Angelina Jolie is and has been a lot of things. She's Jon Voight's daughter, she's a serial adopter of kids, she's been accused of being a home wrecker and madder than a box of frogs. As far as her professional career goes she's won an Oscar over ten years ago (Girl, Interrupted) and then made some bad choices, given some terrible performances, Tomb Raider and Alexander, but recently, with A Mighty Heart and Changeling, seemed to have turned a bit of a corner with turns that convinced people that she had talent and might just have that credible career ahead of her that was promised a decade ago. Since those two films she's turned her hand to action flicks, firstly with Wanted, and then Salt.
Jolie plays Evelyn Salt in what is not a musical biopic of one half of 80's female hip hoppers Salt-n-Pepa, but actually a government/CIA, post-Cold War tale of spies. We are introduced to Salt in a Korean prison where she is being contained and tortured for being an American spy. She manages to get out through a diplomatic exchange and then we see her a couple of years later back in Washington in intelligence and security offices looking, in all honesty, just a little bit too glam for that job. A mysterious Russian then comes in and accuses her of being a Russian spy and claiming that she will make an attempt on the Russian leader's life. This rings alarm bells for her intelligence colleagues and lock her down so they can investigate, only for her to break out and make a run for it as she desperately tries to get to her husband.
If it all sounds at all original, I can assure you it's not. If Bourne helped to reboot the Bond series, it's also spawned a number of copy cats, and this is one of the biggest that there is. It looks the same, all be it in a slightly more colourful and polished way with steadier cameras. People talk the same and governments have the same plans. It starts off interestingly, I wasn't quite sure where it was going to go and how it was going to play out, but needless to say though, not is all as it seems and there are a number of twists and turns, some utterly predictable and others that do catch you off guard, but the fact that are so many only lessen the impact of those that do work. It all quickly descends into nonsense and gets more and more far fetched by the minute, asking for a huge amount of suspension of disbelief from the viewer. That needs an investment from us though, and we're only going to invest if we like the characters or feel a connection to them. However, the characters just aren't characters I'm afraid, there only to serve as exposition or to get bumped off. The supporting cast is decent, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor are probably the most notable names, and they do as best as they can without being given any depth at all by the script. They jump between expressions of confusion or anger. And that's about it.
Jolie herself, as the lead, has the most interesting character, although that isn't saying much. I sensed that she tried to play it in the same understated way that Matt Damon plays Bourne. I'm not really sure why, but it all falls flat on its face. While Bourne was troubled with a real dark side, Salt comes across as a bit stroppy and completely two-dimensional. Like a fembot witth PMT. It's not totally down to Jolie, she doesn't have a lot to work with at all, but she is capable of doing a much better job than she does here. The other problem is that she's meant to be hard as nails but she looks emaciated and in need of a decent meal, it just isn't convincing when she is smashing people around with her bare hands and jumping from moving truck to moving truck. The action is very well done, handled by Phillip Noyce, seasoned director of Clear and Present Danger and Patriot Games. There's a good sequence in a New York church, although it's again let down my it's implausibility, and a good death involving a pair of handcuffs and a railing over a big drop. However, I'd like to think these days that I might take more positives away from a film than those two things.
Bourne appears to have become it's own genre now, which is all very well, but when films just don't compare to it, lazily copying the formula, there is little or no point in doing it. Tom Cruise was originally due to play Salt, before pulling out to make Knight and Day. If he were in it, it would have taken the only original aspect out of the film, a heroine rather than a hero. Worryingly the ending, after a laughably absurd climax, hints at the possibility of a sequel, which, if it does happen, is going to have to be a hell of a lot better than this.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Saturday 30 April 2011
Monday 25 April 2011
SEVEN (1995 - Cert 18)
A day off work recently ended up with me being lucky enough to see David Fincher's revered serial killer film from the mid-ninties and I have to say that I was surprised at how fresh it still felt, despite a number of films (and games) copying the formula since and wearing it remarkably thin. I watched it thinking that I would enjoy the film, but more out of nostalgia and would notice dated looks, concepts and themes. However, even 16 years on (yes it is that long), it feels as though it could have been released yesterday.
It's almost as if the stars were aligned (no pun intended), Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt and Kevin Spacey could not be more perfect choices for their roles. Freeman as William Somerset, a homicide detective one week from retirement, Pitt as David Mills, Somerset's new partner, younger and full of ambition, together on the trail of a serial killer obsessed with the seven deadly sins, eloquently played with intelligence and a chilling charm by Spacey. It's excellent casting on all fronts, but they all still need to deliver, and they do by the bucket load.
Pitt was at the top of his game back in 1995, he had been on a remarkable run of films and performances, Kalifornia, True Romance, Interview with a Vampire and Legends of the Fall. All very different films and very different roles, but all notable performances. For me though, as I was 14 at the time (and shouldn't have even been allowed to see it at the cinema - good old mum) this was the first film where I personally really took notice of Pitt. He's great to watch as the hot-headed young detective, wants the action, wants to be the hero all the time. He is perfectly suited to the petulant and at times sarcastic Mills, striving to prove himself to Somerset and his superiors. You sense that it's all a bit of a front and could come crashing down at anytime, which is of course vital to how the story plays out.
There's no doubting Morgan Freeman's quality and he's been doing it for years, a long time before Seven and a long time since, but this is a turn from him that really should be up there with some of his finest. He is the complete opposite to Pitt's Mills, calm, measured, pessimistic and subdued. He just wants to get through this last week on the job, but can't quite let go. He has a paternal quality about him, similar to that of Red in the Shawshank Redemption, and also similar to that character, he is downtrodden, his life has made him weary.
What really sets the film apart from others in the genre and those have tried to emulate is the relationship between Mills and Somerset. Fincher and Andrew Kevin Walker's script take the time and care to explore how the two characters develop with each other during the seven day period. Time is spent with Mills at home, we also see a nice, normal, down to earth scene, where Mills' wife (played by Gwyneth Paltrow very well) invites Somerset over for dinner. It doesn't really help propel the serial killer story along, but the pace doesn't feel plodding at all, instead we really benefit from seeing these two characters in their personal environment. These scenes also highlight the differences between Somerset and Mills, portraying to starkly contrasting world views . The result is a gripping polemic conflict of ideals in society that gives the film, as well as the characters, a vast amount of depth.
On top of all of this is Kevin Spacey's depiction of a serial killer. He doesn't get a massive amount of screen time compared to the others, but he really does steal the last third of the film. Creepy, not scary, and clearly very intelligent, it's a long way from the depictions in films such as Silence of the Lambs, and is all the more chilling because of that. Top notch.
Seven was also the film that really launched Fincher as a director. After the interesting, underrated all be it massively flawed Alien 3, he still had to really make his mark. Seven has all the traits of the Fincher that has gone on to take Hollywood by storm, visually striking and interesting with buckets of atmosphere. It's constantly raining in this film and it adds to the whole film noir aesthetic that the film is clearly more than a nod towards. The colour of the film is dark with a grainy texture, something that again has been copied many times since, and Fincher shows the gore and violence but without the bright red of blood it doesn't quite seem as brutal, more unsettling than anything else.
It's brilliantly handled from start to finish, and what a finish, culminating in Kevin Spacey's murderer's masterpiece that ensures that this was Fincher's masterpiece as well. Great acting from a great cast, with a great director bringing us a great story. Simple as that. Great.
It's almost as if the stars were aligned (no pun intended), Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt and Kevin Spacey could not be more perfect choices for their roles. Freeman as William Somerset, a homicide detective one week from retirement, Pitt as David Mills, Somerset's new partner, younger and full of ambition, together on the trail of a serial killer obsessed with the seven deadly sins, eloquently played with intelligence and a chilling charm by Spacey. It's excellent casting on all fronts, but they all still need to deliver, and they do by the bucket load.
Pitt was at the top of his game back in 1995, he had been on a remarkable run of films and performances, Kalifornia, True Romance, Interview with a Vampire and Legends of the Fall. All very different films and very different roles, but all notable performances. For me though, as I was 14 at the time (and shouldn't have even been allowed to see it at the cinema - good old mum) this was the first film where I personally really took notice of Pitt. He's great to watch as the hot-headed young detective, wants the action, wants to be the hero all the time. He is perfectly suited to the petulant and at times sarcastic Mills, striving to prove himself to Somerset and his superiors. You sense that it's all a bit of a front and could come crashing down at anytime, which is of course vital to how the story plays out.
There's no doubting Morgan Freeman's quality and he's been doing it for years, a long time before Seven and a long time since, but this is a turn from him that really should be up there with some of his finest. He is the complete opposite to Pitt's Mills, calm, measured, pessimistic and subdued. He just wants to get through this last week on the job, but can't quite let go. He has a paternal quality about him, similar to that of Red in the Shawshank Redemption, and also similar to that character, he is downtrodden, his life has made him weary.
What really sets the film apart from others in the genre and those have tried to emulate is the relationship between Mills and Somerset. Fincher and Andrew Kevin Walker's script take the time and care to explore how the two characters develop with each other during the seven day period. Time is spent with Mills at home, we also see a nice, normal, down to earth scene, where Mills' wife (played by Gwyneth Paltrow very well) invites Somerset over for dinner. It doesn't really help propel the serial killer story along, but the pace doesn't feel plodding at all, instead we really benefit from seeing these two characters in their personal environment. These scenes also highlight the differences between Somerset and Mills, portraying to starkly contrasting world views . The result is a gripping polemic conflict of ideals in society that gives the film, as well as the characters, a vast amount of depth.
On top of all of this is Kevin Spacey's depiction of a serial killer. He doesn't get a massive amount of screen time compared to the others, but he really does steal the last third of the film. Creepy, not scary, and clearly very intelligent, it's a long way from the depictions in films such as Silence of the Lambs, and is all the more chilling because of that. Top notch.
Seven was also the film that really launched Fincher as a director. After the interesting, underrated all be it massively flawed Alien 3, he still had to really make his mark. Seven has all the traits of the Fincher that has gone on to take Hollywood by storm, visually striking and interesting with buckets of atmosphere. It's constantly raining in this film and it adds to the whole film noir aesthetic that the film is clearly more than a nod towards. The colour of the film is dark with a grainy texture, something that again has been copied many times since, and Fincher shows the gore and violence but without the bright red of blood it doesn't quite seem as brutal, more unsettling than anything else.
It's brilliantly handled from start to finish, and what a finish, culminating in Kevin Spacey's murderer's masterpiece that ensures that this was Fincher's masterpiece as well. Great acting from a great cast, with a great director bringing us a great story. Simple as that. Great.
Saturday 23 April 2011
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED (2009 - Cert 18)
The old expression less is more is very much the thought behind this little British indie flick from writer and director J Blakeson, of whom a lot is now expected because of this film. The cast is stripped down to three people, the locations can be counted on one hand, it's ambitious because of it's simplicity, and very satisfying and enjoyable for the same reason.
The full roster of British actors on show are Gemma Arterton (playing the titular Alice Creed) and Eddie Marsan and Martin Compston as her captors in a well planned kidnapping. The fact that they really are all the film is, there's no big set pieces or cop chases or anything like that, means that they all get the chance to show what they are capable of.
Gemma Arterton has been better known recently for big blockbusters such as Clash of the Titans, Prince of Persia and Quantum of Solace, but this choice of film for her is a brave step and clearly an intention on her part to show the world that there is much more to her than that, ie talent. She is very good in this. The role itself is well developed enough to ensure she isn't simply a whimpering victim, although she does that aspect perfectly well, and her character has a bit of fight in her that comes out along with a number of other emotions. It's totally convincing and is a real stand out performance from her and couple that with the fact she is doing this type of film at all bodes well for the future. Less is more, remember that Gemma.
Eddie Marsan is as you would expect and as he always is. Brilliant. His Vic, seemingly the brains behind the plan, has a ruthless anger that is unsettling, especially when it bursts to the surface among his quiet, methodical organisation. There is also a fragile element to his character that you sense is there and it makes Vic all the more scary. On the edge. He is always a pleasure to watch and looking at his next films coming up, it seems that the rest of the cinema world is taking note and giving him the chances and roles that he deserves.
Martin Compston is Danny, the younger half of the duo and appears to be the submissive half being taken along for the ride. As the weaker of the two, you sense that if the whole plan is going to unravel, it's going to be his fault. I don't want to give anything away, but Danny's character does develop from how it opens and he moves away from the nervous youngster that could mess it all up. Consequently, it's another good performance, all be it the weaker of the three, although this is no slight on Compston as Marsan and Arterton are so good.
Although it is clearly an actors film (3 characters and a small number of locations, it almost feels like a stage play), the screenplay and direction of the story is a huge part of what makes it so interesting. Blakeson takes a bit of a gamble by only focusing on what happens on the side of the fence where the kidnappers are. We never see the people that Arterton's character is missing, we don't see any of the ransom negotiations (these all take place off screen and only spoken about by the captors) and we never see the police trying to solve the crime. It works really well and is a very fresh approach. The way the story develops and unfolds is also a joy, the characters and relationships develop nicely, with one or two shocks and twists that are very understated and revealed superbly. There is also an opening sequence where Vic and Danny plan and get everything in place for the kidnap, no dialogue just careful, efficient and meticulous planning and execution. It's a really interesting start that immediately lets you know that you're in for something a little bit different.
As it nears its conclusion it does lose a bit of the originality and thus appeal as it becomes a bit like a lot of other heist/kidnap/crime capers, but it's well worth a watch to see how the British are able to produce indie crime flicks that don't star Danny Dyer and are still trying to dine off the success of Guy Ritchie.
The full roster of British actors on show are Gemma Arterton (playing the titular Alice Creed) and Eddie Marsan and Martin Compston as her captors in a well planned kidnapping. The fact that they really are all the film is, there's no big set pieces or cop chases or anything like that, means that they all get the chance to show what they are capable of.
Gemma Arterton has been better known recently for big blockbusters such as Clash of the Titans, Prince of Persia and Quantum of Solace, but this choice of film for her is a brave step and clearly an intention on her part to show the world that there is much more to her than that, ie talent. She is very good in this. The role itself is well developed enough to ensure she isn't simply a whimpering victim, although she does that aspect perfectly well, and her character has a bit of fight in her that comes out along with a number of other emotions. It's totally convincing and is a real stand out performance from her and couple that with the fact she is doing this type of film at all bodes well for the future. Less is more, remember that Gemma.
Eddie Marsan is as you would expect and as he always is. Brilliant. His Vic, seemingly the brains behind the plan, has a ruthless anger that is unsettling, especially when it bursts to the surface among his quiet, methodical organisation. There is also a fragile element to his character that you sense is there and it makes Vic all the more scary. On the edge. He is always a pleasure to watch and looking at his next films coming up, it seems that the rest of the cinema world is taking note and giving him the chances and roles that he deserves.
Martin Compston is Danny, the younger half of the duo and appears to be the submissive half being taken along for the ride. As the weaker of the two, you sense that if the whole plan is going to unravel, it's going to be his fault. I don't want to give anything away, but Danny's character does develop from how it opens and he moves away from the nervous youngster that could mess it all up. Consequently, it's another good performance, all be it the weaker of the three, although this is no slight on Compston as Marsan and Arterton are so good.
Although it is clearly an actors film (3 characters and a small number of locations, it almost feels like a stage play), the screenplay and direction of the story is a huge part of what makes it so interesting. Blakeson takes a bit of a gamble by only focusing on what happens on the side of the fence where the kidnappers are. We never see the people that Arterton's character is missing, we don't see any of the ransom negotiations (these all take place off screen and only spoken about by the captors) and we never see the police trying to solve the crime. It works really well and is a very fresh approach. The way the story develops and unfolds is also a joy, the characters and relationships develop nicely, with one or two shocks and twists that are very understated and revealed superbly. There is also an opening sequence where Vic and Danny plan and get everything in place for the kidnap, no dialogue just careful, efficient and meticulous planning and execution. It's a really interesting start that immediately lets you know that you're in for something a little bit different.
As it nears its conclusion it does lose a bit of the originality and thus appeal as it becomes a bit like a lot of other heist/kidnap/crime capers, but it's well worth a watch to see how the British are able to produce indie crime flicks that don't star Danny Dyer and are still trying to dine off the success of Guy Ritchie.
Friday 22 April 2011
SCRE4M (2011 - Cert 15)
Friends come and go throughout our life, some you miss, some you're sad to see the back of. You can lose touch for any number of reasons or track someone down for a whole host of others. Sometimes when you catch up with a pal who you haven't seen in ages things can be stilted and awkward, you've both moved on, something has changed. On the other hand, you can get together with an old friend for a sneaky pint, someone who you haven't spoken to or seen in a decade, and things are just as they always were. You pick up exactly where you left off all those years ago, conversation flows, sense of humours bounce off one another, it's almost as if there hasn't been a break at all. That is exactly how I felt when Scre4m started.
My relationships with Sidney Prescott (I always had a crush on Neve Campbell), Gail Weathers and Deputy (now sheriff) Dewey Riley were some of the ones that I remember most fondly from my teenage years in the landscape of cinema, and to see them back, exactly as before (apart from Courtney Cox's lips of course) is a little personal joy for me. It's not necessarily easy to bring characters back to the screen after a hiatus, look at the lukewarm reception for Indiana Jones' return as an example, but here, in the dependable hands of Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson, it's almost as if they haven't been away at all.
Nostalgia aside though, is the film actually worth seeing?
The story is nothing particularly groundbreaking, Sidney goes back to Woodsboro for the latest leg of her book tour (a book she's written about surviving the ordeal of the first three films), only as soon as she shows up, old Ghostface is at it again, killing people left right and centre. Campbell is exactly as she always was, decent but slightly irritating as she is always playing the victim, while Cox and Arquette are as good as they ever were, getting all the best comedy lines and scenes together. A host of new characters are introduced, mostly just to die in elaborate ways, but you've got Hayden Panettiere, Emma Roberts (as Sidney's little cousin), Marley Shelton (new deputy), Marielle Jaffe, Rory Culkin and Erik Knudsen (as the now resident and required film geeks). They are all perfectly fine in their roles, not exactly knock out performances but not at all irritating. Their jobs are to keep the story ticking along for Campbell, Cox and Arquette to do the important stuff.
The films opens brilliantly, but you would come to expect that with the previous three all kicking off in style with a bang. In Scre4m though it's not just a set piece murder, it's a witty, intelligent, self referencing look at what horror is in the present and how it's changed since Scream (and the in-film version Stab) first burst onto the scene. The clever, sparky patter between the characters about rules, disparaging comments about torture porn, pros and cons of slasher movies against zombie and vampire films, I felt immediately at home. Williamson hadn't lost it. There were the usual jumps and shocks, but, without giving anything away, all done in a very creative and different way. It really grabs your attention and lets you know you're in for a treat.
The wit continues throughout the film, focusing no longer on sequels and trilogies, but on reboots and remakes, the current trend in Hollywood and horror in particular. It bounces along with in-jokes (look hard enough and you see in the school a bust of the late head teacher played by Henry Winkler), gags about twitter, facebook and the Internet blogging generation, all in all exactly the same tone and qualities of the original trilogy. The plot develops very nicely as well, constantly dipping in and out of the previous films and also referencing the Stab movies (now up to number 7 in the series). It's constantly weaving in and out of the Scream universe seamlessly, making sure that this isn't an add on, but another worthy entry into the collection. Towards the end of the film when Sidney Prescott is unveiled as the killer, only joking, when she is killed, joking again (or am I?), sorry, back on track, towards the end of the film it starts to look at people's relentless quest for fame, and also of victim culture. It's interestingly done, and even amidst all the blood and death, this little idea really does get the brain cells working. More good work by Williamson.
The violence is as good as I remember it too, although there seemed to be a lot more blood and the camera lingered on the gore a little longer than I recall in the previous films. Perhaps that is due to the changes in horror over the past decade, the crowds expect a bit more claret. I took a lot of joy from seeing the old-fashioned method of dispatching a character with a knife, no puzzles, torture or booby traps in sight, all put together by the veteran hands and care of Wes Craven, the seasoned pro that he is. Jumps, scares, they're all there, people around in the cinema hiding behind their hands, peeking through their fingers. Brilliant stuff.
All of this glowing praise does come with a 'but' though. The idea of the film is very much a post-modern look at the reboot/remake culture and it explores the theme very well with some laughs and knowing winks, but the film itself doesn't feel remotely fresh at all. It's great and sits alongside the previous ones, but that's because it's just like the other ones. If this is an attempt to reboot the Scream franchise, it hasn't done it very well, because although I really enjoyed it, I don't think there is particularly a need to take the series forward with another film. This is an update, a brilliant update that should be seen but an update nonetheless, of the old formula for a new generation of cinema goers.
If you liked the first 3 films you will love this, if you didn't, there is little point in you watching this as it is unlikely to offer anything fresh that will change your mind.
My relationships with Sidney Prescott (I always had a crush on Neve Campbell), Gail Weathers and Deputy (now sheriff) Dewey Riley were some of the ones that I remember most fondly from my teenage years in the landscape of cinema, and to see them back, exactly as before (apart from Courtney Cox's lips of course) is a little personal joy for me. It's not necessarily easy to bring characters back to the screen after a hiatus, look at the lukewarm reception for Indiana Jones' return as an example, but here, in the dependable hands of Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson, it's almost as if they haven't been away at all.
Nostalgia aside though, is the film actually worth seeing?
The story is nothing particularly groundbreaking, Sidney goes back to Woodsboro for the latest leg of her book tour (a book she's written about surviving the ordeal of the first three films), only as soon as she shows up, old Ghostface is at it again, killing people left right and centre. Campbell is exactly as she always was, decent but slightly irritating as she is always playing the victim, while Cox and Arquette are as good as they ever were, getting all the best comedy lines and scenes together. A host of new characters are introduced, mostly just to die in elaborate ways, but you've got Hayden Panettiere, Emma Roberts (as Sidney's little cousin), Marley Shelton (new deputy), Marielle Jaffe, Rory Culkin and Erik Knudsen (as the now resident and required film geeks). They are all perfectly fine in their roles, not exactly knock out performances but not at all irritating. Their jobs are to keep the story ticking along for Campbell, Cox and Arquette to do the important stuff.
The films opens brilliantly, but you would come to expect that with the previous three all kicking off in style with a bang. In Scre4m though it's not just a set piece murder, it's a witty, intelligent, self referencing look at what horror is in the present and how it's changed since Scream (and the in-film version Stab) first burst onto the scene. The clever, sparky patter between the characters about rules, disparaging comments about torture porn, pros and cons of slasher movies against zombie and vampire films, I felt immediately at home. Williamson hadn't lost it. There were the usual jumps and shocks, but, without giving anything away, all done in a very creative and different way. It really grabs your attention and lets you know you're in for a treat.
The wit continues throughout the film, focusing no longer on sequels and trilogies, but on reboots and remakes, the current trend in Hollywood and horror in particular. It bounces along with in-jokes (look hard enough and you see in the school a bust of the late head teacher played by Henry Winkler), gags about twitter, facebook and the Internet blogging generation, all in all exactly the same tone and qualities of the original trilogy. The plot develops very nicely as well, constantly dipping in and out of the previous films and also referencing the Stab movies (now up to number 7 in the series). It's constantly weaving in and out of the Scream universe seamlessly, making sure that this isn't an add on, but another worthy entry into the collection. Towards the end of the film when Sidney Prescott is unveiled as the killer, only joking, when she is killed, joking again (or am I?), sorry, back on track, towards the end of the film it starts to look at people's relentless quest for fame, and also of victim culture. It's interestingly done, and even amidst all the blood and death, this little idea really does get the brain cells working. More good work by Williamson.
The violence is as good as I remember it too, although there seemed to be a lot more blood and the camera lingered on the gore a little longer than I recall in the previous films. Perhaps that is due to the changes in horror over the past decade, the crowds expect a bit more claret. I took a lot of joy from seeing the old-fashioned method of dispatching a character with a knife, no puzzles, torture or booby traps in sight, all put together by the veteran hands and care of Wes Craven, the seasoned pro that he is. Jumps, scares, they're all there, people around in the cinema hiding behind their hands, peeking through their fingers. Brilliant stuff.
All of this glowing praise does come with a 'but' though. The idea of the film is very much a post-modern look at the reboot/remake culture and it explores the theme very well with some laughs and knowing winks, but the film itself doesn't feel remotely fresh at all. It's great and sits alongside the previous ones, but that's because it's just like the other ones. If this is an attempt to reboot the Scream franchise, it hasn't done it very well, because although I really enjoyed it, I don't think there is particularly a need to take the series forward with another film. This is an update, a brilliant update that should be seen but an update nonetheless, of the old formula for a new generation of cinema goers.
If you liked the first 3 films you will love this, if you didn't, there is little point in you watching this as it is unlikely to offer anything fresh that will change your mind.
Tuesday 19 April 2011
THE CRAZIES (2010 - Cert 15)
Remakes are a bit en vogue at the moment in the world of cinema. It seems as though there is a bit of a drought in the imagination department as studios are taking the safe option of remaking fondly remembered films from the 80's and before, plus in some cases rebooting 'franchises' that aren't exactly dead (Spiderman, I am indeed looking at you). Horror is the genre that has been the victim more than others in this epidemic with all sorts of flicks being 're-imagined' (ruined), A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Last House on the Left, I Spit in Your Grave, The Amityville Horror and Dawn of the Dead. I could go on, but I wanted to stop that list at a George A Romero one because last year this generation got their hands on another of his classics, although not a zombie flick this time. On this occasion, it's his pop at the American Military via a nasty virus called Trixie that turns the infected into killers. Not like the Rage virus, but in a way that you don't really know who is infected. Who do you trust?
Mr Romero is on exec producer duties here, giving his blessing to director Breck Eisner, the only thing of note that he's done previously being Sahara. Scott Kosar, seasoned pro of horror remakes having already written The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Amityville Horror, is drafted into bring the tale into the 21st Century. The first thing to note is that it is a very different beast and isn't a full on remake. The comical tone of the original has been completely lost and it's clear that the focus on this version is very much to thrill, chill and scare. They've kept the small town America location, and persisted with the origins of the virus and the military reaction, but it is all done very much as you would expect, straight-faced with no hint of the satire of Romero.
If you can get past the fact that they are remaking a film with such a comical and critical undercurrent, without the comedy and the undercurrent, or haven't seen the original at all, then this film does exactly what it sets out to do, namely, thrill, chill and scare. It does all of those in abundance. There is something undoubtedly creepy about your neighbours turning into bloodthirsty, ruthless killers, but looking exactly the same as they did before. Paranoia and tensions are ramped up as any odd behaviour can be construed as symptoms of infection. In terms of scare set-pieces Eisner does do well with some good little scares. The best scene involves our heroes being under attack in a car wash. Doesn't sound particularly much, but there it plays out in a wonderfully chaotic way as outside of the windows all we see is movement, unsure where the attack is going to come from. There's some good action as well, ticking all of the relevant boxes that you would expect with aplomb. I do wonder what would have happened had Romero had the budgets that are chucked around today, people are often critical of the dated, ramshackle look of his early films. But imagine if that criticism was taken away....?
In order for horror to work, we must feel a connection to the characters involved, otherwise they just become fodder that we are waiting to get picked off. In this instance we follow the reliable Timothy Olyphant as the sheriff and Radha Mitchell as his Doctor wife as they try to escape the town and the madness left behind. Both are good, Olyphant, although the hero and alpha-male, still retains an everyman quality and remains believable throughout. Mitchell is slightly less interesting but only because much of her role involves getting into trouble for Olyphant to save her, but she does well with it nonetheless. It's also nice to see Englishman Joe Anderson in something like this, and doing it very well, as the deputy along for the ride.
As the film rolls on, it starts to become critical of American Military policy and the doctrine of Shoot now, explain later. It was inevitable that it was going to do this as it was such a fundamental part of the original, but it's done with all the subtlety of a baseball bat. Whereas with the original The Crazies, you didn't know whether to laugh or be shocked, with this one it becomes an incidental plot element, not a statement. It's not necessarily a bad thing, this type of film banging a political drum may just not have fit well either.
It's perfectly fine, worth a watch, and does raise the pulse rates a few times, but if you want to watch a horror film about a virus turning people into killers, then you may as well watch the 1973 version because it's the more superior, all be it dated, film.
DATE NIGHT (2010 - Cert 15)
More often than not, I have a hunch about a film before I watch it. Sometimes as I'm putting a DVD in the player, or am rushing from work to get to the cinema in time, I make a little bet with myself that I am going to enjoy a movie, just like when I bought my ticket for Shaun of the Dead at Kingston Odeon all those years ago. I just had a feeling. It's a double-edged sword though, because there are other occasions when I just know that something is going to offend me and really try my patience. The Holiday is the ultimate example of that. I just knew. I'm not saying that these hunches are always right, I thought I was going to love Sucker Punch and I was convinced that I was going to hate Notting Hill. It's this unpredictability that makes going to the flicks still a nugget of excitement. Having said this though, I don't think I've ever predicted a feeling of complete and utter indifference. That is until I decided to watch Date Night on Sky Movies. I didn't think I was going to like it particularly, but equally, I didn't think it would repulse me.....
At it turns out, my gut instinct was spot on.
It's a nice little idea. A married couple (Steve Carell and Tina Fey), constantly exhausted and frustrated with their lives working and looking after kids, try to keep the romance going and the spark alive by arranging date nights - a night when they go out, just the two of them, to remind themselves that there is a relationship in there somewhere. Only on this occasion, when struggling to get into a restaurant, they take someone else's reservation. Then through mistaken identity they are taken on an adventure involving the mafia, flashdrives, bribery, security experts, bent cops and criminals.
The first thing to say is how well it starts off. The 15 - 20 minute introduction to the Carell and Fey characters and their marriage is really well handled. There's some nice comedy as they are woken up at stupid o clock in the morning by rampaging kids when all they want is a day of kip. Then for them to get home and have to rouse themselves for date night is a super human feat in itself. Part of the appeal is that the couple seem so down to earth, all of us have got home from a meal with the girlfriend and felt a bit too 'gassy' for any nookie, but a lot of the credit goes to Carell and Fay themselves. Both are instantly likeable and inherently amusing, even when working with the subtle material provided to them at the beginning of the film. It's great to watch the two of them exchanging patter about other couples while sat eating dinner. However, this connection with the two leads is quickly lost when the film descends into the madness. The script attempts to go back to the stability of the relationship a couple of times during all of the action, and they should be commended for trying to keep the heart of the film there, but the truth is it feels tacked on and gets lost in the frenetic film that it is.
So, as we get teased with the promise of a decent study of married life, only to have it snatched away and morphed into an action/buddy movie, what is the rest of it like? Passable. No more than that I'm afraid. I never really bought the whole set-up, and if you haven't got that suspension of disbelief in place then we're in trouble. One second they're drunk over dinner, the next they're breaking into buildings and getting into car chases. Despite my issues with it, I must admit that the set pieces are well put together and the studio have obviously chucked a bit of cash at the film which does show. The car chase being a good example of a comedic action scene.
I just wish that I could say the same for the comedy set pieces. More often than not they miss the spot. For example, a scene where both Carell and Fey have to perform a pole dance is an attempt at slap stick comedy but doesn't come close. It was more awkward to watch, which through The Office we know is a type of comedy in itself, but I don't think that's what the intention was though. It was all a bit of a tumbleweed moment.
Cameo appearances are lobbed in there in an attempt to keep things fresh, Mark Wahlberg is his good old deadpan self, James Franco and Mila Kunis tickle but no more than that as a criminal couple, Mark Ruffalo has one scene, which involves proper acting, through which his quality shines. We also have Ray Liotta (who says he's type cast?) as the mafia boss and William Fichtner as the DA of New York City, both hamming it up as the roles require.
So, in short, there's some good stuff there (mostly in the first 15 minutes), there's some bad stuff there, and some ok stuff thrown in for good measure. All put together though, it doesn't really have any cohesion and is probably only just good enough to pass the time for an hour and a half. If you're trying to impress a girl on a date by putting on a DVD though, this is not the one.
At it turns out, my gut instinct was spot on.
It's a nice little idea. A married couple (Steve Carell and Tina Fey), constantly exhausted and frustrated with their lives working and looking after kids, try to keep the romance going and the spark alive by arranging date nights - a night when they go out, just the two of them, to remind themselves that there is a relationship in there somewhere. Only on this occasion, when struggling to get into a restaurant, they take someone else's reservation. Then through mistaken identity they are taken on an adventure involving the mafia, flashdrives, bribery, security experts, bent cops and criminals.
The first thing to say is how well it starts off. The 15 - 20 minute introduction to the Carell and Fey characters and their marriage is really well handled. There's some nice comedy as they are woken up at stupid o clock in the morning by rampaging kids when all they want is a day of kip. Then for them to get home and have to rouse themselves for date night is a super human feat in itself. Part of the appeal is that the couple seem so down to earth, all of us have got home from a meal with the girlfriend and felt a bit too 'gassy' for any nookie, but a lot of the credit goes to Carell and Fay themselves. Both are instantly likeable and inherently amusing, even when working with the subtle material provided to them at the beginning of the film. It's great to watch the two of them exchanging patter about other couples while sat eating dinner. However, this connection with the two leads is quickly lost when the film descends into the madness. The script attempts to go back to the stability of the relationship a couple of times during all of the action, and they should be commended for trying to keep the heart of the film there, but the truth is it feels tacked on and gets lost in the frenetic film that it is.
So, as we get teased with the promise of a decent study of married life, only to have it snatched away and morphed into an action/buddy movie, what is the rest of it like? Passable. No more than that I'm afraid. I never really bought the whole set-up, and if you haven't got that suspension of disbelief in place then we're in trouble. One second they're drunk over dinner, the next they're breaking into buildings and getting into car chases. Despite my issues with it, I must admit that the set pieces are well put together and the studio have obviously chucked a bit of cash at the film which does show. The car chase being a good example of a comedic action scene.
I just wish that I could say the same for the comedy set pieces. More often than not they miss the spot. For example, a scene where both Carell and Fey have to perform a pole dance is an attempt at slap stick comedy but doesn't come close. It was more awkward to watch, which through The Office we know is a type of comedy in itself, but I don't think that's what the intention was though. It was all a bit of a tumbleweed moment.
Cameo appearances are lobbed in there in an attempt to keep things fresh, Mark Wahlberg is his good old deadpan self, James Franco and Mila Kunis tickle but no more than that as a criminal couple, Mark Ruffalo has one scene, which involves proper acting, through which his quality shines. We also have Ray Liotta (who says he's type cast?) as the mafia boss and William Fichtner as the DA of New York City, both hamming it up as the roles require.
So, in short, there's some good stuff there (mostly in the first 15 minutes), there's some bad stuff there, and some ok stuff thrown in for good measure. All put together though, it doesn't really have any cohesion and is probably only just good enough to pass the time for an hour and a half. If you're trying to impress a girl on a date by putting on a DVD though, this is not the one.
Thursday 14 April 2011
SUCKER PUNCH (2011 - 12A)
Earlier this week, you may have seen my rant about the state of trailers these days, giving everything away and holding nothing back for the trip to the flicks itself. Well here is an example of a trailer doing it's job, getting me excited about a film, despite it being guilty of all of the things that I wagged my finger at in my earlier post. When seeing the Adjustment Bureau, I was hit by the explosion that is the Sucker Punch trailer. It seemed to live up to its name, it was exactly that. A slap in the chops. I'm not saying that from that 60 second glimpse I was convinced it was going to be a classic, but it played to my b-movie, action film sensibilities. It was OTT. And then some. Guns, explosions, slow motion fights. All by women wearing very little. It seemed to have it all.
I lent over to my girlfriend and before the thoughts made their way to my lips, she interrupted me - 'That's one to see with the boys'. She was right, of course, and so I booked four tickets for me and the chaps to see Zach Snyder's latest at the Imax, because if you're going to watch that sort of mindless anarchy and mayhem, you might as well do it on the biggest screen in the country.
When it comes to Zack Snyder you know what you're going to get. You also know what you aren't going to get. When you look at his previous efforts, Dawn of the Dead remake (actually very good in my opinion), 300 (rubbish and utterly forgettable) and Watchmen (a decent stab at a very difficult adaptation, all be it incredibly shallow) you know that slow-motion, violence, costumes and showy camera techniques will all be present. You also know that character, depth, plot, dialogue and intelligence are all likely to be AWOL. So with all of that in mind, my expectations were set - I anticipated something fun, something eye-catching and something a bit thrilling, but ultimately a bit crap. A bit like a theme park ride at Butlins but without the queues.
And there is a reason why there aren't any queues. Because it's rubbish. Proper rubbish. Not in a good way, the way I expected, the way Snakes in a Place or Howard the Duck is, but in a 'good grief, how on earth did anyone fund this?' kind of way. The story (I think we can call it that) is of a young girl (Emily Browning) who is admitted to a mental hospital for an attack on her violent father. She is about to undergo a lobotomy when we are transported to a sub-conscious that we presume is in her mind. Only it is a burlesque bar. She then meets some bloke in another layer of her mind, this time what looks like Ancient China and is told that in order to gain freedom, she must enlist other inmates (Vanessa Hudgens, Abbie Cornish, Jamie Chung and Jena Malone) and find some objects. A key, a map, fire, something else, zzzzzzzzzz. For the avoidance of any doubt for the viewer, these objects are all heavily signposted just in case we are tempted to use our brains at any point. It's basically a computer game. Get your objective, get the object, on to the next level.
And the levels are like that of video games, all different from the one before, a chance for Zach to show off some other visual trick or play with another fantasy of his. A battle ensues in each one, a music track playing over the top as the slow motion carnage plays out. Each time we are transported into a different level of the lead character's mind we have to endure the same device - camera zooms in on eye, camera pans out and we're in a different place. He couldn't even think of alternative ways of doing that. Every time it happened, my heart sank as we were heading into another 20 minutes of pointless bashing packaged into a pop video.
It must be said that the idea does remind me of Inception, different layers of reality, all woven over the top of one another, but in the case of Sucker Punch, it is done with so little though, care or intelligence that it falls apart and becomes instantly disposable. It's all just an excuse for Snyder to create sequences for the sake of it, all that are totally unrelated to one another. I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't for the fact that his ideas are all completely derivative of something else. He steals tricks from Jurassic Park, a monster from My Name is Bruce, zombie Nazis, The Helghast from Killzone, the robots from I, Robot, dragons from any number of films. It's all been seen somewhere before. I know we are in an age where film makers are constantly referencing others, but come on Zach, there's referencing and then there's not having the power to think for yourself.
The action is good, solid stuff, some of it is even a bit jaw dropping, but that isn't enough to make a film I'm afraid Zach. It's all so samey, once you've seen one big fight in a weird place, you've seen them all. And then you add the fact that the bits in between are excruciatingly dull, terribly written (somehow there seems to be a screenplay attached to this) and acted by flat pack kits from Ikea, you have a something so awful, it's hard to comprehend.
It all gets very offensive at the end as it tries to tie up loose ends while at the same time keeping the viewer guessing (of course by this point I had given up caring, let along guessing). It also attempts to be philosophical about the human mind with a musing voice over that made me want to throw myself at the giant screen. Mr Snyder, please do not make this something that it is not. It's stupid, mindless, boring, plagiaristic codswallop that seems to have been put together by someone who has been lobotomised and deserves to be put in isolation forever, never to be seen again.
And Snyder's next project? The new Superman film. Only Kal-El can save us now.
I lent over to my girlfriend and before the thoughts made their way to my lips, she interrupted me - 'That's one to see with the boys'. She was right, of course, and so I booked four tickets for me and the chaps to see Zach Snyder's latest at the Imax, because if you're going to watch that sort of mindless anarchy and mayhem, you might as well do it on the biggest screen in the country.
When it comes to Zack Snyder you know what you're going to get. You also know what you aren't going to get. When you look at his previous efforts, Dawn of the Dead remake (actually very good in my opinion), 300 (rubbish and utterly forgettable) and Watchmen (a decent stab at a very difficult adaptation, all be it incredibly shallow) you know that slow-motion, violence, costumes and showy camera techniques will all be present. You also know that character, depth, plot, dialogue and intelligence are all likely to be AWOL. So with all of that in mind, my expectations were set - I anticipated something fun, something eye-catching and something a bit thrilling, but ultimately a bit crap. A bit like a theme park ride at Butlins but without the queues.
And there is a reason why there aren't any queues. Because it's rubbish. Proper rubbish. Not in a good way, the way I expected, the way Snakes in a Place or Howard the Duck is, but in a 'good grief, how on earth did anyone fund this?' kind of way. The story (I think we can call it that) is of a young girl (Emily Browning) who is admitted to a mental hospital for an attack on her violent father. She is about to undergo a lobotomy when we are transported to a sub-conscious that we presume is in her mind. Only it is a burlesque bar. She then meets some bloke in another layer of her mind, this time what looks like Ancient China and is told that in order to gain freedom, she must enlist other inmates (Vanessa Hudgens, Abbie Cornish, Jamie Chung and Jena Malone) and find some objects. A key, a map, fire, something else, zzzzzzzzzz. For the avoidance of any doubt for the viewer, these objects are all heavily signposted just in case we are tempted to use our brains at any point. It's basically a computer game. Get your objective, get the object, on to the next level.
And the levels are like that of video games, all different from the one before, a chance for Zach to show off some other visual trick or play with another fantasy of his. A battle ensues in each one, a music track playing over the top as the slow motion carnage plays out. Each time we are transported into a different level of the lead character's mind we have to endure the same device - camera zooms in on eye, camera pans out and we're in a different place. He couldn't even think of alternative ways of doing that. Every time it happened, my heart sank as we were heading into another 20 minutes of pointless bashing packaged into a pop video.
It must be said that the idea does remind me of Inception, different layers of reality, all woven over the top of one another, but in the case of Sucker Punch, it is done with so little though, care or intelligence that it falls apart and becomes instantly disposable. It's all just an excuse for Snyder to create sequences for the sake of it, all that are totally unrelated to one another. I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't for the fact that his ideas are all completely derivative of something else. He steals tricks from Jurassic Park, a monster from My Name is Bruce, zombie Nazis, The Helghast from Killzone, the robots from I, Robot, dragons from any number of films. It's all been seen somewhere before. I know we are in an age where film makers are constantly referencing others, but come on Zach, there's referencing and then there's not having the power to think for yourself.
The action is good, solid stuff, some of it is even a bit jaw dropping, but that isn't enough to make a film I'm afraid Zach. It's all so samey, once you've seen one big fight in a weird place, you've seen them all. And then you add the fact that the bits in between are excruciatingly dull, terribly written (somehow there seems to be a screenplay attached to this) and acted by flat pack kits from Ikea, you have a something so awful, it's hard to comprehend.
It all gets very offensive at the end as it tries to tie up loose ends while at the same time keeping the viewer guessing (of course by this point I had given up caring, let along guessing). It also attempts to be philosophical about the human mind with a musing voice over that made me want to throw myself at the giant screen. Mr Snyder, please do not make this something that it is not. It's stupid, mindless, boring, plagiaristic codswallop that seems to have been put together by someone who has been lobotomised and deserves to be put in isolation forever, never to be seen again.
And Snyder's next project? The new Superman film. Only Kal-El can save us now.
Wednesday 13 April 2011
HOT TUB TIME MACHINE (2010 - Cert 15)
'Ronseal - quick drying wood stain. It does exactly what it says on the tin'. And that basically sums up Hot Tub Time Machine. Like Snakes on a Plane before it, it really is a Ronseal of a movie. I've got to be honest, it is a very good title, and it's probably up there with some of the best attention grabbers in cinema history, but having seen it, I suspect it came out of the womb as a just that, a title, and perhaps the merest hint of an idea, but never really matured beyond the playpen in which in continues to sit.
The storyline, four middle aged mates, going back in time (via said hot tub) and having to relive a weekend in the 80's in their teenage bodies, clearly owes a lot to Back to the Future, but Great Scott, it lacks all of the heart, subtlety, charm and humour of the classic that we all know and love. It starts off well enough, introducing the chaps we will be spending the next 90 minutes with, all at various degrees of happiness in their 40's, then joining them on a ski trip as they try to relive their youth. One boozy night in a bubbling bath and they get exactly that but not as they expected.
It's an interesting idea - what would we do if we really had to go back to those early, care free years and live them all over again, coupled with the undoubted nostalgic humour of 80's fashion, trends and music. It's a shame then that Sean Anders and Josh Heald didn't actually take any time or care into attempting to think of any jokes, but then what might you expect from the pens that brought you Sex Drive and Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay?
As soon as they are transported back I was led to think I was on to a winner with some good visual gags (clothes and haircuts) and the characters realising that they were all a bunch of tools in their youth. There is also a collection of cameos from Chevy Chase which is a good little pro-80's touch. That glimmer of hope lasts for only about 5 minutes and we soon resort to type, sex jokes, puking, gay jibes and Chase becomes both pointless and hugely irritating. That's it. It also has the indecency to attempt to patronise the viewer with the usual time travel plot (must not change history and get to midnight) only to not bother to stick to it, and at times forget about it's existence all together. Am I meant to actually give a toss whether they deviate of not? Whats the worst that could happen? The DVD disappear into thin air?
The pity with it is that they've convinced John Cusack to be involved, along with Clark Duke and Craig Robinson, who are all funny in their own right but are only given tiny glimpses to show it. While Back to the Future had characters we instantly liked, a well structured and layered plot (that continued for two other films interwoven with one another) and an innocent, subtle yet chirpy humour throughout despite themes of sex (and even incest!), Hot Tub is like it's smutty, perverted, younger sibling - it should have learnt the lessons from it's older brother's impeccable behaviour but is too ignorant and immature to bother.
By the end of the film, the writers seem to remember that there is an audience involved in the whole cinema process and start to write some actual jokes and a romantic sub plot involving Lizzy Caplan (doing a decent job). It all comes together with a comparatively 'nice' ending with some good gags about Cold War paranoia and alternative realities. This only managed to aggravate me even more, a great title, a good idea, some chuckles to begin with, even some laughs at the end. So why all the utter tosh and tripe in the middle?
Don't be tempted by the title, it's all a waste of time, barely passable as comedy, and doesn't deserve your attention. You'd be much better served watching some wood stain drying. It doesn't even have to be quick drying.....
The storyline, four middle aged mates, going back in time (via said hot tub) and having to relive a weekend in the 80's in their teenage bodies, clearly owes a lot to Back to the Future, but Great Scott, it lacks all of the heart, subtlety, charm and humour of the classic that we all know and love. It starts off well enough, introducing the chaps we will be spending the next 90 minutes with, all at various degrees of happiness in their 40's, then joining them on a ski trip as they try to relive their youth. One boozy night in a bubbling bath and they get exactly that but not as they expected.
It's an interesting idea - what would we do if we really had to go back to those early, care free years and live them all over again, coupled with the undoubted nostalgic humour of 80's fashion, trends and music. It's a shame then that Sean Anders and Josh Heald didn't actually take any time or care into attempting to think of any jokes, but then what might you expect from the pens that brought you Sex Drive and Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay?
As soon as they are transported back I was led to think I was on to a winner with some good visual gags (clothes and haircuts) and the characters realising that they were all a bunch of tools in their youth. There is also a collection of cameos from Chevy Chase which is a good little pro-80's touch. That glimmer of hope lasts for only about 5 minutes and we soon resort to type, sex jokes, puking, gay jibes and Chase becomes both pointless and hugely irritating. That's it. It also has the indecency to attempt to patronise the viewer with the usual time travel plot (must not change history and get to midnight) only to not bother to stick to it, and at times forget about it's existence all together. Am I meant to actually give a toss whether they deviate of not? Whats the worst that could happen? The DVD disappear into thin air?
The pity with it is that they've convinced John Cusack to be involved, along with Clark Duke and Craig Robinson, who are all funny in their own right but are only given tiny glimpses to show it. While Back to the Future had characters we instantly liked, a well structured and layered plot (that continued for two other films interwoven with one another) and an innocent, subtle yet chirpy humour throughout despite themes of sex (and even incest!), Hot Tub is like it's smutty, perverted, younger sibling - it should have learnt the lessons from it's older brother's impeccable behaviour but is too ignorant and immature to bother.
By the end of the film, the writers seem to remember that there is an audience involved in the whole cinema process and start to write some actual jokes and a romantic sub plot involving Lizzy Caplan (doing a decent job). It all comes together with a comparatively 'nice' ending with some good gags about Cold War paranoia and alternative realities. This only managed to aggravate me even more, a great title, a good idea, some chuckles to begin with, even some laughs at the end. So why all the utter tosh and tripe in the middle?
Don't be tempted by the title, it's all a waste of time, barely passable as comedy, and doesn't deserve your attention. You'd be much better served watching some wood stain drying. It doesn't even have to be quick drying.....
Monday 11 April 2011
TEASE ME, TEASE ME
Not sure whether you've come across the trailer of the new Liam Neeson film, Unknown, but it really is a thing to behold. It gives you the entire plot in about 60 seconds. It's remarkable. The most amazing thing is that it's a film that obviously fancies itself as a bit if a mysterious thriller, look at the name. Yet in the trailer we get introduced to Neeson's character, see him head to Berlin, get involved in a car crash, wake up, can't find his wife, manages to find her, she doesn't recognise him, then someone else claims to be him, Neeson doesn't exist, speak to a German copper, see a few car chases and it builds to a thrilling climax. The only thing we don't see is the final denouement. It's not so much a trailer, more a micro film.
It got me thinking back to how trailers once were. Do you remember the teaser trailer? The one that springs to mind immediately is Jurassic Park. You see a miner digging, coming across amber and then you get the Jurassic Park title screen. No dinosaurs, no actors, nothing. It was so effective though. We all knew it was about dinosaurs, we knew it was Spielberg, but that was enough. It was an event, and showing us any of it would have distilled it. The teaser trailer heightens the anticipation.
What has happened to the teaser trailer? It's a rare, rare breed now. We are now treated to 30 seconds of the best bits of the film, quickly cut together, with the music getting louder as it reaches its conclusion. Imagine if the Jurassic Park trailer showed the moment we first see the brachiosaurus, or T-Rex demolishing a car. Would those scenes have been as memorable had we seen them on the telly the day before? No, of course not. Would The Usual Suspects have packed the she same punch had we seen a trailer showing Kevin Spacey go from cripple to healthy as he walks down the street, or Bruce Willis coming to terms with reality in the Sixth Sense. No, of course not. Its the same as Sky Sports doing an advert for a pre-recorded match and showing all the goals and the result. You just wouldn't bother tuning in.
There have been some interesting uses of teaser trailers in recent years as film studios tries to adapt to the many different forms of marketing that now exist. Cloverfield was a great example, the trailer giving nothing away whatsoever, not even a name, just a date. Then fake websites are created where people use the internet to try to hunt down any information that they can.
J J Abrahms was at it again with his Star Trek reboot, the first trailer just showing the Starship Enterprise in construction, just enough to get people excited about it. The fan boys (and girls) know exactly what it is, it's referencing, it's nodding, it's not treating the audience like fools. Designed solely to get us chomping the bit.
These types of trailer seem to occur before a film has gone into production, where there is no actual footage to show off. They need to announce it on to the scene. Tron did something similar, releasing a trailer just to gauge the reaction of audiences to see whether it was worth following through with the idea. The ultimate teaser trailer, so effective it is justification for creating the film. The closer a film comes to release though, the more we see of it, to the point where we now have these incredibly irritating tv spots where you get a lengthy trailer and then supposed members of the general public saying how great it is. They clearly haven't been dragged off the street (why all the make up), it only serves to insult the intelligence of the UK cinema goer even further.
The fault clearly lays at the door of the marketing people. I have heard many interviews with film makers where they voice their dissatisfaction at the trailers that are promoting their film. The most recent example was Simon Pegg and Nick Frost talking about their film Paul, they were resigned to the fact that the trailer took just the most broad jokes on offer and decided to show nothing of the interesting religion/atheism subtext. The marketing people think they know best, and in all honesty they may do, Paul was after all a massive success, but a number of people I know, who are all Pegg/Frost fans, were put off the film because of the trailer. Surely that can't be a good thing, turning fans against a film.
Another good recent example is Monsters. The trailer for that made it look like a non-stop action epic, where the reality was that it was a low-key love story set against the backdrop of an alien invasion. The creatures themselves were incidental. Instead, the marketing men decided to make it seem to be something that it wasn't. This might get a certain type of demographical bum on the seats but those people who do attend based on that 30 second trailer are inevitably disappointed, not because of the film itself, but because it isn't what it was sold to them as. If a studio believes in a film as much to back it, go to all the trouble of distributing it, you might think they would have the confidence in its premise to market it on that basis. Monsters has become a massive hit, not because of a team of execs, but because it is an original, striking and great film.
Essentially all I'm saying is that studios have become lazy. There is no sense of creating anticipation anymore, it's all exposure, exposure, exposure. Leaked clips, released stills, lengthy trailers showing the crash, bang and the wallop. Whatever happened to the Blair Witch approach? That was a phenomenon, was it real, wasn't it. No one knew. A supporting documentary created to add to the mystic, A film made for next to nothing turned into one of the most profitable films of all time. Its no coincidence. Get creative. They know how to do it, they are capable. At the end of Iron Man 2 is what might as well be a teaser trailer for Thor. A big hole in the ground, then you see Thor's hammer. Simple. And totally effective. I was excited about seeing it. Now they release a trailer showing the baddies, the effects and Thor in his gear, I'm completely nonplussed.
Cinema goers are just like any red-blooded human. We want a bit of foreplay....build up to the main event and don't leak it until we really, really want it. It's best to leave us wanting more.....
It got me thinking back to how trailers once were. Do you remember the teaser trailer? The one that springs to mind immediately is Jurassic Park. You see a miner digging, coming across amber and then you get the Jurassic Park title screen. No dinosaurs, no actors, nothing. It was so effective though. We all knew it was about dinosaurs, we knew it was Spielberg, but that was enough. It was an event, and showing us any of it would have distilled it. The teaser trailer heightens the anticipation.
What has happened to the teaser trailer? It's a rare, rare breed now. We are now treated to 30 seconds of the best bits of the film, quickly cut together, with the music getting louder as it reaches its conclusion. Imagine if the Jurassic Park trailer showed the moment we first see the brachiosaurus, or T-Rex demolishing a car. Would those scenes have been as memorable had we seen them on the telly the day before? No, of course not. Would The Usual Suspects have packed the she same punch had we seen a trailer showing Kevin Spacey go from cripple to healthy as he walks down the street, or Bruce Willis coming to terms with reality in the Sixth Sense. No, of course not. Its the same as Sky Sports doing an advert for a pre-recorded match and showing all the goals and the result. You just wouldn't bother tuning in.
There have been some interesting uses of teaser trailers in recent years as film studios tries to adapt to the many different forms of marketing that now exist. Cloverfield was a great example, the trailer giving nothing away whatsoever, not even a name, just a date. Then fake websites are created where people use the internet to try to hunt down any information that they can.
J J Abrahms was at it again with his Star Trek reboot, the first trailer just showing the Starship Enterprise in construction, just enough to get people excited about it. The fan boys (and girls) know exactly what it is, it's referencing, it's nodding, it's not treating the audience like fools. Designed solely to get us chomping the bit.
These types of trailer seem to occur before a film has gone into production, where there is no actual footage to show off. They need to announce it on to the scene. Tron did something similar, releasing a trailer just to gauge the reaction of audiences to see whether it was worth following through with the idea. The ultimate teaser trailer, so effective it is justification for creating the film. The closer a film comes to release though, the more we see of it, to the point where we now have these incredibly irritating tv spots where you get a lengthy trailer and then supposed members of the general public saying how great it is. They clearly haven't been dragged off the street (why all the make up), it only serves to insult the intelligence of the UK cinema goer even further.
The fault clearly lays at the door of the marketing people. I have heard many interviews with film makers where they voice their dissatisfaction at the trailers that are promoting their film. The most recent example was Simon Pegg and Nick Frost talking about their film Paul, they were resigned to the fact that the trailer took just the most broad jokes on offer and decided to show nothing of the interesting religion/atheism subtext. The marketing people think they know best, and in all honesty they may do, Paul was after all a massive success, but a number of people I know, who are all Pegg/Frost fans, were put off the film because of the trailer. Surely that can't be a good thing, turning fans against a film.
Another good recent example is Monsters. The trailer for that made it look like a non-stop action epic, where the reality was that it was a low-key love story set against the backdrop of an alien invasion. The creatures themselves were incidental. Instead, the marketing men decided to make it seem to be something that it wasn't. This might get a certain type of demographical bum on the seats but those people who do attend based on that 30 second trailer are inevitably disappointed, not because of the film itself, but because it isn't what it was sold to them as. If a studio believes in a film as much to back it, go to all the trouble of distributing it, you might think they would have the confidence in its premise to market it on that basis. Monsters has become a massive hit, not because of a team of execs, but because it is an original, striking and great film.
Essentially all I'm saying is that studios have become lazy. There is no sense of creating anticipation anymore, it's all exposure, exposure, exposure. Leaked clips, released stills, lengthy trailers showing the crash, bang and the wallop. Whatever happened to the Blair Witch approach? That was a phenomenon, was it real, wasn't it. No one knew. A supporting documentary created to add to the mystic, A film made for next to nothing turned into one of the most profitable films of all time. Its no coincidence. Get creative. They know how to do it, they are capable. At the end of Iron Man 2 is what might as well be a teaser trailer for Thor. A big hole in the ground, then you see Thor's hammer. Simple. And totally effective. I was excited about seeing it. Now they release a trailer showing the baddies, the effects and Thor in his gear, I'm completely nonplussed.
Cinema goers are just like any red-blooded human. We want a bit of foreplay....build up to the main event and don't leak it until we really, really want it. It's best to leave us wanting more.....
Saturday 9 April 2011
BAD LIEUTENTANT: PORT OF CALL - NEW ORLEANS (2009 - Cert 18)
Nicholas Cage. Is there anyone more frustrating? He has been in the business for a quarter of a century now, you would expect to see a back catalogue of stand out performances and classic films. However, since his Oscar winning turn in Leaving Las Vegas all the way back in 1995, he has struggled to make a mark. Granted, he followed that film with The Rock, Con Air and Face/Off, all now seen as action movie classics, but since those he has been inconsistent at best. There have been flashes of brave choices and good performances, but for every Adaptation and Bringing Out The Dead, there is a Snake Eyes, Ghost Rider and a Wicker Man. Recently however, there have been signs that he's on his way back. Knowing was a perfectly good sci-fi movie that had the confidence and decency to follow its good ideas through to a dark conclusion. In Kick-Ass Cage's brilliant Adam West-a-like Big Daddy was a joy to watch and his relationship with Hit Girl was my most unexpected tear-jerker of 2010. Before that film though he starred in a 'remake' of the Harvey Keitel film Bad Lieutenant. A 'remake' directed by eccentric German Werner Herzog. Now that is not a combination I think anyone could have predicted.
I put the word remake in inverted commas because it's not really a remake at all. More a re-imagining, an adaptation, or perhaps even the buzz word in Hollywood at the moment - a Reboot. Location has been shifted from New York to New Orleans in a time shortly after the destruction wreaked by Hurricane Katrina. The detective in question is no longer trying to solve the crime of a nun being raped, it is the murder if a Senegalese family of immigrants instead.
This change really is a masterstroke. We've all seen cop thrillers in New York, in fact it's become the default setting for a lot of movies that ask the question - How far should the police go? And we all now how New York looks, by day and night. No surprises. Ever. Instead here Werner Herzog gives us a hot, sweaty, humid feel, a city a lot of us aren't familiar with and a city recovering from a terrible disaster. By setting it shortly after the Hurricane there is a poverty and a desperation in a lot of the supporting characters, much in the same way actually that New York was presented in cinema when it hit the depths towards the end of the last century. Crime is a big part of the city, on both sides of the law. In short, the setting is a character in itself, affecting the human characters throughout and adding a depth that has not been seen in cop dramas for a long while.
New Orleans isn't the main character though, it's the titular lieutenant, Terence McDonagh, played by Nicholas Cage, and he really is the centre of the piece. Although he does have to solve a crime, the detective work and being a proper policeman is very much secondary to how the character develops through the course of the film. This is a character piece. A back injury sustained in the line of duty leaves McDonagh a slightly broken man. It's a nice addition to the character as it offers a deformity that may have been the catalyst for his descent. Back injury and slightly hunched walk is very much the tip of the character iceberg though, this role is perfectly suited to Cage's med horse face, the eccentric and manic delivery of the lines is brilliant. You feel that he is constantly on the edge, desperate, addicted to drugs and alcohol, one moment he is down in the doldrums, the next he is coked up to the nines and being abusive, he is violent, perverted. He is a nasty piece of work but yet we still feel sympathy towards him, which is where the skill really does shine through in Cage's performance. He can act a bit nutty, manic laughs, saggy stares, he has done all of that before, but to take a character that is so vile and still make him a hero, all be it an anti-hero, is very impressive.
He is supported by some good names as well with varying success, Eva Mendes is his girlfriend/prostitute and does fairly well with what isn't as interesting a role as it should be. She still elicits the viewers empathy despite not being a very likeable character. Val Kilmer is a colleague of McDonagh's, also bent and on the take. He looks nothing like the lithe heart throb that was once Batman, tubby and rough, he is always interesting when on screen and makes Cage's character somehow look like PC Plod. Xzibit turns up as a gang leader and is exactly what you expect, playing himself but without any emotion of range, just monotone saying 'man' at the end of every sentence. Disappointing casting on that part.
The other star of the show is Herzog. More well known for his documentary films (and being shot in the stomach while with Mark Kermode) he mischievously has some fun with the fact that McDonagh is high for the majority of the film. Although he is violent, vile and addicted to everything you can think of, he isn't like Harvey Keitel's version. There is a comedic tone to a lot of the scenes of violence and drug taking, you genuinely don't know whether to laugh or be shocked, and my reaction did veer between the two constantly. The tonal shift could easily have seemed annoying and clunky but somehow it worked, perhaps it's Cage, it might be Herzog's skill, probably a combination of the two but it does work. Herzog's alligator and iguana-eye views of certain films are typically madcap and again just slot in.
Another thing worth noting is the ending. I'm not a fan of closure in films, I like to be able to take something for myself, but here was an ending that tied everything up but in such a way that I'm still not sure whether it actually happened or it was all in McDonagh's head. A fitting way to round off an odd, interesting and mad film that is well worth checking out.
I put the word remake in inverted commas because it's not really a remake at all. More a re-imagining, an adaptation, or perhaps even the buzz word in Hollywood at the moment - a Reboot. Location has been shifted from New York to New Orleans in a time shortly after the destruction wreaked by Hurricane Katrina. The detective in question is no longer trying to solve the crime of a nun being raped, it is the murder if a Senegalese family of immigrants instead.
This change really is a masterstroke. We've all seen cop thrillers in New York, in fact it's become the default setting for a lot of movies that ask the question - How far should the police go? And we all now how New York looks, by day and night. No surprises. Ever. Instead here Werner Herzog gives us a hot, sweaty, humid feel, a city a lot of us aren't familiar with and a city recovering from a terrible disaster. By setting it shortly after the Hurricane there is a poverty and a desperation in a lot of the supporting characters, much in the same way actually that New York was presented in cinema when it hit the depths towards the end of the last century. Crime is a big part of the city, on both sides of the law. In short, the setting is a character in itself, affecting the human characters throughout and adding a depth that has not been seen in cop dramas for a long while.
New Orleans isn't the main character though, it's the titular lieutenant, Terence McDonagh, played by Nicholas Cage, and he really is the centre of the piece. Although he does have to solve a crime, the detective work and being a proper policeman is very much secondary to how the character develops through the course of the film. This is a character piece. A back injury sustained in the line of duty leaves McDonagh a slightly broken man. It's a nice addition to the character as it offers a deformity that may have been the catalyst for his descent. Back injury and slightly hunched walk is very much the tip of the character iceberg though, this role is perfectly suited to Cage's med horse face, the eccentric and manic delivery of the lines is brilliant. You feel that he is constantly on the edge, desperate, addicted to drugs and alcohol, one moment he is down in the doldrums, the next he is coked up to the nines and being abusive, he is violent, perverted. He is a nasty piece of work but yet we still feel sympathy towards him, which is where the skill really does shine through in Cage's performance. He can act a bit nutty, manic laughs, saggy stares, he has done all of that before, but to take a character that is so vile and still make him a hero, all be it an anti-hero, is very impressive.
He is supported by some good names as well with varying success, Eva Mendes is his girlfriend/prostitute and does fairly well with what isn't as interesting a role as it should be. She still elicits the viewers empathy despite not being a very likeable character. Val Kilmer is a colleague of McDonagh's, also bent and on the take. He looks nothing like the lithe heart throb that was once Batman, tubby and rough, he is always interesting when on screen and makes Cage's character somehow look like PC Plod. Xzibit turns up as a gang leader and is exactly what you expect, playing himself but without any emotion of range, just monotone saying 'man' at the end of every sentence. Disappointing casting on that part.
The other star of the show is Herzog. More well known for his documentary films (and being shot in the stomach while with Mark Kermode) he mischievously has some fun with the fact that McDonagh is high for the majority of the film. Although he is violent, vile and addicted to everything you can think of, he isn't like Harvey Keitel's version. There is a comedic tone to a lot of the scenes of violence and drug taking, you genuinely don't know whether to laugh or be shocked, and my reaction did veer between the two constantly. The tonal shift could easily have seemed annoying and clunky but somehow it worked, perhaps it's Cage, it might be Herzog's skill, probably a combination of the two but it does work. Herzog's alligator and iguana-eye views of certain films are typically madcap and again just slot in.
Another thing worth noting is the ending. I'm not a fan of closure in films, I like to be able to take something for myself, but here was an ending that tied everything up but in such a way that I'm still not sure whether it actually happened or it was all in McDonagh's head. A fitting way to round off an odd, interesting and mad film that is well worth checking out.
Tuesday 5 April 2011
MONSTER SQUAD (1987 - Cert 15)
I don't know about anyone else, but when I was growing up, if I found a film that I enjoyed, I would watch it over, and over, and over again. Mum had to go down to Universal Video 4 or 5 times a week to keep giving me my fix. The poor woman had to put up with me watching Big Trouble in Little China until I knew every last word of by heart. After I had finally grown bored of Kurt Russell and Kim Catrall I found Monster Squad.
Essentially the result of Fred Dekker watching The Goonies, ET, Ghostbusters, The Burbs and The Explorers, how could it not be perfect for an 8 year old to watch after school (other than it being a 15 certificate of course - naughty mum and dad)? The Wolfman, The Gill Man, The Mummy and Frankenstein all brought together by Dracula, still alive and hell bent on destroying man kind. What is the only thing that stands in their way? A group of school kids who have a Monster Club where they read comics and talk about the best (and only) way to kill a Werewolf. The call to arms means they soon upgrade themselves to a Squad and so the scene is set.
And that is it really. The child actors (Andre Gower and Robby Kiger) aren't annoying which is the best you can hope for with this sort of film, in fact I do recall wanting desperately to be as cool as Rudy, played by Ryan Lambert, with his leather jacket, cigarettes and white socks with black loafers. In what was a career high for them all, they even manage to inject a bit of humour and charm. The monsters themselves look the part but aren't particularly scary or threatening, no werewolf transformation scene or fangs in necks. The most interesting part of the film is Frankenstein. Dekker manages to evoke, all be it in a very simple and child friendly way, one of the main themes of the story of Frankenstein and that is whether he really is actually bad or not. It's a nice touch and innocently done which really does help the film get the 'nice' spirit it has. I mentioned a whole host of films above that Dekker was clearly thinking of, but credit where credit is due, he manages to echo their tone and intentions. It's nice and fun, even fluffy in places despite a 15 certificate (although I suspect that if it were released today the BBFC might be a little more lenient, despite it having almost no violence or deaths whatsoever), it isn't perfect but it's not bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not awful. The silly plot (although can you really say The Goonies isn't a bit daft) plays out as you would expect (never explaining why Dracula goes for a tiny town in the middle of nowhere), a few laughs, monsters getting dispatched in a variety of ways, all the heroes having their moment, all culminating in a happily ever after.
Granted, it doesn't compare to the big ones it tries to emulate, but it should certainly be held in decent regard in the tier below those 80's classics.
Fun. Ish.
Essentially the result of Fred Dekker watching The Goonies, ET, Ghostbusters, The Burbs and The Explorers, how could it not be perfect for an 8 year old to watch after school (other than it being a 15 certificate of course - naughty mum and dad)? The Wolfman, The Gill Man, The Mummy and Frankenstein all brought together by Dracula, still alive and hell bent on destroying man kind. What is the only thing that stands in their way? A group of school kids who have a Monster Club where they read comics and talk about the best (and only) way to kill a Werewolf. The call to arms means they soon upgrade themselves to a Squad and so the scene is set.
And that is it really. The child actors (Andre Gower and Robby Kiger) aren't annoying which is the best you can hope for with this sort of film, in fact I do recall wanting desperately to be as cool as Rudy, played by Ryan Lambert, with his leather jacket, cigarettes and white socks with black loafers. In what was a career high for them all, they even manage to inject a bit of humour and charm. The monsters themselves look the part but aren't particularly scary or threatening, no werewolf transformation scene or fangs in necks. The most interesting part of the film is Frankenstein. Dekker manages to evoke, all be it in a very simple and child friendly way, one of the main themes of the story of Frankenstein and that is whether he really is actually bad or not. It's a nice touch and innocently done which really does help the film get the 'nice' spirit it has. I mentioned a whole host of films above that Dekker was clearly thinking of, but credit where credit is due, he manages to echo their tone and intentions. It's nice and fun, even fluffy in places despite a 15 certificate (although I suspect that if it were released today the BBFC might be a little more lenient, despite it having almost no violence or deaths whatsoever), it isn't perfect but it's not bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not awful. The silly plot (although can you really say The Goonies isn't a bit daft) plays out as you would expect (never explaining why Dracula goes for a tiny town in the middle of nowhere), a few laughs, monsters getting dispatched in a variety of ways, all the heroes having their moment, all culminating in a happily ever after.
Granted, it doesn't compare to the big ones it tries to emulate, but it should certainly be held in decent regard in the tier below those 80's classics.
Fun. Ish.
Saturday 2 April 2011
SURROGATES (2009 - Cert 12a)
We all love robots. We especially love real robots. Everyone loves to watch footage of those Japanese Tech Expos where the latest and greatest in artificial intelligence is revealed, which ultimately turns out to be something that resembles a pedal bin that can only really polish your shoes or warn you when it's about to walk (rolL or waddle) into something. We love watching those things because essentially they are a bit shit and that is inherently funny. They are a bit shit of course when compared to the offerings that films, TV and comic books have been giving us over the years. They even make Johnny 5 look a bit tasty.
Cinema has been obsessed with the robot, or android or cyborg, whatever you want to call it, for years. Think back to iconic films such as Star Wars, Blade Runner, The Terminator, AI, Robocop, Metropolis, Westworld, Alien, Aliens, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, all films that are either about or feature robots. Recent years haven't done anything to stem the tide of the onslaught either, so what is it with robots? Why are film makers and cinema goers so keen on them? Well with the exception of the frankly stupid Transformers films, robots are the perfect device to explore what it means to be human. As people strive to create machines that can do all that we can, what is that we possess that they never will. It's a compelling theme and one that continues to be revisited, with varying levels of success.
Surrogates is one the latest films to have a crack at it. Directed by Jonathan Mostow, who has brought us U-571, Terminator 3 and Breakdown (all solid and dependable films), it's set at some point in the near future where Surrogates have been invented to lead our everyday lives. A surrogate is essentially a remarkably human-like, idealistic (a more beautiful and younger version) remote control robot. The humans sit at home, not getting dressed or washed, in a matrix-like chair set-up, controlling their unit with their thoughts. The main selling point is that it is safer for humans as they will not encounter violence or disease as it is their surrogates that have to face the elements. That is until a weapon is found that kills both the surrogate and the owner at the same time.
That's where Bruce Willis steps in as a detective who is assigned to the case, along with his partner played by Radha Mitchell. They are of course playing their Surrogates, who are creepy and expressionless, very Stepford Wives looking. Willis looks particularly odd with hair, in fact my girlfriend who was dipping in and out of the film, said at one point 'Ah it's an old Bruce Willis film'. He clearly enjoys himself, playing this weird version of himself with a blond Hitler haircut. He is his usual watchable self. During the first part of the film it very much resembles a standard detective thriller/film noir. The monotone surrogates adding to the downbeat tone already created by the slow score over the top of the action. It's a decent and mysterious opening to the film and I must admit that it exceeded what I was expecting.
Then Willis loses his surrogate and has to head out in to the big wide world on his own. It's an interesting idea, a human thrust into a now alien world full of robots. That's it really though, thats as far as it gets. An idea. Nothing is made of him stepping out of his comfort zone and back outdoors. It's a shame because I imagine that there should be a lot of material and mileage in that. It's just an older version of the Willis before but grumbling a bit more and aching.
The film itself loses it's way as well. The plot tries to twist and turn to keep up the film noir vibe, but struggles despite some nice espionage/disguise touches. The supporting cast including Ving Rhames and Rosamund Pike (who I didn't recognise at all) have a go at keeping it interesting with sub plot attempts at making the film worthwhile sci-fi which ultimately fail, not through any fault of their own, but more because the strands of story are overly contrived and totally signposted. Ideas we've seen before but done much better and much more subtly.
The final sequence has the surrogates acting like super-heroes, bouncing around with ridiculous strength, only making me wonder why they were just strolling around the streets if they were able to leap 30 feet in the air. All a bit silly. Then there is a plot point at the very end that feels tacked on just to give the film an ending that is supposed to make us think. It's shoe-horned in with an incredibly poor piece of shoddy exposition. One of those moments where you really are in shock, how did someone get paid for that?
It's all perfectly watchable but totally unremarkable, not remotely memorable and unoriginal (it more than whiffs of I, Robot). It's 90 minutes that do whizz by, but you can't help feel that that time could have been better spent, perhaps by watching any of the films I mentioned a few paragraphs ago. Or by watching a Japanese robot walking into cupboard doors.
Cinema has been obsessed with the robot, or android or cyborg, whatever you want to call it, for years. Think back to iconic films such as Star Wars, Blade Runner, The Terminator, AI, Robocop, Metropolis, Westworld, Alien, Aliens, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, all films that are either about or feature robots. Recent years haven't done anything to stem the tide of the onslaught either, so what is it with robots? Why are film makers and cinema goers so keen on them? Well with the exception of the frankly stupid Transformers films, robots are the perfect device to explore what it means to be human. As people strive to create machines that can do all that we can, what is that we possess that they never will. It's a compelling theme and one that continues to be revisited, with varying levels of success.
Surrogates is one the latest films to have a crack at it. Directed by Jonathan Mostow, who has brought us U-571, Terminator 3 and Breakdown (all solid and dependable films), it's set at some point in the near future where Surrogates have been invented to lead our everyday lives. A surrogate is essentially a remarkably human-like, idealistic (a more beautiful and younger version) remote control robot. The humans sit at home, not getting dressed or washed, in a matrix-like chair set-up, controlling their unit with their thoughts. The main selling point is that it is safer for humans as they will not encounter violence or disease as it is their surrogates that have to face the elements. That is until a weapon is found that kills both the surrogate and the owner at the same time.
That's where Bruce Willis steps in as a detective who is assigned to the case, along with his partner played by Radha Mitchell. They are of course playing their Surrogates, who are creepy and expressionless, very Stepford Wives looking. Willis looks particularly odd with hair, in fact my girlfriend who was dipping in and out of the film, said at one point 'Ah it's an old Bruce Willis film'. He clearly enjoys himself, playing this weird version of himself with a blond Hitler haircut. He is his usual watchable self. During the first part of the film it very much resembles a standard detective thriller/film noir. The monotone surrogates adding to the downbeat tone already created by the slow score over the top of the action. It's a decent and mysterious opening to the film and I must admit that it exceeded what I was expecting.
Then Willis loses his surrogate and has to head out in to the big wide world on his own. It's an interesting idea, a human thrust into a now alien world full of robots. That's it really though, thats as far as it gets. An idea. Nothing is made of him stepping out of his comfort zone and back outdoors. It's a shame because I imagine that there should be a lot of material and mileage in that. It's just an older version of the Willis before but grumbling a bit more and aching.
The film itself loses it's way as well. The plot tries to twist and turn to keep up the film noir vibe, but struggles despite some nice espionage/disguise touches. The supporting cast including Ving Rhames and Rosamund Pike (who I didn't recognise at all) have a go at keeping it interesting with sub plot attempts at making the film worthwhile sci-fi which ultimately fail, not through any fault of their own, but more because the strands of story are overly contrived and totally signposted. Ideas we've seen before but done much better and much more subtly.
The final sequence has the surrogates acting like super-heroes, bouncing around with ridiculous strength, only making me wonder why they were just strolling around the streets if they were able to leap 30 feet in the air. All a bit silly. Then there is a plot point at the very end that feels tacked on just to give the film an ending that is supposed to make us think. It's shoe-horned in with an incredibly poor piece of shoddy exposition. One of those moments where you really are in shock, how did someone get paid for that?
It's all perfectly watchable but totally unremarkable, not remotely memorable and unoriginal (it more than whiffs of I, Robot). It's 90 minutes that do whizz by, but you can't help feel that that time could have been better spent, perhaps by watching any of the films I mentioned a few paragraphs ago. Or by watching a Japanese robot walking into cupboard doors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)