joey Lauren Adams. She has it all, beautiful, smart, funny with an attitude. The only problem is she's a lesbian. Yes she likes girls. Don't be fooled into thinking it's a stupid, immature comedy about 'conversion' though, it's more about how sexual liberation and the modern obsession with openness has opened a whole can of worms, issues and insecurities. Ego's are dented, feelings are hurt, all because the people care and worry.
It's drenched in typical Kevin Smith dialogue. People speak how we all want to speak. I would love to bounce off other people with instant dry wit plucking an amusing simile out of thin air from my endless supply. It doesn't scream realism but it is great to watch. Highlights include a great exchange as to why women are to blame for men being bad at cunnilingus and why one character can't travel without taking an exhaustive porn collection. I know what you're thinking, it's a sex comedy. And to some extent it is, but not in an American Pie/Porkys guise. It's not a gross out comedy, more observational, like how you might imagine Jerry Seinfeld to be if he discovered sex all over again. And developed a potty mouth.
The quality in Smith's writing goes much further than just jokes and good speeches. Chasing Amy is a film that relies on, ok uses the well worn rom-com formula (i.e. guy meets girl, guy likes girl, guy get's girl, guy upsets girl, guy gets girl back, or does he?) but still manages to feel new and fresh. Part of that will be down to the irreverent humour, the unfamiliar behaviour of the characters for this genre, but a great deal of credit should go to Smith for creating a film with characters and situations that you really feel for. We aren't siding with the characters because convention tells us to do so, we are with them every step of the way because their insecurities are those that nag away at you when you first start seeing someone you really like. We have all been there. Amongst all the rough (and there is a lot of sweary sex banter) there are some gems, where you feel like you are getting an insight into the film maker's heart, none more so than when Silent Bob simply becomes Bob and the film get's it's title. It's a segment that all at the same time creates real emotional sympathy but also cuts straight to what the film is about and is trying to say. Smith's genius, acting and writing, making it all seem so easy.
It then digs deeper, much deeper than a couple trying to love each other against the odds, it addresses sexual tendencies and the prejudices that they create, the assumptions that we make everyday. The film constantly challenges what we believe and whether we could be accused of being homophobic or judging a book by it's cover. I consider myself to be very open-minded and accepting but I had to question myself a number of times as thoughts quickly jumped into my head. It's a remarkable achievement to have made something that has so many layers and says so much but on the face of it seems to be something quite simple and juvenile. Just like when Alyssa falls for Holden.
The screenplay also manages to stop Joey Lauren Adams' squeaky, whiny voice from grating by giving her enough interesting things to say that I didn't notice. That's unfair on Lauren Adams actually because she is very good in this. She has to be the loveable love interest at some points, a spunky independent lesbian at others and a bit of a bitch the rest of the time. It's a challenging role that she pulls off very well, despite that voice. The whole cast is very good to be fair, Ben Affleck before he went big on good form and proving that he can be engaging, we like him but we know he is making a pig's ear out of everything, Jason Lee as the best mate gets all the best lines, the along with Dwight Ewell camping it up as the gay representative, both there as comic relief but ultimately, as you quickly realise, there for much more than fluff round the edges, their superbly delivered dialogue makes you laugh immediately, then you have to stop to wonder whether you should really be laughing.
When I finished watching it, I said I thought it was one of the most important films I have ever seen. Although that might be over egging it slightly, it's the best example I have seen of a film exploring sexuality, questioning what society really thinks of homosexuality, the assumptions that we make everyday and, most importantly, what has happened to modern relationships through a generation of experimentation. Essentially it asks, and is reassuringly not arrogant enough to answer, whether we are ready for and actually better off because of sexual liberation.
See it.
Sunday 24 July 2011
HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 (2011 - Cert 12A)
I don't think I've even been more confident that a film would live up to my expectations than when I was sat in my reclining chair at the Clapham Picturehouse to watch the big finale to the Harry Potter series. After the first two very child friendly and perhaps a little too innocent Chris Columbus entries, The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets, David Heyman with his team of co-producers and a selection of directors (Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and David Yates), managed to make a series that was both faithful and dedicated to the source material. As a reader of the books I was constantly impressed with how the films managed to grasp the wonder, youth and darkness of J K Rowling's creations so perfectly. There was a real sense that the makers of these films were putting a lot of care into what they were doing, yes they wanted to make a lot of money but they also appeared to be desperate to do the story justice. They were only getting one crack at this, there isn't going to be a reboot, they didn't want to be the people who made a hash out of Potter. The quality of the films along with the continuing story has meant that it has never really felt like a 'franchise', although there's no doubting that it really is, it's more of an epic series that has spanned the last 10 years. This means that there isn't the usual dread that comes with a sequel to a film that you like. When I watched Spiderman 3, I knew deep down that it wasn't going to meet my expectations and the standards set by the previous two. With Part Two of The Deathly Hallows I just knew that this was going to be a brilliant end to a series of films that I love.
Imagine my disappointment when it came to light that The Deathly Hallows Part 2 was, in my opinion, the weakest since The Chamber of Secrets. Disappointment is perhaps a bit too strong a term, I really enjoyed it, but it just struggled to live up to the incredibly high standards set by the Prisoner of Azkaban through to the first Deathly Hallows film.
The decision to split the last book into two films meant that very little plot set up was required in this sitting. The first film was all setting up, not much happened, it was criticised for being too wordy, but it was a necessity and it added a huge amount of depth to characters that we all thought we already knew so well. In part two we are thrown straight into the action, dragons, Gringotts vault, a roller coaster style bank job, Horcruxes. It's all there and before you know we are back at Hogwarts for the huge final battle, that takes up much of the film, and it has to be said that it is visually superb. The scale was reminiscent of the biggest and best that The Lord of The Rings had to offer, Death Eaters vs the teachers and pupils, giants, huge spiders, suits of armour coming to life, spells being cast, counter spells raining in, Hogwarts crumbling, it's relentless and is great to watch. Huge battle scenes come out every week in mediocre effects movies but there is something extra special about seeing Hogwarts at the centre of it, especially when we've been waiting ten years to see it.
This might be a good moment to mention the 3D. None of the previous incarnations were in 3D, there was a plan to have the first Deathly Hallows film in 3D but they decided that it just wasn't working and they didn't want to compromise their creation. I have to ask whether they stopped to think about whether it was a good idea this time around. This is a dark film, not in the usual Harry Potter sense of the word, but actually dark in terms of colour. There are the occasional flashes of colour through a spell or an explosion, but this is largely set against a black back drop as the battle plays out during the night. The 3D drains the film of what little colour it has and you have to wonder whether there is any point in giving darkness depth, it doesn't exactly leap out of the screen like the penis in piranha or immerse you like the surroundings in Avatar. There were also a couple of instances where the effects let the side down, for example a broomstick chase looked a little on the cheap side, contrasting with the otherwise very accomplished effects.
The cast continues the 'biggest' theme, everyone is in it. I mean everyone. Any character from the Potter universe that hasn't been killed off is in this film. Some have beefed up roles integral to the story like Maggie Smith's Professor McGonagall becoming an action heroine, some have a line or two but others, such as Jim Broadbent, have nothing more than a couple of seconds of screen time. There is a great deal of pleasure to be taken from all of the characters from all of the films coming together at once, a school reunion of sorts only one where you're pleased to see everyone and not avoiding the smug bloke who is now a TV presenter.
It's much more than just bit parts by all the best British thespians though. There are some very good performances in the film. The main three, Radcliffe. Watson and Grint are perfectly solid, they don't really have a great deal to do other than running around trying to save the day, which is a bit of a shame after the quality and depth of their characters in Part One. Ralph FiennesVoldemort as desperate, almost scared. As the horcruxes fall one by one, I got a very real sense that Voldemort knew that things were unravelling, the closer he gets to his goal, the more the wheels start to fall off. He really isn't in control. It's a great additional dynamic to the usual good vs evil. Matthew Lewis' Neville Longbottom finally gets to the party and has his pivotal role. It was great to see the bumbling fool from the earlier films grow into a hero and there are a couple of stirring speeches from Lewis that got the goosebumps going. What was noticeable about the film to me though was the lack of any real 'goosebump moments', or for that matter, many moments of genuine emotion. It really should have been packed to the rafters with them, the book is after all. The kiss, the deaths of important characters, the reveal of Snape's importance to the whole story - that reveal is probably the best part of the film actually, Harry seeing Snape's memories and his past is the closest I got to a tear and it was brilliantly played by Rickman, as you would expect, and superbly handled by David Yates.
I've thought long and hard about why the grandstand moments didn't feel jaw dropping like I expected them to, perhaps it's because I've read the book and I knew what was coming, although I had read all the books before I'd seen the films and that didn't diminish from the wow factor. I think the reason is, strangely, that the film was too short. Everything felt a bit too brisk. There are a number of changes in direction and plot in the story and the closer you get to the ending, the less time you are allowed to pause for contemplation. Deaths happen and then you are quickly forced to move on, you don't have time to get upset, a set-piece pops up, you want to be impressed but all of a sudden you're following a broomstick through a fiery room and you need to brace yourself for the next big effect. I wanted to be able to appreciate these important moments, as they make the leap from page to screen, but there are just so many of those moments. It's a strange thing to criticise the film for but at only just over a couple of hours I though there could have been another 20 minutes or so just to give us all a chance to actually enjoy what was happening. I thought that was the reason why the last book was split into two wasn't it? To avoid the feeling of everything being shoehorned in. The prime chunks of storyline lobster from the book become tightly packed sardines in the film.
I think this may have all come across a lot more negatively than I have intended. It is a very good film, it does the usual things well, it's funny, it is exciting, it has all the spectacle and scale that I expected, it has great actors doing what they do best, but it just fell short of what I wanted. To say it's the weakest film since Chambers of Secrets isn't to say it's rubbish, it's just that number three through to seven were all amazing. Perhaps my expectations were too high, they were never going to be met, perhaps the 3D ruined it for me, I may re-watch it on DVD and think differently about it (I hope so) and realise that it was the perfect sign off for a film series that really has been one of the greatest achievements by the British film industry.
Imagine my disappointment when it came to light that The Deathly Hallows Part 2 was, in my opinion, the weakest since The Chamber of Secrets. Disappointment is perhaps a bit too strong a term, I really enjoyed it, but it just struggled to live up to the incredibly high standards set by the Prisoner of Azkaban through to the first Deathly Hallows film.
The decision to split the last book into two films meant that very little plot set up was required in this sitting. The first film was all setting up, not much happened, it was criticised for being too wordy, but it was a necessity and it added a huge amount of depth to characters that we all thought we already knew so well. In part two we are thrown straight into the action, dragons, Gringotts vault, a roller coaster style bank job, Horcruxes. It's all there and before you know we are back at Hogwarts for the huge final battle, that takes up much of the film, and it has to be said that it is visually superb. The scale was reminiscent of the biggest and best that The Lord of The Rings had to offer, Death Eaters vs the teachers and pupils, giants, huge spiders, suits of armour coming to life, spells being cast, counter spells raining in, Hogwarts crumbling, it's relentless and is great to watch. Huge battle scenes come out every week in mediocre effects movies but there is something extra special about seeing Hogwarts at the centre of it, especially when we've been waiting ten years to see it.
This might be a good moment to mention the 3D. None of the previous incarnations were in 3D, there was a plan to have the first Deathly Hallows film in 3D but they decided that it just wasn't working and they didn't want to compromise their creation. I have to ask whether they stopped to think about whether it was a good idea this time around. This is a dark film, not in the usual Harry Potter sense of the word, but actually dark in terms of colour. There are the occasional flashes of colour through a spell or an explosion, but this is largely set against a black back drop as the battle plays out during the night. The 3D drains the film of what little colour it has and you have to wonder whether there is any point in giving darkness depth, it doesn't exactly leap out of the screen like the penis in piranha or immerse you like the surroundings in Avatar. There were also a couple of instances where the effects let the side down, for example a broomstick chase looked a little on the cheap side, contrasting with the otherwise very accomplished effects.
The cast continues the 'biggest' theme, everyone is in it. I mean everyone. Any character from the Potter universe that hasn't been killed off is in this film. Some have beefed up roles integral to the story like Maggie Smith's Professor McGonagall becoming an action heroine, some have a line or two but others, such as Jim Broadbent, have nothing more than a couple of seconds of screen time. There is a great deal of pleasure to be taken from all of the characters from all of the films coming together at once, a school reunion of sorts only one where you're pleased to see everyone and not avoiding the smug bloke who is now a TV presenter.
It's much more than just bit parts by all the best British thespians though. There are some very good performances in the film. The main three, Radcliffe. Watson and Grint are perfectly solid, they don't really have a great deal to do other than running around trying to save the day, which is a bit of a shame after the quality and depth of their characters in Part One. Ralph FiennesVoldemort as desperate, almost scared. As the horcruxes fall one by one, I got a very real sense that Voldemort knew that things were unravelling, the closer he gets to his goal, the more the wheels start to fall off. He really isn't in control. It's a great additional dynamic to the usual good vs evil. Matthew Lewis' Neville Longbottom finally gets to the party and has his pivotal role. It was great to see the bumbling fool from the earlier films grow into a hero and there are a couple of stirring speeches from Lewis that got the goosebumps going. What was noticeable about the film to me though was the lack of any real 'goosebump moments', or for that matter, many moments of genuine emotion. It really should have been packed to the rafters with them, the book is after all. The kiss, the deaths of important characters, the reveal of Snape's importance to the whole story - that reveal is probably the best part of the film actually, Harry seeing Snape's memories and his past is the closest I got to a tear and it was brilliantly played by Rickman, as you would expect, and superbly handled by David Yates.
I've thought long and hard about why the grandstand moments didn't feel jaw dropping like I expected them to, perhaps it's because I've read the book and I knew what was coming, although I had read all the books before I'd seen the films and that didn't diminish from the wow factor. I think the reason is, strangely, that the film was too short. Everything felt a bit too brisk. There are a number of changes in direction and plot in the story and the closer you get to the ending, the less time you are allowed to pause for contemplation. Deaths happen and then you are quickly forced to move on, you don't have time to get upset, a set-piece pops up, you want to be impressed but all of a sudden you're following a broomstick through a fiery room and you need to brace yourself for the next big effect. I wanted to be able to appreciate these important moments, as they make the leap from page to screen, but there are just so many of those moments. It's a strange thing to criticise the film for but at only just over a couple of hours I though there could have been another 20 minutes or so just to give us all a chance to actually enjoy what was happening. I thought that was the reason why the last book was split into two wasn't it? To avoid the feeling of everything being shoehorned in. The prime chunks of storyline lobster from the book become tightly packed sardines in the film.
I think this may have all come across a lot more negatively than I have intended. It is a very good film, it does the usual things well, it's funny, it is exciting, it has all the spectacle and scale that I expected, it has great actors doing what they do best, but it just fell short of what I wanted. To say it's the weakest film since Chambers of Secrets isn't to say it's rubbish, it's just that number three through to seven were all amazing. Perhaps my expectations were too high, they were never going to be met, perhaps the 3D ruined it for me, I may re-watch it on DVD and think differently about it (I hope so) and realise that it was the perfect sign off for a film series that really has been one of the greatest achievements by the British film industry.
Thursday 21 July 2011
PAUL (2011 - Cert 15)
I approached Paul with a great deal of caution. I love Spaced, I love Shaun of the Dead, I love Hot Fuzz. However, when ever Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright and Nick Frost did something that didn't see the trio fully united, I've come away disappointed. Scott Pilgrim vs The World just wasn't what I wanted it to be, it had all of the flair that I knew Wright was capable of, but none of the content that his usual flashes of brilliance compliment so well. Pegg's 'solo' ventures have also left a lot to be desired with Run, Fatboy Run probably his best effort, miles ahead of the poor Burke and Hare and the woefully unfunny and painful to watch How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.
Paul is the first time that Pegg and Frost have written a film together (Shaun and Hot Fuzz were both penned by Pegg and Wright) and in the director's chair they have drafted in the safe pair of hands belonging to Greg Mottola (who directed Superbad). The story of two Alien-obsessed geeks travelling across America and befriending an obnoxious extra-terrestrial is a project that has been a long time in the making. Pegg and Frost using it as an excuse to have a road trip round the States looking for inspiration, they finished filming in 2009, only to have to shoot further scenes in 2010 and the film finally getting released early 2011. From reading Pegg's auto-biography I know that it is a film that he is very passionate about and proud of, something he's put a lot of work into and something made in conjunction with his best mate Frost. All of that doesn't necessarily make a good film though. I'm sure Zach Snyder worked bloody hard on Sucker Punch, and I'm sure he feels strongly about what he's made, however that doesn't stop it from being rather shit.
It's inevitable that Paul would be compared to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, I suppose that comparison is in some ways fair and if you are going to compare them then Paul is clearly not as good a film, but it really is a different film. While Shaun and Fuzz were knowing genre pieces, playing up to, referencing and also taking the mickey out of the conventions of those types, Paul is a love letter to sci-fi adventure films more than anything, there is something more sincere and innocent about the sentiment behind Paul.
There is clearly a massive amount of themselves in Graeme and Clive, granted they aren't exactly as nerdy as the two heroes of the film but they are cine-literate geeks and you suspect that the trip to Comic Con was written into the the script to give them both a chance to go to the event and hang out with a room full of Boba Fetts. There is a certain something about the performances of Pegg and Frost, it's not their best and most polished accomplishments by any stretch, but they are enjoying themselves in a child-like way and that permeates through the whole film, giving it a youthful and unsullied essence.
Speaking of child-like, that brings me nicely on to the other star of the film, Paul himself. Voiced by Seth Rogen, he is a completely CGI character, and it must be said we have come a long way from the days of Jar Jar Binks and even Gollum to an extent. The animation and effects of Paul are really impressive. There are rarely, if at all, moments where you the existence of CGI leaps out at you, Paul exists solely as another character, not a special effect. There is also a huge achievement in managing to stop him from being irritating (like our friend Jar Jar). It's very ambitious to pin an entire film on the character and they do get away with it. The quality in the effects mean that the visual and physical jokes do work well and the familiarity of Rogen's voice give the gags a bit extra despite there arguably being too many lowest common denominator jokes involving toilets, probing and farting.
While we are on that brand of humour, I think it's important to point out that this is another factor in making this so different, and ultimately inferior, to Shaun and Fuzz. Some of Paul is very broad comedy. Exceedingly broad in fact. For those of you familiar with the subtle laughs and very British jesting of Pegg's work with Wright will feel alien (sorry) around poo, wee and sex jokes. It seems to lack the indie feel that we would have expected. I have heard interviews with Pegg and Frost where they suggest that the bigger studio backing and consequently bigger budget resulted in a diluting of the idea and the script, the money makers and bean counters getting in the way again (exhibit 1 - the obscenely bad trailer).
I think the dilution really does give the film a wonky feel. Some of it works, some of it doesn't. I can't help but feel that if they didn't interfere, then there could have been something really special. However, if they money men just wrote it themselves then I'm sure they would have made a lot of cash from stupid teenage boys who don't know any better. Instead we are left with something that falls in between. This is perfectly highlighted in the inclusion of a plot thread about creation theory vs evolution. The boys pick up a girl on their travels (Kirsten WiigPegg and Frost, but it is a powerful idea that is sandwiched in between Paul getting his bits out and smoking pot. It loses much of the impact. I also hear from press coverage that this aspect of the story was downplayed during the 'studio' process which of course makes it seem shallow and contrived rather than a fundamental piece of the film as I imagine it was intended. Although not as contrived as the plot itself which seems to have been abducted a galaxy far, far away. It's clearly not going to be the most important part of a film of this nature, but it really is the sort of stuff that could have been drawn on the bag of a fag packet. It's the usual sort of Governmental alien cover-up thing that has been done many times and has a host of well known names like Jason Bateman, Bill Hader and Sigourney Weaver being amusing at various points. The farce of a story is I suspect part of the whole knowing wink to sci-fi films gone by but it doesn't work as well as some of the other referencing that pops up throughout. Much of my enjoyment of the film was taken from spotting which lines were lifted from classics we've all seen before. Aliens, Back to the Future, Close Encounters, they're all flagged up here - this really is a film geeks film made by film geeks for film geeks.
And therein probably lies another problem. Yes I enjoyed all of that part, the jokes about Adam Shadowchild books (which was originally meant to be played by Stephen King), the voice cameo from Spielberg, the puns on film names, but that's because I fall into the film geek category. I suspect for those who don't, much of the film just won't work, which is what I've heard from a number of people who have seen it. The referencing lines are delivered in a very knowing overstated way, almost pantomime-esque, if you don't get the gag, it all just comes across as bad acting. Another thing that I must admit is that if it wasn't Pegg and Frost in it, I probably wouldn't think it was that good a film. If, for argument's sake, it was Ant n Dec, or Cheech & Chong, I think I would probably not be as kind to it, but as it is Pegg and Frost and I have a huge amount of affection for them and love watching them on screen no matter what they're doing, because of that there is a significant amount of giving them the benefit of the doubt.
It is flawed, hugely flawed, but it is funny in places, also unfunny in places, it's got it's heart in the right place and although some of it is mis-judged it still resonated with me, but a bigger budget and a baggy script mean that this just doesn't quite make it. Pegg and Frost fans should enjoy it, film geeks will revel in it, but as a film in itself it unfortunately isn't up to scratch, it's like not being 'in' on an 'in-joke'.
Paul is the first time that Pegg and Frost have written a film together (Shaun and Hot Fuzz were both penned by Pegg and Wright) and in the director's chair they have drafted in the safe pair of hands belonging to Greg Mottola (who directed Superbad). The story of two Alien-obsessed geeks travelling across America and befriending an obnoxious extra-terrestrial is a project that has been a long time in the making. Pegg and Frost using it as an excuse to have a road trip round the States looking for inspiration, they finished filming in 2009, only to have to shoot further scenes in 2010 and the film finally getting released early 2011. From reading Pegg's auto-biography I know that it is a film that he is very passionate about and proud of, something he's put a lot of work into and something made in conjunction with his best mate Frost. All of that doesn't necessarily make a good film though. I'm sure Zach Snyder worked bloody hard on Sucker Punch, and I'm sure he feels strongly about what he's made, however that doesn't stop it from being rather shit.
It's inevitable that Paul would be compared to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, I suppose that comparison is in some ways fair and if you are going to compare them then Paul is clearly not as good a film, but it really is a different film. While Shaun and Fuzz were knowing genre pieces, playing up to, referencing and also taking the mickey out of the conventions of those types, Paul is a love letter to sci-fi adventure films more than anything, there is something more sincere and innocent about the sentiment behind Paul.
There is clearly a massive amount of themselves in Graeme and Clive, granted they aren't exactly as nerdy as the two heroes of the film but they are cine-literate geeks and you suspect that the trip to Comic Con was written into the the script to give them both a chance to go to the event and hang out with a room full of Boba Fetts. There is a certain something about the performances of Pegg and Frost, it's not their best and most polished accomplishments by any stretch, but they are enjoying themselves in a child-like way and that permeates through the whole film, giving it a youthful and unsullied essence.
Speaking of child-like, that brings me nicely on to the other star of the film, Paul himself. Voiced by Seth Rogen, he is a completely CGI character, and it must be said we have come a long way from the days of Jar Jar Binks and even Gollum to an extent. The animation and effects of Paul are really impressive. There are rarely, if at all, moments where you the existence of CGI leaps out at you, Paul exists solely as another character, not a special effect. There is also a huge achievement in managing to stop him from being irritating (like our friend Jar Jar). It's very ambitious to pin an entire film on the character and they do get away with it. The quality in the effects mean that the visual and physical jokes do work well and the familiarity of Rogen's voice give the gags a bit extra despite there arguably being too many lowest common denominator jokes involving toilets, probing and farting.
While we are on that brand of humour, I think it's important to point out that this is another factor in making this so different, and ultimately inferior, to Shaun and Fuzz. Some of Paul is very broad comedy. Exceedingly broad in fact. For those of you familiar with the subtle laughs and very British jesting of Pegg's work with Wright will feel alien (sorry) around poo, wee and sex jokes. It seems to lack the indie feel that we would have expected. I have heard interviews with Pegg and Frost where they suggest that the bigger studio backing and consequently bigger budget resulted in a diluting of the idea and the script, the money makers and bean counters getting in the way again (exhibit 1 - the obscenely bad trailer).
I think the dilution really does give the film a wonky feel. Some of it works, some of it doesn't. I can't help but feel that if they didn't interfere, then there could have been something really special. However, if they money men just wrote it themselves then I'm sure they would have made a lot of cash from stupid teenage boys who don't know any better. Instead we are left with something that falls in between. This is perfectly highlighted in the inclusion of a plot thread about creation theory vs evolution. The boys pick up a girl on their travels (Kirsten WiigPegg and Frost, but it is a powerful idea that is sandwiched in between Paul getting his bits out and smoking pot. It loses much of the impact. I also hear from press coverage that this aspect of the story was downplayed during the 'studio' process which of course makes it seem shallow and contrived rather than a fundamental piece of the film as I imagine it was intended. Although not as contrived as the plot itself which seems to have been abducted a galaxy far, far away. It's clearly not going to be the most important part of a film of this nature, but it really is the sort of stuff that could have been drawn on the bag of a fag packet. It's the usual sort of Governmental alien cover-up thing that has been done many times and has a host of well known names like Jason Bateman, Bill Hader and Sigourney Weaver being amusing at various points. The farce of a story is I suspect part of the whole knowing wink to sci-fi films gone by but it doesn't work as well as some of the other referencing that pops up throughout. Much of my enjoyment of the film was taken from spotting which lines were lifted from classics we've all seen before. Aliens, Back to the Future, Close Encounters, they're all flagged up here - this really is a film geeks film made by film geeks for film geeks.
And therein probably lies another problem. Yes I enjoyed all of that part, the jokes about Adam Shadowchild books (which was originally meant to be played by Stephen King), the voice cameo from Spielberg, the puns on film names, but that's because I fall into the film geek category. I suspect for those who don't, much of the film just won't work, which is what I've heard from a number of people who have seen it. The referencing lines are delivered in a very knowing overstated way, almost pantomime-esque, if you don't get the gag, it all just comes across as bad acting. Another thing that I must admit is that if it wasn't Pegg and Frost in it, I probably wouldn't think it was that good a film. If, for argument's sake, it was Ant n Dec, or Cheech & Chong, I think I would probably not be as kind to it, but as it is Pegg and Frost and I have a huge amount of affection for them and love watching them on screen no matter what they're doing, because of that there is a significant amount of giving them the benefit of the doubt.
It is flawed, hugely flawed, but it is funny in places, also unfunny in places, it's got it's heart in the right place and although some of it is mis-judged it still resonated with me, but a bigger budget and a baggy script mean that this just doesn't quite make it. Pegg and Frost fans should enjoy it, film geeks will revel in it, but as a film in itself it unfortunately isn't up to scratch, it's like not being 'in' on an 'in-joke'.
Sunday 10 July 2011
REC 2 (2009 - Cert 18)
The original Rec, about a zombie-ish virus outbreak in an apartment block, is one of my favourite horror films of the last ten years. The handheld camera footage/faux documentary style has become more frequently used in recent years but that film is certainly one of the best exponents of it. It had a simplicity to it, a realism. Quality acting managed to make you feel for the characters despite there being little to no back story for all of them. There was a constant sense of panic and peril, there were jumps, it was creepy. It did everything a horror film should do, scare, disturb and emote. All of this in a Spanish language film, nothing lost through subtitles at all.
There was an American remake (shock) called Quarantine that was almost identical, shot for shot, but somehow managed to lack all of the terror and substance that the Spanish original had. Another example of something being lost in translation.
I then discovered that Rec 2 was being made. I presumed that it would be a case of another director/writer coming along to try to build a franchise cashing on the original. However, my presumptions were wrong. Rec 2 was to have the same co-directors and co-writers of the first, Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza, and they were going to set the sequel directly after the first with armed police going in to the building to get rid the demonic menace. I was picturing a type of Aliens scenario, the joy of the first but with more guns.
Well that'll teach me for getting my hopes up. The two film makers have made two completely and utterly different films, on both content and quality.
Whereas the first film was simple in it's set up, people in an apartment block trying to survive, this only succeeds in being overly convoluted and bogged down in plot. There is a dual story line involving two different hand held cameras that come together at various points in the film. It's a bold move and does do something interesting with the narrative threads and makes the familiar format slightly more intriguing, however rather than just keeping it simple the writers have built on the clues at the end of the film referring to the origin of the virus and in doing so they have immediately destroyed the simple premise of the original. It becomes a bit like the exorcist meets the scene in Aliens where the marines enter the nest. But in a shit way. As it develops it quickly becomes apparent that the story hasn't been thought through at all, the plot has got more holes than colander, all suspense is lost, you don't give a toss who gets killed. In fact you're never really sure who is getting killed. I know the handheld footage is meant to be a little erratic but there are whole sequences where you haven't got a clue what's going on.
It's a mess, a hurried mess. The more I think about it afterwards, none of it really made sense. Why did the second batch of people go in to the building? The Fireman's motives were clearly not thought about. Where were all the monsters from the first one? Did they just pop to the shops? At times the monsters are there, then they disappear just for the sake of having some exposition without the people being under attack. And the ending, oh the ending. It thinks it's clever, but it's just dire. The whole film is a shambles. I'm not being too harsh, it shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt because it's a genre piece. If the first film, made my the same people remember, can be so good, why can't the second at least be 75% as good. It's like Jaws 3 compared to Jaws. Not worthy of playing on the name of the original.
I was thinking of signing this review off in the manner of a parent, 'I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed'. The truth is though, I am angry, really angry. At Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza, at the studio for letting it happen, at myself for contributing some money towards the coffers. That's the key thing, people will see this because the first one has become a bit of a cult hit, and if Rec 2 makes money, the chances are they will make another one (look at Police Academy - how did it get to 7 films?). I just hope there is some return to sanity for the makers and they manage to put some thought into what they make.
There was an American remake (shock) called Quarantine that was almost identical, shot for shot, but somehow managed to lack all of the terror and substance that the Spanish original had. Another example of something being lost in translation.
I then discovered that Rec 2 was being made. I presumed that it would be a case of another director/writer coming along to try to build a franchise cashing on the original. However, my presumptions were wrong. Rec 2 was to have the same co-directors and co-writers of the first, Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza, and they were going to set the sequel directly after the first with armed police going in to the building to get rid the demonic menace. I was picturing a type of Aliens scenario, the joy of the first but with more guns.
Well that'll teach me for getting my hopes up. The two film makers have made two completely and utterly different films, on both content and quality.
Whereas the first film was simple in it's set up, people in an apartment block trying to survive, this only succeeds in being overly convoluted and bogged down in plot. There is a dual story line involving two different hand held cameras that come together at various points in the film. It's a bold move and does do something interesting with the narrative threads and makes the familiar format slightly more intriguing, however rather than just keeping it simple the writers have built on the clues at the end of the film referring to the origin of the virus and in doing so they have immediately destroyed the simple premise of the original. It becomes a bit like the exorcist meets the scene in Aliens where the marines enter the nest. But in a shit way. As it develops it quickly becomes apparent that the story hasn't been thought through at all, the plot has got more holes than colander, all suspense is lost, you don't give a toss who gets killed. In fact you're never really sure who is getting killed. I know the handheld footage is meant to be a little erratic but there are whole sequences where you haven't got a clue what's going on.
It's a mess, a hurried mess. The more I think about it afterwards, none of it really made sense. Why did the second batch of people go in to the building? The Fireman's motives were clearly not thought about. Where were all the monsters from the first one? Did they just pop to the shops? At times the monsters are there, then they disappear just for the sake of having some exposition without the people being under attack. And the ending, oh the ending. It thinks it's clever, but it's just dire. The whole film is a shambles. I'm not being too harsh, it shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt because it's a genre piece. If the first film, made my the same people remember, can be so good, why can't the second at least be 75% as good. It's like Jaws 3 compared to Jaws. Not worthy of playing on the name of the original.
I was thinking of signing this review off in the manner of a parent, 'I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed'. The truth is though, I am angry, really angry. At Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza, at the studio for letting it happen, at myself for contributing some money towards the coffers. That's the key thing, people will see this because the first one has become a bit of a cult hit, and if Rec 2 makes money, the chances are they will make another one (look at Police Academy - how did it get to 7 films?). I just hope there is some return to sanity for the makers and they manage to put some thought into what they make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)