30 August 2012

Film: Bunraku (2010)

Thoughts: Bunraku HAD to be a passion project and a labour of love, because I can't think of any proper film studio that would OK something as singular as this. The film itself is a bizarre mixture of just about every fanboy genre you can think of, tossed into a very visually unique setting, and the results vary. Some definitely would not like it (and the internet agrees) but me personally, I enjoyed it- for the most part. A trim wouldn't hurt, and a some better acting, and a complete change of soundtrack as well, but despite all this, there is definitely something here to enjoy. The visuals though, they are truly in a class of their own.

Alright, let's see if I can sum up the convoluted story in brief. Uhh, it's the future, and in a town somewhere, gangs vie for control of the city. The city itself is under the rule of the Woodcutters, led by an introspective Ron Perlman. You can challenge the leader anytime, but he mostly let's No. 2 (Kevin McKidd) of his 10 elite "killers" take care of the bouts. Enter 2 strangers into town: The Drifter (Josh Hartnett) and Yoshi (pop-star Gackt). Both are fighters with incredible prowess. Oh! I forgot to mention, guns got outlawed. Anyway, both have hidden agendas, and they'll fight a lot (sometimes with each other) but together, they're gunning for the big man, and nothing can stand in their way. And they'll be assisted along the way by a mysterious bartender played by Woody Harrelson.

It was easier for me to end it there. The film throws in so many genres it gets hard to keep track. You have western, martial arts, samurai, gangster, anime/manga, comicbook, musical, video game. Each scene will blend at least 3 of these, and how you take it is all up to you. I can imagine it would annoy some, infuriate others, but for me, I didn't mind. I was mostly just wondering where the story was heading to next. There isn't really much of a story- it gets kinda lost in the mire- but there is plenty of punching and kicking and slicing and smashing, much more than I was expecting, so you don't get bored too often. The film wears its heart on its sleeve, and I can't fault them for it.

The visuals however, they are in a world of their own. The set design is amazing, the CG one-of-a-kind. The world exists in this sort of pop-up, cartoon, folded paper type setting, and the constantly shifting primary lighting and use of colour combine to give it this very amazing style that has to be seen in motion to be believed. Fights are well staged, and shakycam is practically nowhere to be found. Believe me, no one is doubting the visuals. And the sound effects match as well- each hit is registered with a particular heightened strike, and the music is so dominating it actually becomes a distraction. It's like, Looney Tunes showtunes? It's actually quite irritating.

That said, the fights are great, and every single one varies. There are dusty brawls, and chiaroscuro samurai swordfights. There are fights on trapeze, and in sushi bars. The characters are ready and willing to throwdown anywhere and at anytime, and there is even a fight that is so reminiscent of a flash animation I used to watch as a kid called Xiao Xiao 3 that I swear it had to have been inspiration for the sequence.

Ultimately though, I think the film could have lost some of its length. Already it stands at 125mins, and for a film that's just a patchwork quilt of various genres that the creators wanted to throw out, it is a bit long in the tooth. Perhaps with a more engaging story, yes, but unfortunately as it stands, the film just doesn't warrant a purchase. A viewing yes, definitely, but I could I bring myself to watch it again? I don't think so. Even though it loks amazing and has some great fight sequences, I'll just have to settle for one and done.

3/5

Film: Albino Alligator (1996)

Thoughts: Kevin Spacey directs this suspense filled ensemble flick that works well as a piece of fairly shallow character exploration on top of your straight-forward hostage ticker. What is most definitely the films draw card is its stellar cast roster, but solid direction and camerawork definitely add to the mix, creating a film that is quite interesting; both visually and mentally.

Matt Dillon, Gary Sinise and (my personal favourite) William Fichtner botch a heist, and decide to hide out in Dino's Last Chance; a basement speakeasy-turned-dive bar. Of course, within seconds of entering the establishment, the head of the outfit pulls a gun, and suddenly a short stay becomes a lengthy tete-a-tete with the increasingly-imposing police contingent waiting outside. Motives shift, allegiances are tested, and both lies and truth become intermingled in what will be the longest night of all these folks' lives.

You already have top talent with the three protagonists, but add in Faye Dunaway, Skeet Ulrich, M. Emmet Walsh, Joe Mantegna, John Spencer and Viggo Mortensen (woo!) and you have a lot of talent sharing screentime. Each brings their own personal level of experience to the mix, but my personal favourites are William Fichtner and Viggo Mortensen. Mortensen most will know as Aragorn from the Lord Of The Rings flicks, and he is definitely an actor's actor. William Fichtner you probably don't know by name, but I guarantee you'll recognize his face.



Yep, that's the man himself, and here he turns in a wild performance as an unhinged sociopath with a penchant for violence. Naturally, in these sorts of films! Not only does he do great work, but Gary Sinise and especially Matt Dillon pull some great work here. Dillon in particular creates this portrait of a man who is led by persuasion, and immediately comes across as one of those cats you meet who talks big and tries to act big, but you can just never seem to take seriously. You know the guys I'm talking about; the ones that eventually do something crazy to try and prove themselves, but just end up seeming more pathetic, even though you know they're a nice person that just can't seem to communicate well with society; always the awkward extra. It's an especially well-done performance.

Despite all the star presence, there's a pretty good story here. I ultimately think the whole thing could have been a bit more... I don't know, visceral, I think I'm going for? Despite the brutality on display the whole thing does seem a bit bloodless, and this carries through to the script as well; it seems to be lacking real teeth. I guess what I'm saying is, after 95mins with this group, nothing felt particularly memorable about the whole ordeal. It all just basically happened, and that's that.

The direction is sure, and there are a number of great camera moments, with the whole thing rather inventively shot; especially considering the majority of the film is in the one location. You're never distracted by the camera and what its doing, and the information is all presented in the best possible way. I would say that's due to an experienced actor being behind the camera; I bet Spacey knew how to get the best from his people, and also how to maximise the viewing experience with a minimalist touch.

Altogether, I can recommend this to thriller or crime fans. Or fans of great character work.

3.5/5


Albino Alligator  |  Kevin Spacey  |  Matt Dillon  |  Faye Dunaway   | Movie Trailer | Review

29 August 2012

Film: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

Thoughts: I didn't really mind Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. That said, I'm also a big fan of Wanted; Timur Bekmambetov's other rather reviled CG-fest, so I guess the allowances were to be expected. I could have done with a little less CG though, and a little more steadiness in the fight sequences, but other than that, I can't really fault the picture for doing what it had to do, generally speaking.

You take the history of Abraham Lincoln, and slap vampires on top, and you pretty much have the film. OK, a LITTLE more than that, I guess. Young Abraham sees his mother killed by a rather odious slave owner vampire named Jack Barts, who works for big Southern American vampire baddie Adam (Rufus Sewell). Upon his father's death (of natural causes) 9 years later, an older Abraham (Benjamin Walker) sees this as his opportunity to exact the revenge he so often dreamed of. Unfortunately though, the kill goes horribly awry, and only through the intervention of rogue vampire-killer Henry Sturges (Dominic Cooper) does Abraham survive. During his convalescence he is seen as a worthy disciple, and is trained in the ancient art of vampire destruction and kung-fu fighting, apparently. So off he goes, killing vampires and staying under the radar, until he meets the lovely Mary Todd (the always delightful Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and decides to give up his ghost-bustin' ways, focussing on law instead. Until that dastardly Adam decides to rise up from the south, since that whole slavery thing that Lincoln was kinda known for opposing just so happens to be their main food source (lotsa vampires in the south, see). And so, the Civil War.

If that seems a lot, and like I'm just touch-and-go on a lot of subjects, it's because that is exactly how the movie runs. It goes like a rocket strapped to a rabbit for the most part. It is only in the later parts of the film that the action truly makes way for the serious business of Lincoln running a country and fighting a war of race and whatnot. And yes, the critics are right, the film treats the entire premise as full-serious. But I didn't really mind. I'm not that well-versed in Lincoln or Civil War history, and nor was I entering for a history lesson. I got what I paid for, and I would watch this again.

That said, that desire for seriousness is quite literally shoved off the boat as soon as the action starts up. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter takes that whole stop-start slo-mo thing set down by 300 6 years ago (Jesus, it really HAS been that long, hasn't it!) to a completely other level. Combining that with outrageous CG based stunts and a fairly ripping shaky cam, and things get a little hot under the collar, probably too much for most viewers, as the all the reviews and views seem to state. I guess I'm glad I'm not a regular viewer then, apparently. Or I just have a high tolerance for the absurd today. Because for some reason, not only do these folks (vampire AND human) know how to, say, run and jump across the backs of stampeding horses, but as soon as you join this subculture, apparently you immediately become a black-belt in a variety of Asian martial disciplines. That probably didn't sit well with people either. Me? I didn't mind. It was all nonsense to me.

There's not much to say on the other fronts. Acting was fine, music was fine, everything was just fine. It was all just... there, so no problems here. I did like the use of colour and some of the set designs and lighting choices, but again, I think that's because I'm a fan of Bekmambetov and his visions.

But I could have done with more tussles. There really wasn't many, and they certainly weren't all that memorable. I will say this though, Benjamin Walker + makeup = Liam Neeson/Eric Bana. Seriously, it is fucking eerie and amazing all at the same time. He will literally morph mid-scene- nay, MID-SHOT- from Neeson to Bana. It is crazy as hell to see, and practically worth a ticket all on its own. But regardless, if you liked Wanted, or think you can stomach some serious-bidness history with some of the most nonsensical, ludicrous action sequences this side of The Matrix, go ahead and give it a try. I certainly wasn't let down, unlike most reviewers.

3.5/5

27 August 2012

Film: [REC]³ Génesis

Thoughts: Hell yeah! [REC]³ Génesis grabs the stilted franchise, throws away the convention established by the first 2 and turns it up to 11. Fuck the haters whining over at imdB, this movie takes [REC] and adds lashings of Return Of The Living Dead; near-indestructible foes and humour that is intrinsically linked to the choices and situations at hand. Both films are great fun, and both films get my thumbs up.

You don't need to know anything about the franchise so far, so when we're introduced to the wedding party of Clara and Koldo, it's completely fresh and unencumbered by death or heavy story mythos. The film takes stock of its fore-bearers in the cold open: an extended sequence of handheld footage from the wedding, cutting in and out as the wielder sees fit. This particular technique leads us through literally the entire wedding, character introductions and all, right up to the reception, and the inevitable Attack Of The Infected. It is then that the film drops the handheld pretense, and goes with a traditional cinematic approach; cutting between characters, panning, swooping and zooming. The film now follows various groups of survivors, all trying to stay alive, and that's about it.

If you read my previous review, you'd know that one of the things that irritated me about the 2nd film, was that I couldn't believe mostly all of what was presented. The benefit here then, is that this is so laughably IMpossible, that I couldn't help but be engaged by what I was seeing. You ask me to believe, I'll believe, unless you contradict yourself and make it impossible for me to invest my belief. You show me that you're not going for realism, and I'm game enough to jump on board to see what's in store. And with [REC]³ Génesis, I didn't even purchase a ticket, I just jumped over the barricade and sat on the roof. I mean, when you have a literal damsel in distress, dressed in a gown, with a chainsaw, trying to meet up with her literal knight in shining armour, sword and all, you can bet I'm laying my cards on the table. There's even a man in a Sponge John outfit brandishing a rifle. [REC]³ Génesis was goofy, blood-soaked fun, and I can't wait for the next instalment.

Decidedly less tits than Return Of The Living Dead though.

4/5

26 August 2012

Film: [Rec] ² (2009)

Thoughts: Considering that [Rec] ² concerns a group of SWAT officers entering the apartment building that was so horribly swarmed with "infected" in the first instalment, you would think it'd be easy to make something interesting, frightening and full of great kill-shots. Sadly, the film lolls about, jumping from point to point, introducing characters we could care less about, telegraphing its punches way too early and adding to the mythos in a rather uninteresting way. I was hoping it would provide that 4th quarter slam like the previous film, and knock my dissatisfaction into full-blown respect, but unfortunately that's just not the case.

Viewers should really watch the first flick, or at least the American remake Quarantine before sitting down to this, but I can provide a brief synopsis. An outbreak of something strange and vicious led a Spanish apartment building to be locked down by the government, and as far as we know, there were no survivors. A SWAT team is dispatched to assist and protect a CDC agent who's looking to discover and neutralize the source of the outbreak. Immediately upon entry it is uncovered that the agent is not who he appears to be, and that whatever happened is not necessarily over. What follows is a rush to discover the blood of the original host of the virus, because apparently it'll stop something from something else, and there's also a group of annoying kids who manage to get into the building, and a fireman, and a disillusioned father trying to get his wife and child medicine.

Basically, the film is just not very interesting. The characters are either cut in one dimension, or just so useless they don't even need a dimension added. The gimmick of handheld film discovered after the fact is stretched past breaking point here, just like in George Romero's terrible Diary Of The Dead. So much footage is caught on camera, and so much is taken by people just standing there as shit goes down, that it just gets beyond a joke. And it's always tethered to some really specious reasoning, like the kid wanting to get footage of firecrackers, or the SWAT member needing to "document everything". Yes, I get it's your job. But when your SWAT mate is currently grappling with an infected, and you are the only other person with a weapon, you'd think that perhaps taking a mother fucker down is priority. Shock horror, if you're alive, you can pick up the camera and keep filming later! If you're dead, you can't! And here I was thinking it was just that simple.

Plus kills, attacks and moments are all so transparent. People die when they're supposed to, get bit when they're supposed to, jump when they're supposed to, find a weapon when they're supposed to etc etc etc. And the infected are so poorly handled it gets really irritating trying to make the rules of the world work. You can shoot them! But it doesn't do anything. But it does! Now it doesn't. But they can take out a SWAT with their bare hands after taking 2 full shottie blasts! But a single man can hold one while they communicate with it. But they're crazy, uncontrollable rage beasts! But they can stop, think and create a decoy to lure an unsuspecting victim. It's just plain annoying, really. And the SWAT of all people seem to make the most stupid mistakes. It's like the entire film is spent with them slowly coming to the realization that they're UNDER ATTACK. Stupid gits. Oh, and if memory serves, I'm pretty sure the 2nd story of the kids is completely useless. Let me think... Yep, it was. Their entire entire 30min side-story was so that the main people can be told to go upstairs to where they started, and turn off the lights. Uh-huh.

I guess you could blame all of the above on the script though. And WHAT a script! Just nonsense and screaming and exposition, that's it. A great drinking game would be:

1: If someone tells someone else to calm down or shut up, take a shot.
2: If someone says they just wanna leave, take a shot.
3: And if someone responds to the last with a variation of you can't, take 2!

Yeah, you won't last long.

I'll bite; the film does have some fairly heart-pumping moments. The extended quiet during the entry sequence is atmospheric enough, and some of the filters and things that happen with the camera is kinda cool, but those moments are still plagued with that same transparency, and the persistent knowledge that the current dumb fuck is STILL HOLDING A FUCKING CAMERA.

I hear the 3rd film is really good, so I class this as a necessary evil. Doesn't matter, I don't need to watch it again!

1.5/5

Film: Quick (2011)

Thoughts: If you're in the mood for some snappy, crazy Korean action/comedy hijinks, you needn't look further than Quick. Relentless with its pace and relentless in its humour, Quick should satisfy most action junkies, and those who need a quick adrenalin and humour fix (pun intended). Just don't expect anything groundbreaking or deep.

The opening 5 / 10 minutes should tell you if you're one of Quick's intended targets. The film opens in 2004 with a large biker group tearing through the busy Korean streets. Han Gi-soo leads the pack; fearless, emotionless, and with a fairly rough broad clutching to him for dear life. Further down the pack is the teary, hysterical Ah-rom, chasing after Gi-soo and his intentions, yet he doesn't seem to notice. And right at the back comes portly Kim Myeong-sik on his trusty pizza delivery scooter, trying to capture Ah-rom's attentions. Ah-rom reaches Gi-soo, but he tears off before she can get a straight answer about the troll suctioned to his back. Kim has no chance, and is pulled over by the very amused Detective Seo in a huge police barricade just for Kim and his 40k/hr delivery cycle. Gi-soo's unnecessary and reckless dash causes a huge- and I mean HUGE- pile up of sedans, taxis, SUVs and even a garbage truck. As he watches the chaos unfold, he tells the chick on his bike to haul off, and spies among the wreckage an upturned vehicle laying in the diagonal up against the garbage truck. He takes aim, hits the gas, and launches over the truck while it explodes behind him, pulling a pancake, and mid-air freeze with the title "QUICK!" launched into the screen.

Yeah.

6 years passes and everyones gotten on with life. Gi-soo is now a delivery excort, Kim is a motorcycle cop and Ah-rom is a well-known AV idol for a pop band. Gi soo is given the task of delivering Ah-rom to a concert in record time, but as she puts her helmet on a click is heard, and a timer starts to count down. An unknown caller informs Gi-soo that he must now run a specific set of errands, lest the helmet explode and take out everything within a 20m radius. If the helmet moves further than 10m from Gi-soo, it explodes. If they screw around, the bike can be remotely detonated. And with that, both Gi-soo and Ah-rom are off on basically what amounts to a 75min long chase sequence littered with crazy stunts and even crazier comedy.

So if none of this appeals to you, check out now. Go watch Legends Of The Fall or something. But if you can subscribe to the vision of insane motorcycle chases, rooftop launches (with the aid of obvious CG), lots of explosions, and an unnecessarily convoluted crime plot, then Quick shouldn't disappoint. The stunts are easily the highlight here, and the film even has that Jackie Chan standard of showing flubs and behind-the-scenes during the end credits, and you see just how truly dangerous the action in Quick was. Bones are broken, heads are knocked hard and blood flows freely. On the sheer audacity of that alone I'm impressed. But the humour is well played and appropriately insane enough to match the visuals. It's the kind of humour that only works in Asian cinema honestly, Western cinema that tries slapstick usually ends just to eager or overdone. Here, it melds pretty well.

The acting is fine enough, over-the-top and well-matched. The action scenes are filmed and shot in line with the story, and everything is brightly coloured and lit, appropriate considering how unreal the whole thing is. I guarantee that on close inspection the whole thing would make no sense and fall apart, but frankly I wasn't even paying much attention to details, I was just rolling along with it. And at 95mins, I can't complain. Great for some light-hearted viewing.

3.5/5

25 August 2012

Film: Haywire (2011)

Thoughts: Two things I noted in Haywire: the first is that Gina Carano is the only female in the flick, and the second is that everything that occurs within is born purely from underestimation of the woman. These are only a couple of the myriad differences Soderbergh works into what would be a typical new-millennium spy actioner, and both the film and the audience benefit from it.

Gina Carano, MMA star, makes her film debut as protagonist super-spy Mallory Kane in Haywire. In typical Soderbergh style, the film jumps from place to place and from time to time, but thankfully the time is broken only into two forward-running timelines, and the places are clearly spelled out and labelled correctly in conversations. We open with a blistering, slightly enigmatic fight sequence involving hot coffee and Channing Tatum, and as Mallory goes on the run with a "hostage" the majority of her employment and reasons leading up to her fugitive status are made clear. I won't say much else, except that it involves clandestine dealings, the almighty dollar, and a Glengarry Glen Ross type roster of male talent.

Gina Carano is, simply put, quite amazing. Of course her physicality is without question; a lifetime of training leaves no doubt that she would bring a professional class to the vast number of action sequences. No, she seems to have a good grasp of each scene, is stunningly beautiful, and has a smile that seems to indicate that she knows something we don't. I was quite enamoured with her and her performance, and found myself sinking into her world of danger and intrigue. Soderbergh frames the film as a kind of retro spy flick (as if the music wasn't a good enough indicator), but he lends his unique eye to every scene, capturing angles and precise moments with a flair that seems to be missing from most other vanilla action flicks these days. Take the numerous fisticuff moments: filmed without music, emphasis on the connects, and with a down-and-dirty, realistic approach to pain and progress. Or the very precise construction of the mid-film foot chase through Dublin. It comes together with a very fluid feel, and it gives the film that extra edge in regards to the competition.

Of course, when you break it down, and get past the fantastic casting (Ewan Macgregor, Michael Douglas, Bill Paxton, Antonio Banderas, Michael Fassbender, Channing Tatum), brutal action, and wonderful lensing, it really is just another cookie-cutter plot, with really not much meat. There's about 0 to I'd say 20% characterization across the board, and a seemingly complex plot that reveals itself as not that hard to understand in retrospect, so if you're looking for a film that's spy V spy in a cerebral sense, I can't really recommend it. But for me personally, I loved it, and I'd watch it again.

...Oh and the film looks and sounds fantastic on blu-ray, plus there's a couple of short but really interesting special features about the film and it's production. Miss Carano seems like a really nice, driven person, and it looks like they had a lot of fun on set (most of the guys did all their stunts and fights like Carano did, check the wince-inducing throwdown between her and Michael Fassbender!). Enjoy.

4/5

Film: Batman: Under The Red Hood (2010)

Thoughts: In 75 minutes, Under The Red Hood packs more action, more emotional resonance, more characters and more everything than any of the live-action films. Animation be damned, THIS is my favourite Batman film so far.

A new player has surfaced in Gotham City, and he seems to be taking down criminals with astounding speed and ferocity. He has adopted one of the Joker's old persona, known only as the Red Hood. The only problem with this new vigilante, is that he has no qualms with dispensing the harshest of judgements upon even the lowest level of criminal. Batman springs into action, as does master crime boss Black Mask, but both can't even seem to keep up with this immensely talented individual. As the body count rises on both sides, how far will Batman and Black Mask go to take down this mysterious new anti-hero, and just who exactly is this Red Hood? And more importantly, what will the truth mean for Batman?

Boasting an incredible roster of talent behind the mic, and culling from 3 separate but equally strong Batman comic tales; Under The Red Hood could have collapsed under the weight of expectation. But lo and behold, here I am extolling the virtues of all involved. Not only do the actors bring genuine weight to each and every character, but the story is one that maintains pace and interest for even those with the most basic of knowledge in the Batman universe. The material is handled expertly; parcels of information are released both during the quiet moments, and in the midst of some of the most impressively animated fights I have ever seen. And despite all this, there is a very human element that ribbons through the whole production; one that lays bare some of Batman's most human failings, and allows us an insight into his troubled psyche, and what makes him the man he is, flaws and all.

And the animation is superb, the kind that we come to expect from a proper DC in-house theatrical film. It has an almost anime-esque vibe to it, though not quite as much as the extra short film Jonah Hex provided on the blu-ray disc, though I'll get to that later. The character designs seem to carry weight, with Batman and Red Hood towering and compact respectively, but still impressively muscular. The Joker plays heavily story-wise, but is used rather peripherally, allowing Black Mask to spread his wings as the main crime boss of Gotham City. It's a nice change of pace and a breath of fresh air, offering us the chance to witness some rather unique methods employed by both the goodies and the baddies.

And back to the voice talent. Bruce Greenwood proves once agains that he's one of the best choices for Batman, and Jensen Ackles (Dean in Supernatural) gives Red Hood a very unique voice that is a bit jarring at first, but becomes quite fitting as the film continues. John DiMaggio (numerous The Simpsons voices, Bender from Futurama! You can really hear it too.) offers up a really different take on Joker; sure, the usual manic traits are there, but the character is approached quite differently, looking and sounding like a resigned, almost Death Of A Salesman/dishevelled James Stewart type of persona. Don't get me wrong, he's still a crazed lunatic, but the character version is really pretty interesting. You also have side players that are no less important, with Neil Patrick Harris, Jason Isaacs, Gary Cole, Kelly Hu and Wade Williams all throwing their hats into the ring.

Altogether, there is nothing better I could have asked for than Under The Red Hood to get that sour taste of The Dark Knight Rises from me. Definitely one to rewatch in the future.

5/5

22 August 2012

Film: Total Recall (2012)

Thoughts: Even though it's a completely unnecessary film, Total Recall serves up some high-octane action, amazing visuals CG wise, and more lens flare than you can reflect your watch at. That is, as long as you can get past the (not so) shocking lack of interest in the script, story, acting and characters.

Doug Quaid (Colin Farrell) is unhappy with his life- including being married to Kate Beckinsale. I could just stop there and be done, but for the sake of blog continuity and great justice, I'll continue. He heads on over to Rekall, a facility that caters in false memories for those that want a jolt or release from the humdrum of everyday life. Something goes wrong with the procedure, and suddenly he's on the run, and taking down dudes (and robots) with frightening efficiency. And running some more. Oh, and jumping. A LOT. He's being chased by his now-homicidal wife, and is also assisted by the just-here-for-the-paycheck rebel Jessica Biel. And yet the question remains, who is Doug Quaid really? But more importantly, does it matter?

The film cribs liberally from any number of associated sci-fi and action films. Visuals from Blade Runner and Fifth Element, action scenes and moments from the Bourne trilogy, the hover car sequence from Minority Report, etcetera. There's nothing particularly wrong with that. The music sparks comparisons to sound effects from the Transformers films mixed with dubstep, which again, isn't much of an issue. And the characters are so flat and one-dimensional, the dialogue so limp, you could very well just throw a bunch of chiselled action figures at one another and get the same desired effect. Still no biggie. Yes, the real problem with the film is just how lukewarm it all is. I mean, look at me. I'm sitting here giving a pretty terrible film a shrug and a "move along". It's just a very vanilla film.

The film is full of fun little inconsistencies and moments though. Personally I like Colin Farrell, but I don't think he fits the role of an ordinary, rather diffident bookish type, and that is the character that is offered here. Jessica Biel gets the coveted Ackbar Award for her warning of "IT'S A TRAP!" a full 20 seconds after an unexpected video pops up of the big bad announcing that this was his plan all along, and that he's comin' to git ya. There's such fun moments as when a robot soldier is told to track a signal, and opens up his wrist-computer to start typing in info and tracking a little hologram of the building. Uhhh, he's a robot, guys. He should probably not be an AI operating an AI on his wrist, he should probably already be networked into that kind of shit. Also, there's these funky Apple iPhone 10s or something built into our hands that involve you pushing your hand up against a hard surface, and a little video conference starts. I can imagine there would be A LOT of awkward tug-dials happening mid-coitus.
"Hey Steve, what's u- oh goddammit man, that's the third time this week! Have some decorum! Call me when you're done!"
"...nice stroke though." *CLICK*
Or how the military use special no-recoil automatic rifles, yet our protagonist uses one to propel himself through a zero-G environment. Or when our characters shoot out the window of a crazy-fast lift that goes through the core of the planet, and not only stick their heads out without bother, but CLIMB UP THE OUTSIDE. Or how no one seems to shoot while the good guys are down, but shoot when they get up and run.

Yeah, there's a lot of fun to be had, as long as you're not paying much attention, and have some friends around, and probably have a few modifiers nearby, illicit or otherwise. If nothing else, at least it'll make a damn sharp blu-ray. Oh, and there are a LOT of civilians caught in the crossfires! Like, A LOT! It's just weird!

2.5/5

21 August 2012

Film: The Loved Ones (2009)

Thoughts: The Loved Ones is quite possibly the best blind-buy I have ever made. The execution of this flick is near flawless. I tend to think that if a film incites a physical reaction from me, then it is a damn good flick. I laughed, I winced, I jerked, I shook my head, I felt giddy and I yelled at the TV. This film is, quite simply, a demented, deranged masterpiece.

Brent (Xavier Samuel) accidentally kills his father while trying to avoid a mysterious figure standing in the middle of a deserted road. Six months later, and he's getting by- barely. He has a steady girlfriend, a great friend, and a habit of self-harm and self-destruction. The end of year formal is coming up, and Brent is going with his girlfriend Holly, naturally. But this doesn't sit right with resident outcast Lola (the already blowing up Robin McLeavy), and she decides to kidnap Brent to stage a little formal of their own.

The above synopsis only really paints the base colour of this particular canvas, and for good reason. The Loved Ones runs at an almost relentless pace, and not completely through suspense or horror. The more I think about it, the more difficult it becomes to categorize this film. Horror? Definitely, but not entirely, it certainly doesn't run with the regular heartbeat of the genre. Thriller? Of course, but it is far too gory for a standard suspense flick. Torture porn? Maybe... well, not really, actually. There's a rhyme and reason for it all, albeit a very twisted, messed up one. It even has elements of drama, action, romance, coming-of-age, and a very healthy dose of guilt and mourning. It is, basically, in a league all of it's own. In fact, the film is so strong, that it even conjures up its own horror iconography, or trademarks, if you will.

You have particular kills, particular sequences that are one-of-a-kind, but definitely one of the main ones is that of the character of Lola, or "Princess". She is a deranged, fucked-up piece of work, played to twitchy, dead-eyed perfection by Robin McLeavy. As a matter of fact, all of the cast a game as hell, and each character- even the side characters- end up becoming really quite fully fleshed and rounded people; unlike any horror film I have ever seen. At least, any horror film that deals in the chosen tropes of this one. The film essentially plays as an extended, Australian version of the dinner scene from Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but even then that doesn't do it justice.

And yet, after all this, the technical side of the film is so strong that writer/director Sean Byrne is already being hunted down by Hollywood like the dog he is. Not only is the story and script fantastically conceived (aside from the usual speedbumps you get at the start of most Aussie flicks and their exchanges between characters; I think it's the accent to be honest), but the colour, cinematography, blocking, pacing and sound are all so good, you'd expect them to be working with a massive Hollywood team and a budget of millions. Not so. This is just true, proper filmmaking, like it damn well should be. And a cracking soundtrack too!

What more can I say? This is taking pride of place on The Wall, and rightfully so in my opinion. Now, to watch the blind buy of Snowtown that I got with this (JB HiFi 3 for 2 sale), and hopefully be amazed by the quality of that film, and praise myself for having such a keen eye.

5/5 (Seriously! It really is that damn good!)

20 August 2012

Film: The Cabin In The Woods (2011)

Thoughts: This is just pure, uncut fantastic. The film follows in the same form as Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil and Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon, serving up equal doses of horror and comedy, mixed around a genuine love and understanding of the genre. The Cabin In The Woods proves to be the most ambitious, but fortunately for us, the film swings and connects with full impact, giving us originality-craving film fans a reason to be happy and excited that there is still life in the ol' girl yet.

I can't spoil much, if any, of The Cabin In The Woods, but I can definitely tell you it deals in the typical tropes of most every haunted house/slasher/zombie/college kids type horror film, and with a bunch more thrown in for good measure. A group of 5 almost-stereotype-covering kids head to a rented cabin in the woods for fun and frolic during college break. Malevolent forces WILL be released. Parallel to this, a group of scientists work in a room with many monitors, joking around, making small talk, all the while monitoring every action these kids make. What could this all mean?

The film takes the standard formula, and flips it in every which way possible. Supernatural elements are in full force, as is the usual gory kills, but the meaning behind it all is something completely different entirely. Most every aspect of the standard horror film is hit with a x-ray, and cut up with precision to make you believe that you are witnessing something truly special. What do you expect from something written by Joss Whedon? And with the acting talent that's on display, you can't help but think that perhaps everyone involved knew they were onto something exciting as well, with such stars as Thor himself (Chris Hemsworth), the ever-awesome Richard Jenkins, the always-reliable Fran Kranz, Grey's Anatomy star surgeon Jesse Williams, and of course Joss Whedon regular Amy Acker turning in great work, very befitting of the material on display.

The direction is completely grounded, and the audio plays a big role in setting up various "dominos" to knock down, if you will. Take all your preconceived notions, and throw them over your shoulder, because The Cabin In The Woods will take your brain on a rollercoaster ride that no one should spoil for you, at any time. I can't wait to add this to my collection, and watch it again!

5/5


I don't want to ruin the film, so instead of my usual trailer, have a DRAMATIC SLOTH instead!

19 August 2012

Film: Hugo (2011)

Thoughts: Hugo is a delight for the eyes and ears, and a rather ticklish mixture for the mind. Scorsese puts his love of cinema on full display, and fellow fanatics like myself are afforded an opportunity to revel in the magic alongside regular moviegoers, and the result is a great work of art that can be enjoyed on many levels.

The eponymous Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is central to the plot of the film, but turns out to not exactly be the focal point. He seems to exist solely as a means to get the film where it needs to be. He almost acts purely as a conduit for the audience to experience the many wonders Scorsese has planned for us throughout the runtime. Hugo works behind the scenes inside a busy Parisian train station, quite literally, he is inside the walls, keeping the clocks running at their correct time. In his spare time he begs, borrows and mostly steals parts to reassemble a broken down automaton left behind by his late father. Through a failed attempt to lift more parts, young Hugo is accosted by the old man that runs the trinket and toy store, and through this chance meeting, and many more with a variety of other characters, Hugo is afforded a rare opportunity to discover his true purpose in life, and to perhaps revitalize the spark that was lost by a former creator of dreams and magic.

The set design, sound design and overall attention to detail in Hugo is astounding. And on blu-ray, it is almost like a smack in the mouth. The film sports a very distinct, almost 4 colour palette, and the cinematography echoes the films of yesterday, as well as more recent fare, most particularly the works of Jeunet and Caro. The entire opening sequence is one of near silence- dialogue wise. We follow Hugo as he makes his rounds, and are introduced tangentially to all the various players who will populate this bustling microcosm. It is a very magical sequence, and one that sets the tone for the rest of the film. And the sound and music culminate in a vibrant, expressive manner that just bleeds together with the visuals to truly shine as a labour of love. The power of cinema is both on display and held up as the true magic of our current lifetime.

Of course, my personal issue with the film was the more than occasionally clunky exchanges between the two kids (Chloe Moretz being his newfound friend), but as long as you stick with it, you get some great performances from the side characters, like Sacha Baron Cohen, the lovely Helen McCrory and, most importantly, Sir Ben Kingsley as legendary French director Georges Melies. The entire first half of the film is practically set-up, but once you get past all that, it becomes apparent what the true nature of Hugo is, and it becomes something else entirely, something truly special. Maybe it's just the cinema-lover in me, maybe I see through rose tinted glasses. But I thought it was all truly fantastic, and I felt myself welling up a little throughout the second half (but I didn't cry though).

So personally, I loved Hugo, and can't wait to see it on a big screen. I'm almost mad at myself for missing it in 3D.

Almost. Fucking 3D.

4.5/5

18 August 2012

Film: Law Abiding Citizen (2009)

Thoughts: Even though it rests heavily on some very, VERY convenient plot contrivances, and could stand a bit more judicious trimming, Law Abiding Citizen still provides some entertainment and a fairly cathartic release against our outdated, outmoded and exhausted justice machine.

The film opens without much pause, as we see the family of inventor Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) murdered right before his very eyes in a standard home invasion. In the time that follows, we see his case tossed around the legal system by his record-maintaining attorney Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), eventually settling on an outcome that sees the least responsible invader get the death penalty, and the instigator a paltry 3 years with bail. Needless to say, this does not sit well with Mr. Shelton, who ten years later sets his plan against the entire legal system in motion, starting with his outright murdering of the two men who committed the abhorrent acts against his family in the first place. But even after he is taken and placed into solitary confinement, Shelton keeps on meting out complete "justice" against those who wronged him, despite his immobility. How is it possible?


Of course, the question posited above is answered by the films end, but that doesn't mean it is completely clean cut. Even upon rather shallow inspection the whole thing starts to fall apart, with seams and cracks appearing without much thought. I won't go into detail just yet, but suffice to say, think about it long enough, and your brain will start to hurt from the many links (or should I say, chinks) in the chain of circumstance. That said though, the film still offers up cheap thrills and visceral entertainment of the most brutal sort. We get to see people taken out in the most bloodiest of fashions: mobile phone bomb to the head, death by torture and dismemberment, a prolonged, on camera death by T-bone steak leftover to carotid artery. The film certainly doesn't shy away from the kills- in fact, you could even say it revels in them. But with pulpy entertainment like this, it's almost forgivable, but not quite. A little more subtlety can go a long way, as well as perhaps cutting a little more through the boring chit-chat between all the various legal members throughout the film.

The performances are fine and broad enough, with our anti-hero suitably full of bile and more than possibly deranged- the only thing missing is flying spittle during his many tirades against the system. Foxx actually does interesting work here; you could say he phones it in, but personally I think his rather muted performance has a lot more effort behind it than we give it credit. I mean, he is up against a lunatic with a penchant for tricky, almost-impossible kills. All the support cast give ample but unmemorable performances.

So in all, I guess you could save this one for the boys, or fans of pulpy, fuck the system type films. I did find myself wandering a fair bit (there really is a lot of talking and ruminating and so forth) but altogether, it's an OK flick. Feel free to surprise the wife with it, I did! Those first 5 minutes were magic!

3.5/5

Film: Michael (2011)

Thoughts: Michael was a... difficult watch. Not because the film was terrible, in fact, far from it. It is elegantly constructed, remarkably well acted, has great sound design and is shot by a master. No, the film is difficult because of the terrifying, horrible subject matter. But what is even more frightening is that after 93 minutes, you realize you have slowly fallen in with the film's hypnotic rhythm.

Michael covers around 5 months in the life of a... let's not bury the facts here, a paedophile named Michael, and Wolfgang, his 10 year old male captive. It's all about control: Michael cooks for his ward, cleans up after him, cuts his hair, takes him on day trips, and rapes him whenever he likes. It is a horrifying situation, made even more disturbing with how matter-of-fact it is all presented. The film moves at a rhythm that can be only described as life-like. As the minutes pass, we see morning, day, night, morning, day, night, work, sleep, eat, morning, day, night. Michael keeps Wolfgang locked in a room in his basement, completely self-functional with running water, toiletries, food, light, and heat. But again, Michael can contain each area- even the lighting is set to a schedule dictated by the controller.

As the film progresses, the information is parcelled out in the doses that come naturally. Nothing is served on a platter. We see how much, or how little the two communicate, we see the kind of "relationship" that has formed between the two. A passing comment reveals insight into just how long the child has been captive for, when on Christmas day Michael says "Why don't you go and get the decorations for once?". We see his worklife, and we see his strange swings in mood and perception- we never truly get to see inside Michael's head. The man is an evil, monstrous enigma. The same could be said for Wolfgang, but being a ten year old, his emotions and thoughts tend to present themselves more outwardly.


We see how Michael reacts to encroaching outside influences, and how he maintains his own tenuous anger. There are shots of him sobbing on the couch after receiving a Christmas card from his captive that he didn't particularly like, and of him constantly checking the paths outside his home for would-be discoverers of his dark secret. We see how he reacts to female affection, and his absurd impulses of playtime with Wolfgang, like running into his room and pelting him with snowballs while laughing maniacally, then locking the door and bolting. We also see one very disturbing scene that I won't spoil here, but really would have required odd courage from both actors, young and old. A twisted fuck is Michael.

The film follows this hypnotic rhythm dictated by director Markus Schleinzer, whom I believe was Director of Photography on most of Michael Haneke's films. It's quite easy to fall in step with the monotony of the everyday, and its, dare I say, fascinating to watch this whole awful thing unfold. This is a world we choose to ignore in light of easier events in our lives. Thousands of kids are kidnapped, we just turn a blind eye. This film does not seek to inform, preach, condemn, justify or sensationalize. It is a quiet tale of one fucked up individual, ruining an innocent live. And the ending, ambiguity can easily be defined by it. I'm still not sure if I consider it a good ending, but with the technical and acting excellence on display, it is hard not to assume that the director knew exactly what he was doing.

Like Requiem For A Dream, this is a film that I would be loathe to revisit, and yet, like Requiem For A Dream, I can only wonder if the strength of the talent might just draw me back in at a later date, not unlike Aronofsky's masterpiece. All I can say is... God, I don't know what to say. I don't even know what score to give. I am stumped.

4/5

17 August 2012

Film: Modern Times (1936)

Thoughts: While I didn't find Modern Times as moving as City Lights, its impeccable set design, spot on acting, eerie prescience and all-round masterfulness cement it as yet another classic Chaplin film, and a prime example of what is missing from comedies today: heart.

Chaplin plays the one-of-a-kind tramp; with his iconic cane and duck-walk. He wanders through a depression-era American city, bouncing from job to job, trying to get back into the prison he was so comfortable in. The film opens on his first job at a soul-destroying factory where he spends hour upon hour turning bolts on god knows what, in an assembly line. Soon enough, like any human being pushed to their breaking point, he suffers a nervous breakdown, and after a stint in rehab, finds himself quickly dragged to prison on account of a misconception. But of course, our Tramp just can't seem to do anything right, which includes staying IN prison, on account of rescuing the guards from some would-be escapees. It is back on the streets that he meets the local Gamin (no idea what that means, but it's apparently an astonishingly beautiful homeless girl) and he now discovers a reason to re-enter the life-consuming world of employment.

There's much more to include, but it pays more to just experience the film. Chaplin was a great writer, actor and director, and here he proves once again just what kind of skills he possessed. Not only is his physicality on-point, over and over, but the story itself seems like a precursor to our fast-paced penny-pinching world of today. He must contend with a robot designed to feed employees on the job (and what boss WOULDN'T want to eliminate those pesky food breaks!), several awe-inspiring walls of machinery that just seem so non-functional (I bet some upper-management type deemed them necessary...), a cafe that demands waiters sing, dance and wait tables, but most importantly, he must contend with the idiocy and greed of humanity. Pretty much everything that goes wrong for our protagonist can be tracked directly to a boss or supervisor that just isn't providing enough training, instruction or plain out leadership. You also see him dealing with their attempts at saving money by cutting down on workers rights, and increasing their responsibilities. If that ain't pretty reflective of now, I don't know what is. Chaplin handles all this with the style and detail that is very much his own, and the result is a film that I believe will open up further on repeat viewings.

The movie is part silent, with voices, music and sound coming through at specific intervals- mostly from radios, videos, speakers or singers. I personally love the way this was handled, almost like everything but what is "important" is drowned out by the machine. All of the bit players do the work well, complimenting our hero, and even matching him at times. Paulette Goddard plays the Gamin, and by god is she stunning. She's no slouch in other departments either, but it truly is Chaplin stealing the show, time and again.

The film ends with an iconic shot, and is preceded by a very entertaining one-man act from Chaplin himself, singing in Italian (I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong.) a rather saucy song about a rich man and his would-be conquest. This is perhaps Chaplin at his finest, and despite a few moments in the middle where I grew a tad bored, I can easily say I would watch this film again in the future.

4.5/5

Below I attach the dancing/singing scene at the end, for your pleasure. What a great scene.

16 August 2012

Film: The Bourne Legacy (2012)

Thoughts: Tony Gilroy, writer of the original Bourne films, and newly christened as director of this instalment, serves up the Bourne film no one demanded, and certainly not the film the franchise deserves. Bizarrely unfocussed, yet lacking in complex plot mechanics; The Bourne Legacy falls apart with flaccid direction, a lack of interesting story points, and some seriously questionable editing.

After the rise and disappearance of Jason Bourne in the original trilogy, the clandestine organizations behind the soldier programs have come under intense public scrutiny, and to avoid the incoming scandals, they decide to eliminate any and all traces of the various programs they have in motion. Unfortunately though, they happen to mess up the planned assassination of two members: genetically-enhanced super-soldier Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) and kindly geneticist Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz). The two eventually collide, with Cross requiring pills to keep his enhanced genetics in line, and Dr. Shearing needing assistance in... not dying. Together they must... not die, basically.

The film takes a very long time to start. We see Aaron Cross staking and stalking out in the ice-covered back end of nowhere, doing something I'm not quite sure of, but certainly taking a long time doing it. We get to see Edward Norton's Col. Byer get pulled back into the spy fold to take care of all of the various messes left behind from the programs set up worldwide. We also see various other people doing various things, and this happens quite often. Tony Gilroy seems to think directing means putting everything in front of the camera, all the time. When something happens, we need to see it explicitly. For instance: during the film's climactic motorcycle chase, every time someone turns a wheel, changes a gear or pumps an accelerator, Gilroy shows an extreme close-up of it happening. Every time. It was so obvious, I started to make a mental check every time it happened. Really not necessary. Plus, I counted multiple times where you could clearly see Renner's stunt double doing the motorcycle work. Now, I usually forgive that sort of thing, and I normally wouldn't even bring it up, but seriously, multiple observations ON MY FIRST VIEWING? That's either unprofessional, or just plain lazy.

The film lacks in action, so my action side wasn't sated. The action itself is pretty decent, and Renner can fight like dream, but it's either over too quick, too few and far between, or just too little too late. The film wasn't nearly thrilling enough either, what with everything that's occurring already spelled out beforehand. We know they're trying to kill Cross and Shearing. We know WHY they're being hunted. We know what their ultimate goal is. And we see any and all machinations, from all sides, all the time. No need for speculation, or even to think, period. It's laid bare, right from the get-go. There is no ambiguity, no sense of discovery. And that, really, is what is sorely lacking from this film, in comparison with the originals. Sure, there are scenes that are yet to be explained, but with all the characters so plainly drawn, I find myself really not fussed about returning to possible future instalments to learn the answers, because the characters are really so paper-thin that it just doesn't seem to matter.

So poor action, and nothing really thrilling or exciting. So there must be scintillating dialogue, and spy-based shenanigans to fill the gaps, yeah? Wrong again. The Bourne trilogy mixed the three parts together nicely, making it a cerebral, propulsive action blockbuster. The Bourne Legacy can't even do the spy stuff right. It just meanders along, bouncing around the ever-available spy-room where the secret people basically stay 2 steps behind Cross- pretty much all the time- and snap at one another about how things "needs to be taken care of". Nothing exciting there.

Altogether, the mixture of lukewarm elements combines into a nauseating hand-held-lite mess that just shouldn't even exist. And yet here I am, 135mins later, reviewing the damn thing, and feeling remarkably empty about it all. Not the kind of reaction I was expecting for a Bourne film. Oh well. At least I'll always have the trilogy.

1.5/5

15 August 2012

Film: Where Eagles Dare (1968)

Thoughts: Where Eagles Dare is a Dad film, through and through. And, now that I am a Dad, I can safely say that it is COMPLETELY. FUCKING. AWESOME. The film has fantastic acting, directing, characters, action, suspense and music. Simply put, it is amazing. And you can see where Tarantino got a lot of his ideas for Inglourious Basterds in this.

There's not much I can say in regards to the plot, for fear of giving the many twists and turns away, but I can easily tell you that it concerns a very small Allied contingent that has to work its way into a Nazi stronghold that is only accessible by land, up in the mountains. It is there that they must sneak in, and rescue an American prisoner of very high importance. Or so it would seem...

A film like this needs a good, strong lead. And in Richard Burton's Major Smith, you have one certified, grade-A memorable bad-ass. Unshakably cool and endlessly resourceful; Smith is the kind of dude that you would want to have by your side in any situation that takes a turn for the worse. As he is described in the film, he seemed gifted with a "sixth, seventh and eighth sense". Being: he seems to know exactly what to do, all the time, sometimes hours in advance. And he's even more adept with his tongue than he is with his fists (that's what she said); playing a dangerous but almost delirium-inducing game of manipulation smack-bang in the middle of the flick. Fucking amazing. Now, this is not to say that the supporting cast is phoning it in; in fact, far from it. Clint Eastwood plays- well, Clint Eastwood. As a one man wrecking ball. There's a variety of other actors and a couple of very attractive leading females, and all bring their A game. But without Burton and his god-like Major Smith, this would be a very different film entirely. Oh, the magic of the movies.

And the direction. There's only one flashback, and that's quite literally during the opening sequence. Everything else plays out in real time, and oh how I love it. The film may seem a bit staid at first, but stick with it, you'll catch the rhythm soon enough. The film treats silence the only way Dads truly understand it: as a precious resource to be used as often as possible. We get to see long stretches of quiet preparation, and action, as our group performs such tasks as setting traps, taking out guards, or infiltrating high traffic areas as Nazi officers. Ah, it's so damn awesome! In fact, I was so into the game that when the inevitable "thing that goes wrong" goes wrong, I was yelling at the TV "No! No! It was all going so well!". Like a well oiled machine that gets a bit of dirt in the motor, it all starts to go out of control.

...but not so much for our crew. No, they get shot at, blown up, beaten up and pushed around, but all they suffer is a scratch. Because in this magical movie, Clint Eastwood can take out an entire squadron with one rifle. And everything- I mean EVERYTHING- explodes on impact. I mean, a car hits a tree, it explodes. A car gets pushed off a cliff, it explodes. Before it hits anything. A stationary plane bonks into another stationary plane, THEY EXPLODE. Seriously, our guys could throw an empty gun and it would take out three guys, then explode. They're like a two and five person wrecking and demolition squad. And the Nazis, well, they're pretty much just there to be fucked up. Both useless in action and useful for target practice. They can't even see people climbing up walls, or riding on top of skycars, or anything. And I love how they wage war on various things, like Nazis Vs. Doors! Or Nazis Vs. Empty Skycar! Or (my personal favourite) Nazis Vs. Fallen Tree! It's like these guys don't seem to have radios or anything.

Now, I know that might all sound completely ridiculous. And, come to think of it, yeah, I guess it kind of is. But goddamn if it doesn't just WORK. It was just really satisfying to watch a group of people decide to wage guerrilla war on the Nazis themselves, activate god-mode and no-clipping cheats, and just go to town. It's like the perfect mixture of action and intrigue. And when you consider that the film's first half consists of quiet, calculated infiltration, and the last half practically ends with the destruction of the entire mountainside Nazi camp, there's really not much wiggle room for complaint. I don't think I need to say much more. My number stands strong below.

5/5

13 August 2012

Film: The Artist (2011)

Thoughts: Well this is strange. I do believe I have encountered the first silent film that I didn't like. The Artist really just bored me. I felt the characters weren't fully drawn, and that the love-letter nature of the film was far too ham-fisted in it's approach. I was about to write that there were some good bits but, frankly, it's all just fallen out of my head. I'd say that convey all you really need to know.

Actor George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is at the top of Hollywood. But a chance encounter with up-and-coming extra Peppy Miller (Berenice Bajo) is about to change all of that. The serendipitous "collision" of their two personalities will send her rocketing up the ladder of super-stardom, and him flat strap the opposite direction, with the crux of the issue lying in the advent of "talkies". Lives are changed, fortunes are lost, tears roll, and so on and so forth.

It all just rang false for me. I've seen my fair share of silent films, and in fact, I'd say my favourite kind of films are silent films. Sunrise, City Lights, The General, Dr. Mabuse; easily some of my favourites, and some of the most memorable to me. But The Artist just let me down, really. Sure, Jean Dujardin gives it his all, but frankly, it's like working with just a few ingredients for a four course meal. You can only go so far with so little. There aren't even any stand-out scenes. As awesome as Uggie the dog is, he isn't even given much to do.
And yet, the film gets lavished with praise and heaped with awards. Am I in the wrong? I don't know. I've purchased it on good faith, so perhaps a viewing in the future will change my opinion. But for now, I remain disheartened and unconvinced. The overly-sentimental nature of the flick- aimed squarely at lovers of classic cinema- left me wondering if they had branched out a bit, been a bit more adventurous, perhaps they had made a more compelling film. But for now, it's a candy-coated reminder of days gone by.

2/5

12 August 2012

Film: One For The Money (2012)

Thoughts: I go in to Katherine Heigl movies with lowered expectations. It's a defence mechanism. It usually ends with me leaving mildly entertained and fairly satisfied. One For The Money is another in that line-up. But, there are far, far worse ways to spend your time. Consider it a less painful form of bonding with your partner than, say, almost two hours of shoe shopping. I'll take this film ten times over that. It really wasn't that bad.

Heigl plays the feisty Stephanie Plum who is recently unemployed, flat broke and 100% divorced. Within minutes she's picking up her first assignment as a bounty hunter for her cousin's bails bonds company in Jersey. We meet various members of her family, some friends, and some less than savoury acquaintances. You can guess that most of these are probably far more fully-rounded in the book, but since I am unfamiliar with the text, I didn't really mind that they were mostly one-note. Lowered expectations, remember! So anyway, she quickly finds out her ex flame from high school is on the lam, and is worth a whopping $500K (hunters get 10% commission), and it becomes her raison d'etre for the new job. Things then get really quite convoluted from there. Even I found it difficult keeping up with the names, connections and reasons.

As you can probably guess from the above, the film moves at a fair clip. I'm sure this will jar purists of Janet Evanovich's work to no end, but again, I didn't mind. Both the film's score and the way it looks and feels reminds heavily of a 90s procedural flick, or buddy cop flick, and I think that works to the films benefit. I guess that doesn't jive with audiences of this day and age though, so the throwback style didn't work critically or box-office-y. But oh well. I kinda wouldn't have minded seeing a few more adventures.

Heigl didn't annoy me like she usually does; eschewing her neuroses-laden hysterics for a more witty, dialogue savvy approach. Her timing is pretty perfect, and damn if she doesn't have a good set on her. All her co-stars work well, and there's a fair few of them. Of note we have Jason O'Mara (whom we last saw in the failed TV series Terra Nova), John Leguizamo, Daniel Sunjata (Grey's Anatomy- smart move, casting. Well played.) and a few other possibly familiar faces. To me, anyway. They all bounce off each other quite well, well enough to keep you paying enough attention to get to the next scene.

Personally, I don't understand why they don't take this approach: Make it a TV series. And no, not like a 20 episode, case-a-day series. I mean a 12 ep series, with about 3 eps a book. Then you get nicely rounded, fully fleshed characters, space to breathe to fit an entire arc for each main story, the ability to keep characters in or out and build them as required, and after a few weeks you can freshen up with the next book. Plus lowered production values, far less cost in marketing and so forth, and you could probably keep up with the author's output to stay in her pre-written universe. It's like a win-win situation, really. Plus you'd be creating a franchise. But that's just me thinking out loud.

All in all, you could do worse. Sure, you could do better, but I'm not complaining. The wife loved it, and she said she'd watch it again. And it justified me buying 2 other blu-rays in a 3 for $40 deal, so I'm certainly not going to jinx it.

3.5/5

Film: Murder In The First (1995)

Thoughts: Boasting a stunning array of talent in front of the camera, and some solid power behind it; Murder In The First proves once again that a well-constructed courtroom drama can be compelling stuff.

First you have Christian Slater and Kevin Bacon in the lead. Then you add in Gary Oldman, R. Lee Ermey, William H. Macy and Brad Dourif, and you suddenly start to realize that if this thing doesn't make good, then it's definitely the crew's fault. But the script is solid, and the direction is really fantastic, along with the camera work. When it all comes together, you're left with a compelling, engaging drama that trades in basic human rights and the morally dubious mentality of "necessary evil".

Bacon plays Henri Young: a man imprisoned for the theft of $5 from a US postal store. Being a government body, and the time period currently around 1938 with the recent addition of Alcatraz and its high running costs, the petty theft becomes escalated, and Young is incarcerated for the maximum sentence in one of the worst holding facilities in the world. He then tries to effect an escape, which through a backstabbing by one of the escapees, leads him to be thrown into the hole. In comes Oldman's Milton Glenn; sadistic head operator of Alcatraz, who then has Henri thrown into isolation for THREE AND A HALF YEARS, and beaten regularly, and kept naked, and only let out for 30 MINUTES A YEAR. On release, within the hour, the broken Henri proceeds to violently attack and kill his betrayer with a spoon while eating in the mess hall. What follows is the courtroom battle that introduces us to Slater's young, idealistic James Stamphill; an up-and-coming attorney who is given the unwinnable case as "experience". But Stamphill switches the case into an indictment of the entire penal system as a whole, blaming the flawed system for Henri's attack.

So you have the basic setup of the underdog versus the giant, with some terrible human rights violations as a fitting source of fuel for the fire. The sequences are well-handled; with lots of silence, dark transitions and some horrific actions and circumstances laid upon our soon-to-be martyr for a cause. The performances all around are fantastic, but special mention goes to Kevin Bacon for giving it his all. His Henri Young is truly a broken man: he walks with a limp due to his Achilles tendon being savagely sliced by the evil "headmaster". He mutters, jumps from subject to subject, and looks and moves like a man who is constantly at war with an uncontrollable id that just seeks some peace. His drive throughout the film is purely one of friendship: he knows he is going to die, he knows that he did something bad (he can't remember the killing), he just doesn't want to be alone for his last few days on this Earth. He himself at one point explodes- when told to think, to remember- with the response "All I've done is think, for the last 3 years! I don't want to think anymore, I can't do it!". Powerful stuff, and I completely understand how he must feel. God knows I think too much.

And the direction is great. We get a great sense of the nature of prison; with most shots framing our players through the bars, and circling constantly with these beautiful long takes, forcing the actors into a box, not of their own free will. There's plenty of great close-ups on the face of the ravaged Henri, whose left eye was scarred and blinded by a beating, and whose facial tics and constant touching of his head with hands give the impression of a man who was forced to disappear into himself forever. Fantastic stuff.

I recommend this for fans of courtroom or prison dramas, of course, but also for those among us who just want a well-made, very human film to fill out 2 hours.

4.5/5


11 August 2012

Film: Indie Game: The Movie (2012)

Thoughts: As a documentary, Indie Game: The Movie falls short; looking like a sharp, well edited music video and offering no real insight or breakdown of the facts in regards to Indie game production. But as an observation of what drives those individuals among us who pursue any kind of meaningful, personal artwork in any way, shape or form- often to the detriment of their outside lives- Indie Game: The Movie excels.

Focussing on three separate teams- Team Meat (Super Meat Boy), Team Fez (Fez) and Jonathan Blow (Braid), the film spends virtually the entire time listening to how these people devote their entire lives to making a game on a shoestring budget, with practically no backing, no aid, and occasionally, no end in sight. Sure, these people bring the harm on to themselves, for want of a better term, but the same could be said for any artist in any field who chooses to undertake a massive feat of personal will: that of producing something both incredible, personal and (hopefully) financially viable. The subjects relay their fears (of which there are many), their hopes, dreams and desires, and they try to elaborate about how this medium is the only one that truly makes them feel like they can connect with other human beings through their art.

If it sounds familiar, then that is because every artist, throughout time, has approached their chosen canvas in much the same way. I see these men (and women) as modern day Da Vinci's; in a sense that they have a tremendous amount of strain placed upon them by a society that can never seem to understand them, nor will they let themselves be understood through regular means. The only difference being that these modern sculptors place themselves at the mercy of a 24 hour news cycle, a necessary intravenous drip fed by constant social media, and the endless vitriol spewed forth from the omnipresent hate machine of anonymity known as the internet. This burden lays upon them adding to the already overbearing weight of self-doubt, and you can't even begin to imagine how they must feel.


Team Meat are the most enjoyable, keeping up a lively banter intermixed with stories of childhoods spent around games, and family issues defining who they are and what they do. Jonathan Blow provides some great insights into the how and why of making a truly personal game, and some really informative tidbits on how he takes a game to that next level. Phil Fish makes up most of the suspense based stuff, but I feel it's the documentary crew and the internet itself that paints him as a bit of a jerk (the internet came down pretty hard on his team due to the very lengthy production of the game from first showing at a festival).

Talking heads abound, but that's no issue. Occasional text will pop up to accompany the admittedly striking visuals to keep us informed of the looming deadlines inching ever closer, and the reprieves are welcome from the sometimes stifling self-defeatism and neuroses. And yet, the people themselves are no bother; it's the direction that feels forced. Pulse-pounding chords come crashing through when moments of turmoil strike mid-convention, and sometimes it feels a bit forced and fabricated. The puppeteer's hands come through more often than you'd like, but you just ignore it and move on. You're here for the people, and it's only when the camera tracks Phil Fish of Team Fez that you REALLY see the Director Of Photography having a play. He seems to find these immaculate shots that really just reek of set-up.

Ultimately though, it's a fulfilling and invigorating experience, and I won't lie that I welled up on more than one occasion. Especially when we FINALLY get to see Edmund McMillen of Team Meat roll a tear. It had to come eventually dude, you're not made of stone!

4/5

10 August 2012

Film: Contraband (2012)

Thoughts: I won't lie: I thoroughly enjoyed Contraband. I loved the way it followed the import of illegal goods from start to finish, even despite the whole "Hollywoodizing" of it- right down to the gun fights, car chases, double crosses and abundance of near-angelic conveniences.

Mark Wahlberg, Ben Foster, Kate Beckinsale, Giovanni Ribisi and a host of other familiar faces throw themselves into the mix with great aplomb- no awards nearby but none begged for or required. The film works as a pure slice of fun and suspense, with many sequences working purely on the strength of curiosity. Very much a case of "and how exactly are they gonna get out of THIS one?".

The direction is handheld gritty, and that's what you'd expect. In fact, the whole thing reminds of Michael Mann's 2006 cheese-fest Miami Vice, but with far less mumbling and far more coherence. There's really not much more I can say: I enjoyed the flick, and if you want a slice of popcorn entertainment that is genuinely interesting (despite the huge coincidence factor and occasional necessity to allow for lapsed logic), I can gladly recommend Contraband. It certainly wasn't as serious as I was expecting it to be.

4/5

09 August 2012

Film: New Town Killers (2008)

Thoughts: New Town Killers aims to be a combination of gritty Brit gangster/street film, chase film, and I guess social commentary, but doesn't really succeed in melding the 3 forms effectively. While I do enjoy the work of Dougray Scott, his presence is just about the only thing that makes this worth watching, despite his character being really quite predictable. The film spurts and stutters with it's uneven pacing, and despite an admittedly thrilling second act, it just can't manage to make it's various parts come together cleanly.

Mr Scott portrays an evil upper-class gent who uses a rather convoluted method of extortion to rope various unfortunate souls into a deadly game of cat and mouse which-up to this point- he was the sole victor. I mean, if he wasn't, then he'd be either dead or in jail or some other worse fate. But of course, we all know that's gonna change this time around, and it does, in the form of a new young "recruit".

The film spends its entire first act playing setup with the game. We see our young protagonist get roped in via his sister's outrageous debt to some virtually nameless folks who obviously report to our evil puppeteer. Once it hits the second act things pick up, but both acts are filled with various plot contrivances, conveniences and plotholes, and unfortunately the whole thing falls apart more than it connects.

The acting ranges from fine to quite terrible, and the drops in pace really hurt the whole endeavour. What is also problematic is the script, which seems to jump around like an amateur screenplay; going from street to armchair philosophy to attempted menace, as if it were trying to imitate the hyperkinetic editing, which also is occasionally a hindrance moreso than an interesting feature.

The third act drops the ball as well, morphing the film into some bizarre mixture of revenge and social commentary, or something. I can't quite put my finger on it. But regardless, by this point we realize there is nothing but emptiness to any of the characters, including our protagonist, and that whatever is going to happen isn't really going to make much sense anyway.

So all in all, I can't exactly say I was thrilled, or particularly moved, but I enjoyed the chase part in the middle, but still felt a lot of fat could have been trimmed, or at least redrafted.

2/5

08 August 2012

Film: The Hunger Games (2012)

Thoughts: I liked it. Although it started a bit rough, is a bit long in the tooth generally speaking, and also suffers from the same clunky dialogue that plagued the book, I found myself drawn into the proceedings, and pulled along for the ride.

Admittedly though, I never felt for the characters or their plight. I always thought one of the main features of the book that would hamstring the film was how internal Katniss was. She barely spoke, and the majority of the book is spent in her head. Now, the worst thing to do would have been to make all her main internal dialogues into narration. Thankfully, they don't do that. But unfortunately, it means that we never grow to understand, empathize or truly associate with our heroine, despite her monopoly on the screentime. And the other side effect of that screentime means that everyone else gets the short shrift, but that's OK. I still enjoyed how it played out.

Shaky cam hits hard and fast, right from the get go.The "grittiness" of shaky cam, combined with the intentionally drab, plain-faced approach was disconcerting at first, but I came to appreciate the dedication to keeping things as straight as possible, which was one of the things I applauded the book for. It treated the subject material as serious, and approached everything matter-of-factly. This even trickled through to the very minimalist use of music and audio, again another point I applaud. Altogether, it was really quite smart filmmaking, and it worked. I was drawn in, piece by piece.

The film did lose it's momentum in the final act though. It hit hard, fast, and satisfyingly for a good while, and didn't shy away from the reality of the situation, another factor I thought was thumbs-up. But towards the end game it seemed to stumble a bit, but there really was nowhere else to go with the story so it couldn't be helped. I don't hold it against it. Plus a lot had to be cut to meet the films even quite large 142min runtime, and that kinda works for the film in spots, and kinda against it at others. But that in my opinion is just splitting hairs.

And interesting idea I had was, I wonder how the rule makers would handle attempted rape in the arena. I mean, you take a bunch of pubescent, hormone-riddled teens, force them to resort to their baser instincts, and once you add alpha male mentalities into the mix, it seems like a very real possibility. This has nothing to do with my rating or the review, but it is just an observation I made, and I'd love to know how the creator would have handled it. My guess is it wouldn't make for great TV, so the rule makers would have to step in.

Anyway, I digress. I wouldn't watch it again (a bit too long for my tastes) but I am very glad I sat down to watch it. Perhaps this will be like the Bourne films: I never liked the first film until I realized it was the first part of a three part whole. Let's see how the rest play out.

4/5

Film: Holiday (1938)

Thoughts: Holiday proves once more how masterful a comedian Cary Grant truly was. An effervescent delight, I truly enjoyed Holiday on a number of levels, and yet again I am left wishing that more people would realize how timeless some of the classics truly are, even if they are in black and white.

I've never been much of a fan of Katherine Hepburn, but I enjoyed her turn here as the only lady who can keep up with Cary Grant's flighty Johnny Case. The film tackles issues of class self-importance in a very fun way, allowing us regular folk to bask in the insanity of the rich and famous, from the point of view of a man who chooses to be at the bottom and loving it.

The script holds up amazingly well, just like most films from this particular era, moving with a pace only matched by Grant's unbridled enthusiasm and amazing body control. Seriously, the man is a comic genius, both in word and in form. He flips and tumbles, and breaks lines like he was riffing in front of the camera. Sure, the film gets fairly serious towards the end, but it is well earned, and you truly care for the characters and their various situations. It's just unfortunate that a few characters- namely the antagonists- get the short shrift in terms of a slight one-noting of their personalities. But it's mostly a minor quibble.

The direction is solid, and evokes each scene well; from the opening sequence inside the palatial mansion, making the viewer feel just as tiny and lost as poor, unassuming Johnny. And during the brilliant, flowing dialogue exchanges between up to 6 people at once, director George Cukor knows how to keep up, keeping everything in check at all times.

I'd still personally say that Charade is my favourite Cary Grant vehicle, but Holiday is definitely one that will stand nearby, alongside The Philadelphia Story, and more than likely just above Bringing Up Baby.

4/5.


07 August 2012

Film: Hannah And Her Sisters (1986)

Thoughts: I know little of the films of Woody Allen- I've only seen Vicky Cristina Barcelona once and I've sampled others in short bursts though not from start to finish- but I must say, the man is a master of dialogue, and he certainly knows how to make a camera work to the betterment of a scene. That said, there are a few clunky exchanges peppered throughout, but not enough to really bring the film down.

Concerning the lives of a family of upper-class New Yorkians (this IS Woody Allen, what other kinds of people would there be?) and their extended members, the film zeroes in on the eponymous Hannah and her two sisters, played by Mia Farrow, Barbara Hershey and Dianne Wiest respectively. They all give in top notch peformances, as do the extra members populated by the likes of Max Von Sydow, Michael Caine and Mr. Allen himself.

The film deals with the usual Allen archetypes: infidelity, mid-life crises, "high-class" thinking and living, and dissatisfaction in all its forms. Allen works the script well, allowing some awesome one liners to bookend most scenes, delivered in the pithiest, driest manner possible. There's an awesome thread that follows Woody Allen's character trying out various religions in the hopes that they can provide some kind of meaning to his life; one beyond his limited capacity. It is plum material for Allen to dive through with his words, and he does so with relish.

He seems to love using long takes to allow his actors room to breathe, and the performances shine through brightly. I must admit, I was a bit sceptical at first- I'm not one for familial drama/comedies, especially ones laden with neuroses and upper-class first-world problems. But Hannah And Her Sisters grew on me as the film wore on, and I'll freely admit that the happy ending made me well up a little bit- I really wanted to see these various people work through their issues with the minimum of fuss. Not everything needs to be doom and gloom these days, yknow?

4/5

05 August 2012

Film: Demoted (2011)

Thoughts: Sometimes it's good to just kick back and watch something that breezes by for 90 minutes. Demoted is that film. Formulaic? Maybe. And the laugh to minute ratio could definitely have been improved. But there was something about this film that just put me at ease, and for that, I'm happy.

Demoted concerns two damn fine salesmen at a tire company, who spend their days making sales and pissing off their fellow employees with their pranks and general misbehaviour. One fellow employee tends to take it much more than most, and through a fact of life and an unnatural plot contrivance, this put-upon employee suddenly finds himself at the head of the company.

Sean Astin and Michael Vartan play our two protagonists, and they're pretty unlikeable dudes. But that's OK, because you know they'll get their comeuppance. And you KNOW that the new boss (played effortlessly by David Cross) will turn out to be far worse than anyone could have imagined. But yknow, who the fuck cares? It's not like we're sitting down to some Ingmar Bergmann or fucking Tarkovsky now are we? When we get to see awesome flashbacks of the various pranks played by our two idjits on the nebbish office punching bag, we can't help but laugh. And when one of our protagonists finds himself forced to stare at his soon-to-be father-in-law's cock while he has his father/son warning chat in a public bathroom, we are witness to a moment of straight (?) hilarity. It's all fun in the end.

Yeah, it's predictable as hell. If you don't know where it's all going with just the basic plot outline then you might as well throw the disc on for a spin and be even more enveloped in the film. If not, you can rest assured knowing there's some great humour and fun Sunday-afternoon shenanigans in store to kill a lazy hour and change.

3.5/5

Film: Amusement (2008)

Thoughts: This was supplied to me by the great Ma o' mine; she certainly loves her horror. Yeah, the film, s'ok. Nothing to write home about. But I gotta thank my progenitor for allowing me to bask in the radiance of the absolutely gorgeous Katheryn Winnick, of whom plays our beleaguered Survivor Girl. I gotta tell ya, this film is worth watching for her alone. Damn.

I mean seriously, look at her.



Damn.



DAMN.



DAAAAAAAYUM.

Phew. I don't need to give any more reason than the three I provided above. But, that said, the film seems to have nice production values, pretty cool costumes and set design, and I personally like the work of Keir O'Donnell, and he plays the antagonist well here. The film spends a fair bit of time with the set-up though, and reveals our man far too quick. But oh well.

There's the obligatory layering of stupid that renders our 3 tortured victims as shrieking fools more often than I'd like, but frankly, I don't really care when it comes to typical horror fare. You get what you're given with these sorts of offerings: if you haven't prepped when you pop the disc in or pay for your ticket, then you deserve to be disappointed. So with that in mind, Amusement is, just another horror film. Not as bad as you might think, but not as good as you're hoping you'll get. One day.

3/5.



...Oh, and another thing:



DAAAAAAMN.

Film: Wrath Of The Titans (2012)

Thoughts: I didn't enjoy Clash Of The Titans. It felt like a mish-mash; like executives just had to have their greedy paws all over the print. But Wrath... Wrath felt like Underworld: Awakening. Straight up action/adventure with no mind for much else. And in my opinion, it's awesome.


I love how Sam Worthington appears onscreen talking like a top bloke. It's like the directors told everyone "Fuck it, just talk like you normally do. We don't care."

So we have Perseus running around telling sheilas to take a sickie or some shit. Well, not really. But you get my drift- accents are everywhere in this flick. But it's OK, because stuff blows up or gets thrown around or gets cut up enough for you to not care.


The first two acts balance action and that sense of adventure quite well, especially the cyclops sequence. I love how they made the cyclops both big AND speedy. It makes sense dammit! The final third trades the adventure in for a double shot of action, but hey man, who cares. Crank the volume and enjoy, I say.

Yeah, this is a short review. But Wrath Of The Titans is like cinematic candy: short, sweet, and you have an awesome headache afterwards.
4/5