Have a look at this review that I've done for www.film-news.co.uk
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Not-Like-Others&nItemID=221
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Saturday, 11 December 2010
MONSTERS (2010)
There has been a lot of hype about this film. Since I first heard about it, I've heard people calling it a monster film for girls, or a love story for boys. A thinking man's (or woman for that matter) B-movie. It's also been heralded as the beginning of the future of film making. Gareth Edwards, award-winning special effects man, made this film with 4 people, a relatively cheap camera and a laptop. It is reported to have cost just 500,000 quid to make. As a self-confessed monster film nut, I wasn't going to wait for this one to come out on DVD. Tickets at the lovely Soho Curzon booked.
6 years ago, a space probe crashed back down on to Earth in Mexico, bringing some unwanted visitors with it. These aliens, giant tentacled beasts that look a lot like an octopus, make Mexico their home. The American and Mexican military attempt, but fail, to kill them and have to resign themselves to set up the 'Infected Zone'. A huge chunk across the whole of the continent that has been surrendered. America is protected by a huge wall, the Mexicans have a barbed wire fence. This isn't a spoiler, this is all dealt with before the credits have even rolled (it's even in the trailer) and sets the scene for a very different monster film. Gareth Edwards himself said 'If Cloverfield is Iraq, Monsters is Afghanistan'. The world has come to terms with their existence and is just getting on with life as best as they can with them in the background.
The film centres on two people though, Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and Samantha (Whitney Able). Andrew is a professional photographer on the road, tasked with getting pictures of the devastation caused by the creatures. Andrew's boss orders him to get his daughter, Samantha, safely back to the US of A after she is caught up in an attack by the creatures.
I have included the trailer to this film above, but I think that it is important to say that the trailer isn't a good representation of the actual film. There is very little in the way of action set pieces, so if you are going solely because you like the look of the trailer, you will be in for a surprise. But what a pleasant and thought-provoking surprise.
What follows is a trek across the infected zone where Andrew and Samantha are exposed to the Monsters themselves, but also, more importantly, how the Infected Zone has affected the people of Mexico and the plight of those still living in the zone. Poverty, corruption, disease. This journey means that the film feels more like a study of a war-torn country, destroyed by years of conflict. With the quote mentioned above by Gareth Edwards, it is clear that this idea is the basis for this whole film and is a statement about military intervention.
What he also does admirably well is depict a world that is used to and grown tired of the situation. A great scene involves the two leads turning on the news in a motel room, seeing footage of the creatures under fire from the military. This would be a huge set-piece in most films of this type, but here the characters make small talk as the carnage goes on behind them. They've seen it all before. The viewer also gets to see the creatures straight away. The opening scene puts them right there in front of you. No big reveal at the end like Jaws and Cloverfield. They are just there. These creatures are here and have been for a while. Whats the big deal?
There are some lovely visual touches, all done by Edwards on his lap top. Infected Zone signs are a constant reminder of what is happening. A fighter jet floating along a river, a tanker on top of a mountain, both left to rot. This is a desperate part of the world that has given up.
At the centre of all of this though is a relationship. At the beginning of the film, they share little conversation, but as the film progresses and they near their destination, the experiences inevitably pull them closer together in scenes touchingly played by two unknown actors. It's all very believable though, it never feels as though Edwards is forcing these two together just to progress the story, it feels natural and is never overplayed. It is done so subtly that you don't really know it's happening. It's fantastically handled.
The creatures themselves look fantastic, I need to get my hands on whatever laptop Edwards has been using. The action when it happens is unnerving and jumpy, just as you would expect. It's the final sight of them in the film that deserve the most attention though. Edwards has created one of the most visually beautiful and moving scenes that I can remember seeing in any science-fiction film, swiftly followed by a brilliant human moment that is a lovely finish to the film and is still firmly implanted at the forefront of my memory.
So what we have here, is part war film, part monster movie, part road trip and part love story. There is no other way to explain it I'm afraid. It is not a 'jack of all trades, master of none' situation either. It ticks all the boxes, in all the categories, to the point of excellence.
It also makes you think, in the film the creatures are never called monsters, they never attack unless attacked first. Who are the monsters of the title then.....?
See it.
6 years ago, a space probe crashed back down on to Earth in Mexico, bringing some unwanted visitors with it. These aliens, giant tentacled beasts that look a lot like an octopus, make Mexico their home. The American and Mexican military attempt, but fail, to kill them and have to resign themselves to set up the 'Infected Zone'. A huge chunk across the whole of the continent that has been surrendered. America is protected by a huge wall, the Mexicans have a barbed wire fence. This isn't a spoiler, this is all dealt with before the credits have even rolled (it's even in the trailer) and sets the scene for a very different monster film. Gareth Edwards himself said 'If Cloverfield is Iraq, Monsters is Afghanistan'. The world has come to terms with their existence and is just getting on with life as best as they can with them in the background.
The film centres on two people though, Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and Samantha (Whitney Able). Andrew is a professional photographer on the road, tasked with getting pictures of the devastation caused by the creatures. Andrew's boss orders him to get his daughter, Samantha, safely back to the US of A after she is caught up in an attack by the creatures.
I have included the trailer to this film above, but I think that it is important to say that the trailer isn't a good representation of the actual film. There is very little in the way of action set pieces, so if you are going solely because you like the look of the trailer, you will be in for a surprise. But what a pleasant and thought-provoking surprise.
What follows is a trek across the infected zone where Andrew and Samantha are exposed to the Monsters themselves, but also, more importantly, how the Infected Zone has affected the people of Mexico and the plight of those still living in the zone. Poverty, corruption, disease. This journey means that the film feels more like a study of a war-torn country, destroyed by years of conflict. With the quote mentioned above by Gareth Edwards, it is clear that this idea is the basis for this whole film and is a statement about military intervention.
What he also does admirably well is depict a world that is used to and grown tired of the situation. A great scene involves the two leads turning on the news in a motel room, seeing footage of the creatures under fire from the military. This would be a huge set-piece in most films of this type, but here the characters make small talk as the carnage goes on behind them. They've seen it all before. The viewer also gets to see the creatures straight away. The opening scene puts them right there in front of you. No big reveal at the end like Jaws and Cloverfield. They are just there. These creatures are here and have been for a while. Whats the big deal?
There are some lovely visual touches, all done by Edwards on his lap top. Infected Zone signs are a constant reminder of what is happening. A fighter jet floating along a river, a tanker on top of a mountain, both left to rot. This is a desperate part of the world that has given up.
At the centre of all of this though is a relationship. At the beginning of the film, they share little conversation, but as the film progresses and they near their destination, the experiences inevitably pull them closer together in scenes touchingly played by two unknown actors. It's all very believable though, it never feels as though Edwards is forcing these two together just to progress the story, it feels natural and is never overplayed. It is done so subtly that you don't really know it's happening. It's fantastically handled.
The creatures themselves look fantastic, I need to get my hands on whatever laptop Edwards has been using. The action when it happens is unnerving and jumpy, just as you would expect. It's the final sight of them in the film that deserve the most attention though. Edwards has created one of the most visually beautiful and moving scenes that I can remember seeing in any science-fiction film, swiftly followed by a brilliant human moment that is a lovely finish to the film and is still firmly implanted at the forefront of my memory.
So what we have here, is part war film, part monster movie, part road trip and part love story. There is no other way to explain it I'm afraid. It is not a 'jack of all trades, master of none' situation either. It ticks all the boxes, in all the categories, to the point of excellence.
It also makes you think, in the film the creatures are never called monsters, they never attack unless attacked first. Who are the monsters of the title then.....?
See it.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
FOUR CHRISTMASES (2008)
Right, so it's Sunday evening. I've been away for the weekend to Bury St Edmunds. Done some Christmas shopping. Feel a bit groggy from the night before. Get back to the sofa, use my two pizzas for 10 quid voucher at Pizza Express. What next? Well, the girlfriend fancies something 'Christmassy'. She doesn't fancy Black Christmas, I don't really want to go down the Miracle on 34th Street route. That leaves the movie channels, which leaves us at a crossroads. Home Alone 2 or Four Christmases? One I have seen, the other I have not. One I have fond memories of from growing up, the other I have only heard bad things. Classic family comedy v ropey romantic comedy.
Perhaps it was the hangover. It may have been my hurt at being let down by the recent re-watching of National Lampoon's vacation. It may have even been sub-conscious pressure from the better half. Or a narcissistic desire to review something I don't think I will like. Whatever it was, I chose Four Christmases as we tucked into a Sloppy Guiseppe and a Pollo Ad Astra.
Vince Vaughn (new rom-com regular) and Reese Witherspoon play a couple, a couple who are happy as they are. They don't fancy marriage, they don't fancy kids. They are a 21st century pairing, happy with what they have and don't want to go down the ruinous route that their parents undertook, which has consequently left them both with two separate families each. Two families per character, 4 in total, Christmas day, 4 different Christmas celebrations. And that is essentially the set-up. Once their usual selfish holiday plans are put to the sword due to fog, they have to each visit the different factions of one another's families.
You have his bad tempered, red neck dad, her flirtatious, evangelical Christian, cougar mum, she also has a kind caring father, but he must visit his mother who now has a sexual relationship with his old best friend.
And that is it really. Not much else.
I sensed that the film makers saw 'Meet The Parents' and thought to themselves, 'that's a good idea - let's do four mini versions of that in one movie'. And that is all we have here. There is physical comedy (which is, I must admit, comical and, at times, well done) and then gross out, cringey gags that are predictable and far from laugh out loud.
It isn't particularly funny, but then it isn't exactly devoid of humour altogether. I chuckled twice (the girlfriend counted), nothing more, nothing less. Is that what constitutes a comedy these days? I should certainly hope not. Spaceballs and Airplane! managed the same amount in the credits sequence. Have standards slipped that much?
What is most upsetting is the great actors that appear. Jon Voigt, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek. Has it really come to this? You should all know better than this. Please do not be tempted by De Niro's turn in Meet The Parents. He is better than that, and so are you.
Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn share screen time, and they have to resort to wrestling moves and kicks in the balls. These sequences are some of the only amusing moments, but these two bounced off one another in Swingers with dialogue that few people have emulated since. You two are 'money'. Please take me back to those times.
The film also tries to have a message. Please stop this. Don't do it, You can't have a gross out, inappropriate comedy for an hour and then decide that you want the main characters to fall in love all over again as they realise the error of their ways. I despised them at the beginning, what makes you think that I give a toss as to whether they live happily ever after and overcome the badly portrayed commitment phobias that they both have?
It could have been an interesting comedy, an insight into the modern family and how fractured Christmas has become. A study of the 21st century nuclear family or it dissolution. Instead it is an example of how fractured comedies have become, with little thought put into, and time spent on character and narrative. I criticised National Lampoons for it's broken and incomplete structure, and here we have the same problem, 20 years later. Has nothing changed?
Plus it doesn't feel remotely Christmassy. Four Christmases, not one but four, and not once does you ever make you long for Turkey, sprouts and bad telly. If it can't deliver on this, and it can't give you the laughs, what on earth is the point?
If this is what we have to resort to at this time every year, then Bah Humbug.
Perhaps it was the hangover. It may have been my hurt at being let down by the recent re-watching of National Lampoon's vacation. It may have even been sub-conscious pressure from the better half. Or a narcissistic desire to review something I don't think I will like. Whatever it was, I chose Four Christmases as we tucked into a Sloppy Guiseppe and a Pollo Ad Astra.
Vince Vaughn (new rom-com regular) and Reese Witherspoon play a couple, a couple who are happy as they are. They don't fancy marriage, they don't fancy kids. They are a 21st century pairing, happy with what they have and don't want to go down the ruinous route that their parents undertook, which has consequently left them both with two separate families each. Two families per character, 4 in total, Christmas day, 4 different Christmas celebrations. And that is essentially the set-up. Once their usual selfish holiday plans are put to the sword due to fog, they have to each visit the different factions of one another's families.
You have his bad tempered, red neck dad, her flirtatious, evangelical Christian, cougar mum, she also has a kind caring father, but he must visit his mother who now has a sexual relationship with his old best friend.
And that is it really. Not much else.
I sensed that the film makers saw 'Meet The Parents' and thought to themselves, 'that's a good idea - let's do four mini versions of that in one movie'. And that is all we have here. There is physical comedy (which is, I must admit, comical and, at times, well done) and then gross out, cringey gags that are predictable and far from laugh out loud.
It isn't particularly funny, but then it isn't exactly devoid of humour altogether. I chuckled twice (the girlfriend counted), nothing more, nothing less. Is that what constitutes a comedy these days? I should certainly hope not. Spaceballs and Airplane! managed the same amount in the credits sequence. Have standards slipped that much?
What is most upsetting is the great actors that appear. Jon Voigt, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek. Has it really come to this? You should all know better than this. Please do not be tempted by De Niro's turn in Meet The Parents. He is better than that, and so are you.
Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn share screen time, and they have to resort to wrestling moves and kicks in the balls. These sequences are some of the only amusing moments, but these two bounced off one another in Swingers with dialogue that few people have emulated since. You two are 'money'. Please take me back to those times.
The film also tries to have a message. Please stop this. Don't do it, You can't have a gross out, inappropriate comedy for an hour and then decide that you want the main characters to fall in love all over again as they realise the error of their ways. I despised them at the beginning, what makes you think that I give a toss as to whether they live happily ever after and overcome the badly portrayed commitment phobias that they both have?
It could have been an interesting comedy, an insight into the modern family and how fractured Christmas has become. A study of the 21st century nuclear family or it dissolution. Instead it is an example of how fractured comedies have become, with little thought put into, and time spent on character and narrative. I criticised National Lampoons for it's broken and incomplete structure, and here we have the same problem, 20 years later. Has nothing changed?
Plus it doesn't feel remotely Christmassy. Four Christmases, not one but four, and not once does you ever make you long for Turkey, sprouts and bad telly. If it can't deliver on this, and it can't give you the laughs, what on earth is the point?
If this is what we have to resort to at this time every year, then Bah Humbug.
Sunday, 5 December 2010
NATIONAL LAMPOON'S VACATION (1983)
Monday off work, freezing cold, spent the morning Christmas shopping and the afternoon traipsing round Hyde Park Winter Wonderland, occasionally stopping to drink mulled wine and spiced cider. One more sneaky pint of ale en route back and then on to the sofa to chill out before the long weekend comes to an end. What we need during these moments is something warm, something familiar, something safe. And so it was that I put on National Lampoon's Vacation.
It's a film that I remember very fondly from my childhood, my mum and dad loving it. I recall them cackling away as I sat there not getting the majority of the jokes and stirring uneasily during the 'love' scenes. However, despite the film being in my DVD cabinet for as long as I can recall, this was the first time I had watched it quite a while. So how does it stand up after all this time?
It stars Chevy Chase, Saturday Night Live regular, at a time when he was at the peak of his powers. Fresh from the success of Caddy Shack, he was everywhere and would go on to star in successful vehicles such as Fletch, Fletch lives, Funny Farm, Spies Like Us and another that I loved as a child, The Three Amigos. It's written by the late, and great, John Hughes who of course penned a whole host of classics, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Home Alone, The Breakfast Club, The Great Outdoors and the wonderful Planes, Trains and Automobiles. He also directed Uncle Buck and Weird Science.
Behind the camera you have Harold Ramis, also riding the rave of Caddy Shack, and before he would hit the heights of Groundhog Day and also helping to pen Ghostbusters with Dan Ackroyd.
All the ingredients are there.....
But it misses the mark.
On this viewing I must admit I barely laughed. There were one or two chortles, but nothing more than that. And before you say it, it's not because I've seen the film before and know all the gags. Put me in front of Airplane! and I'll laugh from start to finish, despite knowing every last joke inside out. The story is a nice premise and should work well, family setting off on a 2 week vacation to Wally World (basically Disney Land) but instead of flying there, they decide that a trip by road will be a great opportunity to all bond. Anyone who has ever journeyed anywhere by car as a family, on a trip further than the local supermarket, knows that this is a recipe for disaster, and this film is no exception. If something can go wrong, it inevitably does. Car crashes, deaths, nudity, toilet humour, financial woe, it's all there as the vacation hits a steadily downward trajectory.
The problem with the film is that it lacks any real cohesion. It feels like a collection of sketches, like you might find in Saturday Night Live. Can you imagine a film based on all the gags in the Armstrong and Miller show, but with all the characters the same throughout? That's what you have here. None of it seems to fit. Disaster, comic pay off, back on the road, next disaster, punchline, better back on the freeway. The punchlines themselves didn't feel quite as they should have either, as though they were too soon or too late. The secret to comedy, someone once said, is timing. They all missed a beat or two here.
It's a credit to Chase and some of the other cast, notably Beverly D'Angelo (Chase's on screen wife), Imogene Coca (bitter and grumpy Aunt Edna) and good old reliable Randy Quaid doing what he does best as cousin Eddie, that the film stands up at all. They do their best with what they have. Chase is naturally funny in a straight kind of way, and putting him in these increasingly nightmarish situations, is a good formula.
However, it's not until you get to the final 20 minutes that the film really settles, with Chase turning a little darker and John Candy turning up for a fun finale that ends on a happy note.
It all feels a little rushed as a whole though. It seems as though everyone involved thought that the most important thing was to get the film out there, regardless of what state it was in. It's not just the comic timing that is off here, this film seemed to happen too soon. All those involved, that I referred to above, went on to make and be involved in some fantastic films that are still talked about today. National Lampoon's Vacation came before they all knew exactly what they were doing, it's rough around the edges. But Ramis and Hughes were able to learn from this and not make the same mistakes on other projects.
Without this film, I doubt we would have Planes, Trains and Automobiles in the state that it is. For that film, which really is a classic, owes a lot to National Lampoon's Vacation, is essentially the same story but with tighter writing, better actors, funnier gags and a heart. If Hughes needed to make this film in order to make Planes, that's fine by me. And for that we should be eternally grateful.
It's a film that I remember very fondly from my childhood, my mum and dad loving it. I recall them cackling away as I sat there not getting the majority of the jokes and stirring uneasily during the 'love' scenes. However, despite the film being in my DVD cabinet for as long as I can recall, this was the first time I had watched it quite a while. So how does it stand up after all this time?
It stars Chevy Chase, Saturday Night Live regular, at a time when he was at the peak of his powers. Fresh from the success of Caddy Shack, he was everywhere and would go on to star in successful vehicles such as Fletch, Fletch lives, Funny Farm, Spies Like Us and another that I loved as a child, The Three Amigos. It's written by the late, and great, John Hughes who of course penned a whole host of classics, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Home Alone, The Breakfast Club, The Great Outdoors and the wonderful Planes, Trains and Automobiles. He also directed Uncle Buck and Weird Science.
Behind the camera you have Harold Ramis, also riding the rave of Caddy Shack, and before he would hit the heights of Groundhog Day and also helping to pen Ghostbusters with Dan Ackroyd.
All the ingredients are there.....
But it misses the mark.
On this viewing I must admit I barely laughed. There were one or two chortles, but nothing more than that. And before you say it, it's not because I've seen the film before and know all the gags. Put me in front of Airplane! and I'll laugh from start to finish, despite knowing every last joke inside out. The story is a nice premise and should work well, family setting off on a 2 week vacation to Wally World (basically Disney Land) but instead of flying there, they decide that a trip by road will be a great opportunity to all bond. Anyone who has ever journeyed anywhere by car as a family, on a trip further than the local supermarket, knows that this is a recipe for disaster, and this film is no exception. If something can go wrong, it inevitably does. Car crashes, deaths, nudity, toilet humour, financial woe, it's all there as the vacation hits a steadily downward trajectory.
The problem with the film is that it lacks any real cohesion. It feels like a collection of sketches, like you might find in Saturday Night Live. Can you imagine a film based on all the gags in the Armstrong and Miller show, but with all the characters the same throughout? That's what you have here. None of it seems to fit. Disaster, comic pay off, back on the road, next disaster, punchline, better back on the freeway. The punchlines themselves didn't feel quite as they should have either, as though they were too soon or too late. The secret to comedy, someone once said, is timing. They all missed a beat or two here.
It's a credit to Chase and some of the other cast, notably Beverly D'Angelo (Chase's on screen wife), Imogene Coca (bitter and grumpy Aunt Edna) and good old reliable Randy Quaid doing what he does best as cousin Eddie, that the film stands up at all. They do their best with what they have. Chase is naturally funny in a straight kind of way, and putting him in these increasingly nightmarish situations, is a good formula.
However, it's not until you get to the final 20 minutes that the film really settles, with Chase turning a little darker and John Candy turning up for a fun finale that ends on a happy note.
It all feels a little rushed as a whole though. It seems as though everyone involved thought that the most important thing was to get the film out there, regardless of what state it was in. It's not just the comic timing that is off here, this film seemed to happen too soon. All those involved, that I referred to above, went on to make and be involved in some fantastic films that are still talked about today. National Lampoon's Vacation came before they all knew exactly what they were doing, it's rough around the edges. But Ramis and Hughes were able to learn from this and not make the same mistakes on other projects.
Without this film, I doubt we would have Planes, Trains and Automobiles in the state that it is. For that film, which really is a classic, owes a lot to National Lampoon's Vacation, is essentially the same story but with tighter writing, better actors, funnier gags and a heart. If Hughes needed to make this film in order to make Planes, that's fine by me. And for that we should be eternally grateful.
Friday, 3 December 2010
LIFE BLOOD (2009)
Another review for www.film-news.co.uk .......
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Life-Blood&nItemID=218
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Life-Blood&nItemID=218
ZMD - ZOMBIES OF MASS DESTRUCTION (2009)
Have a look at my review for the site http://www.film-news.co.uk/
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Zombies-Of-Mass-Destruction&nItemID=209
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Zombies-Of-Mass-Destruction&nItemID=209
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)